PROOF

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Whitefire13's picture
Get off my lawn... what we

Get off my lawn... what we see is just perturbations around the zero-energy mean...

Intruder has me a little perturbed...

Tin-Man's picture
@Whitefire Re: "Intruder has

@Whitefire Re: "Intruder has me a little perturbed..."

Pssssst.... *whispering*.... hey... whitefire.... *looking over shoulder*... intruder is a troll... but don't tell anybody... we're trying to keep it a secret... plus, we don't want to burst his delusion bubble and hurt his feelings... *finger to lips*... shhhhhhh...

Whitefire13's picture
Holy fuck calilasseia you is

Holy fuck calilasseia you is smart. I tried to read the paper and couldn’t understand a fuckin thing. I was born and raised that education - especially higher education was a tool of the devil. I can see why. Natural explanations, evidence, peer review... kinda shuts down the “miracle” of it all. If we are all dumb (as in uneducated) who’s to question God’s intelligence?

Grinseed's picture
@ Whitefire,

@ Whitefire,
you don't fool me none at all, you ain't dumb.
If there was a supernatural omnipotent deity that actually existed I might not question it's intelligence, but the concept of such a god remains rationally impossible and so the matter of such a entity's IQ is a meaningless nonsense.

Until evidence can be produced to give credence to its existence, then all discussions about the nature and intent of such an entity is merely an internal discourse for those who have faith in the unsupported premise that it exists.

And all those faux academic discussions on theist blog sites and forums about such things as the true form of the trinity, or Yeshua's royal Davidic pedigree, or the virginity of his mum and the baseness of the human soul, are all no different to what is found on the fan fiction blogs for Harry Potter or Indiana Jones or Sherlock Holmes or the Stainless Steel Rat enthusiasts, who at least have the advantage to understand they are writing and discussing from the basis of fiction and not unevidenced belief.

Undeniably in works of fiction, as like scripture, there is scope for examination of important matters pertaining to the human condition; honour, loyalty, fraternity, hope, love, hate, morality, ethics, despair and death. And all that has already been achieved in almost every secular work of fiction ever written, from the ancient Greek classics to the output of DC comic books. You don't need gods to discuss pertinent human issues, just humans.

Whitefire13's picture
Definition of troll, noun;

Definition of troll, noun;
a mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.

Tin-Man's picture
@Whitefire Re: Troll

@Whitefire Re: Troll

Alternate definitions:

1. Pubescent male member of a junior high school "Bad Boy" clique who joins internet chat sites for the purpose of elevating his status within the clique hierachy by matching his daring wit and worldly wisdom against a superior and overwhelming force, thus demonstrating an enviable reckless bravado and anti-social demeanor worthy of a high-ranking status within the rebellious "Bad Boy" clan.

2. An unemployed adult male (typically in his mid-twenties to mid-thirties) who still lives with his parents (typically in a basement room) and spends his days playing on-line video games while munching on various junkfood snacks, drinking copious amounts of energy drinks, and eating microwave meals brought to him by his mother upon his command. It is during the infrequent gaming breaks this individual logs in to his preferred chat site to demonstrate his superior intellect to the losers of society who are mired in the tar pit of societal norm, toiling endlessly day-to-day, while he basks in the ease and comfort of his basement fortress where he rules his kingdom.

In the case of our adorable little Intruder, I'm leaning toward Alternate Definition #1. He's just so damn CUTE.

The Intruder's picture
I want all of us to focus on

I want all of us to focus on the science that you embrace and let us see if truly science is what it is. Because the foundation of science or atheist denying God is because there is no physical prove that he exist. That is, we cant see any scientific record or experiment that can fully justify it right?

Now do we conclude that what ever science couldnt detect or know or observe doesnt exist? Do we?

But, I can give you over 100 things that science has failed to observe or test or prove but exist. Science itself knows its limit, area of function but its people who want to test and observe God via science that is pushing science beyond its limit.

It is an abuse of use, to want to observe supernatural things with the natural tool. Every claim of God has reside in the supernatural domain, yet atheist kept asking that God should be proved in the natural via natural tools. Isnt that lack of knowledge in itself?

