Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 78. (Read 89022 times)

Perhaps if you push your dirty brown tongue up just that fraction bit more, you could stimulate his prostate gland and he would cum sooner? 

My child, you are not thinking clearly.

1. We do not know that there are not people who are 2,000 years old or more.

2. Perhaps some of the people saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom in a vision.

3. People who believe in Jesus salvation, pass from death to life when they die, so there are many people who are still alive in the Lord who will witness His coming.

4. Some people do not taste death when they die, whatever flavor it is.

5. When you are dead, your body is not you anymore. Anybody who rises in the resurrection before the coming is complete will see at least part of it.

6. The next thing that every dead person will see is Jesus calling them from the grave at His second coming.

1900 years too late? It isn't too late for you. Repent, and be saved, before it IS too late for you.

JESUS will put no one in any fire..Now go and pray and ask for forgiveness..
I was wondering has Jesus hurt anybody and I found out No..Only about a boy who fell off a roof but he brought him back to life so all good..NO I DON'T BELIEVE IT TO BE SO..

I want to know what rituals the 3 main religions do or have done in the name of there gods..
Some crazy rituals out there..

Quick, look busy....

For the creator of the universe, he takes his sweet time to descend from the dome/firmament.  Maybe he needs a rope or something...

Or a more sane explanation: "He is in your head... and will never really come.".

According to the gospel of Matthew, he's already 1900 years too late


So... unless someone can produce a 2000 year old Christian... I'd say this prophecy failed

Actually it's the other way around. Through cause and effect, and the dimensions, He is entirely aware of everything in ways that are extremely complete, way beyond our imagination, and certainly our knowledge.

The coming of Jesus in the clouds as He prophesied, is simply the method whereby Jesus comes as man as well as God.

The getting busy is something you should be doing. Since you are unwilling to accept Him, you should be preparing in every way that you can think of to fight Him. Why? Because if you will not accept Him before His coming, He will be the one that puts into effect your rejection of Him; into the Lake of Fire you go.

Sure, there are wars and rumors of wars. Yet, over history, it seems that the percentage of people actually formally participating in the wars is less right at the moment than it has ever been.

Jesus is coming. And the peace that He brings is preceding Him, like a gigantic aura of His coming presence, even in NDE activity.

How could you say that NDE is a random feature of consciousness? I and many other skeptics feel that this assertion is founded in ignorance.

We should surely all by now be able to recognise that it's a coherent and relatively common human experience, and one that has relevance to the human condition, on a personal and on a cultural level.

Hence, I propose to you the following for your agreement because I believe that this hypothesis (unlike physicalism) has the weight of evidence behind it:

It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness.

And how do you know that consciousness and NDE are both the result of inherited mutations? Is it not more plausible that sentience drives evolution since it is already present at the source of creation?

Your claim that NDE is "random" has not been proven, and neither is it known that NDE has an origin in inherited mutations. You did not present any evidence but merely left the door open for faulty conclusions such as, "Because NDEs have a brain chemical connection then survival is impossible."

My idea of evolution is mankind ending the cruelty that mankind does to mankind.

Mankind has to step up before it destroys itself--each one must take the first step and find out who you really are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-lqbp5m5N8

The design is shown to be fact first by process of elimination.

There have never been any beneficial mutations observed. Neat idea, but no fact whatsoever.

Probability math shows us that, even if there were randomness in the pure sense, it would have been impossible to have life through evolution (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732).

The idea of natural selection shows that there is selection. Selection says intelligence. Intelligence great enough to be responsible for the complexity of life we see, suggests God-like intelligence. The overwhelming magnitude of numbers of this kind of intelligence without anything opposite being evidenced, proves that God exists and made the whole universe one way or another.


Survival of the fittest coupled with the idea of evolution shouts "science-fiction." Why? Because, even if probability allowed that something like evolution could have happened, the materials surrounding the evolving beneficial mutation, right at the time that the mutation happened, would have destroyed the mutation right on the spot.

