How the athiest thinks

JesusLovesYou
Theist
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
How the athiest thinks

Person A (we are figuratively speaking here cuz i know you will probably cry about something) gets a PhD in the field of scientific studies. Person B gets the SAME EXACT PhD, yet person B uses his education in the glory of God and finds ample evidence of creation. These two people go through the same schooling, get the same degree, yet work in different fields. Then some athiest comes along and automatically assumes Person B has a lesser education than person A.

The Athiest glorifys a man because he has a piece of paper framed on his wall. They criticize a christian for believing what they read in a book or heard from somebody. Yet the athiest does the same thing, they believe what they read in a book, or what somebody tells them, but because its written of told to them from a certain point of view they forget that they are just as religious and deem it "science". They don't think for a minute, "how accurate is this?, could Person A have fudged these results just so he could get the outcome he wanted?, could Person A have lied about his research?" Because you studied it in a book how do you know its true? Because your teacher told you how do you know its true?

"WELL PERSON A GOT HIS DOCTORATE IN "X STUDIES" SO IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HE WROTE ABOUT IT"

Bias is not 100% eliminatable, to what extremes would a person go to obtain the result they wanted?

Lets take this example. John Doe is researching homosexuals, if they are born that way or influenced somehow. (which btw, regardless of popular OPINION nothing has been proven on that) Ok, so what is John Doe's background, is he gay? is he straight? is he for/against homosexuality regardless of his own sexuality? does he have homosexual children? what kind of result is he initially looking for?

these are the kind of questions one should really ask themselves before taking anthing anybody says about anything into consideration.

 

and before you go and whine to me, yes there are Christians that are guilty of the same, because they go against what the Bible says and try to please man instead of God.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Why does it

todangst wrote:
Why does it even have to be created in the first place? There are several cosmological accounts from real cosomlogists that do not invoke anything at all like creation, such as Brane Theory or Hawking's finite but boundless model.

Big bang theory isn't a creation account, by the way:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions 


So, you believe it's possible that the universe never had a beginning? Can you explain to me, logically, how that is possible, please? Because everything about my experience on this earth has a beginning... So, what you are proposing here seems quite outlandish to me. Hmmm... This truth, if it were in fact true, would seem quite illogical based on my current level of understanding about this world. It seems to me somebody mentioned another truth...one that involved something with no beginning and now end... BTW, the link didn't work for me.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
JesusLovesYou wrote: Now

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Now because of people, you probably have a negative view on Christianity in a way that people act. Now you don't know me, and i can assure you that the "world christian view" and the way a "mainstream christian" acts, is not what Christ taught. I may have my flaws here and there, like King David (well i try) I am a man after
God's own heart. I strictly adhere to the Word of God and do not treat people like trash (at least i strongly try not too). Knowing this, if you are so adamant on trying to prove to me that what i know and feel and live is wrong and that man can live on his own, a good step to take would be to not offend people with stuff like that. But of course I know that there is a satanic spirit attached to atheism, so i don't really expect you to have any heart in you. My friend, negativity and hate cannot win against true love, which is in Christ Jesus. You can tell me as well that I don't know you, but friend, Atheism in itself has a negative spirit attached to it. Atheism makes people, especially children feel like their life has no purpose because they are just no better than the dirt on the ground, and I will research this, i promise, but i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks than those of chrsitianity. I pray for you all, i seriously do.

Personally, I find the quotes in bold both inflammatory and rude, not to mention unfounded.

While the Mother Teresa comment may have been impolite, for you to jump all over it was just plain childish. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline

sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Excuse me,

todangst wrote:
Excuse me, but can you tell me how this responds to my point? You asserted that probably every argument could be refuted. I am now challenging that claim.
I just want to know. You all make arguments for and against relative truth, and for and against absolute truth. Which do you believe? Ya'll are confusing me on this point.

todangst wrote:
Big bang theory is NOT  a creation account.

"A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory, partly described in the last two chapters, that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence,

I don't have time to read the rest at the moment, but I particularly like the part "after whatever happened to bring the universe into existance". WHAT happened. HOW did it come into existance? Give me a logical answer for that please.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:
JesusLovesYou wrote:

Now because of people, you probably have a negative view on Christianity in a way that people act. Now you don't know me, and i can assure you that the "world christian view" and the way a "mainstream christian" acts, is not what Christ taught. I may have my flaws here and there, like King David (well i try) I am a man after
God's own heart. I strictly adhere to the Word of God and do not treat people like trash (at least i strongly try not too). Knowing this, if you are so adamant on trying to prove to me that what i know and feel and live is wrong and that man can live on his own, a good step to take would be to not offend people with stuff like that. But of course I know that there is a satanic spirit attached to atheism, so i don't really expect you to have any heart in you. My friend, negativity and hate cannot win against true love, which is in Christ Jesus. You can tell me as well that I don't know you, but friend, Atheism in itself has a negative spirit attached to it. Atheism makes people, especially children feel like their life has no purpose because they are just no better than the dirt on the ground, and I will research this, i promise, but i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks than those of chrsitianity. I pray for you all, i seriously do.

Personally, I find the quotes in bold both inflammatory and rude, not to mention unfounded.

While the Mother Teresa comment may have been impolite, for you to jump all over it was just plain childish. 

I was just being silly because you all have been asking me for evidence of negativity. I do joke sometimes.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: todangst

sugarfree wrote:
todangst wrote:
2+2=4

Refute that.

Refute the axiom of existence.

Refute the axiom of identity.

Refute the axiom of consciousness.
So please, seriously, are you guys relativists or do you believe in absolute truth?
You've been proven to be in error, so now you perform your infamous red herring act.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: You've been

AiiA wrote:
You've been proven to be in error, so now you perform your infamous red herring act.

Can you answer this question:
Is truth relative, or is truth absolute?

Here is my answer:
Truth is absolute.

Your turn.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
2+2=4

Refute that.

Refute the axiom of existence.

Refute the axiom of identity.

Refute the axiom of consciousness.

The first is an mathematical axiom. It has no way of being proven true outside of mathematical system. For example, prove me wrong.. without using numbers or mathematical concepts.

Likewise, the latter three are logical axioms, (3 very similar ones I might add, if I understand them correctly), and could not be proven true outside of logical system. For example prove me wrong.. without using logic.

You might see where the problems are. And if you state.. 'show or prove to me one thing that is not logical' I would state 'show or prove to me one thing that does not have a beginning' (thanks sugarfree).

In anycase.. apologies for jumping in. I'm just poisoning the thread for my own understanding. Smiling


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:
JesusLovesYou wrote:

Now because of people, you probably have a negative view on Christianity in a way that people act. Now you don't know me, and i can assure you that the "world christian view" and the way a "mainstream christian" acts, is not what Christ taught. I may have my flaws here and there, like King David (well i try) I am a man after
God's own heart. I strictly adhere to the Word of God and do not treat people like trash (at least i strongly try not too). Knowing this, if you are so adamant on trying to prove to me that what i know and feel and live is wrong and that man can live on his own, a good step to take would be to not offend people with stuff like that. But of course I know that there is a satanic spirit attached to atheism, so i don't really expect you to have any heart in you. My friend, negativity and hate cannot win against true love, which is in Christ Jesus. You can tell me as well that I don't know you, but friend, Atheism in itself has a negative spirit attached to it. Atheism makes people, especially children feel like their life has no purpose because they are just no better than the dirt on the ground, and I will research this, i promise, but i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks than those of chrsitianity. I pray for you all, i seriously do.

Personally, I find the quotes in bold both inflammatory and rude, not to mention unfounded.

While the Mother Teresa comment may have been impolite, for you to jump all over it was just plain childish. 

For the benefit of sugarfree:

Luke 6:42 wrote:

6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote:

rexlunae wrote:
For the benefit of sugarfree:
Seriously, I was being silly. You all were saying...we're not negative, we're not negative...prove it, give us an example. Well, there, I gave you an example and now you're giving me crap about that. I can't win with you peeps. Gee, I can't even joke around... Sigh. I guess I'll just go to my massage therapist.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
2+2=4

Refute that.

Refute the axiom of existence.

Refute the axiom of identity.

Refute the axiom of consciousness.

The first is an mathematical axiom. It has no way of being proven true outside of mathematical system. For example, prove me wrong.. without using numbers or mathematical concepts.

Likewise, the latter three are logical axioms, (3 very similar ones I might add, if I understand them correctly), and could not be proven true outside of logical system. For example prove me wrong.. without using logic.

You might see where the problems are. And if you state.. 'show or prove to me one thing that is not logical' I would state 'show or prove to me one thing that does not have a beginning' (thanks sugarfree).

