₦airaland Forum

Davidylan and all other seniors,

It's indeed really sad that almost al the old, interesting members either have left or have been banned by our dear admin. Left are the intellectually challenged and immature (with a few exceptions of course). What bugs me most though is that, through the high rotation of members, there's almost no sense of community left. In the beginning we almost all 'socialised' here on the board, even outside of our pet subjects.
Because of that, many conversations have become free for all where one (and I have become guilty of that too) doesn't even bother to construct a proper argument. I just loved to disagree with many of the old members, it was civil and we respected each others differences. Nowadays too many people have an axe to grind and/or are too dull witted to even talk to.

Hi spoilt, WesleyanA,

Thanks for the love and for reviving this thread. I just hope that some others follow my (actually it was medube's) example and post some more pictures of their families as well

To the haters,
contrary to some of you, I've got absolutely nothing to hide and yes, I am proud of my family and like to share some of our happiness, just don't mess up this thread with your cheap hate and/or jealousy

I'm going to bed now

WesleyanA, can you post the link to that other picture thread?

@ babs787
I've seen you've always behaved with civility on these thread, so I appreciate your advice. If ever you want met to participate in one of your threads, just give me a yell

Jen33:
Why are so many ND experiencers ''induced by chemicals'' to experience being told by an entity words to the effect that ''you must return to earth, it's not yet your time''? If you've studied NDE accounts this is a recurring message reported by majority of experiencers.

Because their mental modes include those entities to start with. When certain brain receptors are inhibited due to a lack of oxygen, ketamine ensures that these brain cells don't die off, the effect of ketamine is that other mental modes (not the one where a feeling of inhibiting or observing from within a body) come to be dominant. Remembering something is not an exact recall of sensory inputs anyway. There are a lot of blanks we fill in from other information, that's why eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. Most of our memories of experiences are not exact, but only useful approximations.
In one of the links you gave it was even mentioned that the incidence of meeting these entities neatly correlates with the prior religiosity/spirituality of the subjects. Is that a coincidence?

Jen33:
And what about their meeting deceased relatives and friends, who sometimes take them on journeys across that realm? Or the case of those who return with scientific knowledge?

These are exactly the kind of memories that are made up and become more and more detailed as time passes; Concerning those coming back with scientific knowledge they didn't have before, I need to see some evidence that it doesn't come from elsewhere. People are way to credulous.

Jen33:
What about the fact that most experiencers undergo a complete change in their personality towards greater spirituality, (not necessarily religiousity by the way), empathy, and an absence of the fear of death?

If you go through such an experience, it will affect you, regardless of what the ultimate cause of the experience is. Maybe we should all go through such an experience, if only to rid ourselves from the shackles of religion

Jen33:
Why and how does the ''dying brain chemical'' do all of that?

Easy: a basic common set of memories that get elaborated upon later by false memories; the blanks are filled in by the existing memeplexes in the brain.

Jen33:
Should YOU not have to prove THAT to us?

Prove? Why? My explanation is far more parsimonious than yours, thus it is objectively more credible.

Jen33:
Why don't you drop this misguided skepticism of yours and see that there's got to be far more to this than some silly 'dying brain chemical imbalance'?

The universe doesn't owe us meaning or an explantion. It's not because you have an emotional need for meaning that there is ultimate meaning. We're only containers for self-replicating DNA, nothing more.

Jen33:
Lastly, what gives YOU the right, the audacity in fact, to dismiss the experiences of millions of people as mere chemical-induced hallucinations, when they themselves have invariably reported their experiences to be real?

All [/b]experiences are merely chemically induced hallucinations, [b]all of them. Some however have more resemblance to reality than others and that resemblance has nothing to do with how real they feel, but rather with the context of these experiences.

Jen33:
It's like somebody saying that YOUR present state of consciousness IS NOT REALLY CONSCIOUSNESS, but some chemically-induced illusionary state.

That's exactly what it is. It's only an emergent property of my neurological machinery, it doesn't inhabit my brain, but is part of it.

Jen33:
You'd feel like slapping them wouldn't u?

No, absolutely not

@ poster
What's your point?
That you can make Islam fit modern science with sufficient textual massaging and far fetched interpretations?
It's not because Islam can be made consistent with modern science, that science is anywhere contingent upon Islam. Islam is an entirely unnecessary entity in the scientific enterprise and, applying Occam's razor, we can just get rid of it as explanatory entity altogether.

Jen33,

I could of course engage in a point by point refutation of all the points you bring here, but I have neither the time, nor the energy to do that. You could of course pick one of your points, any one for that matter, and ask me to refute it. Something I am willing to do.

No matter how you twist and turn, you have zero evidence that a NDE is anything more than a result of specific brainstates, many of which can be chemically induced.

Way too complicated.

Just pop some ketamine and you'll have the full fledged Near Death Experience
see: http://leda.lycaeum.org/index.pl?ID=9260

sisimose:
i like this topic, it is one i have pondered on many times, and you know what i told myself in the end?

'well if christianity is a sham or there is not heaven or hell'' all i can say is THEN WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOOSE? WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH TRYING TO BE A DECENT HUMANBEING?

Of course you're 100% right, only you seem to imply that it is necessary to subscribe to Christianity in order to be such a decent human being. Is that what you're saying?

sisimose:
from what i have taken from christianity, if i try to live my life in the way it says i should then this question the thread raises should say to anyone =IF IT IS A SHAM WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE HENCE WHY NOT!

Why do you assume that you have nothing to loose by choosing Christianity, when as a matter of fact you do have something to loose: time spent worshipping, money you give to the church and your afterlife if another religion turns out to be the right one.
On top of that, the moral code of Christianity isn't always very clear, it can inspire you to do wonderful things, but on the other hand, it can also be used to justify inhumane debasement.

Socrates Meets Jesus
by Prometheus

Socrates
Good morning, Jesus, I have heard much of your marvelous teachings. In my own modest way I am a philosopher here in Athens. I am told you have great wisdom and certainly that is indicated by the throng of admirers that follow you through the streets. If you have a few moments to spare, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me with the answers to some of the puzzling problems I have been wrestling with all my life

Jesus
I am as a fisher of men in my search for followers. I bring the truth of God to all men. Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered knock and it shall be open unto to thee.

Socrates
There is one basic question that has always been uppermost in my mind. Although it has always been an insurmountable obstacle to me in my search for the truth and meaning, I am sure that with your learning you will find it far to easy and think me a foolish old man. I have always longed to live honorably and nobly, but it seems that I have merely stumbled through life without even even knowing what was honorable or noble. With my limited understanding, it often seems to me that life, even with all its sound and fury, really signifies nothing. Please tell me: How should a man live; what is the purpose of life.

Jesus
To serve and worship God.

Socrates
Which God.

Jesus
There is only one god.

Socrates
Oh. You should live here in Athens. We have several to choose from.

Jesus
There is only one true God.

Socrates
Of course. And which one is the true God?

Jesus
The true god is Lord God.

Socrates
Yes. But who is Lord God? Or what is he?

Jesus
He is the infinity of wisdom, love, compassion, peace, and mercy. He is the creator of heaven and earth all things in the universe.

Socrates
Of all things?

Jesus
Yes-all things. He is omnipotent. He is master and controller and maker of all things. He is omnipresent-nothing can happen that he does not know beforehand.

Socrates
Did he create plagues, wars, death, suffering and evil.

Jesus
No. These things and all other evils and tragedies come from the Devil, the prince of darkness; or from man's weakness and evil nature. God is all goodness and free of evil; only good can come from God

Socrates
And who for gracious sakes is the devil? Surely he must be a god to be able to visit such powerful calamities on mankind: Yet you have just said there is only one God. Also you have said that all that exists comes from God: And now you say that only good comes from God and all evil comes from someone called the devil. These would seem to be contradictions. I am afraid that your religion is far too complex for this old head to fathom. Yet I will be an eager student and try hard to understand, if you will but help me. Please explain: who is the devil and how can all things come from God and yet not come from God?

Jesus:
The Devil is a fallen angel who is ambitious. He rebelled against God and wants to overthrow all his works.

Socrates:
What in Zeus' name is an angel?

Jesus:
An angel is an angel.

Socrates:
Of course, that's an identity. Socrates is Socrates. But, you see, it doesn't mean anything to me, inexperienced as I am in your religion. Although it's true as true can be, it doesn't relate to anything I can understand. Compare it to something I am familiar with.

Jesus:
An angel is an angel.

Socrates:
Please forgive me for my stolid ignorance. Understand that I am no authority such as you are. I have never seen an angel or heard of one. I am told that you had many strange visions when you wandered in the desert for 40 days without eating. Pray tell, what do they look like, these angels?

Jesus:
They have wings.

Socrates:
So do gnats. Could you be a little more specific?

Jesus:
They look like people except they have wings.

Socrates:
What else? They can fly, I assume

Jesus:
Yes, that's what the wings are for.

Socrates:
Of course--I might have known. You say they look like men. How are they different from men?

Jesus:
The are much better than men, and they never die.

Socrates:
How better than men?

Jesus:
More virtuous and more powerful. Much more powerful.

Socrates:
They are super-human, then.

Jesus:
Yes. Absolutely!

Socrates:
Then they are superhuman and they are immortal. We in Athens would call such beings gods.

Jesus:
No! God is more powerful than they.

Socrates:
So is Zeus to us more powerful than other Olympic gods, but the others are still by definition gods. How would you define the term God?

Jesus:
God is the creator of all. He is all power, knowledge, wisdom and the epitome of justice, mercy, compassion, goodness; and peace.

Socrates:
These qualities are, however, not necessarily consistent. It is not possible for a person to be just, peaceful and merciful, all in one instance or situation. If a person or a nation deserves punishment by the rule of justice, you must punish him or wage war on them, but this would be a violation of the rule of peace or mercy. No one being could have all these qualities because they contradict each other; they cannot exist together in the same person at the same time. It is as though a man had turned both left and right at the same corner at the same time, while still remaining whole and entire.

Jesus:
God works his wonders in mysterious ways.

Socrates:
It would seem that you have many gods just as we do in Athens, only you don't call them gods.

Jesus:
No! God is all powerful.

