I don't care about what most Christians believe. Bible doesn't say anything abt DNA and fertilization. But i believe that the soul wont be created from that stage
if god wanted you to think, you would have been born in hell! nothing makes any sense so we can lure out demons like you! well they dont make sense to a science worshiper like you! what came first the chicken or the egg? GOD!
@HolyHogShit Are you saying god didn't intend for humans to have the ability to think? xD
But seriously, don't get stressed over questions, just imagine how the rest of the world have to put up with you Christians contradicting yourselves. :P
@spartanW43 JESUS MOTHERFUCKER!!!1 JESUS!!!! ACCEPT NOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOW!!! FUCKING DEMON!!! JESUS WILL DESTROY YOU TO HEEEEELL!!! you all make me so mad i can barely type! you dam well better get jesus in youre life NOW! i DEMAND IT! BECAUSE GOD DOES< AND YOU WILL WILL WILL DO AS HE TOLD YOU NOW NOW NOW!!! DO IT NOW! DO IT NOW! RIGHT FUCKING THIS SECOND NOW!!!
@humanistheart we are all made up of the same stuff! We are made in Gods image & God is all knowing. The reason mankind failed in Eden is because Adam @ Eve who represented all mankind disobeyed God. Eventhough God being all knowing forsaw it he still loved his creation(humans) & made a way to save mankind & destroy Satan. It is being played out because God is just.
@humanistheart There is only good & bad in the world. The bad things are not of God they are of Satan. Any bad thing we do we are obeying Satan. Any good thing we do is of God. We are made in his image but because of the havoc Satan & his minions has long directed mankind into disobeying Our God we have disobeyed God. None of this was his plan but his ritgousness he had to let things play out knowing he would perform a mighty act (crucifiction) the cleanse @ save us from our sins.
@jhartist123 That's a cop out, Saying that a god that decided everything that would happen before it happened cannot be blamed because of a character Christians invented is pathetic.
Also if none of it was his plan, than you're saying he's limited.
@Humanistheart, I didn't say twins was caused by sin! I'm saying all bad things, things not helpful like dieing, sickness, murder & so forth are not the works of God but of sin brought by Satan & us because we took what he offered & rebeled against God. God is just & he himself made a way for us to avoid eternity apart from him by sending Jesus to die in our place.
We all have that auto pilot brain that runs things but we can't think with it. The cognitive brain doesn't start to develop until the 3rd trimester. I don't there's a soul until there is a thinking brain.The energy that makes an individual who they are.
God doesn't control our moves or lives. God set things in motion. We have free will to go from there and sometimes crap happens. Pollution, radiation, genes whatever caused the Chimera that's all on us. So, for me, 2 thinking brains = 2 souls.
That the person is a soul or spirit trapped inside a body is not biblical. And Christianity's always been against it, it was a heresy from Gnostics and Greek philosophy. So the it doesn't become "two souls trapped in one body".
there is apart of us that is eternal and that is the soul. so when we die our soul will continue..so use your brain and answer that one yourself..let me help you..if your are a human who dies your soul will go to heavan or hell. who cares about chimera you think God is stupid or somthing
A chimera is a mixture of 2 different beings! God knows who we are before we are even concieved. If the lost twin was a seperate human then their soul returned to God but if it was already determined that it would be part of the surviveing child then it was never a liveing soul. It was a freak of nature caused by sin.
@jhartist123 Twins are a freak of nature caused by sin? What a horrid response. So humans do things that this 'god' doesn't like, ie sin, and children suffer? What a mature being your imaginary tyrant is.
Chimera is also a badass band. But im a christian n i think the soul sits in the pineal gland which develops in the 7th week of conception. So if the two sperm cells only form one person with one brain then I would say that person still only has one soul.
@pastorjazz It's not a straw man. The argument was made to him that the creation of a soul coincides with the fertilization of an egg. That's the argument his response is directed at. A straw man would be if he altered or made up an argument that was easier to counter than the one he was supposed to be addressing.
That being said, yours is a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation. God just puts the souls in later. However, it raises the question: how can we know when a soul is present?
Oh. , regarding the souls of those people, any all. The Bible states IN HEAVEN THeir angels do behold the face of the FATHER at all times, so perhaps one should be very very careful of human life , however Insignificant to them. Life is precious. The Bible states "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." He said Jesus stood as a lamb slain b4 the foundation of the world," because given freewill, not robotc will, he wanted whosever will to have a chance to be redeemed, CHIMERA & all.
I amy sure GOD has enough souls to go around.Twins have souls. We are 3fold beings....body, soul,spirit.Our soul is our personality, our spirit is above the superego, it is what yearns to GOD. SOME disagree with this , but agree we are 3fold. This question involves trusting GOD to do HIS job, & us, ours... I am charged with giving you answer for the reason of the hope that lies within me, not having an answer for this:. My God takes care of those, & those of aborted babies.
science is still changing always has been always will be,, soul is tied into the physical body which ,,your refering to the spirit which is seperate and idk exactly when they get there but they do so its cool lol
I am a human chimera. I have two souls with distinct personalities and it is not the same thing as someone with multiple personality disorder. One personality is mostly linked to my left brain hemisphere and the other is mostly linked to the right brain hemisphere. I also happen to be intersexed.
I'm not Christian. If anything I'm a spiritual atheist. I know that sounds like a paradox but I'm happy to explain it to anyone who wants to understand my point of view.
Maybe the souls would merge as well as the bodies. Or maybe there are 2 souls, but they function together, and will be saved or damned together. For identical twins, I would say the soul splits in two same as the embryo, and develops into two separate souls. My question, which I regard as more difficult, is what if someone loses part of a body? I heard the Vietnamese believe the souls is identical to the body, and the soul loses parts same as body, so bodies were mutilated in the war.
The answer? I don't know. I don't think we can know for sure, but what you have just said means that probably the soul is not created at conseption. It is probably not created so much as given. Man creates the being, God gives then the soul. At the exact point in time that happens... Who can know? Since most here don't believe in God probably including you, it doesn't matter anyway.
Perhaps a chimera is some kind of soul vampire and identical twins are a product of the devil intentioned to create the best 3way pornography thus further distracting humanity from the road to salvation? This is the only logical answer! You should know better than to speak your devil science at religion sir!
I kid. One problem with christians is that the bible is simply not unadulterated since christ. Without his personal reference nothing in the bible is sanctioned by god.
@rolfinator1 The closest thing we've done to creating human chimeras that I know of is taking cow eggs, removing most of the dna, and cloning humans, which leaves the result with something like .01% cow dna. But none of the embryos were allowed to developed much less implanted. They were only for research.
According to Genesis 2:7 God created Adam and he became a living soul. Not God created Adam and he had a soul. The Hebrew word nepes used in this scripture translates to soul in our language but never means that the soul is distinct from the body. In fact the Bible never mentions a division of soul from body.
@mstachife the soul does exist independant of the body, because it survives into the "Pre-Apocalypse afterlife" (my made-up term for the period between our own death and the final judgement) either in heaven, hell, or purgatory. During this period, we have no bodies, so our souls must exist independantly of our bodies in some way.
@marcusabsent37 Other than the fact that I don't think there is a heaven, hell, or purgatory... What exactly do you mean by the word "soul"? We know that your memories, emotions, and senses are controlled by the brain.
@mstachife on a pure scientific level, they are. But the soul is like an imprint/coexistance of memories, emotions, and senses that exists apart from the body or the brain. Thus the "person" continues to exist even after the body is dead.
The idea of a soul may sound fafetched, but recent studies of NDEs do make the existance of a soul seem plausible scientifically.
@mstachife No, because then the soul would be bound by physical limitations, which it is not.
You're asking some very scientific questions, which is not a bad thing. However, science can't say very much about the soul. Like I said, NDE's support the existence of a soul, but that's about as far as science can really go.
@marcusabsent37 Then the only evidence/reason you have for the existence for a soul are NDEs. There are plenty of scientific theories and explanations for NDEs that don't invoke the supernatural. Even if there weren't, what you're saying comes down to a great big argument from ignorance.
@mstachife Well NDEs are the only scientific evidence of a soul, but they are fairly solid. For one thing, no other explanation for NDEs properly accounts for the accurateness of events/details observed through out-of-body experiences. Studies of people who had OBEs documented the ones who checked to verify what they saw and showed they almost always turned out to be accurate, and that would suggest that the person was really there (soul). Only a fool would call that a coincidence.
@marcusabsent37 Yes, there are valid explanations for what people see in NDEs and OBEs.. Even if there weren't, you're still committing the argument from ignorance. Seriously, "These things happen and we're not really sure why they do, so therefore souls exist"? Regardless, alot of the research done in the field is based on the person's word. There are people who say that they have been abducted by aliens. Many of them provide similar circumstances and details. Therefore alien abductions occur?
