• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Dinowhat?

Are dinosaurs extinct?

  • No

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"Some argued that what Owen and his collaborators saw was nothing more than an automatic activation of those brain regions on hearing certain words.

One such critic was Lionel Naccache, a neuroscientist at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris, who urged caution before concluding that the woman was indeed conscious."


Not all scientists agree. Which ones should I believe?
Even when the body is unresponsive, the brain can process thought and respond to stimuli.

As soon as the brain dies, their consciousness goes with it.
We all know consciousness is in the brain but how is it generated, and how can mere neurons generate intelligence?
 
Upvote 0

VehementiDominus

Active Member
May 12, 2011
307
13
England
✟520.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
"Some argued that what Owen and his collaborators saw was nothing more than an automatic activation of those brain regions on hearing certain words.

One such critic was Lionel Naccache, a neuroscientist at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris, who urged caution before concluding that the woman was indeed conscious."


Not all scientists agree. Which ones should I believe?

It doesn't matter - the brain is still responding to stimuli.

We all know consciousness is in the brain but how is it generated, and how can mere neurons generate intelligence?
I believe CDK has answered this pretty well. YouTube - ‪The Origin of Intelligence‬‏

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RbPQG9WTZM
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I already answered this.
You did? I must have missed it.
Post has been deleted for some reason (I'm willing to bet because you flagged it.),
I didn't. I'm even more curious about what it was.
not that it matters, because I was basically repeating myself for the 8th time, because you seem incapable of comprehending what I'm saying. Whether that's voluntary or not remains to be seen.
So you have no reason to believe God exist and you have no reason to believe He does not exist. Is this correct?

And how can you know I have no legitimate reasons to believe in God?

I don't want to think you are avoiding these questions.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It doesn't matter - the brain is still responding to stimuli.
It matters if scientists don't agree.
I believe CDK has answered this pretty well.
What you believe is irrelevant. You are obviously selective in your beliefs and in which scientists you agree with.

Since your sources can't agree there is no reason to take you seriously.
 
Upvote 0

VehementiDominus

Active Member
May 12, 2011
307
13
England
✟520.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You did? I must have missed it.
I didn't. I'm even more curious about what it was.
So you have no reason to believe God exist and you have no reason to believe He does not exist. Is this correct?

It is. However, God not existing is the default position. Claiming God does exist is a positive statement and requires evidence to support it.*

And how can you know I have no legitimate reasons to believe in God?

What legitimate reason could you possibly have?

There's certainly no evidence based, logical or rational reason...

I don't want to think you are avoiding these questions.

* See, repeating myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgp_protector
Upvote 0

VehementiDominus

Active Member
May 12, 2011
307
13
England
✟520.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It matters if scientists don't agree.

I swear, I'd get better results speaking to rocks.

"
It doesn't matter - the brain is still responding to stimuli."

"
Some argued that what Owen and his collaborators saw was nothing more than an automatic activation of those brain regions on hearing certain words."

What I'm using this article for has NOTHING to do with what they're disagreeing with. Seriously. How difficult is that to grasp?

What you believe is irrelevant. You are obviously selective in y
our beliefs and in which scientists you agree with.

Since your sources can't agree there is no reason to take you seriously.
R-e-a-d s-l-o-w-e-r. Seriously, you haven't understood a single thing I've said. I'd get better understanding speaking to a toddler than I'm getting from you.

I'm done with you until you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I'M SAYING and respond to what I'm saying accordingly.

At the moment you're just displaying your inability to comprehend what other people are saying.

I'm actually beginning to understand why I've got so many PMs telling me to just put you on ignore.

It's like talking to a herp derp.

Speaking of brains, I think I know why you picked "Doveaman" as your username.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
They deny that common descent is a theory and not a fact.
The common ancestor is theoretical, but so are atoms. It's convenient to call it a 'fact' when the evidence is so overwhelming, even if it's technically a theory. A theory that is supported by overwhelming evidence is often called a 'fact', for ease of nomenclature.

So, it's a theory, sure, but that just means "the idea is supported by the evidence". By correcting them and calling it a theory, you're just supporting their implicit claim that it's well-evidenced.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The common ancestor is theoretical, but so are atoms. It's convenient to call it a 'fact' when the evidence is so overwhelming, even if it's technically a theory. A theory that is supported by overwhelming evidence is often called a 'fact', for ease of nomenclature.

So, it's a theory, sure, but that just means "the idea is supported by the evidence". By correcting them and calling it a theory, you're just supporting their implicit claim that it's well-evidenced .
Maybe if they did not keep insisting it is a fact and not a theory they wouldn't need to be corrected by you.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"It doesn't matter - the brain is still responding to stimuli."
So what? This does not prove it is a consciously intelligent response. If you stimulate specific parts of the brain you will get a specific response. If you stimulate a computer’s processor you will get a specific response. This does not prove conscious intelligence. Try again.
I'm done with you until you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I'M SAYING and respond to what I'm saying accordingly.
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS RUBBISH. And the sources you are relying on to support you rubbish are not even in agreement with your rubbish. Hence RUBBISH.
At the moment you're just displaying your inability to comprehend what other people are saying.
Pot...Kettle...Black.
I'm actually beginning to understand why I've got so many PMs telling me to just put you on ignore.
It’s because they have no response. It’s a cop-out on their part, and they are encouraging you to do the same. You should take their advice and stop making a mockery of science.

