Athiesm Question

I've often wondered that myself, Cris. We've proven that emotions, memories, feelings and so on are all generated in the brain, so what need is there for a soul? What does a soul give us that our brain does not?
 
im NOT trying to say one way or another if soul's exist...
im trying to explain a concept that ive understood for a long time and just assumed other people understood this concept as well...

there IS a difference between a machine that is identical to a human, and a real human (other than internal organs, etc..)

owell its hopeless
all i know is that to me this is a real simple concept, and quite obviously true, to me
 
Well you're right, there's a difference between them. One has a complex system of neural pathways (ie. a brain) the other has a limited software program designed for only a few purposes. I think our brains are the only thing that distinguish us from a rock, a machine or any other abiotic object (except for organs, cells and such, but I'm talking about life not just the parts that make it up). If we didn't have a brain we'd be just as lifeless as that machine, which tells me that the soul (the thing that gives life) either does not exist or is just another word for brain.
 
Originally posted by Xelios
We've proven that emotions, memories, feelings and so on are all generated in the brain, so what need is there for a soul? What does a soul give us that our brain does not?

You have proof?

At last.

Care to share my friend?

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
You have proof?

At last.

Care to share my friend?

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
The following instructions should shed light on your questions. Somewhere around you there must be a building that can be put under the category of library. In there exist medical and biology books and studies. Open said texts and look under a heading pertaining to brain function. There will you find your proof.
 
Originally posted by MangoMan
you know the way that the minds of the rest of the human race are completely innaccessable to you? as far as you are concerened the rest of the human race might not even be real, and you might be in some wierd alien holo-dome or something....

IF there were no soul, the same would be true of you...
in other words since we would all be bio-machines, life would be just as black as non-existance
Click to expand...

You wrongly assume that the only explanation is soul. If there were no perspective of awareness, then you'd of course be right to say there would be no awareness, and basically no universe (as Einstein and others conclude as well). However, the perspective needn't be a "soul". Soul implies something unnatural, with some kind of nonphysical substance. Nonphysical substance is basically a contradiction in terms.

Here's one of the most often ignored facts of the universe: What it is like to be something is far, far different from what it is like to observe something.

Due to that, we never know what other people and other structures are -- only what it is like for us to observe them, not what it is like to be them. When we look at a computer, for example, we see what it is like for us to observe it, not what it would be like to be it, since the only thing we can be is ourselves. This is the reason why we can say that what it is like to be the brain might be able to describe our minds.

Really, from our perspective other humans fall into the same category as super-advanced computers would. You're right to say we don't know if there's something it's like to be the computer, but we also don't know if there's something it's like to be anyone but the self. We just blindly assume there is such a perspective when it comes to other humans, so if there were a machine that had patterns similar to our brain couldn't we leap to the same conclusion?
 
Teg,

In there exist medical and biology books and studies.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately these will be based on scientific principles, and Jan has shown elsewhere in these forums that science isn't good enough as a form of proof. What Jan needs are books that show how religion can prove our claims. Nothing else woud be acceptable.

So we needn't waste our time on this since whatever logic or science we show just will be simply dismissed.

Cris
 
Jan, as teg suggested a library is full of proof. But basically, through CAT scans, MRI's and so forth we see time and time again that any time a person feels emotion, or recalls past events, or anything else normally associated with a soul one thing always happens. Different parts of the brain are always stimulated by these, for example if you feel sad it has been found that the same part of the brain always lights up, each and every time you feel sad.

When people were asked to recall past events, the same portion of the brain engaged in this activity each time the subject experienced a memory. Is this the result of the person's soul telling the same part of the brain to start processing each time they try to remember something, just to cover up it's (the soul's) existance? Or is there no such thing as a soul, and all our feelings, emotions, memories etc are the result of different portions of our brain? Occam's Razor, you decide.
 
Cris: Unfortunately these will be based on scientific principles, and Jan has shown elsewhere in these forums that science isn't good enough as a form of proof. What Jan needs are books that show how religion can prove our claims. Nothing else woud be acceptable.
Click to expand...
Once we start with burdens for evidence we can throw the bible out as a bottom level, speculation-based piece of proof. Only in a subjective and therefore weaker system is this particular bit given equal weight. People are unwilling to seperate from their emotional attachments.
 
