Posts by Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

Regarding your "Prove Love Exists" debate Idea

Research

In 2000, Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki of University College, London, located the areas of the brain activated by romantic love. They took students who said they were madly in love, put them into a brain scanner, and looked at their patterns of brain activity.

The results were surprising. For a start, a relatively small area of the human brain is active in love, compared with that involved in, say, ordinary friendship. “It is fascinating to reflect”, the pair conclude, “that the face that launched a thousand ships should have done so through such a limited expanse of cortex.” The second surprise was that the brain areas active in love are different from the areas activated in other emotional states, such as fear and anger. Parts of the brain that are love-bitten include the one responsible for gut feelings, and the ones which generate the euphoria induced by drugs such as cocaine. So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke. Love, in other words, uses the neural mechanisms that are activated during the process of addiction. “We are literally addicted to love,” Dr Young observes.

Like the man said "Might as well face it your addicted to Love"

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

Hey G'man

One more point. We keep bringing up the matter of tangible proof, emperical data, etc.... We've already established that this cannot be the appropriate measuring stick for the proof of God to openminded people.

We did???? Are you are admiting that you have no proof of the existance of God? If not tangible proof or evidence, what measuring stick should we use to test the God theory to an open minded person??

And dont go tryin to start up another debate about another subject. We aint done wit dis one, I rekon!

Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

Quoting (not accurately) from Phoebe to Ross on the show Friends during a debate about evolution. (I knew that show had all the answers!!)

"Wasn't there a time when the world's greatest minds thought that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe.... until they opened one up and all this stuff came flying out? Are you telling me that you are SO arrogant that you don't even consider the remotest possibilty, that there might be some teeny-tiny chance that scientist are wrong about this too? Is THAT what you're telling me? If so, I think maybe it's time you put "Ross" under the microscope!"

Be careful with this one. Using your example shouldnt we ask God Believers (Theists) this question: "Are you so arrogant that you dont even consider the remotest possibility that there is no God?"

So G man I think we have come to the real questions and the real differance between our mind set.

"Where do we cross over into belief when considering the currently unproveable or unknowable?"

I choose to eliminate the entire concept of "belief" from my thinking. I choose to accept facts based on currently provable (Via Scientific principles) realities while leaving the door open for future revelations and proofs. Thats the beauty of Science (not Scientists), it is self correcting. It never says I HAVE FOUND THE ULTIMATE TRUTH. Instead it says, Here is what we know now. It asks via peer review and other processes to be tested and checked, over and over. That is why we NOW know that the Atom is made of smaller particles. Someone kept checking the results looking for more data. Theism does not do this. It starts with an asumption and then seeks out facts that can prove the original belief. If Theism comes up against facts that disagree with the "God" question it will ussually deny them or atribute it to "Gods Mystery". I can give many examples of this but my favorite is the "God put Dino bones in the ground to test us". Where do you draw the line on belief. Do you believe everything? If not what constitutes proof? That is where the debate can occur.

I dont "believe"that I am a human living on planet Earth, I AM a human living on a planet Earth. Belief has no effect on this reality. It either is true or it is not true. I can believe that I am a fire truck but unless I have wheels and a red light on top and a large ladder I am not a fire truck. What I believe has no value in the discussion of whether or not I AM a fire truck. (By the way I am not a Fire Truck..I am a nice yellow Taxi)

Its simple really, either God exists or he does not exist. I think you have chosen to believe that he does based on the "evidence" that binds your reality I.E. The change of your "personality". But consider for a minute (like the atomic example above) what if you are wrong? Would this really destroy your world view? Would this change your personality or would it present you with a new challenge. The challenge of determining what within you had the power to effect the positive change you expierianced.

Free thinking, creativity and flights of fancy often lead to new concepts and thoughts about many things including the nature of reality. But to have validity they need to be proven. If you believe everything then you have a logical problem Example: "I believe that the Easter Bunny hid these eggs" ~~ "I believe my parents hid these eggs" Both cannot be true (Unless the Easter Bunny is in cahoots with your parents) Wouldnt it be better to hide out the night before and spy on the Egg hider (preferably with a video camera).

Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

C'mon... Don't be such a wuss! I just gave you the easiest target ever! yea but thats no fun.

What are you? some kinda' "GIRL" ..........There... that ought to do it! Now you've done it. You woke the Dragon

P.S. I still gotta read your second to the last post but might be too tired tonight.....

Sleep well and peacefully.

Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

I am not saying that I've been given mystical powers? I am saying that an unexplainable change occured during my search for God. This change resulted to an immediate opening of my eyes to spiritual matters that had escaped me (no matter how much I had meditated on them in the past). Some people may refer to this as being born again, seeing the light, or becoming one with God. It's impossible to explain, there simply are no words for it. I would have NEVER believed it as something from God, at any point in my life... until it happened. The people that say one becomes a "new creature" are right..... just ask those that knew me before and after. It is not the same as the transformation of an achoholic in recovery, or a psych patient experiencing a breakthrough.... it is a complete changing of a persons very being. I fully realize that no one who has yet to experience this for themselves would ever understand it... but at the moment that it happens, you completely understand, and you have a peace that overwhelms you.

Oh no the always unprovable "Argument from personal expieriance"...dam..just as the debate was heating up we hit he ultimate no-go zone. Oh well was fun while we were using our brains.

Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

Ok G man I need to break down your reply and see what I understand:

I enjoyed your examples, they made a valid point (Thank you) They did have one thing in common, Tangible result based upon our understanding of cause and effect principals even including variables (beyond our control) that were still based upon "conventional" wisdom. (What else could you base your understanding on if not conventional wisdom? Again, should you BELIEVE everything because it may be possible. I propose that you should not, but keep an open but skeptical mind when presented with previously unproven ideas ) Perhaps cultural analogies or parables further support the base of our understanding. (Are you implying that stories = Reality?) But why is it necessary to think that something as inheirantly supernatural as a communion with a seperate entity has to fit into human logic. (Inheirantly supernatural??? STRAW MAN and LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT Have we established that thier is such a thing? I must of missed that. In theory, no one said that anything must fit into human logic but how would you comprehend the communion unless there was a common ground for the understanding of the expieriance) Isn't the history of man full of examples where seemingly unexplainable phenomena was given to outrageous theory or (in the epitome of human vanity) a personification.... Just look at the humanoid God's created to explain things like the sun and moon. (yes!! exactly...do I see a hint of agnostic showing through?)

We are obviously far more technologically advanced than those people, (What people are we talking about here?) yet we still base much of our philosophical viewpoints on theories that originated at the same time and level of human development (That is a huge assumption. These are many contemporary philosophical viewpoints)..... Platonism itself, predates Roman mythology. There was a time that human flights of fancy were labeled as heracy if they differed from the outlandish ghost stories developed (by political and social leaders) in the name of Godly worship. Some of these flights of fancy were, human flight, microscopic organisms, and relationships between humans and spiritual creatures. Are we really so advanced today, that we have no need for objectivity before claiming that anything that does not fit into "OUR" understanding or sophisticated logic is some fabrication of an overactive imagination.

(We have great need for objectivity!! If the flight of fancy is presented to us we ask for proof. If thier is no proof than we do not adopt it as a fact. It does not negate the possibility that it may be proven true in the future but it does logically flow that you would or should adopt a positive belief in the concept. Are we to move all possible beliefs into a "to be proved later box" and run our lives as if they could all be true? Certainly not so why this specific belief? I am not claiming that God does not-could not-has not existed. It is you that is making the claim that God exists but you are offering no proof other than "nature screams it" I put that in the "Argument from Beauty" box)

I think you are applying what is know as the "putting God in the gaps" concept mixed with the "argument from personal incredulity". I think it goes like this: Since we can't exsplain everything right now and I cant imagine anything that could "make a flower, world etc fill in the blank" it must be God's hand. Again, all I am asking for is proof.

