Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1465463 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
MageGrayWolf could you just summarize your huge paragraphs into a nice sweet to the point paragraph?
i'm getting lost... what is the discussion about now? religion? abortion? or sentience? and what do number have to do w/ anything?
Yes, Yes (thought I would rather that get it's own topic given the complexity of the issue), and Yes. The numbers thing was just something some Christian said about mathematics leading us to hell. It's not far off from how a good number view science.
MageGrayWolf could you just summarize your huge paragraphs into a nice sweet to the point paragraph?
Already done on page 180.
Each one of these combinations constituting a mind are the result of neural processes. This would mean a consciousness is various relationships in which these neural processes interact with the world.
It's neurobiology, so it's kinda heady but
link 1
Link 2
Wow... verrrrrrrrry interesting. I read the first one and a LOT of the second one. Very cool, and very cool results. It'd be better to have used a person (if the test was ethical) rather than a monkey, because people can actually claim that they're conscious, but whatever. It still doesn't get down to the base level, but that's because it's an experimental top-down approach. They have some very cool hypotheses, though, and I can't wait for more results
"Thought" is very much an electrochemical reaction, which we have monitored a recorded.
Thought correlates with brain activity. Does not mean thought stems from it; thought could just influence it.
"Perception" again this is just the information gathered from our senses, all of that is just signals read in the brain.
Or so you claim. Any reasoning? Perception is a very different term from, say, sensory electrical impulses, so I'm gonna say no.
"Memory" again like thought we have monitored and recorded this electrochemical function.
Some memory. I personally believe in two types of memory: Memory of facts, and memory of experience. Memory of facts constitutes all of our knowledge. Memory of experience is how I can satisfactorily say that the Universe wasn't made 10 minutes ago (with brain memories intact), because I remember experiencing things before that.
"Emotion", every one we have is just our brain reacting to chemical stimuli. While specific may not be fully understood we do know at least this much.
"While specific may not be fully understood we do know at least this much." -- No, we don't actually. Any psychologist, I'm sure, would say it's largely mysterious. That Crick and Koch document was certainly leaning that way.
Again: pleasure, rage, euphoria, and depression are emotions that I believe do stem from physiology. I just also believe that true happiness and true sorrow stem from elsewhere.
"Will", this one is a bit more abstract though basically this is just the desires of a person put into action. So in some sense this could be considered a combination of thought and emotion.
So, also not necessarily physiological? Okay.
"Imagination", all just mental images. In fact monitoring of the brain has found the same areas are triggered with imagination as they are with memory, indicating a strong link between the two.
Well, with the memory of facts hypothesis, it'd make sense that our abstract imaginary process would draw on what we know to create new things.
It's a stretch because we have no indication of this other world existing. Every aspect of the way our brains function so far indicates purely physical reactions. Really your ethereal world explanation is basically the fallacy known as God of the gaps argument "we don't understand X so God did it".
I disagree. Like I've said countless times, I believe sentience can't exist as a manifestation of an immutably-governed universe.
Didn't say anything about it being random, I said they do or at least appear to break the laws of physics. Black holes actually or one of the few macroscopic things in the universe that operate on quantum physics.
But, they don't. Their actions are repeatable I'm sure. Get a large enough amount of mass, and it'll make a black hole every time. Same with quantum physics, if you replicate the initial conditions. These suggest that our knowledge is incomplete, but not that the Universe's rules can change.
No it's partly because an ethereal plain is acting on these stars allowing these Dwarf galaxies to exist. The scientists just think it's a misunderstanding of physics because they don't obey physics. Maybe what your saying might play part but it also requires an ethereal world for it to happen as well.
Har har. Great analogy, because physical planets moving is a purely abstract concept, and because we have a very limited scientific understanding of this particular field of study...
[quote] HOW THE HECK CAN SENTIENCE EXIST IN A PURELY PHYSICAL FORM?
Quite easily.
sentience;
1: a sentient quality or state
2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought [/quote]
Umm.. hate to break it to you, but that is abstract. It has no meaning without a sentience interpreting it. Nice job dodging the question tho >_<
There are important aspects of those processes we don't fully understand or have yet to be able to artificially replicate.