Socrates:
Then the only difference is the degree of power?

Jesus:
No. God is better and more virtuous than they. Sin is impossible for him.

Socrates:
What is sin?

Jesus:
It is an act of disobedience to God.

Socrates:
I see from this that God could not sin, because he could not be disobedient to himself. But since sin is impossible for him, it is no more a mark of achievement for him to be free of sin than it is a mark of achievement for a rock to be unable to move. It's merely a matter of definition. What do they do, these angles?

Jesus:
They do errands for God.

Socrates:
Why if God is all powerful, does he need others to do errands for him?

Jesus:
He likes it that way.

Socrates:
They are his slaves, then?

Jesus:
No, they serve him willingly.

Socrates:
What happens if they don't serve him willingly?

Jesus:
There were several angels led by Satan, the devil, who rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven to eternal torment and punishment.

Socrates:
What is heaven?

Jesus:
It is a wonderful place high in the sky. The streets are paved with gold. Everything is peaceful and beautiful there. God lives there and all who believe in God go there when they die. Men have eternal life there and are given wings and worship God and play harps in eternal bliss and happiness forever. It is the purpose and goal of all of man's life to go to heaven when he dies.

Socrates:
This sounds much like the accounts I have heard given by those who have eaten the lotus flower. If this was the purpose of life, could we not simply become intoxicated on wine or drugs and feel this way all the time, like the beggars and drunks we see on the other side of the city?

Jesus:
The Bible says thou shalt not partake of wine or strong drink.

Socrates:
If is the sole purpose of man's life to get to heaven, why does he not simply kill himself and go there?

Jesus:
Thou shalt no kill.

Socrates:
If God wanted man to go to heaven, why did he put man on earth in the first place? Why did he not simply put man in heaven from the beginning? I find it hard to believe that man with all his capabilities, desires, and complexities was created merely to sit and bow and scrape and worship. Certainly there is not, nor ever was, a human tyrant so vain and proud that he wanted his subjects merely to bow and scrape obsequiously and subserviently before him from dawn to dusk, let alone for all eternity. I certainly can understand why Satan wanted to rebel against such a static, regimented, oppressive, boring society. From what you have told me so far, I would have had to side with Satan in the rebellion, for although I consider myself a humble man as men go, I could not bow and scrape and sing praises all day to a being who threatened me with punishment and eternal torment if I did not.

Jesus:
The Lord thy God is a jealous god and thou shalt have no other gods before him.

Socrates:
Why did Satan rebel? Did he know that God was as powerful as you describe him to be and that he was certain to be defeated?

Jesus:
Satan rebelled because he was proud and wanted to rule heaven himself. He knew partly of God's great power (that it was greater than his own), but he wanted power so badly that he was willing to take any chance.

Socrates:
Satan was certainly very brave, then; to strive against a foe he could not defeat.

Jesus:
He was sinful because he was disobedient to the will of God.

Socrates:
It seems to me that the only difference between Satan and God is the degree of power.

Jesus:
God is perfect. He is all powerful, all knowing, and without sin.

Socrates:
Of course; by definition he is without sin because he could not be disobedient to himself. The only real difference between the two is the degree of power. Therefore, Satan was not wrong or sinful to rebel against God, he was only wrong to lose the rebellion. For if he had won, God would be the sinner: because God would have been disobedient to Satan who would be better than God or the other angels because he could not sin against himself, that is, be disobedient to himself, and he would have proven himself all powerful. If Satan had won, he would have become God, by your definition because he would have been all powerful and without sin. Who knows but that this didn't happen? From your description of God, I begin to suspect at this point that it did.

Jesus:
God is more than mere power and righteous lack of sin: he is infinite justice, mercy, peace and compassion, and all forgiving. Satan is vicious, selfish, destructive, and evil.

Socrates:
What happened to Satan after he was thrown out of heaven?

Jesus:
He was thrown into Hell by God where he was tormented and tortured for all eternity.

Socrates:
What is Hell and why did Satan stay there if it is so painful and unpleasant?

Jesus:
God locked him in Hell and he was not permitted to leave. God created Hell as a place to punish Satan and all men who do not have faith in God. It is an eternal burning inferno or torture, agony, and torment: all sinful men who do not ask God for forgiveness and have no faith in him go there for all eternity to be tortured by the devil.

Socrates:
If God is just or merciful, how can he do this to an enemy who fought him in battle. Why did God not simply pardon Satan after defeat as men often do to a captured nation after they defeat it? Mankind would seem in victory to be more merciful than God; for they do not treat the vanquished to such terrible torments for even a lifetime, let alone for all eternity. Why did God not show the qualities that you described as his justice, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness to Satan? Certainly God's warlike nature is in marked contrast with your definition of the term God as being peaceful, merciful and all forgiving.

Jesus:
God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.

Socrates:
If Satan is locked in Hell, how can he bring plagues and torments on mankind and why does God allow it if he is all powerful and all good? If God is all powerful, how is it that he permits this evil Satan to survive? Why does he not destroy him? Although I begin to wonder, at this point, if the opposite course would not be better.

Jesus:
God allows Satan to be free to bring plagues and torments on mankind in order to punish man for his sin in the Garden of Eden.

Socrates:
What is the Garden of Eden?

Jesus:
When God created the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, he put them in the Garden of Eden. When they were created, they were pure and without sin. That is how God created them. The Garden of Eden was a beautiful paradise, and it provided Adam and Eve with everything they needed. They did no have to work but merely pluck the fruit from the branches from lush trees. They were as innocent and untroubled as children and knew nothing about carnal fleshly love. They had each other for companions and adored and worshiped God who visited them once in a while.

Socrates:
Why did God create mankind?

Jesus:
He was lonely.

Socrates:
Why did he not simply create additional angels who were more his equal rather than this much lower form of life, Man? Could it be that he wanted obsequious slaves that he could look down on who would fear, reverence, and worship him?

Jesus:
Since he is our creator, we owe him our worship, reverence, and obedience.

Socrates:
Is the child of a criminal duty-bound to be obedient to his father, or does he have a right and obligation to judge for himself between right and wrong? What sin, what act of disobedience, did man commit in the Garden of Eden?

Jesus:
In the center of the Garden of Eden, God put the tree of knowledge. God told Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of the fruit of that tree. Satan went to the Garden disguised as a snake and told Eve that she would gain great knowledge if she ate the fruit. Satan said that God had told them not to eat the fruit because he was afraid that if they did they would become as great as he was. Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. After they ate, the learned of sexual love. That was the original sin.

Socrates:
Is knowledge evil that God would want to keep it from us? Why did God want to keep us from gaining knowledge? Did he want to keep us subservient slaves groveling under his feet? It seems to me that we owe Satan thanks and worship for his help. Satan seems rather like the Titan Prometheus, who in defiance of the orders of the gods brought man the knowledge of fire. For this service to man, Prometheus like Satan was subjected to torment and torture for all eternity. Certainly human life would be worth a great deal less that it is without love, fire and knowledge.

Jesus:
But Satan was lying to Eve, because we did not become as great as God by eating the fruit. He was lying to us merely because he wanted to destroy the work of God.

Socrates:
If God is all powerful, why did he allow Satan to come to the Garden and tempt Eve? If God did not want man to eat the fruit, why did he put the tree in the Garden in the first place? If God did not want man to make sexual love, why did he equip man with the organs necessary for it? If God did not want man to commit the original sin, why did he give man a desire for knowledge, experience, adventure and carnal love?

Jesus:
God put the tree in the Garden and allowed Satan to come there because he wanted to test mankind.

Socrates:
You have said that God was all knowing; that he knows everything that happens before it happens. Certainly God already knew how man would behave in any situation.

Jesus:
God gave man free will. It was just as possible for man to be virtuous and obey God as it was for man to be sinful and disobey the word of God.

Socrates:
Did God know that man would sin?

Jesus:
He knew that man would sin but he allowed man the free will to make his own choice.

Socrates:
Could God have created man so he could not sin? Could God have created man so that he would not have sinned in this particular situation?

Jesus:
Yes, since God is all powerful he could have done that, but he did not want men to be mere puppets; he wanted men to have free will.

Socrates:
Could God have created man with two heads and three legs or any other way if he wanted to?

Jesus:
God could have created man any way he wanted to.

Socrates:
Did God create man the way he intended to? Did God intend for man to have one head, two legs and to appear exactly as he does today?

Jesus:
Of course: God is perfect and all powerful; he could not make a mistake.

Socrates:
Then God did not make a mistake, but created man exactly as he intended to in every way?

Jesus:
Yes.

Socrates:
Then you and I were created exactly as God intended us to be? And Adam and Eve were created exactly as God intended them to be?

Jesus:
Yes. It is as I have said.

Socrates:
Did everything that is part of man come from God?

Jesus:
Yes: God is the master and controller and creator of all.

Socrates:
Did the devil or any other force create any part of man?

Jesus:
No. God is sole creator of all.

Socrates:
Then, if God created man's eyes, legs and mind, he also created man's desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?

Jesus:
He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.

Socrates:
Is man's nature a part of man, just as hands and feet are a part of man?

Jesus:
Yes. Man's nature is a part of man.

Socrates:
Who created man?

Jesus:
God.

Socrates:
Who created man's hands and feet?

Jesus:
God.



Socrates:
Who gave man two hands and two feet and created them exactly as they are today, and exactly as they were in the time of Adam and Eve?

Jesus:
God.

Socrates:
Who created man's nature?

Jesus:
God.

Socrates:
Who gave man his evil nature and weaknesses? God did, because everything that is a part of man came from God and God alone.

Jesus:
God gave man free will.

Socrates:
Who intended for men to have two hands, the devil?

Jesus:
No. God intended for man to have two hands.

Socrates:
Who intended for man to have weaknesses and an evil nature, the devil? No. God intended for man to have weaknesses and evil nature. If mankind is flawed or evil or weak, it is because God put the flaw or weakness there and intended it to be there. Let me tell you another parable. Have you ever seen the birds killing fish in the sea? Who put it into that bird to fang and kill that flying fish? Who's to doom, man, when the judge himself is dragged before the bar?