And thanks for the last word. It feels good to get the last word sometimes. :D
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VehementiDominus

Active Member
May 12, 2011
307
13
England
✟520.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Oh, the majority of you do have evidence, evidence that's been refuted 100,000s of times. Yet for some stupid reason you keep repeating it like it means anything.

Our minority group? Hah. I'd rather be in the "minority" than be part of the Bible belt or the Middle East. You ever realise how the only people who reject evolution are religious fanatics? People whose critical thinking skills have been swapped with the insane ramblings of bronze age goat herders and barbarians.

We may be in the general minority, but within educated circles? Well, case in point, have you read the Project Steve?

A list of scientists all called Steve that accept evolution which is about twice as long as the longest list of scientists who support creationism.

And over here in the UK? No, we're not the minority.

Either way, you say "minority" as if it's eviddence that we're wrong. I'm sorry to dissapoint you but the accuracy of a scientific theory isn't decided by mass appeal.

They've ignored you because you're full of yourself. You've completely misunderstood EVERYTHING I've said, whether that was deliberately to advance your own agenda or accidently I'm not sure, nor do I care.

I explain the same thing again and again and again and you still either choose to ignore the point or don't understand it.

creationists_gag_from_family_guy.jpg


Who would've thought Family Guy would've been so accurate?

Enough said.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjc34

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2011
1,382
16
✟1,769.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
So you have no reason to believe God exist and you have no reason to believe He does not exist.

You have no reason to not believe in any of the deities or other supernatural creatures he previously listed. Why don't you believe in them? Because you've ascribed vague feelings and perhaps voices or other 'communication' to a specific deity. You also believe your interpretation of translations of translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of a book written thousands of years ago over a thousand years and compiled essentially by the church of the 4th century deciding which books were to be cannon and which were to be rejected as heresy got it completely right and selected an infallible set which make up the Bible we know today.


How can you know that?

Because everytime someone confronts you about evidence, you quote the Bible (which you conveniently just claim is infallible and thus is valid, backing up the validity with... wait for it... Bible quotes!) basically saying 'you have to believe in God to believe in God'.
 
Upvote 0
The common ancestor is theoretical, but so are atoms. It's convenient to call it a 'fact' when the evidence is so overwhelming, even if it's technically a theory. A theory that is supported by overwhelming evidence is often called a 'fact', for ease of nomenclature.

So, it's a theory, sure, but that just means "the idea is supported by the evidence". By correcting them and calling it a theory, you're just supporting their implicit claim that it's well-evidenced.

Science changes every day. The Bible has remained consistent for 3500 years, the Bible does not ever change. I go to the doctor or the dentist I learn about all the latest changes and what they currently believe to be "facts". The doctor and I often have a good laugh over what the doctors use to believe way back when. What was actually just a few years ago or in some cases a few days ago. Never mind that lives depend on the facts as they are currently believed to be true.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
No one is asking you to believe anything that science and empirical evidence does not show to be true. If you have no evidence then don't accept it. I just want to know why people reject what science and the evidence does show to be true.
looks to me its coz they believe 1) that the bible is 100% true and. 2) that they have an inerrant interpretation of the bible. 3) there is a mismatch between their belief and reality and, 4) they make their choice
 
Upvote 0

rjc34

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2011
1,382
16
✟1,769.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
Science changes every day.

This is why science has the advantage. It changes any time new evidence arises. Science is the explanation of the natural universe.

The Bible has remained consistent for 3500 years, the Bible does not ever change.

This isn't true in the slightest. The Old Testament (when it was strictly the Jewish scriptures) went through multiple changes, as the Hebrews grew from a polytheistic group of Yahwists, to a monotheistic religion, with scripture changes coming along the way. There are still mentions of other Gods in the OT, but most have been removed.

Now the New Testament... that's an entirely different boat. Translations of translations of translations of books copied countless times of stories from oral tradition written down. I'd recommend you read any of the more recent books by Bart Ehrman if you're up to having your view of the Bible challenged by a fantastic Biblical scholar, who in addition to teaching and writing papers, also writes fantastic literature for the lay-reader. I suggest his books Jesus, Interupted; Misquoting Jesus; and Forged. I actually recently just finished Forged after reading the first two in addition to a couple of others. Another one you might look into is his book God's Problem in which he discusses the problem of evil/suffering and why it caused him to lose his Christian faith. (He was a devout evangelical Christian before that, and a bunch of his books were published prior to his loss of faith.)
 
Upvote 0

rjc34

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2011
1,382
16
✟1,769.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
No one is asking you to believe anything that science and empirical evidence does not show to be true. If you have no evidence then don't accept it. I just want to know why people reject what science and the evidence does show to be true.

This is quite honestly one of the best and most respectful answers I've ever gotten around these parts. Kudos to you sir, you have made my day! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

VehementiDominus

Active Member
May 12, 2011
307
13
England
✟520.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Science changes every day. The Bible has remained consistent for 3500 years, the Bible does not ever change. I go to the doctor or the dentist I learn about all the latest changes and what they currently believe to be "facts". The doctor and I often have a good laugh over what the doctors use to believe way back when. What was actually just a few years ago or in some cases a few days ago. Never mind that lives depend on the facts as they are currently believed to be true.

Council of Nicea.
 
Upvote 0