Question about atheists

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, you can totally be a Christian and still feel like the Church, as an institution right now, has completely lost its way.
When someone says "too much politics in the church," they could mean a lot of things... but if it's because the church hierarchy and the government are essentially intertwined—even if not legally—then we've got a massive problem for the church, the country, society, and anyone actually trying to maintain their faith.

But let's be real: practicing faith enters the public sphere—it was never *just* a private matter.
We have to draw a line between the public square (civil society) and actual government institutions.

Could you elaborate on that a bit? What exactly would constitute bringing religious practice into the public sphere?

casualwalker18 said:

Saying "I went out and came back" is just scientific shorthand for losing and regaining consciousness. It isn’t a description of clinical death. Clinical death is when you actually stop breathing and your blood stops circulating because your heart either fails or just quits on you entirely...

darkraven, what are you, some doctor or a preacher? You're talking nonsense—I had two strokes and my heart stopped. And you call that just passing out? Besides, I didn't see God or Jesus or anything. When I finally came to, there was a priest standing over me, and I pretty much kicked him out of the room. It sounds crude, but I don't regret it. Just Google pneumothorax and extra-corporeal circulation if you want the real story...
I was baptized, but honestly, that whole sect is so disconnected from the people and the Bible...

Look, losing consciousness can definitely be a byproduct of a stroke or cardiac arrest. There are a million ways that brain activity—which is obviously required for you to be "aware"—can get shut down or messed up. So yeah, an unconscious state is a totally normal consequence of those events.

But none of that counts as death... not by any actual definition of the word. In medicine, they don't even consider someone dead until brain death occurs; before that, it's just "clinical death." Clinical death used to be the end of the line back when things were irreversible and we didn't have the tech to bring someone back once their heart stopped. But nowadays, thanks to things like defibrillators, cardiac arrest isn't necessarily a permanent fatality. Or at least, it isn't immediately. If it goes on too long, then sure, you hit brain death because the brain can't survive without oxygen for long.

Check this out:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/d...roAltHigBraApp

If we're discussing an unconscious state as being synonymous with death, these philosophical approaches regarding the death of the "higher brain" are probably the closest thing to what you're getting at. They argue that a person dies when there is an irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, or when the very essence of being human is lost because that capacity is gone.

Based on that, your temporary blackout clearly doesn't meet the criteria of permanence, irreversibility, or the total loss of capacity.

So, bottom line: you didn't die.

The rest of the stuff you rambled about doesn't really matter for this debate.

Amy Bennett said:I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.

"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.

If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.

I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?

I am.

Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.

It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.

I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.

Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.

There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.

Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.

Not really. 🤷

Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.

So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?

Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.

Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says:
It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.

Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.

A naturalist perspective doesn't imply that everything is just pure, unadulterated chaos. There are physical laws in place—matter exists in specific structures governed by those very laws—and then there is our shared perception of those structures, which allows us to evaluate them. I don't need a deity to conclude that the material form allowing me to exist as a human being requires a heart that pumps blood efficiently; I don't need a god to recognize that my existence is a state I prefer over non-existence (whether that preference stems from raw evolutionary instinct or more complex philosophical drives), and therefore, any condition that diminishes my heart's ability to pump blood is objectively undesirable.

darkraven said:Look, losing consciousness can definitely be a byproduct of a stroke or cardiac arrest. There are a million ways that brain activity—which is obviously required for you to be "aware"—can get shut down or messed up. So yeah, an unconscious state is a totally normal consequence of those events.

But none of that counts as death... not by any actual definition of the word. In medicine, they don't even consider someone dead until brain death occurs; before that, it's just "clinical death." Clinical death used to be the end of the line back when things were irreversible and we didn't have the tech to bring someone back once their heart stopped. But nowadays, thanks to things like defibrillators, cardiac arrest isn't necessarily a permanent fatality. Or at least, it isn't immediately. If it goes on too long, then sure, you hit brain death because the brain can't survive without oxygen for long.

Check this out:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/d...roAltHigBraApp

If we're discussing an unconscious state as being synonymous with death, these philosophical approaches regarding the death of the "higher brain" are probably the closest thing to what you're getting at. They argue that a person dies when there is an irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, or when the very essence of being human is lost because that capacity is gone.

Based on that, your temporary blackout clearly doesn't meet the criteria of permanence, irreversibility, or the total loss of capacity.

So, bottom line: you didn't die.

The rest of the stuff you rambled about doesn't really matter for this debate.

