"brain reacting to a car crash is not the car crash itself"
I completely agree, the brain doesnt have to have a flower inside it to represent a flower. Still Emotions are real physical parts of brains. That does not mean we cant love some one or thing in error. Our conception of things are not those things, that does not mean they are not physically things themselves.
As far as Hitchens debating an Orthodox archbishop, let's hope Hitchens gets a bit better and can do so.
Atheists can't really be clumped together since there is no "church of atheism" or anything. I call myself an atheist because I will never worship anything. Could there be something supernatural? Possibly. Is there a way to prove it logically? Not with any know methodology. And would a supernatural force match up with specific accounts in existing holy books? Probably not.
Reason I say "probably not" is because there are so many natural things that early humans (or even modern humans) could confuse for supernatural events.
If your belief in God is representative of the the Orthodox belief, a debate would be pretty pointless. It's a matter of believing or not, and there is no argument that can prove or disprove a God outside of the universe, and both sides know it going in. And since the bible doesn't seem to affect your judgement in morality...
...to a significant degree, that type of belief doesn't really impede social progress. The same arguments you might make for moral dilemmas can be logically followed by any person not hung up on such-and-such passage in a holy book.
Do I value my emotions, which cannot be explained logically? Absolutely. But there is nothing any god could do to cause me to give myself up to it. That is my personal "argument" of my atheism, and I'll be looking out for any way this "argument"...
...falls apart to any religion. And no, a religion having a laxer definition of "worship" doesn't count as trumping that "argument." :-P
Also, if I had a "supernatural" experience like prophecy, I'd consider logical explanations or expand my view of reality.
And String Theory/M Theory/etc. are based on mathematics, so at least there's that difference. I can't be said to believe or disbelieve it as I don't know nearly enough and it's still in dispute among scientists.
@JohnTheHutDweller "love is supernatural? prove love" No its not supernatural it an emotion, we can even actually scan the brain of someone that is in love or thinks about someone they love so we can recognize love at the level of the brain. Therefor it is a real tangible thing like all emotions or thoughts which are processes that are material parts of us. Show me one example of a emotion or mind thats part from a brain?
@JohnTheHutDweller "the brains reactions to things are not the things themselves " ActuallyThis is so obvious why even bring it up, what bearing does it have on my points.?
@JohnTheHutDweller I really think love is super, but I haven't enough understanding of it to claim it's supernatural. Considering that damage to and alterations of the brain can affect emotions, that indicates a natural origin. I know you believe the brain is a receiver, but there's no evidence to support that. The fact that when humans reproduce, they nearly invariably produce children with thoughts and emotions instead of inactive receivers goes against that model.
...of course you can say "Well, a matching soul was waiting" or "Sperm and egg meeting in the real world produce a soul at the origin of the receivers' signal that resonates with the brain that will develop *in the future,* and will remain in resonance despite the growth and change of the brain." And as a person grows, doesn't that mean the soul at the source should change, not the receiver? But we see the brain changes.
Anyway sorry, getting a little off-track. The point is that thought and emotion as an *expression* of brain activity is a better model that doesn't require multiple unprovable additional assumptions. Just as a movie can be made out of individual pixels acting together, a personality can be made out of the components of an individual brain acting together. No assumption required.
But it gets better, because this model is testable.
Our technology will soon be at the point where we can emulate properties of a human brain digitally, or transfer a human mind to a digital medium, or produce an entirely unique life form with parallel capabilities. We might eventually be able to meet aliens, and some of them might also have emotions despite having a completely different "brain." So we can demonstrate that the model I suggested is a far more likely one, in more and more ways as science progresses.
No, I have not. "Research" into aliens and UFOs has become so interwoven with new-age bullshit within the last 15 or so years that they've become impossible to separate from one another. Really, the rate at which new-age theories evolve is startling. That's the reason I read part of Plato as I mentioned: I wanted to see how far off track new-age ideas about Atlantis were from the original dialogues. The real twist? Never once in the story is advanced technology mentioned.
That was something I took for granted about the myth; a baseline I thought was there. And every person has their own baselines of what "must" be true about previous stories. As multiple people take different things for granted as true, they get further from the actual truth.
The story of aliens/UFOs has deviated so much over the years that there is really nothing valuable a person can get out of it. It's best to ignore it entirely and develop in other ways until an opportunity..
...to do first-hand research presents itself. The only practical way of researching would be to chase the UFO down from multiple angles, informed by a network. But there'd be too many false alarms, and too many people would go into it with expectations: the last thing they should have when dealing with the unknown.
If I ever saw an alien first-hand, that'd be great. But no, I haven't. When I mentioned aliens, I was speaking generally, not of UFOs/abductions.
