The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: That link is supposed to be a picture of what sadness looks like in the body? If that's the logic you want to push, suit yourself. Thanks.

Well, that's what our modern technology shows us. If you'd rather believe that emotions exist outside the brain in some esoteric and intangible form then you're welcome.

 

[Fatihah]

But your question didn't make sense. It's impossible to explain something that doesn't exist.

Response: It is your answer that doesn't make sense.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: It is your answer that doesn't make sense.

Asking "What colour is sadness?" or "How big is sadness?" is nonsensical and asinine in the highest imaginable degree.

You may as well ask "Does joy smell funny?" or "Is happiness greener than anger?"

Simply because you can phrase a question in a grammatically correct way does not entitle it to an answer.

If you believe it does then please answer my question:

Why are unicorns hollow?

 

[Fatihah]

You're mistaken. Emotions are activities of the brain, and that activity can be observed with modern technology.



No, your bifurcation is inadequate. There are not only two options: design and chance. If the universe is not designed, it may have developed according to the laws of physics. Therefore your argument is irrelevant.

Response: And if emotions can be observed in the brain, then what do they look like. What's the color of sadness? Since you claim you can see it, you should know.

Secondly, how does the law of physics develop something, but doesn't design it? That makes no sense. Name anything that exist that has no design? You're playing with words. It's like saying the man isn't fast, he's quick. It makes no sense, it being the same thing.

 

[MSizer]

Response: And if emotions can be observed in the brain, then what do they look like. What's the color of sadness? Since you claim you can see it, you should know..

So do you think that just because we can't see the rest of the galaxies they don't exist? Or that somehow this forces us to conclude they're designed by god? Or that when we do see then through a telescope we're not really seeing them?

Secondly, how does the law of physics develop something, but doesn't design it? That makes no sense. Name anything that exist that has no design? You're playing with words. It's like saying the man isn't fast, he's quick. It makes no sense, it being the same thing.

Honestly, if you truly think that's true, then I doubt you have the ability to understand any explanation I could come up with. When you toss a rock into a pond and the ripples move outward, did the rock design the ripples? Did you design the ripples? No, you didn't design the ripples, but you caused them. Water ripples, just like everything else natural around us, is a result that had nothing to do with design.

 

[Fatihah]

Asking "What colour is sadness?" or "How big is sadness?" is nonsensical and asinine in the highest imaginable degree.

You may as well ask "Does joy smell funny?" or "Is happiness greener than anger?"

Simply because you can phrase a question in a grammatically correct way does not entitle it to an answer.

If you believe it does then please answer my question:

Why are unicorns hollow?

Response: If the question, is nonsensical, it's only due to it being a response to a nonsensical answer made. It is you who claims that you can see sadness in the brain, not me. So if you can see it, you can tell us what color it is. If such a question is nonsensical, perhaps you should question the answer in which the question derives from.

 

[MSizer]

Response: If the question, is nonsensical, it's only due to it being a response to a nonsensical answer made. It is you who claims that you can see sadness in the brain, not me. So if you can see it, you can tell us what color it is. If such a question is nonsensical, perhaps you should question the answer in which the question derives from.

well by that logic god doesn't exist either then.

 

[johnhanks]

Response: Your answering my question with questions, which doesn't answer the question.

More to the point, you have no answer to these questions.

In other words, you don't know how a room can be beautifully designed without intelligence.

Natural selection has no difficulty explaining this; intelligent design, on the other hand, cannot explain imperfect adaptations.

 

[Fatihah]

So do you think that just because we can't see the rest of the galaxies they don't exist? Or that somehow this forces us to conclude they're designed by god? Or that when we do see then through a telescope we're not really seeing them?



Honestly, if you truly think that's true, then I doubt you have the ability to understand any explanation I could come up with. When you toss a rock into a pond and the ripples move outward, did the rock design the ripples? Did you design the ripples? No, you didn't design the ripples, but you caused them. Water ripples, just like everything else natural around us, is a result that had nothing to do with design.

