An Open Letter to Atheists

[AN2]

In the " Block-Time Universe " all time exists at the same time !

As is, all the time, in a Book or a DVD exists in the book, Book / DVD, all of the time ! !

Maybe we are just watching / reading the Universe ? !

I guess that means that there's no free will

 

[clarke-connolly]

I guess that means that there's no free will

Yes, this is one on the reasons that Brian Greens gives for their Not being Free Will.

The thinking being, if everything has already happened then how could there be Free Will ? !

And when you think about it, there is a lot to be said for that thinking if we believe in the Block Space-Time Universe !

Unless you, re-write a book , re-film a DVD, then you cannot change the time / space in that book / DVD ! !

Perhaps we are in, an infinite loop of the book / film being run just for, what-ever reason, maybe the best way to maintain the " thing " !

 

[AN2]

EVOLUTIONARY biologist Richard Dawkins asks if the minds of adults who are indoctrinated into religion during their childhood remain in a permanent state of infancy -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u7OyAnn3S7Y

(I can think of at least two on this site in fairness)

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

(I can think of at least two on this site in fairness)

The difference between Bocht and Tiger is Bocht is erudite and remains respectful.

Tiger just loses the plot altogether.

 

[AN2]

The difference between Bocht and Tiger is Bocht is erudite and remains respectful.

Tiger just loses the plot altogether.

Bocht can't handle the Jambo

I would say though that yes, Tiger is more of throw his toys out of the pram type..

 

[AN2]

The difference is how moral actions are ordered. Unbelievers may act in accordance with natural law, but without faith and sanctifying grace. They lack the supernatural virtues that order those actions toward eternal beatitude. You won’t like or even understand that answer, but there you go.

You're right, I don't really understand it (I don't speak Christian gibberish)

Has it something to do with this -

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sxNFzr0mMvs&t=7m19s

 

[Tiger]

You're right, I don't really understand it (I don't speak Christian gibberish)

Has it something to do with this -

Of course you don’t understand it. You’ve had no formation in any faith tradition whatsoever. Your entire outlook has been marinated in a flat, godless materialism, leaving you tone-deaf to anything beyond the senses. You can only communicate through YouTube videos.

Expecting you to grasp the spiritual is like expecting a man born blind to critique the colours of a sunset.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You’ve had no formation in any faith tradition whatsoever.

What if somebody had a faith tradition but came to the realisation it was nonsense?

 

[AN2]

Of course you don’t understand it. You’ve had no formation in any faith tradition whatsoever. Your entire outlook has been marinated in a flat, godless materialism, leaving you tone-deaf to anything beyond the senses. You can only communicate through YouTube videos.

Expecting you to grasp the spiritual is like expecting a man born blind to critique the colours of a sunset.

As I have said about you before, you're not only incapable of debating, you're incapable of even recognising one

 

[Tiger]

While the Richard Dawkins's and Ricky Gervais's of the world delight in proclaiming, with a kind of smug finality, that man is nothing more than animated matter; that at death we decompose into worm food and nothing of the person survives; reality stubbornly refuses to conform to their materialist dogma. People die every day, and yet a remarkable number are revived to recount experiences which decisively contradict the narrative of oblivion.

The AWARE study (2014), published in Resuscitation, documented cases in which individuals, clinically dead and without measurable brain activity, reported lucid and verifiable perceptions of events occurring around them. As Dr. Sam Parnia, the study’s lead author, observed: ‘Consciousness and awareness may occur during a period when the brain is not functioning, suggesting the mind may not simply be a product of the brain.’ The testimony of the resurrected stands in stark contrast to the nihilistic creed of the secularist; a reminder that death is not mere dissolution, but a threshold.

These events are not rare, and in fact are actually very common. Most people, if pressed, can name at least one friend or relative who has ‘crossed over’ and returned to tell the tale. In my own circle, I can think of three: one who died on the operating table as a child, another who was lost during childbirth before being revived, and my friends mum, who died in Beaumont hospital after a stroke.

Below is a fascinating interview with medical doctor Jeffrey Long, who has spent decades researching this phenomenon and has studied over 4,000 documented cases of near-death experiences (which are actual death experiences). His work represents one of the most comprehensive investigations into what may well be the strongest empirical challenge to the materialist assumption that death is the end.