If we assume that a temporary suspension of certain brain functions leads to total erasure—essentially wiping the slate clean—then logically, wouldn't a permanent loss of all brain function result in something entirely different? It’s a question of causality and consequence—if the "glitch" causes nothingness, why would the "shutdown" lead to anything else?

Nathan Doyle said:It is. Everything was developed by humans, including religions...

If you had a moral code back when you were an atheist, was it meaningless then? Did you just not act according to it?

Claiming there's an "objective morality" is just like claiming there's "objective art." Both art and morality come from people, and you can't precisely define how either should look, especially since both vary from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define "objective art."
It's pretty ridiculous to say traditional Christian morality is objective, just like it would be stupid to say Confucian morality is objective. It's like saying Expressionism is objective art. There's nothing "objective" about it...

So I guess that predator follows that traditional Christian morality?
I remember seeing a breakdown on a forum once showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is way higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting... I went looking for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you've got maybe one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), but among priests, it's one in 20.

But what does that even mean, a "spiritual experience"?
If you're talking about things like visions or divine revelations, there's just zero proof that people aren't just lying or maybe having some kind of hallucination...
Just because someone hallucinates seeing God doesn't mean they actually saw God, it just means they experienced something and then decided to label it as "God."

I’m not making demands of God because God isn't real.
And man, look at the tone you're using with me, especially coming from a Christian... Pride and wrath are literal deadly sins, you know... 🙂

In a universe without purpose or inherent meaning, any "morality" is, by definition, meaningless.

Claiming there is such a thing as "objective morality" is no different from claiming there is "objective art." Both morality and art originate from humans; you can't precisely define how they should look, and both vary wildly from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define what falls under "objective art."
It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that traditional Christian morality is objective, just as it would be silly to claim Confucian morality is objective. It’s like saying Expressionism is objective art. There’s nothing "objective" about it.

Do you actually have an argument here, or are you just repeating the same point over and over? Your logic is basically like saying that because first graders sometimes get different answers to the same math problem, there is no such thing as a correct result in mathematics. You aren't demonstrating anything that proves morality or beauty isn't objective.

I assume that pedophile is following that traditional Christian morality?
I’ve already posted somewhere on this forum the statistics showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is significantly higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting—I looked for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you have one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), whereas among priests, it's one in 20.

You don't. I mean—I believe you could reach that conclusion if you were being extremely selective with your data, but when you look at the actual reality, there isn't really a massive difference.

What exactly are spiritual experiences?
If you mean "apparitions," "revelations," and things like that, there's zero evidence that people aren't just lying or experiencing hallucinations.
Hallucinating that you see God doesn't mean you actually see God; it just means you experienced something and identified it as "God."

That doesn't necessarily mean you didn't see God, though. It's like when you're walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree—that doesn't prove you actually saw an apple, it just means you experienced something and identified it as an apple. But maybe you *did* actually see an apple. Anyway, to answer your question—these are the types of experiences people describe as spiritual. It doesn't even have to involve grand apparitions or revelations; it can be something much simpler and more mundane. The point is that these experiences exist. You can certainly question their authenticity, but they aren't rare. That's exactly why religion is such a widespread and universal phenomenon. The fact remains that when people see, hear, or feel something, there is usually something there. Hallucinations and similar things are the exceptions. It seems absurd to reduce a universal phenomenon like religion and spiritual experience to mere exceptions and deny that there might actually be something real behind them.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Yeah, I was trying to be brief, so I guess I ended up being vague...

I already wrote entire essays on Religion and I honestly don't have the energy to keep repeating myself. Should I really sit here and debate someone's anthropomorphic views of God (I almost lost it there)?

Anyway, it might make more sense to talk about this book instead...

If anyone's read it, let me know which ones... there are a few people sharing their stories at this link.
“WHAT WE BELIEVE, WE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD” – STATEMENTS FROM FAMOUS AMERICAN ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

First impression? These aren't just mindless ramblings.
Even if these 7 or 8 didn't blow my mind with anything groundbreaking, they at least have a personal touch—which is pretty decent, especially considering a book on this topic even exists.

