AlterNet: Why Atheists Don't Turn to Religion When Faced with Death or Disaster

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Greta Christina

Why Atheists Don't Turn to Religion When Faced with Death or Disaster
The notion that 'there are no atheists in foxholes' isn't just mistaken, it's bigoted and ugly; a denial of atheists' humanity and the reality of our experience with death.


January 29, 2010 |

Sure, you deny God now. But when you're looking death in the face -- when you're sick or in an accident or staring down the barrel of a gun -- you'll change your mind. You'll beg for God then. There are no atheists in foxholes.

This is one of the most common accusations that gets leveled against atheists. The idea seems to be that our atheism isn't sincere. It's naive at best, shallow at worst. We haven't really thought through what atheism means; it's somehow never occurred to us that atheism -- and its philosophical companion, naturalism -- means that death is forever. As soon as the harsh reality of what atheism means gets shoved in our faces, we'll drop it like a hot potato.

Now, the most common atheist response to this accusation is to point out that it's simply and flatly not true. And it's one of the arguments I'm going to make myself, right now. This accusation is simply and flatly not true.

If you go to an atheist blog or forum, and you make this accusation, you'll be inundated with stories of atheists who have faced death: their own, and that of people they love. You'll hear stories of people who have been mugged, who have been in terrible accidents, who have faced life-threatening illnesses. You'll hear stories of people who have suffered the illness and death of dearly beloved friends and family members. I'm one of those people.

And we didn't stop being atheists. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/belief/145451/why_atheists_don%27t_turn_to_religion_when_faced_with_death_or_disaster

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

2. I wish I could remember who said it

but someone addressed the not uncommon phenomenon of atheists invoking God out of despair or fear or the like. As he noted, this doesn't represent a sudden, miraculous conversion; it's a reflexive stress-response manifesting in accordance with cultural expectations.

However, that same phenomenon is cited as "proof" of atheists abandoning their atheism when push comes to shove, even though it's nothing of the sort. It's the same as saying "yikes!" or "holy shit!"

[The_Commonist]

4. I don't think it's quite "atheists invoking God out of despair..."

I think it's atheists yelling "Jesus Fucking Christ!"
I do that occasionally, and yes, it's totally that "reflexive stress-response manifesting in accordance with cultural expectations..."

[whathehell]

6. Do you think you would say

"Ja fucking Weh"! or "A fucking llah"! if you were living within THOSE cultural expectations?

[Orrex]

11. If those were popular idioms in American English, then they would certainly be commonly invoked.

I don't say "zounds!" often, despite the divine implications of it, simply because it's fallen by the linguistic wayside.

[The_Commonist]

13. Yeah, probably.

What's your point?

[whathehell]

5. You might want to talk to those

who have abandoned their atheism after having a near-death experience...That might increase the perspective.

[Orrex]

10. But I have.

I've talked to countless people who've experienced "miraculous" conversion events, including those resulting from their own near-deaths or the near-deaths of their loved ones.

I never ridicule their perception of these events unless they use them in proselytizing, in which case they've declared those events to be fair game for discussion.

[whathehell]

20. Yup...

[RainDog]

12. those with near-death experiences might want to talk to scientists

to understand the brain's reaction to loss or distortion of function, the way the brain reacts when lacking oxygen, the way people perceive experience when they are not fully conscious...

in other words, the experience of someone with brain or body trauma is no proof of anything other than the experience of trauma.

someone can choose to believe their chemical responses are meeting with the dead (other cultures do this in dreams, for instance) but that doesn't provide any reason to believe their experience as they report it.

when I had a very high temperature in the past I hallucinated. that experience of hallucination has no validity as proof of anything. your claim wants to say otherwise.

[whathehell]

19. They have talked to scientists...

and scientists cannot explain all of the elements.

[Skittles]

44. all things cannot be explained

does not automatically mean GOD and MIRACLE

[whathehell]

52. Of course...Just as they do not automatically mean they are NOT.

[bergie321]

16. Lack of Oxygen to the brain

Will do that to you...

[whathehell]

21. The scientific attempt to "explain" NDEs have come up short.

People with NDEs frequently report experiences, confirmed by others, which simply can't be explained in scientific terms.

[bergie321]

23. Who exactly

Is confirming someone's near death experience? The effects on the brain when deprived of oxygen are well documented.

