[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Who says feelings of a supernatural being aren’t a “natural”?
also with my points about chocolate. Chocolate eaters experience the same feelings as couples in love. That does not mean that what couples’ feel isn’t love. Your logic, as normal is entirely flawed. Feelings produced by one means doesn’t disprove any other way. You could as much argue that my “feeling” about god disproves the causes for the “natural” feelings atheists experience. It’s pretty silly when your logic is applied that way.[/quote]
You’re missing the point.
I’m referring to the flawed logic of believers, who experience these feelings and take them as EVIDENCE for a supernatural being. To your own point, if it is possible to experience these feelings from a variety of causes, you can’t logically conclude that they must have come from a particular cause (i.e., a supernatrual being).
To your own point, if it is possible to experience these feelings from a variety of causes, you can’t logically conclude that they must have come from a particular cause (i.e., a supernatrual being).[/quote]
Yes you can. Good God - I’ve never seen a “PhD!” butcher basic logic like this. It is at once comic and tragic.
To your own point, if it is possible to experience these feelings from a variety of causes, you can’t logically conclude that they must have come from a particular cause (i.e., a supernatrual being).
Yes you can. Good God - I’ve never seen a “PhD!” butcher basic logic like this. It is at once comic and tragic.
[/quote]
X2
Forelife:
If a believer doesnâ??t have external physical brain stimulation devices on his head, as you were mentioning before, you can certainly rule out other possible causes. You once again you lack any semblance of logic.
If a person gets the just ate chocolate feeling, but never ate chocolate, you must certainly can assume the cause was some other source. Wow. And you claim to allow reason to be your guide.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If a believer doesnâ??t have external physical brain stimulation devices on his head, as you were mentioning before, you can certainly rule out other possible causes. You once again you lack any semblance of logic.
If a person gets the just ate chocolate feeling, but never ate chocolate, you must certainly can assume the cause was some other source. Wow. And you claim to allow reason to be your guide.
[/quote]
Why are you arguing that the ONLY explanations for these emotions are a) supernatural, b) direct brain stimulation, or c) eating chocolate? Who is the remedial logician here?
Guess what: The major mechanism for human emotions is none of the above. People experience emotions all the time simply by processing information.
You cannot logically rule out the role of the conscious and/or subsconscious mind in evoking emotions. Claiming that the ONLY possible explanation for your emotional/spiritual experience is supernatural intervention makes no sense, but people do it all the time because they WANT it to be true.
Who ever said religious “feelings” are only experienced through direct supernatural intervention? A personal religious revelation is something entirely different. Religious “feelings” can be experienced by something as simple as ordinary, mortal made, religious art or music. Heck, the cause of these feelings don’t even have to be religious. It’s not for nothing that a man standing at the summit of a mountain might refer to the successful climb, and the view from the top, as a “religious experience.”
Mick, I am not the forum police, but I’d ask that you knock this name-calling off.
No you’re not the forum police…but as long as you want to play that role I will never again call forlife a name that he doesn’t like as long as he stops his relentless attack and name calling in return. Things such as demeaning someones religion is not really sport to me…I think it only fair that HE be asked to stop…right? As long as you’re playing that role.
But…I doubt he will ever stop because what’s inside forlife is something very bitter and rotten. There is resentment by the mile and plenty of hate to dish out to those of us who do not agree with his radical homosexual agenda.
But ask him to stop anyway it’s worth a try…right?
[/quote]
Nah. It’s not worth a try. He wants respect he doesn’t give in return. Still, no need to go there.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I have attacked you in the past and have no problem doing it. The reason being that people like you have zero respect for other people’s beliefs. You are the perfect example of someone who can dish it out but always whines like a little school girl (gender confusion) when they get it back…You’re a weak little girlie man…and make me sick to my stomach.
[/quote]
Do you have an example? My understanding is these traits exist, either helpfully or neutrally, and then the environment changes in such a way as to make them detrimental.
Organisms that left asexual reproduction behind and began requiring fertilization to reproduce. Such a change made reproduction harder, not easier.
You seem to suggest a process I have heard described as “downward slope” evolution, by which there exists this highly varied menu of traits that natural selection whittles down over time - “from many, down to few”. But that misses half of the evolutionary process - the highly varied menu of traits isn’t the starting point.[/quote]
Making reproduction a little more difficult (which isn’t even always the case with sexual vs asexual reproduction) isn’t enough. A trait has to be truly detrimental, so that reproduction or survival is highly unlikely before it would be extinguished.
I’m not subscribing to downward slope evolution. I expect new traits to arise.
Moreover, you misstate the process generally: traits have arisen that interfere with reproduction, so the linear aspect you suggest that “modern biologists” have told you is not quite accurate.
Do you have an example? My understanding is these traits exist, either helpfully or neutrally, and then the environment changes in such a way as to make them detrimental.
Species divergence requires not only transition but also propagation of genetic abnormalities that reduce fertility.
Any time in evolution that chromosome numbers have changed, negative traits have had to propagate through a large portion of the original population.[/quote]
Again I’m going to have to ask for examples. Please keep in mind I’m not discussing negative traits. I’m only talking about those traits that have direct and severe consequences when it comes to survival and reproduction. Things like fair skin (increased risk of cancer later in life), or hip dysplasia (in dogs) don’t make the cut, b/c that organism is already done reproducing before the negative will kill it.
Nah. It’s not worth a try. He wants respect he doesn’t give in return. Still, no need to go there. [/quote]
Mick, I agree with the way Sloth put it here. Anyone paying attention knows full well Forlife’s juvenile hyopcrisy and general flakiness, but there is no need to go there.
Forlife is no different than Lixy - when you realize someone like him won’t engage in good faith dialogue - and no matter how many times you try on your end, it will be a wasted effort - the inevitable question becomes “why would I possibly care?”
Making reproduction a little more difficult (which isn’t even always the case with sexual vs asexual reproduction) isn’t enough. A trait has to be truly detrimental, so that reproduction or survival is highly unlikely before it would be extinguished. [/quote]
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing, correct me if I am wrong - the point is traits have arisen and succeeded that have made reproduction categorically more difficult.
Moreover, I don’t think you appreciate the enormity of the shift from asexual to sexual reproduction. That change - requiring wholesale change of reproductive machinery - needed a catalyst, and the need to achieve biodiversity doesn’t adequately explain the shity.
Right, so the question is what environmental catalysts caused the asexual to sexual shift (as well as others). When traits disappear, we generally have a pretty picture why (natural selection, etc.). What is less clear is what motivates the traits to come into being in the first place.
Certain traits - including fundamental ones - have come into being in direct conflict with the idea that traits must yield to the “path of least resistance to species propagation”.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And why have people implied that atheists don’t have a God Spot? That is, when none of us have a God Spot… [/quote]
Why are people getting hung up on the name? It’s a part of the brain that presumably fires up during religious experiences as wellas other similar experiences. And, like someone said before, I really doubt an atheist would know a religious experience if it pantsed them and slapped them in the face.
