| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"someone4" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2006 08:34:53 AM |
| Object: |
Evidence of God |
We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality. Some atheists (though not necessarily all) believe
that the physical is the primary reality, and that it is both the cause
of us being sentient, as well as the cause of what we experience as
sentient beings. They might even go so far as to suggest that science
backs up their perspective.
Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.
Firstly it requires a belief that the universe is as it is, because
that just happened to be the physical reality of things, and of all of
the possible configurations physical reality could have been, the
universe just happens to support life (is within a very limited
configuration set). All possible configurations being equal (no reason
for it being one configuration rather than another), it is highly
improbable that the universe would support life.
There are a few common replies to this implication.
One is that unless that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to
experience the universe. This is simply a case of assuming their own
conclusions, and ignoring the improbability of it just happening to
support life. To this there is the counter argument that probability is
only applicable to future events, not past events, if it happened it
happened. For example one might say, well if a person won the lottery,
then they won it, you can't look back and view the probability, and say
that it is unlikely they did. The lottery example is a poor example and
designed to mislead when it is used as an analogy to the universe just
happening to support life. The lottery is played by millions of people
(millions of tickets are bought), the physical reality is the
equivalent of one ticket, and the improbability (all configurations
being equal) is far greater than winning the lottery. It is valid to
look at the probability of an explanation being true. To take an
extreme example to highlight the point, supposing a person was on trial
for murder, in which they were a prisoner in a cell which they shared
with the victim, and their explanation was that an alien giant ameoba
type creature came through the bars, picked up the paper weight, and
killed the victim, before disappearing again through the bars. Though
the truth is whatever the truth is, how would you evaluate whether they
are telling the truth if your life depended on getting the answer
right?
One might argue that just because we may never know the reason to why
the universe is like it is, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a
reason that we may forever be ignorant of, therefore it was wrong to
assume that all configurations were equally likely. The problem with
this criticism, is that it just takes the question back a step, why was
the reason the universe is like it is, like it is?
The next 'leap of faith' is that although there are scientific
indications of a 'Big Bang', a starting point, that there was in fact
no starting point (and that a theory will be found to explain the
seeming starting point, without requiring a starting point itself), and
that there is nothing outside of the event horizon of spacetime
expansion of the 'Big Bang'. Within the event horizon spacetime exists,
and outside is nothing, not even space.
One of the biggest leaps of faith, is that the physical causes our
sentience, our consciousness, our being. It may seem logical that the
brain causes us to experience, yet there is no known physical theory in
which interactions of the physical world can be self aware. Though this
is the greatest leap of faith, it also is one that seems intuitive,
that our brains cause us to be aware. We can be given drugs that cause
chemical reactions in the brain, and seemingly make us lose
consciousness. Many assume this to prove that the brain is therefore
the cause of our consciousness. There are problems with this though,
and I will try to highlight these below.
Skipping over the problem of a lack of any physical theory in which
chemical interactions cause awareness, let us simply look at what it
would mean if we were purely physical beings.
What we do would simply be the consequence of a series of chemical
reactions. There would be no mechanism for what you 'will' to happen,
instead, it would be a case of you simply doing whatever the chemical
reactions determined you would do. Therefore there can be no
evolutionary advantage to you being 'aware'. To highlight the point
further, image a digital watch, few would argue, that if you pressed a
button on the side to illuminate the display, that the watch was in
anyway aware that this had happened. That it illuminates is simply
determined by the laws that govern the physical world. Similarly, if I
programmed a computer to say "hello world" , it would have no awareness
that it was saying "hello world". Again, if I programmed a robot, that
appeared to respond in a similar way to humans, there is still no
reason to think it is aware, any more than the digital watch. To
respond, that we are simply organic computers is very tempting, but it
is simply assuming your own conclusions, and glossing over the total
lack of explanation for how chemical reactions can produce awareness.
Regardless, on the robot simulating human responses, we have no more
reason to think it is aware than the digital watch, because chemically,
there is no difference in the reaction. Even if you were to assume it
was aware, simply because it simulated human behaviour, there would be
no advantage to it being aware, it wouldn't act any differently to how
it was programmed.
