How do you feel about atheists?

[Jelrak_TB]

That is a tautology. It’s saying, "Would a proof for God not sway the skeptic without proof?

While an argument may take a variety of forms, proof is proof so I disagree with your assessment. This is more like saying that an argument that cannot be proven must needs pale in the face of an argument based upon (or coupled with) a perceived action.

 

[ffg]

I have always believed that love was more of a decision than an emotion. How does one explain sacrificial love without attributing some divine element?

Peace.

Steve

Oh of course Steve, I was following the flow that I was seeing and trying to play along.

I think it’s a different conversation to separate the error that love is an emotion. Love is just a 4 letter word without action sourced from a purposeful intent.

One can’t accidentally love.

So when I say I love atheists, we must match it to an action, preferably a giving one. In the case of internet chatting, I suppose one could point to willful participation.

Take care,

Mike

 

[ffg]

I think it is the other way around, clearly the chemicals do not know, they are simply released under certain circumstances (that is a fact). I can send you my paper on the science of beauty if you like, it explains my hypothesis of the nature of and recognition of certain patterns in nature and how we can apply them to evoke attention responses. Its not for everyone though, some might find it a dry read lol

Thanks MrEmpiricism for the reply!

And thanks for hanging in here. I like your response as to why you are here. I am in the Non-Catholic Forum section most of the time for the same reason.

The discussions are great between competing minds.

I am very willing to read your paper. If it is online you can post or PM me the link, otherwise PM me and I’ll get you an email.

I agree that chemicals are working and released due to circumstances. I suppose there is a chemical in my brain telling my hands to type at the moment.

I feel like we have flipped the order though. First it was chemicals cause emotion (this was the point that I was referencing in my first post). Which I don’t doubt can happen. I get really grumpy if I don’t eat, which I’m sure is my body telling me to eat, potentially through a chemical release.

Here is the problem - I have the ability to ignore that message from my body.

Why?

I think if we define what I feel is flipped now, and we look at those ‘certain circumstances’ that you mentioned, we might find the ‘will’, which we can’t explain with biology.

Take care,

Mike

 

[josie_L]

I agree there is more to it, but currently that is all we can demonstrate, therefore that is what I currently accept. If new evidence shows more is at work then I will accept more as the evidence commands.

But you seem to be rather dogmatic about your position, and although there isn’t anything precisely concrete, there is enough evidence to suggest that the mind/consciousness and the brain are not one and the same.

 

[josie_L]

In any debate, “skeptic-atheists” want to control the game, since they cannot argue for the non-existence of God based on Holy Scripture. Instead, they insist that believers argue for the existence of God from a materialist-reductionist viewpoint. This of course, results in an impasse. Why?..

Because God is above and beyond measurement through physical means, and He is above and beyond human understanding through faithless “logic” alone-- even though God gave us the capacity for logic. Fides et ratio, baby!

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”
(Pope Saint John Paul II, Fides et Ratio)

:extrahappy::tiphat:

I love Fides and ratio, it’s an encyclical every Christian should read (and maybe atheists should read it too, so they can understand where we’re coming from).

 

[PRmerger]

Define mind.

I have no idea.

LOL! You have no idea what the mind is, but you also claim to be able to demonstrate its existence?

Really?

You cannot demonstrate the existence of the mind, or the existence of numbers.

But I presume you believe in their existence, yeah?

I can demonstrate both of the above.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is the problem - I have the ability to ignore that message from my body.

Why?

I think if we define what I feel is flipped now, and we look at those ‘certain circumstances’ that you mentioned, we might find the ‘will’, which we can’t explain with biology.

Take care,

Mike

 

[PRmerger]

While an argument may take a variety of forms, proof is proof so I disagree with your assessment. This is more like saying that an argument that cannot be proven must needs pale in the face of an argument based upon (or coupled with) a perceived action.

Sorry, but you are not making sense.

You are asking if an argument for God’s existence would sway a skeptic without proof.

That’s a tautology because proof for God, being an immaterial being, is given through arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience

Er…no.

Why don’t you give a list of things that you believe cause emotions, besides electricity and chemicals.

That shouldn’t be too hard.

Unless you want to say that this is another tributary.

Even though you have demonstrated quite well that you certainly are willing to go to tributaries.

 

[estesbob]

I find it interesting the difference between how Christians view love as opposed to how atheists do;

Christians:

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Atheists:

Love is a chemical reaction in the brain.

 

[PRmerger]

Atheists:

Love is a chemical reaction in the brain.

That’s a lulu to be sure.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Sorry, but you are not making sense.

You are asking if an argument for God’s existence would sway a skeptic without proof.

That’s a tautology because proof for God, being an immaterial being, is given through arguments.

While an argument might give evidence to or support an alleged proof, it is not, in and of itself, automatically to be considered proof…the fact that two might argue over God’s existence may not automatically assume that either one is supporting their claim with any proof…

Regardless, my assertion, once again, was merely that an argument supported by action was more likely to promote and affirm the evidence presented in the argument…rather than an argument without such action…if you disagree with such an assessment, kindly indicate why…?