NOTE THIS, scientific tool cannot prove the existence of anything, it only discover it. For example science says there is no flying horses, but ask science how did you know. It will say, i have never seen anyone before nor be able to prove with my tools that any exist. very silly answer. Is that a prove that it doesnt exist? Can we accept that as a prove that it doesnt exist? Cant that also be a limitation of your knowledge and research? Very overrated.

Think on this:
Is "i havent seen or detect it with all my tools around the world, so i can conclude it doesnt exist" acceptable in itself as scientific methods or law for determining existence?

I once asked an athiest on Reddit to use science to prove dreams, and the atheist disappeared into the air without response till date. Do dream exist? yes. Can science tool test dreams? i mean do you have scientific method to tell me why a fellow ate jollof rice without meat and water in his dream or why another wasnt served in the same dream. Do you have a scientific tool for that? No, but does those events happens? Yes. So how do you know they happen? YOU MUST EXPERIENCE IT, not use tool to test it. You must experience it as dream, in dream to know it happens. same as supernatural things.

What about EVIL or GOOD? Do we have scientific tool or theory to prove evil or good exist? A guy was shot by gun and died, you can use scientific theories and tools to know how and why he died (by gun) but can the tool prove that the action was evil or good? Do you know evil/good by scientific truth or by moral truth? I can go on and on but let me give you a few categories of things scientific truth cannot prove.

- Moral Truth: science cant tell us evil or good, cant measure how evil a man can be by observation or testing him in the lab. Even if you pieces heart, your tool will still fail you.

- Experiential Truth: I just gave you an instant of a dream. Somethings are only known to exist because it was experienced by the individual or set of people but not by tools.

Just in this two categories alone i can give you 50 things science wont prove. This isnt a limitation, its only that you are trying to use science tool to solve what it wasnt design to handle. It is sad most times when i see people struggling to deny or accept God existence based on scientific ground. It is a wrong tool. Dont see everything as nail just because the only tool in your hand is hammer.

Can i ask you? How does science or you know that Unicorn grin doesnt exist? Please i need proper explanation, more importantly, how science arrived at their conclusion. Please i need answers.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Intruder

@ Intruder

Your level of comprehension is so low that I strongly counsel you to get someone competent to explain the posts in this thread to you.

You obviously are incapable of absorbing the simplest of concepts.

Sheldon's picture
The Intruder "I want all of

The Intruder "I want all of us to focus on the science that you embrace and let us see if truly science is what it is."

Hands down the stupidest thing you've said so far, no mean achievement either. Science is amply defined form a cursory Google search, and no one has to embrace anything, it's success as a method is manifest to anyone with an ounce of integrity.

The Intruder "the foundation of science or atheist denying God is because there is no physical prove that he exist."

From rank stupidity to rank dishonesty.

1. The foundation of science is objective evidence, and open minded rigour.
2. Atheism is not synonymous with science, atheists just have no biased reason to deny scientific facts the way you superstitious theists do.
3. Atheism doesn't deny anything, it is just the absence of belief in any deity or deities.
4. You mean proof not prove, and the lack of proof for deity, scientific or otherwise, is not the basis of atheism of anyone I have met here. They disbelieve because, as do I, because no religious apologist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, nor produce a single rational argument to support their belief.
5. If something beyond the physical or material exists then demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim, otherwise I will continue to disbelieve your claim for a deity.

Science can't detect non existent or fictional things, that is an objective fact, this is not a limit of science, and each time you place your deity in the category of things science cannot detect you score a spectacular own goal, it is rank stupidity that compels you to keep repeating this fatuous own goal even after it's been explained to you?

" Every claim of God has reside in the supernatural domain, yet atheist kept asking that God should be proved in the natural via natural tools. Isnt that lack of knowledge in itself?"

It is your claim that a supernatural deity exists, so the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you can piss and moan about that all you want, I don't care. Just what you hope to achieve with this nonsensical facile claim is unclear, but it seems little more than puerile trolling to me.