Teg,

People are unwilling to seperate from their emotional attachments.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly.

How does one debate using reason against those who insist on allowing emotions to rule their words. The two approaches are incompatible and means there can never be effective communications between religionists and non-religionists.

Kalvinb is a good example, although not in this thread so much as the evolution thread. His wonderful agressive emotional hostility exemplifies the irrationality and desperation of the religionist who has abandoned reason as a method for debate.

Take care
Cris
 
Originally posted by Teg
. Open said texts and look under a heading pertaining to brain function. There will you find your proof.

Somewhere in your neck of the woods must be a book store, if you enter therein you may find a copy of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, if not, nicely ask the person at the till to place an order for it.
When you get the said book, open any part of it, read, and you will find that you are talking a load of nonesence.

Originally posted by Cris
Teg,
Unfortunately these will be based on scientific principles, and Jan has shown elsewhere in these forums that science isn't good enough as a form of proof.

On the contrary, I welcome scientific evidence as proof, but I have yet to see any evidence to back up these demoniac claims.
Here is something from a real scientist, Isaac Newton, that gets my attention.

He once asked a skilled mechanic to make him a miniature replica of our solar system, with balls representing the planets geared together by cogs and belts so as to move in harmony when cranked.

Later, Newton was visited by a scientist friend who, like you, did not believe in God. There conversation is related in the Minnesota Technologue (October 1957)

One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, What and exquisite thing this is! Who made it?’
Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody!’
Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?’
Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but the the aggregation of matter had just happened to assume the form it was in, and this is how the imitation solar system came to be.
But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, ‘You think that I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is.’
Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid his hand on his friends shoulder. ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose complex laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’

Now, that’s a scientist.

So we needn't waste our time on this since whatever logic or science we show just will be simply dismissed.

What are you afraid of?

Originally posted by Xelios
Different parts of the brain are always stimulated by these, for example if you feel sad it has been found that the same part of the brain always lights up, each and every time you feel sad.

I do not dispute that the brain displays symptoms, where I disagree is that you say the brain is the cause.
This is what I regard as nonsense.

Sometimes certain types of insects lay their eggs in animals after rendering them paralysed. When the infants are able, they come out of the host body. Upon seeing this, an intelligent person does not consider the host to be the natural parent, but an ignorant person would.
Because the brain displays symptoms for certain activities does not mean it is the cause. It is only because of your ignorance why you arrive at this conclusion.

Originally posted by Teg
Once we start with burdens for evidence we can throw the bible out as a bottom level, speculation-based piece of proof. Only in a subjective and therefore weaker system is this particular bit given equal weight. People are unwilling to seperate from their emotional attachments.

Only from your ignorant perspective.

Originally posted by Cris
How does one debate using reason against those who insist on allowing emotions to rule their words.

I guess you’ll never know.

Kalvinb is a good example, although not in this thread so much as the evolution thread. His wonderful agressive emotional hostility exemplifies the irrationality and desperation of the religionist who has abandoned reason as a method for debate.

You are a tricky little devil.
I think that kind of psychology is way passed its sell by date, especially when it is performed so uneffectively.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
That's a nice analogy Jan, however I could say even an ignorent person would reason the egg (or hatchling) did not come from the host. It's pretty simple, the egg hatches a fly larva, which later turns into a fly. Consider this egg was lain on a pig. Any person with half a brain would not look at it and say "wow, that pig just gave birth to a fly!" ;)

Those neural impulses in the brain are not just a symptom, it's the whole reason we have brains. Are you trying to tell me that the entire reason for having a brain is to give our soul access to our bodies like the parasite analogy you suggested?
 
Originally posted by Xelios
That's a nice analogy Jan, however I could say even an ignorent person would reason the egg (or hatchling) did not come from the host.

How would he or she be able to work that one out, if by ignorance, we mean they completely did not have a clue?

It's pretty simple, the egg hatches a fly larva, which later turns into a fly. Consider this egg was lain on a pig.

Yes, then that would mean the person is not ignorant, but has some idea of the difference of species, but how would an ignorant person work it out?

Any person with half a brain would not look at it and say "wow, that pig just gave birth to a fly!"

