Upside,

I couldn't have said it better.

I think the bad experiences with me have been from half hearted or no hearted efforts, with this or work - such as if DG went at his job research half way - there is also the bad experience brushing with the other guy's half hearted thing and he brings his problem with him to the job or conversation.

It is a leap from the message to the experience - I mean there were some friends who had the experience (you could be talking about marriage here or hang gliding but I'm talking about faith in and relationship with God in Christ) and they told me about it, but it was nothing like experiencing it firsthand.

I have the experience like DG of wholehearted loving my work, never satisfied without making this detail or that better. I wonder DG if you have had a half hearted day at work and that experience was a bad one for you as for me. I'm not leading you here, but that is similar to the difference in faith in God - half hearted versis whole hearted, only it is much more dramatic in the faith experience, the difference I mean.

I mentioned hang gliding, and maybe there's an empirical similarity there too. There is a video on youtube: "hang gliding in Yosemite" which I think almost gives the empirical of hang gliding. I won't ever experience it first hand - even though I would really like to - because there are things too valuable to me that I wouldn't risk to have the empirical. I wonder if that is somewhat similar with many with faith. But I think it's a lot harder too to get across how much fun it is with faith. There's a part of it that is really hard to video.

Mephibosheth (remote to flight)

Don't pretend as if I do not know the theology behind this such that I think it is nonsense anyway. You must realize the reason I remained silent was because there is no point in me discoursing on theology I already believe (unless the converse can be shown) to be false. Do we discourse on the finer points of Death Star Mechanics?

Theistic claims make no sense whatsoever. No "price" is paid by such a supposed "sacrifice". After all, cognitive dissoncance can be overcome by a simple hypothetical:

Would You Go On The Cross?

This is an ironic claim to make for someone whose arguments have hitherto been burned to ash and cinder. Truly, can such cognitive dissonance be overcome if the one engaging in it is so utterly locked in an epistemological foundation which makes no sense?

Yeah...no...not quite...modern cosmology. It does the Christian mind good:

The Absurdity Of Creationist Cosmology

Hardly. Has not this issue of theological fatalism been done to death since, what, the days of Augustine himself! Do you truly think I have as of yet not encountered such defenses, and that, with the help of todangst, of course, refuted them?

The "Fall" commits an internal contradiction.

This claim makes no sense from a metaphysics standpoint. Could you respond in such a way that assigns correct ontological categories to beings and entities you are attempting to class, with reference to intrinsic properties of such things, or for a more honest approach, at least a reference to Tillichian negative theology?

Again, theistic claims make no sense. How can an entity have a debt to a being which has ultimate metaphysical control? It is analgous to saying that a conscious puppet on strings has a debt to his puppet master, which is inheretly absurd since the puppet master controls any and all action of the puppet and hence is

Please, please do not respond with the standard dull theodicy: Free will. At very least you could try for something slightly more respected like Iranaen theology. Such ad hoc notions do not go well in todays scientific epistemology. This is another steel bit in the mouth of the issue of Theological Fatalism, and the relationship of the nature of "debt" to a being which foreknew and fore-controlled such things. You will find that we have already dealt with such issues:

"The Omnis" - The bible assertions of the christian god's omnipotence, omniscience

Reading Iranaeus between the lines here...why must we be burdened of this? "Sin" is an ad hoc notion anyway, it does not make any sense in the context of Theological Fatalism, any more than the notion of free will makes any sense at all! Could you use words that are not incoherent?

What problem? Again, given the Christian assertion regarding the nature of such a being, you are simply making up the problem. Furthermore, as per the first article, please adress precisely what "sacrifice" you refer to?

Yeah...that sounds great, but there is a big problem. And please try to avoid emotional cognitive dissonance when I say this but there is no evidence of this. None. You are not within your epistemological rights to hold this position. Beliefs are beliefs regardless of volition. If I walk into a wall, I do not have the right to believe I did not, in fact, walk into a wall.

So try again, this time, with a proper epistemological model that makes claims and then adresses them according to the standard heirarchy of veracity of epistemological claims. I would suppose that your claim, as things stands, falls near the bottom, below "guess". And yet, you are treating it as if it belongs above the top of the heirarchy, above tautology, no less! In epistemological terms, this is High treason.

Tell me, is there some Maslowian need for you to do this to avoid such dissonance, or are you deliberately antagonizing me?

