Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

All you have shown is that whatever causes love or empathy, etc., does not exist in large degree in the animal kingdom.
So what?
That doesn't have the first thing to do with showing why it is unique to humans.

Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.

If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.

See the red above.
Same argument as last time.
Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.

 

[thanatos144]

Today is the day we remember the resurrection. Happy Easter all even to those of the religion of atheism

tapatalk post

 

[jillian]

Today is the day we remember the resurrection. Happy Easter all even to those of the religion of atheism

tapatalk post

that's nice of you.

but atheism isn't a religion.

 

[thanatos144]

Today is the day we remember the resurrection. Happy Easter all even to those of the religion of atheism

tapatalk post

that's nice of you.

but atheism isn't a religion.

Of course it is. Otherwise they wouldnt preach as much about it


tapatalk post

 

[Boss]

All you have shown is that whatever causes love or empathy, etc., does not exist in large degree in the animal kingdom.
So what?
That doesn't have the first thing to do with showing why it is unique to humans.

Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.

If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.

See the red above.
Same argument as last time.
Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.

You're not making an argument, you are highlighting in red where I state that I believe something. Are you arguing that I can't believe something?

Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.

But man hasn't ever found a way to coexist and live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of self, it still goes on today. If man no longer fought and destroyed each other, you might have a valid point, but that's simply not what evidence shows. So this is not what has caused these qualities in man because your premise is invalid. Man has simply not evolved in that regard, we still fight and kill each other, furthermore, with the capability and capacity of fighting and killing more people than we've ever before imagined.

You have simply not explained what drives human consciousness. I believe it is our spirit and soul, but you don't believe those exist. So I am waiting to discover what you believe does so? The only other thing I can rationalize is self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. Are you at a loss for an explanation, or what?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.

If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.

See the red above.
Same argument as last time.
Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.

You're not making an argument, you are highlighting in red where I state that I believe something. Are you arguing that I can't believe something?

Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.

But man hasn't ever found a way to coexist and live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of self, it still goes on today. If man no longer fought and destroyed each other, you might have a valid point, but that's simply not what evidence shows. So this is not what has caused these qualities in man because your premise is invalid. Man has simply not evolved in that regard, we still fight and kill each other, furthermore, with the capability and capacity of fighting and killing more people than we've ever before imagined.

You have simply not explained what drives human consciousness. I believe it is our spirit and soul, but you don't believe those exist. So I am waiting to discover what you believe does so? The only other thing I can rationalize is self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. Are you at a loss for an explanation, or what?

So you think civilization has self-destructed already? You think we haven't come up with ways to survive with each other for the most part? Is your neighborhood in ruins?
My building is still standing. My town has a working government.
Man has evolved as a societal animal. People work together. They have done it in larger and larger iterations over the course of time, and it most certainly has created the rise of the traits you name.
Did U of A teach the spirit world in the doctrinal program?
If you had taken psychology (I mean actually studied it) none of what I am saying would be new territory for you.
Here's an article you might enjoy. It's from Psychology Today.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/the-neuroscience-empathy

"In a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience on October 9, 2013, Max Planck researchers identified that the tendency to be egocentric is innate for human beings – but that a part of your brain recognizes a lack of empathy and autocorrects. This specific part of your brain is called the the right supramarginal gyrus. When this brain region doesn't function properly—or when we have to make particularly quick decisions—the researchers found one’s ability for empathy is dramatically reduced. This area of the brain helps us to distinguish our own emotional state from that of other people and is responsible for empathy and compassion."

Perhaps this is what is wrong with you. Your brain doesn't function properly. Your right supramarginal gyrus is damaged.

 

[Boss]

So you think civilization has self-destructed already?

Civilizations have certainly self-destructed more times than I can list here.

You think we haven't come up with ways to survive with each other for the most part? Is your neighborhood in ruins?

Mostly through our spiritually-driven conscience. But what does it have to do with you presenting your rationale for what drives human conscience other than our soul and spirit? You are trying to use circular reasoning here, and you know that isn't going to fly.

