Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism

Did I miss something?
Zombie?

Jesus :P

Anyways

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.

From what i've read, you simply think that sentience stems from outside our body because we have not yet "EXACTLY" found what "EXACTLY" causes it in our bodies, even though we have bits and pieces. Sounds to me to be pretty much equivilant to just believing in some random bit of magic.

Jesus :P

Thanks for the clarification.

No, just extrapolating from what I know. Though I am denying YOUR ideas of the mechanics of how the brain works.

What is brain activity to you if not the mechanics of thought processes? And there are areas you've extrapolated from that isn't knowledge but belief.

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.

Perception is just one part of what makes consciousness, consciousness. And really I find philosophical arguments on the mechanics of it to be completely useless and convoluted.

My point is that it is conceivable that not all memory is physical.

It's conceivable that aether is responsible for gravity, that doesn't make it very realistic.

Explain, please. Are you saying we have made a drug that makes people truly happy?

Due to a somewhat ambiguous definition I can't answer that. But what we can do is take someone who is feeling happy look at what's going on in their head, see certain chemicals at elevated levels. This allows us to conclude that the feeling they have has connections to those elevated chemical reactions going on in the brain. What we have never found is some ethereal connection beaming this into our heads, or however you think it gets there.

Well, it's silly to you, but I find it the most plausible explanation based off of what I know.

What we know is there are electrochemical reactions in the brain. What you think is that those functions can't do what we are observing the brain do. So instead of saying "maybe the physics does allow for this, and I just don't know how" or "maybe there is a different set of physics at work we don't understand" (the second being a bit more of a stretch, though the brain operating on the principles of quantum mechanics has been proposed) you jump to the conclusion that it's magic. Sorry but magic land is not a plausible explanation.

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.

Observation, there are electrochemical reactions in the brain. Observation, voluntary conscious actions appear to start at a subconscious level. Hypothesis, the observed dynamics produced are the result of these measured electrochemical reactions in a highly interconnected, specialized nervous system.

You don't have a theory. What you propose requires an unobservable connection, magic (unproven to exist and would require loads of explaining in itself) and un-agreed upon dynamics.

Jesus :P

There were other zombies as well that showed up in that story.

@snake, WTF. That is a stupid poster as it doesn't make sense. I will respond with this

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.

But you know that since you are wrong because an embryo is not sentient then my argument is not kaput since it just adds to my other arguments that an embryo is a potential human. Which you have not yet refuted

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.

Look, if you kill the sperm that would've reached the egg then you hav killed a potential scientist. If either of these die the baby couldn't not exist so you have just killed a potential human.

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.

Well in places where abortion is banned a lot more people are pro choice not counting the religious sector. I didn't say they are all religious.

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.

No. Have you ever heard someone say that they remember being in the womb? No, because an embryo is not a person at that point. Maybe oncde it is born it can start gaining memories and start out on the road to sentience but not yet.

Explain, please. Are you saying we have made a drug that makes people truly happy?

No just happy in general

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.

Look, there is no need for an ethereal plane. No way it could have been amde. There is no proof for it.

E1337, your second link didn't work for me. Also...

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]

I'm tired, but is it just me who thinks these fractions don't add up well? Or am I just being a moron atm and not realizing that they are giving multiple answers..

though they had never seen what the real mary would have looked like which is quite different to how she is portrayed now.

The very first healing out of many reported wrecks this apart.

Tell me please how did god come to exist.

This means no answer. Therefore, God exists. And if so, we have to accept as true His words about Him existing for all eternity, so He didn't "come to exist", He just is, and period.

Well if you have IVF you're not going to want an abortion are you now.

You should know that in case of IVF more than one embryo is implanted, and at some period the "excess ones" get killed within the womb. So, abortion takes place in case of IVF.

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.

Only their combination forms a life, and only this new life is capable of growing into a scientist. Otherwise you are guilty with mass murder :P And I'm not speaking about gays in this case, who do this "mass murder" repeatedly.

Why does god have the right to take life if we don't.

God can make life, so God can take life. God alone can make life, while no one human alone can make life.

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.

About dogs - I agree, they can, however they cannot predict the outcome of their courage, say if they offend an armed human. They just don't know what's a rifle. Still, a good example, but here the principle of training also applies. About senses - they also differ from creature to creature, they have some "friend or foe" recognizing system, so in case of snake and mice, one mouse was marked as "friend" - and I'm unsure if this happened without human intervention, and the other was unmarked and classified as food. Still, this has to be considered further.