Give us twenty years, tops. We already know how to write genetic code. Give the rate of acceleration of base-pair sequencing as per Moore's Law, we shall create a tree for you, we shall write it as we would write a message in ink on paper.

Yes I do. See, when I tell the guy who has a 25% chance of a terminal brain disease destroying his mind in 30 years that with siRNA vectors, we might be able to destroy the disease altogether...that's joy. What has your miserable Yahweh ever done to that order?

The "prejudice" of which you speak is the request for a rational epistemological reason for believing in "X". That's not prejudice, that's thinking.

Zzzt. Wrong. "Faith" by definition is a rejection of e

You may wish to review your epistemological rights:

What are Epistemic Rights? A Basic Primer in Critical Thinking

It helps to know what your philosophical rights to believe X are. Judging by the theory of knowledge heirarchy:

Honestly, theist claims make no sense.

Somewhere I missed movement in the blog.  No responses to my last post, but now a resurgence of highly documented research.

I'd like to revisit my last post for any responses, if none, that will be that.  You mentioned silence due to discussing issue that didn't make sense.  The discussion of personal experience seems valid.

A belief in God, claims of theists make no sense?  However it is less of a stretch for me to believe all the equations and reasoning that you have provided?  I read based on the link you provided, one of the topics.   My reactions are impressed, overwhelmed, confused.  There are so many twists and turns in all of the logic, i'm sure a straight line could connect all of it, but I am not sure at the same time.  

Do you have a simpler version of all of these documents?  Are only the extremely studied and advanced members of this world able to gain the understanding you have of the theories?  What about those who don't fully understand them all?  Do you understand, I guess what is the point, to be able to directly define everything about existence that can be scientifically proven?  Everything as close to a law as possible?  Questions come in peace, but I don't understand the purpose of your pursuit man?   

it always did confuse me, even when i was a christian.

just because you want something to be true, does not make it true. gravity will work regaurdless of your faith that you can fly, say.

personally, i think the idea of a god strips the world of its intrinsic beauty and purpose (which would be to NOT die, basically). i was much more depressed as a christian than i am as an atheist. the idea of god, afterlife, etc, downplayed the importance of this world (you know, the real one?) and i think that is borderline criminal.

what also facinates me, and this may be slightly off-topic, is the ability of the human mind to lie to itself. the fact that people can firmly believe things that are blantly untrue seems to be to be one of the great neurological myteries of our times.

so: can we think of an evolutionary advantage that lying to ourselves to such a dramatic extent may confer? and yes, i did read the god delusion, but i think dawkins was streaching himself a bit in that section.

Thank you for the post DG/ANTISTOKES.  I hear what you are saying, I understood this last post.   I find your reasoning valid.  Then again how could I not, it is direct logic.  These are the lines I draw from what you said, correct me if I am wrong:

epistemology --> Experience

absolute knowledge --> direct empiricism

immediate experience -> not valid grounds for absolute knowledge, since it can only be drawn from indirect epist..  

This line of reasoning just points out that, it can't be proven that a person had an experience with God unless God reaches out and phsycially interacts in some way.  Unless he provides valid direct empiricism.  That word has been thrown around a ton, and I am currently looking for a thesaurus.  Otherwise to say that a person had an interaction with God may be just misinterpreted.  This instead could be chemicals in the brain causing "experience."  Someone may say, "God really helped me through that."  Well what if your parent also was nearby helping, maybe your parent actually did the help.  Clearly much room for doubt and skepticism there.  

Ok, human mind lies to itself, I agree.  Then how do we know when it isn't lying?  It sounds like an argument that will get caught in an infinite loop.  Direct empiricism for example; it is all relative to the determination of the mind.  If brain is functioning properly, no mind disorder or drugs, you may contend that direct empiricism is not questionable, it is absolute.  

Your search is for absolute proof.  The whole faith and theism topic isn't built on that in today's world.  Although there are many who would argue that they have absolute proof, but it is not in the way you describe absolute proof.  The belief that there have been absolute proof in the past and the historical accounts that the Christians hold as true.  It is built on the fact or possibility that there consists more than matter and objects in this world.  More than scientific equations and math based formula.  Absolute proof cannot be provided for things of spiritual world or things outside of matter.  If you dig into my arm you will find veins.  It is very possible that you know how many you would find.  You can't do the same for spiritual world.  So what?  Deny any existence of this?  There surely isn't any equations for this part of the puzzle.  

