Christianity creates violence

[koshergrl]

Delta and other anti-Christian pukes eternally blame victims for the violence that is enacted against them.

They maintain that Christianity breeds violence, because tyrants, muslims, and others take violent action against Christians...and any defense on the part of Christians is viewed as an indication that it's a *violent* religion.

It's just more anti-Christian bigotry.

The same people who claim that Christians are violent because they are eternally being targeted, maintain that blacks are in no way responsible for the fact that they are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of violent crime. In fact, most anti-Christian bigots could find a way to claim that Christians are somehow responsible for the fact that blacks as a group are more violent and less educated than the rest of the population.

It's a conspiracy I tell'ya.

Ah, the good ole' days when you lovely christian folk could just level a claim of witchcraft at someone and burn the blasphemer at the stake.

It's not a conspiracy. It's just pure bigotry and hatred. It's what you guys are best at.

 

[Hollie]

Delta and other anti-Christian pukes eternally blame victims for the violence that is enacted against them.

They maintain that Christianity breeds violence, because tyrants, muslims, and others take violent action against Christians...and any defense on the part of Christians is viewed as an indication that it's a *violent* religion.

It's just more anti-Christian bigotry.

The same people who claim that Christians are violent because they are eternally being targeted, maintain that blacks are in no way responsible for the fact that they are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of violent crime. In fact, most anti-Christian bigots could find a way to claim that Christians are somehow responsible for the fact that blacks as a group are more violent and less educated than the rest of the population.

It's a conspiracy I tell'ya.

Ah, the good ole' days when you lovely christian folk could just level a claim of witchcraft at someone and burn the blasphemer at the stake.

It's not a conspiracy. It's just pure bigotry and hatred. It's what you guys are best at.

Nah. You hyper-religious loons find silly conspiracies where none exist.

 

[emilynghiem]

Personality is the result of chemical processes in the brain that act upon our shared experiences, interactions with the natural world, social and familial interactions, etc.

Your explanation of the concept of a “soul” is insufficient. It's only sufficient for those who have already decided there must be a “soul”. You believe it's okay to assume as decided, the issue of some sort of continuation of the consciousness after death or some other undefined "consciousness" that you hope to connect with one or more gawds.

I have no explanation for "spirits" or the "soul" because the soul remains undemonstrated. I have no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist. I do have a comment about personality, and where that comes from. The sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals (i.e., humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This in and of itself is enough to prove that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon of higher brain functions. Either that, or your gods have made monkeys and men with a soul each, and that means humans are the especial creation of god. Language, nurturing, survival, industry, and even environmental control all can be attributed to animals lesser on the sentience strat than man, which is a great case for man being of and a part of the natural world-- no gods needed.

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain. Remove sections of the brain and the "self" changes as well. Apparently your eternal soul is at the mercy of a few pounds of grey jelly, because the soul cannot override the impact to the brain and the change in personality that attends that impact. The soul must be fairly weak.

This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Now would be the appropriate time to demonstrate the asserted "soul", and the unique gawds who supplied the spiritual source, which religionists assert is the actual reason emotions exist.

You can do that, right?

For those of us who believe there is life after death, reason tells us that we have within us something that is capable of existence separate from the body. We call this the soul. It is the soul that contains our mind and personality, and indeed the body can either interfere with or promote the will of the soul. It is the soul, not the brain and its chemicals, that give physical animation to personality and choices. In this life, the soul presents itself (makes itself known) through the body.

Actually, its the brain that contains what is described as mind and personality. You need your brain to resolve such abstract concepts. Damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes both your mind and your personality.

So yet again, we're left with nothing to substantiate any "soul" thing. For that matter, your entire belief in a "soul" derives from your religious ideology. Had you been raised in a cultural / ideological environment without such concepts of "souls", you would not be making any such argument.

You keep making this same unsupported claim. During the course of any life there are going to be all kinds of experiences which change the chemistry of the brain. Dangerous conditions, surprises, ingestion of various chemicals. All kinds of things and everyone experiences them to one extent or another. I think it safe to say you are no exception. Have you ever not been you?

I keep making the totally supportable claim that personality resides in the brain and that physical impact or chemical inducement can change the brain and thus change personality.

Are you aware that medical science has drugs that can can alter mood, behavior and personality?