In anycase.. apologies for jumping in. I'm just poisoning the thread for my own understanding. Smiling

Logic is the basis of mathematics, so to say that something is mathematically true implies that it is logically true.

The point in the first place was to counter the notion that everything can be refuted by logic, and these are counterexamples.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
My one negative comment,

My one negative comment, doesn't make all atheists negative. It makes me negative.

It would be like judging every Christian based on the actions of the Phelps family.

I'm sorry, but ever time I hear some one say how great Mother Teresa was, I get a little bent out of shape. She let people suffer so she could feel good. If that's not the definition of a "sadistic bitch," I don't know what is.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
rexlunae wrote:
For the benefit of sugarfree:
Seriously, I was being silly. You all were saying...we're not negative, we're not negative...prove it, give us an example. Well, there, I gave you an example and now you're giving me crap about that. I can't win with you peeps. Gee, I can't even joke around... Sigh. I guess I'll just go to my massage therapist.

Sometimes joking doesn't come across well via computer communication. You know, put a smiley face or something. Tongue out

If god takes life he's an indian giver


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Logic is the basis of mathematics, so to say that something is mathematically true implies that it is logically true.

Indeed.. that is why it is called a 'mathematical axiom'-- axiom being a term of logic.

('logical axiom' is redundant, I think-- but I used it anyways. Heh..)

Quote:
The point in the first place was to counter the notion that everything can be refuted by logic, and these are counterexamples.

Yes. I realize that. But.. I believe.. that tod said 'argue' the aforementioned axioms.

And so I did. I used logic in order to posit that how do you prove these axioms 'if' logic does not apply?

For instance.. if nature and existence themselves are irrational. Granted.. we might not be able to comprehend this 'irrational' place.. but it is nonetheless a logically formulated argument and question.

Which.. is what he asked for. Smiling

Well.. heh, anyways, purely academics.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: AiiA

sugarfree wrote:
AiiA wrote:
You've been proven to be in error, so now you perform your infamous red herring act.
Can you answer this question: Is truth relative, or is truth absolute? Here is my answer: Truth is absolute. Your turn.
Interseting. A red herring on top of a red herring. This is my red herring to your red herring.

Tag. You're still it.Laughing

If you think truth is absolute, then it should not be any problem for you to prove god exists.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If you think truth

Quote:
If you think truth is absolute, then it should not be any problem for you to prove god exists.

Tell that to scientist of the early ages which wanted to prove the earth revolved around the sun.

Absolute truth is not dependent on ones ability to prove it. 

...just saying. 


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: For
sugarfree wrote:

For starters, peruse this site a little.  If you do not notice the negative energy here, then...  Well, how to put it...the negative energy here was quite apparent to me at first read.  If you do not notice it, than possibly it is a state in which you normally dwell, so therefore it appears "normal" to you.  

Some examples.  Cussing at people you disagree with, belittling them, consciously trying to confuse them, sarcasm.  You criticize Christians, but I don't observe these kinds of behaviors at my church.  In fact, I don't observe it at my work place, or anywhere else.  Just on this site.  That is why, when I came here, the negativity was palpable. 

 Um, I surf a lot of online forums. If this is the ONLY place you see negativity, then you must not get out much. My workplace is pretty much free of negativity and so are my groups of friends. Hint: Most of my friends are atheists. Smiling
Unless you count swearing... but I hardly think, "Man, that movie was fuckin' awesome!" is negative. I don't consider swearing in and of itself negative. You may see things differently, and that's okay, but please understand that not everyone does, and will be offended and hurt at your accusation that they are not nice people. I regularly see "negative energy" (people being asshats) at the mall, on the bus, and on the street. That doesn't make those places "bad" or "negative". It just means some people are dicks.
HOWEVER, I see negativity in EVERY SINGLE online forum I browse. Christian forums, rabbit forums, fanart forums, BBSs, tech boards, random forums. For some reason the internet encourages random asshattery and people behaving like tools.
I find I don't really argue/refute on other sites. On my pet forums you would NEVER know I'm an atheist. I'm there for my bunny and snails. The fact that this IS a site devoted to the issues of atheism, and the fact that theists are encouraged to come here and discuss/debate us may be colouring your opinion somewhat.

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: todangst

sugarfree wrote:
todangst wrote:
2+2=4

 

Refute that.

So please, seriously, are you guys relativists or do you believe in absolute truth? I honestly can't tell. I believe in absolute truth. Can you plainly tell me whether you believe in one or the other? Is it that you believe scientific truth is absolute, but moral truth is relative?

2 + 2 = 4 no matter where you go; America, Saudi Arabia, India, the moon, 2 + 2 = 4.  And 2 + 2 = 4 has always been true.  2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth.

In most parts of Saudi Arabia, god = allah.  In most parts of India, god = .... lots of gods.   Depending on what time and place you live, god = something else.  So your presupposition that god = jesus, is not an absolute truth.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Hi. Back

Hi. Back

Sugarfree, your logic is based on a school known as presuppositionalism, which is ridiculous. So ridiculous it should ot even be classed as real logic. If God=requisite, which your first claim was, than obviously God exists, insofar as you have ontologically failed to demonstrate that God is inherently a requiste for existence. In fact, many have failed before you (Paley, Aslem, Aquinas etc).

As to ex nihilo,  The Big Bang was not the creation of the universe. It was the creation of matter as we define it. The mathematical equations can explain right up to approx 10 to the power of -44 seconds after the Big Bang, and before the Time Zero singularity, where we find an energy-gravitational asymptote spiralling elagently towards the Time Zero function. There is no ex nihilo involved.

"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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
If you think truth is absolute, then it should not be any problem for you to prove god exists.

Tell that to scientist of the early ages which wanted to prove the earth revolved around the sun.

Absolute truth is not dependent on ones ability to prove it.

...just saying.

true

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Ok. As for the big bang.

Ok. As for the big bang. How was this a creation? It states that energy gather into a singularity(something simliar to a black hole) when it's mass got so compact, and so large it creates more heat, more and more until it can not hold it's form any more and blows out. Thats the big bang. Does that say anything was created? NO! Energy existed forever. Mass, matter, energy are all the same thing. Planck scale, they are all the same anyway. You argue, that gods energy is eternal, so why can't energy that this universe is made of be eternal? Are you possibly going to try and make a fucking moron out of yourself and argue your god energy is any more immortal then the energy we can see now?

 

Physics has proven energy can not me created, nor destroied. So if you believe in the big bang(which has mountain of evidence to have taken place) then you believe energy is eternal. If brain world, and string theory are correct then there is more then one universe. Think of it as a never ending ammount of space, filled with energy, energy gathers into certain spots due to gravity and explodes out. Brain world explains why gravity exists to pull energy into singularities, but thats another story. 

 

Btw, go ahead and try to make yourself look idiotic by trying to say gods energy is eternal but not the energy of the universe. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


scientific atheist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-03-30
User is offlineOffline
How an atheist thinks

Atheists don't "glorify" anyone. They may have "respect" for an individual because of his "credentials" and how he presents himself and his perceptions in a "rational" manner but to glorify someone goes beyond considered human intercourse.

Rational [athiest?] persons don't believe everything they read. Of course we are going to obtain ideas and "facts" via the written media. It is one means of communication that humans use. Thus the real issue is not where the information or ideas come from, but how "sound" those ideas are, i.e ideas relating to observable and measurable "real world" phenomena; and any "atheist" or "rational" person should always be skeptical of other's ideas at least to the point that they can reason for themselves, "does the idea or ideas presented make sense as far as being supported by the "evidence" and are the ideas presented in a cogent manner.

Much of your idea as presented seems to accuse ahteists as being in error for accepting an "authorities" word [logical error of argument from authority] when probability has it that they have arrived at atheism through a rational process of evaluating the evidence for themselves, unlike "theists" who do in fact fall prey to the above mentioned logical error by accepting the existence of god merely by the word of another [bible].


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
JesusLovesYou wrote: You

JesusLovesYou wrote:

You twist and contort my statement my good man. I was not asserting that there is a lack of evidence of creation, because there is AMPLE evidence.


Oh really? Since when? Did breaking news about such fail to reach me this morning? I do keep a hard eye out waiting for such evidence so I can give theists credulance for their claims - should they ever actually become credible.

Quote:
I was asserting is that, what you call "evolution" is just as much of a belief as you claim christianity is.


Um... you don't know that evolution is a scientific theory - do you? Christianity would be mythology. Your belief in your religion is based SOLELY on faith. "Belief" in evolution requires as much "faith" as it would to "believe" in gravity.

Quote:
Yes it has been proven that ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION within an animals KIND takes place, but it is PURE SPECULATION in the sense of "muck to man".


