Raising The Dead

[Guest I Love Dog]

I wonder furthermore with ressurections... I was reading some of William Lane Craig's stuff online and came across something that basically said that Atheist's have no hope of escape from death, aging, and disease.

 

And I wonder, is this true? It's marvelous what medical science has been able to do thus far, whose to say some day we can defeat all illness and even death?

 

What was "magic" 200 years ago is science today, for sure!

 

Atheists can't escape anything that is in the natural order of things. No different to Christians or any other person on the planet.

 

Birth...life...death...food for other life forms is the natural order on planet earth.

 

This is how we live on. We are born, we die, we decompose into elements and chemicals and provide food for other life forms.

 

I trust that when I die, the worms that eat me will be eaten by birds that soar high above Earth, or tree roots will absorb me and in its leaves I will be eaten by caterpillars that will become beautiful butterflies, or eaten by koalas. Whatever it is, it's the cycle of nature that simple humans thousands of years ago couldn't comprehend or understand and thought that humans were something "special".

 

They had to invent gods to explain the cycles of nature. We now know different.

[SEEtheScorn]

 

Atheists can't escape anything that is in the natural order of things.

 

Perhaps. But we hardly know completely what the "natural order" entails. I sincerely doubt we even scratch the surface of knowledge with a whole wide universe out there. Just because we haven't seen something be true, doesn't mean it is nor that it can't be. If we can solve one disease at a time, aging also seems to be a disease of sorts that I think one day we can absolve. I don't place my "hope" in it, I don't really care. If I continue to live or exist in some metaphysical afterlife, or if I die and become worm-food, I don't think I'd mind either way. I just think that mankind can achieve wonders if given the time.

 

I know theists use that argument with God, but I think if anything, that kind of argument raises one to a level of theistic agnosticism and nothing more.

[Shyone]

 

Atheists can't escape anything that is in the natural order of things.

 

Perhaps. But we hardly know completely what the "natural order" entails. I sincerely doubt we even scratch the surface of knowledge with a whole wide universe out there. Just because we haven't seen something be true, doesn't mean it is nor that it can't be. If we can solve one disease at a time, aging also seems to be a disease of sorts that I think one day we can absolve. I don't place my "hope" in it, I don't really care. If I continue to live or exist in some metaphysical afterlife, or if I die and become worm-food, I don't think I'd mind either way. I just think that mankind can achieve wonders if given the time.

 

I know theists use that argument with God, but I think if anything, that kind of argument raises one to a level of theistic agnosticism and nothing more.

As things stand, we have an excellent idea of what the natural order is. Just as described above. Birth, life, death, decomposition.

 

I will die. Everyone I know will die. You will die. It's not a magic trick to predict that, just the way things are.

 

If, somehow, we manage to lengthen life, it won't change the inevitability of death; it will just take longer. It may sound great, and maybe it is. People lived 40 years average 500 years ago, now closer to 80. Gee, isn't that enough? How about 160? 320?

 

You are going to die.

 

Immortality is wishful thinking. Even those things that we build to make us last in memory for a long time will decay, disintegrate or become meaningless. Gravestones, buildings, videos, books; all will become nothing eventually, even if it takes 5 billion years (the estimated remaining time the sun will last).

 

We are a part of the world, and we cannot escape that. Even flying off in space will only mean that at best some alien creatures that won't know you will examine your remains and say, "Glorph, rlesdpmvp jfipn;als".

[SEEtheScorn]

Maybe. I try not to speak of things I can't be sure of. I can't be any more sure death is the end, than a Christian can insist that it isn't and ends in two possible destinations. I haven't been there anymore than they have. Maybe the small part of me that still argues for the unknowable is wrapped up in "wishful thinking." Another part of me thinks we all argue for what we want to be true. But that's psychology I'd think, and not my field.

 

I think sometimes we insist it is the end, if anything, to show the world that we're not religious anymore and don't want to be associated with those types of people. I try to steer from such thinking when I can. I know too many Atheists who at every turn negate everything Christians believe. I think they may have some truth, just like all(most!) religions and philosophies.

