A forum to discuss how ex-Christians have dealt with family members, replaced the church as a place of community, reactions of your family, friends, church, acquaintances upon learning of the de-conversion, or anything else relevant to the Ex-Christian Life.
The bulk of science does not support belief in a deity, or does it? This is an open discussion area to hone your skills at supporting and understanding the various positions. Feel free to post any links of value in this important topic.
This section is confined to serious and formal debate. New topics will not appear in this section until approved by a moderator. For best results, contact a moderator before attempting to post a new topic in this section.
The brain is a physical object, as is plainly observable. Brain activity levels can be measured, and in at least one experiment, images a person was watching were detected from outside the brain using sensors and machinery.
The notion that a PC is conscious is your idea. What do you base it on?
Do you have evidence for that?
Yes, DMT can make people imagine things precisely because their brain is a physical entity susceptible to chemical reactions.
Disembodied souls don't have brains, so... you are a machine.
Do you have evidence for that?
What would it even mean for will to be "free"? What would a will be if it were free from the physical processes of the brain? How would a will ever will something if that act had no cause?
Caged birds sing because of an inborn instinct, because, like us, they're physical creatures, and it's in their nature to do so.
Just saying, if we were the same, would there be a need to know one another in order to get along. I am relating this to the Bible where it says that we first know Christ as Christ knew God and then know each other the same. The more modern version is someone we would consider a friend. We typically know our friends, agree on many things, and are more likely to treat each other the way we would want to be treated. Again, if we were the same, there would be no need for the Biblical message.
With regard to proof, I'm not sure we will ever get there.......i.e. this chemistry X, this physics Y, this environment Z leads to this brain pattern that defines this belief, this behavior. There's not a computer big enough. We subscribe to "God" for this. Please note in the thread, and almost every thread, that this group wants the chemistry, physics, environment type proof. It ain't gonna happen in our lifetime and never will.
Edit: Anecdotal evidence.....thank you. I think my anecdote is very typical.....
What evidence do you need. The entire globe is at each others throat because our egos refuse to know one another....much like your statement with me. If you knew me, you would understand there is a population here that I tease.....i.e. old friends. And LG, if you were somewhat hooked up, you would understand that science can't yet connect the dots, making everything logical. But vapid sounds impressive...
Morality is entirely subjective. It changes with time and place. Most people have their own moral compass, however they came to get it, and naturally think they have quite objective morality and those who disagree are simply wrong. Those who are in disagreement think the same. To an individual it may look as if there is an objective morality and YOU have it, but a walk through history and a map of the world will show otherwise.
I've recently been thinking about what morality means to me. Where it came from. How it is determined.
At first, I thought it was subjective in nature. This is evidenced by the fact that for all humans, what is deemed moral changes as society progresses; for theists and atheists alike. Moral law, as it were, is determined by society through discourse and ultimately governmental decree.
In my opinion, where morality came from has to do with evolution. Populations of species who worked harmoniously were able to survive better, and reproduce more. This lead me to believe that moral good is nothing more than that which, in the way others are treated, helps a society to survive.
It was my argument that even things which are ubiquitously seen as immoral, like murder (if defined properly), are still subjective in that long ago, before we had the intelligence to recognize that murder was detrimental to society, murder had no immoral value. For example, we don't typically consider murder among other species as immoral, as they have not developed morality in their environment.
The more I thought about it, though, if I define morality as treatment of others which is beneficial or detrimental to society, there are three outcomes when considering whether a topic is moral or not. 1. It's beneficial to society, 2. It's detrimental to society, and 3. Neutrality.
I think it can be argued that there are topics which objectively fall into categories one and two, and can be quantified, which makes morality itself objective with regards to these topics. Things which cannot be objectively placed in category 1 and 2 are necessarily in category 3, and are subject to subjective morality, I think.
Help me out here...would appreciate input about where my reasoning fails or succeeds. Thanks.