Depression - downplayed importance of the world.  I agree again.  Christians, a select number, say the world is bad - avoid anything that might be bad in it.  Yuck.  That's a problem.  I guess the real question with the world is does it make one happy to have all the material wealth and possessions possible.  Well yes it does.  For a little bit.  Ever remodel your house, put in a nice new set of carpet in all the rooms or get a new car?  Then you spend the next year just admiring and enjoying that article of possession?  Not me, I start to notice all my walls need painted.  My Jeep would look better with a set of 35" tires.  So there would be a balance, where a "Christian" would really need to say, the world is not bad, but everything in it isn't going to make me happy.  It is actually commen sense and logic mixed in with greed, etc.  

My suggestion made in last post was the one that you found to be gramatically unsound.  It was that the documents you reference have "twists and turns."  This meaning that they are not easy to follow or comprehend.  When documents are created in such a way, although considering myself to be of solid intellect, I come away feeling as if the author is trying to confuse rather than inform.  Surely the large majority does not operate or attempt to bust through the equations and suggestions in those documents.  If you want me to try or others to try, they would be organized in a modulized manner.  However, if you operate at a superior and high level of reasoning, then simplifying and organizing may be a task outside of your capability.   I don't say that as a slam, even if you were worried about that, but if these documents are out there to help others - they aren't written in a way that most or many or few could begin to comprehend.  I admit I have not at this time spent any time processing through all of the claims and calculations.   

You and I are on this world man.  We're made of a bunch of blood, water, bones, muscles, and I have a scale which tells me what % i'm most of.  Everything of me, if put on a chop block can be explained.  My brain is the light switch.  Some are brighter than others.  Then what else exists?  Do you believe of the spiritual world?  Or ashes to ashes.  Dirt to blood and bones?  There is a gap I see in your asolute truth and reasoning.  Unless you explain every experience as a function of your brain's chemistry?  A mind that as Antistokes says, "the human mind lies."  Then every experience is a function of a mind that isn't dependable for things outside of matter and physical composition.  This leaves much to explanation.  Christian, theist, atheist regardless of your stamp, what is left when your blood drains and your body crumbles?  

You are still missing the point. Epistemology is not experience. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. THe point, which you ignored, that I made, was that direct experience of phenomenon cannot provide knowledge of the underlying mechanism. If I drink water, that does not provide me with the knowledge that water is H20, and that this H20 is affecting my tongue through electrical signals being transferred through the glassopharngyl nerve. Epistemology of empericism refers to experience, and there is no way to conclude from immediate experience what generates the experience. The only way to do that is an inductive indirect method, such as science, so the idea of something being "outside testing" is an absurdity. If we cannot test a phenomenon, then our conjecture has no actual evidence, since the "experience" is not evidence of what generates the underlying mechanism. So, since it is asserted that this incoherent spirit world is outside the limit of human epistemology it is pure assertion. By definition, it is outside human epistemology, nothing can be provided to support it, so why speak of such things?

And no, I do not believe in the "spirit". There are relatively obvious problems with concluding in the existence of something "outside" the empirical world. I outlined/refuted such here:

On the Monoism of the Brain and the Mind and the Debunking of Dualistic Propositions

Also, the idea of something "outside" the empirical world "causing" something presents an impossibility, as I have shown:

• On the Problem of Interaction and the Concluding Piece of the Series: The Absurdity of an Immaterial Mind

DG,

Honestly DG, you remind me of Jason Garfield juggling 10 clubs with attitude - (latin and philosophical terms instead). It's impressive I'll admit - and I'm sure it takes a lot of time to learn and practice to maintain. And you seem to do it with expression.

Think of the difference between this and God's grace: God chooses those who are last in education, social standing, morals - He forgives the greatest sin to make the brightest saint. There are those who are last that will be first. Grace came down.

On your hill you have performance first - DG's juggling, comedy hour, trivial pursuits, brain parade, extreem fighting, dirty dancing.

On our hill we have grace.

People like it.

I like it.

Jesus approached the stage thing different than you and yours. He redefined performance. Even Jesus glorified God - not Himself. The parade was only on the way to die for us. They piped but He didn't dance - to the performance music.