But people say this world is brought about randomly through the amalgamation of certain elements. And everything on it came about by chance, or something similar.
It is obvious to someone with even half a brain that this phenomena is specifically designed and works to a certain order.
So its not as easy as you think.

Those neural impulses in the brain are not just a symptom, it's the whole reason we have brains. Are you trying to tell me that the entire reason for having a brain is to give our soul access to our bodies like the parasite analogy you suggested?

The brain is a functioning organ, it is a part of the body, albeit a very important part.

Do you think that the brains nerve cells form a sort of information processing network, similar to computers?

Just curious.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
that was a cool story about Isaac Newton

such an interesting debate has developed :)

methinks i shall sit back and watch the debate continue ;)
 
How would he or she be able to work that one out, if by ignorance, we mean they completely did not have a clue?

Well then, it's a good thing we are not completely ignorant.

Yes, then that would mean the person is not ignorant, but has some idea of the difference of species, but how would an ignorant person work it out?

How he would work it out is irrelevant as we are not completely ignorant. If we were, we would never have known about our brain in the first place. We would be nothing more than fish or birds.

Do you think that the brains nerve cells form a sort of information processing network, similar to computers?

That's exactly what they form. As more information is received new pathways are formed. Different centers of the brain are responsible for processing different things. The brain receives input (from nerves, eyes, ears etc), processes it, then gives output (muscle movement, translating sounds, tastes etc). It's exactly like a computer, albeit a very complex one.
 
Originally posted by Xelios
Well then, it's a good thing we are not completely ignorant.

Maybe not completely, but enough to have no idea of our true identities and our position in this world. And to think this wonderful cosmic manifestation is a product and of an explosion, even though we cannot observe no living or non-living phenomena manifesting out of such a condition. As far as you and I are concerned life comes from life and buildings, cars, key rings, etc are produced by life, so how on earth do you come to such a crazy conclusion.

How he would work it out is irrelevant as we are not completely ignorant. If we were, we would never have known about our brain in the first place. We would be nothing more than fish or birds.

A cow is not completely ignorant, she knows what is good for her to eat, but she is completely unaware that she is being fattened up for McDonalds.
You know you have a brain, but you are unaware that you are not the brain, despite knowledge given by higher sources. You would sooner accept the statements of somebody who is in exactly the same boat as yourself. Its like a blind man leading a blind man, this can only end in misery.

Love.

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe not completely, but enough to have no idea of our true identities and our position in this world. And to think this wonderful cosmic manifestation is a product and of an explosion, even though we cannot observe no living or non-living phenomena manifesting out of such a condition.

Then I propose to you that religion was formed to help us overcome our ignorance of the world around us. Our ancestors could not explain what they were seeing, could not explain how they got to be here, so they made up a nice story neatly explaining everything. And now, it has become such a normal part of our lives that just as we are trying to overcome our past ignorance of the world around us we find that we, humanity as a whole, cannot shake this 2000 year old story. Humanity seems to be utterly conservative when it comes to explaining our world.

You know you have a brain, but you are unaware that you are not the brain, despite knowledge given by higher sources. You would sooner accept the statements of somebody who is in exactly the same boat as yourself. Its like a blind man leading a blind man, this can only end in misery.

That can be said about anything. It's a vague statement at best. I could just as easily say to you that you are ignorent and fully believe in a book written by some other ignorent person 2000 years ago. And like you say, this can only end in misery.
 
Originally posted by Xelios
Then I propose to you that religion was formed to help us overcome our ignorance of the world around us. Our ancestors could not explain what they were seeing, could not explain how they got to be here, so they made up a nice story neatly explaining everything.

If that was the case, respect is due to them, for to make up such a magnificent and complete story, in every way, totally fooling some of the greatest minds both past and present, it is nothing short of super-duper-truper-genius, the likes to which, have never been encountered, or indeed, come close, even in this day and age, with all the resources and technology and history, that is currently available.
The best they can do, is copy.
God is the most famous Personality of all times.
I think, if that was the case, they did an excellent job, and we should still take note of what they say, in the hope that one day we can ourselves rekindle this extraordinary, mental phenomena.
It is still, by far a greater theory than, “everything came from an explosion”.