View: https://youtu.be/ZIEGOmwJJxk?feature=shared

 

[AN2]

While the Richard Dawkins's and Ricky Gervais's of the world delight in proclaiming, with a kind of smug finality, that man is nothing more than animated matter; that at death we decompose into worm food and nothing of the person survives; reality stubbornly refuses to conform to their materialist dogma. People die every day, and yet a remarkable number are revived to recount experiences which decisively contradict the narrative of oblivion.

The AWARE study (2014), published in Resuscitation, documented cases in which individuals, clinically dead and without measurable brain activity, reported lucid and verifiable perceptions of events occurring around them. As Dr. Sam Parnia, the study’s lead author, observed: ‘Consciousness and awareness may occur during a period when the brain is not functioning, suggesting the mind may not simply be a product of the brain.’ The testimony of the resurrected stands in stark contrast to the nihilistic creed of the secularist; a reminder that death is not mere dissolution, but a threshold.

These events are not rare, and in fact are actually very common. Most people, if pressed, can name at least one friend or relative who has ‘crossed over’ and returned to tell the tale. In my own circle, I can think of three: one who died on the operating table as a child, another who was lost during childbirth before being revived, and my friends mum, who died in Beaumont hospital after a stroke.

Below is a fascinating interview with medical doctor Jeffrey Long, who has spent decades researching this phenomenon and has studied over 4,000 documented cases of near-death experiences (which are actual death experiences). His work represents one of the most comprehensive investigations into what may well be the strongest empirical challenge to the materialist assumption that death is the end.


View: https://youtu.be/ZIEGOmwJJxk?feature=shared

lol

Five minutes earlier...

"You can only communicate through YouTube videos."

 

[Tiger]

lol

Five minutes earlier..

"You can only communicate through YouTube videos."

My YouTube video was an addendum to my own thoughts which I’ve stated clearly. You, on the other hand…

You’ve spent the entire day trying to avoid talking about this topic. Your familiar ’schtick’ is to troll and distract, try to derail threads by focusing on something inane.

 

[AN2]

My YouTube video was an addendum to my own thoughts which I’ve stated clearly. You, on the other hand…

You’ve spent the entire day trying to avoid talking about this topic.

You made two obvious attempts to steer the conversation away to your NDE stuff asking me to "account" for it

 

[Tiger]

You made two obvious attempts to steer the conversation away to your NDE stuff asking me to "account" for it

Do you agree with Gervais and Dawkin’s that everything ends and there is nothing after we die?

 

[AN2]

Of course you don’t understand it. You’ve had no formation in any faith tradition whatsoever. Your entire outlook has been marinated in a flat, godless materialism, leaving you tone-deaf to anything beyond the senses. You can only communicate through YouTube videos.

Expecting you to grasp the spiritual is like expecting a man born blind to critique the colours of a sunset.

Okay, let's go line by line (see if you're capable of anything more than pontification)..

The difference is how moral actions are ordered.

What does that mean?

Unbelievers may act in accordance with natural law, but without faith and sanctifying grace.

What does that mean?

They lack the supernatural virtues that order those actions toward eternal beatitude.

What does that mean?

You won’t like or even understand that answer, but there you go.

 

[Tiger]

Okay, let's go line by line (see if you're capable of anything more than pontification)..


What does that mean?


What does that mean?


What does that mean?

Haha see…always the same tired old schtick when you want to avoid a tricky subject.

Tiger 1 - 0 Jambo

 

[AN2]

Do you agree with Gervais and Dawkin’s that everything ends and there is nothing after we die?

Have they ever said that in the definitive?

Most atheists are 'agnostic'

 

[AN2]

Haha see…always the same tired old schtick when you want to avoid a tricky subject.

Tiger 1 - 0 Jambo

You are f*cking hilarious

I gave you a chance - you didn't take it - and you declare victory

 

[Tiger]

Have they ever said that in the definitive?

Most atheists are 'agnostic'

Yes, of course they have, you know fine well that they have...

Gervais quotes -

"For 13 and a half billion years we don’t exist, then we have about 80 years, then we die, never to exist again. That’s it."

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It’s only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid"

"What will it feel like after you die? Exactly the same as it felt for those billions of years before you were born."


Dawkin's quotes -

"There is no evidence that anything of the personality survives death … there is no immortal soul or survival after death"

and in a remarkably similar quote to Gervais (it's amazing how many of public atheists parrot each other)

"That’s the best thing about being dead. You don’t know about it. It’s like being stupid: it’s only painful for others."