@marcusabsent37 Too many to put in a 500 characters. Look it up. You don't think the scientific community has investigated this, and not come up with rational explanations for it?
@marcusabsent37 Yes, they can. We actually talked about them in my psychology course. And no, the "supernatural" was not mentioned. Once again, all you are doing with regards to this is committing a argument from ignorance.
@mstachife You're just telling me that these other "valid" explanations exist. I haven't found these other "valid" explanations, so what is an example?
Keep in mind, that I'm still only talking about a soul. I haven't said anything about using NDEs to verify God yet. We're not quite to that point.
@marcusabsent37 The drug Dimethyltryptamine is known to cause circumstances similar to NDEs and what have you. REM sleep is also thought to be related to it. People taking drugs have experienced OBEs and NDEs; further proof that it is related to chemistry in the brain. Now, even though there hasn't been that much research conducted in the field, am I wrong for accepting that there are "naturalistic" explanations for these instances instead of just assuming that soul exists?
@mstachife You've missed a critical point. There were several studies on NDEs in recent years, and patients who experienced OBEs documented what they saw. Out of those who later checked to verify what they had seen, over 95% of them confirmed that what they had seen really took place. To label the source as drugs or dreams would be to chalk that number as coincidence, and that is a bad bet to make. It seems more likely that the person really did see it, and was thus present there in spirit.
@mstachife type in"lazarus phenomenon scientist interviews" on youtube search; the interviews are in the first link.
As for their reliability, they should be considered reliable if they have seen things that are actually happening. But don't take my word for it; watch for yourself.
@marcusabsent37 All that interview comes down to is a massive argument from ignorance. I know I've been repeating that term alot, but it's true. "We don't know exactly why these people can come back from the brink of death, therefore a supernatural force is interacting with our reality causing them too"? As for OBEs, that can be brought about by lucid dreaming as well. Does that mean that you "die" and your soul departs from your body? Or that there is a "materialistic" explanation for it?
@mstachife Stop dodging the question. Just stop. The question is "Can you honestly say that the accuracy of events seen in OBEs during NDEs by an overwhelming percentage of patients can be summed up as a coincidence?" Because that's what it is if the person is not there in some way.
@marcusabsent37 What am I dodging? I don't think enough research has been conducted on the issue. From what I've seen, it has about the same amount of evidence as alien abductions. I am not going to accept that because we don't really know exactly whats going on, we should assume that souls exist. Many neurologists and other scientists / doctors say that it is a result of brain chemistry. There is also a lot of bias on the side of the people advocating it.
@mstachife They said that 3 studies had been made on the issue, and all three of them had produced the same results. How are these views biased? They are just giving evidence. And scientists who don't mention this at all haven't seemed to account for it. Brain chemistry does not explain these results.
Isn't that just typical? Throwing out evidence because you don't agree with it.
@marcusabsent37 The first link is from "near-death(.)com". Are you serious when you say that that site isn't biased? I've already been there, and found that many of the evidence is sketchy once you start to look at it. Everything I've seen is based on other people's word. And there are several leading scientists who argue that this is all based in the mind; such as Olaf Blanke and Michael Persinger. The work of Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili also points to a "material" reason for this.
@mstachife The problem when you get to scientific evidence is that there is evidence on both sides, and people ultimately end up choosing one side or the other. You say that the evidence I presented seems sketchy; what specifically makes the evidence you are providing NOT sketchy? Just asking, because we can find articles that propose scientific evidence all day long, but ultimately we will probably not convince the other of anything with just evidence.
@marcusabsent37 What do you mean there is "evidence on both sides"? The evidence is what it is. There are different hypothesis which are made based on the evidence. The evidence on the website you gave me was almost completely "testimonial evidence". As I said, there are many neurologists and other experts in the field who disagree with you, and say that it's the result of neurological processes. contd.
@mstachife I mean there is evidence to support both sides.
NDEs rely on testimonial evidence, but in most cases the physical aspects are examined as well, so there is other evidence to back up the refutation of a neurological process.
What many "materialistic" views on this fail to take into account is the documented connection with reality in several cases, such as a patient's knowledge of events that occured while he/she was unconscious.
@marcusabsent37 Evidence that refutes NDEs are caused by neurological processes? How would you go about proving that?
Also, there have been no in-depth sudies with controls in place about a "patients knowledge of events while they are unconscious". Everything I have seen regarding that are testimonials.
@marcusabsent37 The "evidence" I cited were actual research tests that were done and were well documented. I find a lack of that on the other side of things.
@mstachife Dr. Melvin Morse has compiled an extensive summary of studying NDE's, including research tests, with documented sources. It can be found by googling "melvin morse NDE studies" and clicking on the link that says "Near Death Experiences and Death-Relayed Visions in Children." (it should be the 4th link)
@marcusabsent37 His studies proved that NDEs occur. I never doubted that. However, he hasn't done an in-depth study on how NDEs prove that a soul exists. Everything on the site that mentions that is testimonials. There are many references to the children meeting "Jesus" or "God" in their NDE. I found no explanation on his part of why people of other faiths and cultures see their particular deity whenever they have an NDE.
@mstachife Until it is possible to "see" whatever the patient is seeing, its really not possible to go off anything other than testimonials. I'm not saying that one should blindly believe everything that these patients say, but the close similarities between different testimonies helps give credence to their word.
Its this accuracy between events that suggests that what the patients see is real. To me this suggests a soul, and no other explanation seems to have all the pieces.
@marcusabsent37 Or the fact that they see similar things should point to a "material" cause. I've looked a study that gave reasons why they see the things they do, such as the "light at the end of a tunnel". But like I said, there needs to be more tests and studies in this area before I'm going to be convinced of anything. Until there is well documented scientific evidence of "souls" I'm going to stick with a "material" explanation for it.
@marcusabsent37 Well, you're saying that God created me to be skeptical, and that God intentionally makes things so that they aren't "obvious". Regarding the star wars quote; is there something wrong with relying on our six senses, logic / reason, and the scientific method for determining facts about the universe?
@mstachife There is nothing wrong with using scientific method, our senses, and logic to determined certain facts about the universe. I do that.
However, when one places ALL of their faith into these methods, and believes that THEY are infallible and can completely explain the universe, they become blind to what is beyond the ability of their senses to discern.
I am open to ideas in science, but rarely do they actually conflict with my views on religion.
@mstachife Free will. Science actually discredits the idea of free will by saying that all decisions are determined by chemical balances in the brain. That's all well and good, but practically everyone believes in free will on some level. Anyone who agrees with punishing criminals believes in free will.
According to science, free will shouldn't exist, and yet it certainly seems to.
@mstachife But the problem is that science can say, with plenty of justification, that our actions can be explained by the chemical processes in our brain, which act a certain way, forcing us to act a certain way. And if we are forced to act a certain way, then we are not free.
But as I said, it is discernable from observation that people are free to make their own choices, whether it is to chose what to eat for lunch or to rob a bank
How can science alone equate these two opposing viewpoints?
@marcusabsent37 There are scientists who disagree, from many different fields. Look it up. There are scientific reasons to believe that we do (or don't, according to some) have free will. It isn't something that is "beyond science".
@marcusabsent37 No, there are scientists on both sides of the issue. Free will isn't a topic that is "beyond science". Believe it or not, a lot of research has been done on it; from many different fields.
No, there are scientists on both sides of the issue. Free will isn't a topic that is "beyond science". Believe it or not, a lot of research has been done on it; from many different fields.
@marcusabsent37 "And if we are forced to act a certain way, then we are not free."
The same argument can be made of your god. If he knows EVERYTHING that people will ever do, before they're created, than it's predestination. Meaning if he knows someone will do something because he made every factor that would ever go into a decision, such as dna, environment, experience, or the 'soul' if you believe in that kind of thing, and no one can EVER do anything he didn't already know they'd do, than
@marcusabsent37 In fact, you're god couldn't have free will in that model either, as he'd already know what he is going to do. If he can't do anything but what he knows he'll do he never chooses anything, thus it's not free will as he has no choice.
where in the Bible does it say anything about the time a soul is created and placed into a growing baby?????? NO WHERE!!!!!!! how are these questions even tough?