Jesus:
Man has free will. God did not force him to sin. He merely gave him the opportunity to be virtuous or sinful. Man would have been of no value to God if he had made him a mere puppet who could do nothing but good. He wanted to give man the opportunity to be good or evil according to his own merit and choice.

Socrates:
It is absurd for God to punish man after creating him. It is as though a Homer wrote an ode about a pig and then whipped and lashed the pages or cast them on an eternal unconsuming fire, because he disliked the qualities of the animal. Or that a master sculptor made a perfect statue of a pig and then lashed it for all eternity because he disliked the traits of the animal.

Jesus:
God did not create man with an evil nature that predetermined that he must sin.

Socrates:
Then who did?

Jesus:
God created man to be innocent and naturally good. God put man in a paradise, the Garden of Eden. He gave man free will and allowed Satan to come into the Garden of Eden to test mankind. God did not predetermine that man would sin.

Socrates:
But God created everything that went into this combination, situation or environment. When he created each of the elements or ingredients in the situation, he knew exactly how each would react with the others in any circumstance; because he was all knowing. He intended for each element to be exactly as it was because he was all-powerful and could not make a mistake. It is as though a scientist or a physician combined several ingredients into a medicine, which although harmless in themselves, when combined become a deadly poison; and then after administering it to a patient, disavowed any responsibility for his death. In just this way, God combined many things; an innocent man, a tree of knowledge, a beautiful garden and an angel.

Jesus:
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Socrates:
It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.

Jesus:
I warn you, God is not mocked. Do not talk in this way or you will be thrown into the fiery furnace where you will gnash your teeth, forever in torture and torment.

Socrates:
I thought our Olympic gods were vicious and unreasonable, but they seem veritable lambs of mercy and forbearance compared to this God of yours: who torments and tortures you for all eternity for doing what he forces you to do in the very making of you and your environment.

Jesus:
Oh, give thanks unto the Lord for he is good; For his mercy endureth forever.

Socrates:
Why, if he is a god of peace and mercy does he torment mankind and permit, even encourage and demand, bloodshed on earth; and permit, even demand Satan to tempt and torture mankind: since you said that nothing happens that he does not only know about, but will to happen? An all-powerful being who knows all and creates all, determines all, because he knows the way his creations will act.

Jesus:
God gave man free will because he did not want him to be a mere puppet. God did not want man to sin. God was very disappointed when man sinned.

Socrates:
God could not possibly be disappointed because he knew the nature of man and all else that he created. Since he is all powerful, he intended man to sin. Indeed he forced man to sin by creating man with certain desires and weaknesses.

Jesus:
What you say is blasphemy. God created the world and all the plants and animals for the pleasure of man. Look at the beautiful world around you. How can you say such terrible things about God after he has given so much to you?

Socrates:
I certainly couldn't believe this. How could a god who was so vicious, sadistic and hateful create a world with so much beauty? Even man with as much evil as there seems at times to be in him, still at other times exhibits incredible strength, self sacrifice and loyalty, and degrees of the conflicting qualities of mercy and justice. Your Lord God has none of these qualities. Certainly there never was a man however vile who could do to another man what you claim God does to those who do not respect him: torture them for all eternity. Any man, no matter how foully he has been mangled, tortured or murdered--like Priam whose whole clan was slain or Agamemnon who was murdered by his wife and her lover--would eventually relent after years or centuries of torturing his foe.

Jesus:
I am the way, the truth and the light. None come to the Father except by me. Believe in me and have eternal life in heaven; deny me and suffer eternal torture in Hell.

Socrates:
If I did accept your system, I would have to side with Satan against your God; even knowing that I would be tormented and tortured forever. The injustice and viciousness of your God is so appalling. I have heard terrible accounts of human sacrifices by savages on distant coasts; but certainly, even they never thought of torturing their victims for all eternity. I have heard frightening accounts of terrible monsters, Cyclops, gorgons and medusas, but these monsters are as tame and gentle as lambs, compared to those described in your book of Revelation. And you tell me of Lord God's peaceful, merciful and all-forgiving nature.

Jesus:
We are all the children of God. God is our father and does not want us to sin but must punish us when we do. He is just and merciful and only sends us, his children, to Hell, damnation and eternal torment when it is our own fault. When we sin and lust after sex like Adam and Eve, he has no choice but to punish us, by torturing us in eternal fire forever.

Socrates:
You say we are all the children of God. He is a veritable monster to harass his own children for having the eyes, legs and desires that he gave them. Be these juggling fiends no more believed, that palter with us in a double sense and keep the word of promise to our ear but to break it to our hope. I see not purpose, nor reason, nor truth, nor mercy, nor justice; naught but capricious naked power. Indeed, human beings, for all their caprice, selfishness and weaknesses, seem to have more of these qualities than your God. Your God is a demonic, sadistic, psychotic fiend.

Jesus:
We are merely human and cannot understand the infinite mysteries of God. It is our duty to be faithful and believe and follow him. It is not ours to reason why but to do and die.

Socrates:
Not reason? But why were we given minds? How are we to determine how to live and what is the purpose of life? What are we doing discussing this now? Why have you been preaching to people all of your life? Why have you risked your life in defiance of the orders of the Romans?

Jesus:
By faith are we saved, lest any man should boast.

Socrates:
Faith. What do you mean by faith?

Jesus:
We must believe without asking for proof. We must not be doubting Thomases. If we believe in God, we will be paid back for all our trials and tribulations a thousandfold when we get to heaven.

Socrates:
You say we should believe whatever we are told, without investigating it or examining it; we should be gullible? If I did this, I should give my purse to every man on the street who promised to return it to me a thousandfold. I would be a fool to do as you say. And here you are not asking me to give mere money, but to dedicate the whole of my life to one undertaking and one purpose without ever considering the value of the undertaking. A thief demands my money by threatening my life. You demand my life by threatening me with torture and promising me paradise. I am not a meek and gullible fool to be led whither I am told by empty promises and threats.

Jesus:
The meek shall inherit the earth.

Socrates:
The meek are slaughtered and made slaves like the women and children of a defeated nation.

Jesus:
You must not question God!

Socrates:
I have never met this gentleman, and therefore can not question him. I am questioning you who claim to represent him, to determine whether or not you really do.

Jesus:
We must believe the Bible, the Scripture, the Word of God; by faith without expecting to be able to understand and without asking for proof.

Socrates:
It is impossible for a man to not choose. You are aware that there are several thousand religions in the world? If we believe by faith, we would have to accept them all; yet they are all different, and that would be impossible. It would be like believing that the world was round and flat at the same time. Certainly, you don't practice what you preach; for then you would have believed that the Jewish religion and the Old Testament were right and not started this new heretical religion of your own. Or yesterday when Athena's priests admonished you in the street to stop preaching your heresy; you would have believed in the Greek religion of the Olympic Gods because it was first and you should believe it by faith because they told you it was true.

Jesus:
By faith are we saved lest any man should boast.

Socrates:
Let me give you a specific example. Suppose the Oracle of Delphi told me a certain person was guilty of killing and raping my wife and that I should kill him or else he will kill me, fearing that I will discover his crime and kill him; and you tell me 'thou shalt not kill.' You tell me that I must believe by faith by whatever I am told. Following your injunction, I must kill the man because of my faith in the Oracle of Delphi and I must not kill the man because of my faith in Lord God. For I cannot both kill the man and not kill the man because they are contradictory. Therefore, I cannot believe in both the Oracle of Delphi and the Lord God. Therefore, it is impossible for me to believe anything by faith alone. There is an intellectual choice that you and I and all men make, whether it is voluntary or not, as to what we believe. What would you rather do: make choice by thinking, discussing and considering all the aspects of the problem or by blindly denying that there is any choice necessary? This choice is the most important one in a man's life because the answer to the question, "what is the purpose of life?" determines the whole course of a man's life. If a man is to direct his every move by his religion, as you advocate, then certainly, he must put a great deal of thought into his choice of religions. Let me tell you a parable: If you are to go from one city to another on some task that involves your whole life, would it not be wise to consider all the routes, whether some of them are frequented by robbers, whether there is not a closer or safer city to go to, or , indeed, whether there is any city there at all?

Jesus:
If you, honestly wish to know the truth about God, creation and the purpose of life, there is a very simple way to discover the truth. All you have to do is ask God to come into your heart. If you sincerely wish to know the truth about God, the holy spirit will come into your being and you will become one with God. At that moment, you will gain heavenly knowledge and peace; and when you die, you will go to heaven and live forever in happiness and contentment.

Socrates:
I long to know the truth. What is it exactly that I must do and say in order to gain this knowledge and wisdom? How do I address him?

Jesus:
Say, "Lord come into my heart and give me the wisdom to understand the truth."

Socrates:
You say that by merely repeating this, I will gain knowledge about the purpose of life?

Jesus:
Yes. The Lord says seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered, knock and it shall be opened unto thee. God has promised to show the truth to anyone who asks.

Socrates:
Lord come into my heart and give me the wisdom to understand the truth.

Jesus:
There, you see. Now thank God for giving you eternal life.

Socrates:
Nothing has happened. I know no more about the purpose of life than I did before.

Jesus:
Then you are not sincere. You did not really wish God to come into your heart and show you the truth. You did not have faith that he would come into your heart.

Socrates:
Truly I do wish to know the truth. I have dedicated my whole life to the study of philosophy and reason. I wish more than life itself to learn the purpose of life. It is an answer I have been seeking since I first saw the sun. Unless I find it, I shall still be seeking it on the day I die. Perhaps he did not hear me; shall I ask again louder?

Jesus:
You have failed to finder the answer because you do not have faith. If a man has faith the size of a mustard seed, he can move a mountain and everything that he wishes comes to pass.

Socrates:
That is impossible. Did any of the people who follow you here today ever have relatives or friends who were sick and dying? Certainly they did; and certainly if they were good Christian folk they wished that the relative or friend would not be sick or die, but rather be healthy and happy once again. Certainly no one will be so foolish as to say he never had a friend die. Certainly no one will be so callous as to say he never wished the friend to live. Therefore, it follows that no one Christian in all the centuries ever had faith in God; or else that God was lying.

Jesus:
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.