 

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sxNFzr0mMvs&t=7m19s

So, (if you listen for a few minutes) here we have a Christian not exactly saying that atheists can't be moral, but if they are, they've copied or stolen it from Christianity..

Once again, Christianity being the ultimate source of morality. If there's anything wrong with Hitchens, it's that he made a career out of an easy target

 

[AN2]

Yes, of course they have, you know fine well that they have...

Gervais quotes -

"For 13 and a half billion years we don’t exist, then we have about 80 years, then we die, never to exist again. That’s it."

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It’s only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid"

"What will it feel like after you die? Exactly the same as it felt for those billions of years before you were born."


Dawkin's quotes -

"There is no evidence that anything of the personality survives death … there is no immortal soul or survival after death"

and in a remarkably similar quote to Gervais (it's amazing how many of public atheists parrot each other)

"That’s the best thing about being dead. You don’t know about it. It’s like being stupid: it’s only painful for others."

R u certain that God exists?

 

[Tiger]

So, (if you listen for a few minutes) here we have a Christian not exactly saying that atheists can't be moral, but if they are, they've copied or stolen it from Christianity..

Once again, Christianity being the ultimate source of morality. If there's anything wrong with Hitchens, it's that he made a career out of an easy target

Literally nobody cares about this you boring fool.

 

[AN2]

Literally nobody cares about this you boring fool.

I told you earlier on, it's literally the biggest insult theists have

Of course, you don't even think it's possible to insult a heathen

 

[Tiger]

I told you earlier on, it's literally the biggest insult theists have

Of course, you don't even think it's possible to insult a heathen

Give over you bloody bore.

This is you when faced with a difficult question…

 

[AN2]

R u certain that God exists?

Just say it, you coward

 

[Tiger]

Just say it, you coward

You do realise that’s you doing exactly what I’ve just said above.

When faced with a question or questions you can’t answer, you simply throw out questions to distract instead.

You also copy things I say or how I post - see above

 

[AN2]

Give over you bloody bore.

This is you when faced with a difficult question…

What difficult questions? You've spent the entire day trying to steer the conversation away to your NDE shite

 

[AN2]

You do realise that’s you doing exactly what I’ve just said above.

When faced with a question or questions you can’t answer, you simply throw out questions to distract instead.

Most atheists are agnostic, I told you that. R u agnostic? Why won't you answer

 

[Tiger]

What difficult questions? You've spent the entire day trying to steer the conversation away to your NDE shite

Do you agree with Gervais and Dawkin’s that everything ends and there is nothing after we die?

 

[AN2]

Do you agree with Gervais and Dawkin’s that everything ends and there is nothing after we die?

I have no reason to believe that they're certain of that (and neither am I)

I'm asking you if you're certain that God exists?

 

[Tiger]

I have no reason to believe that they're certain of that (and neither am I)

I'm asking you if you're certain that God exists?

They’ve made definitive statements that are not remotely vague as to what they think.

You either agree with them or you don’t.

 

[Tiger]

Conversations with James…

 

[AN2]

They’ve made definitive statements that are not remotely vague as to what they think.

You either agree with them or you don’t.

I don't agree with you that they've made definitive statements and I've told you my position

Now, r u going to answer..

R u certain that God exists??

 

[Tiger]

I don't agree with you that they've made definitive statements and I've told you my position

Now, r u going to answer..

R u certain that God exists??

You’re a complete waster James. I feel sorry for you.

 

[AN2]

R u certain that God exists??

There you have it folks, he won't answer

Ours is to reason why

 

[Tiger]

There you have it folks, he won't answer

Ours is to reason why

For crying out loud James, the pattern is always the same: you ask questions not in the pursuit of truth, but as a way of dodging it.

Your questions multiply endlessly because you have no answers of your own; they are simply placeholders to disguise the void. In all of our discussions, the substance comes from me, while you retreat into the safety of another question. And I have no doubt you will respond to this with yet another question, because that is your tediously predictable routine.

Am I certain that God exists? Absolutely; though not in the shallow, mechanistic sense an atheist like you demands, as if the Divine could be trapped under a microscope. My certainty comes from the convergence of multiple lines of evidence, rational and experiential, which together form a reality too cohesive to ignore.

First, reason itself inclines toward God. The human intellect is not satisfied with randomness; we are ordered toward truth, beauty, and final causes. To insist that this innate longing for transcendence is an evolutionary accident is like claiming hunger proves there is no such thing as food.