Extrapolating this to humans, if we were simply physical beings, then
whether we were aware or not, would not effect the way we behaved, we
would simply do whatever the laws of physics determined we would do.
Therefore there can be no evolutionary advantage to our awareness. This
is accepted even on talk.origins, where our awareness is simply counted
as something that just happened to emerge through evolution, though no
explanation for why is given. It is just another leap of faith that is
required. It is also not explained why if awareness emerged, that our
experience was not similar to that of a passenger in a vehicle, we
could experience what happens, but we didn't feel like we could alter
the course of the vehicle, because we would be unable to, the course of
the vehicle being determined by the laws of physics. Instead you would
have to deny your own experience, that you can 'will' your hand to move
in say one minutes time, without any knowledge of whether the laws of
physics would in fact determine that your hand will move (assuming a
human with a functioning hand).
As this mail is getting rather long, I will cut it short now, and give
an alternative perspective, which fits in with science, and our
experience.
It is the perspective that all there is is 'being'. That reality could
only have been 'being' or 'not being'. We know that it wasn't 'not
being' because we are 'being', we experience, and we can through our
will, influence what happens in the physical expression that we all
experience, within the restrictions of the rules that govern our
physical experience. The brain being within the physical does not cause
our experience, but the state of it, has huge influence on what we
experience (including memory). It could be likened to being within a
'matrix', except that it is our being that is presented with the
experience, and within our lives (reflection period), this experience
is governed by rules.
The only leap of faith required is that there are rules because the
reflection period (the time we experience the presentation of the
physical world), is that it is to determine, which it is better to be,
selfless and loving, or selfish and hateful. That there are two
infinite beings presenting us with the physical world, one perfected,
selfless and loving (God), the other the flawed, selfish, and hateful
(the Devil). The Devils motivation is to cause us pain, and therefore
cause God pain through our suffering (the Devil unable to cause God
suffering directly, being met with only pity). God's motivation is to
enlighten the Devil (which remains flawed, because it has the love of
itself, and the love (if only in the form of pity) of God). This might
seem harsh for us, unconsulted pawns in the game, but that we will
eventually be presented with a 'reality' that we call heaven, is a
compensation, that once experienced, will make it all worthwhile. This
explanation also explains why we experience a presentation that is
unbiased, neither heaven nor hell, and why we don't simply experience
heaven, with a VIP section for the perfected beings.
From Isaiah 29:
15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"
Given that the physical presentation, is presented by God (and the
Devil), and your interaction with it, is by communication of your will,
you can see the foolishness of those thinking "Who sees us? Who will
know?".
16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?
That you have turned things upside down, having the physical the
primary, causing being, rather than being presented with the physical
was predicted. As was the rise of atheism, which is surprising given
that at the time, the more likely thing would have been to suggest that
people would fall back into the worship of other gods.
And to the house of Jacob, there was a personal message:
22 Therefore this is what the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, says to the
house of Jacob:
"No longer will Jacob be ashamed;
no longer will their faces grow pale.
23 When they see among them their children,
the work of my hands,
they will keep my name holy;
they will acknowledge the holiness of the Holy One of Jacob,
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
Given that the physical is an illusion, and that there is only being,
all beings are produced by God, being the genetic, father or mother is
an illusion. It could be argued that from the explanation above the
children are a product of both God and the Devil, though the Devil
itself came from God, and so God was the beginning, and is the end, and
everything in between came from itself.
Anyway, in summary, some of the the evidence for God is:
The 'Big Bang'.
That the universe is designed in such a way to support life.
That the first cell was determined to come together as it did.
If true randomness were to be believed in, that the history of science
shows causes behind effects, and yet underlying, the root cause of
which event actually happened was not within the physical plane (from
the perspective of the physical plane it was random).
That we are aware.
That our will can influence the presentation of the physical world.
That humanity taking a selfless loving view, and working together for
the common good, would be better for humanity (emphasises that the
wisdom of a loving selfless God, is obviously wise).
That an explanation exists, that is easy to understand, and fits in
with all scientific evidence.
