We don't need to take materialist atheism as a whole seriously.

[McBell]

the test comes soon enough

you die.....and maybe your will to live will prompt you to stand from the dust
and then you get to do the test
before God and heaven

good luck

**climbs up onto pontoon boat**

Did I get any of it on me?

 

[McBell]

all we need do now is get you past the details you're hung on

Interesting.
Don't you know that once you throw out truth and facts, all you have left is wishful thinking?

Of course you do.
You have been being told that for the last 8 years....

 

[1137]

I am not denying the existence of electromagnetic fields in the body. What I am denying is that they are anything non-material. They are expected given the separation of charges in the body and the fact that neurons conduct a current.

Exactly. Why waste it on such BS as what you post?

It's not just EMFs, it's a field that guides physiological change, and implies teleological design. Dr. Burr's conclusion from Blueprint for Immortality:

"In other words, L-fields are links in a 'chain of authority'. This starts with the simplest living forms, runs upwards through all the life on this planet to the most complex form we know-man -and then extends outwards into space and upwards to an infinite, ultimate authority, about which we can only speculate."

 

[Polymath257]

It's not just EMFs, it's a field that guides physiological change, and implies teleological design. Dr. Burr's conclusion from Blueprint for Immortality:

"In other words, L-fields are links in a 'chain of authority'. This starts with the simplest living forms, runs upwards through all the life on this planet to the most complex form we know-man -and then extends outwards into space and upwards to an infinite, ultimate authority, about which we can only speculate."

Which is insane.

Yes, the E&M fields are around in many life systems. They show up, for example, in the systems that produce ATP, the energy currency of the body. But that is because the charge separation is what drives the ATPase. This is a *physical*, chemical process.

 

[McBell]

Which is insane.

Yes, the E&M fields are around in many life systems. They show up, for example, in the systems that produce ATP, the energy currency of the body. But that is because the charge separation is what drives the ATPase. This is a *physical*, chemical process.

Seems he does not relish the idea of going back to the drawing board to find another gap to stuff his god into....

 

[1137]

Look guys, if you want me to reject hard science you better have some damn good evidence against it.

 

[McBell]

Look guys, if you want me to reject hard science you better have some damn good evidence against it.

I would like to see you actually start using some...

 

[1137]

I would like to see you actually start using some...

Those links above are able to be clicked by anyone actually.

 

[McBell]

Those links above are able to be clicked by anyone actually.

Your "interpretation" of the information in those links is what is severely lacking.

 

[1137]

Your "interpretation" of the information in those links is what is severely lacking.

I'm using Dr. Burr's own interpretation of the data. Believe it or not defending theism is not what we are here for! But alas I'd expect nothing less from atheists, who having not the slightest shred of support want to take the focus off their position, and shift it to the other, before this fact is acknowledged. Sorry buddy, I'm acknowledging it!

 

[McBell]

I'm using Dr. Burr's own interpretation of the data.

Confirmation bias is not your friend

Believe it or not defending theism is not what we are here for!

Yet that is the whole purpose of this thread, to convince yourself god exists.

But alas I'd expect nothing less from atheists, who having not the slightest shred of support want to take the focus off their position, and shift it to the other, before this fact is acknowledged. Sorry buddy, I'm acknowledging it!

*yawn*

You do so much whining about shifting the burden when that is exactly all you have done this entire thread.

Your bold empty claim does not merit a passing glance if you cannot substantiate it.
Sorry, that is just the way it works.
Your "my bold empty claims are true until you can prove them wrong" approach only makes your position look even weaker.

Now I understand you will have great difficulty understanding this, especially with your uncontrollable need to make jabs at atheists...

 

[1137]

Confirmation bias is not your friend


Yet that is the whole purpose of this thread, to convince yourself god exists.


*yawn*

You do so much whining about shifting the burden when that is exactly all you have done this entire thread.

Your bold empty claim does not merit a passing glance if you cannot substantiate it.
Sorry, that is just the way it works.
Your "my bold empty claims are true until you can prove them wrong" approach only makes your position look even weaker.

Now I understand you will have great difficulty understanding this, especially with your uncontrollable need to make jabs at atheists...

Hahahahahaaha there's literally 7 supports to my point in the op, which in real honest philosophy is what we would be discussing now. You know, the argument? But you can't, so you throw out the red herring "no, YOU support YOUR position instead." Just look at the irony of you thinking this is somehow an argument for gods! Now you're obviously poorly versed in philosophy, but you do know an atheist doesn't have to be a materialist, right?

 

[McBell]

Hahahahahaaha there's literally 7 supports to my point in the op, which in real honest philosophy is what we would be discussing now. You know, the argument? But you can't, so you throw out the red herring "no, YOU support YOUR position instead." Just look at the irony of you thinking this is somehow an argument for gods! Now you're obviously poorly versed in philosophy, but you do know an atheist doesn't have to be a materialist, right?

try addressing what I have actually said, not what you want me to have said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Another example of how ego closes the mind. It's the fatal flaw of atheism.

There is no flaw in atheism. Nor in avampirism or aleprechaunism. We simply have no reason to believe in any of those entities. Nor in succubi, dragons, or ghosts.

Being rational skeptics, we are people that require a reason to believe before believing. Is that really so unreasonable to the theist? You might consider adopting that position yourself.

Closed-mindedness is a feature of faith based thought, not reason and evidence based thought.

 

[QuestioningMind]

what???

There is an empty box in front of us, you say that there is a cat inside the box, i say it is empty, then i open the box.

Nothing there... i just provided evidence for "a negative", an empty box.

Nope, all you've done is provide evidence that the cat isn't in the box AFTER you opened it. You've yet to provide any evidence that the cat wasn't in the box PRIOR to you opening the box.

 

[1137]

There is no flaw in atheism. Nor in avampirism or aleprechaunism. We simply have no reason to believe in any of those entities. Nor in succubi, dragons, or ghosts.

Being rational skeptics, we are people that require a reason to believe before believing. Is that really so unreasonable to the theist? You might consider adopting that position yourself.

Closed-mindedness is a feature of faith based thought, not reason and evidence based thought.

I think a materialist calling themselves a skeptic is the funniest thing I've ever seen in philosophy.

 

[Indagator]

I wasn't the one that claimed you can't show a negative. In fact, I was the one that pointed out the conditions where it is possible to do so.

my bad

 

[Indagator]

Nope, all you've done is provide evidence that the cat isn't in the box AFTER you opened it. You've yet to provide any evidence that the cat wasn't in the box PRIOR to you opening the box.

lol

nice try thought

 

[Polymath257]

I'm using Dr. Burr's own interpretation of the data. Believe it or not defending theism is not what we are here for! But alas I'd expect nothing less from atheists, who having not the slightest shred of support want to take the focus off their position, and shift it to the other, before this fact is acknowledged. Sorry buddy, I'm acknowledging it!

Well, Burr is allowed to have idiosyncratic interpretations of his results. But the actual scientific papers showed only the existence of E&M fields, not an 'elan vitale'. Nothing out of ordinary physics is there.

 

[1137]

Well, Burr is allowed to have idiosyncratic interpretations of his results. But the actual scientific papers showed only the existence of E&M fields, not an 'elan vitale'. Nothing out of ordinary physics is there.

Burr believed what the data showed him: that physical and chemical life follows an immaterial blueprint, which of course needs a creator.