The point? There isn't any way to even give evolution the benefit of the doubt and let it be something that is feasible. Evolution that takes inanimate material to life is totally in the realm of science fiction. Believing it as truth turns it into a religion for the believer.


Didn't see the bear's significant other.



Evolution only works in the minds of the ignorant believers of it. Get rid of religions that are not based in truth. Evolution is one of them. Get rid of the evolution false religion.

Makes for interesting sci-fi, though.

The simple answer is that, according to the theory of evolution... mutations are RANDOM... ANYTHING can happen... anything at all... including random things like NDE

This does not imply that it was designed, or it has a purpose, or there is any benefit from it...

The only implication is that it is not detrimental... it is not cancer, or a deadly mutation... it's something benign... benign mutations are not susceptible to survival of the fittest because they are benign... that should be obvious to anyone, even a Muslim


Survival of the fittest is not even about "better" mutations... its simply about not having the worst mutations in the group...

Analogy: You and I are walking in the woods... we see a bear... I put on my running shoes because I don't have to outrun the bear, I only need to outrun YOU... YOU are my competition, not the bear

That is exactly how evolution works... the group would see me with running shoes, and soon, everyone in the group would be wearing them (anyone without shoes is bear food)... the only difference with evolution is that mutations are random, and takes longer than making a pair of shoes

What I find so interesting is that in the sceptical analysis the transcendental and transormative element hardly gets any mention at all. OK, there may be something going on at some deep level of the brain, beyond the ability of instruments to detect. But is that really the point? Patients aren't just continuing to have experiences, something happens to them so powerful that when they return to existence they think and behave differently. What possible, meaningful neurological explanation could there be for that?

My feeling is that no materialist account of the NDE will be complete until we address this. We should surely all by now be able to recognise that it's a coherent and relatively common human experience, and one that has relevance to the human condition, on a personal and on a cultural level. So let's stop pretending that it's simply some weird nonsense that happens when the brain winds down, and nothing really to worry about. Let's instead ask ourselves why, if we are the creatures formed by natural selection that [we] believe ourselves to be, something as odd and yet as meaningful as the near-death experience could ever have evolved. What's the purpose of it?

Source: http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2008/10/dying-brain-hypothesis-not-dead.html

Ah, so you think that the brain is too complex an organ and a mere "receptor" is too simple a mechanism?
Soul or not, I think you should pay attention to Kurt Gödel who says:
"I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical."
Even Darwin doubted that human reason could be trusted if it had evolved from blind forces and unconscious matter; in this he was agreeing with Descartes and Gödel.


On the contrary, my intuition has thoroughly surveyed the issue of "receptors" from a scientific standpoint. I conclude along with Hammeroff that feelings came before the brain; this is a powerful argument supporting the idea that the brain does not generate consciousness:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/darwin-versus-deepak-whic_b_7481048.html
Will you address these four empirical observations which lead Hammeroff and myself to conclude that feelings came before the brain?
Hammeroff has proposed his theory of quantum consciousness; this will help science to explain NDEs like the AWARE study; there is plenty of supporting evidence: Quantum theory supports concepts found in NDEs.

I must inform you that you present two related arguments from ignorance:
1) The mind is generated by the brain because the brain is so complex that I (Trading) do not understand how the mind can act as a receiver (of consciousness).
2) The mind is not generated by the soul because the idea of a receptor is so simple that I cannot understand how the mind can act as anything but a generator (of consciousness).

I think that you don't want to accept Dr. Parnia's three claims from the AWARE study (see below) and conclude that the mind can exist independent of brain. That is OK; I am sure that as you read more of these references that I am providing, you will have a better understanding of the problems faced by science in explaining consciousness from a purely physical standpoint.

You are making presumptions about the origin of the brain, but I am trying to discuss the hard evidence that has been presented.