That there are non-local effects, Alain Aspect experiment, which fits
in with matter not being separate (point put forward by Bohm). Hardly
suprising given it is a presentation, and everything in the physical
presentation is within the mind of God.
There are other bits, such as:
The inability of neurons to account for our ability to reach the
conclusions that we do (see works of Roger Penrose,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose for summary). Should note
that it is his objections, not his attempt at an explanation that is
important.
No difference has been found between the neurons that are supposed to
(according to the atheist materialists) produce consciousness, and
those that definitely don't, nor is there any suggested binding
mechanism, where the state of these neurons could be mapped to our
awareness. See http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/Elsevier-NCC.html for
an explanation of the areas that they hope to make progress on and the
problems they face, but also note, that altering the state of the
brain, and noticing a correlation to a change in our awareness would
not prove anything, it is not contested that what we experience is
influenced by the state of the brain. Nor are their assumptions that
"it is known that the entire brain is sufficient to give rise to
consciousness" true, it is simply their working assumption, but as it
is said in Isaiah 29, they have it upside down. They would need to
explain a mechanism whereby the physical could produce experience, and
therefore a physical explanation of what experience is. Presumably they
should be able to show when you are going to move your hand, and that
there is nothing you could do to stop it (the laws of physics are
determining your hand will move).
The above experiment, being shown that your hand will move, and being
unable to stop it, will never occur. Another experiment might be,
wiping a persons memory by use of drugs, placing them in a maze (in a
certain position), recording their actions, then repeating the
experiment, and seeing if they act exactly the same. It won't happen,
nor will any experiment showing that you don't have a choice, while you
experience that you do.Though it does give the concept of a possibility
of a refutation that your being is separate from the physical, and that
it can influence the physical.
Given that it is your very soul at stake, it would be wise to reflect
upon how it is that you can (if you can), will your hand to move, and
how it is that you experience.
It also has implications for the future of humanity. Whether they will
be inspired to use God as a compass, to see us all as beings under God,
and unite, or whether they will be inspired to highlight the
differences in belief, and turn against each other.
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 06:22:05 PM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality.
You theists always resort to solipsism in the end. You don't like reality
so try to wish it away.
Some atheists (though not necessarily all) believe
that the physical is the primary reality, and that it is both the cause
of us being sentient, as well as the cause of what we experience as
sentient beings. They might even go so far as to suggest that science
backs up their perspective.
Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.
When you cross the road, do you look to see if vehicles are approaching?
After all why would you concern yourself with such things as you believe
that being is the primary reality. Why is it that these loons proffer
arguments that they know deep down they don't believe in themselves?
Firstly it requires a belief that the universe is as it is, because
that just happened to be the physical reality of things, and of all of
the possible configurations physical reality could have been,
We don't know if anything else is possible. While it is possible to
speculate about such things, without solid empirical evidence, there is
nothing to back it up. "The puddle marvels that the hole it is in, fits
perfectly"
Klazmon.
<SNIP blather>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 06:31:04 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
news:Xns981F73A476D74Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality.
You theists always resort to solipsism in the end. You don't like
reality so try to wish it away.
Some atheists (though not necessarily all) believe
that the physical is the primary reality, and that it is both the
cause of us being sentient, as well as the cause of what we
experience as sentient beings. They might even go so far as to
suggest that science backs up their perspective.
Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.
When you cross the road, do you look to see if vehicles are
approaching? After all why would you concern yourself with such things
as you believe that being is the primary reality. Why is it that these
loons proffer arguments that they know deep down they don't believe in
themselves?
It's a lifestyle.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-Mark Twain
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented
myself from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 09:28:44 AM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
.... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 09:36:34 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 11:20:11 AM |
|
|
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155479794.788583.65660@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
Your argument is similar to: Yes a computer has circuits and wires
and electricity but nobody can explain to me how it works.
You say chemical reactions cannot explain 'will'.
Why not? What is will?
Is consciousness the 'soul'? Do the chemicals and
neurons do anything? Are they responsible for any part
of mental activity? Which parts of mental activity are the
the soul responsible for and which parts are the brain
responsible for?
Do dogs have souls?
Do ants have souls? Do bacteria have souls?