Had the cat for years before I got the rat.

Okay, so did the cat immediately stop turning attention to eat the rat, or you had to separate them for the first time? Even if yes, this cat has a human to obey commands, so direct order "don't eat this rat" is enough to suppress instincts in a cat.

Neither can most humans.

We can learn this by ourselves, and we have laws. And we have God's commandments - you can deny them being applied to you of course, I cannot.

To me, this seems to state that there is a horrible fate awaiting nonbelievers, and that just seems wrong

Hmm, Programpro, I have probably missed that part of your post, sorry. "He noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes" - hmmm. Since this feast is a representation of Heaven, and is therefore for souls, the only "garments" a soul can be dressed is good deeds. Apostle Paul warned about believing but not doind good, saying that a faith is dead without good deeds. This one seems to be not an unbeliever, but an unworthy believer who did nothing to his neighbors but said a yes to God. God said "Since you did nothing good, your place is not with those that did good" and threw that kid away. Still I have to talk about this with our priests, since this man's story reveals my flaw in understanding the word of God.

About those that didn't come, there's another question. God calls for the feast, it's a call of grace directed to everyone, but due to humans' fault it might not reach some people in time. By this call God manifests Himself and says "Come to Me into eternal glory". Now, people have to either accept the call or reject it, but rejection makes them outside the glory of God, which will lead to them be outside the gates of God's Kingdom, which is Hell if the person already died. While a person is still alive, he can respond to God's calling since He doesn't stop trying to display His love to that person, so he will finally turn to Him and wish for that glory he was invited. Basically, we believe that this is what happens at the end of time for everyone, that at least at the verge of one's death God makes such a manifestational call. There are more inferior calls while a person is alive, and what I'm trying to profess here is an attempt of such a call - I don't know why I'm still in this debate, this might be a reason, God wanting me to call all of you to His feast. So yes, an apostate, the one who rejects every such call from God and dies in this state, remains willfully outside God's kingdom. Several additional comtemplations over this topic could be found over here, I use this site to refer to Gospels in English.

Vesper, Blogspot is not a valid source. You are using failsauce of the highest order.

Spoiling the source without ever reading it is an utter fail. And I gave you another source alongside. Therefore, you are wrong and weaseling out of this by illegal arguments.

Look, if you kill the sperm that would've reached the egg then you hav killed a potential scientist.

A what-if-false argument, therefore invalid.

Have you ever heard someone say that they remember being in the womb? No, because an embryo is not a person at that point.

Yes, I have heard of one experiment of such nature, when a person who has trouble finishing any work was put into hypnosis in attempt to discover what influenced this calamity. He was constantly asked "What do you see" and "what do you hear". At one point he answered "I see nothing at all" and "I hear 'You will never finish'". This request was repeated with same answer, and the investigator concluded that at this time the patient was in his mother's womb. Though I don't believe this fully, this can be the answer you seek.

Look, there is no need for an ethereal plane. No way it could have been amde. There is no proof for it.

Look at my last link with a long name. Any scientific explanations of this?

This means no answer. Therefore, God exists.

What?!

God can make life, so God can take life. God alone can make life, while no one human alone can make life.

With enough time and the right equipment yes a human can.

so in case of snake and mice, one mouse was marked as "friend" - and I'm unsure if this happened without human intervention

The human intervention consisted of "Eat him, he's right there!", "Maybe he isn't hungry right now, he will eat when he get's hungry.", "Oh great now we have two mouths to feed."

Okay, so did the cat immediately stop turning attention to eat the rat, or you had to separate them for the first time? Even if yes, this cat has a human to obey commands, so direct order "don't eat this rat" is enough to suppress instincts in a cat.

A CAT has a human to obey commands? I take it you haven't had to many cats in your life.

We can learn this by ourselves, and we have laws. And we have God's commandments - you can deny them being applied to you of course, I cannot.

That was pretty much a lot of nothing.

Well, I'm sorry, but you're believing in something without even providing a hypothesis as to how it works.

The Dynamic Core Hypothesis
"A group of neurons can contribute directly to conscious experience only if it is part of a distributed functional cluster which, though re-entrant interactions in the thalamocortical system, achieves high integration in hundreds of milliseconds." - As explained by Dr. Gerald Edelman, Nobel Prize winner in Medicine.