When you take away all the glitter of performance is there substance there? I don't find it - only an appearance of substance, reference to substance, boasting of substance, substance in another language, promised substance, another place and time substance.

You also remind me of guys who tell tall stories about how fast they have done construction jobs - how much, how quick, how good. But when I'm there it's normal speed or I have to re-do it. You did such and such and refuted such and such - did I see it? Do it again?

Are you far enough away from home to be such an expert? You might fool those who haven't experienced the substance of God's grace in Jesus. Fortunately I have and am not impressed with the performance. I see who glory is supposed to go to in your performance. I'm dazzled, but not nourished by your sophistry.

Mephibosheth (not a TV/movie guy)

PS (BTW - the "20 years tops joke" was the funniest I've heard in a long time. It'll be eternally funny)

DG, I do not think you can honestly make the claim that, "you do not like providing information in a confusing manner."  That would also mean that you do not take great pride in your vast knowledge.  If you had no pride in your vast knowledge, your philosophical documents would be written much more simpler.  As I have stated, you are very intelligent, you could produce a document that even the least intelligent human could comprehend.  You have chosen to write in a manner that will confuse 98% of those who read it.  That is the claim I have made.  If you can honestly tell me that you write your documents in a way to lower your self in a means of helping others understand, which shows humility and not an overwhelming sense of pride, then I will withdraw all of my statements and take your word. 

Why is it worthwhile to discuss things for which we cannot provide proof?  This is all relative to one's perspective, you know that.  I don't think people/person's should talk about what all the "spirit" or spiritual world is going to do.  You are right, we have no means of intelligent understanding of how that would work since it is outside our realm of understanding.  I'm not sure there is a great need to talk about such things, but to deny their existence is going a step further.

Now you have limited your understanding to what you can see and then perform statistical analysis on.  What if you lose your vision man?  Then you have become unable to experience the only element of this world that exists or that you are willing to accept based on science? 

I feel as in debating, if the nature of the debate may get ugly, as I do not feel like I am positively providing encouraging information DG.  I do not like this, but worth mentioning.

Antistokes - Multiply repeated experiments, still have a flaw.  Have you tried keeping a log of the times you have used your mind's perception, and for those times, did the next occurrence create the same result?  Was the result correct?  How do you know the result was correct?  

Antistokes - you have uncovered or stated my feeling of how your philosophy is lacking.  You rely on yourself to be your own God?  How does that work?  So outside of what I can think of and gather is the extent of everything?  I agree if we are our "own damn Gods," we are most certainly going to be blind to anything outside of that tunnel vision thinking. 

Philosophy has little meaning.  If you get a doctorate degree at a university, good luck finding a job.  Very hard to find.  Very little value in philosophy.  I can wrap all kinds of reasoning and deduct anything I want that will support my philosophy. 

I have a black Jeep, I used to have a black convertible car.  They aren't real expensive, who cares if they were.  No birds in sight, clear day, I clean my car/jeep and wax it.  When i'm done, at least 5 times this has happened ( i only wax cars 3 times a year) a bird comes by and takes a large shit on my clean vehicle.  Birds NEVER crap inside my car when I have the convertible top down?  They don't like dropping their load where they can't see the product?  The result, is too beautiful for them, that they would rather crap and put a big huge white dash on a hood where only black exists.  Why would a bird do that?  I have my own ideas?  I think birds have fun taking their craps?  I like pissing off of bridges, and watching my urine splash into the river.  If it is dark it isn't as fun, I can't see it.  Why does a bird enjoy dirtying a black car?  I've surely digressed, and you may not find any point in this paragraph.  On top of that the grammar may be lacking ;o)  I admit telling that story is fun, and even more fun would be using a large shotgun to blast the bird as it is flying away after dropping its load. 

If you get a doctorate degree at a university, good luck finding a job.  Very hard to find.

lol, not for me, i'm getting mine in chemistry.

people always need good chemists, because chemistry works. my eventual plans are for neuroimaging (right now i'm doing biophysics). we'll see about your little "faith" state then. 