It might be justifyable if humans had the intellect to create something as simple as a squirrel ( I feel the Irreduceable Complexity argument or the Teleogical Argument coming) something as simple as an ant..OK...forget animals, how about a flower. Until that day comes, we might want to admit that we don't know everything.(We have and we continue to admit that. That is the basis of Science. I submit that when or if we CAN make a flower or Squirrel we would STILL not know everything) And IF these items were created by something with a conscience would it not be wise to admit that such a being would not necessarily be confined to the laws that govern our understanding, on this one little planet, in the middle of nowhere. (Serious STRAW MAN alert. It is the IF we are debating. You continue to argue based on the IF being agreed. This is not proof. These are assumptive arguments based upon the existance of the very thing we are debating)

respectfully,

Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

I present the following Hypothesis:

There is a 9000 pound fire breathing invisible pan-dimensionable Dragon living in my garage. I cant give you any tangable proof so as of right now it is still in the unproven stage.

But Im sure one day I will be proved correct.

Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

Asheron.... I seriously doubt that the guy from Three's Company discovered ultra-violet light... you might want to check you sources.

I did and not only did the guy from Three's Company discover UV he got together with the guy from Taxi and opened tanning salons)

The point being, that prior to the scientific "Proof" of Ultra-violet light, the only basis for his hypothesis was found in the visible effects of this invisible phenomena. He chose to search for more proof and a greater understanding of something that was (as of yet) not proven!

It is not difficult for a person today to prove the existence os UV light, just as it would not be difficult for a being who had experienced life after death to prove their beliefs.... since that has not happened to any of us, we find ourselves in the same time frame as Ritter, proir to the establishment of proof. the only basis for our hypothesis is (again) in the visible effects of an invisible phenomena................. For most of us, the jury is still out!

Then using that logic the jury is still out on the following unprovables:

1. The Tooth Fairy

2. Unicorns

3. Ogres

4. Trolls

5. An Honest Politician

and....wait for it....here it comes....

6. The Easter Bunny

Asheron

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

Johann Ritter:
The Discovery of Ultraviolet Light

After learning about William Herschel's discovery of infrared light, which he found beyond the visible red portion of the spectrum in 1800, Johann Ritter began to conduct experiments to see if he could detect invisible light beyond the violet portion of the spectrum as well. In 1801, he was experimenting with silver chloride, which turned black when exposed to light. He had heard that blue light caused a greater reaction in silver chloride than red light did. Ritter decided to measure the rate at which silver chloride reacted to the different colors of light. He directed sunlight through a glass prism to create a spectrum. He then placed silver chloride in each color of the spectrum and found that it showed little change in the red part of the spectrum, but darkened toward the violet end of the spectrum. Johann Ritter then decided to place silver chloride in the area just beyond the violet end of the spectrum, in a region where no sunlight was visible. To his amazement, this region showed the most intense reaction of all. This showed for the first time that an invisible form of light existed beyond the violet end of the visible spectrum. This new type of light, which Ritter called Chemical Rays, later became known as ultraviolet light or ultraviolet radiation (the word ultra means beyond).

145

--- A Question for ALL Atheistic ex-Dubs----

by gordon d in

jw
friends

which child is wiser?

while starting a hunt for easter eggs one child runs to a big tree and finds nothing then that childs brother says, go look under that rock i promise youll find one there!

the child throws down their basket and says, i give up!

Asheron

Those that believe in only things that they have seen or those that have an open-mind to think that the universe is not limited to human sensory perceptions.... The first guy that theorized the existence of ultra-violet radiation was a quack too!

Thats a bit of a straw man argument isnt it? The discovery of UV Radiation was confirmed by scientific, repeatable, verifiable tests. If those tests could not support the existance of UV Radiation than he WAS a quack. Turns out he wasnt. See below. Also, this was more on the lines of a "discovery". I am not sure that he first therorized its existance, rather he sought out a way to define the cause of a visible result.

Ritter's Experiments

The man credited with the discovery of ultraviolet light is German physicist Johann Ritter (1776-1910). Ritter experimented with silver chloride, a chemical known to break down when exposed to sunlight. He found that the light at the blue end of the visible spectrum (blue, indigo, and violet) was a much more efficient stimulant for this reaction. Experimenting further, Ritter discovered that silver chloride broke down most efficiently when exposed to radiation just beyond the blues. He called this new type of radiation ultraviolet, meaning "beyond the violet."