BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 May 07 - 04:50 PM

Wesley - I posted one earlier on this thread. Don't know if it's Good...
The FFRF, or maybe it's Americans United, sings Die Gedanken Sind Frei as their atheist anthem...

M.Ted - science cannot prove anything. But it sure can disprove! And so far, all myths have been disproven. So why continue to believe in them?

I actually do have a lot of insight into what people think. Not only did I grow up immersed in animism, Islam and Christianity, I have a PhD in cognitive psychology (grinnjing and ducking for cover)!

And perish the thought that I would undertake a Crusade, LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:22 PM

"The FFRF, or maybe it's Americans United, sings Die Gedanken Sind Frei as their atheist anthem..."

With a title like that how do you know what you're singing? It could be a German translation of "Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so". Ya better be careful.......

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:31 PM

Daylia, you write,

* As long as human beings can not explain simple cases of thought transference, cannot explain prediction and prognostication, cannot explain glimpses of the "other side", cannot explain altruism, cannot, for heaven's sake, even explain love, there is a whole hell of a lot that they don't know."

Ah but the trouble is that so many religious folks claim to know a helluva lot about a lot of things and have nothing to prove their assertions. It's not true that altrusim can't be explained. It has been many times. It's a societal protection for the species. Love can be explained also. There are different kinds of "love" and being in love is kind of a delusional behavioral pattern. Thought transference is easilly explained. Two people can think of the same idea at the same time by reacting similarly to their environment. Prognostication for the most part is a sham. Even the term "prophet" has been bowlderized from its original meaning which was that of an "artist", "poet" and "musician". The religious prophecy can't be proven at all by scientific means. Therefore, I think it doesn't really exist. Glimpses of "the other side" are merely conditioning by years of religious indoctrination. The so-called "return from the dead experiences" have never been authenticated by any scientist that I know of.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:39 PM

This thread is too long to read through right now, so very likely someone has already said this - but the answer to the question that seems to settle it for me is that all the evidence is that human beings are geared to be that way, and that people who follow some kind of religion are liable to live longer and be happier.

So asking "Why should anyone believe in God?" is a bit like asking "Why should anyone go to sleep at night?"

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 05:49 PM

A lot of research, however, has been done into non-religious spiritual experiences such as Near Death experiences, Out-of-Body experiences, and various kinds of extrasensory perceptions. The problem, as I have mentioned before, is that the inherent plasticity of the subject matter makes observation and repeatability much more awkward and hard to codify than it is when normal physical events and their statistics can be used.

Despite these hurdles, a routinely greater-than-chance set of observations has been the general rule.

There are some really important differences, though. As far as can be seen, electrons don't give a hoot what anyone thinks about them. But people do. If you are studying the modalities of thought transferral over distance in "sensitive " people and do it in a hostile way, the chances of results (I suggest) are going to be diminished by the very framework of the examination.

This is just the tip of an iceberg, of which (for example) the strange impacts of the placebo effect on provien physical conditions is another tip.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 May 07 - 06:14 PM

Who disproved the myth of Sisyphus? By your account, Homer has been disproven. and forget Dante, because there is no proof of Heaven or Hell. I suppose next you will refute Shakespeare.
Myths are allegories and metaphors. You can't disprove literature.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 07 - 06:41 PM

Frank, I must correct you- it was I who wrote that paragraph. Daylia was only quoting me.

I find it bemusing that people stay on course in their assertions, not to mention their adamant beliefs, even when someone else has asserted an experience of their own. I suppose it is politeness that keeps the first person from yelling You lie! - but I would kind of prefer a response of that sort to not getting one at all.

Up above I recounted an experience I had in Oregon- an experience that was replicated or amplified by someone else, someone I didn't even know.

So my question is: Was that experience, in your opinion, one of the above:

"Ah but the trouble is that so many religious folks claim to know a helluva lot about a lot of things and have nothing to prove their assertions. It's not true that altrusim can't be explained. It has been many times. It's a societal protection for the species. Love can be explained also. There are different kinds of "love" and being in love is kind of a delusional behavioral pattern. Thought transference is easilly explained. Two people can think of the same idea at the same time by reacting similarly to their environment. Prognostication for the most part is a sham. Even the term "prophet" has been bowlderized from its original meaning which was that of an "artist", "poet" and "musician". The religious prophecy can't be proven at all by scientific means. Therefore, I think it doesn't really exist. Glimpses of "the other side" are merely conditioning by years of religious indoctrination. The so-called "return from the dead experiences" have never been authenticated by any scientist that I know of." Stringsinger

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:16 PM

"The river runs red because of the blood of Appolo" - no, it's iron ore.
Remind me what Sisyphus (?) did to have to roll the rock up the hill?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 07 - 11:21 PM

A coupple of more polished minds than ours, if no smarter, have been debating this very issue in the national eye, according to this report in the New York Times. Interesting -- we are on the leading edge, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 May 07 - 08:37 AM

Apollo's blood, like ours, was red from the iron in it. At any rate, the phrase is a metaphor. As in this example from Bat Wing, by the celebrated pulp novelist, Sax Rohmer:

"As I passed along the terrace I paused to admire the spectacle afforded
by the setting sun. The horizon was on fire from north to south and the
countryside was stained with that mystic radiance which is sometimes
called the Blood of Apollo."