"muck to man"? nice use of a pathetic and naive straw man! You know absolutely nothing of evolution - now would be a good time for you to cease embarassing your pathetic ignorance further.

Speculation? Take a course in biology before spouting such idiotic BS.

Quote:
Have you seen (lets just throw something on the table here) a dog and a dog produce something other than a dog? No you haven't, yet you lay claim, with nothing but speculation backing you, that given enough time that a "different kind" will eventually be produced.


We have seen dogs (and, essentially ALL other creatures) give birth to mutated forms of their species. True it is - most mutations are counter-adaptive.

On the contrary - have you EVER seen your magical god create ANYTHING - EVER???

Quote:
What has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven, is not evolution my friend, but varition within kinds. I challenge you to read a book by the name of Darwin's black box, which is a SCIENTIFIC, and not a religious debunking of evolution. Or would you rather just listen to Dr. John Doe because he has got a pretty piece of paper framed on his wall? I won't even get into the debate of how inaccurate your carbon dating is, and that the fact that it hasn't reached equilibrium in the earth's atmosphere yet proves an age of less than 30k because thats how long it takes.


Oh good grief! As if there are no other dating methods than carbon dating! Your naive ignorance is beyond shocking! Evolution has always been scientifically coherant. Creation has always been scientifically absurd.

Quote:
Secondly, it tears up my heart that you walk away from Christ like that, and I in absolutely NO WAY agree with it, but PLEASE if you are going to be this way, PLEASE change your avatar. I am in the US military and that is HIGHLY offensive to me.


OH - where is my violin? I have atheist friends in the army and marines that care less about his avatar. Christ is a myth. We walk away from Christ just as you walk away from Horus, Mithras, and Prometheus.

Quote:
Now because of people, you probably have a negative view on Christianity in a way that people act.


Actually - I do not. I attend a Unitarian Universalist church - and I have many a Christian friend (most of them have learned it's a bad idea to debate with [or otherwise attempt to convert] me). I simply have a low tolerance for bullshit.

Quote:
Now you don't know me, and i can assure you that the "world christian view" and the way a "mainstream christian" acts, is not what Christ taught.


Ah... no true scottsman.

Quote:
I may have my flaws here and there, like King David (well i try) I am a man after
God's own heart. I strictly adhere to the Word of God


So... you mercilessly slaughter non-believers? (2 Chronicles 15:13, Luke 19:27) And refuse to put up a Christmas tree? (Jeremiah 10:2-4)

Quote:
and do not treat people like trash (at least i strongly try not too). Knowing this, if you are so adamant on trying to prove to me that what i know and feel and live is wrong and that man can live on his own, a good step to take would be to not offend people with stuff like that.


Respect for other people was introduced into Christianity by Humanism. Equality, honor, and respect for others are Humanist interpolations into barbaric Christian dogma.

Quote:
But of course I know that there is a satanic spirit attached to atheism,


You are a naive twit. Satan is a mythological character - nothing more.

Quote:
so i don't really expect you to have any heart in you.


And now you're being a total asshole.

Quote:
My friend, negativity and hate cannot win against true love, which is in Christ Jesus.


Not to mention - you're being a completely arrogant prick.

Quote:
You can tell me as well that I don't know you, but friend, Atheism in itself has a negative spirit attached to it. Atheism makes people, especially children feel like their life has no purpose because they are just no better than the dirt on the ground, and I will research this,


Atheism does not specifically determin whether or not life has a purpose. Please cease your ignorant insults. If you are a determinist - you believe life has a purpose. The word "purpose" can mean either "function" or "intention". Whether god exists or not - the "function" of life is to eat, sleep, defecate, and procreate. Again - independant of the existence of a deity - there is no apparent "intention" of life, either way.

Why do theists bring this idiotic bullshit out? God gives life no more purpose, whatsoever.

Quote:
i promise, but i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks than those of chrsitianity. I pray for you all, i seriously do.


Please, do your research. You will find it is the exact opposite. Suicide rates are MUCH higher among theists than atheists.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: Ok. As

James Cizuz wrote:

Ok. As for the big bang. How was this a creation? It states that energy gather into a singularity(something simliar to a black hole) when it's mass got so compact, and so large it creates more heat, more and more until it can not hold it's form any more and blows out. Thats the big bang. Does that say anything was created? NO! Energy existed forever. Mass, matter, energy are all the same thing. Planck scale, they are all the same anyway. You argue, that gods energy is eternal, so why can't energy that this universe is made of be eternal? Are you possibly going to try and make a fucking moron out of yourself and argue your god energy is any more immortal then the energy we can see now?

 

Physics has proven energy can not me created, nor destroied. So if you believe in the big bang(which has mountain of evidence to have taken place) then you believe energy is eternal. If brain world, and string theory are correct then there is more then one universe. Think of it as a never ending ammount of space, filled with energy, energy gathers into certain spots due to gravity and explodes out. Brain world explains why gravity exists to pull energy into singularities, but thats another story.

 

Btw, go ahead and try to make yourself look idiotic by trying to say gods energy is eternal but not the energy of the universe.

So here you have a real world example that is telling you ENERGY is ETERNAL. We, as human beings have ENERGY flowing thru us UNTIL we DIE...Where does that ENERGY go? Perhaps it simply disperses into the atmosphere. Perhaps it is encoded with the very ESSENCE of who we are and stays together in tact (which would mean...our soul, spirit, is essentially ENERGY). Do you think scientists understand each and every little nuance about energy? I am certain it has properties that we do not yet begin to understand.

"Energy is not created or destroyed". This is the conclusion scientists have come to. And it is THIS tidbit of science that led me to conclude, years ago, that we may IN FACT be eternal beings... We may be eternal because of this ENERGY coarsing thru our veins. What happens to that energy when we die? Neither you nor I know for sure, we have to make our BEST GUESS based on observation. My best guess is that we are eternal...your best guess, I suppose, is that our energy just disperses, and we lose our "self" (thus making us finite). However since YOU CAN'T KNOW for sure, why are you guys ALWAYS KNOCKING THEISTS?

This is a serious question. Because what I have pointed out above, to me, is the SERIOUS flaw in your atheistic arguments. You are ASSUMING you know we are not eternal, I am assuming I DO NOT KNOW, however, given the two options, I'm going with the eternal one because (I know you hate this argument), I've GOT TO PREPARE FOR THAT POSSIBILITY!! If I am right, none of you are prepared!! That is what deeply concerns me.

Finally, given the POSSIBILITY that I am an ETERNAL BEING, than an ETERNAL GOD is ALSO a POSSIBILITY. Given the SCIENCE of ENERGY (it is not created or destroyed), I do not see how you can possibly refute that. The only reason I see for you to completely take the God possibility off the table is because you simply do not like it.

I on the other hand, have kept the God card on the table, and have been actively seeking to understand this potentiality. My seeking has led me to Christianity. It is preparing me to live fruitfully for ETERNITY.

(Sorry for the CAPS, but I believe we have just gotten to the heart of the matter, and I'm trying with all my might to get to you hear me out on this.)


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So here you have a

Quote:
So here you have a real world example that is telling you ENERGY is ETERNAL. We, as human beings have ENERGY flowing thru us UNTIL we DIE...Where does that ENERGY go? Perhaps it simply disperses into the atmosphere. Perhaps it is encoded with the very ESSENCE of who we are and stays together in tact (which would mean...our soul, spirit, is essentially ENERGY). Do you think scientists understand each and every little nuance about energy? I am certain it has properties that we do not yet begin to understand.

Your lack of understanding of physical processes and the energy transformation laws is simply outstanding... My apologies, I won't waste time explaining something you should have understood somewhere at the beginning of high school.

Quote:
"Energy is not created or destroyed". This is the conclusion scientists have come to. And it is THIS tidbit of science that led me to conclude, years ago, that we may IN FACT be eternal beings... We may be eternal because of this ENERGY coarsing thru our veins. What happens to that energy when we die? Neither you nor I know for sure, we have to make our BEST GUESS based on observation. My best guess is that we are eternal...your best guess, I suppose, is that our energy just disperses, and we lose our "self" (thus making us finite). However since YOU CAN'T KNOW for sure, why are you guys ALWAYS KNOCKING THEISTS?

"What happens to that energy when we die? Neither you nor I know for sure" - yes, we do know for sure... it's only you that doesn't.

"your best guess, I suppose, is that our energy just disperses" - you suppose wrong.

"However since YOU CAN'T KNOW for sure, why are you guys ALWAYS KNOCKING THEISTS?" - we CAN AND DO KNOW for sure... THAT'S WHY we are always knocking theists!