Antistokes - Multiply repeated experiments, still have a flaw.  Have you tried keeping a log of the times you have used your mind's perception, and for those times, did the next occurrence create the same result?  Was the result correct?  How do you know the result was correct?

i've got some plans towards that goal. they involve three dimentional time resolved imgaing studies of live neural networks on resonable timescales-- without employing labels that are cytotoxic so the studies may be done in vivo (sorry, that's a sticking point for me. so much of what we know about mental dynamics is based on technology that is useless of observation of live systems). there's some interesting work about 3D cell culture experiments in nature methods that acutally give me hope for these goals. 

anways, the last person to leave my lab went to a postdoc at MIT, so i'm not too concerned about 'finding a job'.  

as for knowing if the result was correct, all ya gotta do is ask someone else. again-- all i ask for is repeatable results. that someone else can do, and get the same answer as me.

but you know what? i think you just want the universe to be w strange, weird, inexplicable place, possible with a side dish of intent.

only humans do intent. it's hardwired into the our brains to want to change the world-- and when we can't, like with your birds, we try to invent something that lets us change the world to our liking. lucky items of clothing, prayer to a 'high power' that is 'on our side, the side of good'.  

but the good new is that the universe is weird. 

I agree if we are our "own damn Gods," we are most certainly going to be blind to anything outside of that tunnel vision thinking. 

hp lovecraft had some good stories on this one, about orthogonal realities and devices that might let us sense them. all i got are five senses and faulty wiring to integrate the signal and spit something back out at the world that will grow and change and survive. if there is a mind or a soul to be found, it depends on the interactions and inputs it gets from our shared enviroment.  

what does it mean to be your own god? it means you take reponsiblity for what small amout of change and growth you do in this world.  and you accept that life is not in your control, not in anyone's control. life is based on random events, and, as my inorganic TA once told me, 'entropy drives more processes than you can possilby imagine' ( i think she may have been a jedi).

As in show me some evidence. Any. I want to see what you believe is sufficient evidence for a belief in a being that is beyond belief. 

CE,

Hagar cried out and the Lord opened her eyes to the well - it was there, but she couldn't see it.

Cry out.

Zechariah ask the angel, "How shall I know this?" He gave him evidence in his not being able to speak until the promised birth.

That would turn DG into a works bomb.

Gideon received a sign concerning his fleece's humidity level.

Do point: dat true.

Paul said God's eternal power and deity have been clearly perceived in the things which have been made - man is smart enough to not have an excuse here.

You plugged your computer in.

The carpenter stretches a line, he marks it out with a pencil; he fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.

He cuts down cedars; or he chooses a holm tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest; he plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it.

Then it becomes fuel for a man; he takes a part of it and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread; also he makes a god and worships it, he makes it a graven image and falls down before it.

Half of it he burns in the fire; over the half he eats flesh, he roasts meat and is satisfied; also he warms himself and says, "Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!"

And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol; and falls down to it and worships it; he prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for thou art my god!"

They know not, nor do they discern; for He has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their minds, so that they cannot understand.

No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, "Half of it I burned in the fire, I also baked bread on its coals, I roasted flesh and have eaten; and shall I make the residue of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?"

Do you see the elephant in the room here? The guy wants a sign. Vila gets out the fine tuned clearance alignment adjuster and does it himself.

My Bible starts out, "In the beginning God..." Batteries included, no assembly required.

Mephibosheth - (turn it on)

"And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply"

"So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why"

"He said you look like a fine unpstanding young man, I think you'll do"

"So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you"

"woah!"

"Sign Sign everywhere a sign"

"Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind"

"Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign"

Meph

THe quality of your posts has been declining rapidly. You jumped from vague meaninglessness to fundamentalism...to, well, your last post is shockingly lacking any lucidity. It literally makes no sense. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but there is no thread. There is no underlying coherency. The sentences appear to be gramatically sensible, but are syntactically broken. It looks like English, but it is almost impossible to discern due the number of category errors and statements which have no logical predicates.

Know that I am not exaggerating in any way when I say that youexude symptoms of the cocaine addicts. Cocaine is a stimulant, affecting not just the electrophysiology of the CNS, but also mental functioning (as well as causing tachycardia and arrythmia). The patients, while high, would ramble. They would string words and ideas together, but they would not make any sense. In the same way, I truly cannot follow anything you are saying. I am actually starting to be quite concerned for your mental health, since you seem incapable of doing what we assume is a normal part of human contact: lucid communication. Worse then cocaine addicts, you remind me of people with the neurological disorder called aphasia, where patients would lost the ability to construct logical sentences with proper subject and object and such, and would start talking grammatically correct nonsense such as "the calender switched on the tennis ball". Have you contracted a neurological disorder in the rather short interval since your last miscarraige of prose? Aphasia can be caused by TIA, stroke, or associated neurological trauma. Has this been the case with you? Shouldn't you be in hospital if so?