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 May 07 - 08:43 AM

No fair calling Metaphor when a myth gets disproved!

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 09:14 AM

FANTASY

"When I examine myself and my methods of thought,
I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy
has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge."

                                  Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:12 AM

re: The NYT article on Sharpton/Hitchens....It's interesting to see a avowed believer...like Sharpton... holding his own against a literate atheist. Sharpton carefully points out the weaknesses in Hitchens' attacks on religion.....but then proceeds to make some of the usual mistakes in defending belief in God...(i.e..."When you raise the issue of morality, if there is no supervisory being, what do we base morality on?"..)

Hitchens spends far too much time dwelling on the 'bad things done in the name of religion'...that is not really a refutation of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:00 PM

Myth is metaphor, dearie. Always has been. Did you miss class the day they explained that day?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:11 PM

...and in all fairness, the fact that a small population of extremists is too intellectually challenged to recognize the difference between a metaphor and its universe of application, should not be used to tar all those who enjoy its use with an idiot-brush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stu
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:48 PM

"I fully believe in evolution. It is a well-demonstrated fact. We absolutely know that things start out with something, in the course of time are faced with something else and adapt and evolve to take advantage of the new development. That is easily and repeatedly shown."

Er, I think evolution is still a theory, albeit one which the all the available evidence points toward. As for being easily shown, the fossil record is way too full of gaps to suggest that is the case. We know birds are a type of theropod dinosaur, but we still have no idea when they first emerged, their exact affiliations within the dinosauria, or even which animals are birds and which aren't. I doubt if anyone could provide one single example of the evolutionary development of a single extant species.

Evolutionary theory ain't perfect, but is still better than the poisionous nonsense which creationists seem intent on masquerading as scientific fact when it is at best superstition, at worst an insidious attempt to mislead our children and throw the clock back hundreds of years - it's a control mechanism for making sure the flock truly don't start to think for themselves - and that is dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 May 07 - 01:02 PM

My issue is with those who take their myths as fact, not as metaphor. Those are the ones that have been disproven.

Of course evolution is a theeory. So is gravity. So is plate tectonics. Doesn't make them any less factual - theory means "working model" not "something we aren't sure about" - in jargon, that is. In English, none of those are still theoretical, all are certainties. Doesn't mean we know everything about how it works, or that there is nothing else to discover. It just means we know that they exist/happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 May 07 - 01:17 PM

The literal-minded will be the death of us all, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stu
Date: 08 May 07 - 01:53 PM

"So is plate tectonics"

Ah, don't get me started on plate tectonics. The unifying theory of Geology. Wonderful, facinating stuff. Heck, who needs a God when something as incredible as plate tectonics exists?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 May 07 - 02:04 PM

"...if there is no supervisory being, what do we base morality on?".

What you are saying _ I suspect - is that without a God we have no way of judging standards of how to be good and bad.

That does not make the existence of such a God more likely - simply more desirable.

What evidence we have does not support the view that religiousness = morality.

Are you suggesting it does?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 May 07 - 02:52 PM

How about basing it on our own intelligence? Pain = bad; comfort = good. Getting caught lying = bad; catching a liar = good. The other animals can teach us that much, and how much more does one need?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 May 07 - 03:13 PM

Mrzzy,

Humans are intelligent? If anything is an arguable point, that is--

As to the rest, you are off the mark again--Pain isn't bad--it is good--it tells you that you are being hurt. As to lying, it is necessary to human survival--as predators, we couldn't survive without snaring and trapping our prey. Even in agriculture, we "fool" plants into growing the way that is most useful to us--So far, you've given us a big fat zip;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 May 07 - 07:31 PM

LOL, M.Ted!

Yes, pain serves a good purpose, but feeling it still feels bad. If it didn't, it wouldn't work, now, would it?

