[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]Well bless my soul it’s settled then =]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]Well bless my soul it’s settled then =]
[/quote]
Alteration of the brain through chemicals, injuries, and illness can cause changes in personality, memory, speech, etc. If the mind were separate from the body then why would these things be affected?
Are you saying either A. My textbook and prof were rebels? or B. The neurologists are wrong?
As you are the one who seems more certain(out of the two of us) what is your proof that mind-body dualism is a real thing?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]SSC wrote:
I am disappoint. I know I wrote a lengthy diatribe but I can’t get any debate from it?[/quote]
I think because it was lengthy you had no respons. Take one issue that’s closest to your heart and hit them over the head with it. Oh, and just jump in anywhere.
[/quote]
I can’t find his passage.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]Well bless my soul it’s settled then =]
[/quote]
Alteration of the brain through chemicals, injuries, and illness can cause changes in personality, memory, speech, etc. If the mind were separate from the body then why would these things be affected?
Are you saying either A. My textbook and prof were rebels? or B. The neurologists are wrong?
As you are the one who seems more certain(out of the two of us) what is your proof that mind-body dualism is a real thing?
[/quote]
Who said they were separate? Could not the brain be attached to the mind?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:<<< This in and of itself is one of the major hangups for a large number of non-believers. To them it is as if ministers of scripture are saying, “Who you gonna believe, G-d or your own lyin eyes?” >>>[/quote]I absolutely and without hesitation believe God over my own eyes, heart, soul or mind. That’s what faith is. “the substance of things HOPED for and the evidence of things NOT SEEN” (Hebrews 1:1)
If your father is actually saying that people don’t believe because they’re not chosen? That is a false perspective of things not to be known to us in this life. People don’t believe because they’re dead. Just like this world is no longer accessible to those whose funerals we’ve attended? The once born children of Adam are dead to the kingdom of God, the things of God, until born again into Christ’s resurrection and thereby made alive to the truth of the gospel.
I would never dare, DARE, utter one syllable (or think one thought) designed to convey the notion that I know who is chosen and who is not. I hope for, love, pray for and treat EVERYBODY as if they are. I want them all in heaven with me. I’ll try for more later friend. It would be a full time job for me to answer everything everybody asks all the time.
[/quote]
Thank you for the response…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]Well bless my soul it’s settled then =]
[/quote]
Alteration of the brain through chemicals, injuries, and illness can cause changes in personality, memory, speech, etc. If the mind were separate from the body then why would these things be affected?
Are you saying either A. My textbook and prof were rebels? or B. The neurologists are wrong?
As you are the one who seems more certain(out of the two of us) what is your proof that mind-body dualism is a real thing?
[/quote]
Who said they were separate? Could not the brain be attached to the mind? [/quote]
Well is this were directed to me I would say the act of training is a phenominal testament to the intimate attachment of one to the other. Volition gives way to action, and conquering a new PR is FAR more mental than Physical.
I always envision the brain as the radio and the body, the antenna. That might be too simplistic for some. 
Well, I just don’t understand how something can have such disregard for itself and still be considered “healthy.”
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sense of justice built into the brain
Perhaps metaphysical concepts aren’t that metaphysical to begin with?[/quote]
In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]
This is something that is difficult to accept for believers, i guess. I do understand why the concept of separation between body and mind is so easy to believe, the mind does appear to be something aethereal, but that is why it’s called an illusion after all.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]SSC wrote:
I am disappoint. I know I wrote a lengthy diatribe but I can’t get any debate from it?[/quote]
I think because it was lengthy you had no respons. Take one issue that’s closest to your heart and hit them over the head with it. Oh, and just jump in anywhere.
[/quote]
I can’t find his passage.[/quote]
He isn’t dead yet.
[somewhere on the previous page]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.
[/quote]Well bless my soul it’s settled then =]
[/quote]
Alteration of the brain through chemicals, injuries, and illness can cause changes in personality, memory, speech, etc. If the mind were separate from the body then why would these things be affected?
Are you saying either A. My textbook and prof were rebels? or B. The neurologists are wrong?
As you are the one who seems more certain(out of the two of us) what is your proof that mind-body dualism is a real thing?
[/quote]
Who said they were separate? Could not the brain be attached to the mind? [/quote]
No, the mind is a product/function of the brain. Without it [the brain] there’s no existence.
[quote]SSC wrote:
2.) Religious ideals predating anything we worship today. I don’t think a whole lot needs to be said about this, as I’m sure most of you are aware of the Mithras, Zoroastrians, and Egyptian mythologies that predate current religion by thousands of years. Many of these religions provide the exact same template as the ones religions now utilize - Glorious son, Heavenly father, etc. It is no secret that the Bible is quite removed from true religious beliefs and convictions, but how can someone see the exact same story told multiple times and acknowledge that only one of them is correct or true?
