Simple Question For Non-Believers
Offline The icon is of my patron, Saint Evthymios the Great of 6th century Palestine.
Before I get to my main question, I am curious why atheists are so bent on disproving God if He in fact does not exist? If He does not exist, it should be rather easy to prove. Bust since websites such as this still exist, is indicative of the fact that atheism has failed in its mission to disprove His existance. The majority of mankind: past, present and future, have been theists for a reason.
My main question:
Ever notice when your walking down the street how you will suddenly get an urge to turn your head and when you turn your head, you find yourself in eye contact with another person? This happens to me all the time. I think it is evidence of precognition and ESP. If man is nothing but matter, how can he know someone is looking at him when he himself is not looking at that person? You might say its a coincidence. But it isn't. Next time it happens to you, pay close attention to it. You'll be walking down the street or something, turn your head for no apparent reason, and find that someone is looking at you. It's as if the soul or higher consciousness knows you are being watched.
Professor Wilder Penfield, the great neuro-scientist of Canada, argues in his classic "The Mystery of the Mind," that the mind does not exist in the brain. He came to this conclusion after studying several epilepsy patience and other people. It seems the brain is a receptor, not the cause of consciousness. Like an antenna for consciousness. You should check that book out. He proves that the human "will" does not exist in the brain. When he stimulated parts of the brain to move an arm, for example; he told the patience to force the arm not to move with their will. The arm moved anyway. This indicates that the will is not localized in the brain. He gets more into this. Check out his book.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
- Login to post comments
Sigh. You haven't read around here much, have you?
Firstly, Atheists lack a belief in god. That is positively different to needing to prove that god doesn't exist. If you believe in something that can't be touched, felt or otherwise detected by human senses, I suggest it's you that needs to prove the rationality of your belief to me, not for me to show a reason I shouldn't go along with your ungrounded faith. Since no-one can, I'm resolutely agnostic atheist.
Secondly, if it's so easy to disprove, shouldn't it be easy to prove, too? A couple of paragraphs on your proof of your gods existence, please.
Yup, IMO powermongering by religious leaders combined with spare processing cycles in our underworked brains. But that to the side, you need to make an argument to get any mileage.
Yeah, how about this. Humans survived by not being eaten. The human brain has evolved - like other sighted beings - to lock on to other sets of eyes. You occasionally turn your head suddenly (in case there's a predator about to jump on you), and your brain will automatically engage this primitive impulse. From eyes we can tell what another animal (prey, predator, mate...) is concentrating on.
Your argument is what exactly? That you can't work it out, so it must be god?
Kingsley
This is the icon of my country, expressing his opinion about religion.
I am curious why thesists persist in spouting this canard. Atheists are not bent on disproving god. At most, atheists will point out why the proofs for god are insufficient.
Perhaps you will ask (more accurately) why atheists are bent on pointing out why the proofs for god are insufficient. In the simplest sense: Lacking evidence of god, one lacks a reason to believe in god. And as long as so many of those who believe in god are bent on affecting the lives of others (hopefully you don't require me to elaborate here), yes we will remain hell-bent on exposing the irrationality of theistic belief.
How so? What would you accept as proof that god does not exist?
By your "logic" (and "grammar"
: That websites such as this still exist, is [sic] indicative of the fact that theism has failed in its mission to prove his/her/its/their existence.
Quite so. Much the same reason mankind has formerly believed in a flat earth, geocentricity and the secondary status of women: The majority of mankind past and present has been (and is) ignorant. As our knowledge advances, we dispel ignorant ideas and adopt better ones -- thus mankind has jettisoned ignorant ideas from its past such as the flat earth. Belief in god is just one more barrier of ignorance for us to surpass.
So this is the main question, what I scrolled through 6 lines of ignorant ranting for? Well then:
I will. Do you keep a running count of exactly how many times you turn your head, and how many times someone is actually there? Unless you're walking through Hiroshima circa 1945, I'd say the likelihood that someone is walking behind you on a public street is relatively high.
Or it's as if you're latching onto any possible incident to justify your beliefs. If you think you can definitively prove ESP, there is $1,000,000 waiting for you at randi.org. Win it and Saint Evthymios the Great of 6th century Palestine would be proud, I'm sure.