Socrates:
I will present a parable to prove that there was never a Christian or a Jew who had faith; and to prove that God was lying when he promised to come into a man's heart and teach him the purpose of life. First, would you agree that Hell is worse than any possible earthly misfortune?

Jesus:
Yes. Certainly.

Socrates:
And, have you not said that all men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God?

Jesus:
Yes.

Socrates:
All Christians or Jews, who have faith, believe that they will go to Hell if they sin. Allow me to present this parable. Each Christian is like a man who stands at the top of a cliff: he knows that if he commits a sin, he will fall to his death, or worse, to eternal torment. You have said that Hell is worse than any possible earthly misfortune. No matter how severe his earthly misfortunes or his desires, no man who was a faithful Christian, would commit a sin; that is, jump off the cliff to eternal torment. You have said that all men, including faithful Christians and Jews, are sinners. It follows that not one Christian or Jew since the beginning of time, ever really believed that he would go to hell. Because if he did believe it, he would not sin: he would not jump off the cliff if he believed that Hell and eternal torment awaited him below. All men do jump off the cliff; all men do sin. Therefore, not one in all these centuries really believed in you. It follows that God did not come into their hearts any more than he did into mine a few moments ago. Therefore God has no right to expect them to act in a Christian manner or to have faith in him. Therefore, God has no right to punish them or send them to Hell. Therefore your God is not just. Therefore your God is not God.

Jesus:
Look at the world around you. Doesn't that prove that God exists? See beautiful benevolent nature that makes you strong and healthy and provides you with the sun for warmth and the forest and field for food. Shouldn't you worship God for all that he has done for you?

Socrates:
I know that nature is all good and benevolent, but whose hailstones broke my window?

Jesus:
Simply because there is some evil in the world does not negate the good: You must thank God for that. God must exist because; where did the world come from if he did not create it?

Socrates:
It is not necessarily your God that created the world: There are thousands of other priests who claim that their God did it. Just because I do not have the answer, does not mean that I must accept yours without examining it. I could just as logically demand that you believe that Zeus created the world. Even if I agree that God created the world, that is the end of the definition of the qualities of God and we can't logically proceed from that to the assumption that the other aspects of your definition of God are correct.

Jesus:
Wait, do not leave! You must save your soul from eternal damnation. Accept God into your heart. I will not go, till you say aye to me.

Socrates:
Yes. These are only the idle thoughts of an old man. 'Tis certain you are right, since you have so many followers. And who am I, on dull-witted old man to put reason and philosophy above the voices of the multitude.

Jesus:
Thank God for giving you eternal life.

Socrates was gone.


Copyright© 1997
James L. Hart

from: http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm

Jen33:
Dr Charles Tart's Autoscopic Evidence for survival of death.

http://www.near-death.com/tart.html

One reported case out of thousands of an OBE using a correct experimental set up published in 68 in a less than reputable journal and that has never been confirmed to date. What an overwhelming body of evidence
Evidence for what exactly?

Jen33:

Nowhere does the existence of these near death experiences indicate that there is something like a spirit world. Our brain is capable of producing these kind of experiences without having to turn to unevidenced entities such as spirits.

I can't believe you wrote this. You've OBVIOUSLY NOT READ ANY NEAR DEATH ACCOUNTS.

Oh yes I have, I only don't give much credence to anecdotal evidence. What we can learn from these experiences is the clear patterns they exhibit and try to explain these patterns using the most economical of explanations while still applying Occam's Razor. Positing unevidenced entitities as explanatory agents is intellectually and scientifically bankrupt.

Jen33:
NDE experiencers ALL speak about a spirit world to where they transited upon death.

No they don't [b]all [/b]speak about the spirit world. A majority does, but definitely not all. Anyway, experiencing Out-of-body events does not mean that these OBE's are real.

Jen33:
You counter the cliams of thousands of people by making reference to the last throes of a dying brain.

Yes and there is strong evidence that points in that direction. The studies by Karl L. R. Jansen and Susan Blackmoore among others.

Jen33:
But of course the brain SHOULD be dying for consciousness to experience a removal from the human body.

Assuming the consequent. Logical phalacies 101.

Jen33:
The brain will hardly be in full health for this experience to occur would it? So simply identifying the physical processes of death does not in any way obviate the Near-Death Experience.

I have never questioned those experiences, but rather the facile explanation you make up for them.

Jen33:

Is that supposed to be a question? Consciousness is merely an emergent property of the neurological processes working in the brain. Without a functioning brain, there is no consciousness.

I disagree. You try to make consciousness out to be some form of computer. But consciousness is not a computer.

As If I have ever said such a thing. Consciousness is an emergent property of the processes in the brain, not the brain itself.

Jen33:
Unlike a computer, Consciousness has feelings. It has emotions, empathy, beliefs, convictions. It loves. And hates. These are not attributes that originate from this mysterious, smart-alec configuration of matter you allude to.

1. Define conscousness. Apperently we're referring to different things. Those feelings are not part of consciousness per se. You cling on to the philosophy of Platonian essentialism as if there's any merit to it. There is no spirit/consciousness/soul that exists apart from the machinery that creates it, i.e. the brain. You really should read Dennett.

Jen33:
These are attributes of Spirit.

Or so you claim. I have no idea what Spirit [/i]is

Jen33:
I would also disagree very strongly with your assertion that ''without a functioning brain, there is no consciousness''.

You may do so, but do you have any evidence that consciousness exists apart from a functioning brain. If not, your claim is vacuous.

Jen33:
That betrays a deep lack of understanding of existence on your part.

And your understanding is based on what exactly?

Jen33:
If at all you do believe in ANY form of non-physical intelligence, be it God, 'Satan', angels, etc etc, then you've contradicted your own theory unless you're suggesting such entities also require 'a functioning brain' in order to be conscious.

Obviously I don't believe in any such entities. They're just products of an overactive human brain, a intent-detector gone wild, generation far too many false positives. You've just proven yourself that it's hard to overcome our biological imperatives.

Jen33:
Consciousness is a form of energy, and as every science student will tell u, energy is indestructible. Therefore, Consciousness is indestructible.

Assertion does not evidence make. As your premisse is dubious (consciousness is energy), your conclusions don't hold. Empty talk.

Jen33:
Near Death Experiencers have said with death came a state of expanded awareness.

Which has a perfectly useful physiological explanation. No need to enter the realm of the spirit-world.

Jen33:

I guess your research must have given you conclusive evidence of that assertion. Care to share it with us unenlightened folk?

I suggest a more open-minded approach on your part. You seem hardly likely to consider any evidence as valid, ''conclusive'' or not. I posted a link above of a full library of documented evidence which you seem not to have even clicked on. U don't seem like you want to be convinced.

I am convinced those experiences are real, not the explanations you and others give to them. As there are materialist explanations available, there is absolutely no need to turn to the supernatural (as if there's ever a reason to do so).

Jen33:

Our senses evolved to allow us to make sense of our environment. Both our neurological make up, as well as our sensory perceptions are limited to experiencing a very narrow band of properties of the world around us. Form, colour, shape, position, feeling and smell are merely props for the real thing. Our vision and experience of the world around us are no more an accurate depiction of reality than the drawing of a 3 year old girl is an accurate depiction of her mother. You have to excuse me if I find your 'reality' somewhat unconvincing.

Nothing you've written here is in opposition to the survival of consciousness.

no, but:
1. It helps to explain the experiences
2. It doesn't imply the survival of consciousness
3. something you have presented no evidence for, whatsoever

Jen33:
The important thing is CONSCIOUSNESS IS ONGOING. How the individual interpretes the reality he's confronted with is another matter. The important thing is the individual is conscious, with memories, likes, dislikes, tastes, hobbies intact.

And still there's no evidence that consciousness exists apart from a functioning brain.

Jen33:

A heightened sense of self caused by sensory deprivation. We can even induce these feelings through direct neurological stimulation.It's a simple 'mechanical' process.

Again, Nothing you've written here is in opposition to the survival of consciousness.

And it still doesn't point to that survival at all, it only offers a better explanation for NDE's than yours.

Jen33:
In fact, in many ways it PROVES the survival of consciousness, that physical threats to the human body (induced or otherwise) are an instant catalyst for mental experiences consistent with the survival of consciousness.

Did you try out Dilbert's mission statement generator? It must be hard to write down sentences that are utterly void of content.

Jen33:

I would first need to see the details of these documented cases before I could comment on them. Your assertions concerning the real meaning of these experiences however, are merely speculation

Well, to the extent that one has not directly experienced it, yes you are right. Only those who've had an NDE can truly be said to have proven it to themselves. It's not something that anyone can 'prove conclusively' to you. You simply need to study the phenomenon more closely, read some of the accounts by those who've experienced it, and draw your own conclusions. What's unforgivable is rejecting the phenomenon outright without proper investigation.

And what makes you conclude that I have done that? I just don't take 'eyewitness' experience at face value. Anyone having even the slightest knowledge how our brains function would do likewise, unless they have an axe to grind.

Jen33:

None of this 'evidence' can't be explained through far more mundane mechanisms. You're dragging in explanatory factors that are thus far unnecessary entities, thereby violating Occam's Razor.

And you are violating the experiences and accounts of ALL Near Death Experiencers as relating to ''uneccesary entities''. I think you need to factor in the accounts of the EXPERIENCERS themselves in any consideration of what constitutes the simplest explanation to satisfy your Occam's Razor.

Ok, what explains those experience better? Either an explanation that takes those experiences at face value, disregarding conclusive research on the fact that those experiences can be mechanically induced, or an explanation that actually uses the results of these experiments in it's explanatory model. Which explanation is the most economical in it's usage of necessary explanatory factors?

Jen33:
The simplest explanation is indeed, that these people ARE indeed experiencing life on the other side as they've all reported.

No that explanation isn't simple at all. It introduces exlanatory factors that need explaining themselves. Where's your evidence for [i]spirits [/i]and [i]another side

Jen33:
Why make things difficult in violation of the razor, by bringing in extraneous interpretations in opposition to what the experiencers themselves are saying?

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. My explantion includes empirical evidence, yours only assertion and extrapollation on these assertions

Jen33:
Nferyn, just suppose for a moment that NDE's are indeed a consequence of oxygen depletion to the brain, what is that really saying?