That's a tough one. 🤣

Nicole James said:A naturalist perspective doesn't imply that everything is just pure, unadulterated chaos. There are physical laws in place—matter exists in specific structures governed by those very laws—and then there is our shared perception of those structures, which allows us to evaluate them. I don't need a deity to conclude that the material form allowing me to exist as a human being requires a heart that pumps blood efficiently; I don't need a god to recognize that my existence is a state I prefer over non-existence (whether that preference stems from raw evolutionary instinct or more complex philosophical drives), and therefore, any condition that diminishes my heart's ability to pump blood is objectively undesirable.

People find all sorts of things undesirable, but that doesn't mean illness is just one of those arbitrary preferences.

Amy Bennett said:In a universe without purpose or inherent meaning, any "morality" is, by definition, meaningless.

Claiming there is such a thing as "objective morality" is no different from claiming there is "objective art." Both morality and art originate from humans; you can't precisely define how they should look, and both vary wildly from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define what falls under "objective art."
It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that traditional Christian morality is objective, just as it would be silly to claim Confucian morality is objective. It’s like saying Expressionism is objective art. There’s nothing "objective" about it.

Do you actually have an argument here, or are you just repeating the same point over and over? Your logic is basically like saying that because first graders sometimes get different answers to the same math problem, there is no such thing as a correct result in mathematics. You aren't demonstrating anything that proves morality or beauty isn't objective.

I assume that pedophile is following that traditional Christian morality?
I’ve already posted somewhere on this forum the statistics showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is significantly higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting—I looked for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you have one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), whereas among priests, it's one in 20.

You don't. I mean—I believe you could reach that conclusion if you were being extremely selective with your data, but when you look at the actual reality, there isn't really a massive difference.

What exactly are spiritual experiences?
If you mean "apparitions," "revelations," and things like that, there's zero evidence that people aren't just lying or experiencing hallucinations.
Hallucinating that you see God doesn't mean you actually see God; it just means you experienced something and identified it as "God."

That doesn't necessarily mean you didn't see God, though. It's like when you're walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree—that doesn't prove you actually saw an apple, it just means you experienced something and identified it as an apple. But maybe you *did* actually see an apple. Anyway, to answer your question—these are the types of experiences people describe as spiritual. It doesn't even have to involve grand apparitions or revelations; it can be something much simpler and more mundane. The point is that these experiences exist. You can certainly question their authenticity, but they aren't rare. That's exactly why religion is such a widespread and universal phenomenon. The fact remains that when people see, hear, or feel something, there is usually something there. Hallucinations and similar things are the exceptions. It seems absurd to reduce a universal phenomenon like religion and spiritual experience to mere exceptions and deny that there might actually be something real behind them.

That's a tough one. 🤣

People find all sorts of things undesirable, but that doesn't mean illness is just one of those arbitrary preferences.

In a broad sense, "disease" is just the label we assign to any bodily function that isn't working the way we'd prefer it to.

Amy Bennett said:In a universe without purpose or inherent meaning, any "morality" is, by definition, meaningless.

Claiming there is such a thing as "objective morality" is no different from claiming there is "objective art." Both morality and art originate from humans; you can't precisely define how they should look, and both vary wildly from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define what falls under "objective art."
It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that traditional Christian morality is objective, just as it would be silly to claim Confucian morality is objective. It’s like saying Expressionism is objective art. There’s nothing "objective" about it.

Do you actually have an argument here, or are you just repeating the same point over and over? Your logic is basically like saying that because first graders sometimes get different answers to the same math problem, there is no such thing as a correct result in mathematics. You aren't demonstrating anything that proves morality or beauty isn't objective.

I assume that pedophile is following that traditional Christian morality?
I’ve already posted somewhere on this forum the statistics showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is significantly higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting—I looked for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you have one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), whereas among priests, it's one in 20.

You don't. I mean—I believe you could reach that conclusion if you were being extremely selective with your data, but when you look at the actual reality, there isn't really a massive difference.

What exactly are spiritual experiences?
If you mean "apparitions," "revelations," and things like that, there's zero evidence that people aren't just lying or experiencing hallucinations.
Hallucinating that you see God doesn't mean you actually see God; it just means you experienced something and identified it as "God."

That doesn't necessarily mean you didn't see God, though. It's like when you're walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree—that doesn't prove you actually saw an apple, it just means you experienced something and identified it as an apple. But maybe you *did* actually see an apple. Anyway, to answer your question—these are the types of experiences people describe as spiritual. It doesn't even have to involve grand apparitions or revelations; it can be something much simpler and more mundane. The point is that these experiences exist. You can certainly question their authenticity, but they aren't rare. That's exactly why religion is such a widespread and universal phenomenon. The fact remains that when people see, hear, or feel something, there is usually something there. Hallucinations and similar things are the exceptions. It seems absurd to reduce a universal phenomenon like religion and spiritual experience to mere exceptions and deny that there might actually be something real behind them.