[Disclaimer: This is intended solely as satire. It is not, in any way, shape or form, an implication that my interlocutor should genuinely seek medical advice, nor am I giving implying that he genuinely has aphasia or any associated neurological disorder. It is simply a joke]

Go through this thread and read everything you have written. Everything. Nearly 100 posts, in all, just in this thread. Not once (and I just re-read every single one of them) did you manage to construct a single coherent thought. I'm suprised you still have command over sentences.

meph wrote:

"My Bible starts out, "In the beginning God..." Batteries included, no assembly required."

All you have to do is provide the same amount of imagination to believe as the writers did to create it.

Imagination. Completely human, completely natural. No God required - in fact, a god or gods is often the end result.

I am a doctorate, but not a physician. Nor was I being serious. It was a joke. I am a research scientist who is versed in medicine, not a practicioner. 

Unless people don't understand, don't trust, or for some other reason refuse to accept the real truth. Always a possibility.

Instead of trying to pick apart individual sentences in your post, I could see that there was an overall message you were going for here and I think I know what you're getting at. Kind of. Maybe.

If scientific arguments aren't what you're looking for, then you should maybe consider starting your own thread about some philosophical question or conversations you have on your mind. One Todangst is the local philosophy buff, as far as I understand.

As for your comment that we're like soldiers with our swords drawn: that is very true. One of the main ideas behind this forum, as far as I can tell, is that it allows atheists to rally together to answer questions from theists. It is a common practice for theists to throw out a series of broad, unrelated questions until a question arises that the opponent can't answer due to a lack of familiarity, and then the theist claims victory via the "Look! He doesn't know! Well, I do! Jesus!" strategy. So by joining together, we can keep that kind of dishonesty from going on and expose it for what it really is.

However, even if what you're looking for is a philosophical debate, if you say something that another poster recognizes as a scientific claim, they will no doubt engage you from a scientific angle. It just can't be helped. Similarly, if you saw someone mention an idea that was scientific but had a philosophical element to it, you might wish to engage them from a philosophical angle.

I don't think it's anyone here limits arguments to one approach if they can be addressed from several.

Anyway, if you have a philosophical question, then pose it under a new topic. But you can't expect everyone to "stay philosophical".

If there is a problem with what someone says, the problem will be pointed out, no matter what the nature of it.

*shrug*

Peace.

Deludedgod,

You read all my 100 posts?! That's like a cat scan in itself!

Far from me to try to prove any lucidity. I'm surely on the slippery slope. You scanning me, Antistokes with her periodic chart out, MattShizzle banging his head and making fun of the Bible, Susan's tipped her hat, and none of you guys even think you have a spirit (except Upside) and I'm crazy. You think I'm worried?

DG, you have referenced Hume. Is he the guy that talked his mother out of her faith and when she was on her dying bed she wrote him asking for comfort but he didn't make it....?

I'd hate to have my destiny resting on DG's reasoning guys - Quando Omni Flunkus Moratodi DG -

Mephibosheth

I'd hate to have my destiny resting on DG's reasoning guys

heh well i intend to live forever or die trying. and i'm not whipping out a periodic table, i'm whipping out statistical thermodymanics and quantum theory, which is the basis for the periodic table. 

i have had people die on me. it's terrible and scary and we don't know much about the phenomenon, and plenly of people would like there to be either a heaven where we go and play football with god all day (ala american dad) or some sort of "spirit" and can "trancend" (ala buffy).  if we wanted to die, we would be been punched out my natural selection a very long time ago. heaven is a good answer, because it massauges our collective monkey egos into us thinking that we're just that important. 

in you opinion, do animals go to heaven? my parents told me no, when my guinea pigs died, because guiena pigs don't have souls and thus cannot be saved by jesus's everlasting love. 

i know people get annoyed at scientests, beacuse we sometimes take away ideas (the earth is the centre of the universe) that people want to believe-- prolly more reasons too-- but if you ever want something to consistantly work (electronics, say) in the shared dream we call real world, then everyone turns to us nerds. 

sorry, i guess this has kind of turned into a nondebate. i still don't have a good definition of faith, which is purportedly the topic. unless you count "i knows it when i sees it"-- like the supreame court definition for porn. i don't like this answer, because as i scientest i don't think that something so important as a definition can be left out of a good debate. 