So, I amend to feeling pain feels bad, feeling comfortable feels good. And the same for lying: it evolved because *getting away with it* is advantageous - which is why detection of deceit evolved right along with it. That is why I didn't say Lying is bad - I said getting caught is bad. Ever watch a social species catch a member, say, hiding food, or otherwise deceiving? They'll whale the tar out of'm! And we're back to feeling pain=bad.

I don't consider that the bird's deceitful color is a lie to me who may prey upon them. I guess you could consider the duck blind a lie btu again, getting away with it is good, getting caught is bad - if the ducks see through your blind, your family won't eat. So you are actually in complete agreement with me.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. As my DDD (dead dead dad) used to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 May 07 - 09:06 PM

I heard what you said--so if what I heard is not what you meant, then what you said is not what you meant. That would make what you said ironic. I I knew what you meant when you said what you didn't mean, and you didn't know what you said wasn't what you meant, that would be ironic, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:04 PM

No to your first point, because what you heard was not what I said, while what I meant *was* what I said. Thus you did not hear what I meant.

And you know that I know that you know you're not addressing the actual content, too! Or is that "either?"

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 May 07 - 10:50 PM

I don't know that you have any actual content. At least not if you are trying to create a foundation for an individual moral and ethical system. I don't accept the idea that you can reduce motivation to the preference of comfort over pain. Some quick reasons:

A) A lot of moral choices don't break down to a pain/comfort dichotomy
B) The pain or comfort that people experience often results from things beyond their control.
C) Pain and comfort can be managed without making external choices, and without making moral choices.
D)People frequently make choices that they know will cause them pain, and forgo options that are comfortable.

And that's without getting into anything related to the concept of "lying" or the validity of basing choices on our interpretation of the motives of animals.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:18 PM

The sphere of individual judgement and experience extends beyond the body proper; watching one's loved ones suffer causes pain; so does watching one's town collapse, or one's ball team lose, or one's flag go down in battle. There are many kinds of pain and of joy. For example, while "getting away with lying" may bring an advantage, it is much less joyful and pleasant than acheiving the same goals openly and with honesty.

So the spectrum of "better survival" versus "worse survival" includes self, family, all sorts of groups one identifies with, and even one's species andlife in general.

If you take a whole-spectrum view it is clear that human beings do generate their own morality, or sense of ethics, or they succumb to confusion and shut their sense of right action down to some sort of reaction scheme, as soldiers are trained to do. There are whole cults and cultures that actually try to engender reaction-based morality, but they are not "native code", so to speak.

There is no need for an external source to dictate right and wrong except when individuals have betrayed themselves first and gone on to llive in madness.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stu
Date: 09 May 07 - 08:49 AM

The generation of a moral code without recourse to some omnipotent deity raises lots of very interesting questions, but I think Carl Sagan came closest to a solution in my opinion (not that I've read them all of course).

Sagan stated (and I am paraphrasing freely here) that human beings are the universe made conscious - we are the cosmos able to contemplate and analyse itself, to divine it's own true nature and we are driven to understand the motion and actuality of matter and energy, of time and space. Far from removing the sense of wonder from our perceptions of the world around us, science reveals the true

Here is the basis of a moral code: every being is precious, capable of incredible insight and creativity. Every being is born with an equal right to exist alongside all others - the very fact you have been born at all means you are a unique, special and deserving of you place in the scheme of things, to realise your own potential.

So by killing or inflicting suffering on another human being (leaving out everything else for the sake of simplicity), you are in effect committing a crime against the very universe itself. You take away the real potential of another human being and deprive the cosmos itself of another piece of it's own consciousness, of it's own ability to reason and discover and abstract.

If you agree with this concept then constructing a moral code becomes a dialectic matter and very possible (most of the work has been done after all) - and the moral vacuum all the religious types seems to think would engulf us itself becomes less of a threat.

See? Don't need a God after all. Plenty of space for wonder and spirituality, compassion and empathy - and you take the responsibility yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 May 07 - 09:14 AM

Right- although I would not agree that every being has the same rights. I don't think grass has the right to choose whether to be cut, for instance. (Grass evolved to be cut by hooves, and hooves evolved to cut grass.) And I prefer to think of crimes against humanity as, well, crimes against humanity, not against the universe.

But M.Ted, I wasn't (or didn't mean to be) reducing morality to pain v. comfort, I was giving an example of how we could evolve, say, the golden rule, without needing to refer to some outside point of reference. We can figure it out with our very real senses. And our intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 May 07 - 09:32 AM

Glimpses of "the other side" are merely conditioning by years of religious indoctrination. The so-called "return from the dead experiences" have never been authenticated by any scientist that I know of." (Stringsinger)

I respectfully disagree with every single word of this. PLenty of scientists and lay folk have had near-death experiences that changed them deeply and totally.

Here's one example.