Well at least you finally stated that you don't understand the way some chemicals and electrons can create a sentient being. I've been asking and asking...
i'm getting lost... what is the discussion about now? religion? abortion? or sentience? and what do number have to do w/ anything?
Now, mostly sentience. Some abortion. A little bit about Catholicism, and Numbers was a random (albeit relevant) factoid regarding religion.
There is no need for god to exist therefore the ground state of being is that he does not exist.Null hypothesis assertion fail.
Look, if you go to hell for not being a christian then it doesn't deserve to be called good and therefore god should not deserve to be called god. If it is on how good a person you are then why be christian. This is logical reasoning.Quote Jesus on this. If no quote, then you can't read. Actually a Christian must NOT say someone will go to Hell for sure, anything can happen in between this said and him die. So, this is either an atheistic speculation about Christianity, or an underinformed Christian.
No, a human is not a person until they have memories and experiences which give them a personality.So, then, is it legal to kill humans? Also, who the hell are YOU to decide who is to be killed?
And scientists can make babies in test tubes so by your logic they are killing babies by not making them.Yes and no, they are making embryos then killing them. So they first make a ton of babies, choose some and kill the rest into stem cells or for whatever other reason.
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those whoFail. And Source. In short, using modern translation and applying it to what was said in 300AD is wrong due to language changes.
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine
man in the bonds of Hell."
St. Augustine, one of the foremost theologians of the catholic faith.
Again this post really should be longer to address the other points brought up but I just don't have the energy to do so at this time.MGW, please do reply on the other issues of 1799th post (180th page). I believe you just forgot, so I remind you of your words.
Don't bring this up please, it's moot. Your argument can still be valid without it, so don't throw in stuff that doesn't add. This is like saying murder is okay b/c people die of natural causes anyway.Respect
I disagree. Like I've said countless times, I believe sentience can't exist as a manifestation of an immutably-governed universe.
People believe in god but that doesn'ty make it true
Null hypothesis assertion fail.
Why? The universe does not require god so let us assume he does not exist. For him to be accepted as likely to exist he must have a eason to exist. Please provide a reason.
So, then, is it legal to kill humans? Also, who the hell are YOU to decide who is to be killed?
Potential humans. And it is the mothers choice as she's the one who has to carry it for 9 months.
Just because you don't understand them doesn't make them unknown.Do you have a complete understanding of the main principle of quantum determination?
Quite easily.You're leaving the logical plane of debate and entering the philosophical plane. But you require us to remain within logical boundaries of facts and consequences. Bad move.
sentience;
1: a sentient quality or state
2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
Why? The universe does not require god so let us assume he does not exist.Going back to creation of universe. Tell me please, how did the laws of physics appear as they are now, why are there no stable muons for example?
Potential humans. And it is the mothers choice as she's the one who has to carry it for 9 months.Already humans. They have their own unique DNA set at the very least, they have their own body, be it of only one cell at first, and they already have a potential to evolve into a scientist. So, who are you to decide whose potential is to be realized and whose is not? Also, who the hell is a mother in case of IVF?
It's neurobiology, so it's kinda heady butRead first paragraph from Link 1, which already states that consciousness is not entirely physiological. Isn't it enough?
link 1
Link 2
should we revive the old abortion thread, create a new one, or continue here? ...i had a few more things I'd wanted to say in the last one... but it was my first appearence in the wepr.. and I've always had somewhat of a phobia of being scrutinized... that being said... mage, you and the rest basically scurred me off for a long story short summary of it(if you guys even remember that...).... and as I got used to the dynamic of the being picked apart from every direction way of the wepr it lessened my "hobia" as it were and I contributed more. hmmmmm..... wat do?
I'd like you to give me examples where an animal goes contrary with its instincts, as we humans are capable to do that. And that animal should not be influenced with anything that interferes with neural activity, since right now humans can make rats go against fear by suppressing certain brain centers and/or neurohormones.
I had a cat that knew enough not to attack my pet rat when it would escape. I've see a snake become friends with a mouse, that was meant to be food. Dogs can be trained not to lick, in fact it's a requirement in professional dog shows.
But I said I could give examples of animals demonstrating free will, the ability to consciously make choices.
