Atheist Life is Worthless

Ronald · Nov 9, 2004

Mt 6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

Only when, someone percieves he is lost, can one seek the right WAY.

Paraprakrti · Nov 9, 2004

Mr Sprinkles said:
Nah, we can know. For example, when a person's physical brain is damaged, they lose consciousness. They regain consciousness only if and when their physical brain is healed (neurons rebuild lost connections etc).

Once again, you are only viewing the symptoms of consciousness in the body. You are not viewing consciousness directly, hence my statement, consciousness is only known by consciousness. Damaging the brain causes the symptoms of consciousness to no longer be visible to our senses.

Mr Sprinkles said:
Ideas are physical because they exist as thoughts...thinking is entirely physical because it depends entirely upon the physical brain. Just as the complexity of a program that a computer can handle is dependent entirely upon its physical processor, so too is it with the human brain and ideas. So for example, a person with an advanced brain will have superior thinking abilities--he/she will be able to understand more complex ideas that a person of lesser intelligence could not comprehend.

Thoughts that are based on physical data that is obtained by the physical senses will produce neural activity in the brain because that is necessary in the process of interpreting the data gathered. The subtle mind is not produced by that brain activity, but rather is only influenced by it.

Mr Sprinkles said:
There is a part of the brain responsible for understanding speech--damage that, and a person may not be able to think verbally.

It is my understanding that the brain is used as a medium for the subtle activities of the mind. As long as we dwell in these bodies we remain bound by their nature, their limitations. Similarly, as long as we dwell in these brains we remain bound by them as well. To say we are dependent on the brain in this way would be like saying a locked up criminal is dependent on his prison. If you let the prisoner go he will find that he never needed to go to prison in the first place. He may develop a sense of attachment that leads him to believe that he is dependent on the prison, but that is his illusion. The brains part that is responsible for understanding speech correlates, I am sure, with sound that comes in through the ear. The brain then interprets that sound and, through that physical medium, serves the subtle mind the experience of the physical world that consists merely of the senses interacting with sense-objects, in this case, the sense of hearing and the sense-object of sound. The prisoner is also being fed by the facility at the prison, but of course food exists outside the prison as well.

Mr Sprinkles said:
If the left side of the brain is dominant, a person will be better at logical thinking...if the right side is dominant, a person will be better at using creativity and imagination in their thinking.

Of this I have no discrepancy. We play the game in the field of activities in the way that field is set up. We are bound to the rules of that game so long as we choose to play it.

Mr Sprinkles said:
So even if a person thinks he/she is acting in accordance to something that is not physical, the very thoughts which drive these actions are themselves physical.

Of course, thoughts are typically in accordance with something physical (in that, I mean tangible), which brings up another point; that spiritual (as I am using it) doesnt necessarily mean intangible. The thoughts themselves are not physical. You still have not shown me a tangible thought. You are looking at how the brain acts when interpreting physical data gathered by the senses. The thoughts that derive of that physical experience are merely impressions of the tangible world upon the subtle, intangible mind.

Mr Sprinkles said:
Okay, there is the observable evidence that consciousness and all of our thoughts are entirely dependent upon the physical. Now it's your turn to provide observable evidence of "spiritualized" deeds.

Observable is the perfect word here because it allows me to bring up the point that we are only seeing with our eyes. Eyes that happen to lack the ability to directly perceive consciousness. Rather, they see symptoms of an existing consciousness. Thoughts that are based on physical data gathered by the physical senses are dependent on the physical brain because it is the brain that computes all that information in order for the subtle mind to receive its prison food.

Pah · Nov 9, 2004

Ronald said:
Mt 6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.

Only when, someone percieves he is lost, can one seek the right WAY.

If I am ON the my right way, why would I seek another?
-pah-

Ronald · Nov 9, 2004

Stay the course, pah! Have you read any of my posts that suggest you are on the wrong path?
I think I said, I became lost. If you are not lost. There is no need to change directions.
I do believe that was my statement. If you ever become lost, just give a whistle or seek the Kingdom. The beacon goes on, when you do that and He will find you! Only the lost need saving.