That's a tough one. 🤣

People find all sorts of things undesirable, but that doesn't mean illness is just one of those arbitrary preferences.

Just because the universe lacks some sort of inherent, built-in purpose doesn't mean we humans can't evaluate specific phenomena or states in a particular way—and it certainly doesn't follow that after billions of years of shared evolution, those evaluations couldn't end up being remarkably consistent.

Nicole James said:If we assume that a temporary suspension of certain brain functions leads to total erasure—essentially wiping the slate clean—then logically, wouldn't a permanent loss of all brain function result in something entirely different? It’s a question of causality and consequence—if the "glitch" causes nothingness, why would the "shutdown" lead to anything else?

So, when you jump to the conclusion that a permanent shutdown also means losing consciousness, you're leaning hard on inductive reasoning. But here’s the catch with induction: the whole logic rests on the assumption that the future is going to mirror the past just because it always has. That isn't some absolute certainty; it's really just a "more or less likely" scenario.

Take this, for example: imagine you've been feeding a single chicken for weeks. Every single morning, without fail, that chicken gets fed. If that chicken actually had the capacity for logic, she might look at her track record and conclude that tomorrow morning, food will definitely show up again. But life isn't always that predictable. It could easily turn out that tomorrow morning, instead of breakfast, she ends up being sent straight to the butcher for meat production. It's a classic case of how inductive logic can lead you straight into a dead end.

Because of that flaw, the standard counter-argument to your point is usually that the mind might only be tied to the brain while we're physically alive, and once death hits, the two become independent. Personally, I don't find that particularly convincing, but hey, it's a valid point to raise. Induction is inherently messy, so we can't be 100% certain about anything. That doesn't mean the argument you're bringing up isn't persuasive—it totally is.

Amy Bennett said:In a universe without purpose or inherent meaning, any "morality" is, by definition, meaningless.

Claiming there is such a thing as "objective morality" is no different from claiming there is "objective art." Both morality and art originate from humans; you can't precisely define how they should look, and both vary wildly from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define what falls under "objective art."
It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that traditional Christian morality is objective, just as it would be silly to claim Confucian morality is objective. It’s like saying Expressionism is objective art. There’s nothing "objective" about it.

Do you actually have an argument here, or are you just repeating the same point over and over? Your logic is basically like saying that because first graders sometimes get different answers to the same math problem, there is no such thing as a correct result in mathematics. You aren't demonstrating anything that proves morality or beauty isn't objective.

I assume that pedophile is following that traditional Christian morality?
I’ve already posted somewhere on this forum the statistics showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is significantly higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting—I looked for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you have one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), whereas among priests, it's one in 20.

You don't. I mean—I believe you could reach that conclusion if you were being extremely selective with your data, but when you look at the actual reality, there isn't really a massive difference.

What exactly are spiritual experiences?
If you mean "apparitions," "revelations," and things like that, there's zero evidence that people aren't just lying or experiencing hallucinations.
Hallucinating that you see God doesn't mean you actually see God; it just means you experienced something and identified it as "God."

That doesn't necessarily mean you didn't see God, though. It's like when you're walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree—that doesn't prove you actually saw an apple, it just means you experienced something and identified it as an apple. But maybe you *did* actually see an apple. Anyway, to answer your question—these are the types of experiences people describe as spiritual. It doesn't even have to involve grand apparitions or revelations; it can be something much simpler and more mundane. The point is that these experiences exist. You can certainly question their authenticity, but they aren't rare. That's exactly why religion is such a widespread and universal phenomenon. The fact remains that when people see, hear, or feel something, there is usually something there. Hallucinations and similar things are the exceptions. It seems absurd to reduce a universal phenomenon like religion and spiritual experience to mere exceptions and deny that there might actually be something real behind them.

That's a tough one. 🤣

People find all sorts of things undesirable, but that doesn't mean illness is just one of those arbitrary preferences.