 

[Faithdancer]

I love Fides and ratio, it’s an encyclical every Christian should read (and maybe atheists should read it too, so they can understand where we’re coming from).

One reason why he may be a Doctor of the Church one day. A designation that outranks Ph.D, MD, LL.D, etc.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

LOL! You have no idea what the mind is, but you also claim to be able to demonstrate its existence?

Really?

Posts like this ^^^ really make me question if the idea of a meaningful debate here is futile.

You asked me

“Do millipedes have a mind? They have a brain, which presumably could be hooked up to an EEG which would detect their electrical activity.”

You asked me if millipedes have “minds”… if you want me to answer that then YOU have to DEFINE what YOU mean by mind.

“Are concepts only in existence if a human mind can conceive of it?”

Like I said I have no idea, are there other non human minds in the cosmos that can conceive?

Of course instead of asking for clarification on the above you jump straight to the good old mocking… “LOL!”

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Thanks MrEmpiricism for the reply!

And thanks for hanging in here. I like your response as to why you are here. I am in the Non-Catholic Forum section most of the time for the same reason.

The discussions are great between competing minds.

I am very willing to read your paper. If it is online you can post or PM me the link, otherwise PM me and I’ll get you an email.

I agree that chemicals are working and released due to circumstances. I suppose there is a chemical in my brain telling my hands to type at the moment.

I feel like we have flipped the order though. First it was chemicals cause emotion (this was the point that I was referencing in my first post). Which I don’t doubt can happen. I get really grumpy if I don’t eat, which I’m sure is my body telling me to eat, potentially through a chemical release.

Here is the problem - I have the ability to ignore that message from my body.

Why?

I think if we define what I feel is flipped now, and we look at those ‘certain circumstances’ that you mentioned, we might find the ‘will’, which we can’t explain with biology.

Take care,

Mike

Thanks for the reply, I’ll send it to you by PM tomorrow it will give us plenty to discuss

 

[PRmerger]

Posts like this ^^^ really make me question if the idea of a meaningful debate here is futile.

It is indeed inutile when questions are dodged.

I hope that you can cease from this by trying to think in the abstract, MrE.

It’s clear that you have that ability…sometimes.

And then other times you suddenly lose this ability. It’s quite weird.

Clearly, you know what a mind is. You claimed to be able to demonstrate it.

Now you’re saying you don’t know what a mind is.

#peculiar

 

[PRmerger]

While an argument might give evidence to or support an alleged proof,

This is a nonsensical statement. “An alleged proof”?

it is not, in and of itself, automatically to be considered proof.

Now, this is indeed true.

But then again no one has posited that an argument is “automatically to be considered proof.”

…the fact that two might argue over God’s existence may not automatically assume that either one is supporting their claim with any proof…

And this, again, is nonsensical.

Regardless, my assertion, once again, was merely that an argument supported by action was more likely to promote and affirm the evidence presented in the argument…rather than an argument without such action…if you disagree with such an assessment, kindly indicate why…?

Could you give an example of what you mean. What’s an argument that’s supported by action vs an argument without action?

 

[PRmerger]

As for banning conversation that is not confined to this forum.

What else are you referencing?

MrE, would you mind addressing the above?

If you already did, and I missed, please forgive me and simply offer me the link to your response.

 

[PRmerger]

Posts like this ^^^ really make me question if the idea of a meaningful debate here is futile.

You asked me

“Do millipedes have a mind? They have a brain, which presumably could be hooked up to an EEG which would detect their electrical activity.”

You asked me if millipedes have “minds”… if you want me to answer that then YOU have to DEFINE what YOU mean by mind.

“Are concepts only in existence if a human mind can conceive of it?”

Like I said I have no idea, are there other non human minds in the cosmos that can conceive?

What a curious set of propositions/responses have been limned here by you!

• You have no idea if millipedes have minds.
• You don’t know what a mind is.
• You can demonstrate evidence for a mind.

One would think that if you really believed what it is that you’ve asserted initially (that you could demonstrate the existence of the mind), you would, of necessity, be of the position that yes, millipedes have minds.

All one has to do is set up electrodes in the millipedes’ brains, yes, and it would demonstrate electrical activity.

Right, MrE?

Millipedes have minds because they have electrical impulses in their brain that can be recorded, yes?

 

[Faithdancer]

Yet another response to the OP:

All of us are depraved, wretched sinners. One difference between the deeply reflective Christian and the atheist seems to be that the Christian is aware of it and aware of the remedy-- Jesus Christ. Perhaps some atheists realize how depraved mankind is but instead of turning to the light of God they put their trust in works of man or turn to the bleakness of existentialism and nihilism-- utterly man-made philosophies that reflect man’s depravity rather than the goodness of God.

“The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.” (John 1:9-10, NRSV)