Pah · Nov 9, 2004

Ronald said:
Stay the course, pah! Have you read any of my posts that suggest you are on the wrong path?
I think I said, I became lost. If you are not lost. There is no need to change directions.
I do believe that was my statement. If you ever become lost, just give a whistle or seek the Kingdom. The beacon goes on, when you do that and He will find you! Only the lost need saving.

Oh! I took as you can't stop drinking until you recognize the problem. Sorry!

-pah-

Dawny · Nov 9, 2004

Sunstone said:
If you convince yourself that you're living for an invisible sky daddy then you might have a hard time seeing how anyone could live for anything else.

yep!
you re damn right! I m not an atheist, and I ve lost my agnosticism, but I think you re right, though, to say one cannot presume of what people reason to live might be!!
soooooo silly!
cheers,
dawny

Mr Spinkles · Nov 10, 2004

Paraprakrti-- When a person asserts the definitive existence of things that have no evidence to back them other than that person's own confident assertions, it is likely that that person's imagination has run away with them. Unicorns are not observable, either, but I could easily say "Unicorns exist, you are just blinded by your own disbelief. If you believed in Unicorns you'd see them all around you like I do."

The physical brain explains human thought and behavior well, there is no need to invoke a "subtle mind" in clear violation of Occam's Razor. Like all organisms made of matter, our thoughts and deeds boil down to the physical--there's simply no getting around it. I think it's high time we humans humble ourselves and admit this.

Paraprakrti · Nov 10, 2004

Mr_Spinkles said:
Paraprakrti-- When a person asserts the definitive existence of things that have no evidence to back them other than that person's own confident assertions, it is likely that that person's imagination has run away with them. Unicorns are not observable, either, but I could easily say "Unicorns exist, you are just blinded by your own disbelief. If you believed in Unicorns you'd see them all around you like I do."

What is it that you are comparing unicorns to? God? Well, sure, if these unicorns are the Supreme Absolute Truth. If they are supreme in all qualities then they themselves are God. Imagination has nothing to do with what I follow. I am not saying that we should concoct God to our liking. The basic qualities of God we can know by philosophical means, but specifically to say that God is unicorns is whimsical.

Mr_Spinkles said:
The physical brain explains human thought and behavior well, there is no need to invoke a "subtle mind" in clear violation of Occam's Razor. Like all organisms made of matter, our thoughts and deeds boil down to the physical--there's simply no getting around it. I think it's high time we humans humble ourselves and admit this.

The violation of Occam's Razor is only there if we assume that the brain actually holds the capacity for producing what we call the mind. You have no proof that the brain produces the mind. Nor can there ever be any proof of such. I have already explained exactly why no proof can ever be found. It woudn't be a matter of humbling ourselves to admit this, it would be a matter of ignoring the fact that we don't know due to our limited perception.

lousyskater · Nov 10, 2004

Paraprakrti said:
What is it that you are comparing unicorns to? God? Well, sure, if these unicorns are the Supreme Absolute Truth. If they are supreme in all qualities then they themselves are God. Imagination has nothing to do with what I follow. I am not saying that we should concoct God to our liking. The basic qualities of God we can know by philosophical means, but specifically to say that God is unicorns is whimsical.

you're not getting the point. Mr_Sprinkles is not comparing the two by power, he's trying to say that without any physical proof, it might as well be a figment of your imagination. lets say i have a pet unicorn that's undetectable by all means possible. no matter how much i say it's there, nobody will believe me because there is no proof but my word. the same thing applies to god(s). no matter how much you say there is a god, there's no physical proof of it's existance.

Paraprakrti said:
The violation of Occam's Razor is only there if we assume that the brain actually holds the capacity for producing what we call the mind. You have no proof that the brain produces the mind. Nor can there ever be any proof of such. I have already explained exactly why no proof can ever be found. It woudn't be a matter of humbling ourselves to admit this, it would be a matter of ignoring the fact that we don't know due to our limited perception.

what proof do you have that the brain doesn't produce the mind? it' entirely possible for our brains to produce our minds.

Pah · Nov 10, 2004

What is it that you are comparing unicorns to? God? Well, sure, if these unicorns are the Supreme Absolute Truth. If they are supreme in all qualities then they themselves are God. Imagination has nothing to do with what I follow. I am not saying that we should concoct God to our liking. The basic qualities of God we can know by philosophical means, but specifically to say that God is unicorns is whimsical.