@coreygames I wasnt sayin that religions view on everything is right because its not. I mean the bible is a bunch of bullshit but what I was sayin is that even if your argument makes sense people arent going to accept it. Once someone picks a side its very unlikely they will change which side theyre on
@legnase LOL really you can't disprove religion with science? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh please I hope to god you're joking! Raising people from the dead? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
@marinefrenzy first of all i find it ironic that you said "i hope to god." second thats not what i meant. What i meant is that you can't use science to disprove religion to a religious person. sorry if i didnt word that correctly
Not to be THAT GUY but God never specified when or how we get our soul, just that it can become corrupt. That means this question is null and void. But for the sake of argument I'll give you another answer; Perhaps the soul (like God) isn't limited by things like number. Perhaps the soul ( like a cell) can split into "daughter" souls when the time calls. Hope this helped ;:()
@seanfenrir : No sean if they tried to look at it differently it would imply learning and growing. Simple answers are easier. They can't understand because if they actually tried, it would threaten their own little world that they have constructed. Atheism wants/needs things simple. Simple answers not complexity is what they seek.
actually i wasted the first sixteen years of my life reading the bible contextually, then i realized that you could make it mean anything you want to. for instance i can look at the story of god killing the egyptian first born, and take from it that it's ok to kill my enemy's kids...
yes, you could in fact read mein kompf and cherry pick morals that you like from it, they're there. for instance you could look at hitler's socialist leanings and say, wow, mein kompf teaches us to look out for one another. and ignore the killing the jews. same idea as what you do with the bible really.
@bradmanthethird What does that prove brad? That people HAVE different perspectives? Wow welcome to the 21st century. What does that prove? You can read ANYTHING and pick and choose. So what does that say about the scriptures...? Nothing! You have shown that ANY literature, mien kompf to Charles Darwin people can pick and choose. What does that mean? You've just nullified your own point. Unless you want a different standard for scripture than for ANY other literature.
well, you can read the bible metaphorically or literally, i don't have a problem with people reading it literally, because literally it only has one meaning, the intended meaning. it's once you start reading metaphorically that you can mold it to say what you want to hear.
@bradmanthethird: I find it ironic you "don't have a problem" but you criticize those who read it literally as barbaric. Which is it? Are we supposed to read it literally and be considered barbaric or metaphorically and become "molders" saying what we want to hear. It reminds me of a saying by Jesus. "We played the flute and you didn't dance, a dirge and you didn't cry." Sounds to me like any reason to complain will do whether its consistent, logical or not.
@bradmanthethird: "i would read a book that can be read literally without making you barbaric"
You've used the term barbaric as if you and I both understand what that term means. How do you determine if an action is barbaric or not (p.s. please don't be stupid and point out specific behavior; that's CALLING behavior barbaric not a means to determining if certain behavior is barbaric)
@bradmanthethird Wow you really didn't read what I wrote! I asked: HOW do you determine if an action is barbaric. I didn't ask what barbarian means. When you want to know if something is uncivilized or barbaric throwing a dictionary at it doesn't answer the question. If a person breaks into your house is it "Barbaric" to shoot them, break their arm, trip them, do nothing. This shouldn't be hard to determine for a person so willing to throw the bible out as "barbaric". Sure you can define it.
" HOW do you determine if an action is barbaric."
are you new to language? it's barbaric if it meets the definition of the word barbaric dummy. for instance the bible is uncivilized because there's not a internationally accepted country that advocates genocide like the bible does.
@bradmanthethird: 1) as I mentioned before the ancient greeks considered circumcision to be barbaric. Do you think its barbaric? They did not consider it barbaric to deter this action by murdering mothers and infants. Being civilized is a relative term. So while murdering children in the name of circumcision might be barbaric... murdering children in the of "woman's right to her body" is not. In short you are assuming a definition of barbaric is self evident.
@bradmanthethird 2) "there's not a internationally accepted country" 1 who cares if their internationally accepted or not why is that important? 2 have you never heard of Rhowanda, Bosnia- hertzgovenia, Iraq, the United states (indians) 1939 Germany, Soviet Union? In other words you have to have already passed moral judgements upon these nations PRIOR to determining if they are "barbaric" or not. HOW do you determine they are? Does a UN vote MAKE it barbaric? Is that your standard?
@bradmanthethird 3) the scriptures do not ADVOCATE genocide It simply reports it. The simple fact of this is in it the number of people who have actually used the book of joshua as justification for genocide. Yes they happen but few christian theologians advocate it. Find me one in the last 200 years. You are simply taking stories out of context and misusing them.
@bradmanthethird Really? Here is a prime example of atheism that is unwilling to actually think outside of the box. When all else fails resort to mockery and sarcasm... because THAT is how reason and rationalism works.
The scriptures don't just report the act, they also report the DIRECT COMMANDS from God (Deut 20:17) and the instances where God delivers the victims to be slaughtered.
Deut 2:33-34 "And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:"
@azsuperman01 "And the LORD our God delivered him before us." Does that mean that you believe God did deliver them? Because if you do that means he must exist to deliver them. If you do not believe he exists than the only way you can interpret this is that the writer of the passage UNDERSTOOD the Israelite victory to have come from God but not actually BE from GOD. In which your only beef is with an interpretation of an event NOT an action of a Divine being.
Exactly. I don't think God exists -- so the writing is just a description of the justification or beliefs of the writer. However, if you (or anyone else) think the Bible IS an accurate portrayal of events - then they are forced to admit that God intervened to get "the little ones of every city" killed.
@azsuperman01: Great than we are in agreement. God can't not exist and be guilty at the same time. I don't get in the habit of defending God's actions. I don't understand them. I don't comprehend everything, I readily admit my inability to understand. However, I've never claimed a) to fully understand. b) to claim that being a christian would eliminate all problems.
I will say that problems like this pale in comparison to questions of how the universe blindly "created" DNA.
@azsuperman01 2) "And the LORD our God delivered him before us" The only way God can be guilty of genocide is if he exists. But if he does not exist he (being a fairy tale) can be guilty of nothing. It is the human writers who are interpreting the event as coming through a divine agent. You can't have it both ways. God can't be guilty and not exist at the same time. No more than a unicorn can be guilty of bank robbery. You can't have it both ways. God can't be a fairy tale and not exist
I agree. I personally don't believe any Gods exist, and I think God was used as an excuse to conquer and kill - but if you believe that the Bible is an honest description of real events - then God would be guilty of commanding genocide - and intervening to help children get slaughtered.
If you had an encyclopedia that you knew was filled with inconsistencies, would you still use it to prove things? The bible is filled with them! So obvious it is the word of man and not a god!
@FUahole69 : Truly that is the stupidest thing i ever heard. It's obvious that you know nothing about history or historical documents. There isn't a historian alive that doesn't have mistakes perceived or inconsistencies. It doesn't mean that it is of no value. I don't expect you to believe it's God's word, I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. Your argument is based upon the perception that negating the scriptures as "God's word" negates it as a historical document. That's stupid.
Trust me, I know history books are not perfect, but when a book claiming to be the word of god and has hundreds of inconsistancies, and recycled stories in it, it's safe to say it cant be trusted!
@FUahole69 : "it's safe to say it cant be trusted!" so because a book has "inconsistencies" it is therefore not to be trusted. You also claimed that it is a "book written by men", which you freely admit are flawed. So you would only trust a book not written by men that had no inconsistencies? How would you conduct history with this criteria? Seems to me that this criteria is DESIGNED to produce failure not actually critically examine historical documents?
You have to look at the big picture, back then men wrote about gods all the time! Resurrections, miracles, possessions and healings were a common thing! Man was not into science back then, plus the number of inconsistancies in the bible makes it so obvious that it is the word of man, not a god! Dont you think it's funny that we dont see any of these miracles today that were common back then, or we dont hear from god or satan anymore! Use your head!
@FUahole69 : "Man was not into science back then" What does that mean? Does that mean that what they say is therefore patently false BECASE they believe something differently than you?
"We dont see any of these miracles today."
Actually that's not true either. There are plenty of sites you could visit that propose them. The profound difference is that you already KNOW such things don't happen, so they MUST be false. Thats not: "they don't happen" thats "they can't happen"
OK, then show me some miracles, how about a virgen birth! As far as man being into science bach then, they thought the world flat! Dont you get what I'm saying! Men made up alot of shit back then, alot of it was about gods!
@FUahole69 :"OK, then show me some miracles, how about a virgen birth." Notice the change in qualification. We have gone from "Miracles don't happen." to "Prove the virgin birth."
Which, as a historical event, you and I both know CANNOT be proven. When ever evidence is provided it is never enough. Because you keep changing the standard by which you can assess the question. At first you wanted proof for "miracles" now you want proof for a virgin birth. Your assessment is rigged.
That was just an example, you know what I mean! Show me a miracle, show me something that goes against the laws of nature! You spend more time explaining questions then answering them!
@FUahole69 : "Show me a miracle," I just did. I told you about the book I just read, or did you forget it?
Once again I ask you: How do you know they "made stuff up"? What proof do you offer that nothing happened at all and all they did was sit around making up silly stories?
As I said. It's your ASSUMPTION that they did. You have yet to present evidence that they did "make stuff up"
You have to realize that you cant disprove everything people claim, like ufo's, or bigfoot! Your the one that has to come up with evidence that these things can happen!
So your saying this pastor brought this guy back from the dead with prayer? So why doesnt he use his power to cure cancer for kids! Do you believe praying works?
@FUahole69 : "So why doesnt he use his power to cure cancer for kids!" This is exactly what I was talking about. You demand "evidence" and then demonstrate why what I just presented was not evidence.