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
14 Aug 2006 12:28:18 AM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 07:36:34 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1155479794.788583.65660@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
You claimed that you had evidence for "God".
You lied.
Now that really is beyond 'ignorant rhetoric', and crosses into the
realm of delusional fraud.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 10:00:22 AM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 07:36:34 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
In other words, a standard performance from an in-your-face stupid
lying theist.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
Why did you post your in-your-face stupidity where it was neither
wanted nor needed?
Why did you lie about atheists to our faces?
Do you have an answer or were you just being an in-your-face jerk for
effect?
Come back when you have had an education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 10:11:49 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 07:36:34 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
In other words, a standard performance from an in-your-face stupid
lying theist.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
Why did you post your in-your-face stupidity where it was neither
wanted nor needed?
Why did you lie about atheists to our faces?
Do you have an answer or were you just being an in-your-face jerk for
effect?
Come back when you have had an education.
Where did I lie about atheists in the post?
Do I have an answer to how chemical reactions can cause experience? No
I don't, and neither do you, because they don't.
It is quite remarkable considering how uneducated you consider me to
be, that you couldn't simply enlighten me. I suspect it is because you
can't. I'm not saying you are stupid, but you are certainly do a good
impression.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 10:24:13 AM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 08:11:49 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 07:36:34 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
In other words, a standard performance from an in-your-face stupid
lying theist.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
Why did you post your in-your-face stupidity where it was neither
wanted nor needed?
Why did you lie about atheists to our faces?
Do you have an answer or were you just being an in-your-face jerk for
effect?
Come back when you have had an education.
Where did I lie about atheists in the post?
When you invented a straw man to attack.
Do I have an answer to how chemical reactions can cause experience? No
I don't, and neither do you, because they don't.
It's a simplistic, meaningless question.
Why are you so stupid?
It is quite remarkable considering how uneducated you consider me to
be, that you couldn't simply enlighten me. I suspect it is because you
can't. I'm not saying you are stupid, but you are certainly do a good
impression.
Why are so many theists like you such in-your-face personal liars?
Get an education and you might just be capable of grasping the straw
man nature of your question.
And if you really want an answer you would (a) not ask such ignorantly
loaded questions, and (b) ask them on talk.origins where educated
Christians working in various origins-related sciences can tell you
BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT BELIEVING IN YOUR RELIGION AND
ITS PRETEND FRIEND.
Was that clear enough even for you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone4" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 12:09:54 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 08:11:49 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 07:36:34 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
In other words, a standard performance from an in-your-face stupid
lying theist.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
Why did you post your in-your-face stupidity where it was neither
wanted nor needed?
Why did you lie about atheists to our faces?
Do you have an answer or were you just being an in-your-face jerk for
effect?
Come back when you have had an education.
Where did I lie about atheists in the post?
When you invented a straw man to attack.
Sorry, I am missing your logic here. You assume I invented a strawman,
and even if I were to consider your assumption, how would that amount
to a lie about atheists?
Do I have an answer to how chemical reactions can cause experience? No
I don't, and neither do you, because they don't.
It's a simplistic, meaningless question.
Why are you so stupid?
How is it a meaningless question? Don't you understand English? The
question ("...what is your explanation for why we experience, or maybe
how chemical reactions cause experience?") has a meaning, you are just
trying to cover up your stupidity with insults. Why instead, don't you
answer the simple question?
It is quite remarkable considering how uneducated you consider me to
be, that you couldn't simply enlighten me. I suspect it is because you
can't. I'm not saying you are stupid, but you are certainly do a good
impression.
Why are so many theists like you such in-your-face personal liars?
Get an education and you might just be capable of grasping the straw
man nature of your question.
And if you really want an answer you would (a) not ask such ignorantly
loaded questions, and (b) ask them on talk.origins where educated
Christians working in various origins-related sciences can tell you
BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT BELIEVING IN YOUR RELIGION AND
ITS PRETEND FRIEND.
Was that clear enough even for you?
Your stupidity and lack of logic are remarkably clear, and not just to
me. You are an atheist that holds the position through fear of looking
stupid rather than through reasoning, though in your hurry to make it
seem like you are intelligent and educated, you show yourself up for
the ignorant fool that you are. I'm sure the intelligent atheists can
do without you fighting their corner for them, they will have answers,
where all you have is ignorance.
