Pointing out there is no evidence of X NOT existing does not make X plausible or possible?
Nope.
Do you think extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable dragons or gravity regulating pixies or alien abductions are plausible or possible? I'm guessing you don't. Yet, there is no evidence against them.
Once again, the plausibility / possibility of a claim isn't assessed by the lack of evidence
against them, but by the existance of the evidence FOR them.
You don't have any real power in the universe so your ideas don't matter. Whether you believe or know something is insignificant to the universe.
Which isn't relevant at all to the point being discussed.
We have zero reason to think that non-material beings exist?
Indeed. There is zero evidence for such, thus we have no reason to believe or think they exist.
The human collective.
You don't speak for humanity
Off course I can, in this context.
No human has valid evidence for the existance of non-material beings.
Not me, not you, not the pope or anyone else.
or the universe and you don't know even half as much as you think you do.
Sure, there's quite a lot that I don't know.
Doesn't matter. What matters to the point, is that such evidence does not exist.
You know that emotions are a function of a material brain? They're not
If emotions are not functions of a material brain, then what are they and what is your evidence in support of that?
The dictionary definition of love discusses the emotion itself and not the brain where it originates?
Yes.
So a brain scan is not evidence of anything except thought?
And emotions. And through experiment and research, neurologists figure out which part of the brain is responsible for what. The scan posted, shows the parts responsible for love.
How the Brain Processes Emotions
These terms, material underpinnings, and neurological underpinnings, you invented them yourself?
No.
My claims fall in the category of undetectable dragons and gravity regulating pixies?
Well, yes. They have the same evidence in support of them (none) and you insist that your claims not being disproven means that they are plausible. Undetectable dragons can't be disproven either.
The undetectable dragons are only undetectable by you and the gravity regulating pixies are actually Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers.
Que?
How have I determined that you are unable to understand something? In order to truly understand something that is emotional you have to be able to feel that emotion.
So you just determined that I'm unable to love?
To you love is a brain scan.
No. To me love is an emotion. Like hate, anger, happyness, depression, jealousy, etc.
That they occur in the brain, is just the explanation thereof. It doesn't take away its value or reality.
We don't have evidence for angels or ghosts? No, you don't have evidence. You're not required to be informed.
If there were valid evidence, you'ld be able to share it. So please do.
In the words of Bill Nye (the science guy): "
Do you believe in ghosts? well... no.... however, I would love to see one. So bring it on!"
But nobody ever does.......
Do I believe everything that people claim? People believe in things that fit with their already accepted ideas of how the world works. If I know it fits, then, I probably believe in it. If I know it doesn't fit then I don't.
Indeed. This is exactly what confimation bias is.
So by your own acknowledgement, I was right in that evaluation. It means that your reasons for belief are fallacious. Confirmation bias is not a good thing, when the goal is to hold as many true beliefs as possible and the least false beliefs as possible...
What are your already accepted ideas?
Those that are supported by valid evidence.
Let's see, to you God can't exist because He would have given you the life you wanted, right?
Not at all. If you wish to know what my beliefs are concerning gods and why, you should ask me instead of just guessing.
Do I believe that the god Mars was present during a battle? The answer to that one is very long so I will skip it.
So the answer isn't simply a resounding "no"?
Owkay then.
Do I believe in people being abducted by aliens and subjected to weird sexual experiments? Yes.
Do I believe in bigfoot? Yes.
So really... you are just gullible then I guess...
Let's go a step further.
Do you believe in Allah and mohammed as his prophet?
Do you believe in Lord Shiva and Krishna?
Do you believe in Lord Xenu and your inner thetan (scientology)?
All these have the same amount of evidence as alien abductions and bigfoot.
So, you believe them all?
I'm promoting fear tactics? Does fear of jail prevent the criminal from being a criminal?
Not the same thing. Crimes and indefensible beliefs aren't the same thing.
One deals with real-world behaviour with real-world immoral consequenses and real-word societal organization for the sake of real-world societal well-being and safety.
While the other deals with mere beliefs and indefensible, unsupportable claims of unsupportable consequences.
If you can't see the difference between "there will be consequences if you engage in robbery" on the one hand and "you need to believe this indefensible, unsupportable claim or great undemonstrable calamity will befall you", then I can't help you.
Do I believe everything that can't be shown to be false? No. As I said it has to fit with what I know to be true.
Yep. You happily and proudly acknowledge that you operate through confirmation bias.
If something is invisible and undetectable can I still test the claim?
Nope.
Just because something is invisible and undetectable to you does not mean it is invisible and undetectable to others.
If something is invisible and undectable, then it isn't detectable to anyone by definition.
I don't care what you actually said. You're not important to the universe.
Neither are you. Neither is the solar system. Neither is the milky way even.
The entire milky way can disappear tomorrow and the universe would be virtually the same.