Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Here's one for you...….the REAL "dream" is the one you're having right now..
it's called your "LIFE".

Ok, so then nothing resembling coherent responses are to be expected from you then?

Do you even remember what we were discussing?

You asserted a brain free consciousness, and named sleep as the evidence, as if our brain isn't present during sleep, and when this was pointed out to you, you named dreaming instead, as if that somehow took the brain out of the equation.

Which it obviously didn't. Now you retreat to gibberish.

Do you have a single thing of substance to say about this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That science works in a limited way.

Obviously there are things that aren't within the scope of science.
Everybody knows this. There is no need to jump in every thread whenever the word "science" is mentioned and post endless philosophical gibber gabber which adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation.

So, as I was saying: science works, when it comes to explaining the natural phenomena of reality.
Is it perfect? no. Is it nevertheless the best we can do? yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, so then nothing resembling coherent responses are to be expected from you then?

Do you even remember what we were discussing?

You asserted a brain free consciousness, and named sleep as the evidence, as if our brain isn't present during sleep, and when this was pointed out to you, you named dreaming instead, as if that somehow took the brain out of the equation.

Which it obviously didn't. Now you retreat to gibberish.

Do you have a single thing of substance to say about this?

I will answer differently.
Short - test of male sperm count. Introduce the idea that the partner is cheating. Effect; the sperm count rises.

Problem - it is not true, that the partner is cheating, yet the sperm count rises.
We are now playing immaterial versus material in effect.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Ok, so then nothing resembling coherent responses are to be expected from you then?

Do you even remember what we were discussing?

You asserted a brain free consciousness, and named sleep as the evidence, as if our brain isn't present during sleep, and when this was pointed out to you, you named dreaming instead, as if that somehow took the brain out of the equation.

Which it obviously didn't. Now you retreat to gibberish.

Do you have a single thing of substance to say about this?

Your "brain" is NOT your "mind"......if you cannot fathom this, that's your own lack of knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Obviously there are things that aren't within the scope of science.
Everybody knows this. There is no need to jump in every thread whenever the word "science" is mentioned and post endless philosophical gibber gabber which adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation.

So, as I was saying: science works, when it comes to explaining the natural phenomena of reality.
Is it perfect? no. Is it nevertheless the best we can do? yes.

Could you start stating it in complete sentences.
The natural phenomena is not all phenomena, because all phenomena can't reduced down to the natural. You have the mental. They are connected, but not reducible to the one or the other.
So all of reality can't be reduced down to natural. From there doesn't follow that God is real.

Further "best" is not natural, it is mental.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will answer differently.
Short - test of male sperm count. Introduce the idea that the partner is cheating. Effect; the sperm count rises.

Problem - it is not true, that the partner is cheating, yet the sperm count rises.
We are now playing immaterial versus material in effect.

No. The brain processing information and as a result increasing sperm production, are very much physical processes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your "brain" is NOT your "mind"

You keep claiming this. You also keep failing at supporting that claim.
You tried with the "dreaming" nonsense, and your example got dismantled and destroyed.
In response to those refutations, you retreated into moving goalposts, irrelevant playground tactics, changing the subject and resorting to pure gibber gabber.

Meanwhile all the evidence supports the model that the brain and the mind are the exact same thing. ie, that what is called "mind", is produced by the brain.

Whenever you are ready to actually try and support your claims......

Until you properly support them, we have no reason at all to accept your claim and every reason to reject it.

......if you cannot fathom this, that's your own lack of knowledge.

You mean "your own lack of imagination".

And you're wrong btw. I most definatly am able to imagine it, fathom it. The problem is that there is insufficient evidence (or any evidence at all, for that matter) to support it.

I can fathom and imagine undetectable interdimensional unicorns following me everywhere. But simply being able to fathom and imagine things, don't mean they are actually real....


So.... in summary... whenever you are ready to present your evidence instead of mere repeats of your bare assertions...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Could you start stating it in complete sentences.

What do you mean?

The natural phenomena is not all phenomena, because all phenomena can't reduced down to the natural. You have the mental. They are connected, but not reducible to the one or the other.
So all of reality can't be reduced down to natural. From there doesn't follow that God is real.