It doesn't disprove the authenticity of the experience. Ths is the spirit world - independent of the permutations and limitations of physical matter. The depletion of oxygen to the brain is a sign that the spirit, the consciousness of the man is on a terminal journey out of its human coat.

Nowhere does the existence of these near death experiences indicate that there is something like a spirit world. Our brain is capable of producing these kind of experiences without having to turn to unevidenced entities such as spirits.

Jen33:
That's ALL it means.

That's all you read into it; that's not what it means, at all

Jen33:
It simply means that consciousness is not dependent on the human body to exist. Why afterall, can we think?

Is that supposed to be a question? Consciousness is merely an emergent property of the neurological processes working in the brain. Without a functioning brain, there is no consciousness.

Jen33:
All that's in our heads is slimy fluff. It's got no more reason or capability to make us think and feel than a bag of stones poured into our skulls.

Or so you say. Our brains are complicated parallel data processing machines, which have several semi-redundant modules, each with specific specialities. You might want to read How The Mind Works by Stephen Pinker before jumping to these kind of unjustified conclusions

Jen33:
What makes us think and feel and remember etc is Consciousness - Spirit.

What you're asserting just doesn't exist.

Jen33:
When the body dies, Consciousness moves on. Consciousness is Energy.

I guess your research must have given you conclusive evidence of that assertion. Care to share it with us unenlightened folk?

Jen33:
Energy cannot be destroyed - it can only be transformed into another state.

Yes, so?

Jen33:
Remember that ALL of those who reported these experiences perceived them to be real - just as real as getting up from your bed this morning. In fact MORE real.

Our senses evolved to allow us to make sense of our environment. Both our neurological make up, as well as our sensory perceptions are limited to experiencing a very narrow band of properties of the world around us. Form, colour, shape, position, feeling and smell are merely props for the real thing. Our vision and experience of the world around us are no more an accurate depiction of reality than the drawing of a 3 year old girl is an accurate depiction of her mother. You have to excuse me if I find your 'reality' somewhat unconvincing.

Jen33:
Most of them claim that it is HERE - this existence that feels like a dream, compared to THERE.

A heightened sense of self caused by sensory deprivation. We can even induce these feelings through direct neurological stimulation.It's a simple 'mechanical' process.

Jen33:
And how do u explain the numerous documented cases where patients that were certified dead and later revived where able to recount incidents and conversations that occurred during the time they were meant to be dead, even to the point of describing the people that were present?

I would first need to see the details of these documented cases before I could comment on them. Your assertions concerning the real meaning of these experiences however, are merely speculation

Jen33:
Truth is, there's an awful lot of powerful circumstantial evidence, including scientific evidence, for the survival of consciousness, far more so than can ever be provided by religion, as a thorough review of the link below will reveal.

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

None of this 'evidence' can't be explained through far more mundane mechanisms. You're dragging in explanatory factors that are thus far unnecessary entities, thereby violating Occam's Razor.

Jen33:
nferyn said:

Not sure what u mean by Aquarians. This 'belief system' as u put it is independent of religious/social afiliation.

True enough, but the fact that it isn't tied to a specific culture or religion doesn't in itself give it any credence.

Jen33:
And while Biblical beliefs are grounded on parochial 3000 year old Jewish tribal myth and heralded by 'prophets', this 'belief system' is founded on accounts and experiences of real flesh and blood people from all across the world, and cuts across race, religion, and social status - people that can be, and have been traced, identified and verified.

So its really a no-contest, Nferyn.

Yet you talk about the spirit world and reincarnation as if you have anything even remotely resembling evidence for it. Near death experiences can easily be ascribed to the impact of oxygen depletion in the brain. Those out-of-body experiences and the white light can be invoked by depriving the brain of oxygen. There is no reason to assume that it is anything more than a yet not fully understood physiological reaction. There is no need to bring in any supernatural agency into the picture.

Great stuff, trading one idiotic belief system for another one. We're replacing the Jesus freaks for the Aquarians and that's supposed to be an improvement?
Gullible ignorance masquerading as profound knowledge. Why don't you add in some post-modern gibberish as icing on the cake?

4 Play:
Until 29 weeks,its merely a potential ? The irony is that the biggest obstacle to this "potential" materialising is the abortionist

No it isn't because early term, the biggest 'terminator' is nature (or God if you wish). There are far more natural abortions that occur than there are induced abortions.

4 Play:

Already living human beings have full sentience, aspirations, hopes and dreams and are in the full capacity themselves to decide whether or not their life is worth living. That's nobody else's choice but theirs, a fetus is not exactly in the same position.

That is why we must terminate it!We know if we left it alone,there is a 99.9% chance it will acquire all the above(aspirations,hopes,dreams,sentience,e.t.c)so we are fully justified in artificially intervening so as to stop what,if the natural process was not interfered with,would most likely lead to a fully formed human.

Your betting is way off. Many (if not most) zygotes abort naturally. But your reference to what would naturally occur isn't really relevant. If we would only allow things to happen as they naturally occur, we'd still be hunter-gatherers. All forms of human culture are unnatural. What then is your reason for determining that this unnatural practice is not acceptable and others are?

4 Play:

Now, it would be a good thing if those so obsessed with protecting life (e.g. the Schiavo case in the US) would spend only 10% of the resources and efforts they invest in that protection on bettering the quality of life of those already living. They've got their priorities all mixed up

One could make the same facile comment about pro-terminators.If they spent 10% of their resources and efforts on the living instead of promoting the necrotisation of foetuses,things would be better.

I get your point and you're right here, it was a facile comment. However, that doesn't mean it isn't true though and more to the point, it shows their preference for fetuses over the dreams, aspirations and well being of actual human beings.

4 Play:

The ultimate arbiter is the woman, as nobody can force her to compromise the integrity of her body, so yes, I'm towing the old "Woman's right to choose line", but only in a specific set of circumstances for late term abortions. Before sentience kicks in, it's nobody's business but hers.

This is mantric piffle.Since its simply "the integrity of her body",why not terminate at whatever term? The "integrity of her body" does not include,the prescence in the womb,of an entity which but for human intervention,will most likely materialise into human life

Mantric piffle, I'm learning new words every day. You're doing your utmost to expand my vocabulary, don't you
Actually, after reading my post again, it seems that I didn't make my point very clearly.
1. before sentience kicks in, there shouldn't even be a debate. The fetus is not a person and it's the woman's responsibility to determine what to do with the pregancy
2. after sentience kicks in, the fetus is now a person and the rights of that person should be weighed against the rights of the woman. This is the area where the debate should be focussed on and there are sensible arguments both pro and con. Here I say that in general, I value the quality of life the woman and the opportunities of the (potential) child over the mere life of the fetus. That's my personal ethical stance and reasonable people can disagree on that. In all circumstances though, the ethical implications of whether or not to abort are very much situational and definitely not absolute. In legal terms, some cut off points will need to be made though.

4 Play:

Do I need to spell this out? What positive consequences could killing an already born handicapped person possibly have? In the case of abortion, the consequences are clear: having a child at a moment or under circumstances that are less than ideal, does have an immediate negative effect on the quality of life, physical integrity and opportunities of the woman

You could do better.A negative effect on the "quality of life,physical integrity and opportunities of a woman" could hardly be sufficient justification for terminating a domestic pet not to talk of a "potential" human.

That's your opinion, not mine. What grounds do you have for thinking that this is not sufficient grounds for termination? If you look at the recent case in Poland, where the failure to allow a woman to have an abortion led to her becoming blind. Do you consider that health risk insufficient grounds for abortion?

4 Play:
Isn't well documented that abortion itself can have the above negative consequences for a woman anyway?

Indeed and therefore these consequences too need to be taken into account.

4 Play:
The reality is that since abortion was legalised in the U.K(1964),it has doubled in numbers since the 70s.The argument in the U.K by pro-abortionists was that abortions will be reduced,or at least stabilised, not increased.Vindication!

I don't know the specific legal framework of the UK, so I cannot comment on that. For Belgium and the Netherlands though, where there is a comprehensive social and legal framework in which these abortions take place, the opposite is rather true. For the Netherlands, there was even a drastic decrease in numbers for native Dutch citizens, but a significant increase for new immigrants, proportionally way above the numbers of the native Dutch, especially among Muslim girls, but that's a very different discussion

outlaws:
I know a lot people wasting their money, time, energy, and doing all kinds of devilish acts by dating a white guy or lady. The fact is whether you like it or not the chance of the relationship succeeding is .5% or less out of 100%

If you disagree go figure.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Where exactly did you find that .5% figure? I guess it must be somewhere the sun doesn't shine.

In Belgium, everybody who doesn't explicitly state that he/she doesn't want to be a donor, is considered a donor. Unfortunately, the medical establishment still asks the family whether or not they agree to give up the organs for donation. You can imagine that, in their moment of grief, the family will in many cases be very reluctant to part with the organs of the deceased.
For that reason, I made an explicit statement in the Belgian state register (we do carry id cards over here) that nobody can trump my decision to donate my organs. If you know people with e.g. kidney problems or liver problems, you'd be glad to give up the organs once you're dead, not doing so is either ignorant or extremely selfish

ricadelide:
@nferyn,

That is what you call a theory?
Why? Because its not acceptable to you, its not worth propounding? i'm wrong for calling it a theory though. its a fact; in the proper time you'd know the truth of that statement.

If it is, why don't you bring some sound evidence of that fact? Assertion is no substitute for reason.

ricadelide:
As far as science is concerned, you're absolutely right. Science can only deal with the natural, by necessity. The scientific enterprise implies methodological naturalism; it presupposes the regularity and lawfulness of nature, as this is necessary to make predictions. The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.
i must let you know that, in all sincerity, YOU are the one that is ignorant in not knowing that there is the supernatural.

Some more assertion. Where's your evidence?

ricadelide:
the books by Dawkins and others that you've been reading have, rather than enlighten, made you more ignorant of realities that are beyond your scope (because all you do is reject anything that is beyond your scope) i don't want to mention any scripture but please indulge me; it is the ignorance you are manifesting that made the Bible say; 'the fool says in his heart, there is no God'.