Quote:
This is a serious question. Because what I have pointed out above, to me, is the SERIOUS flaw in your atheistic arguments. You are ASSUMING you know we are not eternal, I am assuming I DO NOT KNOW, however, given the two options, I'm going with the eternal one because (I know you hate this argument), I've GOT TO PREPARE FOR THAT POSSIBILITY!! If I am right, none of you are prepared!! That is what deeply concerns me.

We are not assuming we are not eternal, we do know for sure that we are not eternal in our physical state. You are assuming very rightly that you don't know, but that, however, is not an excuse, it is simply your admitted ignorance on the matter.

Quote:
I on the other hand, have kept the God card on the table, and have been actively seeking to understand this potentiality. My seeking has led me to Christianity. It is preparing me to live fruitfully for ETERNITY.

Perhaps you have also identified which part of you will survive for an eternity, because it is definitely not matter, and without any possible doubt it isn't "personal" energy either...

Quote:
(Sorry for the CAPS, but I believe we have just gotten to the heart of the matter, and I'm trying with all my might to get to you hear me out on this.)

S'allright. If this is the main part of your faith, it is surprisingly weak.

 

So, now let's get to some demonstrating. I will not demonstrate the basic laws of physics (this, as I said, you should have learned and understood in high school), but I will go and show some problems with theist beliefs.

First, in order to not waste time, I suggest you lie down and read "A Ghost in the Machine", located at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html. It's a huge essay, so make sure you've got enough time. It deals mainly with the concept of "soul" and why the author believes the soul simply doesn't exist (of course, doesn't exist as described by theists).

Also, to answer your question on "where does that energy go", a good start would be to check the wikipedia article on bacterial decay located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

To understand how energy is "stored" in chemical form within cells, try the wikipedia article on adenosine triphosphate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

...and the cycle of citric acid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

If you still don't understand, perhaps try this: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookATP.html

Because I anticipate questions, also study this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=223204

Come back when you're done and we'll talk more.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

 

So, now let's get to some demonstrating. I will not demonstrate the basic laws of physics (this, as I said, you should have learned and understood in high school), but I will go and show some problems with theist beliefs.

First, in order to not waste time, I suggest you lie down and read "A Ghost in the Machine", located at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html. It's a huge essay, so make sure you've got enough time. It deals mainly with the concept of "soul" and why the author believes the soul simply doesn't exist (of course, doesn't exist as described by theists).

Also, to answer your question on "where does that energy go", a good start would be to check the wikipedia article on bacterial decay located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

To understand how energy is "stored" in chemical form within cells, try the wikipedia article on adenosine triphosphate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

...and the cycle of citric acid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

If you still don't understand, perhaps try this: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookATP.html

Because I anticipate questions, also study this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=223204

Come back when you're done and we'll talk more.

If you are trying to impress me with your knowledge it is not working.  For goodness sakes, you missed my whole point.  Okay, let's start at an even more basic level.

WE ARE IGNORANT.  There is so much UNTAPPED knowledge in this universe.  If scientists thought like you, how would we ever make any new discoveries?  Let me ask you this...do you feel you know a lot?  Do you feel you are smart?

Let's put it into perspective.  Can you explain each and every minute detail of this universe?  If you had to, COULD YOU set all the environmental variables up right to create your own "mini big bang"?  If so, let me know, because I want to be there.  I want to see set an  entire universe in motion.  Seriously.  Because if you know how to do that, than I am wrong about Jesus, and I should start worshipping you.  I'm being serious.

The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.  There is so much to know, it absolutely boggles the mind.  This universe is so intricate, it is astounding and amazing.  So, for me to assume that I KNOW even 100th of a hundreth of a percent of how this universe works, I am completely kidding myself.  And if you think you know anymore than that, you are completely kidding yourself.  (Or should I say, you are delusional.)

Here's the thing, we used to not understand energy at all, we couldn't harness it.  Then, thru human ingenuity, we developed devices that allowed us to harness it.  Does that mean we completely understand it?  We understands bits and pieces, and we are continually learning more...but there is SO MUCH MORE.  There could be types of energy out there that we currently are not capable of measuring.  And the only way a scientist might discover it is by recognizing the possibility that something exists that he does not understand, and then trying to figure that something out.

 Now, instead of putting down, assuming I am an idiot, and instead of trying to prove to me how you are so much smarter than me, I'm asking you this.  DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE?  If you do not, than do not belittle me for speculating about that which NEITHER OF US understand.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
Rigor_OMortis wrote:

 

So, now let's get to some demonstrating. I will not demonstrate the basic laws of physics (this, as I said, you should have learned and understood in high school), but I will go and show some problems with theist beliefs.

First, in order to not waste time, I suggest you lie down and read "A Ghost in the Machine", located at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html. It's a huge essay, so make sure you've got enough time. It deals mainly with the concept of "soul" and why the author believes the soul simply doesn't exist (of course, doesn't exist as described by theists).

Also, to answer your question on "where does that energy go", a good start would be to check the wikipedia article on bacterial decay located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

To understand how energy is "stored" in chemical form within cells, try the wikipedia article on adenosine triphosphate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

...and the cycle of citric acid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

If you still don't understand, perhaps try this: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookATP.html

Because I anticipate questions, also study this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=223204

Come back when you're done and we'll talk more.

If you are trying to impress me with your knowledge it is not working. For goodness sakes, you missed my whole point. Okay, let's start at an even more basic level.

WE ARE IGNORANT. There is so much UNTAPPED knowledge in this universe. If scientists thought like you, how would we ever make any new discoveries? Let me ask you this...do you feel you know a lot? Do you feel you are smart?

Let's put it into perspective. Can you explain each and every minute detail of this universe? If you had to, COULD YOU set all the environmental variables up right to create your own "mini big bang"? If so, let me know, because I want to be there. I want to see set an entire universe in motion. Seriously. Because if you know how to do that, than I am wrong about Jesus, and I should start worshipping you. I'm being serious.

The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. There is so much to know, it absolutely boggles the mind. This universe is so intricate, it is astounding and amazing. So, for me to assume that I KNOW even 100th of a hundreth of a percent of how this universe works, I am completely kidding myself. And if you think you know anymore than that, you are completely kidding yourself. (Or should I say, you are delusional.)

Here's the thing, we used to not understand energy at all, we couldn't harness it. Then, thru human ingenuity, we developed devices that allowed us to harness it. Does that mean we completely understand it? We understands bits and pieces, and we are continually learning more...but there is SO MUCH MORE. There could be types of energy out there that we currently are not capable of measuring. And the only way a scientist might discover it is by recognizing the possibility that something exists that he does not understand, and then trying to figure that something out.

Now, instead of putting down, assuming I am an idiot, and instead of trying to prove to me how you are so much smarter than me, I'm asking you this. DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE? If you do not, than do not belittle me for speculating about that which NEITHER OF US understand.

 Do you know what vacuum energy is? Well if you don't, it is the energy in a total vacuum. Well, you might think the vacuum has nothing in it, even space is completely full. This vacuum energy is extremely power. The space betwee the nucelus, and the electron in a hydrogen has 2.53*10^99 jules per gram of energy. That is, to put into perspective, 1 trillion times more energy then in all the stars, and mass for the next 20 billion light years. If you could tap into that, then a big bang is no problem. Now, scientists are trying to create a big bang. It involves a huge particle accelerator. Smashing atoms together at near light speed. Why is this important? Because if we can replicate something of a bang with this energy we have proven that a big bang can happen.

 

I'm sorry I forgot to post the second part of the law. Energy, can not be created, nor destroied, it can only be changed. If you have a device, which can read total energy input of a thing, or output, put someone in a vacuum let them die. If that energy, after the body is completely rotted away is still the same reading, just changed, you have proven a soul does not exist. You can not have an excess of power released for that soul. Btw, they did do simliar tests like this.  Oh, and yeah there was no change in mass, or energy.

 

Believe in a god? Fine, believe in something you have no proof for. Believe in a religious god? Fine, but put yourself in a mental hospital please. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: First,

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
First, in order to not waste time, I suggest you lie down and read "A Ghost in the Machine", located at http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html. It's a huge essay, so make sure you've got enough time. It deals mainly with the concept of "soul" and why the author believes the soul simply doesn't exist (of course, doesn't exist as described by theists).

Also, to answer your question on "where does that energy go", a good start would be to check the wikipedia article on bacterial decay located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

To understand how energy is "stored" in chemical form within cells, try the wikipedia article on adenosine triphosphate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

...and the cycle of citric acid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

If you still don't understand, perhaps try this: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookATP.html

Because I anticipate questions, also study this: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=223204

Come back when you're done and we'll talk more.

