tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post570302011963729684..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Atheists don't get GodVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14603422089820848032013-11-10T18:52:27.880-07:002013-11-10T18:52:27.880-07:00Damn, I didn't realize that my second link (in...Damn, I didn't realize that my second link (in my last posting)didn't stay pointed to the same date. You have to see the comic from Saturday, November 9th, for my linking to it to make sense.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85520046684193219242013-11-10T09:28:34.634-07:002013-11-10T09:28:34.634-07:00Bob,
Satire of what? You were the one who compla...Bob,<br /><br />Satire of what? You were the one who complained about being able to have a reasoned discussion. But at every turn, it is you who are unwilling to participate in any kind of serious manner. OK. I know now that I can't expect you to back up your claims with evidence or reason. You have many ways of avoiding it, and yet you still make such demands of others, while continuing to make your own unjustified claims.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7670599625473308422013-11-10T05:13:51.066-07:002013-11-10T05:13:51.066-07:00Skep,
Can't you recognize satire when you see...Skep,<br /><br />Can't you recognize satire when you see it? I was making (gentle) fun of Frances's use of a movie to argue her point, by going one better and using cartoons.<br /><br />Sheeesh! Way to live up to the "humorless atheist" stereotype. B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10903553807984216582013-11-09T21:34:38.694-07:002013-11-09T21:34:38.694-07:00Bob,
"I'm genuinely disappointed here. I...Bob,<br /><br />"I'm genuinely disappointed here. I was hoping for there to be something interesting in your response - something that could be discussed... but this??? Sorry, but "there's no there there.""im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86326642946282765932013-11-09T21:01:17.303-07:002013-11-09T21:01:17.303-07:00Responding to stimulus is not what most of us thin...Responding to stimulus is not what most of us think of as consciousness. Even non-living things respond in some way to stimulus. I'm not sure what the point is that you're making, but a bacterium is not aware of its surroundings. It simply responds when something happens to it. This is, of course, the beginning of a long evolutionary process that leads eventually to sentience, and rationality. But I wouldn't ascribe those things to ant creature that lacks a nervous system.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19327140715839059422013-11-09T19:16:40.187-07:002013-11-09T19:16:40.187-07:00Maybe THIS will help. Or even THIS.Maybe <a href="http://blogs.jcvi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/farside_ameo1.jpg" rel="nofollow">THIS</a> will help. Or even <a href="http://comics.washingtonpost.com/11_comics_speed-bump.html" rel="nofollow">THIS</a>.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41726257809837914382013-11-09T18:35:02.578-07:002013-11-09T18:35:02.578-07:00Bob,
You're sounding more and more like crude...Bob,<br /><br />You're sounding more and more like crude. I mentioned your selective quoting because you claimed it had nothing to do with consciousness, when the part of the sentence you left out did have very much to do with consciousness, as I explained.<br /><br />So you believe that all living things have consciousness? Where does it come from? Can't be the brain (according to you) because plants and bacteria don't have brains. So maybe your idea of what consciousness is doesn't match what most of us think of, or maybe you think it's just something that is given to us by our supernatural creator being. But one thing is sure: you're the one who lacks evidence. You keep demanding that I produce evidence for what is well known in the scientific community. I showed you a site where you could read all the articles you like about cognitive science (in the other thread), and get some idea of what evidence there is for the scientific-materialistic view. All you have is fantastic claims that are not backed by any observation or any science that I'm aware of. Bacteria are conscious? Really?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8931395700315590602013-11-09T17:07:36.235-07:002013-11-09T17:07:36.235-07:00"Funny, you didn't quote the earlier part..."<i>Funny, you didn't quote the earlier part of the sentence</i>"<br /><br />What? I now have to quote your entire postings each time I reference them? OK, here goes:<br /><br />"<i>Let's start with the human mind. All the evidence shows that it is the product of naturally evolved organic materials that constitute an organ 9the brain), whose function is to make animals aware of their surroundings and behave in a manner that is conducive to their survival. Experiments have shown that the physical brain is what produces mental activity, and when the physical brain is impaired, so is the mind. Yet you insist that a conscious mind cannot come from matter at all, contrary to the observed evidence. You believe (by your faith) that this mental function must come from a supernatural source - despite all the evidence.</i>"<br /><br />Now your memory probably has better things to keep in mind than what I post at various times on this website, but I am on record as saying that I suspect that <b>all life (to include plant life), right down to bacteria, is conscious</b>. Seems you and I agree on this.<br /><br />But your last sentence comes out of nowhere. You have yet to bring forth even the slightest bit of "all [this supposed] evidence". This is past getting tiring. If you can't get beyond spouting <b>"EVIDENCE"</b> without actually showing any, you're just wasting my time (and that of anyone silently following this one-sided" discussion").B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20865123909480887392013-11-09T16:47:02.357-07:002013-11-09T16:47:02.357-07:00"This has nothing whatsoever to do with consc..."This has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness."<br /><br />Funny, you didn't quote the earlier part of the sentence that said "make animals aware of their surroundings". Because that's at the core of consciousness. It is sentience, awareness, and consciousness.