I'm open for your arguments and evidence. Currently you have only brought empty assertions to the table. Why don't you give me a proper method for assessing your claims of the supernatural?

ricadelide:
fact is, there are many things beyond the physical realm.

Possibly. Define the non physical and ellaborate on how one can investigate that non physical. If you are unable to do that, your claims are empty talk.

ricadelide:
in fact, the physical realm is less real than the spiritual, the least of the reasons, the mere fact that the physical is governed by space and time, concepts which are limited to the physical and do not exist in the supernatural. space and time are finite, but the supernatural is infinite.

Defining things into existence while using vague terminology and failing to provide ways of investigating these things does not make them real, let alone more real than those things that can be investigated.

ricadelide:
The scientific method explicitly tries to exclude these human perception and interpretation biases and their successes can only be achieved through a rigorous application of rationality
i don't think you know what you are talking about. what is the scientific process? i'll focus mainly on the field of biology; you do some reading (gathering of premises) you make a hypothesis and then you try to prove your hypothesis via experiments by making deductions and interpretations based on observations you make that seem to align with your hypothesis (which is a form of bias in the least sense).

That is a very impoverished presentation of the scientific method. Since when does science necesserily need to include experiment, especially in biology? Moreover, the fact that hypotheses and assumptions are explicitly stated and the data is free to be investigated by others, alls inferences and deductions are open to falsification. Add to that the peer review process and it will become abundantly clear that the scientific enterprise includes self-correction in it's core processes. Try to compare that to religious claims.

ricadelide:
In case you didnt know, you only need to attend a reputable scientific journal club for one week and it wont take you long to discover that many of the inferences made in scientific experiments (even those published in top journals like science and nature) are based on inconclusive evidence, biased information (in order to be able to publish a paper), and many other inconsistencies.

Yes, and how long does it take for these shoddy results to be rejected and/or improved upon? All human enterprise is flawed because humans are flawed. Science, as far as I know, is the only area of human activity where the rigor of it's methods and the self-correcting nature of it's processes ensures a continuous improvement of our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Compare that to the intellectual sclerosis of religion.

ricadelide:
its only if you're insincere or just unaware of the facts that you'd deny this assertion.

I'm not, but you're putting up a strawman of science. For what reason exactly?

ricadelide:
many times, an assertion may be accepted as true based on 'evidence' presented this year only for it to be refuted the following year based on 'new evidence'.

Your point? Are you now criticising the very fact that the scientific process is self-correcting? If you look at the big picture (and not the publication rat-race), you'll easily see that your criticism doesn't apply.
Maybe you can apply your criticism to e.g. the Modern Synthesis in Biology and see where that gets you?

ricadelide:
but the flaw of inconsistency isnt the only flaw in science, many times, especially in biology there is the flaw of never being able to know, because we'd never have the right techniques nor proper resolution (in terms of equipments) to make the right deductions.

This might be a valid criticism. Please be more precise and give some examples so that I can judge. As it stands it's only an assertion.

ricadelide:
all i'm trying to say is; don't rate the scientific process too highly. like most things human, it has many flaws and it takes someone on the inside to know this. (these flaws are especially obvious in biology unlike in technology because technology merely involves application of scientific principles whereas biology tries to understand those principles that have been used to create and sustain life)

I am aware of it's flaws, but I still rate it very highly. There is no other human intellectual activity that has consistently been so successful. As I'm not a working biologist, but merely an interested layperson, I'm quite interested in these fundamental flaws, as the works of the biologists I've been reading don't mention these. Can you explain?

ricadelide:
This has nothing to do with rationality but rather with a lack of knowledge or understanding. Flying wasn't less rational then than it is today; facts don't change because our knowledge and understanding of these facts change. I think it was Douglas Adams that said the any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic for those not possessing it. That doesn't mean that there is magic at work though. I guess you don't fully understand what rationality is. It is not a result but rather a method.
rather YOU don't understand my argument. let me help you further. the METHOD of rationality is flawed because it makes use of the human mind which is basically flawed because it can only consider probable what it finds believable based on current understanding. one's 'rationality' is constrained by his/her level of knowledge.

Yes, but that doesn't disqualify rationality as a method for obtaining knowledge. The cumulative and self-correcting nature of rationality as applied in the scientific process ensure that it becomes a close to "truth" as humanly possible.
Other methods of asserting the truthfulness of statements carry in themselves the same flaws, but on a much grander scale. The application of rationality to situations elevates the understanding of these situations to something inter-subjective, rather than merely subjective. It allows communication and comparison of experiences. Does any other way of assessing truth even get that far?

ricadelide:
i can't make it anymore clearer. let me give you an example. the chemiosmotic theory was propounded by Peter Mitchel in 1961. at the time, he was debunked as inconsequential and 'illogical' based on their current understanding. it took a long while before others were able to provide evidence (and thus new premises) to prove him right and debunk what was priorly held to be true. unlike what you said, in science, 'facts' (i mean what is scientifically accepted as true) are constantly changing depending on available evidence.

Those fact, as you define them here, are not my facts. The facts are the raw data. Hypotheses and theories may change, but the facts don't. But you say so much as well.

ricadelide:
in all reality, facts don't change, but scientific facts are always being modified. i must ask you if you are a scientist and what field you are in so i can understand why you had a problem with this.

I'm a social scientist by training and, as such, I'm very well aware of the methodological difficulties and pitfalls of science (especially if you compare social sciences to the 'hard' sciences)

ricadelide:
thus like i said, until all the necessary premises for educated guesses (hypothesis) of that which is probable is available to science, it can't be fully rational, the method is flawed because the minds involved have insufficient premises to predict what can be true and what can't be true. things that are in reality probable and true will keep on being thought to be improbable and thus 'illogical' until new premises are provided that will allow for new understanding of what is 'rational'. do you get it?

Yes and no. I understand what you're saying here, but i don't see your point. Scientific knowledge is cumulative and self-correcting. We may never reach the summit of 'perfect knowledge', but the relative probability of certain truth statements in relation to others can most definitely be assessed and that's all we can ever hope for.

ricadelide:
in biology, many theories havent even been propounded yet because there is insufficient literature available in such fields to make hypotheses not to talk of designing experiments to verify them. the scientific process in biology is in its infancy!!

All sciences are in their infancy, but I can't see why you single out biology here.

ricadelide:
The ever shrinking God-of-the-gaps.
this phrase is all yours, its just a way for your spiritually uneducated mind to 'grasp' the concept of God. if you knew GOd like i do, you'd know he's the God of the universe, he's completely awesome, and doesn't need any gaps to accomodate Him.

Right, and you obtain that knowledge how exactly?

ricadelide:
And that knowledge is based on what facts exactly? Or is it rather based on your personal feelings and thoughts?
there are spiritual facts, but you are spiritually ignorant. that is why i said it is beyond you. if you really want to know God and not just trying to make an arguement we can talk about them; but then you don't believe in God so why try to know Him

Give me a method and definitions and we can talk. I have no clue what spirituality is. How do you obtain it? How do you set it apart from non-spirituality?

ricadelide:
Why then is your truth more valuable than theirs and how else can you compare them than through the application of rational thought?
contrary to what you think, people of faith go through a lot of scrutiny. ie they question things. personally i was born into the roman catholic faith, i had to question many of the false assertions and beliefs and discovered them to be untrue and i forsook that sect. i eventually found the right path, and i've since subjected it to the proper scrutiny and found it overwhelmingly true. of course, i did not use test tubes to verify the path i now follow though, lol

Method of determining truth?

ricadelide:
How do you know it's a Him and not a Her?
i know you're joking. you might have as well said 'it'. God is neither male nor female (another thing your mind cannot grasp because of its 'flaws' lol) the english language is very sex-conscious, in my native language i would have used the term 'o' which does not imply or assume a gender.

okay

ricadelide:
the baseline;
sincerely i must let you know that there are many things you do not know. i am not just some uneducated religious bigot who has had his mind stuffed down with hallucinations (i'm sure you think i am though); i'm a medical doctor turned molecular biologist. i am not anti-science, however i am not ignorant enough to think that science can explain everything. i am deeply involved in science so i know its many limitations. i have not raised many issues here like good and evil and morality and death and the beginning and conscience etc. these are issues that cannot be explained by science.

Indeed they cannot (directly) be explained by science, but what makes you think religion is up to the task?

ricadelide:
i have been on the wrong path before (in the catholic religious institution) before i found it baseless and, to use your term, 'irrational'. the issue of God is not a matter of gaps like you claim but a matter of dimensions or realms. i sincerely hope that you'd be curious enough to enquire why a scientist can believe what i believe rather than just, uninformedly, conclude that i have to be deluded.

It is indeed hard for me to understand how educated, intelligent people can continue to believe in religion. That's the main reason why I enter these debates.

ricadelide:
i am not here to propound arguments and trade words because its totally not beneficial to me, you can't change my mind about what i know (spiritually) and if i wouldnt be able to change yours then there's no use. i really hope that you'd be willing to look for understanding on the proper approach to take in verifying spiritual or supernatural matters, rather than making demands based on your limited understanding on what your requirements will be for accepting a deity.

As I've written before, I would very much appreciate it if you could provide a method for verifying these claims, but I must say that mere faith, to quote CS lewis, doesn't cut it for me. There don't seem to be any rational reasons for belief, do you have any other?

ricadelide:
the scientific process involves making the right approaches (and techniques); you wont try to examine the cristae in the mitochondrion by using a light microscope. neither can you try to understand God by making use of scientific techniques. God will not stoop down to your own terms, no. He is God, and HE has his own terms. However, not to sound pompous or concieted, if you knew what i know, you wont be making the statements you are making.

Again, a lot of assertions. how do I verify them?

ricadelide:
I believe in Jesus, He saved me and i live a blissful life in fellowship with Him. i really hope one day you find Him one day. I'd be praying for you. cheers!

Happy for you, but you still haven't given me any reason to believe.

ricadelide:
@nferyn,
the theory of creation is that God made everything as it is, including you! sciene does not acknowlegde anything beyond the physical realm so its not hard to see why it rejects such an assertion.

