yguy

Well I never.

That would be my guess - or at least no perception of reality in the normal sense.

My guess would be both.

No, and it doesn't care. Why should it? Do I have to know how my hard drive works to copy a file from it?

But of course in the actual quote it is singular, betraying the understanding of the writer that he is talking about a single person.

Jinto

So I shouldn't waste my time then? Good to know.

SimplyAtheistic

Ya, the most you will get out of him is vague assumptions and opinions based on things simply because we cannot prove something 100% without a doubt, regardless of what logic would have you believe.
Jake

Nowhere357

I am, because the soul is hypothetical, and falls to the razor.

These are assumptions. I would say that the default position is that the mind is dependant on the brain - and the brain turns to dust.

I am fascinated by the split brain experiments. From my pov, the split brain still gives rise to only one awareness. Sort of like two brains, one mind. Read the experiments again with from this pov, and see if it fits.

Multiple personality syndrome is the same way - only one awareness is in existence.

From my pov, the experiments give evidence that the mind depends on the brain, but doesn't prove the soul one way or the other.

BadBadBad

Emotional, if you recall, the first time we discussed your beliefs, you presented them as authoritative fact. As if you and God are buds, and that your beliefs are the true source of knowledge about God. That's what started the "you don't know jack shit about God." I probably would have continued anyway, but the authoritative crap you and christians put forth is like a chip on your shoulder, and there are plenty of atheists including me that just love to knock that chip off. You don't know squat about God. None of the Christians do, and you can't because God doesn't exist. The more you talk, the sillier what you "know" looks.

When I and a couple of others finished our debate, you agreed. You admitted that your beliefs were in fact make believe. Make believe is kind of a funny thing. When something is make believe, it doesn't exist. You pretend it exists. You pretend because you know it doesn't exist, but you want it to so you make believe. Most people understand the difference between make believe and reality. You pretend that God exists, and you go back and forth between believing your make believe as reality and coming back to reality and recognizing again that God and afterlife are make believe. So, we know you know the difference between reality and make believe. You have a right to continue to believe in make believe, but if you're going to continue to post, in a public discussion forum, that it is reality, I'm going to continue to comment that it's silly, whether you resent it or not.

The main reason I comment is not to insult you, but to use you as an example to point out your faith is no different than any other christian. You have faith in the God described in the Bible, but you don't believe the Bible. You could just as well have faith in the IPU. You could believe in the IPU for the exact same irrational, emotional, and silly reasons as you believe in God. Why your version of God and not the IPU? Why the Christian God for the Christians? Your faith is no different than the Christians. You're just honest enough to admit that you know your core beliefs are make believe, ie faith - believing in make believe.

emotional

I disagree completely.



I did that in a moment of confidence, when I thought I could go back to atheism and overcome my fear of death by myself. I've taken that back now. I can't overcome my fear of death, I can't go back to atheism, and it's not make believe.



No, I don't. I'm a Deist. I don't have any faith in the god described in the Bible. If some attributes seem to coincide, then it is just that: coincidence.



Yes it is. I don't believe in a talking snake or in miracles. As one poster here said: my beliefs aren't irrational, they're just unproved. They have a good chance of being true.

BadBadBad

brettc: You don't know squat about God.

emotional: I disagree completely.

brettc: What do you "know" about God? What you "know" about God is the wildest of wild speculation. That's not knowing. That's speculating. Based upon what you've already said, it's pretending and it's make believe. It's not knowing. You can pretend you disagree, but you've admitted you know the difference between knowing and pretending. You yourself labeled your knowledge about God as make believe.

emotional in a rational moment:

My beliefs are make believe.

emotional back to emotional:

I did that in a moment of confidence, when I thought I could go back to atheism and overcome my fear of death by myself. I've taken that back now. I can't overcome my fear of death, I can't go back to atheism, and it's not make believe.

brettc:

Let me get this straight. In a moment of emotional confidence, you admitted your beliefs are make believe? Very interesting. So when your mind is operating in a confident and rational way, you admit to yourself that you've only been pretending to believe in God to compensate for a lack of confidence and irrational fears? Now your lack of confidence is no match for your irrational fears, and you're back to pretending? This isn't make believe? So, this is how you establish the absolute incontrovertable truth? Sorry, but that will never cut it here. You've admitted what this is. I can see that, and your pretending doesn't define reality.

emotional: No, I don't. I'm a Deist. I don't have any faith in the god described in the Bible. If some attributes seem to coincide, then it is just that: coincidence.

Brettc:

I'd say your beliefs more than coincide. The fundamental basis of your definition of God and afterlife is the Christian God and Heaven and Hell that go with it. Did you just wake up one day with these christian like ideas, and look into the Bible to say Gee, what a coincidence? You pretend in the Christian God as a base; kind of like a paint by numbers paint set. Only you've decided to use your own colors, and you've changed the picture too. You can still see the original though. Really, you're no different than any other Christian. You might as well call yourself one.


emotional: Yes it is. I don't believe in a talking snake or in miracles. As one poster here said: my beliefs aren't irrational, they're just unproved. They have a good chance of being true.

Brettc:

For all the others here, here's where emotional, and quite a few others here, go astray. It's not just a matter of posting his beliefs as opinion for discussion purposes. He's here as the one and only crusader for the one true religion. He's here to proclaim the true facts about God as only he can define.

Please. Your ideas have the worst of worst likelihood of being true. Your ideas are admittedly complete and total make believe. Even if you deny that now, you've admitted the source. The source is nothing more than a fervent imagination. So admit that as a complete imaginitive fabrication, your beliefs as far as being in fact true have an equivalent probability of the IPU being true. Now, do you believe the IPU is in fact true?

emotional

I take no further part in this discussion. This is just too offensive to me.

JGL53

Thank you for your attendance. Please exit to the left, and careful on the stairs.

BadBadBad

Anyone else then?


If I was a cop, I could have a gut feeling that the wife killed the husband. I don't have any reason to support that. I don't really understand that feeling, but I just think she did it. I understand that thought process. Now you ask me if she really did it. Is my gut feeling an indication of reality? Well, now you put me out on a limb. No, I don't really believe it's a fact. For you christians, you leap beyond the I think God exists to therefore God is real. How do you do that? Why do you do that?

Emotional has just illustrated that. Just pure make belief combined with that leap of faith, and you then come to reality. I played pretend when I was a kid, but I could never believe the pretend stories were in fact true. I could never do that. Now, I'm an adult, and I can't pretend about anything. It's no different than the 1984 story with doublespeak. How is it possible to believe wholeheartedly without doubt that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5? Is this the same for all Christians?

If there is a God, then he created me with the inability to comprehend doublespeak. I can't choose to believe doublespeak, and you can. That same process is what it would take for me to believe in God. The abandonment of reason is the key ingredient for Christianity. It's not really the belief in God. God could have made belief in Him completely obvious. God must want us to abandon reason to believe in him. That's what he must want to justify eternal salvation. Why is that such a worthy thing to do?

If some christians argue that they've never had to abandon reason, then what choice have they made to make them worthy of salvation? Basically, you're believing what to you is obvious. What have you done to deserve salvation? You haven't had to make a leap of faith. You believe the same way a child believes in Santa Claus. Do almost all children choose to be so naive and guillable? Is that some sort of noble thought process worthy of eternal salvation?

In either case, unreasoned thought is the key to belief in god. Why is that so noble as to be worthy of eternal salvation, when God supposedly designed us to be inherently reasoned beings?