Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Post Reply New Topic

Is that an assertion that you can prove?

Of course. Talking about consciousness without a functioning brain makes as much sense as talking about digestion without a functioning stomach and intestines or respiration without functioning lungs.

Breaking down of molecules doesn't require stomach or intestines, it's only a body's apparatus for doing the job. Also, respiration happens with gills as well as lungs, just not in humans. A function doesn't need a specific tool in many cases. The bodies of creatures have optimized systems for these processes in this material universe, but should we think that they are the only systems?

Bad analogy. You're making the assumption that consciousness is well understood enough to conclude that its a process as opposed to a thing in itself. Logically speaking there clearly has to be a "you"(an essence of Self)but the problem is that the human brain is modular and compartmentalized so its very unclear how the brain encapsulates the essence of you-ness.
God or Godless, EVERY single culture shares the belief in the Soul. There is no culture known to have originated this idea so that begs the question of where does this concept come from and does it have a basis in reality.....

The soul is simply a primitive explanation for the working of the brain. One that should have gone away by the 19th century at the latest. We know for a fact that brain damage can totally change personality and there is no evidence for any aspect of consciousness not due to the brain. Most cultures also developed the concept of vampires and "were-creatures" but that's no evidence they are true.

As for brain damage changing personality, I would say that it rather changes functionality. When a computer is damaged, one can use it for fewer things than before, so usage would can, and so would the apparent, though not actual, personality of the user in the eyes of anyone stalking or profiling them.

Personality quizzes online, and even Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory here, are nothing more than preference polls, which the answers are based on the current desires, capabilities (or lack of capabilities which one wish they had currently), and other things which are on the mind of the person when they take the test. You damage the computer they use, and with them losing functionality, they will be thinking different thoughts, possibly not even able to express them verbally if Wenick's area or Broca's area are disabled.

Actually, its NOT. Brain damage changes how a person interacts with others and thus changes observable personality, but until the technology is developed to interface the brain with computers like was done in the groundbreaking sci-fi movie Brainstorm.At the present time, what someone else is thinking is in non-falsifiable. The thoughts inside your brain are Information. Im extremely cynical that such information that is stored and processed in the brain just *vanishes* upon the death of the brain. That is, WHAT makes you so certain that information violates conservation law? It is presently not known how the brain creates consciousness and attempts to duplicate sentience using the purely reductionist approach(in AI) have Failed. Furthermore, there is the quandary in modern physics in the sense that our present understanding of physical law(quantum mechanics too)does NOT explain why there should even be self-awareness in the first place!

A lot of cultures have also, independant of each other, come up with the concept of cannibalism and human sacrifice.

Religionists on one side and science on the other. Can there be no middle ground? Either way we have been given the 2 greatist gifts ever thaught and free will why cant we stop this medieval nonsense and worry about the future of humanity?

I have no compunction whatsoever about denying free will and considering the vandalism humanity is wreaking on this planet and each other the future of humanity is also looking extremely doubtful. It seems, if there is a God, he has the psychology of a kid with a firecracker and he lit the fuse about a million or so years ago and he is anxious to enjoy the explosion.

ya its easy to think that but consider this, i believe god created the universe. god set the stage but this is our show! everything good or evil is us. to think that the creator of everything would want to concern itself with a bunch of violent monkeys is quite frankly egotistical. but yes my finnish friend it does seem that theres a joke being played at our expense!

I am not your Finnish friend and if there is a God behind this brutal mess He is nothing I feel any appreciation for. I can well comprehend the world trend if the God you so devoutly accept is the same God that wiped out the world of Noah or blasted the people around Lot. If I had sent my son to tame a bunch of vicious savages and they had murdered him though he came in peace, his treatment of the world since is well within my understanding.

When i said finnish friend i was just trying to be nice! and also i dont "devoutly" accept god, just ten commandments. other than that i think its all bull crap. i was just trying to find some middle ground somewhere because im tired of the religion versus science thing. sorry to have offend you. I didnt know that trying to be nice is a crime in finland. sorry

Take it easy. I'm friendly, but not Finnish. The problem with trying to bring some sensible relationship between science and religion is that their methodologies are diametrically opposed. Science is a way of trying to fit together observational data and its essential process is to subject its conceptions to the utmost tight scrutiny and doubt and its progress is made by continual adjustments and corrections. Religion started in much the same way by fitting what was known of nature into a theoretical structure but there is where the similarity stops. When religions made their first conceptual proposals almost nothing was known of nature and its forces. A huge amount of information has been gained since then and science has responded accordingly. Religion not only did not change with the new knowledge, it severely punished anybody who cast doubts on religion's first conceptions. This is about as unlike science as any discipline could get and religion has a history of fighting science and its new discoveries that covers centuries and currently with its battles against stem cell research and birth control it is doing severe damage to society.

Your location said finland so i assumed sorry. but ya i agree with last post. i guess its just because im canadian that i believe that theres a way through this crap. I would rather have hope and not lock and load for a fight to the death with religion.

It can be better summed up like this.

[894x700 76200 byte img]http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/9/97/Science_vs_faith.png[/img]