 

I don't have anything enlightening to add to this thread, but I wanted to say thanks to Rigor for posting these links.  Science was never my best subject so I am trying to play catch-up now.  Rigor, if there are any other threads that expand this information please direct me or if you would like to start one, it would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!  (Not all of us took physics in high school...I was busy studying literature and word origins - lol)


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree, your entire post

Sugarfree, your entire post is an "appeal to wonder" fallacy. The universe is cool, and we don't know everything, so that supports my conclusion somehow. It doesn't, though. It shields your conclusion in a fallacy. If you want to make the case for it rather than idly assure us that you believe it unconditionally, you have to expect the same level of scrutiny that's addressed to other claims. I shudder to imagine what would have happened if people consistently approached the world with such a disorganized and specious mentality as is afforded religion.
People have used science to learn a lot, but it's a much slower process than just making shit up.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: If you are

sugarfree wrote:
If you are trying to impress me with your knowledge it is not working.  For goodness sakes, you missed my whole point.  Okay, let's start at an even more basic level.

Unfortunately for you, we are not impressed by ignorance.

sugarfree wrote:
WE ARE IGNORANT.  There is so much UNTAPPED knowledge in this universe.  If scientists thought like you, how would we ever make any new discoveries?  Let me ask you this...do you feel you know a lot?  Do you feel you are smart?

You're the one who believes in things that have no evidence. Speculation is fine, but it's not to be believed until you have some evidence, and it certainly shouldn't be stubbornly clung to once it's disproven.

sugarfree wrote:
Let's put it into perspective.  Can you explain each and every minute detail of this universe?  If you had to, COULD YOU set all the environmental variables up right to create your own "mini big bang"?

I think this is turning into Pascal's Wager, which has already been dealt with thoroughly. Read this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/refutation_of_pascals_wager_by_massimo_pigliucci

sugarfree wrote:
The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

So, you stop learning and start guessing?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh lovely. 180 posts. This

Oh lovely. 180 posts. This could be fun. Sure. > >
With this many responses, I'm just going to pop up wherever I feel like it.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Person A (we are figuratively speaking here cuz i know you will probably cry about something) gets a PhD in the field of scientific studies. Person B gets the SAME EXACT PhD, yet person B uses his education in the glory of God and finds ample evidence of creation. These two people go through the same schooling, get the same degree, yet work in different fields. Then some athiest comes along and automatically assumes Person B has a lesser education than person A.

Amusing. 95% of the time an atheist debates a theist, such a scenario is as far away from reality as it could possibly be.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

The Athiest glorifys a man because he has a piece of paper framed on his wall.

Bullshit. I don't glorify anyone. I respect accomplishments, nothing more.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

They criticize a christian for believing what they read in a book or heard from somebody. Yet the athiest does the same thing, they believe what they read in a book, or what somebody tells them, but because its written of told to them from a certain point of view they forget that they are just as religious and deem it "science".

Pure lies. An atheist reads about science and can personally prove what has been said personally. A theist reads about religion and can never prove anything.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

They don't think for a minute, "how accurate is this?, could Person A have fudged these results just so he could get the outcome he wanted?, could Person A have lied about his research?" Because you studied it in a book how do you know its true? Because your teacher told you how do you know its true?

These are questions any scientist worth his education would ask, so your proposition is laughable(to be kind).

JesusLovesYou wrote:

"WELL PERSON A GOT HIS DOCTORATE IN "X STUDIES" SO IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HE WROTE ABOUT IT"

Bias is not 100% eliminatable, to what extremes would a person go to obtain the result they wanted?

A quick look at christianity will give you an accurate idea of how far people will go to prove their lies.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Lets take this example. John Doe is researching homosexuals, if they are born that way or influenced somehow. (which btw, regardless of popular OPINION nothing has been proven on that)

More lies. Google "gay sheep" and you'll see plenty of irrefutable evidence that sexuality can be influenced by genetics.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Ok, so what is John Doe's background, is he gay? is he straight? is he for/against homosexuality regardless of his own sexuality? does he have homosexual children? what kind of result is he initially looking for?

Why does it matter? It has nothing to do with you. Turn the tv off if you get that annoyed. Turn and walk the other direction. You coming here and spouting all these lies annoys me a lot more than any homosexual could possibly annoy you. Get over yourself.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

these are the kind of questions one should really ask themselves before taking anthing anybody says about anything into consideration.

No, those are the kinds of questions a dictator asks himself when deciding how to subjugate his people. The average person has no business delving in the sexual activities of strangers. Get a life.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

and before you go and whine to me, yes there are Christians that are guilty of the same, because they go against what the Bible says and try to please man instead of God.

There is no god.

JesusLovesYou wrote:
You twist and contort my statement my good man. I was not asserting that there is a lack of evidence of creation, because there is AMPLE evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

I was asserting is that, what you call "evolution" is just as much of a belief as you claim christianity is.

No it isn't. Evolution is a fact. You are deluding yourself.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Yes it has been proven that ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION within an animals KIND takes place, but it is PURE SPECULATION in the sense of "muck to man".

Lies. Evolution is proven.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Have you seen (lets just throw something on the table here) a dog and a dog produce something other than a dog?

That's impossible. And not evolution. Standard dumb ass theist makes up his own idea of evolution then argues against the impossible. I'm going to now completely ignore anything you say regarding evolution, since you don't even know what the word means.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Secondly, it tears up my heart that you walk away from Christ like that, and I in absolutely NO WAY agree with it, but PLEASE if you are going to be this way, PLEASE change your avatar. I am in the US military and that is HIGHLY offensive to me.

Sucks to be you. Now I'm going to add something worse to my signature, since you are highly offensive to me. It will appear now, but I'll continue mocking this threads stupidity anyway.

JesusLovesYou wrote:

Now because of people, you probably have a negative view on Christianity in a way that people act. Now you don't know me, and i can assure you that the "world christian view" and the way a "mainstream christian" acts, is not what Christ taught. I may have my flaws here and there, like King David (well i try) I am a man after
God's own heart. I strictly adhere to the Word of God and do not treat people like trash (at least i strongly try not too).

More lies. You're here treating us like trash. What a hypocrite. And my views come from looking briefly at your bible, the immoral and racist work of weak fiction that it is. The christians that believe it merely reinforce my disgust with it.

JesusLovesYou wrote:
Knowing this, if you are so adamant on trying to prove to me that what i know and feel and live is wrong and that man can live on his own, a good step to take would be to not offend people with stuff like that. But of course I know that there is a satanic spirit attached to atheism, so i don't really expect you to have any heart in you.

Typical dumbass thing to say. Oh the [email protected]@!#[email protected][email protected]$%()[email protected]#!!!!!!!!

Have you ever seen a demon oh stupid one?

JesusLovesYou wrote:
My friend, negativity and hate cannot win against true love, which is in Christ Jesus. You can tell me as well that I don't know you, but friend, Atheism in itself has a negative spirit attached to it. Atheism makes people, especially children feel like their life has no purpose because they are just no better than the dirt on the ground, and I will research this, i promise, but i honestly believe that the suicide rate is much greater within athiest ranks than those of chrsitianity. I pray for you all, i seriously do.

Twould be nice if you looked in the mirror and gave up your immoral perceptions of reality.
And more christians take their lives every day than atheists do in a year.

sugarless wrote:

I concur, tho I have been hesitant to say it here. You know, Jesus predicted all this 2000 years ago. (They will hate you because of my name.)

Even satan knows Jesus' name.

Keep turning the other cheek...

Laughable, and the last I'll bother with in this thread. The stupidity is threatening to overwhelm me.

We feel sorry for you, we don't hate you. We hate what you do, which is immoral and dictatorial. But we don't hate you. At least most of us don't. Any who do have good reason to, and you can look in the mirror for the cause.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If you are trying to

Quote:
If you are trying to impress me with your knowledge it is not working. For goodness sakes, you missed my whole point. Okay, let's start at an even more basic level.

I've been trying to quit attempting to impress theists, it only works with the very few that are open-mindedly enough to actually listen.

Quote:
WE ARE IGNORANT. There is so much UNTAPPED knowledge in this universe. If scientists thought like you, how would we ever make any new discoveries? Let me ask you this...

If no scientist were to think like me, then we'd indeed have Arhimede's lawas a principle, but no formula and no practical application of it. And if nobody ever thought like me, we'd have to reinvent fire every generation.

Quote:
Let's put it into perspective. Can you explain each and every minute detail of this universe? If you had to, COULD YOU set all the environmental variables up right to create your own "mini big bang"? If so, let me know, because I want to be there. I want to see set an entire universe in motion.

