Ok, should have read this first.  I see what you were asking when you said "wherever".  Here's the problem... well, with both of our conclusions solely based on tangible evidence.  You have concluded that a consciousness exists because of a brain.  I have yet to see undeniable evidence that this is true.  

However, I have concluded that consciousness exists outside of a physical brain.  You have yet to see undeniable evidence that this is true.  

The thing is, as long as we're looking for an alternative physical manifestation of consciousness to prove that consciousness can exist outside the brain, we're going to believe that consciousness does not exist outside the brain... consider for a moment our lives the way they are... if there is a world outside the physical, we're stuck in the physical.  In order to see that there is a consciousness outside the physical brain, we'd need to visit this outside world.  Let's compare that to a person who refuses to leave their home. Whenever they turn on the radio, they hear music.  They're convinced that somehow, that music is being created within their radio.  How do you explain an external source or the possibility of that music actually being played miles away, then being broken down into radio waves which then are compiled in the radio and transmitted into electrical currents that ultimately play the music?  Unless you can show them those sources exist AND that the music they're hearing actually comes from some place else, they will never see music beyond the very thing that they can experience it from.  They would have to be willing to not only accept the technology behind radios, but understand that those "radio stations" you speak of actually exist.  If they refuse to accept their existence without physically going to one, you're SOL in proving it to them because you already know they will never leave their house.  

In our case, it's not necessarily refusal to leave, rather we have no way of getting there that we know of without dying.  too risky.  

...expect me to believe consciousness can exist without physical form, you also expect me to believe that the most complex computer known to exist is nothing more than a transmitter and receiver array. Assuming that ridiculous notion was true, then why isn't a dogs brain also a transmitter and receiver array?

All religious claims of possession can be directly tied to mental instability; either in the patient or in the patients caregivers. You have no evidence of possession.

That'd require infinite frequencies. The very reason you don't get 98 while at 104 is because we discovered there's a limit in frequency range and distance. In point of fact, there are dozens of 92.8's.

do you have sources?  I'm not aware of any studies prior to the 20th century that really dives into the study of the brainwaves and how it works.

This link proves that learned behavior from life experiences can be forgotten due to trauma.  It is pretty clear that learned behavior is stored and reconstructed by the brain.  This does not discuss the origin of consciousness.  If again the brain works like a receiver, then more like a computer it is logical to conclude that damage to the receiver would result in skewed outcomes... in this case, a completely different person. 

You are the one requesting a "wherever" source though... pretty vague.  If you're looking for a specific means by which to detect consciousness, I'm open to suggestions.

why?  I can drive from work to home without changing the station on my radio and I never lose the station.  Considering consciousness, if souls are as we understand them to be, it'd be like the radio station is tagging along for the ride.  You'd never lose it.

I understand that.  I again was not trying to explain why you should believe it... just as I'm sure you're not trying to explain why I should believe your perspective.  You did send me a link, but again you have not directly addressed "consciousness" only learned behaviors.  I need a reference that specifically talks about consciousness being created in the brain and the study behind that.

Based on what?  I'm honestly curious.  that was not meant to be sarcastic or snide.  

The '...' was a not so subtle hint that I wasn't finished. Since you couldn't be bothered to read my response properly, I'm not going to read yours at all until you have read it properly.

That isn't bias. Why do all the pharmaceutical drugs available for mental patients work if science is wrong? You're simply making shit up, as I said before. Suggesting the complexity of a human brain amounts to nothing more than a transmitter for some unseeable consciousness is absolutely ridiculous.

...about the same thing when we say consciousness.

Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS

1
a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause

Based on all of human history. If there were ever definitive proof of anything so profound, it would be common knowledge. Instead we have millennia of scholars and philosophers trying to figure it out. And no religion has been able to prove its claims.

Will you explain to me how and why you think atheism is a following? Because I just really don't see how it is...

Exactly what group of people is this "we" referring to? More importantly, what do they understand souls to be?

If they were provided with an accurate description, I don't see why not.

i was assuming that is how we are determining that consciousness is derived or created from the brain... was I mistaken?

How much of a persons "personality" is learned and how much of it is innate... or how much of it are you born with?

...also, could; "incomplete information coming through a transmitter" which first has to process the information more like a computer result in completely different information?  

That may be so... if the brain works solely as a receiver/transmitter and has no processing or reconstructing of the information what so ever... I believe through studies of the brain we can both agree this is not the case.  