" "I once asked an athiest on Reddit to use science to prove dreams, and the atheist disappeared into the air without response till date. ""

Whoever he was I sympathise, as you're clearly pretty stupid, which makes educating you on even basic facts almost impossible, and pretty thankless. But I will try one more time anyway, what you have produced there is an argument based on two known logical fallacies, the first is a false equivalence fallacy by making a specious analogy between dreams and a fictional deity. The second is a poisoning of the well fallacy, by making a puerile suggestion that if science is fallible it is unreliable, which is almost as hilarious as it is stupid, it is definitely logically fallacious. Oh and it is atheist, not athiest (sic), it would help if you could at least spell the fucking word.

"What about EVIL or GOOD? Do we have scientific tool or theory to prove evil or good exist?"

Already covered in the last response, it is another repetition of the same logical fallacies, and evil and good are also subjective terms quite obviously.

"Moral Truth: science cant tell us evil or good, "

Sigh, it can't tell us which is best colour either, what a truly asinine non-sequitur.

"How does science or you know that Unicorn grin doesnt exist?"

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is real? Dear oh dear, do you seriously think repeatedly lying about what atheism is will impress us? I don't believe claims unless they are sufficiently supported by objective evidence, contrary proofs or evidence are not necessary, and demanding this as you have suggested here, is of course the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

That question is all you need to concern yourself with, as it is the beginning and the end of all claims for a deity.

The Intruder's picture
@Sheldon, can summarised all

@Sheldon, can summarised all you said above in two facts. Mention it if am wrong.

1. Atheism believes in what can be proven even if it's beyond scientific tool or its truth, they believe in objective evidence which can either be proved by scientific methods or any method you deemed fit.

2. Quoting you, You said to one of my questions earlier: Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement.
Hence you agreed that there are things that exist beyond scientific tools and observations or testable by science, (you may need to educate your beliefs new joiners who carry science on their head all around AR as proof of determining existence). That's by the way.

So, since we have made clear that scientific rules are wrong tools or are limited to observing some other elements of life that exist, Which I laid out in my last post about dreams, evil and on concluding a non existence because it cant be tested or found.
---------------------------------------------
Now, what seems objective to you, or as you said to atheists,is that it must be provable or logical. Hence if objective evidence doesn't exist then there is no need to believe in it.

I will raise another poser to you. Bearing in mind the definition of objective evidence

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation.

So,
1. What objective evidence do you have that dream exist. Of course it exist but how do you know? Is it by analysis, measurements, observations or by experience Or what?

2. What objective evidence do you have that Evil exist? Bearing in mind you mentioned earlier that evil is subjective. So how do we know evil, that this is evil, is it by analysis, measurements, observations, conscience or what? Can I subject evil to objective evidence and be able to conclude that this is evil? Surely we know evil exist, but how do we know?

3. Is objective evidence an absolute evidence for proof of existence?, or does the lack of objective evidence enough to deny experiential evidence?

Bearing in mind that experiential evidence can be subjective based on individuals. Dreams are experiential, trance are, evil are etc. So does the lack of objectivity in them enough to deny them?

Hope you know we are looking at the core foundation of atheism (objectivity), so I will need a well explained response if such objectivity of evidence is enough to prove or explain all that exist or all that we should accept as existing.

LogicFTW's picture
@The intruder:

@The intruder:

1. This is wrong, you just made up your own definition for the word "atheism." If you can not stick to commonly accepted and agreed upon definitions, you begin to erode the ability to even communicate basic ideas to other people.

2. Just because an idea is not testable by science, does not suddenly makes it true. I really! hope you know at least that. All it means when science tools are unable to investigate is: simply that is outside the purview of science. Your (and any other) god idea falls within that, by design. Guess where that puts your god idea? On the same level as the idea that I, logicftw is your god. You cannot scientifically prove that I am not your god. By your reasoning and your requirements to believe your current god idea, you cannot refute that means I am your god based on the same standards.

1. What objective evidence do you have that dream exist. Of course it exist but how do you know? Is it by analysis, measurements, observations or by experience Or what?