Knowing the initial status of all matter particles and of all available energy, and having a powerful-enough supercomputer, then yes, we could be able to accurately predict what the Universe looks like at ANY point... the only problem is that out of the two necessary things, we have neither.

In theory yes, we can create a new big bang right as we speak. In practice, though, we cannot create one yet, as we lack observation and containment methods and instruments, and we also lack the necessary energy to force-trigger one.

Quote:
Because if you know how to do that, than I am wrong about Jesus, and I should start worshipping you. I'm being serious.

I'm not interested in your worship. Or any worship for that matter.

Quote:
The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. There is so much to know, it absolutely boggles the mind. This universe is so intricate, it is astounding and amazing. So, for me to assume that I KNOW even 100th of a hundreth of a percent of how this universe works, I am completely kidding myself. And if you think you know anymore than that, you are completely kidding yourself. (Or should I say, you are delusional.)

Well, your last post except for this one I'm replying to were live proof that I actually DO know more than you about the Universe.

Unlike you, I am not so keen with "the more I know, the less I actually know" phrase. I actually think that humans can (and will) come to understanding all the Universe, its principle, its mechanisms and inner makings in time. We already have a physical model that covers quite a big part of the Universe, and, although we will probably not be able to perfectly predict how the Universe will develop, nor will we be able to hold data about every single moving particle, we will have an accurate model of the Universe, we will know how it works, we will know what different events are triggered by and what their effect is, we will know how to avoid dangers and enlarge benefits.

Your argument from awe does nothing but state that you should study more.

Quote:
Here's the thing, we used to not understand energy at all, we couldn't harness it. Then, thru human ingenuity, we developed devices that allowed us to harness it. Does that mean we completely understand it?

Do we fully understand energy...

Potential energy (Ep)? Yes. Electric energy (W)? Yes. Thermal energy (Q)? Yes. Mechanical energy (L)? Yes. etc.

If you can point out any instance within the known Universe in which thermal energy, through no transformation into energy or particle generation, behaves any differently than thermal energy normally would, you should be nominated for the Nobel prize...

Quote:
We understands bits and pieces, and we are continually learning more...but there is SO MUCH MORE.

Of course, there is so much more... but so much less than you THINK there is...

Quote:
There could be types of energy out there that we currently are not capable of measuring. And the only way a scientist might discover it is by recognizing the possibility that something exists that he does not understand, and then trying to figure that something out.

If these energies produce absolutely no measurable or noticeable effect on our world, then there is no possible way we will EVER know about them, and absolutely no reason why we should be interested in spending resources on discovering them. This is equivalent to spending resources to find out what was before Big Bang...

Quote:
Now, instead of putting down, assuming I am an idiot, and instead of trying to prove to me how you are so much smarter than me, I'm asking you this. DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE? If you do not, than do not belittle me for speculating about that which NEITHER OF US understand.

Whoa there ! Stop attacking, brother, it is YOU who asked for it. Do you think that I've posted those links back there just because I had nothing else to do?

You gave a possibility of soul coming from our "personal" energy, and asked the question "where does all that energy go when we die?"

I gave you the Ebon Musings link to disprove your first theory, and the other links to answer your question. And the reason for which I did that is because I see no benefit in me repeating something that has already been studied and proven, when you can study for yourself. Did I do wrong in any way? Should I have done something else instead?

If you expect me to accept your belief, knowing full well that it is a result of ignorance on the topic (I'm sorry, but your post was live proof that it is), then stop hoping, because that isn't going to happen.

 

Quote:
I don't have anything enlightening to add to this thread, but I wanted to say thanks to Rigor for posting these links.  Science was never my best subject so I am trying to play catch-up now.  Rigor, if there are any other threads that expand this information please direct me or if you would like to start one, it would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!  (Not all of us took physics in high school...I was busy studying literature and word origins - lol)

Fully welcome, jce. I always forget that educational systems are different. In mine, it is not optional to learn physics, biology, mathematics, chemistry, ... from year 5 to year 8 of schooling it's a kind of "preparatory" period, whereas year 9 to 12 are more in-depth. One is expected to know quite a lot when one finishes high school, even if the profile is languages.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: If no

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

If no scientist were to think like me, then we'd indeed have Arhimede's lawas a principle, but no formula and no practical application of it. And if nobody ever thought like me, we'd have to reinvent fire every generation.

So, you yourself are a scientist, I take it?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
In theory yes, we can create a new big bang right as we speak. In practice, though, we cannot create one yet, as we lack observation and containment methods and instruments, and we also lack the necessary energy to force-trigger one.
Thank you for pointing this out, I have googled and learned about the experiment in Europe, I hope their work is fruitful. But, I was referring to an actual big bang...the kind that started our actual universe. Since you can't do that yet, I am relieve that I do not yet have to bow down to you. The fact that we have created a playground in which scientists can more thoroughly test their big bang theories, however, is certainly a lofty and hopefully fruitful endeavor.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Well, your last post except for this one I'm replying to were live proof that I actually DO know more than you about the Universe.

It is safe to say you know more about science. I may have one up on you in matters of the heart. You have your strengths and I have mine, which is good, because we can learn from each other and broaden ourselves in the process.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Unlike you, I am not so keen with "the more I know, the less I actually know" phrase. I actually think that humans can (and will) come to understanding all the Universe, its principle, its mechanisms and inner makings in time.
I will be watching to see how this goes.  Do you believe it will happen in our lifetime?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Your argument from awe does nothing but state that you should study more.
In your study, you have lost your sense of awe of the universe? If so, that would be a shame. I think the sense of awe is a valuable thing. It keeps us humble.

Quote:
Here's the thing, we used to not understand energy at all, we couldn't harness it. Then, thru human ingenuity, we developed devices that allowed us to harness it. Does that mean we completely understand it?

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Do we fully understand energy...

Potential energy (Ep)? Yes. Electric energy (W)? Yes. Thermal energy (Q)? Yes. Mechanical energy (L)? Yes. etc.

Well, I do sense that you are convinced we have it nailed down. However, since I know nothing about you or your qualifications, all I can deduce from your comment at this point is that, you are confident. To come to any other conclusion, I would have to do my own study on the subject.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Of course, there is so much more... but so much less than you THINK there is...
Well, hmmm. I don't know you, so I don't know how to take that sentence. I'm curious, just because, I would like to see another dimension of your personality...what is something you are currently curious about, that...if someone were to ask you about it, you would be forced to respond..."well, I don't know."

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
If these energies produce absolutely no measurable or noticeable effect on our world, then there is no possible way we will EVER know about them, and absolutely no reason why we should be interested in spending resources on discovering them.
I am talking about energies that potentially are affecting us, and are measurable, but we just have not discovered them yet.

 

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
You gave a possibility of soul coming from our "personal" energy, and asked the question "where does all that energy go when we die?" I gave you the Ebon Musings link to disprove your first theory, and the other links to answer your question. And the reason for which I did that is because I see no benefit in me repeating something that has already been studied and proven, when you can study for yourself. Did I do wrong in any way? Should I have done something else instead?
Well, I would actually like to hear you disprove it using your own words.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
If you expect me to accept your belief, knowing full well that it is a result of ignorance on the topic (I'm sorry, but your post was live proof that it is), then stop hoping, because that isn't going to happen.
Well, yes, I have given up my hope for you, Rigor_OMortis, however, if you have time to respond to those things I've asked, please oblige. Thanks.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I am talking about energies

I am talking about energies that potentially are affecting us, and are measurable, but we just have not discovered them yet.
Which isn't a substantiation of the belief in the soul, just a big shrug about whether evidence will appear. But let's be clear. I'm going to assume the soul and the spirit you describe elsewhere are similar, if not one in the same. Supposing this were true, this naive talk of energy doesn't describe consciousness, intelligence or life. Unless a soul is supposed to be unconscious heat or motion or electricity, there would have to be another complex dynamic at work to reflect the continuation of consciousness. Whether you describe consciousness in the physical world, or in a hypothetical, undiscovered and unsubstantiated world of "energy," there still has to be a means to establish what we call consciousness.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Only problem with the big

Only problem with the big bang tests, are they are dealing with vacuum energy. I already explained what that was. Anyway, the big bang either happened two ways, energy gathering into a singularity, which I think to be how it happened, since it has more evidence. Or a large ammount of vacuum energy release. Say a few atoms, if estimates are right, and the universe is 185 billion light years accross it would only take a few atoms releasing the energy, or converting instantly from vacuum to mass energy, or pure matter/energy we observe now. I don't really feel comfortable letting scientists try and recreate it, if vacuum energy is this powerful, how are you supposed to control the energy in just the vacuum of a atom. If the energy in just one atom yield enough energy to destroy, pretty much everything for the next 20 billion lightyears, and more, should we really trust them?

