Not true. You've fallen for atheists lies and propaganda, which are easily debunked. Do you only listen to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer and no one else? lolYohan wrote: ↑September 14th, 2018, 10:22 amI do not think, atheism is the weakest of all paradigms. It is at least equal - no religion can prove in any way that a God and afterlife exist.Winston wrote: ↑September 3rd, 2018, 9:48 pmThe big problems with the Atheist paradigm and model of reality and why you can't adopt it:
1. Atheism provides NO ANSWERS to any big questions about the mysteries of the universe or the creation of it, or our place in it. All it offers is DENIAL. Hence it has no value and is the WEAKEST of all the paradigms.
Atheism - unlike any religion - is into research of the universe.
Religious idiotic bigots tried to silence intelligent people when they started to claim that the earth is not the center of the universe, that the earth is moving around the sun etc. Check out history...
Religion is against research, claiming anything is made by a 'God'. What a cheap excuse is this, it's about being lazy and ignorant, just to push away what might be a not so comfortable truth...
Religion is rather dishonest, if you ask questions, there is no answer, they will tell you something like you don't believe it anyway, why shall I explain it?
A while ago I was asking 'Adama' about the afterlife and was asking him, if the soul has any form of awareness or consciousness and this above is the reply I received.
No religion proves any answer about the universe, just claiming it was 'created'...
Whatever, even if there is a God existing, how is this a proof for any afterlife after the death of a human?
It should be noticed that not all religions point directly to the existence of a God - for example Buddhism.
Many religions just disappeared over time, as humans of those ethnic groups merely died out - like the religions of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Inkas, etc.
To claim a single God is existing, this is not the case with all religions, I think only Jews, Christians and Muslims think in this way and this is because these religions were all created in about the same area - other religions which were created without any connection to that place came to totally different conclusions about what a 'God' could mean.
Interesting, what all religions have together is not really about the existence of a God, but about insisting that there is 'afterlife' after death - so far however there is no proof of any form of the existence of 'soul' and 'afterlife'.
Actually there is some evidence for the afterlife. Have you researched NDE's and Reincarnation? They are well documented at the University of Virginia, which has a whole department on afterlife and consciousness research. Just denying it all or ignoring it all is NOT research. It's just ignorance. Just because YOU are ignorant of the evidence or research does NOT mean it doesn't exist. That's an atheist fallacy. Educated men should know better.
You forget that none of the great scientists were atheists. Not even Galileo or Darwin was atheist. So none of the idols of atheists were atheists, how ironic. LOL
Did you know a Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory? Newton believed in God or the occult too. I'm not saying all great scientists were religious, but they all believed in a higher power or God or some sort, even if it was just a general belief. Even Einstein and Tesla were not atheists.
The truth is, the greatest scientists and genius minds in history were neither atheists or religious fundamentalists. They all believed in a higher power and that religion was a metaphor for that. Research the works of Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell. That's what the higher IQ geniuses of all time, such as Tesla and DaVinci, believed.
So both you and the religious fundamentalists are wrong. You act as though atheism and religious fundamentalism are the only two choices. That's another fallacy. Why not seek other belief systems that can account for more data? Such as New Age or Theosophy?
There is evidence of the afterlife, but it's not ironclad and controllable. It's mostly suggestive and cirumstantial and anecdotal. But hey, clinical evidence for all medicine is anecdotal in nature anyway and the medical profession accepts that.
You must have missed all the links and documentaries I posted about the afterlife here:
Where do you get the idea that there's no evidence? Just because atheist dogma says so? You gotta learn to research BOTH sides man, not just one. And denial is not research nor is it a valid argument.
Plus how do you explain NDE's and Reincarnation? There are many compelling cases that cannot be explained by imagination or hallucination. I'm sure you know that. That's been documented for decades by many researchers in many books and documentaries and journals and even university departments like Virginia University. I've posted about this many times before. Shouldn't you try to account for that or find a paradigm that can explain all data, not just some of it?