When I say "natural phenomena", I mean "natural phenomena". Once again you feel the need to come in and pollute the thread with your confusing wordgames which in the end are nothing more or less then stating the obvious.

Further "best" is not natural, it is mental.

No. "Best" in this case is empirical / statistical.
The scientific method demonstrably yields the best results when investigating reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. The brain processing information and as a result increasing sperm production, are very much physical processes.

But the information is not true. A human construct affects the physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean?



When I say "natural phenomena", I mean "natural phenomena". Once again you feel the need to come in and pollute the thread with your confusing wordgames which in the end are nothing more or less then stating the obvious.



No. "Best" in this case is empirical / statistical.
The scientific method demonstrably yields the best results when investigating reality.

All of reality is not scientific and all forms are not of best are not quantitative. Further your "we" is a quality and a human construct. As for "best" in the quantitative sense, when you then claim that is useful, then you hit that the "useful" is a human construct, a quality and not quantitative.

You are playing word games with "we" and you are not a "we" for all of humanity. Neither am I.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

You keep claiming this. You also keep failing at supporting that claim.
You tried with the "dreaming" nonsense, and your example got dismantled and destroyed.
In response to those refutations, you retreated into moving goalposts, irrelevant playground tactics, changing the subject and resorting to pure gibber gabber.

Meanwhile all the evidence supports the model that the brain and the mind are the exact same thing. ie, that what is called "mind", is produced by the brain.

Whenever you are ready to actually try and support your claims......

Until you properly support them, we have no reason at all to accept your claim and every reason to reject it.



You mean "your own lack of imagination".

And you're wrong btw. I most definatly am able to imagine it, fathom it. The problem is that there is insufficient evidence (or any evidence at all, for that matter) to support it.

I can fathom and imagine undetectable interdimensional unicorns following me everywhere. But simply being able to fathom and imagine things, don't mean they are actually real....


So.... in summary... whenever you are ready to present your evidence instead of mere repeats of your bare assertions...

Now that's about as "logical" as I think I've ever heard.
You yourself acknowledge and admit that you have a "mind",
BUT you have never "seen" it, or comprehended it with ANY of your five physical senses,
like you can with your "brain".


Now I'm beginning to wonder if you really do have one (MIND),
because some people don't. But at the very least that makes you quite the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now that's about as "logical" as I think I've ever heard.

The nerve of us right, to ask for evidence for such outlandish claims?

You yourself acknowledge and admit that you have a "mind",

I acknowledge that there is a label called "mind" that we use to refer to someone's consiousness, thoughts, character, etc.

That doesn't mean that I agree that this mind is some "ghost" or whatever that can exist as distinct from the brain.

All the evidence suggests that what we call "mind", is a function of the brain.

BUT you have never "seen" it, or comprehended it with ANY of your five physical senses,
like you can with your "brain".

Concepts aren't things that are visible.
And at the same thing, I'ld say that we CAN see it: in brain activity when monitoring it.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you really do have one (MIND),
because some people don't. But at the very least that makes you quite the epitome of hypocrisy.

No. It just makes you a strawman argumenter.

Now, having said that....

Whenever you are ready to support your claim that "minds" are things that exist, or can exist, independent of brains....

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

You keep claiming this. You also keep failing at supporting that claim.
You tried with the "dreaming" nonsense, and your example got dismantled and destroyed.
In response to those refutations, you retreated into moving goalposts, irrelevant playground tactics, changing the subject and resorting to pure gibber gabber.

Meanwhile all the evidence supports the model that the brain and the mind are the exact same thing. ie, that what is called "mind", is produced by the brain.

Whenever you are ready to actually try and support your claims......

Until you properly support them, we have no reason at all to accept your claim and every reason to reject it.



You mean "your own lack of imagination".

And you're wrong btw. I most definatly am able to imagine it, fathom it. The problem is that there is insufficient evidence (or any evidence at all, for that matter) to support it.

I can fathom and imagine undetectable interdimensional unicorns following me everywhere. But simply being able to fathom and imagine things, don't mean they are actually real....


