Can an Atheist Answer These?

[SonofMonica]

I’m afraid this is simply incorrect. We have evidence that shows emotions and decisions are directed by the brain. We have no evidence that shows there is something spiritual, if you have some please present it (and i mean real evidence).

I have never claimed i know everything is physical or material. However until we have solid evidence that there is anything else to speculate is utterly pointless. I like to base my beliefs on evidence, not wild speculation. So i actually presuming nothing, I’m not sure where you got the idea that i claimed to know everything is physical but you are incorrect. I just make no claims about that which we don’t know.

Charles Darwin:

Christianity actually makes the claim that God, in the form of Jesus, came down from Heaven and revealed himself to us, showing us He was God through signs, miracles and fulfillment of prophecy, and teaching us about matters of faith and morals. It is a religion based upon what was perceived, recorded and transmitted by our forebears as divine revelation, not speculation. Christianity makes the claim that God historically and factually intervened in the natural world, and revealed aspects of Himself.

I’m not asking you to agree, but I am just asking you to understand that, despite how some posters on this may come off to you, Christianity does not believe that we are speculating or merely playing God of the Gaps. (Even where there is a scientific answer, we believe “God did it,” at least indirectly, because we see God as the first cause or creator, not the mechanism.) Christianity actually makes historical claims which can be proven or disproven, and upon which hang the credibility of our faith. Much of this site is devoted to history, and the tracing of our beliefs back to a certain time period closer to the actual events that make up our faith.

Peace to you.

 

[tonyrey]

We have evidence that shows emotions and decisions are directed by the brain.

We do not have evidence that shows emotions and decisions are directed by the brain. We have evidence that shows that the brain is controlled by decisions and that emotions are **related **to the brain, not that emotions and decisions are directed by the brain.

1. Where exactly in the brain do you think the emotions and decisions are located?

We have no evidence that shows there is something spiritual, if you have some please present it (and i mean real evidence).

1. What about your power to control yourself?
2. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions?
3. Where is truth? Inside your head? Please describe exactly where it is located…

If we really don’t know, have nothing to go on then no explanation is adequate.

1. How do you determine what we have to go on?

I Iike to base my beliefs on evidence, not wild speculation. …

1. What are your criteria of evidence?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Well, we know that God did it, regardless of whether or not scientists know the answer to something.

I feel my thread has gotten* way* off topic…

No you don’t you believe that god did it, belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles Darwin:

Christianity actually makes the claim that God, in the form of Jesus, came down from Heaven and revealed himself to us, showing us He was God through signs, miracles and fulfillment of prophecy, and teaching us about matters of faith and morals. It is a religion based upon what was perceived, recorded and transmitted by our forebears as divine revelation, not speculation. Christianity makes the claim that God historically and factually intervened in the natural world, and revealed aspects of Himself.

I’m not asking you to agree, but I am just asking you to understand that, despite how some posters on this may come off to you, Christianity does not believe that we are speculating or merely playing God of the Gaps. (Even where there is a scientific answer, we believe “God did it,” at least indirectly, because we see God as the first cause or creator, not the mechanism.) Christianity actually makes historical claims which can be proven or disproven, and upon which hang the credibility of our faith. Much of this site is devoted to history, and the tracing of our beliefs back to a certain time period closer to the actual events that make up our faith.

Peace to you.

The problem being we cannot examine the supernatural claims of christianity. So while there may be a case for claiming a man name jesus existed there is no solid evidence to back up any of the extraordinary claims.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

We do not have evidence that shows emotions and decisions are directed by the brain. We have evidence that shows that the brain is controlled by decisions and that emotions are **related **to the brain, not that emotions and decisions are directed by the brain.

1. Where exactly in the brain do you think the emotions and decisions are located?
2. What about your power to control yourself?
3. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions?
4. Where is truth? Inside your head? Please describe exactly where it is located…
5. How do you determine what we have to go on?
6. What are your criteria of evidence?

I’m not really interested in going over the same old brain debate again, we have been through this several times. We can measure emotions, if you don’t believe me then go read some peer reviewed papers on the subject. We we do not have is one single measurable experiment that shows any form of spirit, if you know of a peer reviewed paper that shows otherwise please link it.

 

[liquidpele]

We do not have evidence that shows emotions and decisions are directed by the brain. We have evidence that shows that the brain is controlled by decisions and that emotions are **related **to the brain, not that emotions and decisions are directed by the brain.

1. Where exactly in the brain do you think the emotions and decisions are located?
2. What about your power to control yourself?
3. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions?
4. Where is truth? Inside your head? Please describe exactly where it is located…
5. How do you determine what we have to go on?
6. What are your criteria of evidence?

Actually, we do have evidence that the brain directs such things. I’m pretty sure I gave you this link before…

ted.com/talks/lang/eng/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

As for your questions… not only are some of them ridiculous or implying strawmen, but you’re trying to claim things with no evidence and then asking questions as if having no very very specific perfect answer proves your point.