Aside from the distortions this professor is making (or that you're extrapolating), I fail to see what this has to do with god, much less the god of Saint Evthymios the Great of 6th century Palestine.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Few atheists are indeed "bent on disproving God". Most atheists are agnostic atheists, which means that they hold the epistemilogical position that negative proof is invalid. An agnostic atheist simply rejects all a posteriori and a priori arguments for God, as opposed to forming their own a posteriori or a priori arguments against God. You are referring to a relatively small group called strong atheists. And the reason that they wish to disprove God is for precisely the same reason that theists wish to attempt to prove, for the reason that they simply wish to defend their position.
Oh, and by the way...
some reading on basic fallacy would be helpful here:
The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses
Well, actually no. It is not necessarily "easy" to disprove God solely on basis that God does not exist. You're appealling to a fallacy of negative proof, which is impossible. Furthermore, we might regard God as an unfalsifiable claim, which means that it is also an untestable claim, which means that it is an absurd claim. It's impossible to "disprove" something entirely regardless of its genuine lack of existence or not. Your conclusion is a non sequitur from your premise, and shows poor understanding of basic epistemology.
This is a strawman, and a very subtle appeal to popularity.
Future? You are clairvoyant?
Before we get onto the next section, I might as well get the formality out of the way that I have a neuroscience qualification. I could have gone to work in a neuroscience lab, but chose molecular biology instead, which actually comes in useful for beating the shit out of creationists/ID proponents. Anyway, that formality is out the way. Todangst, who also has a neuroscience qualification, will probably show up soon too.
If the mind did not exist in the brain, neuroscientists would be out of job. I spent 15,000 words ripping apart dualism from every and any angle I could lay hands on in this essay:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/vitalism_immaterialism_and_christian_dualism_have_long_since_been_debunked_response
Also, Penfield was a neurosurgeon, not a neuroscientist, and he was a very good neurosurgeon, but we must take into account that Penfield died before the invention/discovery of:
-fMRI
-Neurotoxicology
-Neurophenomonology
-Neuroangiogram
-Magnetoencephelogram
-neurobiology and molecular neuroscience
-neuropyschology
-neuropsysiology and neurocellular transduction
Regarding the situation with the hand, I fail to see how this proves anything. The fact that you are ignorant of basic neuroscience is your fault. The fact that Penfield died before the discovery of fMRI is no-one's fault. Here you are referring to what modern neuroscientists called apraxia, a situation which results in a longitudinal divide along the corpus callosum in epilepsy patients, which causes the dominant hand of the patient to undergo involuntary movement and uncontrollable motor functions. The hand might undo buttons, light cigarettes, even strike objects without the users control. However, combined magnetoencephelogram scanning and neurophenomenology conducted after Penfield died in 1976 have revealed that this very rare form of epillepsy apraxia is caused by the damage caused to the medial lobes by the incision along the major axis of the brain. There are different brain functions associated with voluntary movement, the cerebellum for proprioception, the grid neuron array for mechanoperception, Acetylocholin-based Somatic and visceral motor neurons which run up the body's planar axis through the center of the spinal cord and into the Sensory Somatic Cortex. The incision along the brain's long axis severs the connection between the lobes controlling movement, with the result that different areas of the brain may at different times be able to command the hand in different ways, but since they are not connected, conscious control over it is lost. Actually, apraxia is often used to make the neurophysiological distinction between intention of execution otherwise known as Executive function (Anterior Cingulate Cortex), and actual execution. In other words, we can show that the self loses control of the hand due to apraxia due to a division along the major long axis of the brain, and although the kinesthetic sensation is there, the sensation of conscious control over the hand is not. In other words, your attempt to prove the sould turns around and disproves it. For this reason, most neuropsyiologists consider that at the supramolecular level, there is an electrophysiological event which translates intent into action. The general area which does this has been pinpointed by fMRI as the medial fronal lobe. Recently, neuroimaging has revealed the area of the brain responsible for decisional inhibition to be in the parietaloccipatal system. The damage or destruction of this system results in the loss of executive functional inhibition, with the result that the subject may lose conscious control over many physiological functions. But since the area of the brain responsible for action is located on the other lobe of the brain, the result of an incision along the corpus callosum will be in rare cases the loss of ability for interagency neurological control over such functions, with apraxia, with the result that a conscious self loses control for periods of time over the limb in question unless treated. The very fact that it can be treated in a neurological fashion hence indicates that you are dead wrong. Since the brain is a contralateral control system, which means that damage to the posterior medial lobe results in involuntary movement in the opposite function, the same for the parietal-occipatal system, since the corpus callosum is the link between these two areas and the subcortical synaptogenesis which develops when basic motor skills do, the exertation of control over the movement is partitioned into four areas. In other words, we are seeing exactly what we expect to see with an epillepsy patient experiencing apraxia under IET stimulation. After all, essentially Penfield was stimulating apraxia in a patient with a divide along the corpus callosum (you will note that all of this is mentioned in my essay). But there was no way he could have know this since fMRI hadn't been invented yet.