[i]That [/i]is what you call a theory? The second part of your statement is more to the point though, it is ultimately only and assertion without anything to back it up. As far as science is concerned, you're absolutely right. Science can only deal with the natural, by necessity. The scientific enterprise implies methodological naturalism; it presupposes the regularity and lawfulness of nature, as this is necessary to make predictions. The supernatural on the other hand can neither be investigated nor understood, as it lacks that regularity and lawfulness. By calling something supernatural (even though there is no reason to do so), you're putting it out of the reach of scientific investigation and shield it from inquiry. It's the epithetome of organised and institutionalised ignorance.

ricadelide:
when i said 'God exists and that does not change anything' i was not trying to sound 'rational' perhaps i should have made that clear. that would seem stupid to you but let me explain. What is rationality? rationality is just accepting things to be true based on prior understanding of what is true or what is known.

I'm really not following. Rationality is the application of logic on premisses and drawing conclusion from these logical inferences. Obviously, these premisses need to be accepted by both parties. The problem lies in the fact that theist hardly ever make their premisses explicit (e.g. what is God?) or shy away from their logical outcome (i.e. the logical impossibility of the omnimax God)

ricadelide:
as a person, i cannot afford to base all my judgements on rationality. many things have not been able to be explained and more can't be explained.

In our day to day life, we go by approximations, stereotypes, etc and as a consequence, our judgements are not always correct or truthful. The scientific method explicitly tries to exclude these human perception and interpretation biases and their successes can only be achieved through a rigorous application of rationality

ricadelide:
so it will be impossible to think rationally about something of which there is no (present) premise. i don't know if you understand me. flying as we do today was irrational 150 years ago, because they didnt have the right premises. and believe me they were not stupid for considering it irrational.

This has nothing to do with rationality but rather with a lack of knowledge or understanding. Flying wasn't less rational then than it is today; facts don't change because our knowledge and understanding of these facts change. I think it was Douglas Adams that said the any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic for those not possessing it. That doesn't mean that there is magic at work though.

ricadelide:
until premises continue to be made, rationality will continue to be modified. the only time rationality can be fully 'right' is when science knows everything and is omniscient. and that would never happen.

I guess you don't fully understand what rationality is. It is not a result but rather a method.

ricadelide:
so in my opinion science can never dictate to me what rational thinking constitutes, because it does not understand my premises. many discoveries in science usually start out being considered 'irrational' before evidence is found that exonorates it.

Please be a little more precise. I cannot understand what you're trying to say.

ricadelide:
i don't need to base my beliefs on science that does not acknowledge what it does not have present evidence for (many times even when the assertion is true).

So instead of taking the prudent approach and saying that you don't know (yet), you just attribute it to an inscutible entity like God? The ever shrinking God-of-the-gaps.

ricadelide:
so when i make statements i'm not just trying to be 'rational'. I believe that God is omniscient, my human mind cannot fathom many things, but i know that i'm constantly increasing in knowledge and the more i know the more 'rational' i become. so let me restate; i know God because i relate with Him. that may sound 'illogical' to you but i've explained why. i have 'premises' for believing in God, i acted on them and now i know them to be true.

And that knowledge is based on what facts exactly? Or is it rather based on your personal feelings and thoughts?

ricadelide:
there is a whole realm of knowledge and understanding that is totally oblivious to you (and am not trying to be mean, i'm just telling you what i know)

The difference is that you attribute these subjective feelings and ideas to something without sound underpinning. How exactly do you know? You just do?

ricadelide:
thus, you're right that i did not first come to know God via 'rational' thinking. No. Neither was it via 'emotional or sloppy thinking' (i wonder what that is). i came to know him by spiritual revelation (and i can assure you, you don't know what that means ).

Just like the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Toaists, Confucianists, Janeist, etc come to their truths through exactly the same mechanism. Why then is your truth more valuable than theirs and how else can you compare them than through the application of rational thought?

ricadelide:
God is Spirit, and those who know him, know him in the spirit. there is no scientific evidence for the spiritual, it is impossible for science to provide 'evidence' for something ethereal. I've said it before, God is not physical. its not very hard to see why you don't believe, you've chosen to take a path through which it is impossible to know Him, its like looking for polar bears in the tropics, he requires faith (ie belief) as the path to knowing Him.

You're just deluding yourself. These spiritual experiences can easily be triggered by simple neurological stimuli. The interpretation of these experiences will differ depending on the existing memeplexes in the subjects' brains, ie. a Christian will have a Christian spiritual experience, a Buddhist a Buddhist one.

ricadelide:
i know you would question why it has to be by faith but there are reasons for that which i can't go into now. since you can't believe something you don't have physical evidence for, i can assure you it would be very hard for you to find Him. He hides Himself from people who believe and seek not to talk of one who doesnt Prov 25.2, 1Pet. 4.18, Ps. 104.2

I am incapable of faith. Belief without evidence is something I have built psychological barriers against.

ricadelide:
there are many things you don't know but sincerely i hope you find Him one day, because He is very REAL. cheers!

How do you know it's a Him and not a Her?

ricadelide:

Yes, apart from the Bible and some later date Christian apologetic writings, there are no records of Jesus' supposed crucifiction. All references to the life and deeds of the historical Christ are very mirky historiography.

uhmn, sorry, if there are records only in the bible and other apologetic books, does that disqualify it from being a historical event simply because other books didnt record it?

Not by itself, no, but given what is known about the authorship of the Bible (e.g. none of the authors was a contemporary to Jesus) and the fact that there isn't a single non-Christian author mentioning Jesus' ministry, not to speak of the fact that Jesus as a historical character has a uncanningly clear resemblance to many other mythological heroes in other cultures of that era, makes one wonder. If you add to that the disputes within the early church on the nature of Christ and how all of that fits within the tension between the Greek gnostic traditions and Judaism, you'd understand that I wouldn't wage any bets on the historicity of Jesus.

ricadelide:
has everybody in history been documented by history books?

That's irrelevant. There is as much historical evidence for the historicity of Hercules and Achyles as there is of Jesus. Why then doesn't anyone assume that those Greek Homeric characters were real historic figures?

ricadelide:
lets even narrow it; have all crucifixions in history been recorded?

In Roman traditions, crucifixion was a punishment reserved for criminals that were dangerous to the state. Jesus doesn't fit that pattern and neither does his trial before the Sanhedrin fit Jewish law and customs. this alone makes it a very unlikely event that - if true - should be supported by other independent evidence, which clearly isn't the case. If you still claim that Jesus was a historical figure without a shadow of a doubt, your motivations are not rational ones.

ricadelide:
if you don't find mention of christ's death in certain books you are more inclined to believe does that change anything? i am more likely to believe the Bible because it has been through the most scrutiny through the ages and has held through. isnt that enough?

The Bible has been so thoroughly debunked as a historical record that it's not even worth debating. Could you please define what held through means in this context, because it's meaning definitely escapes me.

ricadelide:
The bible is clear that the romans and the jews tried to submerge information about christ's death (and ressurection). doesn't that suffice to explain your statement.

And God planted all the evidence for evolution to confuse mankind. Or was it Satan that did that?
What about submerging information about his very existence? I don't see the Bible making any claims about that. Only if you already presuppose the existence of Jesus as a historical figure does your line of reasoning hold. Quod non.

ricadelide:
and besides, josephus (a noted jewish historian) has references to Jesus, i don't know if he talked about his crucifixion though but that is inconsequential.

Josephus mentioning Jesus is a known insertion by a Christian copyist. Very convenient that all remaining copies of Josephus are of a later date, out of Christian libraries.

ricadelide:
@ nferyn,

I'm new to this thread.
first, you said you haven't seen atheists that become theists, there are very many. A notable example is C. S. Lewis. i can give others if you need them.

I haven't seen any of these claims of former atheism that don't collapse under close scrutiny. Lewis is just one such example. But even if you could come up with some real examples of atheists that convert to a form of theism, the [url=http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Eslocks/conversion_asymmetry.html]asymmetry [/url](both qualitatively and quantitatively) between atheist to theist and theist to atheist deconversions is staggering.

ricadelide:
You don't believe in God, that does not change anything. God exists.

Assertion does not an argument make. I have sound logical, philosophical and scientific reasons for my disbelief. I am yet to find the first theist that has any reasons for his/her belief that are grounded in rationality, either they're emotional or based on sloppy thinking.

ricadelide:
if i tell you that there is a lion with two heads somewhere in the antartica, you can't prove that it does NOT exist, so in all practicality you can't say there is no God. now you can reject the claims about God, ie creation and all, but you can't prove it not to be true. science has never been able to and definitely wouldnt prove that God didnt create the universe. what science can offer is alternative explanations for what is observed, whilst rejecting the theory of creation.

Frame the debate in these terms and you can get away with everything. There is as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster as there is for the God of Christianity, which makes the flying spaghetti monster equiprobable to the Christian God.
By the way, how can I reject something which I don't know, What exactly is the theory of creation?

ricadelide:
you said you want evidence that God exists, there are many; the whole of creation (the universe) itself proves it (if the theory of creation is right). what we should ask for is evidence that he DOESNT exist. do you have any?

There is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence for creation. There is plenty of evidence for the state of the universe to be the result of natural processes. I can claim, without a shadow of a doubt that the God as presented in the Bible (the omnimax God, who's miracles and actions are portrayed in the Bible) does not exists. Are you talking about that God?

ricadelide:
now God exists in a totally different realm from that of the physical, in a supernatural realm.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen (L. Wittgenstein) - (transl. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent) How can I (or anyone) possibly determine that the so called supernatural isn't some figment of your imagination?

ricadelide:
there is profound evidence (albeit not scientific, because science is limited to observations of physical evidence) of the supernatural. Within that same realm exists the ultimate reality, who is God, without whose influence nothing exists.

You're just making up things as you go, defining things into existence. That may convince the gullible, but it won't convince anyone that values truth over the comfort of sophisticated fairy-tales.

ricadelide:
personally, i don't just know that HE exists, i know Him because i relate to or with Him. many people believe in his existence but don't necessarily relate to Him. thats not the case with me.

Either you're not making sense, or I just don't understand your logic. Can you ellucidate?

ricadelide:
now, just a jab at the scientific theory of big bang and all. everything in nature is obviously degenerative,

Imprecise statement. What is everything in nature and what is degenerative? What do you mean by obvious? I don't see anything obvious here.

ricadelide:
ie apart from evolution (which is just another unproven theory),

How so?

ricadelide:
things move from a high energy to low energy state.