Actually Paraprakrti, there is a beleif system introduced on the internet surrounding a specific unicorn, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU). The characteristics and "tenents" of this belief system have remarkable parrallels to the "whimsey" of the Bible. It meets all the standards of a religion philosophically and legally.

God and gods are not mutually exclusive as shown in the Ten Commandments and other biblical passages. We like to think that your God has an enjoining stall with ours in that divine stable

-pah-

The artist rendetion, of course, depicts her visible.

Mr Spinkles · Nov 10, 2004

Paraprakrti-- I was actually making an analogy between unicorns and your claims of an undetectable "consciousness" and the non-physical "subtle mind" but as lousyskater has pointed out the analogy can be used with God as well.

Paraprakrti said:
The violation of Occam's Razor is only there if we assume that the brain actually holds the capacity for producing what we call the mind.

We don't need to assume it--clinical studies on both humans and animals speak for themselves. Drugs make you feel differently. The input your brain receives from your senses makes you think and act differently. Stimulating certain parts of the brain can cause you to feel like there's a "presence" near you, or that you are flying, or an overwhelming feeling of well-being and purpose. An advanced brain can think in very complex ways, and a heavily damaged (or heavily intoxicated) brain cannot think at all. Thus the physical brain is solely responsible for all thought, memories, imagination, decision-making, etc.

If there were anything else besides the physical brain responsible for these things, we would expect that a person could still think clearly even when unconscious; or that a person's decision making ability would not decrease when intoxicated. Alas, this is not the case, and no evidence for anything other than a physical brain exists that influences our thoughts, imagination, feelings, etc. If those things do not constitute "the mind" perhaps you should define this term.

chuck010342 · Nov 12, 2004

The Voice of Reason said:
Quite munificent, your God.

like I said before God isn't my God but the only God.

The Voice of Reason said:
I'm envious. Just curious, now that you've asked him for (and He has granted) world peace, will you be getting that island in the Bahamas next?

I havn't prayed for any of those things

The Voice of Reason said:
It is statements like these that cost you credibility with those of us that can think. None of the three arguments that you cite here have even the slightest hint of scientific proof. None. Nada. Nil. Zip. Zero. Nothing.

your telling me that the intelligent design theory doesn't have a hint of scientific proof?

The Voice of Reason said:
"If you believe in a revealed faith, why do you need science to prove your beliefs?"

I don't NEED science to prove my believes it just helps when I'm feeling doubtful and it is also a good tool for evangelicalism.

The Voice of Reason said:
Sadly, you try to use science to confirm your mythical beliefs, when nothing could be further from the truth. You have been shown repeatedly on this site, that science observes phenomenon, then proposes a model that best describes it. If evidence is found that contradicts the model, the model is modified (or scrapped, altogether).

like the theory of evolution, which is crap

The Voice of Reason said:
Religion (or revealed faith - which is what Creationism and Intelligent Design are) assumes a truth and then looks for evidence that supports it. If evidence is found to the contrary, IT IS IGNORED OR DISTORTED so that the assumed "truth" is not upset.

thats what the evolutionists due. It is revealed that creationism has more weight in the scientific community (for true scientists anyway)

The Voice of Reason said:
Unmoved Mover (or Prime Mover) is a philosophical idea that has absolutely nothing to do with science, whatsoever.

I wouldn't say absolutley nothing to do with science but I will conciede this point

The Voice of Reason said:
Please, Chuck, I'm begging you (God knows I don't ask for much - spend the time to understand what science is. You constantly try to make your argument for your belief system (God and the Bible) based on science.

TVOR I know what science is. Perhaps you should stop using Pseudo reason

The Voice of Reason said:
I'd love to see you admit to yourself that science does NOT prove (or disprove) the existence of God. That is an untestable theory. If you believe in God, you do so from the leap of faith that your mind embraces. The existence (or nonexistence) of God is in the realm of philosophy - NOT science.

creationism is a science.

science
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

Pah · Nov 13, 2004

like I said before God isn't my God but the only God.

If that were true, there would be no references to other Gods in the Old Testament. We have the Ten Commandments that shows "other Gods" and those other Gods are mention throughout the Old Testament.