3.) This is a tough sell, and doesn’t necessarily discredit nor support the idea of God existing - but through my experiences in churches and with many, many religious people, I have found people of faith to be just as judgmental and abhorrent in their actions than those with oppositional views. Perhaps, when you look through history and wars, it can be said that religious people are much more violent and lack a moral compass as well. This violence occurs because the human condition manifests itself in a way that uses God as an excuse to justify their actions of hatred and dominating force. When something is used as a justification of harming others, I see no fundamental difference between killing in the name of God and killing in the name of a Barbie doll.
4.) Scare tactics. As I sort of alluded to with my father in my initial paragraph, I feel that there is a great hypocrisy that takes place with religion and many people. Most theists, and true students of theology (devout or not,) agree that despite the existence of God or not, the existence of a Hell is rather unlikely and coincide with the fundamental attributes of most religions. Rather, it’s a scare tactic used to entice folks into believing that they are bad (or DOOMED) people if they don’t hold religious views to be truth. Someone please help me out by reminding me of which philosopher argued this, because it’s escaping me now, but the essential theory is that; To believe in a higher entity because it’s more “fail-safe” to believe and worship it is to breach the obvious reason for why someone believes a religion to be true in the first place.
[/quote]
I believe you are talking about Pascal’s wager. Pascal’s wager states that one can either belief or not belief and you can be either right or wrong (about the existence of heaven/hell and your beliefs). Anyway, he says:
if you believe and are right, you live eternally in heaven.
if you believe and are wrong, oh well, no loss
if you don’t believe and are right, oh well.
and if you don’t believe and are wrong you burn in hell forever (or freeze for those familiar with Dante’s inferno, ha ha)
but his major point is that you have better benefits if you take the odds on believing in heaven/hell (his whole thing is basically just a cost - benefit analysis)
Problem here is that just because it is difficult to tell the difference between true believers and those who are believing for personal profit doesn’t mean that they should all be lumped together and punished together. Just because some people lose the purpose of the practice and are poor practitioners does not mean that the practice is necessarily flawed.
People such as these are mentioned in the Bible (by “such as these” I mean people who believe and practice for the wrong reasons - in this verse it is for admiration and praise from others)
Matthew 6:16
And when you fast, donâ??t make it obvious, as the hypocrites do, for they try to look miserable and disheveled so people will admire them for their fasting. I tell you the truth, that is the only reward they will ever get.
Of course this isn’t the only one; I just wanted to show that they are in there.
Taking a Christian perspective, it seems rather arrogant to not thank God for what he gave you. Sure, you or the athlete may have worked hard to get there but the tools he or she used were from God.
Here’s an analogy:
It’s hard to build a house without any wood. And if you do so, you should probably give the lumber yard some credit.
I think by what you mean by “making sense” is that it doesn’t seem just. And assuming that there is an omnipotent, omniscient, just, and loving God, it seems contradictory. Well, first off, not all religions are exclusivist. John Hick is known for his ideas on religious pluralism and he presents the analogy of the blind men and the elephant as an example. Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia
The idea that only one religion is right and that believing the correct one is good for salvation is more of a Western idea. There are many Eastern religions aren’t necessarily focused on salvation at all - at least not just through believing the right ideas.
Some try to deal with this problem by stating that these people are “anonymous Christians” and that they have accepted God/Jesus into their lifes and just haven’t known him by name - only known him by actions,etc.
Good post though! Hopefully this kind of response was one that you were waiting for! I would add more but I don’t currently have the time!
I should have noted SSC’s problem - with a post the length of my last one, I probably won’t get any responses…
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< As you are the one who seems more certain(out of the two of us) what is your proof that mind-body dualism is a real thing? >>>[/quote]The spiritual essence of man can exist and function without the body, but not the other way around. Man is incomplete, yet existent and aware without his body. The body is absolutely dependent upon the spirit (soul) for actual life, consciousness and locomotion. No I can’t prove that by your standards. See next point please.[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:<<< I can’t say I have proof of no intervention but I also don’t have proof of intervention. >>>[/quote]By your standards you don’t have proof of anything and never will. Ultimately you will treat the laws of logic as if they were God and in attempting to subsume your reality under their sovereignty you will wind up certain of exactly nothing as the realization of the inescapability of your own circular reasoning make itself excruciatingly apparent. Write it down. If you pursue foundational answers in earnest you WILL end up there. That goes for me too.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
You’re implying that only the existence of a supreme intelligence can explain the capabilities you’ve listed without the existence of a supreme intelligence being necessary.
[/quote]
Actually, I am not. I’m asking someone to prove to me how these three things can be possible in a purely physical world. I am implying that we don’t live in purely physical world and that a non-physical world is necessary.[/quote]
Sorry Chris, but your question is just another iteration of the God of the gaps fallacy. Basically what you are saying is that here are three things for which we do not have an explanation, therefore, there must be a God.