Second, the universe is not a chaos but a cosmos: governed by laws so finely tuned that physicists themselves admit its order is mathematically improbable to the point of absurdity without a Designer.

Then there is my life experience. I watched my pregnant wife fall down a staircase, only to be caught; literally placed on the ground as if by unseen hands. She herself testified it was her guardian angel. They way she was caught mid-fall and placed on the ground is physically impossible. At nineteen, I was pulled 10 yards out of the path of a joyrider’s car (which was inches from me) in an instant by someone, but there was nobody around. At my grandmother’s deathbed, she spoke of seeing heaven while an unearthly fragrance filled the nursing home, drawing nurses from around the nursing home into the room by its sweetness. I witnessed similar phenomena at my own mother’s passing. Add to this the testimony of those I know personally who were clinically dead, yet returned describing experiences astonishingly consistent with thousands of other near-death accounts across cultures and centuries: overwhelming peace, light, and presence. There are too many life experiences to mention.

So yes; I am certain, because reason, order, providential interventions, and the witness of the dying all point in the same direction. To deny God in the face of such cumulative evidence is not intellectual rigor, but intellectual cowardice. And this leads to the real question: if atheists are so confident that consciousness is extinguished at death, how do they account for the uncanny consistency of near-death experiences, testified by millions, and even verified under clinical conditions?

I recall that you used to regularly tell Fishalt that he was a coward for pulling the ‘agnostic’ card. And yet here you are doing the same now. Wishy-washy nonsense.

 

[Tiger]

Below is an interesting video about Dr. Sean George, a physician who was clinically dead for 1 hour and 25 minutes following a massive cardiac arrest.

Despite exhaustive resuscitation attempts, he was declared beyond saving; until, inexplicably, his heart restarted. Not only did he survive, but he made a full recovery with no brain damage, something that defies every medical expectation. Yet what makes his account most striking is that, during the time he was dead, he did not enter some blank void of nonexistence. Instead, he reports a vivid awareness; experiences that resonate strongly with countless other near-death testimonies.

As a doctor himself, he is the first to admit that his case stands outside the limits of scientific explanation, challenging the reductionist view that death is mere oblivion.


View: https://youtu.be/JWPifrbiUk4?feature=shared

 

[AN2]

For crying out loud James, the pattern is always the same: you ask questions not in the pursuit of truth, but as a way of dodging it.

Your questions multiply endlessly because you have no answers of your own; they are simply placeholders to disguise the void. In all of our discussions, the substance comes from me, while you retreat into the safety of another question. And I have no doubt you will respond to this with yet another question, because that is your tediously predictable routine.

My questions tend to be easily answerable (yes/no) or asking someone to expand on what they mean, why they've said something

You're like: NDEs! Account for that?!

It seems obvious how you account for them but there isn't anything that would compel me to account for them in the same way, or to account for them at all

Am I certain that God exists? Absolutely; though not in the shallow, mechanistic sense an atheist like you demands,

AKA proof

Right, so we've established (finally) that you're certain that God exists. Now you need to understand the difference between you, me and Richard Dawkins..

as if the Divine could be trapped under a microscope. My certainty comes from the convergence of multiple lines of evidence, rational and experiential, which together form a reality too cohesive to ignore.

First, reason itself inclines toward God. The human intellect is not satisfied with randomness; we are ordered toward truth, beauty, and final causes. To insist that this innate longing for transcendence is an evolutionary accident is like claiming hunger proves there is no such thing as food.

Second, the universe is not a chaos but a cosmos: governed by laws so finely tuned that physicists themselves admit its order is mathematically improbable to the point of absurdity without a Designer.

Then there is my life experience. I watched my pregnant wife fall down a staircase, only to be caught; literally placed on the ground as if by unseen hands. She herself testified it was her guardian angel. They way she was caught mid-fall and placed on the ground is physically impossible. At nineteen, I was pulled 10 yards out of the path of a joyrider’s car (which was inches from me) in an instant by someone, but there was nobody around. At my grandmother’s deathbed, she spoke of seeing heaven while an unearthly fragrance filled the nursing home, drawing nurses from around the nursing home into the room by its sweetness. I witnessed similar phenomena at my own mother’s passing. Add to this the testimony of those I know personally who were clinically dead, yet returned describing experiences astonishingly consistent with thousands of other near-death accounts across cultures and centuries: overwhelming peace, light, and presence. There are too many life experiences to mention.