<br /><br />"My eye is so constructed as to react to light, but by being so designed is in no way proof of the non-existence of light."<br /><br />Your eye senses light. Your brain perceives the object that is illuminated by processing information. Cognitive science is fascinating. Try reading about it.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82503357123680308162013-11-09T14:39:28.679-07:002013-11-09T14:39:28.679-07:00"So? This is still not evidence of anything. ...<i>"So? This is still not evidence of anything. My eye is so constructed as to react to light, but by being so designed is in no way proof of the non-existence of light. Think, Man!"</i><br /><br />Oh dear. You can smell the WLC defense all the way Downunder with this one. '..no way proof of the non-existence of light'. Sheesh! This statement is filled with the redolence of the big Bill himself:<br /><br /><i>"…the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is… unmistakable… for him who has it; …that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit…1<br />…it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role… The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel… and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith…2<br />[The inner witness of the Spirit] trumps all other evidence.3"</i><br /><br />Nothing trumps the inner witness of the holy ghost. Right Bob?<br /><br />Sheesh! Give it a break Bob.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68003774917784186242013-11-09T13:13:07.756-07:002013-11-09T13:13:07.756-07:00"behave in a manner that is conducive to thei..."<i>behave in a manner that is conducive to their survival</i>"<br /><br />This has nothing whatsoever to do with <b>consciousness</b>. A machine can respond in a "manner that is conducive to [its] survival", but that in no way makes it <i>self aware</i>, i.e., conscious.<br /><br />"<i>Experiments have shown that the physical brain is what produces mental activity, and when the physical brain is impaired, so is the mind.</i>"<br /><br />So? This is still not evidence of anything. My eye is so constructed as to react to light, but by being so designed is in no way proof of the non-existence of light. Think, Man!<br /><br />"<i>despite all the evidence</i>"<br /><br /><b>That's</b> what you regard as evidence?!?!? As the traffic cop says, "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here!"<br /><br />I'm genuinely disappointed here. I was hoping for there to be something interesting in your response - something that could be discussed... but <b>this</b>??? Sorry, but "there's no <i>there</i> there."<br /><br />I am forced to conclude that your original question ("<i>What do you do when your belief is contradicted by evidence?</i>") was either never meant to be taken seriously, or else is pure projection.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39636747584837331772013-11-09T09:23:09.207-07:002013-11-09T09:23:09.207-07:00Bob,
Let's start with the human mind. All th...Bob,<br /><br />Let's start with the human mind. All the evidence shows that it is the product of naturally evolved organic materials that constitute an organ 9the brain), whose function is to make animals aware of their surroundings and behave in a manner that is conducive to their survival. Experiments have shown that the physical brain is what produces mental activity, and when the physical brain is impaired, so is the mind. Yet you insist that a conscious mind cannot come from matter at all, contrary to the observed evidence. You believe (by your faith) that this mental function must come from a supernatural source - despite all the evidence.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64858724176244973032013-11-09T05:39:29.354-07:002013-11-09T05:39:29.354-07:00"What do you do when your belief is contradic..."<i>What do you do when your belief is contradicted by evidence?</i>"<br /><br />Skep, This is important. I'd really like to hear from you on what you think is an example of this happening. I'm being as honest as I can in stating that I cannot come up with a single instance of <i>any</i> evidence contradicting my Faith, whilst I can easily come up with countless examples that confirms my Faith. Please believe me, this is not "blustering" or stubbornness. I mean what I say. I've spent a lifetime of looking at Facts on the Ground, and they <b>all</b> point to the Truth of the Gospel.<br /><br />So what do you consider to be evidence that contradicts it? And I mean <i>evidence</i> - not some argument based on premises that we might not share (such as the possibility or impossibility of miracles), but actual evidence.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51394367101477554662013-11-08T23:53:29.425-07:002013-11-08T23:53:29.425-07:00"No conflict between the Arts and Science her...<i>"No conflict between the Arts and Science here!!!"</i><br /><br />Spot on. Definitely no conflict between the Arts and Science. <br />Conflict between Religion and Science? Intractable. When both make physical claims it is religion that must concede, each and every time, without exception. Contrast the religious claims of fact(?) that dead putrescine corpses can revivify and walk among us as if in perfect physical health with all their mental faculties, with that of science, which infers from the billions of observable antecedent cases that the likelihood of cadavers revivifying is probabilistically zero. To imagine the probability, even of just one, is an unmistakable and incontrovertible instance of unscientific, illogical, and unreasoned special pleading. <br /><br />Any apologetical claim to a one-off, once in a time-span immemorial instance where a particular corpse revivified and levitated into the blue beyond is a credulous leap over the probabilities. Because such an outrageous and unsubstantiated claim would give rise to a massive lie to every other account in the christian mytheme that corpses were revivified, at least nine of which I recall:<br /><br />1 Kings 17:17-24 (KJV)- Elijah resurrected a widow's son. <br />2 Kings 4:32-37-Resurrection of a young boy. <br />2 Kings 13:20, 21- a man resurrected.