By the way, Penfield was the man who mapped out the cortices of voluntary intro and exoperceptive sensory neural arrays and voluntary movement. He also managed to find and target the area of the brain responsible for epilespy using IET (Implanted Electrode Therapy). To my knowledge, however, Penfield (whose diagrams I still use) was not versed in the neuroscience of consciousness, an arm which was only formed after his death.
"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
Few things here: First, Randi is well known. The problem is that he has set his standard so high, that it is virtually, if not completely, impossible to meet. I offered to prove to him a weeping icon of the Virgin Mary, but they wanted me to pay for his plane flight to and from the location, including hotel accomodations, etc. I'm not a rich person. His other standards can't even be met by wealthy people. He fixed it that way to deceive people into believing that the supernatural can't be proven. He is a dishonest fraud.
Second, I was not talking about a natural instinctual response to predators. How can there be a response to a person who is standing across the street and completely behind you? The human eye does not look backwards through the skull. There is another sense at work here. Perhaps a 6th sense. Neuro-scientists are now beginning to unravel this mystery.
Theism is in a whole other league then a flat earth theory, etc. Theism has always been with mankind. Scientific theories come and go. As for proof, I don't believe God wantes us to have proof the way you and I understand proof. The mind is only one vehicle of knowledge. God is also known in the heart. Thoughts proceed from the heart. An impure heart will produce impure thoughts. God gave us sufficient evidence through Divine revelation (nature), conscience, biblical history, philosophy, etc. But He orchestrated things in such a way that we would have to search Him out. As Hebrews says: "without faith it is impossible to please Him".
God transcends the category of created things. He is not proven like the natural sciences. He is not limited to the mind like our knowledge of the natural world. He only reveals Himself to humble, and faithful people. He does not dwell in the minds of the proud.
St. Augustine said that there are two societies in the world: The children of God, and the children of the devil. The latter cannot believe because in a certain way it is as if they are wired not to believe. Jesus even stated that no one can come to Him unless God draws them to Him (John 6:44).
I don't know what the basis is that God used to decide who would and who would not be chosen to believe, but I trust Him because He is all wise and all knowing.
I think atheists know God exists. The light is in every person (John 1). But they refuse to submit to His authority. This is not an intellectual thing, but an ego thing. But God in His foreknowledge knew they would reject Him no matter what, so He chose not to reveal Himself to them in a fuller way. This is a possible explanation.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
This is a slightly different function from the ability to detect someone watching you while not watching yourself. The visual detection of other sets of eyes is a mechanoperceptive function which is handled by the fusiform cortex. Since I forgot to bring up this nonsensical claim of "ESP" and hence "higher consciousness" (a non sequitor, I might as well do it now.
Actually, I don't need to. I'll just flip the equation around to prove that this function is neurobiological. People with the rare neurological disorder Prosopagnosia which is a result of damage to the FFC (Fusiform cortex) do not have this exoperceptive ability. Notice how I said exoperceptive not extraperceptive. The former is science, the latter pseudoscience
The ability to percieve someone watching you while you are not watching them is a subconscious perceptive function which originates in the fusiform gyrus. It comes innately with the ability to recognize faces. Also, if you read my essay, it will indicate why a) it is absurd for this so-called "higher consciousness" to exist anywhere but in the brain and b) why it would be impossible for an extraneurological immaterial function to interact with the brain.
"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
Before I get to my main question, I am curious why atheists are so bent on disproving God if He in fact does not exist?
1. Not every atheist is an activist; they don't all concern themselves with proving anything or changing people's minds. This site is specifically about atheist activism. You may as well ask why the Department of Transportation is so obsessed with how people get around, or about the Red Cross's morbid fixation on blood.