 

I suppose it's elitist in the way to presume consciousness has a different fate than the material though, hm? Who am I to surely say the rock will have it's end, as will the sun, and not even try to nor care to argue that perhaps it won't? I suppose that is the human way. We don't want to end. All our philosophies and religions are self-seeking. The I don't-give-a-fucks usually tell the world they're going to rot just because, deep inside, they hate it all. The hopeful dreamer fights for a philosophy that supports the elitism of consciousness, and hopes in an ability to transcend past even death. In between the extremes, well, I suppose there's a mix of perspectives.

 

Perhaps I'm more hopeful that objective at times? I'm glad that I can at least admit that, though, and face my self-centered strive for at least a "maybe" when it comes to the continuation of life past the physical death.

[Shyone]

Maybe. I try not to speak of things I can't be sure of. I can't be any more sure death is the end, than a Christian can insist that it isn't and ends in two possible destinations. I haven't been there anymore than they have. Maybe the small part of me that still argues for the unknowable is wrapped up in "wishful thinking." Another part of me thinks we all argue for what we want to be true. But that's psychology I'd think, and not my field.

 

I think sometimes we insist it is the end, if anything, to show the world that we're not religious anymore and don't want to be associated with those types of people. I try to steer from such thinking when I can. I know too many Atheists who at every turn negate everything Christians believe. I think they may have some truth, just like all(most!) religions and philosophies.

I don't want to believe that death is the end. It is conclusion that I have come to after years of study and reflection. What forms of life, all of which depend on biological mechanisms to live, will get to heaven or live eternally? Spiders? Bacteria?

 

Being an atheist isn't a position I argue just to have something to argue about. It is a conclusion, and I've seen too many people who have physical problems that affect personality, memory, will, drive and everything else that we would hope survivies. It dies before they die.

 

We have no mmore prospect of continuing "thoughts" after death than a car has the prospect of running after its engine has exploded. It is the property of an intact brain that allows thoughts, and when the brain rots, the thoughts and personality die.

 

Just because I've never seen fairies doesn't mean I don't have enough reason to say they don't exist. And just because I haven't died doesn't mean I don't have enough information to say that what follows is the same as what preceded our lives.

 

Really, it doesn't matter what you believe unless your beliefs affect the living adversely. If you believe that drinking the blood of babies will guarantee you eternal life, that's not good. If you go to work, love your friends and live a good life despite having a fantasy about Elvis living in your bedroom, then more power to you.

[Snakefoot]

I wonder furthermore with ressurections... I was reading some of William Lane Craig's stuff online and came across something that basically said that Atheist's have no hope of escape from death, aging, and disease.

 

And I wonder, is this true? It's marvelous what medical science has been able to do thus far, whose to say some day we can defeat all illness and even death?

 

What was "magic" 200 years ago is science today, for sure!

 

Atheists can't escape anything that is in the natural order of things. No different to Christians or any other person on the planet.

 

Birth...life...death...food for other life forms is the natural order on planet earth.

 

This is how we live on. We are born, we die, we decompose into elements and chemicals and provide food for other life forms.

 

I trust that when I die, the worms that eat me will be eaten by birds that soar high above Earth, or tree roots will absorb me and in its leaves I will be eaten by caterpillars that will become beautiful butterflies, or eaten by koalas. Whatever it is, it's the cycle of nature that simple humans thousands of years ago couldn't comprehend or understand and thought that humans were something "special".

 

They had to invent gods to explain the cycles of nature. We now know different.

 

A man may fish with a worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of a fish that fed of that worm.

--Hamlet

[Shyone]

 

A man may fish with a worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of a fish that fed of that worm.

--Hamlet

Smart man. Invite him to the forum; I'm sure he would have a lot to contribute.

 

Just kidding. But it does show that people have had similar thoughts before. Religion is an attempt to escape the cycle of nature, not be a part of it.

[SEEtheScorn]

Good thoughts, and good points. I forget that the argument for proving non-existence/impossibility fails to hold, and is unreasonable.

 

I wonder how much this would be shattered if raising the dead was somehow proven, witnessed, and fully documented to have happened. Although it's safe to say this is impossible, I suppose it rests on that impossible thing to present itself before such thoughts and changes can be contemplated!