Why don't you prove me wrong, and show me that you do have answers, and
answer the very simple question:
How does physical matter experience?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 12:22:40 PM |
|
|
On 13 Aug 2006 10:09:54 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 08:11:49 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 13 Aug 2006 07:36:34 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.
In other words, a standard performance from an in-your-face stupid
lying theist.
--
rb
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
Why did you post your in-your-face stupidity where it was neither
wanted nor needed?
Why did you lie about atheists to our faces?
Do you have an answer or were you just being an in-your-face jerk for
effect?
Come back when you have had an education.
Where did I lie about atheists in the post?
When you invented a straw man to attack.
Sorry, I am missing your logic here. You assume I invented a strawman,
and even if I were to consider your assumption, how would that amount
to a lie about atheists?
No, liar, I OBSERVE your straw man.
Please be less dishonest.
You pretended that having zero belief in your crap, was believing the
opposite due to some kind of a priori philosophical materialism.
What part of IT IS MERELY YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT WE DON'T SHARE
are you too stupid to understand?
Do I have an answer to how chemical reactions can cause experience? No
I don't, and neither do you, because they don't.
It's a simplistic, meaningless question.
Why are you so stupid?
How is it a meaningless question? Don't you understand English? The
question ("...what is your explanation for why we experience, or maybe
how chemical reactions cause experience?") has a meaning, you are just
trying to cover up your stupidity with insults. Why instead, don't you
answer the simple question?
It was loaded with invalid premises - but then you know that.
It is quite remarkable considering how uneducated you consider me to
be, that you couldn't simply enlighten me. I suspect it is because you
can't. I'm not saying you are stupid, but you are certainly do a good
impression.
Why are so many theists like you such in-your-face personal liars?
Get an education and you might just be capable of grasping the straw
man nature of your question.
And if you really want an answer you would (a) not ask such ignorantly
loaded questions, and (b) ask them on talk.origins where educated
Christians working in various origins-related sciences can tell you
BECAUSE IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT BELIEVING IN YOUR RELIGION AND
ITS PRETEND FRIEND.
Was that clear enough even for you?
Your stupidity and lack of logic are remarkably clear, and not just to
me. You are an atheist that holds the position through fear of looking
stupid rather than through reasoning, though in your hurry to make it
seem like you are intelligent and educated, you show yourself up for
the ignorant fool that you are. I'm sure the intelligent atheists can
do without you fighting their corner for them, they will have answers,
where all you have is ignorance.
What "Stupidity and lack of logic", lying theist?
Modern science is nothing to do with atheism and vice versa.
Your questions were based on straw men and a projection of your
religion's metaphysical need for a creator .
Why don't you prove me wrong, and show me that you do have answers, and
answer the very simple question:
How does physical matter experience?
Why not ask an honest question?
MOST "PHYSICAL MATTER" (IS THERE ANY OTHER KIND?) DOES NOT
"EXPERIENCE".
Life does that, It is an emergent property that certain things have.
But you're not interested in the answer because you have made it "the
atheist's answer" not "modern science's answer which is acknowledged
by everybody with an education, even theists who aren't brainwashed
fundamentalists".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
13 Aug 2006 10:23:15 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> posting the following on 13 Aug 2006
07:36:34 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
We experience the same way any animal experiences. We enocunter a
stimulus (in this case, a skunk.) We sense the skunk, probably by
vision first, and our brains match that information to previous
experience. If we have encountered skunks before, we know not to mess
with them. If not.. wel, let's just say that we get a new sensation
to catalog.
Humans, being sapient, add another step in being able to reason and
think in a creative manner. But don't fool yourself, a lot of what
you do is not that far removed from the primal reactions we share with
chimps.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
19 Aug 2006 04:13:00 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
19 Aug 2006 09:11:40 PM |
|
|
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
22 Aug 2006 08:00:05 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
22 Aug 2006 11:55:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <24ane25o4n411p1n7e8upgktkjbt4amqgt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
There is absolutely zero for Derrick's "god".