So, let's get back to this "soul" you claim exists. How do we test for the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"? And further, with this "soul" being a function of your gawds, let's start with you supporting your argument for gawds before we move on to the gawd implanted "soul"

Here Hollie: What about cases where people changed their personalities on a "spiritual level"
who cares if it is chemical or physical or whatever.
The point is they changed and they feel the NEW them is the REAL them come to fruition
or brought out/freed from sickness and self-destruction/living death or living hell.
Example, and if you don't believe this guy, there are others like him who report being "reborn" as a new person:

David Berkowitz s former Son of Sam Testimony Translations

One of my friends who I met through Olivia with the nonprofit outreach (for healing people for free, for the sake of saving lives and stopping abuse and violence)
said he USED to be a very bad man. He did crimes and things he could not even tell me in Mexico.

Another person with that group used to sell not only drugs but pimp kids, and now he is gentle as a lamb
and just wants kids to walk away from trouble, from crime, from bad situations because of mistakes he made.

They are not the same people they used to be,
but they will tell you it was MORE than just "chemical" changes.

The negative energy and blocks were REMOVED on a "spiritual level"
so I don't know what the equivalent of this level is using secular terms.

Hollie the most I can guess is it is the COLLECTIVE level
where people connect with each other's energy, as through prayer that connects people on a higher level.

So if you can imagine that humanity is a COLLECTIVE identity,
or all the love of truth and knowledge is a body of consciousness,
then tapping into that COLLECTIVE level is what is meant by spirituality.

Does that help? All the life energy in the world connected as a collective body = what is meant by spiritual level.

 

[Hollie]

I keep making the totally supportable claim that personality resides in the brain and that physical impact or chemical inducement can change the brain and thus change personality.

Are you aware that medical science has drugs that can can alter mood, behavior and personality?

So, let's get back to this "soul" you claim exists. How do we test for the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"? And further, with this "soul" being a function of your gawds, let's start with you supporting your argument for gawds before we move on to the gawd implanted "soul"

I never once said a soul exists. I said I don't know if it exists. If it does, I don't know what it is or how to test for it. I don't have to support a claim I have never made.

So back to your claim. I ask again, have you ever not been you? Regardless of whether your mood, behavior or actions changed, have you ever not been what you have always thought of as you?

You're confused as to what argument you're hoping to make. You're confusing physical appearance and such things as "souls"

Let's get back to your confusion regarding biological organisms and inanimate objects. Why are you suggesting that there is no difference in reaction and response to chemical stimulation between biological organisms and scuba regulators?

It really isn't that hard of a question. Why don't you want to answer it? I can. I have never not been me. Have you ever not been you?

It's a simple question that has been answered repeatedly.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

You have not answered the question at all. It requires only a yes or a no. It does not require dot points. Have you ever not been you?

You're angry and frustrated because my answer confounds your preconceptions.

I'm actually fascinated and at the same time deeply disturbed by your confusion regarding the differences to chemical stimuli between biological organisms and inanimate objects.

Mood altering (personality altering) drugs used to treat a patient with a chemical imbalance in the brain would have an affect, let's call it "different", if applied to your scuba regulator, do you agree?

 

[emilynghiem]

Nah. You hyper-religious loons find silly conspiracies where none exist.

And what of your distrust that any reference to a "soul" or to "God" is some
kind of negative conspiracy to get people to believe in things that aren't real.

Whatever you call your personality, if you believe that people connect like "soul-mates"
then whatever THAT connection is that is more than "people's personalities getting along"
is on the level of SPIRIT or SOUL.

Hollie just because you don't refer to it that way, or PF doesn't even bother making a big deal
if it is chemical or physical or whatever, doesn't mean we can't talk about the same things.
Just in different terms.

Hollie when a clarinet plays a C and a flute or piano plays the same TONE
it is not always NAMED by the same letter. Because they are in different keys.

Sometimes one instrument has to play a G and another has to play A or E to hit the same PITCH.
The NAMES are different because they use different scales, so it is relative.

So if you don't use the term God or Soul, then don't worry.
Maybe you think of things in terms of COLLECTIVE energy or knowledge, wisdom, truth love, life, etc.

Whatever is ABSTRACT and influenced by life beyond just what you produce
can be referred to as a spiritual relationship with the greater whole.

Hollie do you relate to the concept that the WHOLE is greater than the SUM of the parts?
So there is more than just the sum, there is a distinct "spirit" that is associated with the collective assembly of the parts.

The "spirit" of the Constitution is more than the written words.
The "spirit" of a song or poem is more than the literal language.
The "school spirit" of a particular community is unique to THOSE people and bonds them.

Can you understand in those terms, like a parallel model?

 

[emilynghiem]

You keep making this same unsupported claim. During the course of any life there are going to be all kinds of experiences which change the chemistry of the brain. Dangerous conditions, surprises, ingestion of various chemicals. All kinds of things and everyone experiences them to one extent or another. I think it safe to say you are no exception. Have you ever not been you?