So.... in summary... whenever you are ready to present your evidence instead of mere repeats of your bare assertions...

So, now that I have determined that you may not possess a "mind" (spirit) , there is nothing I can do for you,
because in order to have a "meeting of the minds", you need TWO of them.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

The nerve of us right, to ask for evidence for such outlandish claims?





I acknowledge that there is a label called "mind" that we use to refer to someone's consiousness, thoughts, character, etc.

That doesn't mean that I agree that this mind is some "ghost" or whatever that can exist as distinct from the brain.

All the evidence suggests that what we call "mind", is a function of the brain.



Concepts aren't things that are visible.
And at the same thing, I'ld say that we CAN see it: in brain activity when monitoring it.



No. It just makes you a strawman argumenter.

Now, having said that....

Whenever you are ready to support your claim that "minds" are things that exist, or can exist, independent of brains....

Sorry, a "meeting of the minds" requires TWO of them (minds) .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, now that I have determined that you may not possess a "mind" (spirit)

You didn't "determine" anything at all.
As usual, you simply "declared" instead.

You haven't even begun to properly define what a "mind" is in terms of an independent entity, let alone actually provide evidence in support of its existance.

, there is nothing I can do for you,
because in order to have a "meeting of the minds", you need TWO of them.

[/quote]

So, you don't have any evidence to show, is that what you're saying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, a "meeting of the minds" requires TWO of them (minds) .

And claims require evidence.
Got any?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the information is not true.

So what?
It's just a false positive. It happens all the time.

When my cat hears a loud noise, it runs for its life, eventhough the loud noise was just a car backfiring outside. My cat isn't threatened in any way. Yet, it instinctively ran first and only after it removed itself for some distance, will it look back to see what's going on. The first reflex neverhtless is "GET OUT OF HERE".

False positive. It occurs in all species. Even more so in species that are seen as lunch by some other species.

A human construct affects the physical.

What human construct?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All of reality is not scientific and all forms are not of best are not quantitative. Further your "we" is a quality and a human construct. As for "best" in the quantitative sense, when you then claim that is useful, then you hit that the "useful" is a human construct, a quality and not quantitative.

You are playing word games with "we" and you are not a "we" for all of humanity. Neither am I.

You're doing it again... polluting the thread with confusing, meaningless wordgames that add nothing of value.

If you know of a method that does a better job then science to explain reality, then go right ahead and share it and demonstrate how it yields better results.

Until then, why don't you stop wasting webspace for no apparant reason?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what?
It's just a false positive. It happens all the time.

When my cat hears a loud noise, it runs for its life, eventhough the loud noise was just a car backfiring outside. My cat isn't threatened in any way. Yet, it instinctively ran first and only after it removed itself for some distance, will it look back to see what's going on. The first reflex neverhtless is "GET OUT OF HERE".

False positive. It occurs in all species. Even more so in species that are seen as lunch by some other species.



What human construct?

That belief that the partner is cheating, when it not a fact. That is a false positive, which have physical effects.
Now explain that and don't explain it away as "but it is nothing but a false positive and therefore irrelevant, because it isn't real."

Learn to treat all human constructs are real, otherwise we couldn't disagree. We are disagreeing about different models of reality; i.e. different human constructs and you to the effect that your construct is the only model, which works. That is not the case, because if it was the case, we couldn't disagree.
There are false positives and they work in some cases. Now what "best" is for what we all ought to do about all of reality including false positives, is not up to your "we" nor me. But we get that differently because of the different models/human constructs we use.
Now explain that and don't explain it away. BTW false negative are not the only category of human error in thinking.
"We as group-thinking" without understanding the difference between we, Homo Sapiens Sapiens and we as social in the practical world. It is not the same "we".

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I will answer differently.
Short - test of male sperm count. Introduce the idea that the partner is cheating. Effect; the sperm count rises.

Problem - it is not true, that the partner is cheating, yet the sperm count rises.
We are now playing immaterial versus material in effect.

But are we? You are talking about a physical response to physical stimuli. I don't see the place or purpose of introducing any magical concept here.