This sure looks like a choice of free will to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvnQwJbF8w
The whole snake thing was a bit like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYcHU8xdj5Q
If I had a good enough camera I could film my bird's personal choice in food. (he doesn't like bananas)
Thought correlates with brain activity. Does not mean thought stems from it; thought could just influence it.
It seems your completely denying the mechanics of how the brain works here.
Or so you claim. Any reasoning? Perception is a very different term from, say, sensory electrical impulses, so I'm gonna say no.
What's the difference? I put my finger on a key on my keyboard I can feel the key, that's just an electrical impulse in my nervous system being interpreted in my brain. That touch is among the other senses I use (all of which are just signals from my sensory organs being interpreted in my brain) to show me that key is there, makes up my perception of the key.
Some memory. I personally believe in two types of memory: Memory of facts, and memory of experience. Memory of facts constitutes all of our knowledge. Memory of experience is how I can satisfactorily say that the Universe wasn't made 10 minutes ago (with brain memories intact), because I remember experiencing things before that.
There is possibly a difference with which parts of the brain are more active to retrieve information gathered one way verses another, but I don't really see your point here.
Again: pleasure, rage, euphoria, and depression are emotions that I believe do stem from physiology. I just also believe that true happiness and true sorrow stem from elsewhere.
Despite the fact we have measurable physical effects that could just as easily go towards explaining what is causing these reactions?
I disagree. Like I've said countless times, I believe sentience can't exist as a manifestation of an immutably-governed universe.
So you've said. I don't think your correct. I find it rather silly to jump to the conclusion that it's because of magic.
But, they don't. Their actions are repeatable I'm sure. Get a large enough amount of mass, and it'll make a black hole every time. Same with quantum physics, if you replicate the initial conditions.
I did say "at least appear to" And it seems your misunderstanding what I'm saying about black holes, it's not in there formations but in their behavior that things get wonky.
These suggest that our knowledge is incomplete, but not that the Universe's rules can change.
Har har. Great analogy, because physical planets moving is a purely abstract concept, and because we have a very limited scientific understanding of this particular field of study...
That's my point, just because it seems like it's not following the rules doesn't mean it isn't.
Umm.. hate to break it to you, but that is abstract. It has no meaning without a sentience interpreting it. Nice job dodging the question tho >_<
It wasn't a dodge, definition two clearly relies on physical functions of the brain, which you can't seem to even accept that much.
Well at least you finally stated that you don't understand the way some chemicals and electrons can create a sentient being. I've been asking and asking...
I don't recall denying that at any point. I do recall saying we shouldn't fill our gaps in our knowledge with "God did it" or in your case perhaps "magic land did it".
It seems your completely denying the mechanics of how the brain works here.Given E1337's links, it's you who try to display suggestions as facts.
But I said I could give examples of animals demonstrating free will, the ability to consciously make choices.Will look from home. And demonstrating isn't enough, I was asking examples where an animal goes contrary to instincts without it being trained. I have read and witnessed examples of cat getting along wit a dog, or even a cat with an owl - but they were raised together, and treat each other as members of same flock/herd/group. A snake getting along with a mouse - that snake could be full of food. A cat not attacking the rat - raised factor applies, rats live long enough to see a kitten grow into an adult cat, and they will get along. A dog trained - yep, a dog could be trained into great degree of behavior, and it's possible they do have consciousness, but then a dog is an animal which arguably possesses a soul. I was asking about primal instincts like fear, self-preservation, procrastination, and even the best trained dog can't last long against hte last one.
This sure looks like a choice of free will to me.
And you haven't yet answered my post on 180th page, except for one nitpick.
^^From what I read before getting bored was that there was a weird light which someone said looked like the virgin mary and through the power of suggestion people all saw little things that said mary to them even though they had never seen what the real mary would have looked like which is quite different to how she is portrayed now. It is the same for Jesus. And the whole things could've been a projection or something anyway.
Going back to creation of universe. Tell me please, how did the laws of physics appear as they are now, why are there no stable muons for example?
Tell me please how did god come to exist. I find it far more likely that a big bang was created by sub atomic particles or something like that than a cosmic jewish zombie who is actually his own father juts came into being and said let there be light.