They have multiple tools to detect dream states already. We can use a tool and tell when someone is dreaming or not. Furthermore some progress has been made on even detecting what sort of dream someone is having. Even with out any tools to aid me, I can typically tell if my wife is having a bad dream, especially if she wakes up with a shout.

2. What objective evidence do you have that Evil exist?

None, cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.

Surely we know evil exist, but how do we know?

Evil is a human created descriptor of certain types of actions measured in strictly subjective ways. We decide that evil exist. We can just as easily decide it doesn't. Because it is all subjective and has no bearing on reality. It is just a word, a descriptor, of a shared idea humans have, but "evil" does not actually exist. Put another way, if all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no "evil" tomorrow, because there would be no humans around to talk about/think about this strictly subjective idea.

3. Is objective evidence an absolute evidence for proof of existence?, or does the lack of objective evidence enough to deny experiential evidence?

No. But objective evidence certainly does help move a simple human created idea, to the realm of actionable reality.

Depends what kind of objective evidence we are comparing to experimental evidence.
Evidence based on "experiential" (I assume you mean evidenced experienced first hand by our senses,) can be better or worse than other types of objective evidence. But this is a whole different subject, that really has nothing to do with the rest of what you been talking about. We can discuss further if you want, but I will keep it on topic for now.

David Killens's picture
@ The Intruder

@ The Intruder

"Hope you know we are looking at the core foundation of atheism (objectivity), so I will need a well explained response if such objectivity of evidence is enough to prove or explain all that exist or all that we should accept as existing."

Atheism is just one thing, defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. In almost every example, it is because theists have not produced a compelling argument or valid proof.

You are the one making the god claim, so first you must convince us that your god exists.

That a was a pathetic attempt at reversing the burden of proof.

No atheist has to prove anything to you, instead you must provide proof of a god.

Sheldon's picture
@Sheldon, can summarised all

@Sheldon, can summarised all you said above in two facts. Mention it if am wrong.

OK, you're wrong.

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, nothing more, and no, I did not and do not agree with your facile unevidenced assumption that that "there are things that exist beyond scientific tools and observations or testable by science." I quite specifically asked you to demonstrate evidence for your claim, until you do I have no rational reason to give it any credence whatsoever. Note before you misrepresent this again, it is not a contrary claim.

I also explained the known logical fallacies inherent in your facile argument making analogous comparisons between things like dreams, and human concepts like evil with the unevidenced claim a deity exists.

"So, since we have made clear that scientific rules are wrong tools or are limited to observing some other elements of life that exist,"

You have made nothing of the sort clear, this is just an unevidenced assumption you keep repeating, and when challenged to evidence your claim or offer any rational explanation or argument you cannot. Science can't detect non-existent things, so if it can't detect any deity what objective evidence can demonstrate to show this is a fault of the scientific method? Does this failure to detect things validate all things science can't detect, like mermaids and unicorns for example? Or does your bias arbitrarily limit this asinine rationale to your a priori religious beliefs? I think we can guess the answer.

"Now, what seems objective to you

That's a risible contradiction, I suggest you look up the word objective, as personal opinion is by definition subjective, not objective.

"Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation."

Objective is defined as (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Proof is not mentioned, nor is proof a term I ever use, other than in the mathematical context. You are again attempting to misrepresent the fact that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, as being touted as proof of it's non-existence, I have not and do not claim this, because it is by definition an argument from ignorance fallacy. I do not need a claim to be disproved in order to disbelieve it, that would mean that all unfalsifiable claims would be valid, do you believe invisible unicorns exist? Can you prove they don't? See how easy such delusions are to create, they're meaningless of course, as are all unfalsifiable claims, in science the term not even wrong is often used to describe such claims, as showing something to be wrong advances our knowledge. If science cannot falsify something even if it false, then it has no use, and that is how I feel about religious claims that attempt without any evidence or rational argument to place their deity beyond objective scrutiny, it is meaningless and useless, as we can learn nothing from it.

I have explained the logical fallacies inherent in your attempts to draw parity between the existence of dreams and a deity, and explained that evil does not exist in any objective sense, as it is a human concept. So why you are repeating this facile irrational argument is beyond me, it has been logically destroyed, as nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational.