Bob

meogi · Nov 13, 2004

chuck said:
TVOR I know what science is.

You may indeed know what science is, but you do not understand it... if only from:

chuck said:
your telling me that the intelligent design theory doesn't have a hint of scientific proof?

and

chuck said:
like the theory of evolution, which is crap

and

chuck said:
thats what the evolutionists due. It is revealed that creationism has more weight in the scientific community (for true scientists anyway)

and

chuck said:
creationism is a science.

I'd explain... but I've kinda given up hope on ever getting through to anyone.

I do love this quote though:

chuck said:
I don't NEED science to prove my believes it just helps when I'm feeling doubtful and it is also a good tool for evangelicalism.

Explains the motive and why people like creationism so much... /sigh

"Hey! Give me more of that sweet, sweet placebo!"

The Voice of Reason · Nov 13, 2004

chuck010342 said:
like I said before God isn't my God but the only God.

This is a perfect example of you living in a surrealistic world - you can't even admit that there are people that pray to God(s) other than the one you pray to. I wouldn't ask you to concede that they have every right to believe in their version of God - just as you do. Blindly, I might add. This is the very definition of religious intolerance.

I havn't prayed for any of those things

I would hope that if I had God's ear (even your God - the omniscient one), that I would be wise enough to ask for some of those grand things - even the Miss America contests can parrot the line "I want world peace".

your telling me that the intelligent design theory doesn't have a hint of scientific proof?

Yes - that is what I'm telling you - that no matter how much you twist the scientific method, no matter how desperately you wish for this to be true, no matter how deeply you bury your head in the sand, and no matter how many times you repeat this - it is not (and will not) be true. You are certainly welcome to deceive yourself, but it does not change reality.

I don't NEED science to prove my believes it just helps when I'm feeling doubtful and it is also a good tool for evangelicalism.

Evangelicalism gets a bad rap when people lie knowingly - it even gives God a bad name. Snake oil salesmen used to claim science proved the worth of their product as well.

like the theory of evolution, which is crap

This reminds me of a line from the Ray Stevens song Everything is Beautiful - "There are none so blind, as those who will not see."

thats what the evolutionists due. It is revealed that creationism has more weight in the scientific community (for true scientists anyway)

I feel sorry for you and the "true scientists". I can make a few wild claims about Santa Clause, deem them to be above question, untestable and divine. Then, when I denounce everything else, I look very smart - don't I?

I wouldn't say absolutley nothing to do with science but I will conciede this point

Big of you - surely one of your "scientists" could find something you could twist in this arena as well. :areyoucra

TVOR I know what science is. Perhaps you should stop using Pseudo reason

Please, at any time, feel free to point out where I commit logical fallacies, or commit erroneous reasoning.

creationism is a science.

No - it is not - and saying it over and over while clicking your heels three times with a pair of ruby red slippers on will not make it so. It is a part of revealed faith. Deal with it. You don't hear me claiming that God (your God or others' Gods) revealed to me that Evolution was his work, do you? It may be His (or Their) work, but I don't make the claim BECAUSE IT ISN'T TRUE.

science
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>[/QUOTE] Do you understand that because there is a systemized study of theology, that doesn't mean that everything in Theology is science? This is the logical Fallacy of Distribution (specifically the Fallacy of Division). Of course, I don't have to tell you that, because you got an "A" in a logic course.

TVOR

linwood · Nov 13, 2004

chuck010342 said:
like I said before God isn't my God but the only God.

Are you saying the Bible lied?

your telling me that the intelligent design theory doesn't have a hint of scientific proof?

Thats correct the only attempted support I`ve ever seen of ID isn`t support at all it`s denial of evolution.

{quote]
I don't NEED science to prove my believes it just helps when I'm feeling doubtful and it is also a good tool for evangelicalism.
[/quote]
I see..you pick and choose your science as you do your Bible.
At least you`re consistent.

like the theory of evolution, which is crap

Could you please provide some support for this assertion?