Already humans. They have their own unique DNA set at the very least, they have their own body, be it of only one cell at first, and they already have a potential to evolve into a scientist. So, who are you to decide whose potential is to be realized and whose is not? Also, who the hell is a mother in case of IVF?
Well if you have IVF you're not going to want an abortion are you now. And generally it is considered to be the genetic mother. You know the person whose egg it is that the baby grows up in. And a sperm and an egg have the potential to grow into a scientist but god kills billions upon trillions of those all the time. Why does god have the right to take life if we don't. And again by abstaining you are killing potential scientists. Who are you to decide whose potential is to be realized and whose is not. And you keep refering to "me". It is the mothers choice as she is the one who has to carry around an unwanted baby for 9 months, possible lose her job and have to go through giving birth all for sa baby whom she doesn't want. And she could always go to another country where they have logic and rationality and are pro-choice. As in not a country where stupid superstitious people in funny hats somehow have power for some reason.
But I said I could give examples of animals demonstrating free will, the ability to consciously make choices.
This sure looks like a choice of free will to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvnQwJbF8w
No this looks like an example of a social giving in to the instinct to protect its offspring. Not a good example.
Will look from home. And demonstrating isn't enough, I was asking examples where an animal goes contrary to instincts without it being trained. I have read and witnessed examples of cat getting along wit a dog, or even a cat with an owl - but they were raised together, and treat each other as members of same flock/herd/group. A snake getting along with a mouse - that snake could be full of food. A cat not attacking the rat - raised factor applies, rats live long enough to see a kitten grow into an adult cat, and they will get along. A dog trained - yep, a dog could be trained into great degree of behavior, and it's possible they do have consciousness, but then a dog is an animal which arguably possesses a soul. I was asking about primal instincts like fear, self-preservation, procrastination, and even the best trained dog can't last long against hte last one.
I can't be bothered to find a video but dogs can show extreme loyalty to their master even in dangerous situations and it is a basic instincts for dogs to chase cats or snakes to eat mice since at one point they would be hungry again. And these animals all have developed enough senses to tell what species the other ones are.
A snake getting along with a mouse - that snake could be full of food.
No he wasn't, with the one I had we ended up having to get another mouse which he immediately ate.
A cat not attacking the rat - raised factor applies, rats live long enough to see a kitten grow into an adult cat, and they will get along.
Had the cat for years before I got the rat.
A dog trained - yep, a dog could be trained into great degree of behavior, and it's possible they do have consciousness, but then a dog is an animal which arguably possesses a soul.
Sounds like a cop out to me.
and even the best trained dog can't last long against hte last one.
Neither can most humans.
No this looks like an example of a social giving in to the instinct to protect its offspring. Not a good example.
Not the adults, the child who did the pushing.
should we revive the old abortion thread, create a new one, or continue here?
If you would revive it and link it here, I'd gladly continue there
'till then:
[quote]I disagree. Like I've said countless times, I believe sentience can't exist as a manifestation of an immutably-governed universe.
People believe in god but that doesn'ty make it true[/quote]
Oh, I forgot... In a discussion of speculation and personal thoughts, "I believe" should NEVER precede an argument; I should just state everything as fact! Ya...
And I have provided my evidence, which you personally haven't refuted yet. I just figured repeating it for the 5th time would be redundant.
It is the mother's choice as she is the one who has to carry around an unwanted baby for 9 months, possible lose her job and have to go through giving birth all for sa baby whom she doesn't want.
If you're just going to throw the "mother's burden" argument out there, as if it counters our arguments, then it should hold as a reliable argument even if we're correct about everything else... otherwise it'd assume that you're correct and not build on your position against us at all.
So, we (Vesper and I) think that the fetus is a life. Therefore, you're saying that a person's right to not be burdened for 9 months outweighs another person's right to live... that makes no sense, so that argument is kaput.
And a sperm and an egg have the potential to grow into a scientist but god kills billions upon trillions of those all the time.
A sperm has no chance to become a human. Neither does an egg. Not until they combine is the creation, a fertilized egg, a physical being that is (or, according to you, will become) a human.
And she could always go to another country where they have logic and rationality and are pro-choice. As in not a country where stupid superstitious people in funny hats somehow have power for some reason.