My building is still standing. My town has a working government.

I suspect your town still has people with souls and spiritually-driven conscience.

Man has evolved as a societal animal. People work together. They have done it in larger and larger iterations over the course of time, and it most certainly has created the rise of the traits you name.

We're not arguing whether the traits exist, we're arguing what drives them, where they come from, how we determine them. I say it's through our soul and spirit which is spiritually connected to something greater than self of which we are accountable. You argue that doesn't exist but you won't define what drives our conscience.

As for the rest of your insult-filled tantrum, I am going to ignore it because it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Hollie]

Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.

If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.

See the red above.
Same argument as last time.
Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.

You're not making an argument, you are highlighting in red where I state that I believe something. Are you arguing that I can't believe something?

Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.

But man hasn't ever found a way to coexist and live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of self, it still goes on today. If man no longer fought and destroyed each other, you might have a valid point, but that's simply not what evidence shows. So this is not what has caused these qualities in man because your premise is invalid. Man has simply not evolved in that regard, we still fight and kill each other, furthermore, with the capability and capacity of fighting and killing more people than we've ever before imagined.

You have simply not explained what drives human consciousness. I believe it is our spirit and soul, but you don't believe those exist. So I am waiting to discover what you believe does so? The only other thing I can rationalize is self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. Are you at a loss for an explanation, or what?

You toss aroud terms such as “spirits” and “souls”, yet you’re unable to define these terms without resorting to silly retreats to bizarre and ludicrous sidesteps and waffles.
You have no explanation for "spirits" or "souls" because the claims are undemonstrated and without merit. Obviously, you can describe no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.

On the other hand, I can explain the phenomenon of personality and where that comes from. The human sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals. Not surprisingly, humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This clearly demonstrates that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon linked to higher brain functions. Or, are you going to suggest that your gods have made monkeys and men with a “spirit” or “soul” each?

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain and can be directly traced and measured by way of chemical reactions in the brain. Remove sections (or damage sections), of the brain or change the way the brain operates with psychoactive drugs and the "self" changes as well.

All the mumbo-jumbo you spew about “spirits” and “souls” is nonsense because those “spirits” or “souls” cannot override damaging impact or chemical alteration to the brain and the change in personality that attends those.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So you think civilization has self-destructed already?

Civilizations have certainly self-destructed more times than I can list here.

You think we haven't come up with ways to survive with each other for the most part? Is your neighborhood in ruins?

Mostly through our spiritually-driven conscience. But what does it have to do with you presenting your rationale for what drives human conscience other than our soul and spirit? You are trying to use circular reasoning here, and you know that isn't going to fly.

My building is still standing. My town has a working government.

I suspect your town still has people with souls and spiritually-driven conscience.

Man has evolved as a societal animal. People work together. They have done it in larger and larger iterations over the course of time, and it most certainly has created the rise of the traits you name.

We're not arguing whether the traits exist, we're arguing what drives them, where they come from, how we determine them. I say it's through our soul and spirit which is spiritually connected to something greater than self of which we are accountable. You argue that doesn't exist but you won't define what drives our conscience.

As for the rest of your insult-filled tantrum, I am going to ignore it because it has nothing to do with this topic.

By insult filled tantrum, are you referring to the peer reviewed article that is cited in the Psychology Today article that you chose to completely ignore, in spite of it being an example of what your "peers" have discovered about the issue?
Never mind.
What would those psychology clowns know anyway, right?
They don't know about souls and spirits and stuff.
If only they believed, you could show them the evidence!

 

[Boss]

By insult filled tantrum, are you referring to the peer reviewed article that is cited in the Psychology Today article that you chose to completely ignore, in spite of it being an example of what your "peers" have discovered about the issue?
Never mind.
What would those psychology clowns know anyway, right?
They don't know about souls and spirits and stuff.
If only they believed, you could show them the evidence!