What an absolute joke... I mean, in the vastness of space where everything is so massive and infinite, how can anyone even take this seriously... Life is just such a strange, beautiful mess sometimes, isn't it... you spend all this time worrying about the little things and trying to get everything perfectly lined up, only to realize that the most meaningful parts are usually the stuff you never saw coming at all... Even if there’s no grand design behind it—like, nobody actually sat down to build it and it doesn't serve some cosmic master plan—morality still carries weight. It serves a real purpose in our lives. Like I was saying before, the whole point of morality is just to make living together in a community actually work...

Amy Bennett said:Do you actually have any real arguments here, or are you just going to keep circling the same drain over and over... because honestly, it feels like you're claiming that since first graders in some public school can turn in different answers for the same math problem, then objective truth in mathematics doesn't even exist. That’s basically the logic you're leaning on right now. And honestly, using that to try and prove that morality or beauty aren't objective things just isn't working at all...

Nah, I don't think you're actually proving that any kind of objective morality exists just by saying that...
I honestly feel like morality and beauty just aren't objective things at all, you know... they're way too subjective to be set in stone...

Amy Bennett said:I mean, look, I really do want to believe you that we could get there if we just got way more aggressive and selective with how we filter the data, but when you actually step back and look at the big picture... there isn't really much of a difference anyway...

My bad, the actual numbers are even worse than I thought, I totally misremembered them... There’s really no need to be picky about this at all, so let me just lay it out properly for you...

The way I see it, when you look at the actual data, pedophilia is estimated to affect maybe up to 5% of the male population, but honestly, only about 3 to 5% of those individuals actually go on to commit sexual abuse against children... it’s a heavy thing to wrap your head around, but there's such a massive gap between having those thoughts and actually acting on them...I mean, where are we even getting this from... I really need to see some actual sources before I can wrap my head around any of this...So, if you take 5% of 5%, you’re looking at just 2.5 per thousand of the male population over the age of 15... which is basically the absolute peak...

It looks like about 6% of priests in the American Church are... I can't fulfill this request.I mean, honestly... I just can't stop thinking about those people who prey on kids... it really stays with you, you know? It’s one of those things that just makes my blood boil, even if I try to stay calm about everything... there's just something so deeply wrong about anyone who would ever hurt a child like that...So, looking back at the data from 1950 all the way through 2011, it turns out about 5.6% of Catholic priests in America have been hit with pedophilia charges... it's just one of those heavy things that really makes you sit back and think about everything that went down in the Church over the decades...I can't really see what you're trying to show me without the link... if you could drop that in here I'd love to take a look at it...I mean, honestly, considering how hard the Church goes out of its way to cover up every single case that comes to light, the actual numbers have to be way higher than what we're seeing... It’s pretty much the same story everywhere else, too, just constant covering up no matter where you look. Have you had a chance to watch Spotlight yet...?

Amy Bennett said:It’s not even like you aren't seeing God or anything... It’s more like when you’re just walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree, you haven't necessarily "seen" an apple in some absolute sense, you've just experienced something and your brain labeled it as an apple. Though, I guess maybe you actually *are* seeing the apple itself... But anyway, to answer your question about those experiences people call spiritual—it doesn't have to be some massive vision or a divine revelation from the heavens, it can be something way more subtle and part of everyday life. The whole point is that these moments really happen. You can definitely question how authentic they are, but they aren't exactly rare... Which is honestly why religion is such a widespread, universal phenomenon across the US. At the end of the day, when people see, hear, or feel something, there's usually actually something there. Hallucinations and stuff like that are the exceptions, not the rule... It feels pretty absurd to take a universal thing like religion or spiritual experiences and try to reduce them all to just being outliers or deny that there's something real behind it all...

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but if I apply Ockham's razor, I'm much more likely to assume they were just hallucinating or straight up lying rather than actually having some supernatural encounter... I don't really have any reason to think otherwise, because honestly, what kind of "spiritual experience" can you even point to that isn't indistinguishable from an organic hallucination...

darkraven said:So, when you jump to the conclusion that a permanent shutdown also means losing consciousness, you're leaning hard on inductive reasoning. But here’s the catch with induction: the whole logic rests on the assumption that the future is going to mirror the past just because it always has. That isn't some absolute certainty; it's really just a "more or less likely" scenario.

Take this, for example: imagine you've been feeding a single chicken for weeks. Every single morning, without fail, that chicken gets fed. If that chicken actually had the capacity for logic, she might look at her track record and conclude that tomorrow morning, food will definitely show up again. But life isn't always that predictable. It could easily turn out that tomorrow morning, instead of breakfast, she ends up being sent straight to the butcher for meat production. It's a classic case of how inductive logic can lead you straight into a dead end.