Undoubtedly there are aliens out there somewhere... but it's unknown if they're as we expect them. Do a Google search on "cavemen or angels" and click on the first link. It's a science fiction idea, but I remember it being a bit more popular. LOL Basically, we'll probably discover hundreds of intelligent species until we find one at a level we can interact with. So my guess is we have a bit of a wait before we can really talk to any aliens.
You're damn right atheism is Protestant. All those traditional Calvinist and Lutheran churches in Swirtzland, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, etc, are filled with clergy which outright admits they're atheist. No joke.
@nunfonseca Bob Marley once said "total destruction is the only solution" I said Orthodoxy is the only solution. Many in europe are running back to the RCC they need to run further back and come to the EO
@givingmantoo so steve jobs wasn't but you said wise. this is a logical fallacies it is like saying a liar or adulterer or some one who drinks coffee can not be very wise. It is also a logicall fallacies because it claims that a piece of wisedom must come from a wise person Not to mention I just used it as a quote' I did not base any concept on it. another example St peter was a christian, St Peter denied christ, therefore all christians deny christ
Ayn Rand was both Aristotelian and an atheist. For someone who champions 'reason' and pits it against 'faith', this is illogical. Aristotle depended on an absolute deity in order to account for absolute truth, objective morality, etc. Ayn dismisses his axiom and just takes universals for granted. And since she can't account for them, she accepts them by - here we go - faith.
'Objectivism' is really amputated Aristotelianism. It ends up absolutizing subjectivity, resulting in solipsism.
I think you mayfind this video of interest.
God's Emotions
watch?v=bFGHq2RH55M
Greathiway 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"brain reacting to a car crash is not the car crash itself"
I completely agree, the brain doesnt have to have a flower inside it to represent a flower. Still Emotions are real physical parts of brains. That does not mean we cant love some one or thing in error. Our conception of things are not those things, that does not mean they are not physically things themselves.
Greathiway 3 months ago
did the Calvinists really destroy the bones of St. Irenaeus?
XSC3 3 months ago
@givingmantoo you have never heard of logic
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That was good...I really need to know more about Orthodoxy.
Buddhuzlefthandman 3 months ago
As far as Hitchens debating an Orthodox archbishop, let's hope Hitchens gets a bit better and can do so.
Atheists can't really be clumped together since there is no "church of atheism" or anything. I call myself an atheist because I will never worship anything. Could there be something supernatural? Possibly. Is there a way to prove it logically? Not with any know methodology. And would a supernatural force match up with specific accounts in existing holy books? Probably not.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler
Reason I say "probably not" is because there are so many natural things that early humans (or even modern humans) could confuse for supernatural events.
If your belief in God is representative of the the Orthodox belief, a debate would be pretty pointless. It's a matter of believing or not, and there is no argument that can prove or disprove a God outside of the universe, and both sides know it going in. And since the bible doesn't seem to affect your judgement in morality...
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler
...to a significant degree, that type of belief doesn't really impede social progress. The same arguments you might make for moral dilemmas can be logically followed by any person not hung up on such-and-such passage in a holy book.
Do I value my emotions, which cannot be explained logically? Absolutely. But there is nothing any god could do to cause me to give myself up to it. That is my personal "argument" of my atheism, and I'll be looking out for any way this "argument"...
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler
...falls apart to any religion. And no, a religion having a laxer definition of "worship" doesn't count as trumping that "argument." :-P
Also, if I had a "supernatural" experience like prophecy, I'd consider logical explanations or expand my view of reality.
And String Theory/M Theory/etc. are based on mathematics, so at least there's that difference. I can't be said to believe or disbelieve it as I don't know nearly enough and it's still in dispute among scientists.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler love is supernatural prove love
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller "love is supernatural? prove love" No its not supernatural it an emotion, we can even actually scan the brain of someone that is in love or thinks about someone they love so we can recognize love at the level of the brain. Therefor it is a real tangible thing like all emotions or thoughts which are processes that are material parts of us. Show me one example of a emotion or mind thats part from a brain?
Greathiway 3 months ago
@Greathiway the brains reactions to things are not the things themselves EXAMPLE the brain reacting to a car crash is not the car crash itself
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnTheHutDweller "the brains reactions to things are not the things themselves " ActuallyThis is so obvious why even bring it up, what bearing does it have on my points.?