Archeo - this is good recommendation.  Real talk, nice. 

Appears the war continues.  Next I may start telling yo mama jokes.  I heard a new one at a comedy show, last comic standing a couple weeks ago but it is pretty nasty. 

Magus, I can't talk to you.  I write a paragraph putting my thought out there, and all you have ever produced for a post is a one line sentence.  Put some of your philosophy and knowledge out there, instead of taking the safe road and being untouchable with your one sentence responses.  Totally off the subject, but how often do you lift weights?   Your picture is kind of mean, but I can see the neck muscles popping out there.  

Christians and non Christians have never seemed to get along throughout history.

When taunted I do feel like dishing some revenge, but it is tiring.  So if one doesn't take part in ongoing bashing of views or relentless debates, this means they are out of their league?  

You are trying to taunt me Magus.  Here offer me some one sentence remarks to my paragraphs of thoughts.  

I was not trying to "taunt" you.

I would write more, but why bother, in my few sentences, I have added more t0 the discussion then you have. Most of my reply was some questions. Tell you what when you have something of substance to say, I will be glad to write more than a few sentences. Unless you are done with your assertions and vague language, why should I bother?

[edit: clarification]

[edit: forgot to respond to this ]

The brain does not have a control room. The mind is an ontological interagency function, heterophenomelogical. There are no mini-brains that function autonomously. This idea reveals a childish and frighteningly idiotic view of how the consciousness works.

Firstly, unless you have some sort of direct physical damage to the interagency functions, it is impossible to refer to "part" of you wanting X and part of you wanting Y. While there can be conflict between areas of the brain (notably in Lesch-Nyhans patient) no lobe of the brain functions autonomously. So you are not making sense.

No...it just demonstrates how functional inhibition works. Whilst, of course, no brain function works autonomously, the reasons you make decisions and the associated feedback loops are primarly concentrated in the neural clusters of the Anteriori cingulate cortex and parietaloccipatal system. The number of functional references that the brain is required to make to execute any decision or inhibition is vast beyond reckoning. The answer to why we make or resist such decisions does not lie in a ridiculous, magical spirit world.

Do you really want to know how functional inhibition between want and inhibition tug-of-war works? I shall tell you know it is not because of a mysterious spirit. Firstly

1) Spirit belongs to an ontological null set

2) No mechanism can be derived from a supernatural postulation as to how the spirit generates functional inhibition.

3) It appeals to repeated ad hocism

4) It makes no sense from a metaphysical standpoint

5) It attempts to refer to an extrinsic property (decision making) by referencing a "thing" with no extrinsic property

6) There is a complex web of biochemical loops which determines emotions associated with doing things. Functional inhibtion is not evidence for a "spirit world", only that such loops are in working order. This is evidenced by the fact that we have the capability to destroy functional inhibition directly. Also, by destroying neuronal clusturs in the VMPFC, we can directly influence why people choose to do or not do things. They become much more utalitarian, although, I suspect it would be much more difficult to turn someone into an intuitive Sadeian since social functions associated with deciding to do or not do things despite personal gain, are much more complex and embedded.

Now...onto deciding doing and not doing things...and the reasons behind them...there is some very good information on executive function in this link:

 On the Monoism of the Brain and the Mind and the Debunking of Dualistic Propositions

The joys of neurophysiology.... 

So, yeah...I really do not see what you are getting at.

First off, I acknowledge that you're simply giving a definition and not claiming that this is your position. Just so everyone is clear.

I think invoking the word "faith" is also a cop-out. I've explained this in other threads, but I'll go over it again here.

According to the definition you've given (which I don't doubt is how it is often taken), faith is given as a reason to believe since man doesn't know everything.

It's not unusual for a Christian (or any other "faith" user, but especially a christian or catholic) to try and create a sphere of authority for faith by attacking reason in order to show that it is somehow defecient. Like you've said: We don't know everything, so our ability to reason and understand is allegedly defecient and we need "faith" as a means to understanding!

