How do you feel about atheists?

[MrEmpiricism]

So is there a specific chemical we can inject in people that will make them love ? Is this something like love potion number nine?

So before we enter in to this conversation let me clarify my stance…

There is a direct correlation between emotional states and brain activity and chemicals, and I can demonstrate it. Now you may want to claim that there is more at work, however if you do then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

 

[estesbob]

So before we enter in to this conversation let me clarify my stance…

There is a direct correlation between emotional states and brain activity and chemicals, and I can demonstrate it. Now you may want to claim that there is more at work, however if you do then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

Sorry we’re going to go by your strict standards of evidence. You have to show which specific chemicals and evidence of what brain activity causes love and if you claim there are specific chemicals that cause love you’re going to have to tell us why these have not been made available to people who are having problems with their love life .( Kind of like why doesn’t God cure amputees )

The burden of proof is on you to provide solid scientific evidence that love exist . I’m asking no more or no less than you have asked for people to profess a faith in Jesus Christ

 

[Faithdancer]

I assume you also deny “free-will”?

The true reductionist-materialist must deny free will, since everything about a person is reduced to his or her programming. In such a view, a person will always behave according to their programming. It is all part of the new “neuroscience” and “cognitive science” which reduces humanity to the level of a smart biological machine. There is, of course, no place for inspiration, for the immortal soul, or for God in this “rational” social “science.” Everything must be reduceable to the material. There is, then, inherent bias in the field of study.

 

[estesbob]

I am not even sure what you mean by it. I believe that the ability to choose and philosophical determinism are not mutually exclusive.

But isn’t that caused by chemicals and brain activity? How can we have free will when we are ruled by chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain?

 

[Faithdancer]

Sorry we’re going to go by your strict standards of evidence. You have to show which specific chemicals and evidence of what brain activity causes love and if you claim there are specific chemicals that cause love you’re going to have to tell us why these have not been made available to people who are having problems with their love life .( Kind of like why doesn’t God cure amputees )

The burden of proof is on you to provide solid scientific evidence that love exist . I’m asking no more or no less than you have asked for people to profess a faith in Jesus Christ

Not to mention that agape, eros, philia and storge must be explained in context with their chemicals and related brain activities, as well as our love of God. The burden of proof is on the cognitive “scientist.”

 

[JustaServant]

Yeah you are right, because publishing scientific papers and posting on a forum are the same thing :clapping:. lol In fact I always talk in the same manner; presenting work to peers at an international conference or buying a bar of chocolate from the shop, same lingo every time!!!

Ps, just to let you know as far as I am aware, poor grammar is not a method of falsification.

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

 

[JustaServant]

So is there a specific chemical we can inject in people that will make them love ? Is this something like love potion number nine?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

The true reductionist-materialist must deny free will, since everything about a person is reduced to his or her programming. In such a view, a person will always behave according to their programming. It is all part of the new “neuroscience” and “cognitive science” which reduces humanity to the level of a smart biological machine. There is, of course, no place for inspiration, for the immortal soul, or for God in this “rational” social “science.” Everything must be reduceable to the material. There is, then, inherent bias in the field of study.

Why? Why and must someone pigeon-hole themselves into a single philosophical paradigm? I don’t know if feel will exists, and there are scientific reductionist models that account for it. Bottom line, It is a very interesting question and it is not a claim I am willing to make either way.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Can I just add that for the most part this has been a great conversation IMO, and far more interesting than I would have got patting other atheists on the back on an atheist forum.

 

[estesbob]

m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=7rXhXLsNJL8

 

[MrEmpiricism]

The answer is yes

 

[MrEmpiricism]

:hug3:

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

:hug3:

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Sorry we’re going to go by your strict standards of evidence. You have to show which specific chemicals and evidence of what brain activity causes love and if you claim there are specific chemicals that cause love you’re going to have to tell us why these have not been made available to people who are having problems with their love life .( Kind of like why doesn’t God cure amputees )

The burden of proof is on you to provide solid scientific evidence that love exist . I’m asking no more or no less than you have asked for people to profess a faith in Jesus Christ

Lust = testosterone and oestrogen.

Attraction = adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin.

Attachment = oxytocin and vasopressin.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Well, a person’s religious beliefs and values influence their words and actions. Thus, It would be reasonable to evaluate the morality and dispositions of human persons based on their religious convictions, or lack of them.

Even if the person in question does not seem to fulfill whatever religious convictions he might have, the religious convictions by themselves are telling, for they reveal what the person aims to become.

Perhaps…although might not the vast array of opinions and preferences among members of this very forum tend to weigh against such an assessment…?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Faithdancer was spot on, in my estimation. If there is an atheist that doesn’t know comparing faith in God to Santa, the Easter Bunny, Zeuss, Thor…is not addressing what a person of faith experiences, but rather is denigrating their faith, then I might agree with you.