You present another argument from ignorance:
"In cases of cardiac arrest, it is possible that brain activity can occur more than 2 minutes after cardiac arrest because you (qwik2learn) cannot prove that all brain activity ceases after 40 seconds of anoxia."

You are misinformed: The 40 second rule for brain activity (and consciousness) is a fact of human physiology with a sound basis in neurophysiology. According to today's science, the issue is actually settled:

0) The intricate relationship between the brain and its higher functions is never more apparent than when the brain becomes dysfunctional. How can a physicalist explain a higher-functioning mind when the underlying brain is dysfunctional and offline? This point alone stretches credulity to the breaking point and introduces far too much complexity to make physicalism a viable theory.
1) Brain activity that is associated with consciousness is a whole-brain phenomena, higher brain function can always be detected by the EEG, and since the EEG is the summation of the spikes of individual neurons, it stands to reason that a global brain phenomena (consciousness) would always result in a positive measurement of brain activity. The link between neural activity, brain activity, and the brain's higher functions is very well established, for example "ongoing [brain] activity fluctuations ... constitute an essential property of the neural architecture underlying cognition", so a global shutdown of neural activity would cause a disruption in the EEG and total loss of consciousness with no restoration of higher function until the global shutdown is reversed. Cognition, like perception and awareness, is always observed to be a global phenomena, and such a phenomena cannot be expected during a global shutdown.
2) it is easy to tell the difference between consciousness, coma, sleep, death/near-death, and etc. on the EEG. The function of EEG is perfectly clear: it records brain activity. Understanding the vegetative state presents a challenge for science, but the relationship between brain activity and higher brain functions like awareness is VERY well-established.
3) The higher neurons in the rostral brain are programmed for ischemic vulnerability when all neurons should be as resilient as possible, indicating that robust spreading depolarization is not simply a pathology but is rather an active shutdown process that evolved in response to reduced blood flow caused by head trauma. Since lower neurons are not as vulnerable, it is obvious that the higher functions (like awareness) are programmed to shut down first and remain shut down until the anoxic depolarization is reversed.
4) Depolarization of neurons is a well-understood concept in biophysics; to block anoxic depolarization requires a concentrated cocktail of ion-gated and ligand-gated channel antagonists that electrically silences the tissue. Otherwise, the anoxic depolarization takes place within the expected timeframe, first with the higher neurons, the depolarization that takes place under the normal rules of biophysics at the cellular level will quickly shut down the brain and only a reversal of the global anoxic depolarization can bring back the global phenomena of consciousness.
Therefore,
The burden of proof is on you, the physicalist (Trading), to provide evidence that a patient could plausibly attest to conscious experience during a time when there is no blood flow, no brain activity on the EEG, and already 2 minutes after onset of cardiac arrest. You cannot use ignorance of biophysical mechanisms as an excuse for lacking a plausible explanation because this phenomena is by no means supported by even the most rudimentary biophysical neuroscience. In other words, the physicalist always holds to the idea "no brain activity = no brain function"; it is the bedrock of neuroscience and I would like to see even ONE neuroscientist who would disagree with that assessment.

You are rejecting the evidence and instead putting forth arguments from ignorance.

This case was observed and it was not the first case of its kind; since it was observed by multiple credible witnesses, I believe it is you who is wishfully thinking.

If you would read the near-death evidence page, you would see that related phenomena is very common in all peoples. I also recommend the eminent researchers link and other pages found on the spiritual development website. Many various phenomena unite in establishing the truth that awareness does not perish upon death.
For example: "According to recent studies, only about 10% of people are conscious shortly before their death. Of this group, 50% to 67% have DBVs."
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a45

You did not answer them with any evidence that meets your burden of proof. See above the four/five observations made by me and four more observations made by Hammeroff. I have not heard any straightforward rebuttal to the three claims of Dr. Parnia from this study. All that you have said to me is "you cannot know for sure that the brain is not generating the awareness even though it is shut down", but to conclude the opposite (that the brain could generate awareness even if it is "turned off") is very absurd, it is obviously not the simpler explanation.