<br />Acts 9:36-42- Peter resurrected Tabitha, also called Dorcas, of the city of Joppa. <br />Acts 20:7-12- Paul brought back to life Eutychus who died when he fell from an upper-level window.<br />Mark 5:21-43- Jesus resurrected Jairus' daughter . <br />Luke 7:11-17- Jesus resurrected the son of a widow in the city of Nain. <br />John 11:1-44)- Jesus resurrected Lazarus. <br />And the big cheese himself, notwithstanding [pardon the pun]<br /><br />Not to mention Matthew 27:52-53 (KJV)<br />52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,<br />53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.<br /><br /> I wonder what family members reactions were when these walking dead met up with their loved ones?<br /><br />Special pleading? You betcha! Conflict between science and religious faith? You betcha!<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11291438388897274682013-11-08T23:41:55.717-07:002013-11-08T23:41:55.717-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46349342344784975842013-11-08T15:27:01.692-07:002013-11-08T15:27:01.692-07:00"What do you do when your belief is contradic..."<i>What do you do when your belief is contradicted by evidence?</i>"<br /><br />When has that ever happened? (asked in deadly seriousness) I in all honesty cannot think of a single instance.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65244676582394580362013-11-08T14:59:30.989-07:002013-11-08T14:59:30.989-07:00Bob,
Regarding the conflict between faith and sci...Bob,<br /><br />Regarding the conflict between faith and science ... <br /><br />What do you do when your belief is contradicted by evidence? Faith requires that your belief takes precedence, so you tend to discount the evidence. Science requires that that the evidence take precedence, so you discount (or change) your belief.<br /><br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85854340813695950422013-11-08T14:16:46.712-07:002013-11-08T14:16:46.712-07:00Despite the hilariously faux so-called "confl...Despite the hilariously faux so-called "conflict between Faith and Science" that is often touted on this website and elsewhere, there is certainly no such conflict for the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra! I went to last night's concert (I have season tickets - my one claim to <i>culture</i>) and the program was Holst's <i>Planets</i> suite. Before the music started, we were treated to a short talk by Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute. Dr. Livio was introduced by Marin Alsop (the BSO conductor) as "Chairman of the BSO Science Advisory Panel". Whooda thunk it? An orchestra with a Science Advisory Panel!<br /><br />No conflict between the Arts and Science here!!!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36942685451059217282013-11-08T14:01:38.958-07:002013-11-08T14:01:38.958-07:00Mathematics is the language of science. This is an...Mathematics is the language of science. <a href="http://www.arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/" rel="nofollow">This is an outstanding article</a> on the relationship between science and mathematics. Written by former NASA scientist who designed electronic components for the Space Shuttle and renowned computer programmer, Paul Lutus. Lucid and ever so easily readable he introduces some of the quirks and contradictions in mathematics and some of the common misconceptions of the relationship between science and math. And he summarizes: <br /><br />"Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."<br />I decided to write this article after debating psychologists about the low scientific standing of their field. During these conversations it became apparent that many psychologists don't understand or have any use for mathematics and may not even recognize it as science. In a field like psychology, one that believes itself to be scientific, this level of ignorance represents a profound and crippling disconnect, and for individual psychologists to try to explain why mathematics isn't scientific can only reveal an astonishing degree of narcissism and arrogance."<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7117590391447427722013-11-08T13:52:53.028-07:002013-11-08T13:52:53.028-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61774036004461629182013-11-08T13:38:55.722-07:002013-11-08T13:38:55.722-07:00Paul Lutus is his name.Paul Lutus is his name.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49844103246853121562013-11-08T13:26:16.727-07:002013-11-08T13:26:16.727-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20413844686802838212013-11-07T17:12:42.497-07:002013-11-07T17:12:42.497-07:00And I was right.
By the way, you might want to tr...<i>And I was right.<br /><br />By the way, you might want to try reading what I said last time, Karl.</i><br /><br />I did read what you said, I replied to it. Now we see you don't have a real rebuttal. <br /><br /><i>Yeah, grod schooled me good. He denied the connection between science and mathematics. What was his thesis again?</i><br /><br />I am starting to think you have a learning disability because your reading comprehension skills suck. Saying the statement <i>The fact is the development of mathematics has proceeded largely hand-in-hand with the development of science</i> is false is not even remotely close to denying there is a connection between science and mathematics. One is concerned with a historical claim, the other is concerned with the relational between two intellectual fields. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36473384367717546662013-11-07T15:27:33.520-07:002013-11-07T15:27:33.520-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Yeah, grod schooled me good....@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Yeah, grod schooled me good. He denied the connection between science and mathematics. What was his thesis again?"<br /><br />Where did I deny "the connection between science and mathematics"?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7918818051914493122013-11-07T15:09:38.879-07:002013-11-07T15:09:38.879-07:00"I got a feeling Dan and grod are about to sc..."I got a feeling Dan and grod are about to school you."<br /><br />Yeah, grod schooled me good. He denied the connection between science and mathematics. What was his thesis again?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com