"Your the one that has to come up with evidence that these things can happen!"
You can't prove anything to your satisfaction. This goes back to my MAIN point. Your standard is DESIGNED to produce FAILURE. NOT seek the truth. Your more interested in disproving God than find truth.
I hope I'm wrong and there is a god, but not the one in the bible! As far as evidence, you havent given any! Prove to me that it was because of a pastor praying, someone came back to life! How do you explain when prayer doesnt work when someone doesnt come back!
@FUahole69 :" How do you explain when prayer doesnt work when someone doesnt come back!"
If Bob threw a perfect strike in a game last week. His failure to throw a strike in this weeks game does NOT negate the strike in last weeks game. You asked for evidence, I provided you an example (to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about) and you did exactly what I said you would do, TO A TEE. You negated the evidence based upon what you perceived SHOULD happen not on the evidence at hand.
@mike10121996 Let me put it this way: I wasn't trying to prove miracles happen or don't happen. I was demonstrating exactly how your argument is designed to disprove God NOT seek the truth. Once again your more interested in showing who DIDN'T cause that man to come back to life, rather than find out who or what did.
Here is the bottom line, I asked you to show me evidence of a miracle! You said you read a book that a prayer brought someone back from the dead. I'm saying it coincedence, your saying god answered! Tell me why your right and I'm wrong to prove it's a true miracle! Stop looking so much into the questions and just answer it! I seen my cousin who is a holy roller get turned down on her prayers so why did god skip out on her? Her mother, my aunt had cancer, why didnt got answer her prayers!
@FUahole69 :"I asked you to show me evidence of a miracle!" That is NOT what happened. Go back and look it up. You asserted that we know "Miracles don't happen" I provided you an example of a scientifically unexplainable event (ie miracle) and now you want to assert that I asserted somthing. I don't KNOW how that man came back to life only that he DID and there is no explanation. You asserted that a scientifically unexplainable event (miracle) wasn't possible.
@ScrewFearMe "make your own decisions" Like you have? You've been educated in a society that has TRAINED you to only believe what you see, only trust what a scientist says, believe yourself over "authority",(except ironically that science is an authority itself) and with all these things pounded into your head you followed the logical conclusion of all this training and called it "thinking for yourself?" Please, POT calling the kettle BLACK.
@FUahole69 : your doing exactly what I said you'd do: Your hiding the fact that you asserted Miracles "don't happen" and you don't want to back down and admit that you made an assertion you can't back up. You asserted something you couldn't prove was true. Trying to attack me like I asserted anything of the kind, its ridiculous. I didn't assert God raised him from the dead. I said "a pastor prayed for him and he came back to life." PERIOD.
How is asking you a question turning into an attack! I seen you say this before, your claiming something, we ask for proof and you claim we are attacking!
Ok, let me put it this way! When I say evidence I want you to explain in detail how it's possible! Your just saying it's the work of god, that doesnt prove anything! I could just say no it was aliens, how would prove me wrong? See what I mean when I say detail in evidence! How can a virgin give birth?
@FUahole69 : "When I say evidence I want you to explain in detail how it's possible!" Now you've just changed the whole conversation. First you asserted: "Miracles don't happen." I provided you one example off the top of my head. You now want detailed proof of "How that's possible?" As if my failure to demonstrate HOW it's possible therefore negates THAT it happened at all. That wasn't what you said You said miracles "don't happen".
@FUahole69 "I could just say no it was aliens," Yes you could say it. That once again is just the point. Your right because a man prayed it does not automatically follow God raised him. But that wasn't the point. You said miracles "don't happen" I countered with this example. Please try and keep your own assertions straight.
@FUahole69 : "Men made up alot of shit back then, alot of it was about gods!" Actually I do get what your saying. Your ASSUMPTION is THAT they "made it up" How can you prove they made it up verses that's what actually happened? In other words, your begging the question. When ever some one proclaims a god did this or that. It MUST be "made up" because we KNOW that just doesn't happen. That's the very topic we're trying to discuss. In logic that's called begging the question.
@FUahole69 : "what makes you believe in the bible?" Who said I believed the bible? Who said I was talking about you "believing" the bible? Don't try and turn this into something I never said: You asserted that man wasn't "into science" back then so everything he said must be "made up"
I asked what that means? Does their lack of "scientific" understanding mean nothing happened and that everything they wrote was "made up"? use logic.
@FUahole69 A prime example: I just finished a book called "90 minuets in Heaven". A man was dead(pronounced dead by paramedics on the scene) for 1.5 hours and a pastor prayed for him and he was suddenly alive. My point is not to get into a debate. My point is that you won't believe this happened not because it "doesn't happen" but because you KNOW thats just not possible. So no matter what evidence is presented, it MUST be false somehow, even though you don't have any evidence.
@FUahole69 : P.S. Your assumption is that the scripture is the same thing as a "encyclopedia" I'm sure many christians communicate it to you LIKE that, but that is a way of communicate HOW it is used not WHAT it is. Those are two very different things.
@coreygames : I never asserted any thing about any religious book. Look through what I wrote. I never asserted anything about any religious book. The book I was referring to was a book called 90 min in heaven. That is the book I was referring to. You seem to have misunderstood what the conversation was about. Please try and keep up with one conversation at a time.
I don't care about what most Christians believe. Bible doesn't say anything abt DNA and fertilization. But i believe that the soul wont be created from that stage
yuvanrockstar 3 weeks ago
if god wanted you to think, you would have been born in hell! nothing makes any sense so we can lure out demons like you! well they dont make sense to a science worshiper like you! what came first the chicken or the egg? GOD!
HolyHogShit 4 months ago
@HolyHogShit Are you saying god didn't intend for humans to have the ability to think? xD
But seriously, don't get stressed over questions, just imagine how the rest of the world have to put up with you Christians contradicting yourselves. :P
spartanW43 3 months ago in playlist Tough Questions For Christians
@spartanW43 JESUS MOTHERFUCKER!!!1 JESUS!!!! ACCEPT NOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOWNOW!!! FUCKING DEMON!!! JESUS WILL DESTROY YOU TO HEEEEELL!!! you all make me so mad i can barely type! you dam well better get jesus in youre life NOW! i DEMAND IT! BECAUSE GOD DOES< AND YOU WILL WILL WILL DO AS HE TOLD YOU NOW NOW NOW!!! DO IT NOW! DO IT NOW! RIGHT FUCKING THIS SECOND NOW!!!
HolyHogShit 3 months ago
@HolyHogShit Do you belong to the Westboro church?
GUALLACOL 1 month ago
@GUALLACOL doesnt matter where jesus and i talk, you WILL obey! you will see
HolyHogShit 1 month ago
@HolyHogShit Holy shit, it Master Myagi!
GUALLACOL 1 month ago
and in which case do gingers even have a soul at all?
godlyassasin99 5 months ago
Chimeras must give their extra soul to identical twins.
INTPTT 6 months ago
@humanistheart we are all made up of the same stuff! We are made in Gods image & God is all knowing. The reason mankind failed in Eden is because Adam @ Eve who represented all mankind disobeyed God. Eventhough God being all knowing forsaw it he still loved his creation(humans) & made a way to save mankind & destroy Satan. It is being played out because God is just.
jhartist123 6 months ago
@humanistheart There is only good & bad in the world. The bad things are not of God they are of Satan. Any bad thing we do we are obeying Satan. Any good thing we do is of God. We are made in his image but because of the havoc Satan & his minions has long directed mankind into disobeying Our God we have disobeyed God. None of this was his plan but his ritgousness he had to let things play out knowing he would perform a mighty act (crucifiction) the cleanse @ save us from our sins.
jhartist123 6 months ago
@jhartist123 That's a cop out, Saying that a god that decided everything that would happen before it happened cannot be blamed because of a character Christians invented is pathetic.
Also if none of it was his plan, than you're saying he's limited.
humanistheart 6 months ago
@Humanistheart, I didn't say twins was caused by sin! I'm saying all bad things, things not helpful like dieing, sickness, murder & so forth are not the works of God but of sin brought by Satan & us because we took what he offered & rebeled against God. God is just & he himself made a way for us to avoid eternity apart from him by sending Jesus to die in our place.
jhartist123 6 months ago
@jhartist123 Saying bad things happen because people do things one being doesn't like isn't good. That's called tyranny, do what I say or suffer.
humanistheart 6 months ago
Chimera is really a cool looking motorcycle. Google it and you`ll see what I mean.
Ride hard & live long!
appletrades 7 months ago
If you can't study it you have believe if or not.
Not all this can be studies.
leemorethomas 7 months ago
We all have that auto pilot brain that runs things but we can't think with it. The cognitive brain doesn't start to develop until the 3rd trimester. I don't there's a soul until there is a thinking brain.The energy that makes an individual who they are.