Response: None to which answers my question. You claim you possess the ability to see emotions in the body, then what's the color of sadness? I can see grass. It's color is green. I can see the words I just posted. It's color is black. Since you can see sadness in the body, what's it's color?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: If the question, is nonsensical, it's only due to it being a response to a nonsensical answer made. It is you who claims that you can see sadness in the brain, not me. So if you can see it, you can tell us what color it is. If such a question is nonsensical, perhaps you should question the answer in which the question derives from.

Bollocks.

Using an MRI, we can see emotion in the brain in the form of electrical activity. To ask what colour that electrical activity appears on an MRI is one thing. It shows up in false colour on an MRI read-out, so it varies.

However, to simply ask "What colour is sadness?" is nonsensical.

 

[MSizer]

Response: None to which answers my question. You claim you possess the ability to see emotions in the body, then what's the color of sadness? I can see grass. It's color is green. I can see the words I just posted. It's color is black. Since you can see sadness in the body, what's it's color?

I'm through with this nonsense.

(yeah yeah yeah, then I guess you're right Fatihah. Whatever.)

 

[Willamena]

Asking "What colour is sadness?" or "How big is sadness?" is nonsensical and asinine in the highest imaginable degree.

You may as well ask "Does joy smell funny?" or "Is happiness greener than anger?"

Simply because you can phrase a question in a grammatically correct way does not entitle it to an answer.

It's not a nonsensical question, though, it's a response to a perceived materialistic perspective. The material world is described in traits.

Edit: According to the materialist, the colour of emotion is orange.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Response: None to which answers my question. You claim you possess the ability to see emotions in the body, then what's the color of sadness? I can see grass. It's color is green. I can see the words I just posted. It's color is black. Since you can see sadness in the body, what's it's color?

So your argument is that if something exists but cannot be seen it must have been caused by magic? Talk about a non sequiter.

Emotion is an effect the brain causes. It's pretty simple. Like consciousness, thought and regulating the body's internal systems, emotions are something the brain DOES.

What color is the radiation from a microwave? What does the 'rumble' of a v8 engine look like? How big is a radio wave? Once you can answer these questions you will have your answer about the color of sadness.

And furthermore, even if emotion was not able to be measured in terms of its causes (which it can be) that still wouldn't imply any sort of supernatural causes.

And even were we to grant you this rather absurd proposition as true (not understood=supernatural) THAT wouldn't imply your god, or even any god at all as I can imagine all sorts of supernatural make believe things that could explain emotion if they were taken as true. Emotion fairies anyone?

Your case, like all muslim apologetics, falls flat right out of the gate. Layers and layers of fail.

 

[Fatihah]

Bollocks.

Using an MRI, we can see emotion in the brain in the form of electrical activity. To ask what colour that electrical activity appears on an MRI is one thing. It shows up in false colour on an MRI read-out, so it varies.

However, to simply ask "What colour is sadness?" is nonsensical.

Response: To claim to see something and not know it's color, size or shape is nonsensical.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

It's not a nonsensical question, though, it's a response to a perceived materialistic perspective. The material world is described in traits.

Okay, fine. I'm going to try and be a thorough as I can here, then I'm out.

When a person experiences something that triggers an emotion, a particular area of the brain becomes active (what part depends on the emotion.)
Using an MRI we can watch this activity in the brain and thus, we know which part of the brain controls which emotions. Using electrical stimulation we can then trigger these same emotions without outside stimuli (other than the electricity)

Now, on an MRI, the electrical activity associated with certain emotions appears in false colour. Sometimes it appears red, other times blue, it varies. The actual electrical activity going on in the brain has no colour (that I'm aware of).

Emotions like sadness, or in my case right now frustration, are simply the result of the brain's electrical activity. They do not exist outside the brain. They have no mass, no colour, and no size.

Edit: According to the materialist, the colour of emotion is orange.

Again, it's a false colour image...

 

[Fatihah]

So your argument is that if something exists but cannot be seen it must have been caused by magic? Talk about a non sequiter.

Emotion is an effect the brain causes. It's pretty simple. Like consciousness, thought and regulating the body's internal systems, emotions are something the brain DOES.