[Shyone]

Good thoughts, and good points. I forget that the argument for proving non-existence/impossibility fails to hold, and is unreasonable.

 

I wonder how much this would be shattered if raising the dead was somehow proven, witnessed, and fully documented to have happened. Although it's safe to say this is impossible, I suppose it rests on that impossible thing to present itself before such thoughts and changes can be contemplated!

I hope that we someday see faith-healing centers where amputees can go to get new limbs. We could study to see which sects are healed and which aren't and finally get the truth. I'd love to watch the new limbs magically appear complete with fingers/toes and movement/sensations.

 

When that day happens, and miracle is available for all to see without hoopla, money demands or excuses, I will become a believer.

 

In what, I'm not sure, but I'd sure believe differently than I do now.

[Dagan]

 

Wouldn't this guy be loaded into an ambulance and taken to the hospital if it was within 20 minutes of his collapse?

 

Phanta

Most protocols call for on-scene resuscitation with Advanced Life Support where available (paramedics can do this). Collapse to arrival of ambulance, 10 minutes. Round of CPR and ALS, 10 minutes. Trasport to hospital.

 

Do you get some impression that the person declined to be transported after he was revived?

 

It's a weird story. Lots of details, like that, left out.

 

Phanta

Kind of like the Bible.

 

 

 

I hate these kind of stories. A few years ago I went looking for proof of miracles. I'd read all sorts of fantastic missionary stories about people being raised from the dead, and found recent examples online. I even found a couple of videos of people allegedly coming back from the dead.

 

But the stories all have one thing in common: they cannot be verified.

 

They all take place with the alleged Lazarus surrounded by the faithful. Rarely is there a doctor in sight, no electronic health monitoring units, no independent verification whatsoever.

 

I find that strange. In 2009, when half the planet has a camera or has access to one, shouldn't we see more evidence of miracles? When Jesus said "greater than these will you do in my name," was he just making another outrageous claim to attract followers? Because we haven't seen "greater than these."

 

Some fundamentalists tell us the age of miracles has past. Well, isn't that conVEEEEEEEEENient. I think we don't have any photographic or video proof because, as the saying goes, pics or it didn't happen.

[Dagan]

I hope that we someday see faith-healing centers where amputees can go to get new limbs. We could study to see which sects are healed and which aren't and finally get the truth. I'd love to watch the new limbs magically appear complete with fingers/toes and movement/sensations.

 

When that day happens, and miracle is available for all to see without hoopla, money demands or excuses, I will become a believer.

 

Me too. I'll bring my son, born with no left hand thanks to a congenital birth defect, and watch it grow before my eyes into a healthy hand.

 

Oh wait, I forgot. God doesn't heal amputees. In fact, he hates them, the Old Testament tells us so, explicitly explaining how amputees and cripples are excluded from temple worship. Oh well, fuck you too, God.

[Shyone]

Being an atheist isn't a position I argue just to have something to argue about. It is a conclusion, and I've seen too many people who have physical problems that affect personality, memory, will, drive and everything else that we would hope survivies. It dies before they die.

 

What do you mean by "die", regarding personality, will, drive, etc.? Have you seen people almost die, physically, after a period of seemingly not having these things, and then they are regained in recovery?

 

A relative went into a deep depression, was suicidal, and was hospitalized many times. She was like a zombie most of the time, vacant. She remembered her previous self, her spark, her enthusiasm, but felt like it was dead. I suggested that it was out of reach. Her physical resources couldn't connect with it.

 

Sure enough, she eventually came out of her funk (with the right meds), and her spark and will are back, very much as before.

 

?

 

Phanta

As long as there is life, there is hope. That's the saying, and for the most part it's true. Some disease processes however steal our personality, memories and desires irrevocably. And sometimes, there is simply a chemical imbalance that can be corrected with wonderful results.

 

It's like when a car has a clogged carbeurator. It begins to sputter, but with a little fiddling, the oxygen can be restored and the engine continues to run. If the connections are still there to be used, the brain can "recover." With some processes, the connections no longer exist, and the "soul" disintegrates never to be seen again in the same form.