God doesn't control our moves or lives. God set things in motion. We have free will to go from there and sometimes crap happens. Pollution, radiation, genes whatever caused the Chimera that's all on us. So, for me, 2 thinking brains = 2 souls.
etonks 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That the person is a soul or spirit trapped inside a body is not biblical. And Christianity's always been against it, it was a heresy from Gnostics and Greek philosophy. So the it doesn't become "two souls trapped in one body".
nilzor 9 months ago
Comment removed
nilzor 9 months ago
Comment removed
nilzor 9 months ago
there is apart of us that is eternal and that is the soul. so when we die our soul will continue..so use your brain and answer that one yourself..let me help you..if your are a human who dies your soul will go to heavan or hell. who cares about chimera you think God is stupid or somthing
MissChaceurz 9 months ago
the point of entry of a soul is one that personally i don't know, but i know that there's one soul to one body/one life/one judgement
sweetdietqueen 9 months ago
A chimera is a mixture of 2 different beings! God knows who we are before we are even concieved. If the lost twin was a seperate human then their soul returned to God but if it was already determined that it would be part of the surviveing child then it was never a liveing soul. It was a freak of nature caused by sin.
jhartist123 10 months ago
@jhartist123 Twins are a freak of nature caused by sin? What a horrid response. So humans do things that this 'god' doesn't like, ie sin, and children suffer? What a mature being your imaginary tyrant is.
humanistheart 6 months ago
Chimera is also a badass band. But im a christian n i think the soul sits in the pineal gland which develops in the 7th week of conception. So if the two sperm cells only form one person with one brain then I would say that person still only has one soul.
birdystyle420 1 year ago
Two words
LAME STRAWMAN !!!!
at the moment of conception, a human being exists. When God chooses to incorporate the soul of that human being is completely up to God.
Next...
pastorjazz 1 year ago
@pastorjazz It's not a straw man. The argument was made to him that the creation of a soul coincides with the fertilization of an egg. That's the argument his response is directed at. A straw man would be if he altered or made up an argument that was easier to counter than the one he was supposed to be addressing.
That being said, yours is a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation. God just puts the souls in later. However, it raises the question: how can we know when a soul is present?
IXPrometheusXI 1 year ago
Oh. , regarding the souls of those people, any all. The Bible states IN HEAVEN THeir angels do behold the face of the FATHER at all times, so perhaps one should be very very careful of human life , however Insignificant to them. Life is precious. The Bible states "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." He said Jesus stood as a lamb slain b4 the foundation of the world," because given freewill, not robotc will, he wanted whosever will to have a chance to be redeemed, CHIMERA & all.
HALLELUZZ777 1 year ago
I amy sure GOD has enough souls to go around.Twins have souls. We are 3fold beings....body, soul,spirit.Our soul is our personality, our spirit is above the superego, it is what yearns to GOD. SOME disagree with this , but agree we are 3fold. This question involves trusting GOD to do HIS job, & us, ours... I am charged with giving you answer for the reason of the hope that lies within me, not having an answer for this:. My God takes care of those, & those of aborted babies.
HALLELUZZ777 1 year ago
science is still changing always has been always will be,, soul is tied into the physical body which ,,your refering to the spirit which is seperate and idk exactly when they get there but they do so its cool lol
chozen0018 1 year ago
I am a human chimera. I have two souls with distinct personalities and it is not the same thing as someone with multiple personality disorder. One personality is mostly linked to my left brain hemisphere and the other is mostly linked to the right brain hemisphere. I also happen to be intersexed.
I'm not Christian. If anything I'm a spiritual atheist. I know that sounds like a paradox but I'm happy to explain it to anyone who wants to understand my point of view.
enigmatically 1 year ago
Maybe the souls would merge as well as the bodies. Or maybe there are 2 souls, but they function together, and will be saved or damned together. For identical twins, I would say the soul splits in two same as the embryo, and develops into two separate souls. My question, which I regard as more difficult, is what if someone loses part of a body? I heard the Vietnamese believe the souls is identical to the body, and the soul loses parts same as body, so bodies were mutilated in the war.
qwexas 1 year ago
The extra soul from the chimera goes off and becomes the soul for one of the twins. Any other questions?
LOL, JK. Honestly, you got me: I really don't know. However, the implications of your question are pretty minute, so I'm not too concerned about it.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
real christians don't have "tough questions" only ones who are only "christian" by words and not deeds
Trumpetz811 1 year ago
Sorry let me make a correction. Man creates the flesh. I can't see a being existing without a soul. Otherwise it is not a "being."
conversegirl131 1 year ago
@conversegirl131 So animals have souls, or you think they don't exist?
humanistheart 1 year ago
(I'm broncomark12)
The answer? I don't know. I don't think we can know for sure, but what you have just said means that probably the soul is not created at conseption. It is probably not created so much as given. Man creates the being, God gives then the soul. At the exact point in time that happens... Who can know? Since most here don't believe in God probably including you, it doesn't matter anyway.
conversegirl131 1 year ago
Perhaps a chimera is some kind of soul vampire and identical twins are a product of the devil intentioned to create the best 3way pornography thus further distracting humanity from the road to salvation? This is the only logical answer! You should know better than to speak your devil science at religion sir!
I kid. One problem with christians is that the bible is simply not unadulterated since christ. Without his personal reference nothing in the bible is sanctioned by god.
CallMeMrChainmail 1 year ago
they fart out the 2nd soul as babies. with twins they share a soul by having it on alternate weeks, like some divorced parents.
DERP
pontyfaxjr 1 year ago
i am not a Christian but can u give me some links or pictures of real human chimeras i don't seem to find any anywhere
rolfinator1 1 year ago
@rolfinator1 The closest thing we've done to creating human chimeras that I know of is taking cow eggs, removing most of the dna, and cloning humans, which leaves the result with something like .01% cow dna. But none of the embryos were allowed to developed much less implanted. They were only for research.
humanistheart 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GUESS WHAT, I WIN
watch this video, and guess what? This destroys everything you try to disprove.
/watch?v=Gc4HGQHgeFE
God exists. and I will pray that you find him.
GeneralDeer 1 year ago
According to Genesis 2:7 God created Adam and he became a living soul. Not God created Adam and he had a soul. The Hebrew word nepes used in this scripture translates to soul in our language but never means that the soul is distinct from the body. In fact the Bible never mentions a division of soul from body.
RealBibleAnswers 1 year ago
@RealBibleAnswers So when the body dies what happens to the soul? Is the soul independent from the brain?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife the soul does exist independant of the body, because it survives into the "Pre-Apocalypse afterlife" (my made-up term for the period between our own death and the final judgement) either in heaven, hell, or purgatory. During this period, we have no bodies, so our souls must exist independantly of our bodies in some way.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Other than the fact that I don't think there is a heaven, hell, or purgatory... What exactly do you mean by the word "soul"? We know that your memories, emotions, and senses are controlled by the brain.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife on a pure scientific level, they are. But the soul is like an imprint/coexistance of memories, emotions, and senses that exists apart from the body or the brain. Thus the "person" continues to exist even after the body is dead.
The idea of a soul may sound fafetched, but recent studies of NDEs do make the existance of a soul seem plausible scientifically.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Then if someone is brain damaged and loses part of their memory, is their soul damaged as well?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife No, because then the soul would be bound by physical limitations, which it is not.
You're asking some very scientific questions, which is not a bad thing. However, science can't say very much about the soul. Like I said, NDE's support the existence of a soul, but that's about as far as science can really go.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Then the only evidence/reason you have for the existence for a soul are NDEs. There are plenty of scientific theories and explanations for NDEs that don't invoke the supernatural. Even if there weren't, what you're saying comes down to a great big argument from ignorance.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife Well NDEs are the only scientific evidence of a soul, but they are fairly solid. For one thing, no other explanation for NDEs properly accounts for the accurateness of events/details observed through out-of-body experiences. Studies of people who had OBEs documented the ones who checked to verify what they saw and showed they almost always turned out to be accurate, and that would suggest that the person was really there (soul). Only a fool would call that a coincidence.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Yes, there are valid explanations for what people see in NDEs and OBEs.. Even if there weren't, you're still committing the argument from ignorance. Seriously, "These things happen and we're not really sure why they do, so therefore souls exist"? Regardless, alot of the research done in the field is based on the person's word. There are people who say that they have been abducted by aliens. Many of them provide similar circumstances and details. Therefore alien abductions occur?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife what are these other valid explanations?
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Too many to put in a 500 characters. Look it up. You don't think the scientific community has investigated this, and not come up with rational explanations for it?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife I already have. As I said, they didn't account for the accuracy of OBEs.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Yes, they can. We actually talked about them in my psychology course. And no, the "supernatural" was not mentioned. Once again, all you are doing with regards to this is committing a argument from ignorance.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife You're just telling me that these other "valid" explanations exist. I haven't found these other "valid" explanations, so what is an example?
