Woah...what ignorance...you only re-confirm what I said about atheists....everyone else is a delusional fool....except for them...
Except this is a fallacious assumption that you have about atheists. There are plenty of delusional atheists as well. I know of many that are deluded by beliefs in things ranging from homeopathy to tarot cards and ESP. They're clearly deluded.
I won't share any personal experiences....but I will say that I experience supernatural things on a daily basis so its very hard to deny all of it...
Evidence of gullibility and ignorance, but not the supernatural. The things you likely count as supernatural probably have many prosaic and very natural explanations. Some of them are probably spurious correlations based on a preconceived belief and coincidence, discounting events that don't provide support for your beliefs. Delusion is most evident among those that claim they "experience the supernatural every day."
Yet more re-confirmation.....any evidence will either be denied or dodged out of or gathering evidence is impossible.......so why do atheists even ask for evidence?
Because evidence should be possible. The gods of Christianity, according to myth, were very prolific and interactive with humans. There were clear signs of the dissatisfaction that these gods had with mankind and the trickery they used. Gods like Jesus, Yahweh, Satan, and their demigods performed (according to the myths) feats of magic and sorcery all the time. Somehow, these gods are finished with mankind? They decline to interact with people now? The only interactions are those that a few individuals
claim to have but these are very personal and private interactions. No global floods. No fire and brimstone. No pillars of salt for wayward spouses. No water turned to wine. No gods/demigods walking on water, healing the blind, restoring the limbs of amputees, or hovering above cities in flying chariots bathed in holy light.
Instead, what we get left with are "miracles" that include vague images of demigods like Mary on grilled cheese sandwiches and in the piss-stains of the homeless at underpasses. Evidence of pareidolia and delusion, not divinity. Evidence for gods
should exist. We should see: evidence that the laws of physics were violated in producing universe; evidence that the universe and life were designed by a high intelligence; evidence that the God communicates truths by divine revelation; evidence that scriptural events really happened; evidence that at least some prayers are answered; evidence that the humans are special, have supernatural powers; and evidence that the God is source of morals and values.
We don't.
Just shut the fuck up and say you choose not to believe in God....instead atheists go on about how everything is an imaginary fantasy (unless evidence says it isn't), religious people are delusional, and how atheists know everything and can thus determine if God exists or not, etc....
Why don't you mind the profanity and make you point without the F-word? While you're at it, please cite the atheist in this forum that made the claim that everything is known. Indeed, cite that atheist
anywhere so that I may join in ridiculing him. That religious people are deluded is obvious to the rational thinker. That evidence for the existence of their gods should exist is also obvious. No doubt, the deluded will claim that evidence I've listed above
does exist (I can cite examples that claim this in this very forum as well as other places), but in no instance has the deluded successfully made the case that this evidence actually exists. The claims of 'intelligent' design have failed miserably. The claims of miracles have miserably failed. The claims of intercessory prayer have miserably failed.
I'm happy to revise my position that gods do not exist nor are they necessary for the universe to exist. I just require that those that claim such gods do exist not only provide a rational case for their claim but also for why I should accept that it is
their god that is the right choice and not someone else's or one that has yet to be discovered. When the latter possibility is considered, it might be the atheist that has the best chance of appealing to such a god! At least we didn't invent a non-existent competitor and create a whole mythology based on what
we thought this god would want for us!
Saying that the brain and consciousness have some connection is not the same as stating that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.
All evidence points to the notion that consciousness is
dependent upon the brain. Nearly every other part in the human body has been transplanted, removed, or rendered irrelevant at some point, however temporarily, and the consciousness of the individual remains. Not to mention that there are data that support this which indicate that by stimulating or 'turning off' parts of the brain, consciousness is altered or impeded. Its very likely that the definition of "consciousness" is one that will need considerable refinement and revision as neuroscience increases its understanding of the human brain.
I am saying there is no evidence that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of brains.
You might try reading some of the literature:
Tonon, Giulio (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness.
BMC Neuroscience, 5(42).
Seth,Anil K.; et al (2006). Theories and measures of consciousness: An extended framework
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(28): 10799–10804.
Both of these papers and many others go through and discuss
a lot of evidence that consciousness is an emergent process of the brain. The latter is critical of the former, but
they both acknowledge that evidence exists that demonstrates that the complexity of consciousness is a result of brain activity. If not the brain, what? The big toe? The heart which gets transplanted from time to time? The tonsils?
For someone that believes in Intelligent design they might consider it laughable to think that life just magically (i.e. no rational explanation as to how) comes from chemicals on the earth, just as you think consciousness just magically comes from the brain. Both might be true.
This is an argument from ignorance. Not a single biologist or neuroscientist has ever argued that magic is involved in either abiogenesis or consciousness. Rational hypotheses
do exist, whether or not you choose to acknowledge or educate yourself on them.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence for either. So it is hypocritical for you to demand that one always have evidence for their beliefs. Stomp your feet all you want but thats how it is.
No. It isn't. Evidence is improving for both of these fields and the researchers within them each acknowledge that their favorite hypotheses may, indeed, be wrong. Some of them, in fact,
hope they're wrong and that others will provide new data. This is not the case with those deluded by the superstitions of religion. There are no priests that acknowledge their god may not exist. There are no archbishops hoping that a theologian will come along to disprove their doctrines. The doctrines and mythically established dogma of religion is not open to debate, revision or improvement with new data. The hypocrisy, therefore, resides primarily with the religiously deluded who want the benefits of scientific discovery so long as it doesn't criticize or bring into question their own delusions. They want medical science to advance, but ignore the very facts of evolution that are smacking them in the face to obtain that advancement.
Hmmm, that's impossible. For something to be science it has to be a testable hypothesis. This has not been tested and they have no idea how to go about testing it.
A statement which I've refuted above. Moreover, for "something to be science," it must be
potentially falsifiable. Not just a testable hypothesis. Just because you are ignorant to the neuroscientific work being conducted on the concept of consciousness doesn't imply that science has nothing to say about it that is worthwhile. Nor does the fact that there is a very promising amount of neuroscience being done in the field of consciousness imply that science has it figured out. It doesn't. But scientists aren't dismayed by that (quite the opposite) and don't resort to arguments from ignorance by settling for: this can't be explained; thus it is explained by that. Saying, "I don't know" is not the same as saying "god did it."
You are just taking Attenboroughs word as an authority on faith the same way a thesit takes a priests word as an authority on faith.
The difference is
monumental! With Attenborough, one at least has the option to test his word. With a priest, how is one to test the supernatural? With every objection, the goalpost will surely move.
What evidence do you have of this? Elephants have bigger brains than us does that mean they have more complex emotions than us?
Just out of curiosity, what is the ratio of the elephant brain to body mass? Is it higher or lower than that of the human brain? I honestly don't know the answer off the top of my head, but the answer may be important to your assumption here.
just because you dont believe in god and think you will die and not exist and they think they will live in peace in heaven for eternity, you hate there bliss and ignorance dont you,
Wow. Talk about non sequiturs. You're just one logical fallacy following another, eh?
Science has been wrong again and again throughout history. Why is taking sciene on faith OK but not religion?
If for no other reason that the very fact that when science is wrong, science corrects itself. And, with each correction, comes a revision that improves upon another (in general). Which religion has the courage to do this again?
while many theists seem to debate but stay calm and polite?