You suggested magic... I never suggested that.  I've only said my perception is that the brain works like a transmitter in the way that it is receiving information from a soul or spirit and transmitting it into personality and actions.  I have yet to defend that position... rather I am asking you to defend your claim that the brain creates all of that information.  

It sounds like you're starting to reach for excuses.  i'm simply trying to understand your belief and why.  I appreciate your link.  I have given my 2 cents as to why it fails.  If you can't accept that.  I'm sorry.  I can't buy it from that link... I need more.  I need a direct study... kind of like what you're likely looking for from me.  If there is no direct study as to the creation of consciousness in the brain, something close to that will do.  

Thank you for an honest answer here.  Lack of understanding is 90% of the difficulty of discussing the topic in the first place.  The point is simple.  non-believers accept 100% that there are no other possibilities beyond what we can see... (generally speaking)  Christians or others of spiritual understanding believe 100% the opposite (many possibilities beyond what we can see).  Both can't be right.  I'm determined to find clear answers if at all possible and I do that by discussing with people who oppose my understanding who are willing to try and figure it out with me.  

Ultimately it was a good discussion if we can both agree to either one side or the other... or that there's not enough information to conclude on either side based on this topic alone.   All in all, regardless of what I accept as true right now.  I try to keep as open of a mind as possible with all new information brought my way.  If it's worth investigating, I study it.  If not, we move on.

typical Boston commute... about 25 miles or so.

The 1st dicitonary definition says:  the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part ofhumans as distinct from the physical part.

For the sake of our discussion, simply i see it as the "consciousness" of one particular person that resides within the body.

mmm... talking, chatting, discussing.  You've given me a link... and a lot of thoughts, but no direct study... is there one? 

I feel like we've at least leveled in this post... am i wrong?

The definition of "religion" is:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.....

2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

With that said, Atheism... specifically is a following by definition.  It is a set of beliefs (specifically the belief 'against theism' that there is a divine spiritual god running things) concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. If not God, then random occurance of events that just happened to create life.  If it wasn't concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it would not be 'atheism'.  

concerning definition 2, the beliefs of an atheist specifically is generally agreed upon by a number of persons.

Just to be clear, atheism does not define all non-believers, there are many categories for those who reject God or a god as a creator of the universe.  Just as there are many categories of those who accept God or a god as the creator of the universe.  

"we" are believers or Christ followers.

A soul I defined in a previous post... I think the last one or the one before it from this one.  But it's generally a distinct entity separate from the body.  the more detailed definition is in the other post.   sorry, it's getting late. 

Well, maybe I'm weird for a non-believer, because the above is definitely NOT my position.

Based on the second line, I don't think it is possible yet to find clear answers...

If that's what atheism means, then I'm not an atheist.

The word "theist" accurately describes everyone who believes in at least one deity. The word "atheist" accurately describes everyone else. There are definitely many categories and qualifiers for both, however.

Yes, I found it, thank you. Unfortunately, I've always had difficulty understanding abstract concepts. So, I'll probably need to read through it a couple times before I really understand.

Re :: Problems ? Any Problems and any inherent contradictions ?!? Bill Wiese's descriptions of Hell..

Look at the section that starts in the middle of the page under this:

Bill Wiese confirms there is absolutely no water in Hell. I knew that Hell's location is in the centre of the earth. That's where it's at, in the centre of the earth. I understood that I was about 3700 miles deep in the earth. We know that the earth's diameter is 8000 miles. Half way would be about 4000. I was about 3700 miles down. In Ephesians 4:9 it says that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth. That's were Hell is right now. Later Hell and Death will be cast into the Lake of Fire and then cast into Outer Darkness. Bill Wiese's description of Demons in Hell I was along side this pit of fire and I saw all these demons all lined up along the walls, all sizes and shapes of every kind, deformed, ugly creatures, you can imagine. They were twisted, deformed creatures, huge ones, small ones. There were giant spiders, huge spiders this big. (5 feet tall) Rats, snakes and worms, because the Bible talks about worms that cover thee (Isaiah 14:11). There are all kinds of abominable creatures everywhere and they seemed to be chained to the walls. I wondered "Why are these things chained to the walls". I didn't understand that, but there's a scripture on that in Jude 1:6 says, "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" And so maybe that's what I saw, I don't know, but that is what it appeared to be. I was glad because I didn't want them to get to me. They all hated me with a passion! That was another thing I didn't understand, they weren't just creatures, they had hatred towards mankind. So I was glad they were chained to the walls. I began to ascend up this pit in this tunnel, and to leave the flames. Soon it got darker, but I could see all these demons along the walls and they had such awesome power. I thought, "Who could fight off these creatures off" .. Bill Wiese confirms there is No Hope in Hell

. . .

http://www.askthebible.com/hell25mins.htm

p.s. -- This is from a transcript from one of audio tapes by Gary Greenwald (of Orange County California).