Your arguments appear to be based on scientism with assumptions that survival is impossible even though survival has not been ruled out. Pseudo-skeptical arguments are being made that do not consider the entire body of circumstantial evidence supporting the possibility of survival or do not consider the possibility of new paradigms. Such pseudo-skeptical claims are being made without any scientific evidence.

The results of this case study are not considered to be proven? Then which claims are in doubt? Do you doubt the medical staff as credible witnesses? Do you doubt that the brain ceases its higher functions after (less than) 40 seconds of cardiac arrest? Do you doubt that the patient had recollections that were consistent with the verified events described by the medical staff? Which of these claims are in doubt and why?

"Evolution" has many meanings. If you are talking about inorganic material changing into a human being, the odds are so far against it that it is way impossible under any circumstances. The longer the time (age of the universe), the more impossible it becomes. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-mathematical-impossibility-of-evolution-1454732.

Fossils show no missing links. All they show is a great variety of plants and animals, greater than we have at present.

There is no random. Cause and effect, which is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, shows that all effects are caused. This means that there is no pure random.

All the things that you are talking about are conjecture in the way that you are talking about them. This is why evolution is classified as theory rather than fact.


Chance doesn't have anything to do with destroying us or not. The thing called "death" is what has been destroying us for years now. However, there are always some people still around. So, life is stronger than death.



There wasn't any evolution in the way you are using the word. There isn't any thing called "chance." Chance has to do with our inability to see things in detail. Since we can't see the details, we use probability to guestimate them. In reality, there is no probability... no chance.

God pre-programmed the universe to exist as it does.

Out of sympathy for you (and for your finding on the article quoted on https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-evidence-could-overthrow-the-standard-view-of-quantum-mechanics-1481567), I'm going to answer you, but, as usually, we think according to different logical rules:

"If environmental circumstance and chance could produce the complexity that we are"

Evolution is proven beyond doubt, based on fossils and genetics. The mechanisms of evolution are adaptation, based on more or less random genetic changes, to environmental circumstances, ergo environmental circumstance and chance created our complexity.

"it would have destroyed the complexity almost faster than it could make the complexity."

This is a statement of fact, I guess you have hard evidence to justify why it would be faster destroying than making us? Anyway, if you gave chance enough time, it will destroy us. Just don't wait standing.

"Math and probability prove that the complexity of the universe could not have happened by chance."

Since we are more complex than any galaxy (we have more cells than a galaxy has stars and, probably, planets), and we were made by evolution that is determined by chance and adaptation to circumstances, it seems your math and probabilities (that, as usually, you don't present) are wrong.

Do you really think that the most complex reality we know in nature, the human brain, is just a "receptor" of a "soul"?

Each of us has about 100 billion neurons. Each one "has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about [...] 1 quadrillion [synapses]. This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from [...] 100 to 500 trillion." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron#Connectivity).

You claim being a quick learner. Doesn't your intuition tell you are wrong? Something so complex that we still can't understand has to be more than a simple "receptor".

The brain consumes 20% of our energy. What an evolutionary waste if that was its only function.

You are assuming as the truth that neurons can have no activity whatsoever after 40 seconds. That can't be considered as absolutely settled. Nothing about the brain can considered as closed. It's non sense to base on your "evidence" any conclusion about a "soul".

Any evidence considered as that by real science says we are purely physical. The rest is wishful thinking.

You qualify as hard evidence a few individual cases? Come one, you would have to do much better than that.

Moreover, you are repeating your arguments. I already answered them. You have a conception of science that has nothing to do with the consensual one, with proven results.

Except for the complexity. If environmental circumstance and chance could produce the complexity that we are, it would have destroyed the complexity almost faster than it could make the complexity.

Math and probability prove that the complexity of the universe could not have happened by chance.