First of all, articles which appear in Psychology Today are not "peer reviewed" as such. At least not in the context of scientific peer review. You're talking about two different things, an article is an opinion or story someone wrote, not a scientific research or hypothesis. Secondly, I find it quite ironic you are using Max Planck researchers to make your ill-fated point against the human soul, when it's Max Planck who said the following:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Planck is also the father of quantum mechanics, which theorizes existence of other universes and dimensions, where our laws of physics simply may not apply.

Finally, we are not talking about how the brain functions to enable the attributes we both agree exist in humans. How the brain allows humans to have this ability has nothing to do with the question of what drives our conscience. We both agree humans have the capacity to love, show compassion, empathy, etc. Pointing me to some article that explains how the brain functions to give us that ability doesn't explain what motivates and drives the ability to take various forms. That was the point we were discussing and you were going to explain what drives human conscience other than human spirit and soul, or alternatively, self-established and completely non-accountable personal morality.

We find ourselves on the other end of the field with a different location for the goalpost.

Strange!

 

[thebrucebeat]

By insult filled tantrum, are you referring to the peer reviewed article that is cited in the Psychology Today article that you chose to completely ignore, in spite of it being an example of what your "peers" have discovered about the issue?
Never mind.
What would those psychology clowns know anyway, right?
They don't know about souls and spirits and stuff.
If only they believed, you could show them the evidence!

First of all, articles which appear in Psychology Today are not "peer reviewed" as such. At least not in the context of scientific peer review. You're talking about two different things, an article is an opinion or story someone wrote, not a scientific research or hypothesis. Secondly, I find it quite ironic you are using Max Planck researchers to make your ill-fated point against the human soul, when it's Max Planck who said the following:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Planck is also the father of quantum mechanics, which theorizes existence of other universes and dimensions, where our laws of physics simply may not apply.

Finally, we are not talking about how the brain functions to enable the attributes we both agree exist in humans. How the brain allows humans to have this ability has nothing to do with the question of what drives our conscience. We both agree humans have the capacity to love, show compassion, empathy, etc. Pointing me to some article that explains how the brain functions to give us that ability doesn't explain what motivates and drives the ability to take various forms. That was the point we were discussing and you were going to explain what drives human conscience other than human spirit and soul, or alternatively, self-established and completely non-accountable personal morality.

We find ourselves on the other end of the field with a different location for the goalpost.

Strange!

The article references a peer reviewed article that I cited in my post.
The brain does show the way people have empathy from a purely physiological mechanism.
Total fail.
Your right.
You don't know.

 

[Boss]

You toss aroud terms such as “spirits” and “souls”, yet you’re unable to define these terms without resorting to silly retreats to bizarre and ludicrous sidesteps and waffles.
You have no explanation for "spirits" or "souls" because the claims are undemonstrated and without merit. Obviously, you can describe no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.

On the other hand, I can explain the phenomenon of personality and where that comes from. The human sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals. Not surprisingly, humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This clearly demonstrates that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon linked to higher brain functions. Or, are you going to suggest that your gods have made monkeys and men with a “spirit” or “soul” each?

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain and can be directly traced and measured by way of chemical reactions in the brain. Remove sections (or damage sections), of the brain or change the way the brain operates with psychoactive drugs and the "self" changes as well.

All the mumbo-jumbo you spew about “spirits” and “souls” is nonsense because those “spirits” or “souls” cannot override damaging impact or chemical alteration to the brain and the change in personality that attends those.

Sweetie, you're welcome to offer your hypothesis on what drives human conscience as well. Explaining how chemical processes happen in the brain to enable such ability in humans isn't doing that. I think we all understand how the brain works, that's not at issue here.

And yep... you can take the wheels off the Caddy or pour sugar in the gas tank and it's doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, it's not going anywhere. The soul and spirit merely drive the conscience, if the brain is not properly functioning the conscience is essentially useless.

 

[Boss]

The article references a peer reviewed article that I cited in my post.
The brain does show the way people have empathy from a purely physiological mechanism.