Well too bad for him because there is an ocean of water down near the core of the Earth.

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

This is something that happened to him. Holy smokes, I'm gonna run right out, jump into a snowdrift and repent. I don't know for what but I'll do it anyways just to be safe. Pascal might have something going there for himself.

re:: Always dress for the occasion

I would suggest layers of Aluminized cloth, with materials like Nomex and other highly FR synthetic fabrics; dress in many layers of these materials. Best to stipulate in your will, you are buried with them.

After you've read the entire link. Suffer my little indulgence; no anyone should enjoy this one , I dare say.
Link
http://www.almightywind.com/whatsnew/071112buddhist.htm

p.s. -- The "[ ]", anything within the brackets, only conveys too much of a meddling, meddling presenter.

Wrutten by a Mary White. The whole planet is supposed to break out in flames to sterilize it for the return of the raptured few. It seemed to me she was already in some kind of rapture. I can see where that can be seen from the bible , but the book has nothing to do with a planet burning. The universe already has enough of those. I couldn't sustain any more reading and the book disappeared into it's own fiery demise.

It's why I said "generally speaking".  I know that doesn't apply to all.  what do you believe?

Likely not.  There are so many categories for non-believers just as there are for believers.  Atheism is a very specific group of people.  

Understood

AH!!! BRIAN!!!  I was wondering when you'd chime in.  I knew you were following this thread.  How've you been?!  

I've been around.  Doing well here.  The Lord is with me strong my friend )

? 

Ask them to produce the proof. They will fail to do so. Still not sure ? 

Because there is no proof. Not a shred. 

Yes.  Not sure how a head-scratching smiley is going to change that. 

You see ? I'm not so sure you do. You might try checking out the german movie version of those events. It has more facts, less spectacle, which leaves less room for fantasy.

As I already explained, hoaxes are all there is in the demon possession game. All of it is fantasy.

But sure, I didn't need that example to explain that audio is no proof of "demonic possession".  It does, however, show how eager people are to be fooled. It would seem this sort of thing is considered entertaining. 

Not so much when you're the victim.

You asked what I would accept as evidence. I just told you. 

It would seem you find the idea of a demon-powered generator completely ludicrous.

On the other hand, one of those demons possessing a young, epileptic german girl, who then uses her to transmit a conference call between Kain, Lucifer, Judas and Hitler (who taught the first three to speak german, apparently ) ...that is something you consider to be worthy of serious consideration ?

How does that work ? I seriously want to know. 

Try not to get bogged down in a discussion about labels. Big waste of time. You know where you stand and why. That's all that matters.

If it wasn't at least theoretically possible, then there'd be nothing for Christians to follow. 

Um, I'm pretty sure 'atheist', 'non-theist', and 'non-believer' all describe the exact same group of people...   Other people commenting in this thread, can I have your input on this?

Well, if we're comparing "standards", by your standard, you could be possessed by a demon right now. Heck, by your standard, you could be possessed by mickey mouse.

Your "standard" is in fact, completely useless. 

You already asked me what I would consider proof for this ridiculous claim, and I already answered.

Uhm, no, the other side didn't keep a terribly sick girl from getting the medical attention she needed. They didn't make her kneel until she broke her knees. The "other side" didn't do anything that needed an excuse. I think your mind needs to examine the facts in this case, and maybe spend a little less time fantasizing about mythical creatures. 

Requiem. No idea if there's a subbed version. 

Do I need a study to prove you're not possessed by mickey mouse ? 

What makes them all hoaxes is the fact that there is no proof for any of them. Not for a single one.

Terrorists aren't supernatural beings. 

I'm glad we agree there's always a victim in those cases.

Oh wait, you mean victim of the big, bad invisible demon, right ? Not victim of religious delusions ? Okay, moving on then.

See, that's one of the problems with these ridiculous claims. How am I even supposed to tell if you're being serious ? I mean, you heard somewhere that's where demons hang out, and you just believe it ? You can't possibly be that gullible. You wouldn't be able to survive if you were. So why are you trying to convince me that you are ? 