2. That 'proof' is totally unnecessary; it's the positive claim that x exists that wants for substantiation. There were a hundred murders in different parts of the world yesterday: prove you weren't involved in any of them. That's not how proof works, except, apparently, when it comes to the religious.
3. The question of mythical creatures, whether fashionable or not, is of little interest to atheists like me. Picking at the logic behind theism is motivated by a desire to bring secular reasoning to the forefront of social discourse. "Because my god said so" just isn't a good enough reason for anything of public concern.
The majority of mankind: past, present and future, have been theists for a reason.
"Beliefs have existed, therefore they're valid." But which ones? Which unproven, outlandish thing stands out among unproven, outlandish things?
Ever notice when your walking down the street how you will suddenly get an urge to turn your head and when you turn your head, you find yourself in eye contact with another person? This happens to me all the time. I think it is evidence of precognition and ESP.
Argument from personal experience. ESP has been tested in double-blind studies and discredited.
If man is nothing but matter,
As opposed to what? What should man also be? Some vague, inarticulate misapprehension of the word "energy?"
how can he know someone is looking at him when he himself is not looking at that person?
You haven't demonstrated your premise to be so.
You might say its a coincidence. But it isn't.
Argument from assertion.
It's as if the soul or higher consciousness knows you are being watched.
Non-sequitur. It does not follow.
Professor Wilder Penfield, the great neuro-scientist of Canada, argues in his classic "The Mystery of the Mind," that the mind does not exist in the brain. He came to this conclusion after studying several epilepsy patience and other people. It seems the brain is a receptor, not the cause of consciousness. Like an antenna for consciousness. You should check that book out. He proves that the human "will" does not exist in the brain. When he stimulated parts of the brain to move an arm, for example; he told the patience to force the arm not to move with their will. The arm moved anyway. This indicates that the will is not localized in the brain. He gets more into this. Check out his book.
Seems an odd conclusion, but I'll refrain from judgement based solely on this.
I wonder why you steering the topic away to something utterly different. Surely subtlety is your middle name?
It is:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_clarification_regarding_my_position_relative_to_theological_noncognitivism
Only in number of subscribers.
You contradict yourself. If neuroscientists could unravel Fusiform cortex dermo-optical perception (and we are, believe me), then it would no longer be the supernatural magic you postulate! It would be natural. Are you not forgetting that science is an inherently atheistic and naturalistic pursuit?
1. This is a fallacy of special pleading
2. This is a fallacy of equivocation. You are conflating two senses of the word "heart". The metaphorical, which is only a literary device, and the actual. The heart is a quadruple-chambered muscular pump which circulates blood around the body. You cannot gain knowledge through your heart. It is an organ which delivers the vehicle of oxygen to every cell in the body. Nothing more.
This is another fallacy of special pleading. You are defending something on grounds of Appeal to Magic Fallacy. It does not answer the serious questions raised about the absurdity of the notion of an "immaterial mind", which in turn, would cast serious doubt on the viability of the notion of God, since God is described as an immaterial mind. I raised this point in my neuroscience essay. For further reading on this matter:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/all_a_posteriori_arguments_for_the_existence_of_god_are_intellectually_bankrupt
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_absurdity_of_the_cosmological_argument
I see. Asking for rational evidence makes one condemned. This seems an excellent tactic on control on the part of the church. Well, I shall keep that in mind. There is no rational epistemology for God. Therefore, it is a meaningless, incohrent term which can only be defended by ontologically invalid nonsense and appeal to magic.
No he isn't. It's impossible for an immaterial being to hold these charateristics. I showed that here:
And please don't retort with another special pleading fallacy, because that merely restates the problem.
Fallacy of definition
and
Fallacy of denying the correlative
Ad vericandum fallacy
So, if my intellect tells me God does not exist, I am engaging in self-deception QED? This seems an ad nauseam fallacy. Can you justify it? If you read what I wrote, you will understand with precision why I believe God does not exist.
I am a scientist. I need cold hard evidence to work with something. It needs to be quantifiable otherwise I dismiss it as incoherent. I need empirical evidence. There is none for this notion you are propagating with such absurdity.
It is impossible for an immaterial entity to have "foreknowledge" or "make choices". I have already outlined the reasons for this.