But I’ll try to explain. Consciousness is an emergent property: consciousness is to individual nerve cells as wetness is to individual water molecules. If I place one water molecule on your hand, will it feel “wet?” Of course not. How about 100? Still no. It would take billions of water molecules before you felt wetness. Same thing with nerve cells. One nerve cell by itself doesn’t do much. But billions of nerve cells working together, sending billions of signals to each other, create what we call “consciousness.”
Even if the existence of consciousness truly has no physical explanation and requires the existence of a supreme intelligence, fine, I’ll buy that. As I’ve said many times, I have never denied the possibility of some form of supreme intelligence that governs the universe and/or was the first cause. However, it is a huge, massive leap from saying that there exists a supreme intelligence to saying that such an intelligence (higher consciousnes of which we are all part, perhaps?) actually “loves” us, watches over us, sent a “son” who died for our sins, gets upset if we eat meat on certain days of the year, etc. I agree with SMH: religion is superstitious nonsense that takes away from our finding the truth rather than enhancing it.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< what you are saying is that here are three things for which we do not have an explanation, therefore, there must be a God. >>>[/quote]For the record I’m saying that by starting with the incomprehensible triune God first it simply follows that there be a multitude of things for which I myself do not have an explanation. I don’t blindly discover mind bending mystery in the reality I live in. I fully expect it and utilize it as an opportunity to marvel at the limitless infinite intellect that IS almighty God for whom no mystery is possible.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< what you are saying is that here are three things for which we do not have an explanation, therefore, there must be a God. >>>[/quote]For the record I’m saying that by starting with the incomprehensible triune God first it simply follows that there be a multitude of things for which I myself do not have an explanation. I don’t blindly discover mind bending mystery in the reality I live in. I fully expect it and utilize it as an opportunity to marvel at the limitless infinite intellect that IS almighty God for whom no mystery is possible.
[/quote]
And this is why I have a problem with religions. You start with the belief/assumption that there exists a God. This, at least for me, raised way more questions than answers. The most important question was the problem of evil: if there is a God who actually loves us and watches over us, then why does he let bad things happen to what seem to be otherwise good people?
And this is where the doublethink starts. “Oh, it’s because we’re sinners.”
But why did God allow sin? “Oh, because he ‘loves’ us and gave us free will. We used that free will wrongly, and now we’re being punished. It’s not God’s fault, it’s OUR fault. But lucky for you, there is a way out called Jesus.”
It’s hard to argue with this. I mean just look around - lots of bad people doing bad things, and even good people mess up once in a while. Hard to argue that we’re not “sinners.” And it’s also hard for many to turn down the savior that is Jesus.
But I still have a question - why bother putting us through all this? Why bother creating us at all? God is all-knowing - he KNEW we were all going to sin. Why would a supreme, all-knowing being create something KNOWING that such creation is inherently flawed? Would an inventor ever design a machine knowing it will never work right?
Why, why, why?
And this is my problem with religion.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:And this is why I have a problem with religions. You start with the belief/assumption that there exists a God. >>>[/quote]Let’s stop right here for a minute. I’m not talkin about A god. That’s somebody else’s task to defend a non existent impersonal principle. I’m talkin about THE God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The ancient of days, The holy one of Israel, He who is, was and is to come. The all victorious, all triumphant, all conquering King of everything that is (or ever could be). You know. GOD. With regard to THAT God, you start with the belief/assumption that He does NOT exist or at very best is not who He says He is. Allow me to illustrate.
You have a wife correct? She bears your name and your children? Wears your ring? Shares your bed alone? She’s yours and yours alone, yes? (and you hers, but that’s not my point at the moment) You have my word there will be no disrespect. What is your answer?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:And this is why I have a problem with religions. You start with the belief/assumption that there exists a God. >>>[/quote]Let’s stop right here for a minute. I’m not talkin about A god. That’s somebody else’s task to defend a non existent impersonal principle. I’m talkin about THE God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The ancient of days, The holy one of Israel, He who is, was and is to come. The all victorious, all triumphant, all conquering King of everything that is (or ever could be). You know. GOD. With regard to THAT God, you start with the belief/assumption that He does NOT exist or at very best is not who He says He is. Allow me to illustrate.
You have a wife correct? She bears your name and your children? Wears your ring? Shares your bed alone? She’s yours and yours alone, yes? (and you hers, but that’s not my point at the moment) You have my word there will be no disrespect. What is your answer?[/quote]
Yes, I have a wife.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< Yes, I have a wife. >>>[/quote]She would I agree I assume?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< Yes, I have a wife. >>>[/quote]She would I agree I assume?
[/quote]
Well, she’s been fine with it for the last 20 years.