 

It was a big debate, but the scientists worked out the theory and said "it won't happen, probally.". I don't know but thats not enough for me. I would love to know if it's going to work or not for sure, but maybe something like this should be done after we can control this energy, or at the least until we can move the test to somewhere safe, say 20 billion lightyears away.

 

They have finally, measured the speed of gravity. Yeah, gravity has a speed, because nothing moves instantly. It turns out something does move faster then light, making Albert Einstein wrong. However they don't know the actuall speed of gravity completely, they do know it's between 2-35 times faster then light. Which means an object can move faster then light. What would happen to an object at that speed is said that the object could no longer hold it's shape, because it would heat up from friction and pretty much explode. Yes there is friction in space btw, enough to destroy anything we could send if we tried at light speed. That is if we could ever find a way to move faster, or at the same speed as light speed. Thats where vacuum energy comes in. The leading theory for moving faster then light is contracting the space infront of you, and expanding the space behind you, creating a sling shot effect. This space distoration would require the energy of a billion suns. Now if this vacuum energy is so powerful, then that would be no problem right? That is of course if you can find a way to control it completely and such.

 

 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So, you yourself are

Quote:
So, you yourself are a scientist, I take it?

I claim no such honor on myself.

Quote:
Thank you for pointing this out, I have googled and learned about the experiment in Europe, I hope their work is fruitful. But, I was referring to an actual big bang...the kind that started our actual universe. Since you can't do that yet, I am relieve that I do not yet have to bow down to you. The fact that we have created a playground in which scientists can more thoroughly test their big bang theories, however, is certainly a lofty and hopefully fruitful endeavor.

I cannot prove to you beyond any doubt that the Earth is round by taking you on a trip to the moon, because I do not have the necessary resources and support for that. However, that is:

1. not my fault, not yours and yet nobody's...

2. no excuse

Quote:
I will be watching to see how this goes.  Do you believe it will happen in our lifetime?

If we come across a source of energy that's powerful enough for endeavours such as viable interstellar travel, then we might get close to that within our lifetimes. Considering current progress, I have no such high hopes. But it would be fun, though.

Quote:
In your study, you have lost your sense of awe of the universe? If so, that would be a shame. I think the sense of awe is a valuable thing. It keeps us humble.

I have no desire to be humble and I see no value in that. I would respect a person who brags about his abilities and knowledge AND proves that they rise to his bragging expectations than one who simply keeps silent and conceals his capacities out of humility.

Society seems to put little emphasis on humility as well. See: politicians, spokespersons, military, job interviews, and the list can go on.

Quote:
Well, I do sense that you are convinced we have it nailed down. However, since I know nothing about you or your qualifications, all I can deduce from your comment at this point is that, you are confident. To come to any other conclusion, I would have to do my own study on the subject.

I have done mine. If you have any way to prove that a part of what I said is wrong (of course, not taking hypothetical or presumtory examples into consideration), then I'm willing to go back to the library. It has happened before, I'm not new to being wrong, I admit it when it happens and I try to correct myself. But if there's no reason why I should consider anything I said as false, then I don't.

Quote:
Well, hmmm. I don't know you, so I don't know how to take that sentence. I'm curious, just because, I would like to see another dimension of your personality...what is something you are currently curious about, that...if someone were to ask you about it, you would be forced to respond..."well, I don't know."

I'm curious why I'm really bad at remembering exact numbers. I can draw a model and make predictions and measurements of my capacities, and I can trace reasons for that, but I lack the necessary techniques to actually improve something.

I'm also curious how humanity can fight reverse-transcript viruses (it is a topic in which I will freely admit lack of knowledge). I'm also curious about accurate historical society development (so far I've been able to trace and think some paths, many correct, but not all).

Etc. I don't claim to be omniscient.

Quote:
I am talking about energies that potentially are affecting us, and are measurable, but we just have not discovered them yet.

Of course, I must give credit to you on this one, it is a perfectly valid topic in itself...

HOWEVER, associating it to the idea of a "soul" isn't as valid. The first article I gave you a link to deals with precisely that thing. It comes to the conclusion that no such "other energy" exists that holds our "selves". All major brain functions can be explained (and most can be influenced as well, not all though, since some require a degree of precision our instruments do not yet have) through what we already know. And there's no "soul" to fill in any gap.

Quote:
Well, I would actually like to hear you disprove it using your own words.

OK, want a short version? Here it goes: if the human "soul" is something immaterial, our godly essence, then it comes to logical conclusion that it shouldn't be very sensitive to involuntary outside stimuli. I presume that you define "soul" as consciousness, if not please explain the term as you understand it. Unfortunately for the soul argument, consciousness can be altered (making hard-working and dilligent people lazy, unstable, angry and disrespectful, for example), split (callosal disconnection and AHS, for example, schizophrenia as another example), destroyed (Terri Schiavo case), incapable of communicating (aphasy, neural deafness, neural blindness), incapable of storing memories (retrograde or, even better, anterograde amnesia), well, to make it short, quite about anything can happen to it that reduces its posesor to... umm... let's say "less-than-heavenly" persons. Therefore is comes naturally that all workings of consciousness are derived from what we already understand. Applying Occam's razor, since a system can be explained in full using what we already know, there's no reason to introduce something that we don't already know. Obviously, since there are no gaps left to fill in, that something would be redundant.

So... if you explain to me how a simple physical accident can reduce a hard-working and dilligent person to a hellbound one after Christian standards WITHOUT INVOLVING THAT PERSON'S FREE WILL, as happened to Phineas Gage (hopefully spelled correctly), and STILL be able to maintain the idea of the soul (again please define: I'm assuming soul = consciousness as a divine part, if it means something different for you, please correct and we'll talk again), then you've won the argument. Unfortunately for you, nobody has ever been able to do that, to my knowledge.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: I don't

James Cizuz wrote:

I don't really feel comfortable letting scientists try and recreate it, if vacuum energy is this powerful, how are you supposed to control the energy in just the vacuum of a atom. If the energy in just one atom yield enough energy to destroy, pretty much everything for the next 20 billion lightyears, and more, should we really trust them?

Oh wow, sweet.  LOL.  That could make for one bad day.  To bad the Darwin Awards would be destroyed too because that would be one for the books.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Oh wow, sweet.  LOL. 

Oh wow, sweet.  LOL.  That could make for one bad day.  To bad the Darwin Awards would be destroyed too because that would be one for the books.

LOL, I love the Darwin Awards! What was your favorite. I liked the one where the idiot stole the ski-lift tower padding and used it to toboggan down the hill, only to slam into the same tower from which he had stolen the padding, thus causing him to break his skull. 

"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


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: If we

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

If we come across a source of energy that's powerful enough for endeavours such as viable interstellar travel, then we might get close to that within our lifetimes. Considering current progress, I have no such high hopes. But it would be fun, though.

I agree, that would be fun.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
I have no desire to be humble and I see no value in that.
All right. I could have guessed as much, but thank you for your honesty.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
Society seems to put little emphasis on humility as well. See: politicians, spokespersons, military, job interviews, and the list can go on.
I highly value humbleness, personally, and find it quite an attractive trait in a person.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
It has happened before, I'm not new to being wrong, I admit it when it happens and I try to correct myself.
I am glad you possess this trait, because I also highly value this one, and now, I have a better sense of who you are.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
I'm curious why I'm really bad at remembering exact numbers. I can draw a model and make predictions and measurements of my capacities, and I can trace reasons for that, but I lack the necessary techniques to actually improve something.
LOL. I can sort of relate to this one. I am good at remembering and grasping large concepts, but when it comes to the little details, forget it.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
I'm also curious how humanity can fight reverse-transcript viruses
Huh? Well now I am too.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
OK, want a short version? Here it goes: if the human "soul" is something immaterial, our godly essence, then it comes to logical conclusion that it shouldn't be very sensitive to involuntary outside stimuli. I presume that you define "soul" as consciousness, if not please explain the term as you understand it. Unfortunately for the soul argument, consciousness can be altered (making hard-working and dilligent people lazy, unstable, angry and disrespectful, for example), split (callosal disconnection and AHS, for example, schizophrenia as another example), destroyed (Terri Schiavo case), incapable of communicating (aphasy, neural deafness, neural blindness), incapable of storing memories (retrograde or, even better, anterograde amnesia), well, to make it short, quite about anything can happen to it that reduces its posesor to... umm... let's say "less-than-heavenly" persons. Therefore is comes naturally that all workings of consciousness are derived from what we already understand. Applying Occam's razor, since a system can be explained in full using what we already know, there's no reason to introduce something that we don't already know. Obviously, since there are no gaps left to fill in, that something would be redundant.
Okay, thank you for that explanation.