" Is objective evidence an absolute evidence for proof of existence?, or does the lack of objective evidence enough to deny experiential evidence?"

Oh good grief, must I explain this again? I never claimed, nor does science, that absolute proof exists, and I have no idea what you mean by absolute evidence, there either is objective evidence or there is not, and there is no objective evidence for any deity or deities. I have never denied experiential evidence, I don't need to as your claims to have experienced anything are meaningless to me if you demonstrate no objective evidence to support them. If I claim I had flown after praying to Thor, when no one could see, would you believe me? Please do not move to an argumentum ad populum fallacy, with a bare appeal to numbers, as this also would be irrational and therefore meaningless.

"Hope you know we are looking at the core foundation of atheism (objectivity),"

No it isn't, the core foundation of atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Objectivity is simply the only sound basis for belief, otherwise one can simply choose to believe whatever one wants, as indeed theists do, and as you have shown you clearly do. Even when those beliefs involve claims that are demonstrably false like creationists denial of the scientific fact of species evolution for example. To even remotely suggest that subjective beliefs have parity with objective evidence when validating a claim is truly asinine.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

If the answer is no, then at least have the integrity to say so, even Jo managed that much.

Fievel Mousekewitz's picture
@The Intruder

@The Intruder

I just want to know, why you are here? Isn't there some other sites where you can pick on the people where it is actually appropriate?

Why do you come here for, picking on atheists who will never agree with you. See what happens to your messages? They all get voted down.

Not a single one of us agrees with your theories of God. God does not exist, if God did exist, why is it this God doesn't stop anything bad from happening?

There's a few spotted here and there prophesies that came true, but there's many that has never come true, and probably wont. I could make a prediction and it will eventually come true depending on what it is. Your Bible is fiction, made up by man to explain our existence when we hadn't understood where we came from.

We know we evolved and did not come from a single Adam and Eve. The flood never happened, and can be proved to have never happened. As a matter a fact the Bible your Bible cab be debunked with ease. None of those stories can be proved positive. NONE.

Again why are you here?

LogicFTW's picture
@Thread and the intruder:

@Thread and the intruder:

The ability for people to separate fact from fiction is an important life survival skill in today's world. Of which just about any adult still alive today has to have some basic skills at doing or, they would, at best, be in insane asylum, or more likely, dead.

Yet for so many folks caught up in the religion delusion, they have some of these basic truth seeking skills, but due to likely a lifetime of brainwashing, starting with the person's own parents/caretakers, simply refuse to use these basic truth seeking skills to examine whichever god idea delusion they are in. They refuse to even consider, even when pointed out repeatedly to them, that they really ought to.

I on some level understand the desire to refuse to look closely at an idea that is so intensely intertwined with their lives and likely just about their entire social circle. Throw in a shot at immortality, paradise/heaven, having a "sky daddy" that takes care of everything and delivers supposed ultimate cosmic justice. But just like a kid needs to learn the lesson that life is never "magically" fair, people need to get off their god delusion because its causing real problems, and have been for a very long time.

Beyond that, I gotta say: it takes a very special breed of truth denial to then take your completely unevidenced god idea to an atheist board and argue with those people that they are wrong, while not having one iota of any sort of corrabtory evidence to back their argument. And then to argue "it is not about the evidence." Wow, the arrogance.

Seriously a 6 year old that just begun to learn how to write out complete thoughts, would have just as strong of an argument for whichever god idea they got brainwashed into, as a fully grown adult that completed 12 years of post graduate studies on sociology etc.

David Killens's picture
@ The Intruder

@ The Intruder

"Every claim of God has reside in the supernatural domain"

NO

Not every god claim has been supernatural. In the bible are examples of this god appearing as a burning bush, causing floods and plagues, and even in modern times, answerng prayers and performing miracles.

Some things in the natural world are extremely difficult (near impossible) to observe directly, such as black holes, photons, and subatomic particles. Yet scientists have been able to extract their properties.