I must misunderestimate your ability to misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics. You're not making any sense.

ricadelide:
why then, does evolution propound a contrary theory where everything becomes more complex on its own. for things to become more complex there has to be an external input eg for a compound to be formed, you don't just need elements you need something extra.

Sigh, not again? Let's make it as simple as possible: earth = open thermodynamic system; input of energy from sun = decrease in entropy in open system earth; decrease in entropy = possibility of forming complex systems and increase in complexity over time.

ricadelide:
that just shows that it is impossible for the universe to spontaneously form on its own because it doesnt have what it takes to develop into more complex forms. hope you get my drift. i'll await your response.

No it doesn't. Your drift is way off.

spoilt:
jesus was not just crucified but crucified publicly. is there any contest about that?

Yes, apart from the Bible and some later date Christian apologetic writings, there are no records of Jesus' supposed crucifiction. All references to the life and deeds of the historical Christ are very mirky historiography.

A monumental waste of time

A classic Monty Python

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FC4ueoNkE&mode=related&search=

TV01:
Hi Nferyn,

Okay, no problem. You don't hold top a notion of ensoulment, I am happy to put it to one side for the moment.

However, you must realise that you it reads somewhat blurred when you make statements like this;

Early term abortions are not the killing of a person, but merely the extraction of human cells with the potential of becoming a person.

So when does the potential become actual?

When sentience kicks in. This is around 29 weeks.

TV01:

when the foetus is severely handicapped

How severe a handicap warrants termination and who is to say?

That depends on the specific legal framework. In Belgium, the woman decides, but only after consultation and advise from an ethical committee from the hospital in question. They usually don't decide when it's acceptable to abort, but rather when it's unethical to carry the fetus to term.

TV01:
If it's about quality of life, living on less than a $1 a day in modern Nigeria, is really handicapping disabled or not, would you suggest their quality of life warrants termination?

Already living human beings have full sentience, aspirations, hopes and dreams and are in the full capacity themselves to decide whether or not their life is worth living. That's nobody else's choice but theirs, a fetus is not exactly in the same position.
Now, it would be a good thing if those so obsessed with protecting life (e.g. the Schiavo case in the US) would spend only 10% of the resources and efforts they invest in that protection [/i]on bettering the quality of life of those already living. They've got their priorities all mixed up.

TV01:
Also you talk of weighing up rights and consequences. Whose rights exactly? By saying;

Yes and the negative effects should be weighed against the positive effect. It's up to the woman to determine which effects take precedence.

You are just trotting out the old "Womans right to choose" line which is not really a question of rights and consequences of all involved.

The ultimate arbiter is the woman, as nobody can force her to compromise the integrity of her body, so yes, I'm towing the [i]old "Woman's right to choose line", but only in a specific set of circumstances for late term abortions. Before sentience kicks in, it's nobody's business but hers.

TV01:

The only effect of killing an already born handicapped person is negative, quite different from the abortion case.

Please explain how?

Do I need to spell this out? What positive consequences could killing an already born handicapped person possibly have? In the case of abortion, the consequences are clear: having a child at a moment or under circumstances that are less than ideal, does have an immediate negative effect on the quality of life, physical integrity and opportunities of the woman

Seun:
Nferyn, you have grieved the Most Exalted High & Mighty Ancient Milk Of The Coconut by calling me a heretic.

Remember this verse: "All coconut heads, one they are. You, divide the indivisible coco-people, must not."

I know you people with your holier-than-thou attitude. Assuming to know the mind of the most high better than those that started the temple. Mashing up the Book of Coco by throwing out some chapters. Ignoring the importance of tradition and assuming that you can reach the mind of the most high without intermediation by his representatives on earth.
In a more enlightened time, we would have known how to deal with you people. Alas, nowadays silly inventions by infidels such as "Human Right" prevent us to deal with you properly. Even the exalted practice of auto-da-fe has been banned nowadays. You people are the messengers of eternal corruption.

TV01:
Hi Nferyn,

Long time, Hope you are well.

Hi TV, it's been a while indeed that we had an online conversation. Hope everything's Ok at your end as well.

TV01:

Comparing abortions to murder is absolutely preposterous.

Why? The wilful destruction of a innocent human being (especially of the most vulnerable and defenseless) is murder.

You define your crime into existence. I disagree about the statement that a fetus is an innocent human being, so your definition doesn't apply.

TV01:

Even though abortions should be avoided as much as possible

Based on your premise above, why? Surely you see it as just a lifestyle choice?

Abortions are medical procedures that have negative physiological and psychological consequences for the woman. That's why they should be avoided as much as possible.

TV01:

because of the negative psychological and physiological effects on the woman

Presumably any negative effects on the child are inconsequential?

Once more you define a problem into existence based on the religious concept of ensoulment. Early term abortions are not [/u]the killing of a person, but merely the extraction of human cells with the [u]potential of becoming a person.

TV01:
This is also double speak, because;
1. Would you not say that the whole reason for wanting an abortion in the first place was to avoid negative p&p effects? and
2. You omit to mention the wholly positive effects pregnancy and childbirth.

Yes and the negative effects should be weighed against the positive effect. It's up to the woman to determine which effects take precedence.

TV01:
Hmmm, having said that, you then siad this

When considering late term abortions on the other hand, I am compelled to believe these should be illegal, except under very specific circumstances, e.g when the woman's life is in danger or when the foetus is severely handicapped.

Here you are allowing abortion of an individual who can feel pain, but because said individual is handicapped?

It's a weighing of different rights and consequences against each other.
What is more important life or the quality of life? By allowing a severely handicapped baby to be born, you will condemn both mother and baby to a life of suffering, pain and missed opportunities. There are no absolute rights, all rights are relative to their context. The only reason why so many religious people consistently value life over the quality of life, is because of an unfounded belief in the existence of a soul.
By the way, I fail to see where there's any doublespeak here.

TV01:
There are lots of handicapped people who can feel pain. The main difference betwween them and the foetus is location (i.e. outside the womb). Presumably killing them wouldn't count as murder either?

We're no longer talking about a potential life here, but about an actual person, besides the context and consequences really determines what choice you need to make. The only effect of killing an already born handicapped person is negative, quite different from the abortion case.

TV01:
Atheism is just a big hole unable to make coherent sense of the moral let alone the spiritual.

And when did you stop beating your wife exactly? Strawmen and unsupported statements do not an argument make.
If you want to discuss atheistic morality, please open up a new thread. Secular humanist morality is far superior over religious morality, because religious morality is based on a whimsical interpretation of what is supposed to be the intentions of God. This essay explains the source of my morality in way I'm unable to do, as my linguistic skills in English are too limited
When I get a coherent explanation of what the spiritual actually is, I might be able to answer your claim about the spiritual, currently, the spiritual [/i]only equates the [i]ineffable.

TV01:
Likewise science, which has it's place, but will always fall short.

Of what?

TV01:
Have a good day

Likewise

TV01:
God bless

Of course it should be made legal. Comparing abortions to murder is absolutely preposterous. Even though abortions should be avoided as much as possible, mainly because of the negative psychological and physiological effects on the woman, the only reason why it is still illegal in some countries is because of unfounded religious ideas of ensoulment.
Let's be crystal clear here: a foetus of less than 25 weeks cannot possibly be considered a person because it lacks the neurological capacity to feel pain, let alone have something like sentience. A newborn mouse is more self-aware than a foetus.

When considering late term abortions on the other hand, I am compelled to believe these should be illegal, except under very specific circumstances, e.g when the woman's life is in danger or when the foetus is severely handicapped.

There are already other threads on this subject, e.g. Abortion: A Right Or a Crime?

Seun:
I find your lack of faith disturbing. You've committed the unforgivable sin: "touch not those drenched in coco-milk"!

Heretic. Only those drenched in pina colada will meet the most high. Coconut milk hasn't yet undergone the process of transsubstantiation and thus could never be the blood of the the Sacred Coconut. You know, the real blood of the Most High, not some silly wafer like those Catholic copycats use.

Sigh, not again. This subject has been beaten to death on this board and there are still so many people who don't get it.
Have a look at these threads:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6208.0.html
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-5432.32.html
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.480.html

misright:
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of Biology.

Indeed it isn't. Laws are descriptive and theories are explanative. Please read this essay by Stephen J. Gould, it's very insightful.

misright:
A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong.

By it's descriptive nature it must indeed be % correct. The same principle of falsification applies to theories as well. Scientific theories are only provisionally correct and the strength of a theory lies in it's predictive value. The TOE is a very strong theory with a high predictive value. There are currently no alternatives to the TOE, as those opposing schools of thought (calling them theories is giving them too much credit) cannot be falsified in principle. E.g. there is no data that can possibly falsify Intelligent Design, therefore, it is not science.
You can read about the scientific method on wikipedia. Do focus your research on the principle of falsifiability as proposed by Popper

misright:
This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. (I go some stuff proving evolution is false and impossible).

Well, then you're in for a Nobel Prize, no one has been able to do that yet, so go ahead, present your challenges and proofs, but read Talkorigin's Index to Creationist Claims first in order not to propose already refuted challenges to the TOE

misright:
The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

Of course it won't but not because of what you say. Theories serve different purposes from laws

misright:
Evolutionists have never found the missing links. Each time they annouce finding one it is later proven to be false. They claim sciencetific support when none exists.

Please, what is that infamous missing link? Who exactly announced finding that missing link you are talking about and when? What do you mean by claiming scientific support where none exists? It seems you're talking straight out of your neck, why don't you substantiate your misguided innuendo?

misright:
Don't believe your biology science text book. Biologiests keep revising science taht was supposed to be scienctifically fact.

If you would know anything about the scientific method, you wouldn't be asserting such blatant nonsense.

misright:
Why would you believe evolution when it ahs many errors?

Which errors does the TOE have? Name one.

Before you continue making a fool of yourself, please familiarise yourself with the subject you're trying to critique. You could start with the basic introduction at Berkeley University. At least you'll know what you're talking about.