 

Have you seen the movie "Regarding Henry"? It's only a movie, but illustrative. His memory, personality and ambition are gone after trauma with no prospect of recovery. Sad in a way, but then Henry has a "different" personality that some would say is better. Kind of like after a frontal lobotomy.

[SEEtheScorn]

I hope that we someday see faith-healing centers where amputees can go to get new limbs. We could study to see which sects are healed and which aren't and finally get the truth. I'd love to watch the new limbs magically appear complete with fingers/toes and movement/sensations.

 

When that day happens, and miracle is available for all to see without hoopla, money demands or excuses, I will become a believer.

 

Me too. I'll bring my son, born with no left hand thanks to a congenital birth defect, and watch it grow before my eyes into a healthy hand.

 

Oh wait, I forgot. God doesn't heal amputees. In fact, he hates them, the Old Testament tells us so, explicitly explaining how amputees and cripples are excluded from temple worship. Oh well, fuck you too, God.

 

It's difficult. Though yes, if healing an amputee or such serious conditions actually happened in controlled environments under the name of whatever deity, I'd think consideration of one's beliefs are in order.

 

The "healings" I "performed" where amongst people I never saw before, will never see again, and spoke Spanish. All I know is that through my translator, they told me that they no longer felt pain, or could see, or could hear. But I can't substantiate any of it.

 

We were told that the hospital full of kids with leukemia that we visited had sent all the kids home. This was also apparently followed up by the local church. But... really? Or is someone along the phone line exaggerating?

 

I was "healed" of my food allergies to lactose and nuts. Went to the altar, the preacher told me to just go home and eat whatever I wanted, so I had a tall glass of milk and pecans. Haven't been sick since. But allergies can and do come and go with time. So add that fact with a placebo effect, and it's not hard to believe at all.

 

Yet my mom still has Lupus. My brother still has Asberger syndrome. My dad still has a anger problem. My grandfather still has emphysema. And they all believe in healing.

 

So even if I did see a miracle, say growing of limbs, how do you rationalize a God that picks and chooses who to heal and who not to?

[Shyone]

 

So even if I did see a miracle, say growing of limbs, how do you reationalize a God that picks and chooses who to heal and who not to?

That's a fair question. I think that if it were repeatable and verifiable then it would be subject to scientific analysis.

 

Then we would have some reasonable basis for faith besides "My mom started taking me to church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc."

 

Wouldn't it be weird if the Taoists were the ones to develop religious healing? No one could understand it. Including the Taoists.

[Dagan]

So even if I did see a miracle, say growing of limbs, how do you rationalize a God that picks and chooses who to heal and who not to?

 

You can't. Either God is healing his favourites, or he's healing people as part of some mysterious future plan we cannot possibly understand, or he's not involved in the healing process at all.

 

That makes God either a cosmic asshole, or an unknowable, understandable force, or completely irrelevant.

 

And it's a hop, skip and a jump from completely irrelevant to imaginary. Guess which one I believe.

[Snakefoot]

...how do you rationalize a God that picks and chooses who to heal and who not to?

 

You conclude gawd is the capricious, unreasonable asshole the babble paints him to be.

[florduh]

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Scripture doesn't say that God will heal on rare occasions at his whim. It says this power to heal, along with the stuff about snakes, demons and poison, will be imparted to believers.

 

If God is all powerful and does not lie, then these abilities would work all the time.

[Shyone]

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Scripture doesn't say that God will heal on rare occasions at his whim. It says this power to heal, along with the stuff about snakes, demons and poison, will be imparted to believers.

 

If God is all powerful and does not lie, then these abilities would work all the time.

I may start another thread on this topic. The apologists say that this is taken "out of context" and you have to include all of the other verses, some of which include a requirement for good works, or the right "frame of mind" or whatever. It turns out to be an empty promise.

[florduh]

The apologists say that this is taken "out of context" and you have to include all of the other verses, some of which include a requirement for good works, or the right "frame of mind" or whatever. It turns out to be an empty promise.

Agreed. You are free to pick any verse that suits your purpose at the time. I did it as an apologist, and I do it now!