Thanks for the random opposite glorifying and slander, really great argument style. It really builds your position to imply we're not logical and rational and to outright state that we're dumb, superstitious, and dogmatic.
Just so you know, I don't associate myself with any church, nor am I superstitious, nor am I stupid. But, by all means, keep resorting to stupid arguments, they tarnish your valid points and kill your credibility.
Final word in this post:
If, as you believe (or, as I assume you believe... I can't remember whether you've posted on this issue, but it seems you're on this side), consciousness is merely the byproduct of a mechanical brain that is learning, then wouldn't a brain-driven moving fetus be learning and be conscious? On average, that's at nine weeks into development. For three months after that, that creature can legally be killed. Think about that.
Now, on to sentience, the main topic of this thread... Oh, wait, "Christianity FTW"... Aw, whatever, sentience is more interesting:
It seems your completely denying the mechanics of how the brain works here.
No, just extrapolating from what I know. Though I am denying YOUR ideas of the mechanics of how the brain works.
[quote] Or so you claim. Any reasoning? Perception is a very different term from, say, sensory electrical impulses, so I'm gonna say no.
What's the difference? I put my finger on a key on my keyboard I can feel the key, that's just an electrical impulse in my nervous system being interpreted in my brain. That touch is among the other senses I use (all of which are just signals from my sensory organs being interpreted in my brain) to show me that key is there, makes up my perception of the key.[/quote]
The difference is philosophical. To you, that electrical signal is a perception. To me, the electrical signal alerts your consciousness which perceives it. All your evidence says for certain is that there is an electrical signal and a perception that correlate with each other; So, your evidence supports both.
There is possibly a difference with which parts of the brain are more active to retrieve information gathered one way verses another, but I don't really see your point here.
My point is that it is conceivable that not all memory is physical.
Despite the fact we have measurable physical effects that could just as easily go towards explaining what is causing these reactions?
Explain, please. Are you saying we have made a drug that makes people truly happy?
[quote] I disagree. Like I've said countless times, I believe sentience can't exist as a manifestation of an immutably-governed universe.
So you've said. I don't think your correct. I find it rather silly to jump to the conclusion that it's because of magic.[/quote]
Some say silly... others say visionary! No, jk, ignore that please. Well, it's silly to you, but I find it the most plausible explanation based off of what I know.
That's my point, just because it seems like it's not following the rules doesn't mean it isn't.
But in a case where a concept can't coexist with "following the rules", then that means it doesn't.
I don't recall denying that at any point. I do recall saying we shouldn't fill our gaps in our knowledge with "God did it" or in your case perhaps "magic land did it".
Well, I'm sorry, but you're believing in something without even providing a hypothesis as to how it works. At least my theory has some posit as to the dynamics and effects that cause it.
Neither can most humans.
BA-ZING!!! LOL that was a great response :P
[quote] Don't bring this up please, it's moot. Your argument can still be valid without it, so don't throw in stuff that doesn't add. This is like saying murder is okay b/c people die of natural causes anyway.
Respect [/quote]
Thank you Again, I continue to be impressed by your reasoning ability. I don't agree with everything you believe, but your arguments are articulate and actually make sense
Tho you never, as far as I read, adressed this:
First person is you, second is me:
[quote] So far I have seen that His words are different: "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40, and more. He did only say Hell about evildoers. If you have objections, I'd like you cite or link a verse that you object. The Gospel is pretty big to do a search on the fly.
It took some searching, but I sort-of found one: Beginning of Matthew 22. It's a metaphor, God's kingdom is like a banquet. He first invited the good, but they didn't come. He then invited everyone, and some still ignored (non-Christians) and others (sinners) did worse and killed the kings [king's] servants who were telling of the inviting. He murdered them (the sinners; ie. sent them to Hell) and then invited everyone else again.
Everyone came "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes [ie. had not acknowledge God's invitation... again, nonbelievers]. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are invited, but few are chosen."
To me, this seems to state that there is a horrible fate awaiting nonbelievers, and that just seems wrong :/[/quote]
I find it far more likely that a big bang was created by sub atomic particles or something like that than a cosmic jewish zombie who is actually his own father juts came into being and said let there be light.
Did I miss something?
Zombie?
You must be logged in to post a reply!