What color is the radiation from a microwave? What does the 'rumble' of a v8 engine look like? How big is a radio wave? Once you can answer these questions you will have your answer about the color of sadness.

And furthermore, even if emotion was not able to be measured in terms of its causes (which it can be) that still wouldn't imply any sort of supernatural causes.

And even were we to grant you this rather absurd proposition as true (not understood=supernatural) THAT wouldn't imply your god, or even any god at all as I can imagine all sorts of supernatural make believe things that could explain emotion if they were taken as true. Emotion fairies anyone?

Your case, like all muslim apologetics, falls flat right out of the gate. Layers and layers of fail.

Response: I didn't present an argument. I presented questions. Questions which appear you have ni logical answer for.

 

[Willamena]

Again, it's a false colour image...

It doesn't matter. It could be green --it's all interpretation. What matters is that the question that was housed in a response to a materialistic perspective was answerable.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Fatihah ,

I can read, I know what you are doing. You are not near as slippery as you think you are.

As has been explained to you, emotion is a phenomenon of the brain, that has no existence outside the brain, and can only be measured in terms of what the brain is doing. That you keep harping on this anyway points only to your unwillingness to learn, or a profound level of dishonesty.

 

[Magic Man]

This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin?

I view emotions as what they are: chemical reactions. They're derived from our brain chemistry.

For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love.

Why would you see emotions?

And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it?

Why do you have to be able to see something to know where it comes from?

This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul.

That's quite a leap in logic.

Many atheists say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

Most atheists don't just say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Most of us say that there's no proof because no one can see God, hear God, sense God in any other objective way or see any evidence of the effects of God. We can see the effects of laughter, love and sadness. The effects are what we call "emotions". We came up with the words to describe the effects.

When you walk into a room, and see things placed and organized in a nice manner, do you accept that it happened by chance?

Not considering I know how a room came to be. Rooms are created by humans, so if I walk into a room, I'm pretty sure it was created by a human.

That something beautifully organized and arranged, can be created without intelligence? Take the Mona Lisa painting for example. Do you believe it possible to create the Mina Lisa by chance?

Here's the deal: You see patterns in the universe because you're human. Human brains are wired to see patterns. That's how we understand the world. That's why you see the universe as beautifully organized and arranged.

That someone can throw or splatter paint on paper, and the end result can be a beautiful piece of art work like the Mina Lisa? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that the Mona Lisa was created by intelligent design?Do you accept that something by chance or unintelligence, can create something intelligent? Is it not more logical, that something made of intelligence can only be created by intelligence? Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

By this logic, how did your extremely complex intelligent designer come to be? Wouldn't he have required another intelligent designer?

 

[Fatihah]

Okay, fine. I'm going to try and be a thorough as I can here, then I'm out.

When a person experiences something that triggers an emotion, a particular area of the brain becomes active (what part depends on the emotion.)
Using an MRI we can watch this activity in the brain and thus, we know which part of the brain controls which emotions. Using electrical stimulation we can then trigger these same emotions without outside stimuli (other than the electricity)

Now, on an MRI, the electrical activity associated with certain emotions appears in false colour. Sometimes it appears red, other times blue, it varies. The actual electrical activity going on in the brain has no colour (that I'm aware of).

Emotions like sadness, or in my case right now frustration, are simply the result of the brain's electrical activity. They do not exist outside the brain. They have no mass, no colour, and no size.



Again, it's a false colour image...

Response: None to which I say I disagree with. It appeaes that we both agree that a person does not see emotions in the body, but rather sees how the body reacts to emotions.

The question I'm posing to atheists is where does emotion originate from and how do they know, if they can not see the emotion.

In islam, and other religions, we say that Allah(God) breathed a soul in every human, causing the body to function and experience emotions. When death occurs, the soul is taken away, which is why the body no longer functions and experiences emotions. Sort of like batteries to the remote, where the batteries is the soul and the remote is the body.

Of course, atheist don't believe this. So I am just simply asking where emotions are derived from and how they came to be, according to atheist, since they don't believe in the human soul.