You seriously believe a cult member can get me one of those creatures ? Okay, find one and make him bring one of those things. Or check it out yourself. Let me guess, you don't really want to ? 

Even if you somehow knew the "history of all religion", that still depends on which religion you decide to take seriously. 

And what about Solomon and his demon posse ? Does he get to be in your history of all religion ? 

Ah, I see. The fantasy in the matrix movie was ludicrous, but the fantasy in an exorcism movie...

Please don't tell me your only research for a case you pushed forward as proof, was watching the hollywood movie. You're going to give me a headache. 

Yes, Hitler. Who do you think taught the other three to speak German ? Eva Braun maybe ? 

The script of the Smurfs sequel is consistent with smurfic interactions. Both sentences are equally meaningless. 

???

That's what it takes for you to dismiss demonic claims as bullshit ? They got the bullshit recipe wrong, so now there's doubt ?? 

Look, this girl was basically tortured to death. Don't treat this as a discussion about the rules in a dungeons and dragons game. I mean, who cares about who those particular christians thought would speak to them from hell ? What the heck does it even matter ? For pete's sake, they made her kneel until her knees broke ! Oh, if only someone had told them Judas and Hitler turning up made the whole "possession" thing a bit fishy. If only they'd know, they would have brought her to the hospital just in time. Yeah, sure. 

And no, I'm not trying to accuse you of not caring about the victim here. I'm trying to point out that the way you're looking at this is completely ridiculous. Making up rules for fantasy doesn't make it real. It just makes it pathetic. 

No, I meant why do you accept one type of fantasy, but dismiss another ? 

No worries. Here's the "demon" entry on the dungeons and dragons wiki. That should cover it :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

No good ? Wrong type of bullshit ? Not "complicated" enough ? 

Okay, how about this then :

http://www.islamawareness.net/Jinn/

What, wrong bullshit again ? Oh man...

And Smurfs are three apples high and totally magical ! 

But don't try to find their village ! Only the cult members can find it. No, really.

I don't want to tangent on this too much more here, but the basic idea is that both do have identical definitions in regards to their position on God... however, "nontheism is a term that covers both a range of religious and nonreligous attitudes characterized by the absence of--or the rejection of theism or any belief in a personal god or gods." (reference.com)  Just like theism covers a range of beliefs that would accept the existence of a personal god, but not necessarily Christian.  Atheism does fall under the category of non-theism, but so does agnostic, Buddhism,  and even some forms of Christianity due to the variation of the term 'god'.   I don't know much about that sect of Christians, so don't ask.

my basic point is that religion applies to both sides of the fence here.  To be an atheist, you are still adhering to a specific belief system.  In the case of atheism; that a god or gods could not possibly have created the universe.  

It could cross over.   It's not necessarily lacking the knowledge, but rather claiming that the knowledge is unobtainable.  some would say it's lack.  

The only one I'm aware of is from your heart truly seeking out this God of the bible and living your life according to His Law (NT not OT).  All that I'm aware of who have honestly taken the time and fully sought out this god from their heart has been united with this God.  

If you yourself don't want to be the subject of the experiment.  I guess the next step would be to investigate all the claimed 'god sightings' from around the world and test for consistency and accuracy.  That would be a decades long study most likely.  There'd be centuries of data to go through and categorize.    

You could also look further into those "near death experience" stories and check for consistency.  

Many people when they ask that are looking for 'magic' to happen every time they pray or for God to *poof* in front of them... to them I ask.  If you were checking to see if I was actually human by testing whether I'd make the same choice each time you asked for it, I'd likely care less to make the choice in your favor as well.  We cannot empirically test choice because choice changes.  

all in all, in my experience one has to want to find God.  

Also, are replicable tests the only way of finding out truth?

a spirit by direct definition would be the same as a soul or basically the consciousness of a person.  Literally it is an external consciousness that mediates between body and soul.  

How to determine whether or not they exist... by a physical means?... that's something people have been trying to figure out for years.  Some who call themselves ghost hunters look for evp's or electronic disturbances.  Whether what they find are spirits or external stimuli is up for debate.  The problem with "studying" spirits is you can't sample a spirit, put it on a petri dish and study it under a microscope.  It'd be like trying to study a peice of light from the air.  In fact, that might be a place to start.  Consider how you might study a peice of light or a photon and possibly we might be able to manipulate it to study external consciousness.