Again, "articles" are never "peer reviewed" if we're speaking in context of "peer reviewed science." A research study or theory might be peer reviewed, but it simply doesn't matter anyway because how the brain physiologically causes people to have empathy, doesn't tell us what drives and motivates that characteristic. I'm asking you how a Waldorf salad is made and you're pointing at tree and saying, "APPLES!"

 

[thanatos144]

Anyone else find it funny that Bruce doesn't believe in God yet blames him for war and death at the same time?

tapatalk post

 

[thebrucebeat]

The article references a peer reviewed article that I cited in my post.
The brain does show the way people have empathy from a purely physiological mechanism.

Again, "articles" are never "peer reviewed" if we're speaking in context of "peer reviewed science." A research study or theory might be peer reviewed, but it simply doesn't matter anyway because how the brain physiologically causes people to have empathy, doesn't tell us what drives and motivates that characteristic. I'm asking you how a Waldorf salad is made and you're pointing at tree and saying, "APPLES!"

Not at all.
It shows that spirit land can be located in the brain. What drives it IS that part of the brain. It is a mechanism.
Just like adrenalin can make you feel energized and endorphins can make you feel joy or tranquility. You don't then ask what exterior force causes that. They ARE the cause.
You are losing 52-0 and saying "Sure, but your points don't count".
Here's another article that states exactly what I postulated previously.

The Evolution of Empathy | Greater Good

"This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors’ survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest."

I can pound you out as long as you like. There is plenty of academic research on the topic.
Lots of that there psychology stuff you're so expert in, dontcha know.

 

[Hollie]

You toss aroud terms such as “spirits” and “souls”, yet you’re unable to define these terms without resorting to silly retreats to bizarre and ludicrous sidesteps and waffles.
You have no explanation for "spirits" or "souls" because the claims are undemonstrated and without merit. Obviously, you can describe no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.

On the other hand, I can explain the phenomenon of personality and where that comes from. The human sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals. Not surprisingly, humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This clearly demonstrates that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon linked to higher brain functions. Or, are you going to suggest that your gods have made monkeys and men with a “spirit” or “soul” each?

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain and can be directly traced and measured by way of chemical reactions in the brain. Remove sections (or damage sections), of the brain or change the way the brain operates with psychoactive drugs and the "self" changes as well.

All the mumbo-jumbo you spew about “spirits” and “souls” is nonsense because those “spirits” or “souls” cannot override damaging impact or chemical alteration to the brain and the change in personality that attends those.

Sweetie, you're welcome to offer your hypothesis on what drives human conscience as well. Explaining how chemical processes happen in the brain to enable such ability in humans isn't doing that. I think we all understand how the brain works, that's not at issue here.

And yep... you can take the wheels off the Caddy or pour sugar in the gas tank and it's doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, it's not going anywhere. The soul and spirit merely drive the conscience, if the brain is not properly functioning the conscience is essentially useless.

Well, sweetie, I had a strong suspicion you would turn and run when presented with data that refutes your unsupported opinions.

And yes, you can offer all the pointless comments about General Motors cars and sugar in the tank but do you really think that such sidesteps offer any meaningful defense to your claims to supernaturalism?

Abstract and material concepts require a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply inventing abstract ideas such as “spirits” and “souls” and not submitting any case to support them.

All your silliness about “spirits” and “souls” and so on resides only in the brain. Damage the brain or alter the brains activity with drugs and away goes your “spirits” and “souls”.

 

[koshergrl]

Nonsense. There is no data that refutes his opinions. You opinions are every bit as unsupported as his. The only difference is he doesn't lie about it.

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense. There is no data that refutes his opinions. You opinions are every bit as unsupported as his. The only difference is he doesn't lie about it.

So tell us about "souls" and the spirit world.

 

[pillars]

I don't hate god, but his followers get on my last damn nerve sometimes.

 

[thanatos144]

I don't hate god, but his followers get on my last damn nerve sometimes.

Why because they are not as tolerant as those in the atheist religion? You know the ones that demand people never pray or speak of God ever in public? The ones who demand we all believe a negative exists with out evidence?

tapatalk post