Consciousness & Neurophilosophy (Gerald Edelman)

"Experimental findings and theoretical insights of the past 25 years places the brain firmly into the conceptual framework of nonlinear dynamics, operating at the brink of criticality, which is achieved and maintained by self-organization. It is here the basis for proposing that the application of the twin concepts of scaling and universality of the theory of non-equilibrium phase transitions can serve as an informative approach for elucidating the nature of underlying neural-mechanisms, with emphasis on the dynamics of recursively reentrant activity flow in intracortical and cortico-subcortical neuronal loops." -Werner G (PubMed)

"The thalamus has multiple functions. It is generally believed to act as a relay between a variety of subcortical areas and the cerebral cortex. In particular, every sensory system (with the exception of the olfactory system) includes a thalamic nucleus that receives sensory signals and sends them to the associated primary cortical area. For the visual system, for example, inputs from the retina are sent to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, which in turn projects to the primary visual cortex (area V1) in the occipital lobe. The thalamus is believed to both process sensory information as well as relaying itâ"each of the primary sensory relay areas receives strong "back projections" from the cerebral cortex. Similarly the medial geniculate nucleus acts as a key auditory relay between the inferior colliculus of the midbrain and the primary auditory cortex, and the ventral posterior nucleus is a key somatosensory relay, which sends touch and proprioceptive information to the primary somatosensory cortex.

The thalamus also plays an important role in regulating states of sleep and wakefulness. Thalamic nuclei have strong reciprocal connections with the cerebral cortex, forming thalamo-cortico-thalamic circuits that are believed to be involved with consciousness. The thalamus plays a major role in regulating arousal, the level of awareness, and activity. Damage to the thalamus can lead to permanent coma." -wiki

As for if a fetus is conscious at 12 weeks of development.

"As the brain develops, fetal movement increasingly comes under
the control of the brain - first manifested (from 17-18 weeks) in the suppression of the automatic reflex actions, but from 6 months on, activity increases again." -PARLIAMENTARY
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Fetal Awareness

This means no answer. Therefore, God exists.

What?!

Surprise, huh? You haven't answered my post on 180th page. I ask one last time before asserting your fail opposing any of the statements there.

If you are prolife, then you must also be for funding the welfare system, unemployment, child care, education, the foster care system, etc

Unemployment? This comes from your personal laziness and unwillingness to take a dirty job. Foster care? Same, but for the mother. Child care? Yes I am for this. Welfare system? What, pensions? Yes of course. Education? Yes. And don't put all the eggs in one basket, since the reasoning behind each and every organization existing is different.

Surprise, huh? You haven't answered my post on 180th page. I ask one last time before asserting your fail opposing any of the statements there.

What as you make no frickin sense. I've replied to several points you've made on that page, which one do you want me to reply to specifically?

oh I'm sorry, was heavily tracked aside with other dialogues. Yes, I was asking about animals and free will, and you provided a constructive response. Sorry again.

"Surprise" was addressed at qwerty1011, since the question of why the laws of physics are like what we observe is still open and unanswered.

The human intervention consisted of "Eat him, he's right there!", "Maybe he isn't hungry right now, he will eat when he get's hungry.", "Oh great now we have two mouths to feed."

Interesting, you know. For me it's enough to accept that that snake overcome the urge to eat that mouse, or probably that that mouse smelled bad. About cat obeying human's orders - they do sometimes, but yes I don't have a cat and I only observe them by other people's evidence and being a guest to those who have a cat. They really differ in characters, sometimes they do something of some sort of jealousy, I recall a story when a male cat peed into the UPS presumably to make the owner turn his attention to the cat, but got killed by a battery blast - sure enough that cat never knew what will happen, but had already learned that peeing into some stuff will change the behavior of owner. Though it unawaringly gets itself into an infinite escalation of violence loop, since its owner wasn't an easy pal and reported to offer a kick to the cat in response of it spoiling stuff.

The only insufficiency of these examples is that dogs in their current forms and cats are not social animals, and are constantly being shaped in behavior by neighboring humans. I was asking whether an animal out of a herd would overcome instincts and do contrary to self-preservation without being say terminally sick. This evidence IMO is harder to provide than demonstration of will actions of domestic animals. Still these are good examples of animals having a will. I'm thinking whether this will is free and whether it's accompanied by any form of consciousness.