That makes the stupid concept even more laughable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
26 Aug 2006 10:42:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:25:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <24ane25o4n411p1n7e8upgktkjbt4amqgt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
There is absolutely zero for Derrick's "god".
That makes the stupid concept even more laughable.
Indeed.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
27 Aug 2006 01:41:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:42:42 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6352f2lqnc16n472m1lgfe19a9d8somtt1@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:25:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <24ane25o4n411p1n7e8upgktkjbt4amqgt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker, and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
She could be reading this!
(Hullo Erica darling!)
There is absolutely zero for Derrick's "god".
That makes the stupid concept even more laughable.
Indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
28 Aug 2006 10:26:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:11:53 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:42:42 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6352f2lqnc16n472m1lgfe19a9d8somtt1@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:25:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <24ane25o4n411p1n7e8upgktkjbt4amqgt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
She could be reading this!
(Hullo Erica darling!)
There is absolutely zero for Derrick's "god".
That makes the stupid concept even more laughable.
Indeed.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
28 Aug 2006 07:20:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:26:40 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <in26f2pgqmntusfn2tfhtn20afgu840g9s@4ax.com>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:11:53 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:42:42 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6352f2lqnc16n472m1lgfe19a9d8somtt1@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:25:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <24ane25o4n411p1n7e8upgktkjbt4amqgt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
She could be reading this!
(Hullo Erica darling!)
There is absolutely zero for Derrick's "god".
That makes the stupid concept even more laughable.
Indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
30 Aug 2006 10:40:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:26:40 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <in26f2pgqmntusfn2tfhtn20afgu840g9s@4ax.com>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:11:53 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:42:42 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6352f2lqnc16n472m1lgfe19a9d8somtt1@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:25:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <24ane25o4n411p1n7e8upgktkjbt4amqgt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
30 Aug 2006 07:34:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:40:09 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e9cbf2p7cjkrfr0njs2c7ba3kenoheft5r@4ax.com>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:26:40 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <in26f2pgqmntusfn2tfhtn20afgu840g9s@4ax.com>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:11:53 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:42:42 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6352f2lqnc16n472m1lgfe19a9d8somtt1@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:25:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:00:05 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <24ane25o4n411p1n7e8upgktkjbt4amqgt@4ax.com>
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:41:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 19 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1156021979.976464.256440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Douglas Berry wrote:
Neuro-chemical reactions are indeed how we experience things. And the
proof that there is no separate soul comes from the fact that physical
changes to the brain can cause massive changes in personality. Medical
journals are filled with case studies of people who suffered severe
brain traumas and came out different people. This was the entire
basis of the lobotomy craze of the 30s and 40s; changing the behavoir
of people by scrambling their brains.
I don't believe this answers someone's question. Rephrase: how do we
account for first-person (awareness) experience from a third-person
(material) basis? Your post explains the neuro-chemical reactions but
does not actually grind the answer. How do you squeeze meaning from
meat (material)? Indeed people do experience personality changes and
the like. However, how do we account for those "experiences" from a
non-experiential realm? I am not sure reducing the entire scope to
neuro-chemical reactions does the job.
best wishes,
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
31 Aug 2006 04:13:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:04:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:40:09 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e9cbf2p7cjkrfr0njs2c7ba3kenoheft5r@4ax.com>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
Not unexpected, since you were thoroughly cracked....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
31 Aug 2006 10:11:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t4kef2lt9j3o3v7h017b16eqiavia34hvv@4ax.com>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:04:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:40:09 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e9cbf2p7cjkrfr0njs2c7ba3kenoheft5r@4ax.com>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
Not unexpected, since you were thoroughly cracked....
I should have used stronger encryption.
My crypts are too weak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
01 Sep 2006 12:28:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:41:33 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t4kef2lt9j3o3v7h017b16eqiavia34hvv@4ax.com>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:04:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:40:09 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e9cbf2p7cjkrfr0njs2c7ba3kenoheft5r@4ax.com>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
Not unexpected, since you were thoroughly cracked....
I should have used stronger encryption.
My crypts are too weak.
