...you say our species will not survive? If it were not for religion, wrong or right, you would, if you existed at all, be living in
a cave or a grass hut with no ethic's, moral's or social structure other than the fittest survive...
You will note that I have punctuated what I have quoted of you, as your post's meaning is quite imperceptible to follow without it.
I am making an assumption here, but I believe you are stating that without religion, man would have no sense of morals or ethics, that it was solely
through religion he gained them? If this be so, I completely disagree. More people have been killed through and because of religion than of any other
cause. It has killed to gain control, and it killed to maintain its control, and it is still a cause for conflict today.
I am not in the least bit religious, but I consider myself more moral than any member of any religious organisation. My morals and my ethics stem from
a love of humanity, a love of the animal kingdom, and a love of the planet I live on. I have never needed a book to tell me to act like a samaritan, I
do so altruistically, because I am intrinsically guided by my love of the things I have stated. Religion is the last thing I would turn to for
guidance in helping others, I prefer to trust my own heart and mind, they are more grounded in reality, and I would still be the same if I lived in a
cave or in a grass hut on some savannah plain.
Religion does not guide, it fractures and divides. God may be its central focus, but the flags and banners it marches under are of disparate and
diametric hues, as is its memberships, wearing different uniforms and acting out different rituals, but each holding to the same intent...to destroy
or deny the claims of authenticity to God the other religions claim. Don't preach to me about morals or ethics, you're not qualified.
I don't know about you but I am not an animal, the body maybe, but not the soul, and if you do not believe in that then I am afraid you are
So, I am delusional because I do not believe in the existence of the soul? Well, belief requires faith to support it, and as I don't have faith I
don't have belief, but it doesn't make me delusional, its makes me pragmatic, and this is because I won't abandon 'reason' when 'understanding'
demands it...its called wisdom.
...explain if you can the result of far higher than statistical probability would project of accurate account's of the hidden message that an
experiment carried out in operating theatre's around the state's were the message would be placed were it could not be seen but was designed to
attract the attention when seen by somebody whom was OOBE during and operation i.e. there conscious-ness floating over there body were amongst those
whom claimed that they had observed there body (usually when they had a death on the operating table with a successful resuscitation) and were able to
relay the hidden message - not conclusive but please open your mind as an atheist is the ultimate religeous nut so lost in there belief they regard
everybody else as wrong.
I was going to punctuate your text correctly, but it would require a rewrite to enhance and make clear your question.
You happen to be asking me on a subject I am quite familiar with, having studied it for many years, and corresponded with a number of its leading
protagonists. The experiment you are discussing is an on-going experiment, setup by Dr Sam Parnia of Southampton University, but whom is currently
practising in America. I can let you know that since it began, not a single positive result has occurred, not one. This is not due to there being no
one undergoing cardiac arrests and resuscitated in theatres where the plaques of numbers and words have been placed, but because there is no 'soul' or
'consciousness' that is capable of disembodied reconnoitre.
There is no evidence whatsoever of knowledge of anything gained by disembodied means through NDE. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but no solid
evidence to support the anecdote. In a court of law, the anecdotes would act only as hearsay statements, certainly not as witness statements. After
all the books that have been written on the subject, and the critical counterclaims to them, the veracity of NDE rests entirely on one factor, and
that is 'timing'.
At what point during the death crisis does the NDE episode begin and end? Analysis of many NDE accounts still cannot place the point at which NDE
begins or when it ends. I personally think NDE begins as consciousness is somewhat in its fading process, requiring a certain depth of loss in
consciousness to kick in, and also as the patient re-acquires consciousness during resuscitation. I further think that during complete loss of
consciousness, nothing of NDE is being imprinted to memory. It is only at close loss of consciousness and reacquisition of it that NDE occurs.
edit on 24/3/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)