In short, you’re using an argument from ignorance.

 

[SonofMonica]

The problem being we cannot examine the supernatural claims of christianity. So while there may be a case for claiming a man name jesus existed there is no solid evidence to back up any of the extraordinary claims.

Those who claim to have witnessed his miracles, say instantly turning water into wine, would disagree with you, as they claim to have observed it firsthand. Whether it’s 2000 years or a day later, you’re going to be relying on oral accounts for evidence if you personally were not there. We do this every time we have a trial in court. We rely on someone’s account of what happened and we call it evidence. It’s not a matter of lack of evidence, really, but an issue of credibility. It’s principally a matter of whether you believe the accounts of the demonstration of the evidence, or not. Secondarily, it’s a matter of whether you think the ability to, say, turn water into wine, may be explained by natural means, as opposed to the supernatural. But to say that there is no evidence at all discounts an entire important genre of evidence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not really interested in going over the same old brain debate again, we have been through this several times. We can measure emotions, if you don’t believe me then go read some peer reviewed papers on the subject. We we do not have is one single measurable experiment that shows any form of spirit, if you know of a peer reviewed paper that shows otherwise please link it.

Look up the word “spirit” in Strong’s Concordance. Then ask that again.

 

[liquidpele]

Those who claim to have witnessed his miracles, say instantly turning water into wine, would disagree with you, as they claim to have observed it firsthand. Whether it’s 2000 years or a day later, you’re going to be relying on oral accounts for evidence if you personally were not there. We do this every time we have a trial in court. We rely on someone’s account of what happened and we call it evidence. It’s not a matter of lack of evidence, really, but an issue of credibility. It’s principally a matter of whether you believe the accounts of the demonstration of the evidence, or not. Secondarily, it’s a matter of whether you think the ability to, say, turn water into wine, may be explained by natural means, as opposed to the supernatural. But to say that there is no evidence at all discounts an entire important genre of evidence.

youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc

agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

 

[SonofMonica]

youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc

agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Again, I am not arguing that you should believe the evidence on the basis of probability. The whole bit is quite improbable. Which is what makes it extraordinary. I’m simply saying that there is evidence that the events of Christianity occurred, regardless of whether you consider it credible evidence, or accept the purported meaning of it, i.e., that it is of supernatural origin and consequence.

 

[liquidpele]

Again, I am not arguing that you should believe the evidence on the basis of probability. The whole bit is quite improbable. Which is what makes it extraordinary. I’m simply saying that there is evidence that the events of Christianity occurred, regardless of whether you consider it credible evidence, or accept the purported meaning of it, i.e., that it is of supernatural origin and consequence.

Do you play the lottery? If so, think about why.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Look up the word “spirit” in Strong’s Concordance. Then ask that again.

I’m pretty sure everyone knows what i mean.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Those who claim to have witnessed his miracles, say instantly turning water into wine, would disagree with you, as they claim to have observed it firsthand. Whether it’s 2000 years or a day later, you’re going to be relying on oral accounts for evidence if you personally were not there. We do this every time we have a trial in court. We rely on someone’s account of what happened and we call it evidence. It’s not a matter of lack of evidence, really, but an issue of credibility. It’s principally a matter of whether you believe the accounts of the demonstration of the evidence, or not. Secondarily, it’s a matter of whether you think the ability to, say, turn water into wine, may be explained by natural means, as opposed to the supernatural. But to say that there is no evidence at all discounts an entire important genre of evidence.

Different claims require different standards of evidence, and claims that go against EVERYTHING we know about the cosmos require more than oral accounts.

 

[tonyrey]

                           Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5696700#post5696700)                 
             *We do not have evidence that shows emotions and decisions are **directed*** by the brain. We have evidence that shows that the brain is **controlled by decisions** and that emotions are **related **to the brain, not that emotions and decisions are directed by the brain.

1. Where exactly in the brain do you think the emotions and decisions are located?
2. What about your power to control yourself?
3. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions?
4. Where is truth? Inside your head? Please describe exactly where it is located…
5. How do you determine what we have to go on?
6. What are your criteria of evidence?

I’m not really interested in going over the same old brain debate again, we have been through this several times.

And on no occasion have you answered the questions. I’m not surprised
you’re are not interested in getting down to brass tacks. That is the real test…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

And on no occasion have you answered the questions. I’m not surprised
you’re are not interested in getting down to brass tacks. That is the real test…

Why not go look at the papers for yourself, do i need to spoon feed you?

Oh and as for that which we don’t know, your unfounded speculation provides no answer at all. If you want people to take you seriously then provide evidence for your claims.

Simply saying a mind cannot be produced by matter is absurd. Please demonstrate this claim, for there are many experiments that show that the mind is the product of the material brain. If you take issue with this then please present your hypothesis, your experiments, your findings and your conclusions.