But not all scientists are skeptics when it comes to explaining near-death phenomena, and researchers have debated such issues for years.

Joyce Hawkes, a cell biologist with a PhD, had an accident that forever changed her life — and her view of science. She suffered a concussion from a falling window.

"I think that part of me — that my spirit, my soul — left my body and went to another reality," she said. She was surprised at the experience.

"It just was not part of the paradigm in which I lived as a scientist," Hawkes recalled. "Iit was a big surprise to me to have this sense of something different than the body — a consciousness different than the body — and to be in this wonderfully healing, peaceful, nurturing place."

Hawkes now works as a spiritual healer.

"I think what I learned was that there truly is no death, that there is a change in state from a physical form to a spirit form, and that there's nothing to fear about that passage," she said.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 May 07 - 11:32 AM

With due respect, Stigweard--you don't need a God, you've already constructed one of your own--What with tying it all in to Carl Sagan, you could probably recruit a lot of scientists and such types who have stayed away from religion, but feel left out on Sundays--

And Mrzzy--when you create a "Golden Rule", you are creating an external reference--an article of faith, a doctrine, all that stuff that you don't like--

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 11:49 AM

M. Ted:

General principles are not the problem or the source of harm.

Blind obedience to dogma is the source of harm.

There is a big difference in use.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stu
Date: 09 May 07 - 11:51 AM

Carl Sagan isn't a god, but Martin O'Neill will be if he gets the Villa into Europe next season.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 May 07 - 12:05 PM

I'm not creating a Golden Rule. I'm noticing that being nice is better all around than being mean. And I don't need a supernatural being to delineate what is better, I can observe it for myself. And again, if you infer something from empirical evidence, it isn't an article of faith, it's a conclusion. So I am either unclear on what you mean, or you're mistaken.
Speaking of empirical evidence, Daylia, the plural of anecdote is not data. For example, there is a sound physiological reason why people losing their functions "see" a "tunnel" with a "bright light" - it's the way our visual system works when it's failing (or fails to work when it's failing, if you prefer). The brain loses peripheral before foveal vision, leading to the tunnel, and as neurons stop firing the mind sees light, because our visual neurons are actually dark detectors (less firing = brighter). And what people make of such experiences is, of course, personal, and will obviously be filtered through their religious background (as well as through their non-religious background). Yet there are scores if not hundreds of reports of this kind of phenomenon being thought of as "evidence" for life after death. It isn't. It's evidence of how death works.

The fact that a scientist can have a near-death experience is not at all the same thing as claiming that near-death experiences have been scientifically validated. There are no *documented* cases of, say, somebody having an out-of-body experience actually learning something that they couldn't already have known through their own intelligence. Those are evidence that one's brain is smarter than one'd mind, just like the unintentional pun.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 07 - 12:12 PM

"PLenty of scientists and lay folk have had near-death experiences that changed them deeply and totally."

Indeed they have...but but that is far from 'authentication'. There are, simply, other ways to explain near-death and out-of-body experiences. They aren't nearly as poetic or fascinating, but they require fewer assumptions and unprovable premises.
   We are learning more & more about brain function everyday, and it IS fascinating to discover just what complexity there is in those billions of cells. Inventing metaphysical explanations for strange phenomena may be understandable, given the power of some of the imagery, but ignoring scientific evidence which counters metaphysics is regrettable. The 'authorities' tried it with Copernicus, but he was vindicated.

It is fine to question, but beware answers that seem too easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 May 07 - 01:20 PM

Daylia, the scientists that claim they have proof of "near death experiences" are charlatans.
The source you gave from ABC News in tabloid journalism and in no way can be taken seriously. It is "hearsay" information and does not constitute any scientific proof whatever.

The Medical Editor of a magazine is not necessarilly a valid authority on this subject. Who knows if he really is a doctor and if he were an MD I would not hesitate to avoid him were I in need.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 May 07 - 01:20 PM

You misunderstand me-I am not arguing in favor of external supernatural authority--my point is simply that your assertions weak --

The idea about being a nice person, for instance--there are some who argue that being "nice' is a manipulative strategy, intended to conceal real intent by masking an authentic reaction with a contrived one. In that case, it is the sort of "lying" that you object to--

Beyond that, the idea that *you*are nice is your own--others may not validate it, particularly those who have read some of the things you've said here. "Nice" is a rather trite concept, so maybe you haven't lost much--

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 01:50 PM

There are no *documented* cases of, say, somebody having an out-of-body experience actually learning something that they couldn't already have known through their own intelligence. Those are evidence that one's brain is smarter than one'd mind, just like the unintentional pun.