I keep making the totally supportable claim that personality resides in the brain and that physical impact or chemical inducement can change the brain and thus change personality.

Are you aware that medical science has drugs that can can alter mood, behavior and personality?

So, let's get back to this "soul" you claim exists. How do we test for the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"? And further, with this "soul" being a function of your gawds, let's start with you supporting your argument for gawds before we move on to the gawd implanted "soul"

I never once said a soul exists. I said I don't know if it exists. If it does, I don't know what it is or how to test for it. I don't have to support a claim I have never made.

So back to your claim. I ask again, have you ever not been you? Regardless of whether your mood, behavior or actions changed, have you ever not been what you have always thought of as you?

You're confused as to what argument you're hoping to make. You're confusing physical appearance and such things as "souls"

Let's get back to your confusion regarding biological organisms and inanimate objects. Why are you suggesting that there is no difference in reaction and response to chemical stimulation between biological organisms and scuba regulators?

It really isn't that hard of a question. Why don't you want to answer it? I can. I have never not been me. Have you ever not been you?

It's a simple question that has been answered repeatedly.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

Dear Hollie: Can you end the spirit of the Founding Fathers and Constitution
by physically killing Jefferson and Washington, Mason and Madison? Hamilton and all others
who were part of that collective movement?

What about the spirit of Emily Dickinson's poetry?
Or Shakespeare? Don't these come alive when people invoke the spirit
in which these words were written. Does that depend on Shakespeare
or Dickinson being physically here and alive? Can they be eternal on another level?

Is the American spirit just something we imagine bonds us,
is it attached and dependent on people being alive?

I think you are right that this is complex, and not a simple matter
of CALLING something God or soul and therefore it is that thing.

If you break it apart, it is very deep and you wonder where does it come from.

These are NOT simple yes no, true false, answers.
I agree this is quite profound.

BTW When Scott Peck thought the Devil wasn't real but the schizophrenic voices in patients' heads
were delusions coming from their own minds,
he himself CHANGED his mind when he confronted and studied two patients with demonic voices.

He decided within the first two interviews that his friend was right, these
entities were not coming from the patient but existed independently.

As a doctor, he did not believe this, and could not imagine it was real,
until he interviewed one such person himself.

My other friends who have been exposed to demonic entities
will tell you these things are not human.

Hollie there is no way the rational mind can grasp this
or POSSIBLY Think it is true unles syou experience it yourself.

Dr. Phillip Goldfedder also did not believe spiritual healing was real
until it was demonstrated to him, and then he started practicing it himself because it worked more effectively.

Dr. MacNutt and Dr. Peck both thought it was mythical and not real,
but after they found out people were practicing this naturally
they picked it up and started using it regularly.

They could not believe it was true either, it sounds unreal unless you experience
it or have friends who have so you understand it is natural.

 

[PratchettFan]

I never once said a soul exists. I said I don't know if it exists. If it does, I don't know what it is or how to test for it. I don't have to support a claim I have never made.

So back to your claim. I ask again, have you ever not been you? Regardless of whether your mood, behavior or actions changed, have you ever not been what you have always thought of as you?

You're confused as to what argument you're hoping to make. You're confusing physical appearance and such things as "souls"

Let's get back to your confusion regarding biological organisms and inanimate objects. Why are you suggesting that there is no difference in reaction and response to chemical stimulation between biological organisms and scuba regulators?

It really isn't that hard of a question. Why don't you want to answer it? I can. I have never not been me. Have you ever not been you?

It's a simple question that has been answered repeatedly.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

You have not answered the question at all. It requires only a yes or a no. It does not require dot points. Have you ever not been you?

You're angry and frustrated because my answer confounds your preconceptions.

I'm actually fascinated and at the same time deeply disturbed by your confusion regarding the differences to chemical stimuli between biological organisms and inanimate objects.

Mood altering (personality altering) drugs used to treat a patient with a chemical imbalance in the brain would have an affect, let's call it "different", if applied to your scuba regulator, do you agree?

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

 

[Hollie]

You're confused as to what argument you're hoping to make. You're confusing physical appearance and such things as "souls"

Let's get back to your confusion regarding biological organisms and inanimate objects. Why are you suggesting that there is no difference in reaction and response to chemical stimulation between biological organisms and scuba regulators?

It really isn't that hard of a question. Why don't you want to answer it? I can. I have never not been me. Have you ever not been you?

It's a simple question that has been answered repeatedly.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

You have not answered the question at all. It requires only a yes or a no. It does not require dot points. Have you ever not been you?