[RainDog]

24. you don't understand how science works

there are plenty of things that science does not fully understand or possess the ability to explain by current levels of equipment, understanding, etc.

that does not mean that anything that does not have a fully explicated scientific line of reasoning automatically falls into the realm of spirituality.

it does not mean this at all.

it means that, unless or until more evidence is available that OVERWHELMINGLY leads one to believe otherwise, NDE will be explained by the workings of human bodies in the physical world.

however, if someone wants to believe in NDE, nothing stops anyone from doing so.

but they cannot use science as a basis for the claim, nor can they say that because science doesn't have a term for this or that that then the supernatural explanation is valid. that's not how evidence works.

sometimes it's pleasant to entertain the idea that our loved ones are waiting for us in another dimension but there is no reason to think this is reality.

[whathehell]

32. Science sets its own limits.

I agree that one must not default to a supernatural rationale when science cannot explain an event.
However, a supernatural explanation gains support when science fails to disprove it. After all, the scientific method starts with forming a hypothesis, then devising experiments or reviewing existing data to attempt to disprove it. As this process proceeds and disproof appears increasingly futile, the hypothesis transforms into a theory.

Consider a situation where a patient comes out of an operation with memories of events in and around the operating room that occurred when the patient was under anesthesia, or whose body functions had stopped. The argument is made that the patient had an out-of-body experience, and this is challenged scientifically. If science cannot explain how the patient acquired the information in those memories, the supernatural explanation gains support. The supernatural is not necessarily proven, but it has earned due consideration.

The majority of experiences attributed to supernatural or spiritual explanations are ultimately explained by a careful review of events. However, there have been instances where science has not been able to provide an alternative explanation. For these instances a supernatural interpretation cannot be dismissed out of hand. To do so would be unscientific.

[RainDog]

37. science is useful because of the scientific method

if those are its "limits" then that indicates that those things outside of them are not really the realm of science.

for someone to really look at issues of nde, etc. they would need to engage in controlled studies, not take anecdotal evidence. that's social science. anthropology. not science. hard science.

it is not unscientific to assume things do not have a supernatural explanation if they cannot be explained otherwise. in fact, the entire basis of science since the Enlightenment is grounded in the idea that people can know and explain their world via experiments that generate reproducible results, etc. rather than "mystery."

your language is really well presented - but the statement is false.

however, I say all this and do not rule out the idea of other variations on existence - but if this is ever understood, it would be much more likely to come about via the realms of physics, not a hospital operating room.

[whathehell]

38. Controlled experiments are not the only approach in science

There are phenomena that cannot be subject to controlled experiments, such as psychological or social issues that would be unethical to put in an experimental context.

With some other phenomena the mechanism is too poorly understood to experiment with, because we cannot reproduce such a phenomenon in the laboratory. A tornado, for example seems to exist in nature because we attribute destruction to these funnels of wind, but duplicating them in a laboratory has had limited success because of problems with scale and mechanics. Experiments on tornados are often performed in the wild, by chasing one down and analyzing its effects.

I suggest this as an analog to supernatural behavior, where being unable to duplicate it in a laboratory under controlled conditions does not disprove its existence. For now, science can only analyze the instances where these events are claimed to have happened.

[Orrex]

43. You're making a (very convenient) false analogy

In likening "supernatural behavior" to "psychological or social issues," you seek to put the former on equal footing with the latter. However, "psychological or social issues" are readily observable in nature, and the corresponding phenomena are largely independent of the observer's belief. In stark contrast, "supernatural behavior" has only been observed in or by those who believe in it. This is a fatal "observer bias" that renders such observers wholly unqualified to comment on the alleged phenomena.

First, you must independently establish that "supernatural behavior" exists at all. Then you can formulate experimental models analogous to those used in the actual social sciences. Such explanatory models are proposed all the time and then tested against observations of actual social phenomena, with no ethical infractions whatsoever.


Additionally, your tornado analogy is likewise flawed, insofar as no one who produces a two-foot-tall tornado actually thinks that it represents a mile-high twister in any real way. Artificial tornadoes are used to test mathematical and predictive models for actual tornadoes, in the full knowledge that the models must be tweaked to describe an actual tornado more closely once the researcher gets out of the lab and into the field.

Again, however, since absolutely no "supernatural behavior" has been demonstrated at all--and certainly not as a model in a lab--it is grossly incorrect to draw an analogy to actual laboratory models of observed phenomena.


And I say that your false analogy is "very convenient" because it allows you to explain away the fact that "supernatural phenomena" can't be demonstrated, and in fact your explanation is a circular argument, because it assumes outright that "supernatural phenomena" can't be tested scientifically because something about them prevents such scrutiny.


Finally, no one has claimed that "controlled experiments are not the only approach in science." Your assertion is a straw man and a red herring.

[RainDog]

46. social "sciences" aren't science

no matter that they employ the word. political science is not science either.

they use statistics, analyze data, observe the world and report.. but the very same things are done by businesses, too... and they aren't sciences either.

You obviously have a belief and intend to hold to it and defend it, which is certainly your right, and I have beliefs as well that are not swayed by your defense.

best wishes to you.

[Orrex]

25. What does that mean, exactly?

"Simply can't be explained in scientific terms" is hopelessly (and deliberately) open-ended, for the purpose of allowing a whole lot of wiggle room.


Make a specific claim, and support it. Otherwise, you're just witnessing.

[whathehell]

33. Why "hopelessly"?....Many things which science couldn't explain in the past

were later explained and "proven"....Certain unexplained phenomenon in the present time may be explained later...Or not. There may be things which simply lie outside the "measuring stick" of science.

My claim: Mental telepathy, a form of communication for which science cannot provide a mechanism, has been repeatedly experienced by me and a huge number of other people.

You can think we are all either Lying or Nuts, or you can accord it credibility.

[Orrex]

35. Tell me you didn't just invoke Lewis' "Liar, lunatic, or Lord" fallacy!

You can think we are all either Lying or Nuts, or you can accord it credibility.

Holy moley, that's a fallacy right out of Philosophy 101--the false dichotomy! There's no valid reason to limit the possibilities to those three; you could also be delusional without being "nuts," or you could simply be mistaken.

My claim: Mental telepathy, a form of communication for which science cannot provide a mechanism, has been repeatedly experienced by me and a huge number of other people.

That seems astonishingly unlikely, even if you believe it to be so (see my previous point about being "mistaken"). If telepathy had been demonstrated, there would be evidence for it beyond personal testimony, and there simply isn't. It's not that the evidence is weak; the evidence is nonexistent.

For a phenomenon of this magnitude, personal testimony is insufficient to serve as evidence.

[whathehell]

41. Oh my...You are a tad literal-minded, aren't you?

No, I never intended to limit the possibilities to only three...I'm sure there are at least five (!)
alternative explanations for the phenomenon....In any case, as my previous posts should have told you, this was not an attempt to provide "empirical" evidence for mental telepathy.

That you think it "astonishingly unlikely" that "huge numbers" of people claim to have experienced mental telepathy, not to mention other forms of extra sensory perception, tells me that you haven't looked, listened or explored very much...I was only five minutes on Amazon when I found that at least fifty percent of Americans believe in ESP...An astounding number when one considers that a. It is not a traditional/cultural belief like religion and b. It is not "official" in that it hasn't yet been sanctioned by the scientific community.

These facts would suggest a goodly number of these believers to be "experiencers" as well.



http://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Investigative-Psychokinesis-Reincarnation/dp/0595219063/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264901684&sr=1-2

[Orrex]

42. ESP hasn't been "sanctioned" by the scientific community because there's no evidence for it.

That you think it "astonishingly unlikely" that "huge numbers" of people claim to have experienced mental telepathy, not to mention other forms of extra sensory perception, tells me that you haven't looked, listened or explored very much.

I have no doubt that "huge numbers of people claim to have experienced mental telepathy." What I find "astonishingly unlikely" is the idea that they actually have experienced it.

this was not an attempt to provide "empirical" evidence for mental telepathy.

Then you admit that you're simply witnessing?

These facts would suggest a goodly number of these believers to be "experiencers" as well.

It doesn't matter whether 50% or 80% or 99.99% percent of the population believes in ESP; without empirical evidence, their testimony is mere hearsay.

If so many people have indeed "experienced mental telepathy," it's amazing that none of them can ever actually demonstrate it. Not one. Not ever.

[whathehell]

47. "Evidence" may depend on empirical evidence...

Reality, not so much, since empirical evidence is heavily dependent on the growth of Technology.

Prior to the invention of the microscope, no one knew of the existence of germs...The "reality" of them still killed people.

Strict empiricists are limited, and in my opinion, kind of boring...Sorry:boring:

[Orrex]

50. Another false analogy

That bit about pre-microscope microbes is a frequent red herring raised by advocates for supernatural phenomena, but it's a totally false analogy.

Prior to the discovery of microbes, no one was going around saying "I know that there's no evidence for invisibly small organisms floating in water, but millions of people claim to have experienced them." Microbes weren't known--or even imagined--at all prior to their discovery.

Supernatural phenomena, in contrast, are espoused by believers not only in the absence but frequently in direct contradiction of evidence.


Answer me this, please: on what basis can you reject any claim of supernatural phenomena, since you've abandoned the most basic human tool for assessing the validity of claims?

Strict empiricists are limited, and in my opinion, kind of boring...Sorry :boring:

Well, people who maintain belief in spite of observable reality are gullible, and in my opinion, kind of unhinged...Sorry :crazy:

I'm only a strict empiricist as it pertains to the actual functioning of the universe. I can entertain myself with imaginary creatures and phenomena as well as the next person.

[whathehell]

51. You're getting sloppy...

It's not a false analogy. The question was NOT whether there was a theory of microbes prior to the invention of the microscope. Diseases were falsely attributed to a number of invisible forces such as bad humors, evil spirits, etc.

Please..."The actual functioning of the universe" is just another way of saying "reality" and in the context of this discussion, claiming to be a strict empiricist ONLY in those terms is absurd as we've not been talking about anything else!...Hello?..."Imaginary creatures" are not, and have not been part of the conversation.

If you want to think I'm "gullible" and "unhinged"...Go right ahead. You, in turn, are free to continue boring others of open-mind here, but not me. Sorry..Buh bye:hi:

[Orrex]

55. Well, when you trot out the old "you're not open-minded" insult, you've forfeited the argument

And you didn't answer my question, O ye of the open mind: on what basis do you reject any supernatural claim?


I've asked that questions dozens of times, and I have never received an answer that might actually be called an answer.

[Zoeisright]

28. Wrong.

You might want to educate yourself on this topic. Medical and scientific evidence explains nearly all of the phenomena. And the experience can't be scientifically tested. But that isn't proof that there is life after death.

[whathehell]

31. Wrong....I guess the key phrase here is "nearly all"

Of course it can't be "scientifically tested"...neither can many things...That's why science is limited, and not, at this point at least, the "last word" on everything -- at least for those with open minds and a knowledge of scientific history.

In any case, "proof" isn't the point...Possibility is.

[billh58]

40. We are

born into atheism, and are then indoctrinated into organized religion, just as we are "educated" in using our native languages, following our parents' political and philosophical beliefs, and all of the other learned behavior of being "nurtured."

The terms "abandoned their atheism," or "found God," are just examples of those smug assumptions that organized religionists make when someone affirms their innate spirituality. Irrational belief in the supernatural is learned behavior, and is just another of Man's inventions in his quest to cope with the curse of self-awareness.

[whathehell]

61. We are "born" into atheism?

Maybe...In the same way we're born into ignorance?..The fact that scientists have recently discovered a part of the brain which predisposes humans toward religion makes your statement only half true at best.

Speaking as someone who is not an "organized religionist", the assumptions of militant, and increasingly doctrinaire atheists, seem no less "smug" than those of whom you complain.

Since when is "belief" -- irrational or otherwise -- "behavior"?...Actually, it would be more constructive to focus ON behavior rather than belief.

I'm not an atheist, but you would, in terms of my behavior, NEVER guess that from my actions away from this board...It believe it should be obvious that every NON-atheist is not a church-going, bible thumping Religious Right activist...Actually, I think you do know that...You simply ignore that obvious fact so as to keep up the anti-religion drumbeat...Good luck with all that hostility...I'm sure it makes for a lot of happiness.:eyes:

[billh58]

62. There is a big

difference between individual spirituality and blindly following the tenets of an irrational belief in the supernatural. If some people actually "believe" in talking snakes, a 5000 year-old earth, an angry old white, male, "God," and divine miracles, they are certainly free to do so.

"Belief" becomes "behavior" when people ignore that Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion, and will not take "no" for an answer. For what it's worth, I have never identified myself as an "atheist," or a "non-believer," because that would imply that there was some set of facts within organized religion to deny. There is not.

I repeat: "belief" in the supernatural, and organized religion, is learned behavior, just as more primitive peoples are taught to believe in rocks, rain Gods, and angry planets.

I have no problem with people deluding themselves into "believing" in virgin birth and miraculous recovery from death, but please excuse me if I don't join in. Fair enough?

[whathehell]

65. Are you, in truth,

suffering from the harassment of people ASKING you to join in?

Funny, I've been away from organized religion for forty years (yep,forty)and only ONE person in that entire time (my family included) has even MILDLY suggested I "come back to God"...I don't count a few Jehovah's witnesses at my door..I got rid of them as I do telemarketers, with kind firmness.

I'm an agnostic and I simply ignore what I don't wish to join...That could be religion, salespeople, or any other "organized" group I've no interest in.

The ONLY time I get annoyed with SOME organized religions is when they try to impact politics...and that has not a THING to do with whether or not I'm religious...My strong support for the Separation of Church and State has been with me since childhood. In fact, the only people I know of who do NOT support it are evangelical fundies, and really, compared to the mainstream churches, how many of them are there?...They are loud and annoying, but I think they are still a minority, although it may be a large one.

As for your repeated statement: You lump in "organized religion" with "belief" in the supernatural...They are not the necessarily the same...Not by a long shot.

For if, by "supernatural" you mean extra sensory perception, which has been experienced by countless people, myself included, we're in flat out disagreement...You see, in my case, it's not a matter of "belief"..It is, as with those others, a matter of experience.

Like the microscope-less germ, it can't yet be empirically "proven"...Everything that exists cannot currently stand up to empirical oversight and it may always be so. Thinking, for instance...We now have technology that can "show" the brain thinking, but it can't "prove" the content of a thought...Does that mean that content doesn't exist?

It's impossible to argue with experience..Once you've had it, you're simply not going to be dissuaded by those who have not...at least if you've a reasonable believe in your own sanity, which I do.

That's really ALL I have to say on the matter..There's nothing to "prove"....Goodnight and good luck!:hi:

[SheilaT]

7. There's a common usage of invoking

the name of God which has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief or lack thereof. I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist, but I often say "Goddammit" or "The good lord willing and the creek don't rise" and other phrases which have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I believe in a deity.

[whathehell]

8. Yup.

..kind of like saying the "f-word" in a completely non-sexual situation.

[chollybocker]

26. And yet many people invoke 'Oh, God!' during sex.

Gofigger! :)

[Demeter]

17. And Even Atheists Can Quote Bible for Their Own Purposes!

[mudplanet]

53. I, too, wish someone could cite it's source, as it's common knowledge that

the infantryman's prayer in WWI was, "Lord, if there is a lord, save my soul, if I have a soul."

[randr]

3. A person that does not look outside of themselves for guidence in times of struggle

has a deeper sense of self confidence and an inner sense of responsibility.
It is the conviction of self responsibility that drives true spiritual seekers.
The answers lie within and no external force take away our responsibility for our own thoughts and actions.
imho

[the other one]

9. K & R#5 שלם נת

[donco6]

14. I used to be a fundie Christian.

It's a long story, which involved being gay in a small conservative town, blah blah. Anyway, I woke up at age 30 and came out.

When I was 31, I was diagnosed with intermediate grade lymphoma. During the time between diagnosis and chemo, I had plenty of time to fall into the "begging God" strategy. But I just didn't. There wasn't any point in it. And I've not appealed to God any time since. So, in my case, this quote is totally false.

[Dr.Phool]

15. It reminds me of an article years ago in Flying Magazine.

After a lengthy analysis of cockpit voice recorders in crashed airliners, and other aircraft equipped with them, in 98% the last two words on the recording were, "Oh shit".

Sez it all.

[whathehell]

22. How do you know who they were talking to?

[Dr.Phool]

27. Did I attempt to say who they were talking to?

Just stating a reported fact.

If it were me, say, in a position of flying into a mountain or reading one of your inane posts, I'd probably say, "Oh shit. Take the mountain".

[whathehell]

30. Sorry, no...

You ended the post with "sez it all".

What does it say?

[DesertDiamond]

18. My dad was an atheist and he did not change his beliefs at the end of his life.

Sorry, not everyone believes in, or needs to believe in, an invisible parental figure. Atheists do not buy that concept. In a moment of danger, people have sometimes been known to call out for mom or dad, with no actual belief that mom or dad can come to their rescue.

[PassingFair]

64. I hear you, Desert Diamond! I was holding my father when he died.

He died from ALS in a hospital not far from
the street where I grew up. We were looking
down at the avenue where he taught me to drive.

He cried a single tear, told me to take care
of my mother and to be happy. He was sad to
be leaving. He was worried about us.

He was NOT afraid of dying. He did NOT cry
out for redemption or for favored status.

It offends me when people say there are
no atheists in fox holes, or that they can't
understand how people can die "unsaved".

My father lived a life of greater acceptance than
any believer I ever knew. I hope I will be as
brave and selfless both in life AND in death,
as the example that my father set for me.

[fasttense]

29. I've wanted to be religious so I could experience the calm assurance

that when I died I would have a heaven of some kind to look forward to. But then I found out that religious people don't really have that calm assurance and are just as afraid to died as us nonbelievers.

So, I now take comfort in knowing that there is nothing after death and I wont care.

[ginnyinWI]

34. I think they are more afraid.

If they think they might die and go to a hell, that's more scary than just dying and being snuffed out like a candle with no afterlife.

Some Christians live their entire lives in fear of offending a God who has the power to save them from that or not.

[ihavenobias]

36. Kick n/t

[demigoddess]

39. I've seen atheists facing death more bravely than religious people.

More able to face it, less likely to fight to the bitter end, and more accepting of its inevitability.

[onpatrol98]

45. Not Surprisingly

Quote:"I've seen atheists facing death more bravely than religious people."

That sounds reasonable...if you can live your life each day, doing whatever you want, with no thought of answering for it later...shucks, I would imagine that's quite peaceful...unless, at the last moment you have one of those..."uh oh", moments. What if those religious nuts were right?

Religious people are supposed to have peace at the end...maybe it's those "uh oh" moments that get them, too.

[fasttense]

48. Actually I've met many atheists who have a better developed conscious than religious people.

"If you can live your life each day, doing whatever you want, with no thought of answering for it later."

Atheists know this is their only chance to be kind and loving. Why waste their short time being cruel and angry?

While many religious people seem to want to condemn, judge and murder others for their supposed sins. This need to judge others frequently results in hate and cruelty beyond measure. Just look at the anti-choice kooks who go around murdering doctors or the witch trials.

[onpatrol98]

49. Interesting

Quote: "Atheists know this is their only chance to be kind and loving. Why waste their short time being cruel and angry?"

I only really know one athiest (that I know is an athiest), but he's truly one of the nicest men that I know.

I also know many mean religious people, but I know it's not unique to religious people. Cruelty, unfortunately isn't unique to a demographic.

[whathehell]

54. True....I don't imagine Stalin to be a "religious" sort of guy.

Those who want to claim that all evil stems from religion need to check out the evils done under atheistic communism...and just plain, ole ordinary GREED.

[DavidDvorkin]

58. Religious people point to Stalin's evil deeds but ignore something important

Stalin didn't commit evil because he was an atheist. His atheism didn't motivate or justify his evil deeds.

The vast amount of evil committed in the name of religion or inspired by religious hatred, however, was indeed committed because of religion.

[whathehell]

59. I didn't mean to imply that he committed evil because he was an atheist,

I honestly believe atheists can be as easily disposed to ethics and "goodness" as as believers.

My point was that religion is clearly NOT the source of all evil..I'm not sure there IS one single source...It exists nicely with or without religion.

I believe Greed and power lust are the source of at LEAST as much evil as religion, and I would defy anyone to dispute that.

Yes, much evil is/has been committed in the name of religion, but also much good (check the charitable giving of ALL the major religions, including Islam.

BTW, I'm not "religious" in the conventional sense..I'm agnostic.

[demigoddess]

63. just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you are not spiritual

I believe in good and evil, I just don't believe that there is a god who is counting your sins and checking them twice. Your ultimate judge is yourself. I try not to hurt people, not to please a god, but to please myself.

[Locrian]

56. its all fear of death

Every thing is about the "fear of death".

If it wasn't people would spend just as much time wondering where the "were" before they were born.

[whathehell]

60. I fear "opening the floodgates", but I gotta tell you

People who have had NDEs report losing their fear of death after the experience.

Sorry B-)

[The Wizard]

57. Funny thing

I remember being under attack and thinking I just want to survive this and afterward thinking that No God would have put me in that situation for no good reason.