I beg to differ. There are numerous documented cases of patients noticing things from an OOB condition, during which the body was anethetized and/or unconscious, undergoing surgery. I suspect that perhaps you have not trawled the extant literature. It would be understandable if not, since the very notion of OOB existence rattles the purely physical paradigm and opens up all kinds of questions that could be uncomfortable for some.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 May 07 - 02:03 PM

Amos, you are actually supporting my statement. During surgery the brain has access to all sensory info; if it tells it to the mind as if it were an OOB, it's still info that the senses had access to. Nobody has ever been documented, I reiterate, to learn something they couldn't have known, during an OOB experience. All you have is the hearing system working while the person is unconscious, the same way people who aren't awakened by a tree falling over will have had a disaster dream. It isn't paranormal, it's just normal brain functioning.

And M.Ted, what assertion is weak? All I am asserting is that we can figure out right from wrong with our own intelligence, by observation and thought, without having recourse to any supernatural authority. There is no need to posit god-based morality, we have evolved our own, in a natural way. If you want to pick on some detail of how I said that, you may, but you are not demonstrating any weaknesses in what *I* said, only in your own counter-arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 02:26 PM

Well, Mrrz, I kinda think you're peering through the wrong end of the telephone here. The stories and conversations that come out of the phone don't come from the wiring. But let it go, as I don't have the time or references at hand to present a rebuttal. However, I do think a through search of the literature would being up a good many "white crows", in which your assertion would not hold.

I will try and dig some up for you, just 'cuz your a nice person, and I really agree with your point about self-generated ethics, etc.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 May 07 - 02:32 PM

Do, please, Amos. Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 02:42 PM

On a quick search I found this interesting discussion which recounts several instances of exactly what you describe -- information that was not available through sensory means being correctly identified and relayed.

The author discusses these instances with healthy skepticism, and the evidence is anecdotal. But it is typically anecdotal.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 03:00 PM

Here's some sort of an overview, a mixed bag of various degrees of rigor.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 03:06 PM

A more rigorous report.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 07 - 03:08 PM

An interesting one:

"Dr. Kenneth Ring: In a paper published in the Journal of Near-Death Studies concerning veridical NDE evidence, Dr. Ken Ring included perhaps the most famous case of veridical observation in NDE research at that time. Kimberly Clark Sharp first documented the NDE of a woman named Maria in her book, After The Light. Maria was a migrant worker who, while visiting friends in Seattle, had a severe heart attack. She was rushed to Harborview Hospital and placed in the coronary care unit. A few days later, she had a cardiac arrest and an unusual out-of-body experience. At one point in this experience, she found herself outside the hospital and spotted a single tennis shoe on the ledge of the north side of the third floor of the building. Maria not only was able to indicate the whereabouts of this oddly situated object, but was able to provide precise details concerning its appearance, such as that its little toe area was worn and one of its laces was stuck underneath its heel. Upon hearing Maria's story, Clark, with some considerable degree of skepticism and metaphysical misgiving, went to the location described to see whether any such shoe could be found. Indeed it was, just where and precisely as Maria had described it, except that from the window through which Clark was able to see it, the details of its appearance that Maria had specified could not be discerned. Clark concluded:



The only way she could have had such a perspective was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe. I retrieved the shoe and brought it back to Maria; it was very concrete evidence for me. (Clark, 1984, p. 243)."

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research11.html

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 May 07 - 03:27 PM

Hmmm - people also recall details under hypnosis that are way too detailed for the usual mind - again, though, the brain gets all the info, and only passes a very little along.
If the woman couldn't have glimpsed the shoe on her way in - sounds like a datum to me. Thanks, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 May 07 - 07:09 PM

Mrzzy--so you're right because you say you're right?   Just like the lady that claims that the Virgin Mary visits here every Thursday--

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 May 07 - 09:27 PM

Wait - what? What in the world did I say that prompted that?

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 May 07 - 10:56 PM

When pushed for specifics, you insult, rather than answer. This is often an indication that there are no specifics.

You made some very inflamatory statements above--the effect being that we should no longer tolerate beliefs, faith, and anything not based on "empirical evidence".Disturbing stuff--because it is a message of profound intolerance.

I've been questioning you, hoping that you could present some basic ideas about how ethics and morality can be based in reason, rather than faith. As an with academic with an interest in these matters, one assumes you've studied, and can discuss the various views on this. Instead, your ideas seem unformed and off-the-cuff--

In contrast, your disadain for people of faith, and the anger that you have toward them, is very clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Why should anyone believe in 'God'?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 07 - 11:05 PM

"...how ethics and morality can be based in reason,..."

Immanuel Kant.."Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals"


and 400