So yes; I am certain, because reason, order, providential interventions, and the witness of the dying all point in the same direction. To deny God in the face of such cumulative evidence is not intellectual rigor, but intellectual cowardice. And this leads to the real question: if atheists are so confident that consciousness is extinguished at death, how do they account for the uncanny consistency of near-death experiences, testified by millions, and even verified under clinical conditions?

I recall that you used to regularly tell Fishalt that he was a coward for pulling the ‘agnostic’ card. And yet here you are doing the same now. Wishy-washy nonsense.

lol Whoosh

I criticised Fishalt for not calling himself an atheist. And yes, I do think that's cowardly, I even came up with a little joke for it..

Q. How does an atheist calm a theist the f*ck down?

A. Tell them that they're agnostic

When it comes to belief in God or lack thereof, there aren't three separate categories, there are only two. I'm glad to say that Fishalt saw the light and was, indeed, calling himself an atheist in his latter time here. Whether I had anything to do with that it's hard to know

 

[Tiger]

My questions tend to be easily answerable (yes/no) or asking someone to expand on what they mean, why they've said something

You're like: NDEs! Account for that?!

It seems obvious how you account for them but there isn't anything that would compel me to account for them in the same way, or to account for them at all


AKA proof

Right, so we've established (finally) that you're certain that God exists. Now you need to understand the difference between you, me and Richard Dawkins..



lol Whoosh

I criticised Fishalt for not calling himself an atheist. And yes, I do think that's cowardly, I even came up with a little joke for it..

Q. How does an atheist calm a theist the f*ck down?

A. Tell them that they're agnostic

When it comes to belief in God or lack thereof, there aren't three separate categories, there are only two. I'm glad to say that Fishalt saw the light and was, indeed, calling himself an atheist in his latter time here. Whether I had anything to do with that it's hard to know

Dreary me....notice what you’ve just done there Jimmy: you’ve conceded that NDE’s seem obvious to account for, yet you’ve offered no actual account. That’s the tell. Classic Jimmy Dawson. Absolutely pathetic.

You wave them away as if their sheer consistency across cultures and medical contexts were a triviality, when in fact they are among the most significant data points challenging a purely materialist worldview. To say you feel no compulsion to address them is not an answer; it is an evasion.

And here is precisely where the difference lies between you, me, and Dawkins. I am certain that God exists because reason, lived experience, and phenomena like NDEs converge on that conclusion. Dawkins is certain He does not, because his prior commitment to materialism demands it. You, meanwhile, occupy a sort of intellectual halfway house; skeptical enough to dismiss evidence when it cuts against you, but unwilling to take the full Dawkins step of declaring it meaningless.

So the question stands: if consciousness is only brain activity, how do you explain verifiable perception during documented periods of clinical death? Until you give a substantive answer, you haven’t engaged the argument.

 

[AN2]

Dreary me....notice what you’ve just done there Jimmy: you’ve conceded that NDE’s seem obvious to account for, yet you’ve offered no actual account. That’s the tell. Classic Jimmy Dawson. Absolutely pathetic.

lol

I said that it seems obvious how YOU account for them

Jaze, can you not read

You wave them away as if their sheer consistency across cultures and medical contexts were a triviality,

I'm honestly not sure what the relevance of that is, is it to say that NDEs are "real"?

when in fact they are among the most significant data points challenging a purely materialist worldview.

Materialist is a religious buzzword

To say you feel no compulsion to address them is not an answer; it is an evasion.

"It's not X, it's Y"

What am I "evading"?

And here is precisely where the difference lies between you, me, and Dawkins. I am certain that God exists because reason, lived experience, and phenomena like NDEs converge on that conclusion. Dawkins is certain He does not,

I and Dawkins are not certain that God doesn't exist, because we're both agnostic atheists, you dumbass, that's the difference

because his prior commitment to materialism demands it.

Materialism is a religious buzzword

You, meanwhile, occupy a sort of intellectual halfway house; skeptical enough to dismiss evidence when it cuts against you, but unwilling to take the full Dawkins step of declaring it meaningless.

lol Why are you always wrong?

So the question stands: if consciousness is only brain activity,

Is it? Did I ever say that it is?

how do you explain verifiable perception during documented periods of clinical death?

Verified how? By whom?

Until you give a substantive answer, you haven’t engaged the argument.

What would you know about an argument