You're angry and frustrated because my answer confounds your preconceptions.

I'm actually fascinated and at the same time deeply disturbed by your confusion regarding the differences to chemical stimuli between biological organisms and inanimate objects.

Mood altering (personality altering) drugs used to treat a patient with a chemical imbalance in the brain would have an affect, let's call it "different", if applied to your scuba regulator, do you agree?

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

 

[Newby]

Gee, another Christian bashing thread with the usual Christian bashing morons posting in it, how original!!

 

[Hollie]

Gee, another Christian bashing thread with the usual Christian bashing morons posting in it, how original!!

Aww. The christian Taliban are offended.

 

[PratchettFan]

It really isn't that hard of a question. Why don't you want to answer it? I can. I have never not been me. Have you ever not been you?

It's a simple question that has been answered repeatedly.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

You have not answered the question at all. It requires only a yes or a no. It does not require dot points. Have you ever not been you?

You're angry and frustrated because my answer confounds your preconceptions.

I'm actually fascinated and at the same time deeply disturbed by your confusion regarding the differences to chemical stimuli between biological organisms and inanimate objects.

Mood altering (personality altering) drugs used to treat a patient with a chemical imbalance in the brain would have an affect, let's call it "different", if applied to your scuba regulator, do you agree?

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

 

[Hollie]

It's a simple question that has been answered repeatedly.

Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.

By way of example, I can

1. end all thought by killing that brain
2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain
3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.

All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gawds.

You have not answered the question at all. It requires only a yes or a no. It does not require dot points. Have you ever not been you?

You're angry and frustrated because my answer confounds your preconceptions.

I'm actually fascinated and at the same time deeply disturbed by your confusion regarding the differences to chemical stimuli between biological organisms and inanimate objects.

Mood altering (personality altering) drugs used to treat a patient with a chemical imbalance in the brain would have an affect, let's call it "different", if applied to your scuba regulator, do you agree?

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

 

[Newby]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

 

[mudwhistle]

Religion can lead to violence.

Christianity is based on non-violence. Actually knowing it's doctrine would reveal this to you.

 

[PratchettFan]

You have not answered the question at all. It requires only a yes or a no. It does not require dot points. Have you ever not been you?

You're angry and frustrated because my answer confounds your preconceptions.

I'm actually fascinated and at the same time deeply disturbed by your confusion regarding the differences to chemical stimuli between biological organisms and inanimate objects.

Mood altering (personality altering) drugs used to treat a patient with a chemical imbalance in the brain would have an affect, let's call it "different", if applied to your scuba regulator, do you agree?

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Religion can lead to violence.

Christianity is based on non-violence. Actually knowing it's doctrine would reveal this to you.

There is no doctrine which cannot and, in many cases, does not lead to violence. Violence comes from people and doctrines are meaningless until you include people. Humanity has been slaughtering in the name of peace from the day we learned what a club was.

 

[PratchettFan]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

 

[Hollie]

You're angry and frustrated because my answer confounds your preconceptions.

I'm actually fascinated and at the same time deeply disturbed by your confusion regarding the differences to chemical stimuli between biological organisms and inanimate objects.

Mood altering (personality altering) drugs used to treat a patient with a chemical imbalance in the brain would have an affect, let's call it "different", if applied to your scuba regulator, do you agree?

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

 

[Hollie]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

Does Pratchettfan need to retreat such that he can only address Hollie in the third person?

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not angry. I just notice you simply won't answer the question. I presume because the answer doesn't support your position.

If you give a car a new paint job it will look different. You can put on new tires and install performance enhancers on the engine. But that does not make it a different car. You're talking about the paint while I'm talking about the car. You can have considerable damage to the brain, change the chemistry or anything else you like, but that does not make whatever the consciousness that exists within that brain a different consciousness. It may exhibit different behaviors, not remember things that had happened to it in the past, but the "me" that was there remains the same "me".

I have no idea whether that "me" exists independent of the brain or is a phenomenon found only within a brain. But I do know the claims you have made do not explain its existence. You are insisting that you have knowledge you don't have. What you are expressing is belief and nothing more than belief. I do not consider it any more valid than any other belief being expressed here. Of course, I only have belief as well. The difference between us is I recognize when I don't know something.

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

What part of "there is no "soul" in my faith" did you not understand? Don't think I am a Christian just because you are.

I think you confuse making an argument with supporting an argument. Please do provide me with a link from an accredited research lab which has identified the source of human consciousness. And don't tell me to do my own research. I don't think there is one, but you claim to have access to the information. Your claim.... your responsibility to support. If you can't then you are just believing.