Keep in mind, that I'm still only talking about a soul. I haven't said anything about using NDEs to verify God yet. We're not quite to that point.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 The drug Dimethyltryptamine is known to cause circumstances similar to NDEs and what have you. REM sleep is also thought to be related to it. People taking drugs have experienced OBEs and NDEs; further proof that it is related to chemistry in the brain. Now, even though there hasn't been that much research conducted in the field, am I wrong for accepting that there are "naturalistic" explanations for these instances instead of just assuming that soul exists?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife You've missed a critical point. There were several studies on NDEs in recent years, and patients who experienced OBEs documented what they saw. Out of those who later checked to verify what they had seen, over 95% of them confirmed that what they had seen really took place. To label the source as drugs or dreams would be to chalk that number as coincidence, and that is a bad bet to make. It seems more likely that the person really did see it, and was thus present there in spirit.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcusabsent37 "Out of those who later checked to verify what they had seen, over 95% of them confirmed that what they had seen really took place."
Source? And even if that is the case, have you ever heard of deja vu?
mstachife 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37
Source? And even if that is the case, have you ever heard of deja vu?
mstachife 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Also, you're relying on their word. Do you believe people who say they were abducted by aliens?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife type in"lazarus phenomenon scientist interviews" on youtube search; the interviews are in the first link.
As for their reliability, they should be considered reliable if they have seen things that are actually happening. But don't take my word for it; watch for yourself.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 All that interview comes down to is a massive argument from ignorance. I know I've been repeating that term alot, but it's true. "We don't know exactly why these people can come back from the brink of death, therefore a supernatural force is interacting with our reality causing them too"? As for OBEs, that can be brought about by lucid dreaming as well. Does that mean that you "die" and your soul departs from your body? Or that there is a "materialistic" explanation for it?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife Stop dodging the question. Just stop. The question is "Can you honestly say that the accuracy of events seen in OBEs during NDEs by an overwhelming percentage of patients can be summed up as a coincidence?" Because that's what it is if the person is not there in some way.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 What am I dodging? I don't think enough research has been conducted on the issue. From what I've seen, it has about the same amount of evidence as alien abductions. I am not going to accept that because we don't really know exactly whats going on, we should assume that souls exist. Many neurologists and other scientists / doctors say that it is a result of brain chemistry. There is also a lot of bias on the side of the people advocating it.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife They said that 3 studies had been made on the issue, and all three of them had produced the same results. How are these views biased? They are just giving evidence. And scientists who don't mention this at all haven't seemed to account for it. Brain chemistry does not explain these results.
Isn't that just typical? Throwing out evidence because you don't agree with it.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 A lot more than 3 actually. And their results varied.
mstachife 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Also I'm having trouble finding any sort of research report to verify what you're saying on a nonbiased website.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife type in "NDE scientific studies" on google, and click on the first link.
You may say the website is biased, but I disagree. That would just be denial.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 The first link is from "near-death(.)com". Are you serious when you say that that site isn't biased? I've already been there, and found that many of the evidence is sketchy once you start to look at it. Everything I've seen is based on other people's word. And there are several leading scientists who argue that this is all based in the mind; such as Olaf Blanke and Michael Persinger. The work of Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili also points to a "material" reason for this.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife The problem when you get to scientific evidence is that there is evidence on both sides, and people ultimately end up choosing one side or the other. You say that the evidence I presented seems sketchy; what specifically makes the evidence you are providing NOT sketchy? Just asking, because we can find articles that propose scientific evidence all day long, but ultimately we will probably not convince the other of anything with just evidence.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 What do you mean there is "evidence on both sides"? The evidence is what it is. There are different hypothesis which are made based on the evidence. The evidence on the website you gave me was almost completely "testimonial evidence". As I said, there are many neurologists and other experts in the field who disagree with you, and say that it's the result of neurological processes. contd.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife I mean there is evidence to support both sides.
NDEs rely on testimonial evidence, but in most cases the physical aspects are examined as well, so there is other evidence to back up the refutation of a neurological process.
What many "materialistic" views on this fail to take into account is the documented connection with reality in several cases, such as a patient's knowledge of events that occured while he/she was unconscious.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Evidence that refutes NDEs are caused by neurological processes? How would you go about proving that?
Also, there have been no in-depth sudies with controls in place about a "patients knowledge of events while they are unconscious". Everything I have seen regarding that are testimonials.
mstachife 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 The "evidence" I cited were actual research tests that were done and were well documented. I find a lack of that on the other side of things.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife Dr. Melvin Morse has compiled an extensive summary of studying NDE's, including research tests, with documented sources. It can be found by googling "melvin morse NDE studies" and clicking on the link that says "Near Death Experiences and Death-Relayed Visions in Children." (it should be the 4th link)
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 His studies proved that NDEs occur. I never doubted that. However, he hasn't done an in-depth study on how NDEs prove that a soul exists. Everything on the site that mentions that is testimonials. There are many references to the children meeting "Jesus" or "God" in their NDE. I found no explanation on his part of why people of other faiths and cultures see their particular deity whenever they have an NDE.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife Until it is possible to "see" whatever the patient is seeing, its really not possible to go off anything other than testimonials. I'm not saying that one should blindly believe everything that these patients say, but the close similarities between different testimonies helps give credence to their word.
Its this accuracy between events that suggests that what the patients see is real. To me this suggests a soul, and no other explanation seems to have all the pieces.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Or the fact that they see similar things should point to a "material" cause. I've looked a study that gave reasons why they see the things they do, such as the "light at the end of a tunnel". But like I said, there needs to be more tests and studies in this area before I'm going to be convinced of anything. Until there is well documented scientific evidence of "souls" I'm going to stick with a "material" explanation for it.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife Well, obviously, that is your right. Just remember that God doesn't always make things obvious.
"Blessed are those who have not seen, and still believe."
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Then I'm doing what God wants since he created me to be skeptical.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife um...no...that's not what I said.
How about a different quote?
"Your eyes can decieve you; don't trust them." (Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars)
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Well, you're saying that God created me to be skeptical, and that God intentionally makes things so that they aren't "obvious". Regarding the star wars quote; is there something wrong with relying on our six senses, logic / reason, and the scientific method for determining facts about the universe?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife There is nothing wrong with using scientific method, our senses, and logic to determined certain facts about the universe. I do that.
However, when one places ALL of their faith into these methods, and believes that THEY are infallible and can completely explain the universe, they become blind to what is beyond the ability of their senses to discern.
I am open to ideas in science, but rarely do they actually conflict with my views on religion.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Then what is something that we know to exist that science is incapable of explaining?
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife Free will. Science actually discredits the idea of free will by saying that all decisions are determined by chemical balances in the brain. That's all well and good, but practically everyone believes in free will on some level. Anyone who agrees with punishing criminals believes in free will.
According to science, free will shouldn't exist, and yet it certainly seems to.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 Nope. There have been several studies and experiments concerning free will, and there are many different theories about it.
mstachife 1 year ago
@mstachife But the problem is that science can say, with plenty of justification, that our actions can be explained by the chemical processes in our brain, which act a certain way, forcing us to act a certain way. And if we are forced to act a certain way, then we are not free.
But as I said, it is discernable from observation that people are free to make their own choices, whether it is to chose what to eat for lunch or to rob a bank
How can science alone equate these two opposing viewpoints?
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 There are scientists who disagree, from many different fields. Look it up. There are scientific reasons to believe that we do (or don't, according to some) have free will. It isn't something that is "beyond science".
mstachife 1 year ago
Comment removed
mstachife 1 year ago
Comment removed
mstachife 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcusabsent37 No, there are scientists on both sides of the issue. Free will isn't a topic that is "beyond science". Believe it or not, a lot of research has been done on it; from many different fields.
mstachife 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcusabsent37
No, there are scientists on both sides of the issue. Free will isn't a topic that is "beyond science". Believe it or not, a lot of research has been done on it; from many different fields.
mstachife 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 "And if we are forced to act a certain way, then we are not free."
The same argument can be made of your god. If he knows EVERYTHING that people will ever do, before they're created, than it's predestination. Meaning if he knows someone will do something because he made every factor that would ever go into a decision, such as dna, environment, experience, or the 'soul' if you believe in that kind of thing, and no one can EVER do anything he didn't already know they'd do, than
humanistheart 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 you're not actually choosing anything, as it was already decided before you were born. No choice = no free will.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@marcusabsent37 In fact, you're god couldn't have free will in that model either, as he'd already know what he is going to do. If he can't do anything but what he knows he'll do he never chooses anything, thus it's not free will as he has no choice.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@mstachife Just becuase God allows you to be skeptical doesn't mean He wants you to be.
marcusabsent37 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcusabsent37 "but recent studies of NDEs do make the existance of a soul seem plausible scientifically."