"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
Correct. I'm simply pointing out that there are non-ESP reasons why people (a) look around themselves, and (b) look into each others eyes when they do so.
I'll take your word for it. So what has it got to do with god?
I think other posters have pointed out the fallacy of argument-by-populism. Since there are many different concepts of gods around the world, which one is correct? All of them? Or just yours? Why's that?
I'm glad you appreciate the core strength of science - that it improves over time as better explanations are developed and adopted by demonstrated proofs. Good, isn't it?
From your original post;
Can you explain why these two positions, broadly interpreted, are not directly contradictory?
By definition, you are wrong.
Kingsley
It is easy to disprove. Its very easy to put forward rational arguments that disprove God. The problem is that religion circumvents rational thinking. Theists are not rational when it comes to their belief in God. It therefore becomes very hard to argue with theists.
Indeed there have. And the pressence of religion in every culture is clearly a very interesting phenomona and needs an explanation. But the pressence of religion in all cultures does not not in anyway mean that the ideas or that religion are correct. A momments thought shows that this is true. Of all the countless thousands of religions that have existed throughout history only a handful remain. Most have come and gone and been forgotten about. Most of the ancient religions are no longer believed (does anyone still believe Zeus or Thor are real? Perhaps even more to the point every culture has also had concepts of ghosts, monsters, spirits, magic, is this to be taken as evidence that these things ar also real?
For a good atempt at exploring this question I would suggest you read "Breaking the Spell - religion as a natural phenomona by Daniel Dennet"
No I agree I would say its peripheral vision. Or sub conciouss perception of sound eminating from that person.
Or perhaps we saw and object in our peripheral vision. We where alterted subconciously and turned our head to investigate.
He didn't prove anything of the sort I'm afraid. The mind body problem is an interesting one. There is a genuine philosphical problem here but, my opinion on the matter, is that its is more to do with our concept of physical rather than the existence of any spooky wooky things like souls. If one starts to invoke souls and then what we are actually saying is that conciousness is due to magic. Souls=magic in their power to explain. i.e. they explain nothing at all.
There is an intersting discusion going on in the philosophy forum here on exactly this subject. "Do beleifs exsit phsyically in the brain." My position is that they don't, but before you get all excited I do not advocate any kind of dualsim like you seem to. Have a read if you are interested. But I'll warn you now dualism is a pretty redundant notion in philsophy these days. Not many philosiphers take it seriously any more.
I'm sorry apotheon how old is this book?So he proved that one part of the brain controls certain parts of the body holy crap! How this proves dualism, i have no clue whatsoever.
Also, if the mind isn't directly connected to the brain. Explain spilt brained people. You literally have 2 people in 1 brain. The left side of the brain can be a republican the right a democrat. The right side of the body can be writing something while the left brain is concentrating on reading (i'm probably wrong on what side of the brain does what but the point is still there just switch hemispheres of the brain.)
On to your thing about detecting being watched. I think its a form of intuition. You notice others that notice the person being watched. Or other extremely subtle differences that remind your brain of situtations of when someone was looking at you thus you decide to look to see if someone is actually looking at you.
So, I await your explanation of spilt-brained patients that still keeps their mind disconnected from the brains.
[edit it looks like deluded god alreday answered. He said basically what i have here just using more technical terms and explaining the phenoma much better then I. I do think i'd still like and answer on spilt brained people.]
[edit added some sarcasm]
double post
I'm not bent on disproving god and others here have already given you the reasons for that. I'm bent on keeping all religion out of my goverment.
I commute to a city that has millions of people. Every time I turn my head I see someone. It would be a dangerous thing to be completely oblivious to my surroundings.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I don't know nearly enough about the topic to claim authority, but would being able to sense something outside your field of vision also be possibly related to the concept of blindsight? It seems like is still very much being studied and tested, but the basic idea is that some folks have greater traces of senses that could have predated our eyesight along the evolutionary chain.
Seems they run experiments on people with damaged sight, that can seemingly detect certain things (like putting a letter in a mail slot) to a degree that's higher than a random guess. Was something I'd heard about when David Linden (http://www.accidentalmind.org) was on the Infidel Guy's show.
Saw it mentioned here as well: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7174/1696
And that reason is that the majority of mankind (past, present and future) have been irreparably insane.
No. That's never happened to me.
Actually, all it proves is that the "will" can be overridden by electronic impulses in the brain. So if the brain is more powerful than the "will," then why should anyone even care about the "will"?