You bought them from B. Hinn Enterpyzes.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
01 Sep 2006 06:51:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:28:47 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ndrgf2lsr6l851o2kv8thtn5jgf37j53bm@4ax.com>
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:41:33 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t4kef2lt9j3o3v7h017b16eqiavia34hvv@4ax.com>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:04:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:40:09 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e9cbf2p7cjkrfr0njs2c7ba3kenoheft5r@4ax.com>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
Not unexpected, since you were thoroughly cracked....
I should have used stronger encryption.
My crypts are too weak.
You bought them from B. Hinn Enterpyzes.
And all it cost me was my life savings, and my first born into
slavery!
A bargain.
And my lumbago got a little bit better for a short while.
It's a miracle!
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
02 Sep 2006 09:26:28 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:21:48 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:28:47 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ndrgf2lsr6l851o2kv8thtn5jgf37j53bm@4ax.com>
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:41:33 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t4kef2lt9j3o3v7h017b16eqiavia34hvv@4ax.com>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:04:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:40:09 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e9cbf2p7cjkrfr0njs2c7ba3kenoheft5r@4ax.com>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
Not unexpected, since you were thoroughly cracked....
I should have used stronger encryption.
My crypts are too weak.
You bought them from B. Hinn Enterpyzes.
And all it cost me was my life savings, and my first born into
slavery!
A bargain.
And my lumbago got a little bit better for a short while.
It's a miracle!
All that for a ten minute respite. CHEEP!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
02 Sep 2006 07:03:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:26:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <g35jf2d15uh11h2coa045bvhjqohptq7b5@4ax.com>
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:21:48 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:28:47 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ndrgf2lsr6l851o2kv8thtn5jgf37j53bm@4ax.com>
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:41:33 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:13:00 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <t4kef2lt9j3o3v7h017b16eqiavia34hvv@4ax.com>
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:04:38 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:40:09 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <e9cbf2p7cjkrfr0njs2c7ba3kenoheft5r@4ax.com>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:50:44 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
Derrick Abdul-Hakim
So, the only remaining option is to invent a mythical creature to fill
that gap?
How very childish, and stunningly illogical.
Theists *have* to have their Santa Claus.
At least there is some minimal evidence for Santa Claus.
The person at the root of it all, yes. That's entirely different from
the story though.
You are not going to tell me that Santa is not real, are you?
I've seen her, personally.
She's blond, and a right Christmas cracker,
Pics!
She'd kill me if I posted them on the internet!
(I have to wait until SHE posts them)
Pssst. Email.... :)
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
Not unexpected, since you were thoroughly cracked....
I should have used stronger encryption.
My crypts are too weak.
You bought them from B. Hinn Enterpyzes.
And all it cost me was my life savings, and my first born into
slavery!
A bargain.
And my lumbago got a little bit better for a short while.
It's a miracle!
All that for a ten minute respite. CHEEP!
It hurts even more now, but Benny says that it is because I do not
believe enough in giving all my worldly goods to the Lord.
(Who looks suspiciously like Mr. Hinn's accountant.)
He says if I have run out of money and first-borns, I can opt for
unending slavery in the Hinn mines.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God |
06 Sep 2006 11:29:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:33:26 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:26:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <g35jf2d15uh11h2coa045bvhjqohptq7b5@4ax.com>
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:21:48 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
and I was going to tell
you about her chimney, and coming once a year, but I thought better of
it.
You've just been shredded. The claws that refreshes.
At least they are Sanitary Claws.
Or not.
Do you mean to say: there ain't no Sanitary Claws?
I'm shattered!
Not unexpected, since you were thoroughly cracked....
I should have used stronger encryption.
My crypts are too weak.
You bought them from B. Hinn Enterpyzes.
And all it cost me was my life savings, and my first born into
slavery!
A bargain.
And my lumbago got a little bit better for a short while.
It's a miracle!
All that for a ten minute respite. CHEEP!
It hurts even more now, but Benny says that it is because I do not
believe enough in giving all my worldly goods to the Lord.
(Who looks suspiciously like Mr. Hinn's accountant.)
He says if I have run out of money and first-borns, I can opt for
unending slavery in the Hinn mines.
To Hinn With Love......
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