I feel that you have said it ALL, brother.

I criticize the OP's theory that the brain is a generator of consciousness; the evidence points to a role more like that of a transmitter, but OP does not want to discuss that evidence with me in detail.

One does not need to believe in a soul to see that this is as nice a case of the "just-so story" as one could ever find in any introductory logic book.
By "a bunch of atoms", you obviously are referring to the brain and nervous system which consist of physical atoms,
but what you fail to realize is that there is evidence that consciousness is more than this physical structure
and this physical structure is not even necessary for consciousness.
I have presented the evidence which suggests this conclusion numerous times and you have no plausible answer for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Since that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, it becomes obvious that my side of the argument is the only one that is scientifically plausible. You seem to think that you do not have a burden of proof in this discussion and you obviously will not consider any hypothesis besides physicalism, so to clarify this state of affairs, I will continue to ask you:

Is there actually any evidence for this claim that the destiny of your awareness is nothingness? Or that consciousness is purely physical? And what about the strong evidence to the contrary, like the verified case of the man who had awareness of a sound during a period when he was without a functional brain? Is this case not a counterexample to the notion that awareness ends at death? Hence, I propose to you the following for your agreement because I believe that this hypothesis (unlike physicalism) has the weight of evidence behind it:

It is more elegant and far easier to accept as a working hypothesis that sentience exists as a potential at the source of creation, and the strongest evidence has already been put on the table: Everything to be observed in the universe implies consciousness.

Religion itself may be good, even if religions are dangerous. "Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not."--Kurt Gödel (Read More)
How can you ignore our discussion and continue to repeat your baseless claims about physicalism when there is hard evidence on the table? Maybe atheism has pernicious effects! Your ignorance could be cured if you decided to engage with me in our discussion; I have tried my best to lay out the disagreements, and I look forward to your reply. If you wish, I can be contacted by phone (PM me for this info).

We are just a pattern of organization of a bunch of atoms that, by pure environmental circumstances and chance, gained conscience; however, only because of this awareness, astonishingly, some of us started believing that we are destined for a greater fate than the other common bunch of atoms (entropy).

And this believe, in it self, was completely alright (being, by my perspective, erroneous is irrelevant, you have the right to deceive yourselves), if a minority (historically, a majority) of believers didn't start oppressing others, limiting their life possibilities or exploding themselves together with a lot of innocents (see the lasts two points of the OP) because of his religious beliefs.

When religious people decide to kill themselves for political motives, frequently, they like to "end in glory", taking as much infidels with them as possible.

Buddhists deserve some praise: usually, when they kill themselves for political reasons they don't take others with them, not even their oppressors. But, unfortunately, you are a minority on the modesty of your end.

And no, I'm not thinking only about radical Islamism. Generalizations are always dangerous, but, historically, one can argue that Christians were even crueler on "holy" wars than Muslims.

The reason was simple: Muslims recognize Jesus as a Prophet; Christians don't give any credit to Muhammad and hence to Islamism.

For instance, compare the Christian conquest of Jerusalem (1099: almost all on the city were massacred, women and children included, Muslims and even Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)#Massacre) with the Muslim one (1187: Saladin respected his word and no one was killed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1187)#The_siege).

Are we talking about history? Religion has nothing to do with the wars initiated by western countries? Probably, little, however at least on paper: "George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq': http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa. We are all still paying the price for the 2003 Iraq invasion.

And let's not forget Israel's Prime-minister and his policy of annexation of Palestinian land. On his 2015 discourse on the american Congress he said: "Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land. And before the people of Israel entered the Land of Israel" (http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/31608/full-text-pm-netanyahus-speech-joint-session-us-congress-jerusalem/).

So, why publish the OP? Because some religious people are dangerous and religions have pernicious effects.

I was a passionate atheist, right now I've got alot into buddhism, it's spiritualism and philosophy and every time i see these post like this I cringe really hard. Why do you have a need to let other know you're an atheist?