…humanity as a whole, cannot shake this 2000 year old story.

Your right, humanity will never shake this 2000 year old story, for 2 reasons. The first, because people who truly believe and have faith in Christ, know that he will redeem them, no matter what hardships, in this body, they have to face, and therefore will always sing his praise and glory. And second, the demoniac people are shitting themselves, and are trying to secure their redemption with lies and technology, and when that doesn’t work, they will become frustrated and lash out with brutality and fear.
But time will tell, and everybody will get exactly what they deserve.


That can be said about anything. It's a vague statement at best. I could just as easily say to you that you are ignorant and fully believe in a book written by some other ignorant person 2000 years ago. And like you say, this can only end in misery.

Your right, I am ignorant, if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t need to search after the truth, I would already know it.
But where you are again, fool no.1. Is that you feel that the people who compiled the books are ignorant.
But yet, you have no idea how this universe was created, we’ll just put aside the big-bang theory for now. Outside of that, you have absolutely no idea, but you think you are in a position to judge somebody, of whom, you cannot even begin to understand, (as you know nothing about religion and its principles) and say they are ignorant, and then, have the gall to call yourself a scientist, who by their very nature, are supposed understand, through the medium of experimental knowledge. What arrogance!
If i was to say Einstein was ignorant, i'm sure there would be outcry, on this board.
You are OK now, but as i said time will tell.
When someone is on their deathbed and about to die, they have no choice but to surrender their bodies and minds, all non-sense speculation goes out the window and only reality remains, at that time we all know exactly where we're at, in the scheme of life.
I’m afraid you are way out of your depth, and have no idea as to the consequence of your babbling, at least look into it properly and then make an informed choice rather than jumping on the bandwagon.

Love.

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
It is still, by far a greater theory than, “everything came from an explosion”.

No, it's not. "Everything came from an explosion" "Something made everything". There's the two theories. How can you tell me the latter is greater than the former?

and when that doesn’t work, they will become frustrated and lash out with brutality and fear.

That's happening already. Oh, but wait a minute... what's this I see? Ah, Hitler invoking the holucost because he believed God made Jews inferior, and therefor they needed to be killed (religion lashing out with brutality and fear). Some Arabs in the Middle East declaring a Holy War against the West, also killing hundreds of innocent people by ramming planes into the WTC (religion lashing out with brutality and fear). Palestinians and Isrealies at war with more than 1000 dead in the last 17 months because of land issues relating to religion (religion lashing out with brutality and fear).

Shall I go on? Please, give me some examples of scientists killing hundreds of theists because they don't believe in evolution.

But yet, you have no idea how this universe was created, we’ll just put aside the big-bang theory for now. Outside of that, you have absolutely no idea,

So, you tell me I have no idea, as long as I set my idea aside for the time being? Hello, captain obvious.

and say they are ignorant, and then, have the gall to call yourself a scientist, who by their very nature, are supposed understand, through the medium of experimental knowledge. What arrogance!

You're right, it's not as easy to be a scientist as it is to be a theist. Like you say, we are "supposed to understand", theists are just supposed to follow. But please Jan, this bickering can go on forever and only leads us away from the topic.

I’m afraid you are way out of your depth, and have no idea as to the consequence of your babbling

Do you have an idea as to the consequence of my babbling? How do you expect me to understand religion when people who have devoted their entire life to studying it still do not fully understand it?

at least look into it properly and then make an informed choice rather than jumping on the bandwagon.

Right now, I'm more interested in understanding the scientific side of the picture. I have spend many years trying to gain understanding of religion, but the more I understand about science the more I realize how rediculous the idea of religion really is. I'm not trying to insult you or any other theist here, but that's how I feel.

Are you willing to spend a good portion of your life in persuit of understanding science, evolution and other theories about our origins? Or would you rather spend that time coming to a better understanding of what you truely believe in, that God created the universe and everything in it?
 
Jan, as far as i know, scientists do not tend to say
"the universe WAS created by an explosion"

so much as

"from what I have observed, and from what all of the evidence i have seems to indicate, it is quite possible, perhaps probable, that the universe was created by an explosion"

and actually it should even read "...in an explosion" or "...during an explosion"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top