This simply isn't true though. I can still make a reasoned decision in the absence of certain knowledge. For example, I am currently sitting in a library somewhere in Indiana. You could pose the question, "Is there a computer similar to the one you're using at such-and-such a library in San Francisco?"

I have no knowledge of San Francisco. I've never been there, let alone seen its computers or libraries, so I have no way of knowing if there really is a computer similar to the one I'm using at the said library. But I can ask myself what would be a reasonable belief. I know that California exists, that San Francisco exists, that libraries exist, that computers exist, that other computers similar to the one I'm using exist, etc. Would it be reasonable to believe that there was such a computer at such a library? I might not be correct in adopting the stance that there is such a computer, but it would still be a rational stance. A christian might stop me here and say that I am, to a certain extent, having faith that there is a computer. And in that understanding of the word faith---the one that is more like "wagering"---I would say, yes, I suppose I am. Because I think it's reasonable to think so. But this is not like a theistic faith. My alleged "faith" in this situation is based on what I know about reality. A christian faith is based on what they don't know about reality, and is, in fact, contrary to reality (and logic) in many ways.

Here is another example. A christian/catholic/faith-user might say something like, "Well don't you have faith in your doctor whenever you seek treatment? How do you know he is qualified or that he is helping rather than hurting? Since you don't have the medical knowledge equal to your doctor's, aren't you exercising a little faith in that situation?"

Again, this is a completely different usage of the word faith. I know that doctors exist. I know that medical treatment exists. I know that doctors must take the hippocratic (sp?) oath. I know that I can sue the doctor for malpractice if necessary. I know that doctors generally don't want to be sued for malpractice or to lose their reputation or job. I have very persuasive evidence---evidence based on physical reality---that assures me that trusting the doctor is an okay thing to do. Of course, I can't be absolutely certain that my doctor, for one reason or another, isn't going to suddenly go crazy and inject me with poison, but what is rational to believe?

The christian/catholic/faith-user application of "faith" is not at all like this. Their use of the word is meant to be a supplement to man's ability to reason since reason is said to be insufficient in some respect (I've already shown two fallacious arguments such a faith-user might make, and the other possible arguments aren't much better).

But faith is completely meaningless without reason. When I, an atheist, say that I won't believe in god based on faith, I actually mean that I refuse to believe in just anything based on faith. I don't believe in leprechauns or unicorns based on faith, for example.

If a faith-user had a rational basis for such a belief, they would not need to invoke faith. Reason would be enough. For example, if I saw a unicorn with my own eyes or saw a fossilized unicorn skeleton in a museum or something along those lines, I would not need to have faith in unicorns. I only need faith when there is NO RATIONAL BASIS.

So faith means nothing by itself, and yet it can't let reason have all the control. So reason is attacked and supposedly "demonstrated" to be insufficient.

When faced with this problem, the faith-user must supply a good argument for why reason should be considered insufficient. Such arguments, when not circular, should be easy to thwart.

So, yes, it's a cop-out. 

There is a phrase associated with the invalid technique where one attacks the man and not his argument. You may have heard it before, once, twice, a hundred times? Wait...wait for it...right on the tip of my tongue....haven't mentioned it in a while (after all I encounter it so infrequently *rolls eyes*) so I might not remember...

(Learns to make post drip with sarcasm) 

The spirit is nonexistant.

JCGADFLY,

Well, I don't see anything in my definition that tells what it is not JCG.

The Scriptures tell us that when God created man out of dirt he breathed life into man. The spirit is the breath of life of a man that God breathed into the lifeless dirt. When the God breathed dirt dies, the spirit lives on and the dirt goes back to being dirt.

I would describe your spirit as where you live in the most fundamental sense.

Conscience would be one manifestation of that spirit. God made man in such a way that he can "connect" with his spirit or inner man.

The Scriptures also tell us that a man's spirit is the thing that knows, discerns his thoughts.

The Spirit of God knows and discerns the thoughts of God.

The Christian is given the gift of the Holy Spirit in him which enables him to understand the thoughts and Word of God and walk by faith - described as "walk by the Spirit".

This is further described as yielding to the Spirit and putting the desires of the flesh to death, resisting them.

This requires vigilance and spiritual strength, and could be described as war.

The Devil's spirit is at work too - in the sons of disobedience. He is broadcasting his attitudes and thoughts to his servants.

Mephibosheth (hope this helps)