Greathiway 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller I really think love is super, but I haven't enough understanding of it to claim it's supernatural. Considering that damage to and alterations of the brain can affect emotions, that indicates a natural origin. I know you believe the brain is a receiver, but there's no evidence to support that. The fact that when humans reproduce, they nearly invariably produce children with thoughts and emotions instead of inactive receivers goes against that model.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller
...of course you can say "Well, a matching soul was waiting" or "Sperm and egg meeting in the real world produce a soul at the origin of the receivers' signal that resonates with the brain that will develop *in the future,* and will remain in resonance despite the growth and change of the brain." And as a person grows, doesn't that mean the soul at the source should change, not the receiver? But we see the brain changes.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller
Anyway sorry, getting a little off-track. The point is that thought and emotion as an *expression* of brain activity is a better model that doesn't require multiple unprovable additional assumptions. Just as a movie can be made out of individual pixels acting together, a personality can be made out of the components of an individual brain acting together. No assumption required.
But it gets better, because this model is testable.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller
Our technology will soon be at the point where we can emulate properties of a human brain digitally, or transfer a human mind to a digital medium, or produce an entirely unique life form with parallel capabilities. We might eventually be able to meet aliens, and some of them might also have emotions despite having a completely different "brain." So we can demonstrate that the model I suggested is a far more likely one, in more and more ways as science progresses.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler I could make a whole series of videos in response to that statement, so have you met any of these aliens? (not joking)
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller
No, I have not. "Research" into aliens and UFOs has become so interwoven with new-age bullshit within the last 15 or so years that they've become impossible to separate from one another. Really, the rate at which new-age theories evolve is startling. That's the reason I read part of Plato as I mentioned: I wanted to see how far off track new-age ideas about Atlantis were from the original dialogues. The real twist? Never once in the story is advanced technology mentioned.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler ancient aliens on the history channel is a disgrace
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller No arguments here. :-P The History Channel... could do a lot better at a lot of things...
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler
That was something I took for granted about the myth; a baseline I thought was there. And every person has their own baselines of what "must" be true about previous stories. As multiple people take different things for granted as true, they get further from the actual truth.
The story of aliens/UFOs has deviated so much over the years that there is really nothing valuable a person can get out of it. It's best to ignore it entirely and develop in other ways until an opportunity..
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler
...to do first-hand research presents itself. The only practical way of researching would be to chase the UFO down from multiple angles, informed by a network. But there'd be too many false alarms, and too many people would go into it with expectations: the last thing they should have when dealing with the unknown.
If I ever saw an alien first-hand, that'd be great. But no, I haven't. When I mentioned aliens, I was speaking generally, not of UFOs/abductions.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
@TKnightcrawler
Undoubtedly there are aliens out there somewhere... but it's unknown if they're as we expect them. Do a Google search on "cavemen or angels" and click on the first link. It's a science fiction idea, but I remember it being a bit more popular. LOL Basically, we'll probably discover hundreds of intelligent species until we find one at a level we can interact with. So my guess is we have a bit of a wait before we can really talk to any aliens.
TKnightcrawler 3 months ago
You're damn right atheism is Protestant. All those traditional Calvinist and Lutheran churches in Swirtzland, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, etc, are filled with clergy which outright admits they're atheist. No joke.
nunfonseca 3 months ago
@nunfonseca Bob Marley once said "total destruction is the only solution" I said Orthodoxy is the only solution. Many in europe are running back to the RCC they need to run further back and come to the EO
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller bob marley, you mean that pot head?
givingmantoo 3 months ago
@givingmantoo the musician yes, why is there more than one famous Bob marley that sang reggae songs?
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
@JohnTheHutDweller just wondering, some pot head can't be very wise.
givingmantoo 3 months ago
@givingmantoo so steve jobs wasn't but you said wise. this is a logical fallacies it is like saying a liar or adulterer or some one who drinks coffee can not be very wise. It is also a logicall fallacies because it claims that a piece of wisedom must come from a wise person Not to mention I just used it as a quote' I did not base any concept on it. another example St peter was a christian, St Peter denied christ, therefore all christians deny christ
JohnTheHutDweller 3 months ago
Ayn Rand was both Aristotelian and an atheist. For someone who champions 'reason' and pits it against 'faith', this is illogical. Aristotle depended on an absolute deity in order to account for absolute truth, objective morality, etc. Ayn dismisses his axiom and just takes universals for granted. And since she can't account for them, she accepts them by - here we go - faith.
'Objectivism' is really amputated Aristotelianism. It ends up absolutizing subjectivity, resulting in solipsism.
nunfonseca 3 months ago
Smoking will kill you. It is poison. Why would anyone with a working brain let that into their body?
AlphaDogOmegaDog 3 months ago 2
@AlphaDogOmegaDog Because the addiction to nicotine is rooted in the brain. I think that demonstrates that the brain is working :)
tetrahydroscope 3 months ago
@tetrahydroscope Brain tumors are rooted in the brain too, but they aren't exactly examples of how the brain is supposed to work.
sarabellumm 3 months ago 2