 

[Leela]

And on no occasion have you answered the questions. I’m not surprised
you’re are not interested in getting down to brass tacks. That is the real test…

You asked…

1. Where exactly in the brain do you think the emotions and decisions are located?
2. What about your power to control yourself?
3. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions?
4. Where is truth? Inside your head? …

I don’t think anyone here thinks that any of these things have material existence. But that doesn’t make them unreal. What the so-called “physicalists” are saying is that they don’t think we would be having this conversation about thoughts if there were no brains. Do you disagree?

 

[SonofMonica]

Do you play the lottery? If so, think about why.

Are you meaning to imply that the lottery does not exist? Surely not. Are you meaning to imply that no one can win the lottery? Surely not. Are you meaning to ask me if I don’t play the lottery because no one that I personally have witnessed has won the lottery and I’ve only heard about people winning the lottery? Surely not. I can accept that the lottery pays out based upon hearsay. What about you?

 

[SonofMonica]

Different claims require different standards of evidence, and claims that go against EVERYTHING we know about the cosmos require more than oral accounts.

Okay, so you’ve admitted the existence of evidence that the events giving rise to Christianity actually occurred. It’s just that the form the evidence takes is not enough to convince you (mind you, as is the case with evolutionary theory, we do have archaeological evidence that supports the historical accounts, and discover more every day). Again, I’m only concerned with the actual historical events that have been recorded both orally and in writing. I’m not talking about the existence of God, only the occurrence of the events. After listening to the evidence, you’ve created a standard that’s higher than the evidence could meet. Something tells me nothing would convince you. It’s funny that you seem to believe you can’t know anything about the universe by listening to an oral account. Have you personally measured the distance between the earth and the sun? No, you haven’t. But you’re taking someone’s word for it. And even if you had the mechanical means to test it, you’d have to rely upon someone else telling you what the speed of light is. Come on, now. You’ve created an artificially high standard for this particular proposition. You’re welcome to do that, as long as you acknowledge that other reasonable people may consider oral evidence enough for them.

 

[liquidpele]

Are you meaning to imply that the lottery does not exist? Surely not. Are you meaning to imply that no one can win the lottery? Surely not. Are you meaning to ask me if I don’t play the lottery because no one that I personally have witnessed has won the lottery and I’ve only heard about people winning the lottery? Surely not. I can accept that the lottery pays out based upon hearsay. What about you?

Not at all… Back to your original reply:

Again, I am not arguing that you should believe the evidence on the basis of probability. The whole bit is quite improbable. Which is what makes it extraordinary. I’m simply saying that there is evidence that the events of Christianity occurred, regardless of whether you consider it credible evidence, or accept the purported meaning of it, i.e., that it is of supernatural origin and consequence.

There is evidence of people winning the lottery. Why do people play then, when they won’t win because the odds are so ridiculously bad? Because people are very bad at assessing things, as my other link about eye witness testimony also pointed out. (Of course some one will win, but statistically your chances are pretty much zero - the fact that some one wins is what tricks our rationale).

Why in the world would I believe the testimony of people that claimed such extraordinary things? Especially considering these people didn’t understand much of what we know today - a time when it was widely believed that the Earth was flat and a geocentric universe was assumed and the people that wrote down all the history of the subject didn’t even witness the events?

My video was on why we can’t trust anecdotal evidence and my link was on how eye witness testimony is technically one of the least trustworthy forms of evidence. Probability has nothing to do with it. It’s the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Watch this, I think this explains it pretty well:

youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k&feature=popt00us0b

 

[tonyrey]

You asked…

1. Where exactly in the brain do you think the emotions and decisions are located?
2. What about your power to control yourself?
3. Can you see, weigh or measure your thoughts, emotions and decisions?
4. Where is truth? Inside your head? …

I don’t think anyone here thinks that any of these things have material existence. But that doesn’t make them unreal. What the so-called “physicalists” are saying is that they don’t think we would be having this conversation about thoughts if there were no brains. Do you disagree?

You are mistaken, Leela. There are at least two schools of thought among atheists. Some atheists are positivists. On this forum more than one atheist has asserted that we are biological machines and that thoughts are just electrical currents in the brain. If that is the case there must be a control-centre in the brain. If thoughts, emotions and decisions are solely the result of neural activity it must be possible to locate them - or where they originate. It is unscientific to assert that they exist somewhere in the brain.
On the other hand if you agree that they do not exist anywhere in particular you imply that they are beyond the scope of science, i.e. they are real but intangible and their activity cannot be explained scientifically. And, as you have pointed out, they have attributes the brain lacks. But you are still faced with the problem of their unity and apparent independence unity. Do you regard yourself as an autonomous agent? If so you are emancipated from the determinism of the physical world. The question remains as to how this integration and liberation has been achieved. You may not consider it important but the answer does affect our view of ourselves and others. So it is important even from the pragmatist’s point of view because it concerns such issues as whether we have a right to life. That is hardly a minor detail!