Ok stop the presses you are either here saying a) your irreparably insane or b) you are an atheist.
sorry if this sidetracks the thread but i am curious.
The answer is a. He freely admits it and it is one of the the things I love best about him.
The only thing that is impossible to prove is the statement "proving a negative is not possible." If that were true, then the statement would contradict itself!
The burden of proof does not rest on the idea of negative proofs, even existential ones, being impossible.
The Bad Idea Blog - Science, Skepticism, & Silly
Perhaps I am both. It is possible, I imagine, that I'm actually an atheist, but, being irreparably insane, believe myself to be a theist.
Well then i'm glad he's proud of his own insanity. I know i am (of mine)
Few things here: First, Randi is well known. The problem is that he has set his standard so high, that it is virtually, if not completely, impossible to meet. I offered to prove to him a weeping icon of the Virgin Mary, but they wanted me to pay for his plane flight to and from the location, including hotel accomodations, etc. I'm not a rich person. His other standards can't even be met by wealthy people. He fixed it that way to deceive people into believing that the supernatural can't be proven. He is a dishonest fraud.
He didn't want to pay to come see another priest awkwardly returning a small bottle of Wesson to his sleeve? The bastard!
Second, I was not talking about a natural instinctual response to predators. How can there be a response to a person who is standing across the street and completely behind you?
You haven't demonstrated that there was. If it actually is the case, maybe they crossed the street because of you, and are keeping you in sight deliberately.
The human eye does not look backwards through the skull. There is another sense at work here.
Argument from assertion.
Perhaps a 6th sense. Neuro-scientists are now beginning to unravel this mystery.
Maybe astronomers will find Aristotle's crystal spheres.
Theism is in a whole other league then a flat earth theory, etc.
Let's not equivocate: we're often talking about polytheism, animism, and a spectrum of other things.
Theism has always been with mankind. Scientific theories come and go.
Cos they get updated when they're wrong. Getting rid of the wrong in religion would be wiping our religion itself.
As for proof, I don't believe God wantes us to have proof the way you and I understand proof.
Isn't that convenient? It's almost as if your religion was constructed to subvert the logical methods that were most obviously a threat to it. How odd!
The mind is only one vehicle of knowledge. God is also known in the heart.
*Furiously shuffles for air-sick bag*
Thoughts proceed from the heart. An impure heart will produce impure thoughts.
LOL.
You just sort of trail off into biblical garbage and assertions, so I fixed it for you.
In response to the claim that my argument is reduced to a surival mechanism against predators, I want to also say that never once in my life have I ever turned to see a dog or other animal looking at me. It is always humans. Its somekind of extra-sensory contact or communication bewtween humans.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
I have. My ferrets used to stalk me when they both were around. I'd get 'that feeling' and turn around and they would be staring me down. It was quite creepy, actually. I don't know what it is, but I would still chalk it up to some kind of intuition or observation.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Are you serious? I am sorry, but that is just about the funniest argument I have heard so far. I don't suppose this would have anything to do with the fact that you probably encounter more humans on regular basis, would it?
There is a reason that humans are at the top of the food chain - one of those reasons would be predatory skills. Lesser animals generally feel threatened when faced with something they perceive to be a threat and make a noise or take off. Dogs bark. Cats run. If they do not feel threatened, they will stare right at you. Mine do it all the time, and yes, I do become aware of the feeling that something is looking at me. It doesn't really mean much except that perhaps they disapprove of the way I happen to be dancing around my house at the moment.
This is very sad case of remembering the hits and forgetting the misses.
How many times have you turned to look at someone and they WEREN'T looking at you? I am sure more times than you would like to admit because then that would just blow your little theory of 'ESP' out of the water, huh?
It's happened to me, especially my dog. It almost scares me.
Oh, and the atheist know god.
right, and let me guess you know there isn't a god.
Stop lieing to cover up your guilt.
Once I looked down and there was a wrapped Hundred Grand bar just sitting there in the gutter. What luck no one had taken it! Therefore God exists.
"Ever notice when your walking down the street how you will suddenly get an urge to turn your head and when you turn your head, you find yourself in eye contact with another person? This happens to me all the time. I think it is evidence of precognition and ESP. If man is nothing but matter, how can he know someone is looking at him when he himself is not looking at that person? You might say its a coincidence. But it isn't."