No not really. There are "naturalistic" explanations for it.
mstachife 1 year ago
where in the Bible does it say anything about the time a soul is created and placed into a growing baby?????? NO WHERE!!!!!!! how are these questions even tough?
caddylove86 1 year ago
You're trying to disprove religon with science and it's not going to work. Just like you you can't disprove science with religon.
legnase 1 year ago 2
Just because religion fails to defeat science does not mean that science is incapable of triumph over superstition.
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames I wasnt sayin that religions view on everything is right because its not. I mean the bible is a bunch of bullshit but what I was sayin is that even if your argument makes sense people arent going to accept it. Once someone picks a side its very unlikely they will change which side theyre on
legnase 1 year ago
@legnase
I can agree with that.
coreygames 1 year ago
@legnase LOL really you can't disprove religion with science? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh please I hope to god you're joking! Raising people from the dead? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!
marinefrenzy 1 year ago
@marinefrenzy first of all i find it ironic that you said "i hope to god." second thats not what i meant. What i meant is that you can't use science to disprove religion to a religious person. sorry if i didnt word that correctly
legnase 1 year ago
Not to be THAT GUY but God never specified when or how we get our soul, just that it can become corrupt. That means this question is null and void. But for the sake of argument I'll give you another answer; Perhaps the soul (like God) isn't limited by things like number. Perhaps the soul ( like a cell) can split into "daughter" souls when the time calls. Hope this helped ;:()
seanfenrir 1 year ago
@seanfenrir
What about Chimera's, do multiple souls merge?
azsuperman01 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 I wouldn't say they couldn't. I'm sure they can.
seanfenrir 1 year ago
@seanfenrir : No sean if they tried to look at it differently it would imply learning and growing. Simple answers are easier. They can't understand because if they actually tried, it would threaten their own little world that they have constructed. Atheism wants/needs things simple. Simple answers not complexity is what they seek.
mike10121996 1 year ago
actually i wasted the first sixteen years of my life reading the bible contextually, then i realized that you could make it mean anything you want to. for instance i can look at the story of god killing the egyptian first born, and take from it that it's ok to kill my enemy's kids...
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird So can I read a Hitler biography and... you know what forget it.
seanfenrir 1 year ago
yes, you could in fact read mein kompf and cherry pick morals that you like from it, they're there. for instance you could look at hitler's socialist leanings and say, wow, mein kompf teaches us to look out for one another. and ignore the killing the jews. same idea as what you do with the bible really.
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird What does that prove brad? That people HAVE different perspectives? Wow welcome to the 21st century. What does that prove? You can read ANYTHING and pick and choose. So what does that say about the scriptures...? Nothing! You have shown that ANY literature, mien kompf to Charles Darwin people can pick and choose. What does that mean? You've just nullified your own point. Unless you want a different standard for scripture than for ANY other literature.
mike10121996 1 year ago
well, you can read the bible metaphorically or literally, i don't have a problem with people reading it literally, because literally it only has one meaning, the intended meaning. it's once you start reading metaphorically that you can mold it to say what you want to hear.
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird: I find it ironic you "don't have a problem" but you criticize those who read it literally as barbaric. Which is it? Are we supposed to read it literally and be considered barbaric or metaphorically and become "molders" saying what we want to hear. It reminds me of a saying by Jesus. "We played the flute and you didn't dance, a dirge and you didn't cry." Sounds to me like any reason to complain will do whether its consistent, logical or not.
mike10121996 1 year ago
" Are we supposed to read it literally and be considered barbaric or metaphorically and become "molders" saying what we want to hear."
your choice really, if i were you i would read a book that can be read literally without making you barbaric...
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird: "i would read a book that can be read literally without making you barbaric"
You've used the term barbaric as if you and I both understand what that term means. How do you determine if an action is barbaric or not (p.s. please don't be stupid and point out specific behavior; that's CALLING behavior barbaric not a means to determining if certain behavior is barbaric)
mike10121996 1 year ago
"Of or relating to a barbarian; uncivilised, uncultured or uncouth"
i shouldn't have to look up words for you, we're both adults here.
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird Wow you really didn't read what I wrote! I asked: HOW do you determine if an action is barbaric. I didn't ask what barbarian means. When you want to know if something is uncivilized or barbaric throwing a dictionary at it doesn't answer the question. If a person breaks into your house is it "Barbaric" to shoot them, break their arm, trip them, do nothing. This shouldn't be hard to determine for a person so willing to throw the bible out as "barbaric". Sure you can define it.
mike10121996 1 year ago
" HOW do you determine if an action is barbaric."
are you new to language? it's barbaric if it meets the definition of the word barbaric dummy. for instance the bible is uncivilized because there's not a internationally accepted country that advocates genocide like the bible does.
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird: 1) as I mentioned before the ancient greeks considered circumcision to be barbaric. Do you think its barbaric? They did not consider it barbaric to deter this action by murdering mothers and infants. Being civilized is a relative term. So while murdering children in the name of circumcision might be barbaric... murdering children in the of "woman's right to her body" is not. In short you are assuming a definition of barbaric is self evident.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird 2) "there's not a internationally accepted country" 1 who cares if their internationally accepted or not why is that important? 2 have you never heard of Rhowanda, Bosnia- hertzgovenia, Iraq, the United states (indians) 1939 Germany, Soviet Union? In other words you have to have already passed moral judgements upon these nations PRIOR to determining if they are "barbaric" or not. HOW do you determine they are? Does a UN vote MAKE it barbaric? Is that your standard?
mike10121996 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird 3) the scriptures do not ADVOCATE genocide It simply reports it. The simple fact of this is in it the number of people who have actually used the book of joshua as justification for genocide. Yes they happen but few christian theologians advocate it. Find me one in the last 200 years. You are simply taking stories out of context and misusing them.
mike10121996 1 year ago
well if god commands genocide it can't be all bad...
bradmanthethird 1 year ago 2
@bradmanthethird Really? Here is a prime example of atheism that is unwilling to actually think outside of the box. When all else fails resort to mockery and sarcasm... because THAT is how reason and rationalism works.
mike10121996 1 year ago
that was reason and rationalism. if god commands genocide, it can't all be bad. if god were real that would be sound logic.
bradmanthethird 1 year ago 2
and there's also a famous quote that goes something like "any good argument should sound resemblant to ridicule."
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@mike10121996
The scriptures don't just report the act, they also report the DIRECT COMMANDS from God (Deut 20:17) and the instances where God delivers the victims to be slaughtered.
Deut 2:33-34 "And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:"
azsuperman01 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 "And the LORD our God delivered him before us." Does that mean that you believe God did deliver them? Because if you do that means he must exist to deliver them. If you do not believe he exists than the only way you can interpret this is that the writer of the passage UNDERSTOOD the Israelite victory to have come from God but not actually BE from GOD. In which your only beef is with an interpretation of an event NOT an action of a Divine being.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@mike10121996
Exactly. I don't think God exists -- so the writing is just a description of the justification or beliefs of the writer. However, if you (or anyone else) think the Bible IS an accurate portrayal of events - then they are forced to admit that God intervened to get "the little ones of every city" killed.
azsuperman01 1 year ago
@azsuperman01: Great than we are in agreement. God can't not exist and be guilty at the same time. I don't get in the habit of defending God's actions. I don't understand them. I don't comprehend everything, I readily admit my inability to understand. However, I've never claimed a) to fully understand. b) to claim that being a christian would eliminate all problems.
I will say that problems like this pale in comparison to questions of how the universe blindly "created" DNA.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 2) "And the LORD our God delivered him before us" The only way God can be guilty of genocide is if he exists. But if he does not exist he (being a fairy tale) can be guilty of nothing. It is the human writers who are interpreting the event as coming through a divine agent. You can't have it both ways. God can't be guilty and not exist at the same time. No more than a unicorn can be guilty of bank robbery. You can't have it both ways. God can't be a fairy tale and not exist
mike10121996 1 year ago
@azsuperman01 oops I wrote: "God can't be a fairy tale and not exist." I meant to write: God can't be a fairy tale and be guilty at the same time.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@mike10121996
I agree. I personally don't believe any Gods exist, and I think God was used as an excuse to conquer and kill - but if you believe that the Bible is an honest description of real events - then God would be guilty of commanding genocide - and intervening to help children get slaughtered.
azsuperman01 1 year ago
If you had an encyclopedia that you knew was filled with inconsistencies, would you still use it to prove things? The bible is filled with them! So obvious it is the word of man and not a god!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : Truly that is the stupidest thing i ever heard. It's obvious that you know nothing about history or historical documents. There isn't a historian alive that doesn't have mistakes perceived or inconsistencies. It doesn't mean that it is of no value. I don't expect you to believe it's God's word, I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. Your argument is based upon the perception that negating the scriptures as "God's word" negates it as a historical document. That's stupid.
mike10121996 1 year ago
Trust me, I know history books are not perfect, but when a book claiming to be the word of god and has hundreds of inconsistancies, and recycled stories in it, it's safe to say it cant be trusted!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : "it's safe to say it cant be trusted!" so because a book has "inconsistencies" it is therefore not to be trusted. You also claimed that it is a "book written by men", which you freely admit are flawed. So you would only trust a book not written by men that had no inconsistencies? How would you conduct history with this criteria? Seems to me that this criteria is DESIGNED to produce failure not actually critically examine historical documents?
mike10121996 1 year ago
You have to look at the big picture, back then men wrote about gods all the time! Resurrections, miracles, possessions and healings were a common thing! Man was not into science back then, plus the number of inconsistancies in the bible makes it so obvious that it is the word of man, not a god! Dont you think it's funny that we dont see any of these miracles today that were common back then, or we dont hear from god or satan anymore! Use your head!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : "Man was not into science back then" What does that mean? Does that mean that what they say is therefore patently false BECASE they believe something differently than you?