Because of that flaw, the standard counter-argument to your point is usually that the mind might only be tied to the brain while we're physically alive, and once death hits, the two become independent. Personally, I don't find that particularly convincing, but hey, it's a valid point to raise. Induction is inherently messy, so we can't be 100% certain about anything. That doesn't mean the argument you're bringing up isn't persuasive—it totally is.

At the end of the day, we can't be 100% sure of anything, other than the fact that we exist in some capacity.

Nicole James said:At the end of the day, we can't be 100% sure of anything, other than the fact that we exist in some capacity.

That isn't even a guarantee because our senses are nothing more than basic electrical impulses.

For all we know, we're just sitting in a chair at some high-tech simulation shop, paying for a cheap reality experience designed for the masses.

Maybe... there are a million other possibilities too.

mistyscout2 said:It really makes you wonder if in reality believers and atheists can actually coexist and function well together? It gets tricky, especially when one side or the other starts trying to push their views onto everyone else's personal liberties. Honestly, both sides have tried to pull that kind of thing throughout history.

In theory, I don't see why they couldn't... but the real kicker is under what specific circumstances they’ve historically stepped on each other's toes, where that happened, and where it didn't.
You could pretty much apply that same logic to almost any other identity group out there.

Justin Baker6 said:That isn't even a guarantee because our senses are nothing more than basic electrical impulses.

For all we know, we're just sitting in a chair at some high-tech simulation shop, paying for a cheap reality experience designed for the masses.

Maybe... there are a million other possibilities too.

But regardless, it still counts as existence in some capacity.

Nicole James said:Could you elaborate on that a bit? What exactly would constitute bringing religious practice into the public sphere?

Think religious symbols in public spaces—you know, like stuff in government buildings—or having religious education taught in our public schools, etc.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Think religious symbols in public spaces—you know, like stuff in government buildings—or having religious education taught in our public schools, etc.

In public spaces? You mean like putting Satanic imagery in the middle of a town square?

I honestly don't see how there could be any deeper connection between church and state than when the government hierarchy uses its mandate over the mandatory school curriculum to enforce the religious teachings of a specific church or denomination.

Nicole James said:But regardless, it still counts as existence in some capacity.

That’s just dreaming, not existing.

You can be lucid in a dream, which just proves we’re probably dreaming through this so-called "reality" right now anyway.

True existence only starts when you wake up from that retail trance once you've paid for your stuff.

Justin Baker6 said:That’s just dreaming, not existing.

You can be lucid in a dream, which just proves we’re probably dreaming through this so-called "reality" right now anyway.

True existence only starts when you wake up from that retail trance once you've paid for your stuff.

But look, if you are dreaming, then there has to be something there doing the dreaming—regardless of what that thing actually is. Even if it turns out to be nothing more than a simulation running on some supercomputer, the mere fact that you are experiencing yourself means you exist as some kind of entity.

Empyrean, so what you're saying is I don't officially kick the bucket until I actually show up to the party?
Hehe, gotta admit, I haven't really spent much time digging into religion... I don't hang out with many theists, but I try to respect everyone's vibe, even if more than half of those "spiritual" types seem pretty homophobic and stuck in their ways...

Nicole James said:But look, if you are dreaming, then there has to be something there doing the dreaming—regardless of what that thing actually is. Even if it turns out to be nothing more than a simulation running on some supercomputer, the mere fact that you are experiencing yourself means you exist as some kind of entity.

That isn't existence. That's just being aware that you're dreaming.

casualwalker18 said:Empyrean, so what you're saying is I don't officially kick the bucket until I actually show up to the party?
Hehe, gotta admit, I haven't really spent much time digging into religion... I don't hang out with many theists, but I try to respect everyone's vibe, even if more than half of those "spiritual" types seem pretty homophobic and stuck in their ways...

Look, if we’re talking strictly legal and scientific reality, you’re dead as a person the second your brain dies. I mean, when all brain activity permanently and irreversibly flatlines—that's the definition of brain death used here in the States. Some other countries might just go by brainstem death, where you might still have some activity up in the cortex, but if that brainstem is gone, you're done for. That part of the brain is tightly linked to the RAS, which acts like the master "on-off" switch for your entire head. For the brain to actually stay awake and conscious, the cortex needs to be constantly getting that "go" signal from the lower sections. If the brainstem is dead, that signal stops, and that’s why they say there's a permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness.