The Fallacy of "Rational thought."

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
The Fallacy of "Rational thought."

 In what way is it rational to believe in no deity? 

 

What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I see you'll fit right in

I see you'll fit right in here.


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 Oh yeah. I love atheists,

 Oh yeah. I love atheists, its good practice to argue with the completely illogical. 


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Google search the site for

Google search the site for your topic first, then google search soul's existence. I hate to burst your bubble, but souls are just as irrational as belief in God.

As to your initial question.....HAHAHAHA!

Welcome to the forums.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 Oh yeah. I love atheists, its good practice to argue with the completely illogical. 

 

pffft they're probably caught up in this whole evolution garbage.

 

How can they think straight if they think their cousins crave bananas?

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 In what way is it rational to believe in no deity?

In the same way it is rational to believe in no leprechauns and pixie fairies.

 

Quote:
What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?

The logic of reality, how about you test and prove what a soul is, in conjunction with a scientific test that shows how the phenomena of a soul could not come about by a more natural method than the paranormal.  Also, while you're at it, a test to prove the existence of a god wouldn't hurt.

 

Let me guess, you think all atheists claim to know for sure there is no God and actually believe that with dogmatic adherence don't you?  You also believe in talking snakes and people living to 700 years old, right?

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 Oh yeah. I love atheists, its good practice to argue with the completely illogical. 

 

Hello Mr. Brokenfaith and welcome to the RRS forums,

What are you practicing for ?


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Since science is pretty much

Since science is pretty much useless in a philosophical argument of the soul, lets just use logic and common sense. (Yes I know, there are no universal or apparent truths, everything is relative to the observer, blah blah blah. If thats how you think than dunk your head in some laundry detergent and breathe deep cause your hopeless)

 

So:

 

There are a finite amount of possible chemical combinations in the brain. However, there is an infinite amount of separate thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions... that can occur. Since the combinations are finite and the thoughts are endless, then it follows that the chemical reactions of the brain cannot be the root cause of the thought. Therefore it follows that it must be something else that separates us from the animals (if you honestly don't believe in a separation, then follow my previous instructions), a nice word for this thing would be: soul. 

Soul is just a name for the consciousness with which I experience the occurrences of my daily life. Anything other than the knowledge that at least I have a soul, is faith and assumptions. So if we're gonna make assumptions about life, why not make logical ones?

 

 

How about a logical argument against the existence of a deity or soul?

 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 I like to keep in good

 I like to keep in good mental shape, the best way to do that is to argue. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You do realize that

You do realize that throughout our lifetime the chemicals in our brain are replaced - and that nobody has an infinite number of thoughts at one time. You are going to be soooo PWNED when the people who studied neuroscience show up.

 

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Since science is pretty much useless in a philosophical argument of the soul

 

This false premise pretty much arbitrarily decides you can't find any evidence to ever discount a soul. You have failed.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 You do realize that those

 You do realize that those chemicals are replaced by the same chemicals. And that it doesn't matter if you have an infinite number of thoughts at one time or not, if:

 

Chemical A + Chemical B=Fear. then it doesn't make sense that Chemical A + Chemical B could then equal Sad another time. 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 I'm not looking for

 I'm not looking for physical evidence of the soul, there is none. 

 

But then there is no physical evidence against a soul is there?

 

So it makes sense that we should resolve the issue with sense and logic, doesn't it?

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3609
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 

 

There are a finite amount of possible chemical combinations in the brain. However, there is an infinite amount of separate thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions... that can occur. Since the combinations are finite and the thoughts are endless, then it follows that the chemical reactions of the brain cannot be the root cause of the thought. Therefore it follows that it must be something else that separates us from the animals (if you honestly don't believe in a separation, then follow my previous instructions), a nice word for this thing would be: soul. 

 

 

 

 

 

I once recently possessed a soul of my own but I accidentally killed it by taking waaaaaaaay too many drugs.  Anyway since it was now dead it started to decay and smell really bad.   Later that night I weighted down my dead soul by chaining heavy bricks to it and then tossed it off a bridge into a river. End of story.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Awesome

 Nice!

 

But seriously though, don't blame the drugs, it was the fast food that did it. 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 I'm not looking for physical evidence of the soul, there is none. 

 

But then there is no physical evidence against a soul is there?

 

So it makes sense that we should resolve the issue with sense and logic, doesn't it?

Using this "logic" if you can even describe your statements as such, is intrinsically flawed. It is frequently and mistakenly asserted by theists that Atheists must prove that souls do not exist with questions like, 'Can you prove there is no soul?' A simple formulation of the burden-of-proof concept is that the party making the claim has the burden to justify or prove his claim, not the party that questions the claim.

Translation, you have misunderstood where the burden of proof rests(hint:on your claim a soul exists) and wrongly asserted by fiat that the only way one could test the hypothesis of a soul is through sense and logic. Non sequitir, false premise, appeal to incedulity...and on and on, I don't know why I am bothering with your absurd faulty statements.

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
I already made an argument

I already made an argument for the soul, a quite good one since you all seem to be incapable of arguing against it. 

 

Besides, there is NO FUCKING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS OR DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL. SCIENCE IS NOT GOING TO HELP US OUT HERE BECAUSE ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC IDEA!

 

So yeah, if you know that the soul doesn't exist, or know of a scientific way to determine its existence or not, then by all means, enlighten me. COme on I dare you.

 

 

Oh wait. you cant. 

 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 In what way is it rational to believe in no deity? 

 

What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?

 

Welcome to the forums!  I'm your God, because you can't prove I'm not. 

Thanks for playing!

 

 


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Hehehe...

stuntgibbon wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 In what way is it rational to believe in no deity? 

 

What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?

 

Welcome to the forums!  I'm your God, because you can't prove I'm not. 

Thanks for playing!

 

 

Show our parting guest what he's won......


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:


Besides, there is NO FUCKING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS OR DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL. SCIENCE IS NOT GOING TO HELP US OUT HERE BECAUSE ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC IDEA!

 

This is the last thing I am posting here on this thread. I am not going to debate you on this, as multiple threads on this forum already address this argument and you have chosen not to look at any of them or digest their information.

I literally can't argue with someone who states they are unwilling to accept any evidence from science in determining the existence of a soul. That would be like saying lets discuss the history of the earth, but I won't accept any geological evidence that points to events past 6,000 years old. You have created a debate in which your first premise is that you will not acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. In this mindset, it is literally impossible to have a debate with you...again, you fail. Good day!

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In what way is it

Quote:
In what way is it rational to believe in no deity?

Woah, man. That's deep.

Quote:
Since science is pretty much useless in a philosophical argument of the soul,

I could not agree more! In fact, I think both of your points are fantastic!

Allow me to begin our discourse, unburdened by such ridiculous ideas as 'proofs' and 'science';

 

God is a girl!

 

There is a sky illuminating us, IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH! Someone is out there that we truly trust.

 

Thoughts?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 Nice!

 

But seriously though, don't blame the drugs, it was the fast food that did it. 

 

Sooo..Jack.... You do have knowledge of drugs then.

Thought so...

Well, iffin ya don't mind, Brokenfaith, pass the pipe over this way.

Some of us might want a little what you been smokin'


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:I

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

I already made an argument for the soul, a quite good one since you all seem to be incapable of arguing against it. 

 

Besides, there is NO FUCKING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS OR DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL. SCIENCE IS NOT GOING TO HELP US OUT HERE BECAUSE ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC IDEA!

 

So yeah, if you know that the soul doesn't exist, or know of a scientific way to determine its existence or not, then by all means, enlighten me. COme on I dare you.

 

 

Oh wait. you cant. 

 

You said it yourself. The soul is not a scientific idea. It's a figment of your imagination. Quite literally.

 

BTW - nice avatar. Where did you get it?

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1209
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
 

There are a finite amount of possible chemical combinations in the brain. However, there is an infinite amount of separate thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions... that can occur. Since the combinations are finite and the thoughts are endless, then it follows that the chemical reactions of the brain cannot be the root cause of the thought.

Um, no.  With a finite alphabet, we can can construct an infinite number of words, sentences, gibberish -- permit me to cite you as an example of the latter. 

Save your pseudologic for the kids at Starbucks.  We expect something a little better here.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Therefore it follows that it must be something else that separates us from the animals (if you honestly don't believe in a separation, then follow my previous instructions), a nice word for this thing would be: soul.

Sorry, juvenile remarks about laundry detergent won't exempt you from making such blatant assertions.  Let's hear your brilliant thesis about what separates us from "the animals".  Bear in mind that we share a common ancestor with "the animals", our DNA is made of the same "chemical combinations" as "the animals", and many of "the animals" demonstrate a wide range of "thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions". 

You think a nice word for what "separates" us is "soul".  I think a nicer word is "genes".  Nicer because there's actually evidence for genes.

 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Soul is just a name for the consciousness with which I experience the occurrences of my daily life.

Most profound, that is.  Do you mean to say that none of "the animals" demonstrate consciousness?  Furthermore, how do you assess human being who is brain-dead?  Soul or no soul?

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
  

How about a logical argument against the existence of a deity or soul? 

How about it?

There is no evidence for a deity or a soul, nor do we need a deity or a soul to explain any facet of our existence.

Now how about you lay off the paint chips for a while?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:pffft

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

pffft they're probably caught up in this whole evolution garbage.

 

How can they think straight if they think their cousins crave bananas?

Pineapple, I want you to take this as nicely as you can, because you know all I can give you is a left handed compliment.  Despite all the times that you're a pain in my ass, I can't help but appreciate your sense of humor when you say shit like this.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
AMJACKSBROKENFAITH   Ok ,

AMJACKSBROKENFAITH   Ok , let's just assume your are right , now what ?   

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Although a small excerpt in

Although a small excerpt in this piece I display below was taken from a previous piece I compiled, most of it I wrote just now, while somewhat drunk, so, bear with me:

 

There are so many possible objections to your argument it is difficult to know where to begin. It’s like being a kid in a candy store. Firstly, the premise is immediately open to question. Where is the justificatory basis for asserting that there are an infinite number of mental states? Consider that, one’s mental state can effectively have two primary causal factors. The first is their perceptive experience. It is certainly true to say that mental states result from the experiences that one is having in the form of sensory data. It is also true to say that, in terms of ontogeny, a conscious mind cannot develop without sensations, or experiences. At the same time, the mental state of a perceptive organism can depend largely on their neural structure and the nature of the neural networks they form. This, again, can be divided into two broad categories. Firstly, there are fixed differences in sensory equipment, in turn partially determining the mental states that will result from the interaction of that sensory equipment with the external world. This difference usually isn’t much for two humans both in possession of their full sensory faculties, but can differ quite radically between different organisms with different capacities, or humans deprived of certain experiential basis, as the Mary’s Room Thought Experiment demonstrates.

Second, perceptive experiences form the basis for memories, this in turn determines the response of organisms to certain external stimuli, this response taking the form of mental states. This is aptly demonstrated, and is well-established on a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscientists speak of plasticity in terms of the ability of networks to shift and overwrite each other in terms of their synaptic formations and connections. The whole concept which I just outlined above is usually summed up by neuroscientist as follows: Thought is a combination of sensation and memory. Thus, if we think about all the possible permutations of sensory experiences and neural structures of the perceiving organism at a certain instance, then the number of resulting mental states will be extremely large. In fact, it will be wholly beyond comprehension. Much larger than any number anyone could conceive of. Indeed, it could be infinite, depending on how it was defined. But even if it wasn’t, it would be so large that it may as well be. Thus, your first premise is little more than an argument from personal incredulity. We can certainly establish that there is a huge number of possible neural state-perceptive experience combinations. If we become more technical and break “perceptive experience” down into arrangements of matter and how they interact with each other and sense data to form causal chains resulting in our experiences, we could in principle speak of infinite possibilities in terms of perceptive experience if we consider temporality in our understanding of a single, instant material arrangement within one instant of time, and then state that the same combination at another time would result in a different mental state because of the change in the neural structures of the experiencing organism between t1 and t2. Under this, it would be conceivable to speak of infinite possible mental states purely in terms of intrinsic material properties of neural networks and properties of arrangements of matter resulting in our perceptual experiences. But, as I have shown above, it wouldn’t really matter if we couldn’t.

Your understanding of “neurophysiology” seems to extend roughly to your conception that “chemical A+ chemical B” equals fear”. I think you need a slight crash course before we continue:

Neuron: A neuron is the fundamental unit of the brain. It accounts for 10% of the cells that constitute the organ, the rest being glial or support cells. A neuron propogates an electrical charge via voltage-gated ion channels across a stretch of thin, long cell called the axon towards a junction with the receptor unit of another neuron (called a dendrite) at which point it performs a signal transduction by converting the eletrical signal into a chemical one into the release of excicatory or inhibitary neurotransmitters which determines whether the signal recieved by the receptor neuron is depolarazing (increase the signal) or hyperpolarizing (depress the signal). All neurons generate a binary signal by firing in a threshold all-or-nothing style called an action potential, also somtimes shortened to AP.

Neural cluster: A neural cluster is a group of closely related neurons forming a "pack" or a "unit". These neurons can be designated in terms of distinct functions (which depends on the speciality of the neuron in question, since they are type-grouped)

Synapse: A synapse is a junction between the end of the axon of one neuron and the dendrite of another. THe synapse is the point at which the two neurons are seperated via a cleft which must be crossed by the transmitter signals. The synapse is the point where a signal is decoded and recoded for determining the overall membrane potential of the post-synaptic neuron. This in turn is directly proportional to the number of action potentials the neuron generates per second. This in turn codes a signal for the neuron to pass on to its linked

Synaptogenesis: Synaptogenesis is a combination of synapse and genesis. It is the formation of a synapse The -genesis suffix is common in biology to indicate the formation or creation of something. Neurogenesis is neural formation. Embryogenesis is the formation of an embryo. Spermatogenesis is the formation of the male gamete, and Oogenesis is the formation of an egg cell, etc. Synaptogenesis is the foundation of memory formation. The linking of two hitherto unassociated neural clusters is the basis for association which is the basis of memory, thought and language.

Association: Association is the foundation of memory. It is where the subject associates certain concepts, abstracts or entities with other concepts, abstracts or entities. This is central to language, memory and thought. The thing which sits in front of me is associated the word computer. It is also associated with the words black, grey, blue, etc. etc. The complexity and degree of associative links that a brain forms is a reasonable reflection of their cognitive ability. Cognitive scientists do not speak of cognition in terms of brain size, which is an unhelpful measure past a certain point, but rather synapse formation, for it reflects the ability of the subject for abstract thought. The impairing of the formation of synapses is an effect which can be induced by many different drugs which act as depolarizing agents which rapidly shut down the stimulus received by neurons, and some which do the opposite and overload the neurons with stimuli by acting as depolarizing agents. The latter case is called "tripping" and severely impairs the subject's capacity for abstract, reasoned thought.

With this crash course in mind, hopefully you can see the degree to which your simplification fails. Ultimately, this should be sufficient to understand the degree to which our mental states, and physical ones, are linked, and, more importantly, to stress, the complexity of this relationship. If you can find some room for a separate ontological entity with no causal powers (to state that a non-physical entity has causal powers in the physical world resulting in mental states once again leads you to internal contradiction as it requires you to assign to this non-physical entity a physical attribute), somehow “fits in” with the interaction between the external objects responsible for our perceptual experience and our neuronal networks, then demonstrate.

There are plenty more criticisms to go through. Obviously, we could start with your non sequitur assertion that there exists a disembodied conscious entity responsible for creating an entity which is responsible for our consciousness. This appears to lead to internal contradiction, because as has already been demonstrated, the combination of our material perceptual experiences combined with our neural networks, and so forth, constitute central and necessary components of an organism with the capacity for perception and introspection (the former, obviously, by definition, the latter follows). Thus, this raises the question of how it is possible to invent another being, of a separate ontological category, which has the property of consciousness just tied to the material, 3D world, we inhabit, who created the very source of perception and introspection. If this is the case, then it appears to be shooting itself in the foot. It would be somewhat akin to claiming that atoms were invented by people (who are composed of atoms).

Finally, one must question your vehement assertion that the investigation into consciousness is forever beyond the realm of natural science. This appears to be intentionally vague, and without justificatory basis. It seems that “metaphysics” is a label applied to something until scientific investigation demonstrates a meaningful model behind it. I stress that since it is the job of science to investigate phenomenon then it appears, from an epistemological standpoint, to be problematic to say that we can conclude in a phenomenon that cannot be investigated by science. Why is this so? Consider it. When it is through some complicated causal chain, which via deduction, we can link some model or external object to some feature of our perceptual experience, then we are performing a scientific investigation. Solely by means of using our intuitive understanding based on our immediate perceptual experience, we wouldn’t get very far, but, by means of accumulating knowledge, we can effectively link causal chains of experienced phenomenon to an external world behind the experiences. Thus, for example, we would be unable to conclude in “dark matter” on the basis of our analysis of galactic motions through telescopes if we didn’t already have an understanding of what galactic motion should look like based on Relativity, which in turn, we wouldn’t have been able to conclude in if we didn’t have a set of equations describing our intuitive basis for relative motion, called “Newtonian mechanics”, which in turn we wouldn’t be able to conclude in unless we had…

You get the idea. So, in effect, by asserting that some phenomenon is beyond the realm of science, we are, in effect, asserting that such a feature has no causal relationship, however complicated it may be, that is needed to explain our perceptual experience. Obviously, there is some confusion about this. We don’t perceive, for example, “electron density”, but through a complex causal chain employing deductive experiments and prior knowledge also based on experiments, we can link electron density to some feature of perceptual experience. If there was no way whatsoever to link some phenomenon to some feature of our perceptual experience, however complex the linking chain might be, then, in effect, we are making assertions about phenomenon that, through no amount of deduction or investigation, can we make conclusions about based upon our perceptual experiences, which are the source of all our knowledge (although, as Kant pointed out, not all our knowledge is derived from perceptual experience. There is a difference). So, you are on impossible ground, epistemologically speaking. To make your assertion, you must relinquish any knowledge claims you might make about this phenomenon at all. To do that would be internally contradictory, as Descartes pointed out. You thus shoot yourself in the foot, thus yielding a descisive objection, as if another one was really needed, to your argument.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Best news of the day, "candy

Best news of the day, "candy man" DG is semi drunk !     

   Yeah the energy matter force,  then comes consciousness  ....    

                                  Does it much matter ?

  Well, that's my best guess .... And if I am wrong with my guess, I will be pleased to know otherwise .... while realizing , there will be more questions ..... so yes I surrender to the awe ..... to never ask why , but instead,  HOW ? .....  as i am god as you .... as we are ONE,  in this space and time .....

                                  Please my people  , no more dogma .....

                                              sip some rum , relax 

                                                   

                   


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:In

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
In what way is it rational to believe in no deity?


Please do your best to write clearly. Vague questions are an unnecessary bother. Are you asking, "In what way is it rational to not believe in a deity?" or "In what way is it rational to believe there is no deity?" The difference in wording is small but have consequences.

Some believe "God" is a meaningless word, coveying no clear concept. In that case, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both meaningless statements, and thus they cannot rationally affirm either one. That position is known as noncognitivism. They are willing to believe "God exists" is a true statement but will not do so until they've been presented a good definition of "God" which makes the concept cognizable to them and have been presented satisfactory evidence that "God exists" is a true statement.

Some do not accept "God exists" or "God does not exist," they are simply not theists for any number of reasons, chief among them is that they have not been presented with evidence. This position is known as negative atheism or agnostic atheism. They are willing to believe "God exists" is a true statement but will not do so until they've been presented with satisfactory evidence. Some of these individuals can have a bit of a noncognitivist streak in them.

Some accept "God does not exist" as a true statement. I think you'll find that this is a minority position, depending on how "God" is defined. If "God" is supposed to refer to the deity of Abrahamic faiths, I think most atheists would say that "God does not exist" is a true statement, or is the position that is favored by the evidence. That, however, is only one definition of "God." If you use a more general definition of "an intelligent agent who created the universe," and thus including deism and other forms of theism, then you'll find that only a minority among atheists would accept "God does not exist" as a true statement. This position is known as positive atheism.

The definition of God plays an important role in the sort of atheism that a person has. One could be a positive atheist in regard to the Abrahamic deity while being a negative atheist in regard to the Deistic deity while being noncognitivist toward some conceptions of "God" but not others. In many respects, these positions overlap one another but they are still quite distinct and it's best to not push them together as if they all embodied the same concept or position.

It seems to me that you are addressing your question to positive atheists in regard to your definition of "God." You have not stated what "God" you refer to, so it's essentially impossible to know who you're directing your question at. Please specify a clue as to what sort of "God" to which you refer and to whom the question is directed.

It probably sucks to read this far and realize I didn't provide an answer to your question. I thought it sucked that I had to write this much without providing an answer. But, I did say, "vague questions are an unnecessary bother," didn't I? Please be specific.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
What twisted logic brings you to doubt the existence of something that created our souls?


There is no evidence in favor of the existence of souls but there is plenty of evidence against the existence of souls. I'll discuss some of these evidences in just a second, but I want to address some of your other comments first.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Oh yeah. I love atheists, its good practice to argue with the completely illogical.


Judging by the imprecision in your questions, and the ineloquence and ridiculousness of your statements, you need much more practice. If you were logical—as you seem to deem yourself—then you wouldn't make statements about the completely illogical being "good practice" for argumentation, just as a professional basketball player wouldn't consider a toddler as being "good practice" for basketball. By calling the completely illogical "good practice," you are admitting that you are illogical. I won't deny your implications about your intelligence—you know yourself better than I know you.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Since science is pretty much useless in a philosophical argument of the soul, lets just use logic and common sense.


Science is not useless in this discussion. If anything, it discredits the idea of a soul by rendering it a meaningless mishmash of nonsense. I don't want to write a huge article here, especially when the subject has already been covered in great enough detail, so here's a link that discusses some of the evidences of which I spoke earlier: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
There are a finite amount of possible chemical combinations in the brain. However, there is an infinite amount of separate thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions... that can occur.


I think I know where you got that idea from—your bottom. There's a finite amount of electrochemical configurations and processes so there are a finite number of possible thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions, etc. In short, a finite amount of causes results in a finite amount of effects. This is why neuroscientists are able to calculate the processing power of brains and compare them to computers. And the finite amount of effects arising from a finite amount of causes is the reason that people like yourself are so predictable in having such an ignorance of human and animal physiology. And since that premise of your argument is false, the rest of your argument in favor of the notion of a soul collapses like a house of cards.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
if you honestly don't believe in a separation [between humans and animals], then follow my previous instructions [and suffocate by inhaling laundry detergent.]


You enjoy flaunting your ignorance, illogicality, and general imbicility, don't you? Animals are eukaryotic life forms lacking cell walls that generally digest food in an internal chamber. Humans fit the definition of animal. If you deny that humans are animals, you must be using some vague nonscientific definition of "animal" or you simply take delight in denying reality.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Chemical A + Chemical B=Fear. then it doesn't make sense that Chemical A + Chemical B could then equal Sad another time.


Thus, the physicist spaketh, "O hydrogen! O oxygen! How simplistic are thy ways! You may produce only water, but not mist or crystalline structures! No! Thou must not!" The expasperated audience asked of him, "How does thou pretendest to be a physicist? Evidence! Evidence! Where art thou evidence?" And the physicist, ashamed of his imbecility, tried dashing from behind his pulpit to behind the curtains but was struck with tomatoes, troll badges, intoxicated ramblings of a molecular biologist, and some strange fellow declaring, "The end."

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yep, the definition of 

Yep, the definition of  G   O  D                 

shezzzzz , all them tears ! and fears ! .... and laughs too .... all of Me.

            Atheist love is most supreme ......   


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

Since science is pretty much useless in a philosophical argument of the soul, lets just use logic and common sense. (Yes I know, there are no universal or apparent truths, everything is relative to the observer, blah blah blah. If thats how you think than dunk your head in some laundry detergent and breathe deep cause your hopeless)

 

So:

 

There are a finite amount of possible chemical combinations in the brain. However, there is an infinite amount of separate thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions... that can occur. Since the combinations are finite and the thoughts are endless, then it follows that the chemical reactions of the brain cannot be the root cause of the thought. Therefore it follows that it must be something else that separates us from the animals (if you honestly don't believe in a separation, then follow my previous instructions), a nice word for this thing would be: soul. 

Soul is just a name for the consciousness with which I experience the occurrences of my daily life. Anything other than the knowledge that at least I have a soul, is faith and assumptions. So if we're gonna make assumptions about life, why not make logical ones?

 

 

How about a logical argument against the existence of a deity or soul?

 

How about you not shifting the burden of proof?

Or how about answering how using logic and common sense in any form leads one to "Donkeys can talk, people can fly and your big brother Jesus lives up in the sky" (thanks Landover Baptist?

If soul is consciousness, are you saying that the soul is finite? Consciousness ends at death. 

This is where you will most likely use a special pleading fallacy to make the soul an exception to say that it and its creator is eternal.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

 Oh yeah. I love atheists, its good practice to argue with the completely illogical. 

Are you stupid for fun?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I think this public outing

I think this public outing of his incomprehensible beliefs has made him flee. Oh well, his absurdity will not be missed.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:intoxicated ramblings

Quote:

intoxicated ramblings of a molecular biologist

That was not an intoxicated rambling (I am sober now). It was, in fact, a well constructed piece which made important philosophical insights into the nature of the mind. And, reading it now, I like it. I should get drunk more often.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
I really hope you understand

I really hope you understand the difference between chemicals and the alphabet because that was a horrible analogy. 

No horse, dog, cat, pig or fish has ever been to the moon. No cow has ever driven a car and could not create it at any time. If you can't see the difference then your not only blind, your mentally ill. 

 

Brain dead, yeah they have a soul, no avenue with which to channel that soul into the physical world (the brain being that little connector). 

No animal has ever displayed anything to me except for being a flesh computer. 

If you want the evidence of a deity, than think about the idea of the universe around us, the infinite complexities of the earth, the feelings and thoughts we have, the self-evident truths that we can comprehend. Think of all that happening for no reason. Nothing causing it, it just is. No explanation of how or why, or even when, just is. Atheism is like closing your eyes and sticking your head under the sand and ignoring all the world around you.

 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh fuck. Too stupid for even

Oh fuck. Too stupid for even a response.

 

The animals you mentioned by the way simply have less complex brains - and no hands BTW. No need for the idea of a soul. Just banging my head on my desk right now.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I really hope you

Quote:

I really hope you understand the difference between chemicals and the alphabet because that was a horrible analogy.

I presume you are talking to Zara. At any rate, here we expect an argumentative response slightly better than "that was a horrible analogy". This is, after all, merely an assertion on your part.

Quote:

No horse, dog, cat, pig or fish has ever been to the moon. No cow has ever driven a car and could not create it at any time. If you can't see the difference then your not only blind, your mentally ill.

This once again seems like an argument from personal incredulity on your part. We do see the difference, it is merely that this difference can be expressed in terms of an ontogenic continuum whereby increased neural sophistication and processing abilities result in more sophisticated external behaivor. This is a clearly indicated pattern. There is no need to input this incoherent and vague seperate ontological status resulting for the particular sophistication in the human neurological capacities. And, by the way, if you don't know the difference between ontogeny and ontology you shouldn't really be having this debate. here is no Great Chain of Being, and man does not rest on the upper echelons of some sort of "heirarchy" of beings. Man is another branch, another lineage in the vast Darwinian tree of life, no more special to natural selection than cyanobacteria or clownfish, just a later arrival. Naturally, within the religious idea of man near the pinnacle of a Great Chain of Being comes the idea that man has a special distinction from the other taxa in the form of his consciousness, which is completely seperate from the mundane workings of neurology which is possessed by every other animal. Descartes first formally put forth this idea as Cartesian dualism. But of course this is absurd. If we understand the principles of Darwinian Evolution correctly, we shall find that such distinctions are impossible. We should instead view the various taxa which have some sort of organ analogous to the brain in an ordered continuum, where as the lineage progresses and natural selection favours more sophisticated neural circuitry, it naturally gets progressively more complex and intricate. There is no room for the idea that somewhere, in a wholly arbitrary lineage under a meaningless notion of "seperate kind", that coinsciousness was suddenly injected into one branch of the lineage.

Quote:

Brain dead, yeah they have a soul, no avenue with which to channel that soul into the physical world (the brain being that little connector).

No. The idea that the brain is a "receptor" for consciousness has been refuted so many times I don't really know where to start. There are so many objections. All the objections I assembled are outlined here:

deludedgod wrote:

It makes an appeal to ad hoc

An ad hoc is a specific tweaking of a hypothesis to avoid its falsification. In this case, the breakdown of Descartes ontological division punches a hole in theistic concepts such as God (the disembodied mind), and life after death. The proposition in this case is deliberately vague and incoherent. Notice how it cannot actually establish any sort of ontological status for its proposition. It has to refer to vague incoherencies and entails forcing a concept which has antecedents in the local world to the conscious entity as “prepackaged” rather like radio waves. The proposition does not mean anything in the sense that the phrase "the knife was a receptor for sharp-bladeness" does not mean anything.

There is not any coherent causal structure

It makes no sense in terms of causal structure. A causal structure entails the causal relationship between mental and physical events. There is no causal structure here to speak of, the proposition is nonsensical. Certain causal structures are naïve, like epiphenomenalism (mental dead-ends) but at least have established relationships between mental and physical states. The causal structures that we can establish as necessary antecedents to functioning perception fly in the face of the hypothesis in question. For one, physical events which are part of the immediate experience have a temporal causal effect on mental events that they antecede. If the causal structure in this case implies that mental events are not localized, ie, are not emergent from the brain, but rather some other hitherto unestablished source, it doesn’t actually mean anything to speak of a causal structure between the physical immediate world and the mental events. Yet clearly, regardless of position, such a correlation clearly exists. I burn my finger (physical event), experience pain (mental event), exude outward symptoms (physical event). There are numerous different causal structures from functionalism, epiphenomenalism, interactionalism non-reductive physicalism and reductionism. However, all causal models between neuronal events entail a necessary causal structure between physical events and mental events. In this case, no such causal structure can exist, since mental events do not derive from any immediate causal structure. This entails the proposition, essentially, is complete and utter nonsense. I cannot experience a first person ontology without experiencing some thing. Yet this in turn entails a causal relationship between my immediate world (empirical) and mental events. It literally makes no sense to speak of “consciousness” being amputated from the experience which has causal structure necessarily anteceded by immediate experience.

It entails the disjunction of properties from the brain which are necessarily localized

Consciousness by nature refers to experience from whence the thing being experienced cannot be amputated from consciousness, whether that thing being experienced be external or internal, or both, a causal structure entails that (a) a first person ontology being a first person experience of a world which is characterized by its locality to the brain, ie my immediate perception of the world around me. Yet in this case, such an experience cannot exist, it makes no sense to speak of a causal structure between the immediate world and the mental events that come from this antecedence. It means nothing to speak of an experience which is anteceded by an immediate causal structure between the physical and the mental to be generated by “something” which has no causal structural relationship with either of these things. The proposition is not coherent.

Another way to consider the causal structure is to consider how we normally experience the causal structures. Presuming the existence of other first-person ontologies, then a normal pattern of causal interaction in, say, a conversation can entail in S1 (subject 1) and S2 (subject 2), the following pattern of interaction;

Stimulus => S1 (physical

Brain (S1) => (physical causality) neuronal network response and processing of stimulus

Mental causality (S1) => Thought process

Mental causality (S1) => Thought process entails referencing to neuronal networks

Physical causality (S1)=> Entails the activation of other neuronal networks via this causal relationship

Physical causality (outward exuding) (S1) => Communication

Stimulus => S2 (physical)

Etc.

Now, obviously, applying this particular model to the entire mental causal process is called analytical functionalism. And I do not think that analytical functionalism is MSF is a sufficient account of the mind, for one, it is not only true that exterior stimulus can induce mental causality (or that physical states being induced by such), because mental causality can in turn cause other mental processes, or rather, physical processes underlying those mental process such that there is an action-reaction between neuronal networks and thoughts, emotions (and the associated neurotransmitter), sense data (physical stimuli causality). But the problem is that in the ridiculous model being discussed, there is no relationship between experience and physical causality and hence the physical processing of the world, and the conscious awareness does not entail any active causality between the neuronal networks and the conscious experience, because “consciousness” does not proceed from the local object upon which the experience is acting (the brain). That being the case, being that there is no computational relationship between experience and physical causality, but this is gibberish because the being the case, we wouldn’t be experiencing anything. Regardless of whether or not analytical functionalism is a sufficient account of the mind, it is definitely a contigent truth to say that. to some degree,  mental states are defined by their functional states relative to physical states and other mental states (it is also possible to argue that  the idea of a single "mental state" is not). However, I have never accepted functionalism always remaining a staunch type physicalists ((mental events are defined by their physical correlates). For reasons of the fact that mental states can be realized in non-human brains and also non-human experiences, I rejected strong type physicalism in favor of token type physicalism, which accounts for what I described above, called Multiple realizibility. At any rate, the thing to take away is that the "consciousness being broadcast" nonsense (a) has no model of interaction and (b) does not account for qualia, the subjective nature of consciousness localized to the physical occupance of the thing expereincing the first person ontology, ie the feel of the pain when one burns their finger. It is not coherently established how "consciousness" being broadcast would accout for this given that this would entail that consciousness is a "thing" which exists indepedently of  the experiencing first person ontology and its extended body.

To consider my own position further, I am a specific subset of identity type theorists called an anomolous monoist. 


http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/9b/300px-Anomalous_Monism.png


 So, to me, although there is no bridge of reductionist subsets, mental states still have their necessary antecedants in neuronal networks, and constellations of such give rise to neuronal networks. I settled on this particular model several years ago, after realizing that (a) Epiphenominalism was nonsense because it has causal dead ends on mental events (something I discuss in my paper on multiple realizability) and (b) Machine state functionalism could not account for the person understanding the Chinese language as opposed to Searle's Chinese Room machine, and I did not want to bite the bullet of functionalism by admitting that Ned Block's Chinese Nation-Mind state entity could be a functioning mind. Emergentism appealed to me because Token types entail multiple realizability, as shown:


 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/320px-Reduktionismus.png


 What this entails is what is called supervenience, which I have defended before, which is propositionally simple: Systems, be they emergent or reductionist, cannot entail changes in higher level properties without constituent changes. It is a constitutional relationship which entails that certain properties have necessary antecedants, and supervenience was what I used in principle to Attack the existence of God. In simple terms, the existence of God entails certain properties which have supervenience to lower properties, and these lower properties have been amputated from the theistic description of God. The nature of the mental, both a priori and discovered a posteriori , such as by neuroscience, entails, something which virtually every philosopher (or indeed, everyone else) would accept, that mental events supervene the physical, ie mental events have properties which entail physical antecedance, which I have already mentioned. This is very problematic for the existence of God, which entails a disembodied mind, something which I have firmly established before is not possible. Note that while certain propositions entail synthetic knowledge, gained by neuroscience about how mental and physical events interact, necessary a priori truths can also entail that this is problematic, ie that consciousness is entailed by expereince of something, or that physical events antecede mental. In property terms, certain properties do antecede each other. It is possible for an object with extended body to be a color other than blue, but is not possible for a blue object to exist without extended body. 


Returning to the ridiculous model being propogated here. It necessarily entails due to the lack of causal structure, anomolous dualism, that there are no laws governing the mental-physical relationship, and they are two differeny substances (mental events are then not causally effacious of physical ones, or other mental events). This is problematic


The other thing we might consider is that there is no coherent causal structure of the “broadcasting” thing, obviously it is ridiculous to speak of a first person ontology being “broadcast” because a first person ontology entails antecedants which are local only to the experiencing physical entity in question. It is therefore incoherent and confusing to speak of “consciousness” being plucked out of the air by such entities. Obviously then, it is incoherent to speak of “mental causality” being existing unto itself. How can this be? The nature of the local experience of first person ontologies entails that there is physical causality prior to mental causality. “Mental things” do not exist by themselves, it is not coherent to speak of such things. How could we? I’m not trying to suggest that only a naturalistic ontology is necessarily the only correct solution merely that returning to my first proposition, it is not established the identity of the “broadcasted” consciousness, nor what it means to speak of consciousness being “broadcast” any more coherently than it is to speak of “ . Nor does it appear that the brain has any properties which would entail it is “receiving” anything other than sense data, from whence it builds its subjective experience of the world.


I presume those who would propagate this particular ad hoc are attempting to propagate the hypothesis that “consciousness” originates in some supernatural realm, but it is completely meaningless to speak of such things for the reasons already discussed. For one, it is not coherent what ontology this “broadcasting entity” is, or what it means to speak of some sort of amputated first person ontology without any extended body, because consciousness by nature has antecedents which entail an extended body, because it entails experience, that is what underlies the notion of qualia. And that entails the processing of sense data, and that entails an experience of something, which defines a first person ontology. It becomes even less coherent when we consider that unless one is solipsistic, there exist other minds, it is not coherent what causal structure would be entailed form some incoherent supernatural realm that would generate the local experiences of the many first person ontologies. We may as well regard the entire proposition as appealing to nonsense.


It is not coherent to speak of consciousness being some “Raw” entity which is processed and altered by the brain, because consciousness cannot, by nature be a thing, by which we might mean a substantial entity unto itself. It appears to be a property exuded by certain entities that we might call having first person ontology (theory of other minds), not merely that but it does not appear that it can be “broadcast” due to such entailment and such a posulation would create an incoherent infinite regress. Also, being that there is no causal structure, there is no coherent way whatsoever in which such a model could generate (i) experience and (ii) mental states. It is gibberish.


It makes a fallacy of reification


It entails that it is possible to amputate consciousness from that which is being experienced. Strictly speaking, this is complete gibberish, comparing consciousness to radio waves to be plucked out of the air is rather like comparing apples to rocket launchers. Furthermore, it makes an appeal to something without positive ontology hence generating a rhetoric tautology. It is unclear what is meant by “consciousness” as if this could exist as a thing unto itself. It means nothing to speak of “consciousness” being transmitted into brains, because that would entail that we define “consciousness” in this sense. If consciousness has antecedent of experience, and hence a first-person ontology needs to be experiencing something, then it makes strictly no sense to amputate these properties from the substance in question, the brain. Even Descartes model has the dualistic “soul” operating with some sort of causal epiphenominalistic mechanism with the brain. But if consciousness has local antecedents, ie certain properties are entailed that are part of what is being experienced by the first person ontology (for example, it makes no sense to speak of a conscious being forming without experience via sense data) then it means nothing to speak of consciousness being “transmitted”. This is further supported by the fact that consciousness develops ontogenically along with the brain. The idea that consciousness could be packaged and transmitted rather like radio waves is ontologically incoherent, it is not established what sort of independent ontology “consciousness” by itself might have, or indeed, what it means to speak of “consciousness” existing by itself. Certain properties, by their nature, necessitate the first-order quality of extended body in order to be coherent. If my computer mouse, which is blue, occupies points in space time and hence is extended, it makes no sense to speak of my mouse being blue if it was not extended because then we wouldn’t be meaningfully referring to anything being “blue”. Nor can I amputate the blueness of the entity from its extension, similarily, it is unclear what precisely we are left over with ontologically speaking when we amputate the physical body, because there does not appear to be anything left over to generate the comprescence relation such that higher-order properties are generated.


By the fallacy of reification being occurred here, it is impossible to turn consciousness into a “thing” or a property that exists extant and external to the causal structure of the brain, since by its nature it is intertwined the local causality but it is unclear how a wholly non-local causality with no interaction whatsoever to the local causality would play a part in the equation. It is very unclear what we mean to speak of consciousness by itself. It would be rather like saying that rather than a monetary transaction being underlied by an abstract notion of “value of X” and “value of Y” being held in the minds of the participants, rather value was an actual thing that filled the aether and was plucked out of the air by objects. Can anything be more ridiculous?


It eliminates the concept of volition


It is absurd to speak of my first person ontology if my first person ontology is not actually “mine”. A radio exercises ownership over its valves, but not radio waves. It makes no sense that the idea of me having a first person ontology if “consciousness” is being beamed into my head. It is not clear, being that there is no apparent causal structure between mental and physical events, why I am actually locally experiencing something if the “consciousness” is not anteceded by local causality. For example, it is unclear why I am experiencing my body if my experience is not local. I would not have what neuroscientists call proprioception. It is not clear what it means to speak of “transmitting” consciousness as first-person ontologies are not transmittable by nature. I do not particularly go to sleep worrying that I shall wake up in another’s body the next day (for good reason, obviously, my body has certain antecedants to the entity that I recognize as “I”, such that it holds my memories and experiences and causal brain states in its physically imbued qualities, and it is meaningless to speak of me being amputated from such causal brain functions and states, because then, strictly speaking, there is no me.


It creates a problem of regress


It is not established what precisely is generating consciousness and how any causal structure with the brain may arise from this. Strictly speaking, it does not mean anything to speak of consciousness being amputated from the antecedants of (i) sense data and (ii) physical causality. The former because without such there is no first person ontology, the latter because of the former (sense data necessitates physical causal structures between sensory perception. One could argue it rests on the same fundamental confusion as the Homunculus fallacy, ie the idea that there is a “little man” viewing the sense data, but of course, this entails that it begs the question what inside the head of the little man is experiencing the sense data since in this case to answer the question of perception we are appealing to another conscious entity and hence end up with Homunculi ad infinitum in each other’s heads. Descartes believed the epiphenomenal interaction between the “soul” and the brain occurred in the pineal gland, but this is nonsense, there is no neuroscience evidence that would support this and the pineal gland is simply the gland that controls circadian rhythms. The appeal to infinite regress that occurs here is identical. It is incoherent to speak of “consciousness” being received by minds because the entails that we must ask the question of the origin of the “consciousness” in the first place. It makes no sense to amputate consciousness from a conscious being as though “consciousness” could just float around in the void, this would rather akin to trying to put a number in your pocket (not a representation of a number, like on a piece of paper, but actually putting a number in your pocket). That entails another conscious being is “broadcasting” consciousness, but if we return to the prior point, this makes strictly no sense as your first person ontology is localized, and furthermore it creates an infinite regress. Combined with the fact that the proposition has no causal structure, makes reference to an incoherency, and the fact that nobody wants a bloated ontology, the whole thing is cut away like a cancerous rot by Occam’s Razor. Added to that, it is propositionally unhelpful because it does not define consciousness in any sense.


Since Consciousness is Extrinsic by nature, it strictly makes no sense to speak of it as being non-localized (by which I mean generated by something outside the brain)


Consciousness has a causal structure which is defined by local change, which makes it strictly incoherent that it could be a “distilled thing unto itself”. It is not coherently described how or indeed why the physical brain should take part in this ridiculous equation. Since consciousness is defined, by nature, by change and a highly dynamic brain structure, (ie The extrinsic nature of consciousness applies to the whole world line. Consciousness is defined by change, your consciousness at t(1) was not the same as it was at t(2), because your experience at t(1) was not the same as at t(2). Nor was your mind. As you are reading this, entire patterns of neuronal networks in your brains are shifting and overturning. The brain is surely the most fluid organ in terms of its plasticity, and this plasticity is born out in the functioning mind (vast details are provided on this in the technical piece). This applies to spatial experience as well. Two cloned brains won't have the same consciousness, since they won't have the same experience, and that will have a proportional effect on the physiological brain. In other words, consciousness, as a property of the complex brain, which exists in a continuum fashion, is not a fixed property whatsoever) so it makes strictly no sense to speak of “transmitting consciousness” any more than the idea makes sense to speak of a “whole body amputation”.



 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
I'm really fuckign lazy, and

I'm really fuckign lazy, and I will be the first to say that I'm not a biologist on any level, so on the inner workings of the brain you've got me beat. My question for you is:

 

A thought that has no base in the sensory. How can that be? How does the brain think up what it has not seen or experianced?

In what way will science ever answer the question why? You posted a bunch fo information but said basically nothing. There is no physical evidence of a soul. There is however evidence, mainly being the ability to not only experiance (like animals- animals being defined by me as living creatures other than humans.) but understand and manipulate the experiance in a way that you cannot deny the animals cannot do. Humans are thinking creatures. There is no evidence that animals or trees or bacteria or stars think. Input=output on everything but humans. That is the main differance. 

 

Do any of you atheists believe in the equality of man? Or d you believe in right or wrong? Do you believe in any kind of self evident truth at all? Do you believe that logic has any meaning? Believing in any of that while being an atheist is kinda contradictory. 

 

Arguing with the illogical is often necessary, in life, it happens. It helps to know how to argue against the stupid and rediculous along with the intelligent when trying to convince people of your way of thinking. Thats my goal, so I practice it. In what way is this motive illogical. 

 

Atheist: one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods. 

 

Geeze I would think youd know what you are...  

 

I define god as a thought that has in some way created more thought and put that thought in the greatest work of art in existence. 

 

 

Im lazy and i really dont care about this whole argument so dont be suprised if it take me awhile to respond to you.

 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
I'm really fuckign lazy, and

EDIT: Double Post


 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Some mental diseases of

Some mental diseases of wrong thinking (the devil within) seem incurable ..... "blind hypocrites" atheist story jesus called them, and added to "love the enemy" , as meaning , understand the dogma enemy and all superstition, to heal them .....

    All is ONE, all is the "force". Most atheists acknowledge this simple concept. The theology of the "God of Abraham" followers unfortunately say otherwise. They are "separatists, idol worshipers". They are the "Antichrist" message of wrong thinking (the devil it is often called)   

    NO MASTER ! as story Jesus simply said,  " this is the Kingdom of god / heaven NOW / One with the Cosmos ( father/mother ),  Ye are god(s)  "  SIMPLE, zero dogma ......

     I suggest substituting the mixed up word G_O_D , with "Force" ......

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITHWhat is your religion or philosophy that you wish to make clear and concise, regarding the "awe" , we all share ?  

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A thought that has

Quote:

 

A thought that has no base in the sensory. How can that be? How does the brain think up what it has not seen or experianced?

No such thing. We can only concieve of concepts which have an experiental basis in the form of our sensory experiences. There is some confusion about what this means. It is possible to concieve of things we have not experienced, a process recognized as "imagination", but not possible to concieve of something we cannot experience. I'll show you. Try to concieve of UV light. Try it! You can't, can you? In the same way that a blind man cannot concieve of colors. You might wear UV goggles, this essentially makes UV look purple, but in that case all you are doing is translating UV (which cannot be concieved of, since we cannot percieve UV) into something you can concieve of (purple, because that is within our visual spectrum). In general, it is only possible to concieve of things not experienced if the conceptual basis for this imagined idea is within our capacity to percieve. I might ask you to concieve of a futuristic alien civilization, something you have never perceptually experienced (actually, this is not quite true, since it may be the case that you have seen such a thing on a film, etc.) and you could concieve of it, but the mental image formed would be based upon experiences that you can percieve, it will take the form of distinct colors and shapes and sights and so forth that are within the human capacity to conceive.

Quote:

In what way will science ever answer the question why?

You could read the final paragraph and realize that denying that it is within the investigatory power of science leads you to internal contradiction.

Quote:

You posted a bunch fo information but said basically nothing.

Actually, it said a great deal. I established both your premises were flawed, and your secondary assertion, and the relation between your conclusion and your premise was non-existent. I also established that your conclusion led to internal contradiction.

Quote:

There is no physical evidence of a soul. There is however evidence, mainly being the ability to not only experiance (like animals- animals being defined by me as living creatures other than humans.)

I already eroded the link you tried to make between that premise and the conclusion you have just drawn, in my previous post.

Quote:

Input=output on everything but humans.

But as I just demonstrated, thoughts cannot proceed without inputs from the physical world. These output thoughts reflect the inputs in a precise way. Your Cartesian metaphysics has been dead for 200 years.

Quote:

Do any of you atheists believe in the equality of man? Or d you believe in right or wrong? Do you believe in any kind of self evident truth at all? Do you believe that logic has any meaning? Believing in any of that while being an atheist is kinda contradictory.

This seems to be an appeal to emotion combined with an introduction of totally irrelevant points on a useless tangent which does not pertain in any meaningful way to the discussion at hand combined with an argument from personal incredulity.

Quote:

Arguing with the illogical is often necessary, in life, it happens.

Oh, believe me, I know that. I am in this thread, am I not?

Quote:

I define god as a thought that has in some way created more thought and put that thought in the greatest work of art in existence.

You define God as a thought? This appears to lead straight to internal contradiction, from an ontological standpoint. What a strange twist on Berkeley's idealism.

Quote:

Im lazy and i really dont care about this whole argument so dont be suprised if it take me awhile to respond to you.

Learned some humility, I see. You were singing a different tune 24 hours ago.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
By the way, you're not being

By the way, you're not being capable of understanding something in no way refutes its truth.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1209
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
 I really hope you understand the difference between chemicals and the alphabet because that was a horrible analogy.

Actually, your understanding is horrible.  With a finite set of symbols (an alphabet), an infinite number of symbol combinations (words) is possible.  Likewise, with a finite number of "chemical combinations", an infinite number of thoughts is possible.  For example, I can think of 1 idiot, 2 idiots, 17 idiots, 254 idiots, and so on.  Not naming any names, but at the moment I'm only thinking of 1 really big idiot. 


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
 

No horse, dog, cat, pig or fish has ever been to the moon. No cow has ever driven a car and could not create it at any time. If you can't see the difference then your not only blind, your mentally ill.

So you're claiming that our ability to drive cars and go to the moon is proof of a soul - rather than simply increased intelligence, courtesy of evolution (no soul or god required for explanation). 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Soul is just a name for the consciousness with which I experience the occurrences of my daily life.

how do you assess human being who is brain-dead?  Soul or no soul?



Brain dead, yeah they have a soul, no avenue with which to channel that soul into the physical world (the brain being that little connector).

So one moment the soul for you is consciousness (something which animals demonstrate), but yet brain dead people (who lack consciousness) have souls.  If you're going to argue for the existence of the soul, you ought to first have a coherent concept of what it is, rather than letting it take on an ad hoc life of its own.

Now along with your horse, dog, cat, pig, fish and cow, have you ever seen a brain-dead person drive a car or go to the moon?


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

If you want the evidence of a deity, than think about the idea of the universe around us, the infinite complexities of the earth, the feelings and thoughts we have, the self-evident truths that we can comprehend. Think of all that happening for no reason. Nothing causing it, it just is. No explanation of how or why, or even when, just is.

I'm fine with the idea of the universe around us; the earth isn't infinitely complex; our feelings and thoughts can be easily explained by biology, as can the feelings and thoughts of lower animals.  I've thought of all that, and have no problem with it, nor do I see why it needs "a reason", or an answer to "why".  As far as "how" and "when":  As of this writing, the Big Bang, and approximately 13.5 billion years ago.

Apparently you think this all demands the existence of a deity.  If so, ask yourself why you're ok with "Nothing causing" your deity, but not with "Nothing causing" the universe; why you're ok with saying your deity "just is", but not that the universe "just is".

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Atheism is like closing your eyes and sticking your head under the sand and ignoring all the world around you.

You're welcome to your opinion.  Science is opening your eyes, taking your head out of the sand, and investigating the world (and the universe) around you.  And as you hopefully know by now, science has no need for a deity in its conclusions.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
I'm really fuckign lazy,

Agreed. 

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
and I will be the first to say that I'm not a biologist on any level

Actually, I think deludedgod was the first to say that, albeit implicitly.  In contrast to your laziness, he obviously took the time and trouble to give a detailed explanation of thought processes, to counter your amateurish blustering about the soul.  It looks like you sidestepped his post, merely to bluster some more.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:


Im lazy and i really dont care about this whole argument so dont be suprised if it take me awhile to respond to you.

You "like to keep in good mental shape, the best way to do that is to argue", and yet you're "lazy", and you "really dont care about this whole argument". 

Or maybe you're a small-minded troll who gets smarmy when your incoherent notions of "deity" and "soul" get refuted, quite predictably.

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:

I'm really fuckign lazy, and I will be the first to say that I'm not a biologist on any level, so on the inner workings of the brain you've got me beat. My question for you is:

 

A thought that has no base in the sensory. How can that be? How does the brain think up what it has not seen or experianced?

In what way will science ever answer the question why? You posted a bunch fo information but said basically nothing. There is no physical evidence of a soul. There is however evidence, mainly being the ability to not only experiance (like animals- animals being defined by me as living creatures other than humans.) but understand and manipulate the experiance in a way that you cannot deny the animals cannot do. Humans are thinking creatures. There is no evidence that animals or trees or bacteria or stars think. Input=output on everything but humans. That is the main differance. 

 

Do any of you atheists believe in the equality of man? Or d you believe in right or wrong? Do you believe in any kind of self evident truth at all? Do you believe that logic has any meaning? Believing in any of that while being an atheist is kinda contradictory. 

 

Arguing with the illogical is often necessary, in life, it happens. It helps to know how to argue against the stupid and rediculous along with the intelligent when trying to convince people of your way of thinking. Thats my goal, so I practice it. In what way is this motive illogical. 

 

Atheist: one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God or gods. 

 

Geeze I would think youd know what you are...  

 

I define god as a thought that has in some way created more thought and put that thought in the greatest work of art in existence. 

 

 

Im lazy and i really dont care about this whole argument so dont be suprised if it take me awhile to respond to you.

 

Written like someone who just got his tail kicked in a discussion...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:That was

deludedgod wrote:
That was not an intoxicated rambling (I am sober now). It was, in fact, a well constructed piece which made important philosophical insights into the nature of the mind.


I enjoyed reading your response, just as I've enjoyed most of your writing. I added "intoxicated ramblings of a molecular biologist" for comedic effect, it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously Eye-wink

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
No horse, dog, cat, pig or fish has ever been to the moon. No cow has ever driven a car and could not create it at any time. If you can't see the difference then your not only blind, your mentally ill.


When people say humans are animals, they are not saying humans have all of the same characteristics to dogs, cats, pigs, or fish, merely that they are within the animal kingdom due to being eukaryotic organisms lacking cell walls that generally digest food in an internal chamber. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Brain dead, yeah they have a soul, no avenue with which to channel that soul into the physical world (the brain being that little connector).


It's more parsimonious to explain brain death as the cessation of consciousness.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
No animal has ever displayed anything to me except for being a flesh computer.


Humans are simply more complicated flesh-computers.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
If you want the evidence of a deity, than think about the idea of the universe around us, the infinite complexities of the earth, the feelings and thoughts we have, the self-evident truths that we can comprehend. Think of all that happening for no reason. Nothing causing it, it just is. No explanation of how or why, or even when, just is. Atheism is like closing your eyes and sticking your head under the sand and ignoring all the world around you.


Allow me to use the same argument in reverse. Think about a deity around us, the infinite complexities of it, the feelings and thoughts it has, the self-evident truths it can comprehend; think of it just existing for no reason, nothing causing it, it just is; no explanation of how or why or even when, [it] just is; theism is like closing your eyes and sticking your head under the sand. See how easy it is to make such arguments? The very things you say are problematic for atheism are also problematic for theism, if one's to be consistent.

You cannot say thoughts and feelings were created by an intelligent agent because that intelligent agent would also have thoughts and feelings. If thoughts and feelings require the postulation of an intelligent agent, then you'll find yourself in an infinite loop that results in an infinite set of intelligent agents. If you argue that the one intelligent agent with thoughts and feelings is self-existent, then you must say thoughts and feelings are self-existent, in which case you concede the argument. Then I would argue that postulating the existence of thoughts and feelings as a requisite to explain the existence of other thoughts and feelings is less parsimonious than the natural explanation because they both postulate undesigned thoughts and feelings but requires one less entity to describe and explain and that one entity is already incoherent when postulated as existing outside a causal manifold like spacetime. You might respond by arguing that nature isn't enough to explain thoughts and feelings, but you'll invariably never show how the spiritual realm is capable of explaining them, or even acting outside a causal manifold like spacetime, you'll simply offer us just-so storytelling while engaging in a logical fallacy called special-pleading.

The existence of complexity doesn't indicate a designer either, as shown by my reversal of your argument. Complexity does not objectively exist as an entity or a property of entities. The notion of complexity is a useful fiction that finite minds like our own have made up to help describe the limits of our conceptual abilities. Because complexity does not exist in any objective sense, it cannot be used as an objective signifier of the existence of other entities, intelligent or not. Complexity is a useful fiction, nothing more.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
In what way will science ever answer the question why?


"The question"? I can only speculate as to what that question would be. It is unfortunately far too common for people to think the ultimate question is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" You would be correct in saying that science cannot answer such a question, but nothing else can answer it either. The question is invalid. It presupposes a state of absolute nothingness but that's inherently contradictory because the existence of a "state" is the existence of something, and the existence of something precludes the possibility of absolute nothingness. The question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" is like asking, "Why is there something made of somethingness rather than something made of nothingness?" The question cannot be answered because it's inherently nonsensical and thus invalid.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
(like animals- animals being defined by me as living creatures other than humans.)


Plants are animals?

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
There is no evidence that animals or trees or bacteria or stars think.


I agree with you concerning trees, bacteria, and stars but where do you get the wacky idea that animals don't think? There's mountains of evidence that dogs, dolphins, monkeys, gorillas, cats, etc. do think. I won't even bother listing the evidence as its so numerous that only someone who is willfully blind to reality could fail to notice it around them.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Do any of you atheists believe in the equality of man? Or d you believe in right or wrong? Do you believe in any kind of self evident truth at all? Do you believe that logic has any meaning? Believing in any of that while being an atheist is kinda contradictory.


Where do I begin to untangle the numerous contradictions in this statement? You've basically argued that atheists cannot believe in the equality of man without contradicting themselves and imply a contradictory conclusion that theists are greater than, and therefore unequal to, atheists. If you argue that you weren't implying such a conclusion then the only other conclusion that can be drawn is that you think a moral agent is equal to being an amoral agent, which leads you to contradict yourself again since you implicitly extoll the virtue of morality. You also contradict yourself in another way by using sexist wording by saying the equality of man, rather than the equality of humankind, thus implying an inequality. You implicitly argue in favor of self-evident truths but simultaneously argue that theism is required for morality which shows that you don't know the self-evident truth that morality and obedience are not one and the same. You argue that only theism can account for logic but that is illogical because logic would exist regardless of whether there was a deity or not, for somethingness always was and that implies all the axioms upon which logic is built, and thus you're caricaturing the atheistic position as meaning everything came from nothingness, so you caricature your opponent's position in an illogical way while implicitly extolling the virtue of logic and thus contradicting yourself. "Kinda contradictory" is itself contradictory. And... I'll just stop right there, I could pick away at this statement for months and not be finished and you probably wouldn't have learned a thing from my efforts.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Arguing with the illogical is often necessary, in life, it happens.


You don't need to tell us.

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
It helps to know how to argue against the stupid and rediculous


(laughs) This is the equivalent of arguing, "You are stoopid."

IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH wrote:
Im lazy and i really dont care about this whole argument so dont be suprised if it take me awhile to respond to you.


If you don't care, leave.
 

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I enjoyed reading your

Quote:

I enjoyed reading your response, just as I've enjoyed most of your writing. I added "intoxicated ramblings of a molecular biologist" for comedic effect, it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously Eye-wink

Neither was my comment. Read it in a mock outrage voice and you'll understand.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Arse

Arse Sticking out tongue


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Is there a reason you

Is there a reason you haven't come back? You know I will be waiting for you- with a bazooka and a smile.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1209
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Troll & Hide

His running excuse is that he can't find the thread.  I actually believe him.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I don't.

I don't.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH
TheistTroll
IAMJACKSBROKENFAITH's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
 Alright, finally got a

 Alright, finally got a link to this thread, and for you who don't believe me that I couldn't find it, I really don't care so whatever...

The problem with the analogy was: 

kjdfiafvijqnrglie pivnw e;rivqe9 hfv eijw;fvpiuq I could just keep on typing that over and over and yes, I would have an infinite number of different words. Chemicals do not work in this way, they are not so easily stacked onto eachother. There is a difference, but as I have only a basic understanding of chemistry, I have a hard time putting it into words, I'l rely on your more scientific compatriots to explain it to you. 

A brain dead person, in my opinion probably has a soul. Maybe that soul has left the body, maybe not I really can't say. If they were born brain dead, then again, I really can't say. 

On the case of me being lazy ( i find it funny you all attack that, of all the things to worry about...) yeah Im lazy. I also like to argue, but do I put any real value on an argument on the internet? No. I really don't. Sorry if that offends you in some way, but come on, its the internet. 

We must learn to control our thoughts, or we will remain slaves to our feelings.
-SR