"We dont see any of these miracles today."
Actually that's not true either. There are plenty of sites you could visit that propose them. The profound difference is that you already KNOW such things don't happen, so they MUST be false. Thats not: "they don't happen" thats "they can't happen"
mike10121996 1 year ago
OK, then show me some miracles, how about a virgen birth! As far as man being into science bach then, they thought the world flat! Dont you get what I'm saying! Men made up alot of shit back then, alot of it was about gods!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 :"OK, then show me some miracles, how about a virgen birth." Notice the change in qualification. We have gone from "Miracles don't happen." to "Prove the virgin birth."
Which, as a historical event, you and I both know CANNOT be proven. When ever evidence is provided it is never enough. Because you keep changing the standard by which you can assess the question. At first you wanted proof for "miracles" now you want proof for a virgin birth. Your assessment is rigged.
mike10121996 1 year ago
That was just an example, you know what I mean! Show me a miracle, show me something that goes against the laws of nature! You spend more time explaining questions then answering them!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : "Show me a miracle," I just did. I told you about the book I just read, or did you forget it?
Once again I ask you: How do you know they "made stuff up"? What proof do you offer that nothing happened at all and all they did was sit around making up silly stories?
As I said. It's your ASSUMPTION that they did. You have yet to present evidence that they did "make stuff up"
mike10121996 1 year ago
You have to realize that you cant disprove everything people claim, like ufo's, or bigfoot! Your the one that has to come up with evidence that these things can happen!
FUahole69 1 year ago
So your saying this pastor brought this guy back from the dead with prayer? So why doesnt he use his power to cure cancer for kids! Do you believe praying works?
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : "So why doesnt he use his power to cure cancer for kids!" This is exactly what I was talking about. You demand "evidence" and then demonstrate why what I just presented was not evidence.
"Your the one that has to come up with evidence that these things can happen!"
You can't prove anything to your satisfaction. This goes back to my MAIN point. Your standard is DESIGNED to produce FAILURE. NOT seek the truth. Your more interested in disproving God than find truth.
mike10121996 1 year ago
I hope I'm wrong and there is a god, but not the one in the bible! As far as evidence, you havent given any! Prove to me that it was because of a pastor praying, someone came back to life! How do you explain when prayer doesnt work when someone doesnt come back!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 :" How do you explain when prayer doesnt work when someone doesnt come back!"
If Bob threw a perfect strike in a game last week. His failure to throw a strike in this weeks game does NOT negate the strike in last weeks game. You asked for evidence, I provided you an example (to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about) and you did exactly what I said you would do, TO A TEE. You negated the evidence based upon what you perceived SHOULD happen not on the evidence at hand.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@mike10121996 Let me put it this way: I wasn't trying to prove miracles happen or don't happen. I was demonstrating exactly how your argument is designed to disprove God NOT seek the truth. Once again your more interested in showing who DIDN'T cause that man to come back to life, rather than find out who or what did.
mike10121996 1 year ago
Here is the bottom line, I asked you to show me evidence of a miracle! You said you read a book that a prayer brought someone back from the dead. I'm saying it coincedence, your saying god answered! Tell me why your right and I'm wrong to prove it's a true miracle! Stop looking so much into the questions and just answer it! I seen my cousin who is a holy roller get turned down on her prayers so why did god skip out on her? Her mother, my aunt had cancer, why didnt got answer her prayers!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 :"I asked you to show me evidence of a miracle!" That is NOT what happened. Go back and look it up. You asserted that we know "Miracles don't happen" I provided you an example of a scientifically unexplainable event (ie miracle) and now you want to assert that I asserted somthing. I don't KNOW how that man came back to life only that he DID and there is no explanation. You asserted that a scientifically unexplainable event (miracle) wasn't possible.
mike10121996 1 year ago
First of all I dont know the whole story of the dead person, I find it a littel hard to believe they came back after an hour and a half!
FUahole69 1 year ago
and you READ somewhere in a BOOK that he came back to life? ...dont believe EVERYTHING anyone tells you....make your own decision
ScrewFearMe 1 year ago
@ScrewFearMe "make your own decisions" Like you have? You've been educated in a society that has TRAINED you to only believe what you see, only trust what a scientist says, believe yourself over "authority",(except ironically that science is an authority itself) and with all these things pounded into your head you followed the logical conclusion of all this training and called it "thinking for yourself?" Please, POT calling the kettle BLACK.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : your doing exactly what I said you'd do: Your hiding the fact that you asserted Miracles "don't happen" and you don't want to back down and admit that you made an assertion you can't back up. You asserted something you couldn't prove was true. Trying to attack me like I asserted anything of the kind, its ridiculous. I didn't assert God raised him from the dead. I said "a pastor prayed for him and he came back to life." PERIOD.
mike10121996 1 year ago
How is asking you a question turning into an attack! I seen you say this before, your claiming something, we ask for proof and you claim we are attacking!
FUahole69 1 year ago
Ok, let me put it this way! When I say evidence I want you to explain in detail how it's possible! Your just saying it's the work of god, that doesnt prove anything! I could just say no it was aliens, how would prove me wrong? See what I mean when I say detail in evidence! How can a virgin give birth?
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : "When I say evidence I want you to explain in detail how it's possible!" Now you've just changed the whole conversation. First you asserted: "Miracles don't happen." I provided you one example off the top of my head. You now want detailed proof of "How that's possible?" As if my failure to demonstrate HOW it's possible therefore negates THAT it happened at all. That wasn't what you said You said miracles "don't happen".
mike10121996 1 year ago
@FUahole69 "I could just say no it was aliens," Yes you could say it. That once again is just the point. Your right because a man prayed it does not automatically follow God raised him. But that wasn't the point. You said miracles "don't happen" I countered with this example. Please try and keep your own assertions straight.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : "Men made up alot of shit back then, alot of it was about gods!" Actually I do get what your saying. Your ASSUMPTION is THAT they "made it up" How can you prove they made it up verses that's what actually happened? In other words, your begging the question. When ever some one proclaims a god did this or that. It MUST be "made up" because we KNOW that just doesn't happen. That's the very topic we're trying to discuss. In logic that's called begging the question.
mike10121996 1 year ago
So if your admitting man made up alot of stuff back then, what makes you believe in the bible?
FUahole69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FUahole69 : "what makes you believe in the bible?" Who said I believed the bible? Who said I was talking about you "believing" the bible? Don't try and turn this into something I never said: You asserted that man wasn't "into science" back then so everything he said must be "made up"
I asked what that means? Does their lack of "scientific" understanding mean nothing happened and that everything they wrote was "made up"? use logic.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@FUahole69 A prime example: I just finished a book called "90 minuets in Heaven". A man was dead(pronounced dead by paramedics on the scene) for 1.5 hours and a pastor prayed for him and he was suddenly alive. My point is not to get into a debate. My point is that you won't believe this happened not because it "doesn't happen" but because you KNOW thats just not possible. So no matter what evidence is presented, it MUST be false somehow, even though you don't have any evidence.
mike10121996 1 year ago
I dont have any idea what your trying to say here!
FUahole69 1 year ago
@FUahole69 : P.S. Your assumption is that the scripture is the same thing as a "encyclopedia" I'm sure many christians communicate it to you LIKE that, but that is a way of communicate HOW it is used not WHAT it is. Those are two very different things.
mike10121996 1 year ago
@mike10121996
Well, it's either:
A) read it literally and agree with it, which makes you a horrible person by today's standards.
B) read it metaphorically and make up new meanings to adjust the Bible to soften it and make it more reasonable.
C) read it literally and not go with it.
Is there another option?
coreygames 1 year ago
@coreygames : I never asserted any thing about any religious book. Look through what I wrote. I never asserted anything about any religious book. The book I was referring to was a book called 90 min in heaven. That is the book I was referring to. You seem to have misunderstood what the conversation was about. Please try and keep up with one conversation at a time.
mike10121996 1 year ago