[/quote] It is revealed that creationism has more weight in the scientific community (for true scientists anyway)
[/quote

Might you tell me where this has been revealed?
You can`t and you know you can`t

creationism is a science.
[/quote

No it`s not it`s a fairy tale.
Science is falsifiable, creationism isn`t falsifiable therefore it ain`t science.

chuck010342 · Nov 14, 2004

pah said:
If that were true, there would be no references to other Gods in the Old Testament. We have the Ten Commandments that shows "other Gods" and those other Gods are mention throughout the Old Testament.

Bob

There are references to other so called "Gods" (such as Baal) but those other Gods are just figimentations of Imagination, or just plain stupidity on the part of the people who made them up.

chuck010342 · Nov 14, 2004

I fo

The Voice of Reason said:
This is a perfect example of you living in a surrealistic world - you can't even admit that there are people that pray to God(s) other than the one you pray to.

I do admit it. There are other people who pray to other Gods but those Gods don't exsist.

The Voice of Reason said:
I wouldn't ask you to concede that they have every right to believe in their version of God - just as you do. Blindly, I might add. This is the very definition of religious intolerance.

I believe that they have every right to believe what they believe but what they believe is not the truth. I don't believe in God blindly

The Voice of Reason said:
I would hope that if I had God's ear (even your God - the omniscient one), that I would be wise enough to ask for some of those grand things - even the Miss America contests can parrot the line "I want world peace".

The reason I don't ask for those things is because I don't believe mankind deserves them. and FYI there will be world peace when the end times come.

The Voice of Reason said:
Yes - that is what I'm telling you - that no matter how much you twist the scientific method

I am not twisting the scientific method. The scientific method = the principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge= read the bible, read scientific journals and science magazines.

The problem= sin

Collection of Data through observation and experiment= showing how easy people are tempted into temptation

formulation of a hypothesis= God loves us so he sent his son to die for the the world.

testing the hypothesis= praying to God and he answers prayers

The Voice of Reason said:
no matter how desperately you wish for this to be true, no matter how deeply you bury your head in the sand, and no matter how many times you repeat this - it is not (and will not) be true. You are certainly welcome to deceive yourself, but it does not change reality.

say this to someone who believes in evolution or the big bang theory and your making some good sense here

The Voice of Reason said:
Evangelicalism gets a bad rap when people lie knowingly - it even gives God a bad name. Snake oil salesmen used to claim science proved the worth of their product as well.

1. I'm not lying

2. It does give God a bad name when done incorrectly

The Voice of Reason said:
Please, at any time, feel free to point out where I commit logical fallacies, or commit erroneous reasoning.

I'll hold you to that

chuck010342 · Nov 14, 2004

science
[quote TVOR]2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>[/QUOTE] Do you understand that because there is a systemized study of theology, that doesn't mean that everything in Theology is science? This is the logical Fallacy of Distribution (specifically the Fallacy of Division). Of course, I don't have to tell you that, because you got an "A" in a logic course.

TVOR[/QUOTE]
your quite right I was using theology as an example. There is also science of Biology and all the other -ologies you can think of

chuck010342 · Nov 14, 2004

linwood said:
Are you saying the Bible lied?

nope the other gods the bible speaks of do not really exsist they are just imagination

linwood said:
Thats correct the only attempted support I`ve ever seen of ID isn`t support at all it`s denial of evolution.

nobody has asked me why creationism is true

linwood said:
I see..you pick and choose your science as you do your Bible.
At least you`re consistent.

I pick them for reasons

linwood said:
Could you please provide some support for this assertion?

Evolution cannot explain how life got started.

linwood said:
falsifiable Might you tell me where this has been revealed?
You can`t and you know you can`t

www.answersingenesis.org thats where it is revealed

linwood said:
No it`s not it`s a fairy tale.
Science is falsifiable, creationism isn`t falsifiable therefore it ain`t science.

Macro Evolution is a science

No its not its a fairy tale
Science is falsifiable, Marco evolution isn't falsifiable therefore it ain't science.

You see how simple it is. to simple referse it.

Marco evolution is falsifiable for various reasons. Creationsim can also be seen as falsifiable but it isn't because its true. If you want proof I can give it to you.

Atheist Life is Worthless

Well-Known Member

Custom User

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

Member

Mr

Custom User

Member

Uber all member

Attachments

Mr

Active Member

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Doctor of Thinkology

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member