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
So... if you explain to me how a simple physical accident can reduce a hard-working and dilligent person to a hellbound one after Christian standards WITHOUT INVOLVING THAT PERSON'S FREE WILL, as happened to Phineas Gage (hopefully spelled correctly), and STILL be able to maintain the idea of the soul (again please define: I'm assuming soul = consciousness as a divine part, if it means something different for you, please correct and we'll talk again), then you've won the argument. Unfortunately for you, nobody has ever been able to do that, to my knowledge.
The Phineas Gage thing is interesting, I had never heard of him, but just looked it up. I can only give you my opinion on the subject. From personal experience, I know that the altering of brain chemicals can change a person's thinking. I know, because it happens to me at times, and is labeled depression, which I have come to view as an entirely medical condition that happens to affect my brain instead of my liver or some other organ. Personally, I do not think it can be said that the brain houses the soul. The brain is an organ, like the heart, or the stomach. Sometimes, things go wrong with it. There are times when a person may do horrible horrible things and not even "realize" what they are doing, because in their mental illness, they lose themselves. But, I would define the person, not as they become when they are sick, but as they were when they were well. I would like to be able to explain this better, but truthfully, it is a difficult topic. I do believe, based on my own experience with low serotonin and the like, that there is a separation between the mind (thoughts emotions) and spirit (the essence of who we are). Where that distinction is, how it is measured, I cannot say, but it is something I will continue to ponder.

Thank you for answering my questions. I feel I know you better now.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Oh wow,

deludedgod wrote:

Oh wow, sweet. LOL. That could make for one bad day. To bad the Darwin Awards would be destroyed too because that would be one for the books.

LOL, I love the Darwin Awards! What was your favorite. I liked the one where the idiot stole the ski-lift tower padding and used it to toboggan down the hill, only to slam into the same tower from which he had stolen the padding, thus causing him to break his skull.

Oh wow.  That is funny.  I mean...really horrible.

Actually, the only one I remember at the moment was an incident I heard about that qualifies for an award.  It was a couple guys who went inside a huge helium balloon, presumably, because they thought it would make their voices all high and would be funny, but they ended up suffocating.  I mean, it's bad that it happened, but...geez.  I wonder if their family was embarrassed.  What would you say at the funeral?  "I'm sorry to hear about your son.  He was...well, apparently, he was really stupid."


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Wow. That's really, really

Wow. That's really, really stupid. I mean, I empathize with the family members, but this reminds me of the 19 year old kid who went to work at the vet clinic, and he was found dead by an orderly two hours later, wrapped around a liquid anaesthetic animal euthanasia chemical dispenser. Apparently, he had attempted to get high off the lethal anaesthethic and died immediately.

The worst part of the story was that the parents sued the clinic, claming they had not given him enought training. How much training do you need to avoid clearly marked bottles with stamped skull and crossbones and large label saying Liquid Euthanasia?? 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13214
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Oh wow,

deludedgod wrote:

Oh wow, sweet.  LOL.  That could make for one bad day.  To bad the Darwin Awards would be destroyed too because that would be one for the books.

LOL, I love the Darwin Awards! What was your favorite. I liked the one where the idiot stole the ski-lift tower padding and used it to toboggan down the hill, only to slam into the same tower from which he had stolen the padding, thus causing him to break his skull. 

*Comes within a hair of spewing coffee all over the work PC*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The Phineas Gage

Quote:
The Phineas Gage thing is interesting, I had never heard of him, but just looked it up. I can only give you my opinion on the subject. From personal experience, I know that the altering of brain chemicals can change a person's thinking. I know, because it happens to me at times, and is labeled depression, which I have come to view as an entirely medical condition that happens to affect my brain instead of my liver or some other organ. Personally, I do not think it can be said that the brain houses the soul. The brain is an organ, like the heart, or the stomach. Sometimes, things go wrong with it. There are times when a person may do horrible horrible things and not even "realize" what they are doing, because in their mental illness, they lose themselves. But, I would define the person, not as they become when they are sick, but as they were when they were well. I would like to be able to explain this better, but truthfully, it is a difficult topic. I do believe, based on my own experience with low serotonin and the like, that there is a separation between the mind (thoughts emotions) and spirit (the essence of who we are). Where that distinction is, how it is measured, I cannot say, but it is something I will continue to ponder.
Phineas Gage is the classic example, but there are a lot of others that are even more striking. Damage or malfunctioning of various brain parts can drastically alter the things that you might attribute to the "soul", up to and including the complete removal of what you would consider consciousness (as in the example of akinetic mutism and epileptic automatism). More than altering emotions, they can be completely and utterly removed if part of the brain is not working correctly. One's "sense" of another person's "soul" can also be removed, resulting in phenomena of people believing their spouse, sibling, parent, or other loved one has been mysteriously replaced by an imposter, absolutely refusing to believe that the person is the same person they had always known.

The fact of the matter is that every detail of what makes you and your consciousness can be altered and removed to a degree that would be impossible if there really was such a thing as a "soul".  Take any part away and you become a completely different person. When you start to learn about how the brain works, the idea of a "soul" quickly crumbles. If you want to learn more about these things, I would strongly recommend picking up "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio. He also wrote "Decarte's Error - Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain", which goes in depth into Phineas Gage and related subjects relating to emotion and reason. 


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: But, I would define

Quote:
But, I would define the person, not as they become when they are sick, but as they were when they were well.

Oh, I'd surely wish to agree with you on this one... but I just can't, and I can't for several reasons:

1. if someone has Gage's condition from birth, or even better, from conception, would he/she still be qualified for heaven? Needless to say that there's not much to argue that cursing, swearing, instability, tendency to hurt people next to him/her are simply his/her nature, and he/she cannot do anything to control that. From that point of view, that person never was and never will bo "normal"... for him/her that's "normal"... where will he/she go?

2. imagine that a man with callosal disconnection and a severe case of AHS would go to a meeting and spot a pistol at the side of one of the participants. Imagine that he would pick that gun up with his right hand and start shooting, killing some before his right hand can interviene. Will that person be guilty of anything? Legally, he won't. Which half-consciousness will go to Hell?

3. imagine the case before again, but from the perspective of the shot guys. They were killed just like that, without being anyone's actual fault. Who is there to serve justice for these guys?

And these are just a few examples. What I want you to understand is that "normal" or "well" is not the right term to use. In the case of Phineas Gage, after the accident, his iritable, unstable and bad-tempered state BECAME "normal"... he was "well" in that state.

Consider number 1 above and answer again: will such a person go to Heaven or Hell? Will a person with a milder case that is not apparent and nobody thinks of examining that until the person dies qualify for Heaven or for Hell? Will a temporary malfunction of that brain part (which may lead, in cases of extreme stress, to very violent behavior) be considered a sin?

The "soul", that immortal part of us which is going to get judged, if it exists, can be influenced rather easy. Light stimuli to make one nervous and irritated, sound stimuli to drive people mad, electromagnetic stimuli with certain characteristics, well-made subliminal messages, viruses, etc., all change the "righteousness" of that person without the person's will or consent... yet that person is going to be judged exactly by what he did/thought... If this is the case, any last refuge for the concept of "divine justice" has vanished.

Quote:
Phineas Gage is the classic example, but there are a lot of others that are even more striking. Damage or malfunctioning of various brain parts can drastically alter the things that you might attribute to the "soul", up to and including the complete removal of what you would consider consciousness (as in the example of akinetic mutism and epileptic automatism). More than altering emotions, they can be completely and utterly removed if part of the brain is not working correctly. One's "sense" of another person's "soul" can also be removed, resulting in phenomena of people believing their spouse, sibling, parent, or other loved one has been mysteriously replaced by an imposter, absolutely refusing to believe that the person is the same person they had always known.

Also, altering of behavioral patterns, including even affiliation to the camp that kidnapped one (don't remember the affection's name... its one US city's or region's name, something like Manhattan Syndrome, but replace Manhattan accordingly) is possible.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that every detail of what makes you and your consciousness can be altered and removed to a degree that would be impossible if there really was such a thing as a "soul".  Take any part away and you become a completely different person. When you start to learn about how the brain works, the idea of a "soul" quickly crumbles. If you want to learn more about these things, I would strongly recommend picking up "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio. He also wrote "Decarte's Error - Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain", which goes in depth into Phineas Gage and related subjects relating to emotion and reason.

I also recommend something: http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/ramapubs.html - a truckload of behavioral neurology and neurology experiment books written by Vilayanur Ramachandran, free for download and read.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/