This would explain the behavior at rest stops around the country. Yahweh/Jesus may be opening the "extra sensory perception" channels, for males looking for other males, who are looking for a good time. Maybe he stimulates their ESP antenna so they can home in on other lustful homosexuals' eye contact.
"Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." (Jesus triad)
"So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey" (The Donkey) Numbers Chapter 22:30
If this ever happens to me I will become a fundie. I am not kidding.
The Bad Idea Blog - Science, Skepticism, & Silly
Exactly. His claims are from confirmation bias.
I wonder how often he notices when someone is present and he does not look up.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Talk about picking and choosing your sources dishonestly.
Penfield wasn't a neuroscientist, and he died more than a quarter of a century ago. His argument was puerile even then. Without a postivie ontology for immateriality, his arguments were nothing more than arguments from ignorance.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Then god purposely creates beings that can only fail, so that he can torture them forever. There can be no greater evil.
I think no one knows that any god exists. I think theists doubt god exists, which is why they need to project out the doubt onto atheists.
Oh, and can you at least acknowledge DG's posts?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I think there might be some truth in the theory that atheists don't have souls. The more I talk with atheists, the more I am convinced of this. I know that Theosophits believe some people are born without souls. It is imposssible to explain transcendent truths to a person who does not have the ontological capacity to grasp those truths. They either don't have the capacity to understand, or they do have the capacity but just simply refuse to submit to the truth. I don't know. God will sort everything out in the end.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
Sounds about right, but at least we're not claiming to have something that doesn't exist.
Mutual Glomp (my art gallery, currently being updated) | DevArt | Dead Like Us | Nothing Special comic
And it spirals back into tautology.
As there is no proof of the soul to begin with, no theory is required. Once you realize that theists don't have souls either, you'll be home free.
Not some, all.
"Transcendent"?
You tried your little argument based on antiquated neuroscience. It fell flat, so now you're just defaulting to god. Typical defeatist attitude.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I think there might be some truth in the theory that theists have a brain disorder.
You're half right... now, just consider that you don't have a 'soul' either, seeing as the term is utterly incoherent.
Go on, define 'soul' without contradicting yourself or stealing from materialism.
As usual, you have it backwards: the term 'soul' has no ontological status, neither does 'transcendence"
I challenge you to define either term without:
1) an internal contradiction
2) and/or stealing from materialism or naturalism.
If you refuse the challenge, you concede that your claim is nonsense.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Here's a third option for you to comtemplate: that people tear your arguments to pieces because you're a really bad arguer with poor arguments.
In other words, you're wishing revenge upon those who dare to point out how bad your arguments are...
What's next, a tantrum?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Apotheon
Your behaivour is crude, immature and childish. Let us trace your thread:
-You made a pathetic argument for the existence of a soul
-I, a qualified neuroscientist, ripped everything you said to pieces
-You ignored my post and attempted to change the topic into epistemology of God
-I again, ripped that asunder
-You again, ignored me
-And now you are making an emotional rant. You are clearly feeling inadequate because your argument was so ridiculous, and are hence projecting these inadequecies onto us
-You have utterly lost the debate, and now back into a corner and make a special pleading fallacy. Your pathetic attempt at an evidence based approach was shorn in two before you could blink, and hence you turn to emotionalism, changing the subject entirely.
-Your emotionalist argument was again blasted cleanly in two (fallacy of equivocation regarding the term "heart) and again you ignored me.
-And now you are throwing a pathetic little tantrum. Further more, you are making a highly hypocritical statement by saying we lack the capacity to grasp the ontology of the soul when in fact the soul does not have a positive ontology.
-You are too stupid, ignorant or arrogant to answer my arguments and therefore make a mocking argument from authority by saying "God will sort it out in the end" hence demonstrating your own close-minded stupidity for a third time.
In future, please cease from vomiting on the debate process.
You have lost. Now either admit it, attempt a genuine rebuttal, or sit in a corner and lick your wounds.
"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
Apotheon, it seems you don't comprehend concepts like proof or any of the logical fallacies. Let's not keep barking up this tree.
Let's try something else.
How and when did you choose your religion?
What were the three most compelling reasons that led you to your religion?
Also, what were the factors that convinced you all other religions were incorrect?
Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean we are incable of understanding what you're saying. The fact is, I do understand what you're getting at. And it's incorrect. I can't refute as well as Deluded God, for example, so I suggest you go back and read the other posts.
One question though, if god is going to sort it all out, why are you even bothering with this? You just assume he'll take care of it all anyway.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I think there might be some truth in the theory that Gandalf could beat Dumbledore in a wizard duel.
Half your work is done. Now all you have to do is realize you don't have one either. Neither does your Aunt Mertle or your mommy or your daddy or your kitty cat.
I know that my brother Kevin believed that Gandalf could beat Dumbledore.
You can stop there.
Or they realize it's all horseshit.
When he comes back, we'll just crucify him again.
Yes. He couldn't he deal with your post, he needed to save face, he did so through the most childish manner: blaming others for his own shortcomings, and then he ran off.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Agreed. I hope this pointless exercise has come to an end. Of course, however, given the wall of ignorance we are fighting, another hapless fool has sprung up in its place. I am referring to the thread titled "atheism" by Kingneb and my subsequent response and his subsequent response to my response. If you feel like joining a hair replacement club, check it out.
Sometimes, I really feel this would be a much better use of my time:
"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
Yeah, I'm getting kind of sick of the people who when we point out their errors in thinking simply dismiss it by ignoring it or saying "well that's just what you think" or calling it ridiculous without explanation.
Sigghhh.
As Mr Anderson (from Beavis and Butthead) once said "You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make him drink."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
so i'm not going to be tortured forever by your petty god? SWEET!
Rill
While I think there might be some truth with Helen Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society that some people are born without souls, I am more inclined to believe in three other possibilities:
1. Some are born without spirits. The spirit is the higher aspect of the soul and the mechanism that receives illumination from God.
2. Modern popular culture and all its perversions, such as contemporary "music," if one wants to call it that, actually damage and disfigure the soul, making it incapable of receiving spiritual impressions. This would also apply to the modern arts. Music and art refine the soul and make it capable of receiving the spiritual impressions I mentioned above. Modern society is so sick when we compare it to 18th or 19th century Russia, for example. Also, large cities are dead in that they fail to trasmit the life and animate creating forces inherent in the country, forests and mountains. The three latter things help to elevate the soul to higher realms of feelings and thoughts. The city is dead, concrete, worldly, and self-focussed. I think that is why atheism is on an increase today as society becomes more artificial, dead and inanimate.
3. All of the above.
A word on music. Music and art refine the soul, either making it receptive to spiritual impressions, or preventing it. Rock music, pop, rap, etc, actually damage and disfigure the soul. Warped souls created warped music. The result is more warped souls. That kind of music produces negative sounds and vibrations, which only serve to lowe our spiritual consciousness, so to speak. The lyrics are also destructive. If a person surrounds himself with healthy classical music of the 17th 18th and 19th century eras, beautiful art work, nature and healthier people, they will begin to heal the soul to some degree, and become more perceptive of God.
Modern society is structured in such a way to destroy belief. This is so sad because we are the victims of this evil legacy. For more info, read:
Nihilism: the Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age, by Fr. Seraphim Rose (t 1982).
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
deludedgod, I apologize I did not read your previous post. I can't possibly read, respond and refute everything everyone says. First, I would like to know your neuro-scientific credentials. Second, nothing you stated refutes the fact that the "will" has not, and cannot be located in the body. If you can tell me where in the brain the human "will" is located, I would be appreciative. Third, I have access to half a dozen medical journals with peer review articles, arguing a strong case for Out of body experiences. OBE's would not be possible in a naturalistic universe. Our modern study of OBE's and NDE's presents a serious problem for materialists.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
1. Some are born without spirits. The spirit is the higher aspect of the soul and the mechanism that receives illumination from God.
One incoherent concept teetering on another... and another. Sweet.
2. Modern popular culture and all its perversions, such as contemporary "music," if one wants to call it that, actually damage and disfigure the soul, making it incapable of receiving spiritual impressions.
Does it also make it harder for angels to dance on the head of a pin? You're using words, but you're not saying anything, you dig?
This would also apply to the modern arts. Music and art refine the soul and make it capable of receiving the spiritual impressions I mentioned above.
Ever seen a commie drink a glass of water, Mandrake?
[Further whoop whoop whoop snatched away by the men with butterfly nets.]