Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
God is in the neurons
-
03-12-2011 10:13pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »The video can be dismissed out of hand since your remarks enscapsulate it's position.
This is the exact response which the video is trying to explain. Thanks for immediately demonstrating why the nature of this video was required;
"If their opinions are challenged, their brains emit the same chemicals that are emitted when humans are in dangerous situations and are trying to survive. The more primitive part of the brain kicks in and intervenes with rational thinking, and the limbic system can knock out most of their working memory, physically causing "narrow-mindedness""
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I think he meant in a structured reasonable fashion. You can argue with a insane homeless person about the people trying to steal his thoughts, but you aren't going to get very far.
There are tons of things irrational and illogical about the Chrsitian position. Christians though have a hard time accepting this when it is put to them (possibly for reasons explained in this video).
Ah but Zombrex, isn't that just my atheist biased opinion, isn't it I how simply cannot accept when a Christian tells me the rational reasons.
Well a little test I like to perform is whether or not the rational reasons given for Christianity would also force believe in any other religion if equally applied to that religion.
All reasons I've encountered so far would, yet Christians don't accept these other religions (in fact if you want a chuckle go read Newsite's argument that Scientology is clearly nonsense and can we all stop please comparing Christianity to it).
Still flogging the clearly laughable Scientology argument I see
0 -
MisterEpicurus wrote: »This is the exact response which the video is trying to explain. Thanks for immediately demonstrating why the nature of this video was required;
"If their opinions are challenged, their brains emit the same chemicals that are emitted when humans are in dangerous situations and are trying to survive. The more primitive part of the brain kicks in and intervenes with rational thinking, and the limbic system can knock out most of their working memory, physically causing "narrow-mindedness""
Perhaps the OP could explain then how the intervention that produces rational thinking also makes it impossible to get them to think rationally. That doesn't sound all that rational tbh.OP wrote:are impossible to argue with and why it's impossible to get them to think rational and logical.0 -
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Perhaps the OP could explain then how the intervention that produces rational thinking also makes it impossible to get them to think rationally. That doesn't sound all that rational tbh.
It's supposed to be interferes with rational thinking. I misquoted the thing, fixed it now. So I take it you didn't watch the film then.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm sure it applies to any 'locked in ' belief, be it political , religious , footie, etc.
I'm sure it had its use (two blue rocks clashed together make fire) then when things start getting a bit more complex (the last 100 year or so), well...
still, wonder will they find a drug to 'cure' it?
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
What specific, verifiable, testable evidence do you have that water can be turned into wine (or any other similar magical event in the bible)?
If you do not have any of the above or cannot point to it, then the position that the water turned into wine is not based on evidence or observation, and is not rational.
Could you provide evidence for that position?Why exactly do you believe believe that this actually occurred?
If you answer is because you simply believe what is written in the bible regardless of what you can actually verify yourself, then this is faith.
Faith is belief without reasoning or evidence and often in spite of it, hence it is not logical.
The bible has a slightly different definition of faith than yours. It says that faith is something undergirded by evidence and that the evidence is spiritually discerned. Alot of that evidence is contained in the Bible (which describes a world which, somewhat remarkably, operates precisely according to the model posed by the Bible - even thousands of years after it was written) but isn't discerned by someone like yourself (you would be what the bible calls "spiritually blind")
The question then isn't so much about whether I'm dealing with the evidence in a rational way but how it is I can show you it so that you can evaluate my assessment.
Is the problem that I'm deluded? Or is it that you're blind? Until we can answer that question then it's a bit premature of you to go flinging mud around. 0 -
So the water into wine bit.. Still looking for an explanation into how a belief of its possibility is rational.
Also, watch the video, it's actually quite fascinating. Obviously, a poster like yourself will take issue with findings presented therein, but they're not actually the main bit of the video, for me anyway, but then I am a Psychology student
0 -
What position?antiskeptic wrote: »Could you provide evidence for that position?
That if you don't have any evidence then a position cannot be based on any evidence?
I would have thought that was self explanatory.
Ah sorry my bad I was using the actual definition of the words, not double speak bible ones.antiskeptic wrote: »The bible has a slightly different definition of faith than yours. It says that faith is something undergirded by evidence and that the evidence is spiritually discerned. Alot of that evidence is contained in the Bible (which describes a world which, somewhat remarkably, operates precisely according to the model posed by the Bible - even thousands of years after it was written) but isn't discerned by someone like yourself (you would be what the bible calls "spiritually blind")
The question then isn't so much about whether I'm dealing with the evidence in a rational way but how it is I can show you it so that you can evaluate my assessment.
If evidence cannot be verified independently, it's useless and indistinguishable for fiction and delusion.
I was referring to actual evidence, which you clearly have none, hence why you have to invent a special kind of evidence that I can only see if I accept as true without and before verification.
This is not rational or logical.
Well the thing is, there a lot more religions out there which you'd agree that are based on scams and delusions.antiskeptic wrote: »Is the problem that I'm deluded? Or is it that you're blind? Until we can answer that question then it's a bit premature of you to go flinging mud around.
I see no reason to distinguish your flavour from theirs.
So do you have any particular way of knowing that these ones are all wrong while your are right, without first needing to accept that premise beforehand?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
tsk. a bag of colourful beads, and you'll be grand.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Explain to me why it is a laughable argument? Because it is "clearly made up"? Right? Unlike a story with men turning water to wine and raising the dead?
Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.
Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand 0 -
Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.
Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand
Genuine interest- is it recorded in any book other than the bible?0 -
-
-
-
Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.
Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand
But there's thousands (maybe millions) of people who've met or seen L Ron Hubbard and there's millions more who would know these people personally.
And better yet we have actual clear records of these people and of L Ron's life, actually written at the time, not decades later.
So if anything, but your silly standards, Scientology is more valid than Christianity.0 -
-
Yes, the former which is clearly made-up and cannot be proven by circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The latter, something which was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people and recorded in books which were written by eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses first hand.
Clearly a huge difference that even a five year old would admit to and comprehend. But you'll never acknowledge that, even though you comprehend it - so don't worry - I understand
How do you know it was observed by dozens if not hundreds of people? How do you know those books (if there is more than one) weren't compiled and added to over centuries by priests and non-priests who had heard sermons from others?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMRTa5srNxw
Advertisement