First off, there have been a lot of posts in the 12 hours since I went to bed so this kind of feels like the initial post was forever ago even though it wasn’t.

Anyway, I don’t think he was denigrating your faith just the method by which Faithdancer claimed he was sure his faith was correct.

The argument boiled down to:

1. There is a method that claims to show that X is true.
2. But that same method could also show that Y is true.
3. All parites in the discussion claim that Y is not true.
4. Therefore the method is incapable of demonstrating that X is true.

It’s as straightforward a demonstration as possible, and in doing so we need to present a Y (something in the same category as X but not true). As MrEmpricism said he’s not comparing X to Y. He is showing that self-evidence of works can’t be used for something that may or may not be true (Yahweh) if there is no difference if used for something that is certainly not true (Thor).

Points can be made without pushing well known buttons. Otherwise know as cheap shots. Usually meant to provoke. Obviously, the strongly held beliefs of Faithdancer were not taken seriously, let alone respected.

How else could MrEmpiricism have been able to show the fault in the idea of self-evident works as a means to satisfy the burden of proof if he didn’t apply the same method to a known false deity?

What else is there to do, but pray for those who offend you. Certainly, a fruitful conversation that reflects mutual respect is not going to occur.

What else there is to do is take the argument on its merits. If Faithdancer or anyone feels that self-evidence of works can be used to demonstrate Adonai and not Thor then that person can lay that out in a post.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Not to mention that agape, eros, philia and storge must be explained in context with their chemicals and related brain activities, as well as our love of God. The burden of proof is on the cognitive “scientist.”

Aside from the rest of the post, I really love the “scientist” ending. So is it your position that I am not a published scientist, or is than just another silly veiled attack you are not willing to defend?

 

[estesbob]

Lust = testosterone and oestrogen.

Attraction = adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin.

Attachment = oxytocin and vasopressin.

And love?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

And love?

Those are the stages of love? If you really doubt chemicals can alter emotional states how do you explain anti-depressants, how do you explain that recreational drugs including alcohol drastically effect ones emotions?

 

[Contarini]

It certainly questions the authorship, but like I said I don’t really care much as even if jesus did exist and I am open to the idea, that does not mean he was a god.

Who believes he was a god?

Hindus, maybe. Or JWs in their own very odd way.

Orthodox Christians believe he was God.

God is not the same thing as a god. That’s the starting point for any serious dialogue with theists.

Edwin

 

[Jelrak_TB]

There probably needs to be a definition of what sort of atheist we’re talking about. There is a real divide between atheists who simply don’t believe, but don’t aggressively attack the religious views of others. These are people you can have a discussion with and at least make a reasonable case for the existence of God to, if not convincing them.

Then there are the anti-theists who can’t or won’t tolerate religious practice or belief. Most of the time, you can’t have a reasonable discussion with them, because their atheism is what defines them, rather than being a component of their thought. It is my thought that these people will be the ones to incite a new wave of persecution in the Western world, as the Church continues to lose its foothold on the culture.

…though many of us would fight on your behalf should such extremism gain traction…it would be very contrary to a position of truth to stand idly by and watch Christian friends and relatives get such unfair treatment…

With sets groups, though, there is always an personal undercurrent of revulsion for me, because these are people who have willingly rejected God, for whatever reason, and if you reject God, you are opening yourself up to something else. What is also more striking for me about atheists is that they really are seeking desperately to believe in something, but have a priori ruled out believing in the only thing which is really able to bring anyone solace, a union with God.

There is some truth in this, though not perhaps as you may have intended…for an atheist might ever search to find meaning–might even envy the Christian his/her belief–but at the same time, unless he/she equally believes, will not find solace in what might simply appear to be imaginary solutions…

The ramblings of many atheists about the natural world flirt with pantheism, even if they don’t explicitly state it as such.

Agreed…it is sometimes very strange to hear an atheist proclaim a love of nature with the same ardor as a Christian might appreciate God.

Additionally, what also strikes me is that the atheist will willingly mock religious people by saying that atheists have no need for “magic sky fairies” or somesuch, or a “desperate need to believe in something to give their lives meaning,” or a dozen other reasons. What never factors into the discussion is an honest recognition of the most common motivation of religious people – a desire to do good and live in a holy way which cannot be attained except through the introduction of God into one’s life.

This also has a ring of truth…this is the reason that I visit this site…for without an honest discussion of what it means to have the majority of a nation brought up as Christian as opposed to Atheist, how might the atheist truly determine all levels of reality? For is not a system that seemingly works sufficiently to keep a majority of mankind focused on a particular brand of positive interaction not to be considered its own sort of truth (in action)?

In the end, all we can really do is pray for them, live a Godly life as an example, and bear witness to our faith by letting it inform all aspects of our lives. The most significant factor in the early growth of the Church was due to the willingness of early Christians to bear witness not only in the arena, but also by caring for the sick and dying when no one else would. These things make far more impact than the most finely crafted theological discussion.

Precisely…!