The very first healing out of many reported wrecks this apart.

No it is logic. The most common representation of mary is woman with aple skin and dark hair in white. She would have had a lot darker skin and would probably have worn different clothes and been of a different physique

This means no answer. Therefore, God exists. And if so, we have to accept as true His words about Him existing for all eternity, so He didn't "come to exist", He just is, and period.

Look, the big bang has evidence, go does not. And no we do not have to accept what a stupid goatherder said a few thousands years ago as true as Hinduism is also just as valid. And I was making the point that you try to discredit us by saying how did it all begin but your answer is logically impossible as if god was here for infinity then when he did something he ended infinity which is impossible.

You should know that in case of IVF more than one embryo is implanted, and at some period the "excess ones" get killed within the womb. So, abortion takes place in case of IVF.

Yeah but it is "the will of god". And god kills loads of eggs every month and kills lots of babies and even people yet that seems to be perfectly OK.

Only their combination forms a life, and only this new life is capable of growing into a scientist. Otherwise you are guilty with mass murder :P And I'm not speaking about gays in this case, who do this "mass murder" repeatedly.

But they are as much a potential human as an embryo as if you kill one when they were fated to meet you have killed a scientist. And my point is that killing an embryo is no more murder than killing a sperm.

God can make life, so God can take life. God alone can make life, while no one human alone can make life.

No. 2 Humans can make life with no holy assistance. So can a scientist with a test tube. God can't or at least has never shown that he can.

We can learn this by ourselves, and we have laws. And we have God's commandments - you can deny them being applied to you of course, I cannot.

Yeah though shall not kill. And then a few books later joshua is ordered to commit genocide. What is the pooint of rules if god does not follow them

A what-if-false argument, therefore invalid.

Yeah, about as invalid as the hypothesis that there is a cosmic jewish zombie who is actually his own father who you have to telepathically tell you love so he can remove an evil force from your soul that was there ever since a crazy rib woman ate a magic apple because a talking snake told here to. And if when you had sex you'd have made a scientist then by abstaining you killed the scientist.

Yes, I have heard of one experiment of such nature, when a person who has trouble finishing any work was put into hypnosis in attempt to discover what influenced this calamity. He was constantly asked "What do you see" and "what do you hear". At one point he answered "I see nothing at all" and "I hear 'You will never finish'". This request was repeated with same answer, and the investigator concluded that at this time the patient was in his mother's womb. Though I don't believe this fully, this can be the answer you seek.

Wow, I have never heard a story that is so unlikely and cou;ld so easily be made up. And it is pretty easy to tell what it would be like in the mothers womb

Surprise, huh? You haven't answered my post on 180th page. I ask one last time before asserting your fail opposing any of the statements there.

It is a long post. Just quote the stupid question rather than expecting us to know which one

Interesting, you know. For me it's enough to accept that that snake overcome the urge to eat that mouse, or probably that that mouse smelled bad. About cat obeying human's orders - they do sometimes, but yes I don't have a cat and I only observe them by other people's evidence and being a guest to those who have a cat. They really differ in characters, sometimes they do something of some sort of jealousy, I recall a story when a male cat peed into the UPS presumably to make the owner turn his attention to the cat, but got killed by a battery blast - sure enough that cat never knew what will happen, but had already learned that peeing into some stuff will change the behavior of owner. Though it unawaringly gets itself into an infinite escalation of violence loop, since its owner wasn't an easy pal and reported to offer a kick to the cat in response of it spoiling stuff.

This is called the making up random circumstances and saying this is what happened. I guess that if you can believe in god that passes as logic.

The only insufficiency of these examples is that dogs in their current forms and cats are not social animals, and are constantly being shaped in behavior by neighboring humans.

Dogs are social animals, and cats actually are the only animal to have domesticated it self.

The only insufficiency of these examples is that dogs in their current forms and cats are not social animals, and are constantly being shaped in behavior by neighboring humans.

Dogs are social animals, and cats actually are the only animal to have domesticated it self.

Also, cats have never been selected for a special behaviour, in contrary to dogs. Cat selection by humans only targets the look.

abortion *****s somebody sent me here and christians r gay jkjkjk

Sigh well see if I try to help you not get banned again...

btw kasic is a bummbling retard

You're just mad that I called you on your spamming and posting in the wrong threads for stuff.