One modern method of observing nuclear missile submarines that lurk deep in the ocean is by using satellites that scan the ocean and study wave heights and swells. A large object, despite is considerable distance from the surface, still displaces water as it moves forward, and satellites are able to detect the smallest change in the surface, and derive it's location.

You can't see it, you can't directly observe it, yet you can detect it.

Whitefire13's picture
Intruder...YOU MUST

Intruder...YOU MUST EXPERIENCE IT, not use tool to test it. You must experience it as dream, in dream to know it happens. same as supernatural things.

Already commented on this. Dreams happen in your brain. This can be measured. What cannot be “measured” is what you dreamt or remember of your dream. It is also a common experience. To say “I dreamt” last night is not an extraordinary claim.... and in most cases when you relay your dream to me, I would take your “word” for it. You could lie about your dream experience, however that lie doesn’t change my worldview.

Intruder ... Please i need answers.

No, I don’t think you do. I think you believe you have all the answers. Your ideas and fall back to “god” give you all the answers you need.

When you get to the point of “...I need truth (or at least a way to distinguish fact from fiction)”... then perhaps you’ll engage in a more rational manner.

Whitefire13's picture
Intruder... one last post

Intruder... one last post before I get started on my day...
Why is it your job to fucking defend God? Seriously...think about it - isn’t he big enough to defend himself? He can’t even fucking prove his existence on his own....Jesus fucking Christ - him too!
And to make this little rant “even”. Thor you fucking cocksucker strike me with lightening! Goddamm unicorns hiding in North Korea governed by their lord and saviour Kimmy Yung-Un who has never shit a day in his life!

Tin-Man's picture
@Whitefire Re: "And to make

@Whitefire Re: "And to make this little rant “even”. Thor you fucking cocksucker strike me with lightening! Goddamm unicorns hiding in North Korea governed by their lord and saviour Kimmy Yung-Un who has never shit a day in his life!"

...ROFLMAO... *arms across tummy*... *bent over at waist*... *tears streaming from eyes*... STOP!... Please!... *deeep breath*... Oh, no! Gotta pee!... *crawling away toward bathroom*...

Nyarlathotep's picture
The Intruder - when science

The Intruder - ...when science couldn't prove a thing, it then means it doesn't exist.

Science has never proved anything. That just isn't what it is about.

AccretedMinutiae's picture
The Intruder said: "Now, know

The Intruder said: "Now, know why i told you that science in itself is limited because of the reason you stated above ( it prides in human observable, testable results), that is confined not just in the knowledge of our natural senses but in the KNOWN/EXISTING KNOWLEDGE (observable, testable) OF OUR NATURAL SENSES. I hope you can observe the key difference in the two."

Can I ask when it is you think we should accept as reality the existence of things beyond the scope of knowledge obtained using our natural senses? Shouldn't it be once we are able to verify the reality of such things by some means that we CAN interface with? Or, at the very least, when there manifests an actual effect or result of this "thing" interacting with our observable world that we can then attempt to wrap our minds around.

Because let's face it - if a thing is posited by you or anyone else, for which there is no way to experience, test, observe, demonstrate or encounter ANY PART OF or ANY EFFECT OF that thing within our observable realm - then what could possibly be the point of accepting it as a part of our reality? If it has no known effects, and is not positively and intersubjectively known to exist in some form - then what is the point of acknowledging it at all?

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear.

Oh dear.

Even before I delve further into this topic, I found this paper very quickly:

Dreaming As Mind Wandering: Evidence From Functional Neuroimaging And First-Person Content Reports by Kieran C. R. Fox, Savannah Nijeboer, Elizaveta Solomonova, G. William Domhoff, and Kalina Christoff, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:Article 412 (July 2013) DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00412 [Full paper downloadable from here]

From the paper in question, we have:

Abstract

Isolated reports have long suggested a similarity in content and thought processes across mind wandering (MW) during waking, and dream mentation during sleep. This overlap has encouraged speculation that both “daydreaming” and dreaming may engage similar brain mechanisms. To explore this possibility, we systematically examined published first-person experiential reports of MW and dreaming and found many similarities: in both states, content is largely audiovisual and emotional, follows loose narratives tinged with fantasy, is strongly related to current concerns, draws on long-term memory, and simulates social interactions. Both states are also characterized by a relative lack of meta-awareness. To relate first-person reports to neural evidence, we compared meta-analytic data from numerous functional neuroimaging (PET, fMRI) studies of the default mode network (DMN, with high chances of MW) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (with high chances of dreaming). Our findings show large overlaps in activation patterns of cortical regions: similar to MW/DMN activity, dreaming and REM sleep activate regions implicated in self-referential thought and memory, including medial prefrontal cortex (PFC), medial temporal lobe structures, and posterior cingulate. Conversely, in REM sleep numerous PFC executive regions are deactivated, even beyond levels seen during waking MW. We argue that dreaming can be understood as an “intensified” version of waking MW: though the two share many similarities, dreams tend to be longer, more visual and immersive, and to more strongly recruit numerous key hubs of the DMN. Further, whereas MW recruits fewer PFC regions than goal-directed thought, dreaming appears to be characterized by an even deeper quiescence of PFC regions involved in cognitive control and metacognition, with a corresponding lack of insight and meta-awareness. We suggest, then, that dreaming amplifies the same features that distinguish MW from goal-directed waking thought.

Oh look, scientists have been able to establish salient features of dreaming via direct neuroimaging techniques.

The authors then set the stage for their investigations as follows:

“Dreaming” is usually understood as subjective mental experiences during sleep. Although most famously (and strongly) associated with REM sleep (Aserinsky and Kleitman, 1953; Dement and Kleitman, 1957), dream-like thought is also reported during other sleep stages (see Methods).

For several reasons, by “dreaming” we will generally be referring to subjective reports drawn from REM sleep: for one thing, the majority of “dream” reports have been elicited from REM sleep-stage laboratory awakenings; further, only REM sleep shows a particularly strong correlation with dream mentation (~80% of awakenings from REM sleep result in dream reports: Hobson et al., 2000). For the purposes of the present paper, then, “dreaming” refers to mentation reports from REM sleep.

“Undirected” thought is a similarly complex construct, and can be divided into several different categories (Christoff, 2012). “Mind wandering” (MW) and “stimulus-independent thought” (SIT), for instance, are typically defined as thinking that deviates from a particular task a subject is meant to be completing (McGuire et al., 1996; Mason et al., 2007; Christoff et al., 2009). “Spontaneous thought,” on the other hand, is characterized rather by its undirected, effortless nature—more akin to the everyday concept of “daydreaming” (Singer, 1966; Klinger, 1990; Christoff, 2012); no particular task, or deviation from it, is required. Subtle differences are apparent: MW, for example, might be initiated deliberately (as when a subject decides to “tune out” during a boring task) rather than being “spontaneous.” Nonetheless, these terms are often used interchangeably or with only minimal definition. Fluidity of terminology seems inevitable, however, in a relatively young field of inquiry (Christoff, 2012); moreover, the subjective content and neural basis of these states appear highly similar (compare, e.g., Singer and McCraven, 1961; Christoff et al., 2004, 2009; Stawarczyk et al., 2011). We therefore use these terms relatively interchangeably throughout this paper. MW, spontaneous thought, or daydreaming, then, all refer to subjective reports of undirected thoughts during wakefulness (whether deviating from, or in the complete absence of, a task).

After an exposition on the specific brain regions that are active as part of the Default Mode Network (DMN), including relevant fMRI scans illustrating the activity levels in the regions in question, we have this:

REM sleep is initiated by a network of cells in the pons and nearby portions of the midbrain (Siegel, 2011), but involves a widespread recruitment of higher cortical brain regions (see our meta-analytic results, below, for regions of this theoretical REM network: Table ​Table22 and Figure ​Figure1).1). REM sleep recurs, in increasingly lengthy periods, approximately every 90 mins throughout the sleep cycle, overall constituting about 1.5–2 h of an average night of sleep. Whereas non-REM (NREM) sleep stages are generally characterized by deactivation of many regions as compared to wakefulness (e.g., Kaufmann et al., 2006), REM is unique in that many brain regions are clearly more active than during wakefulness (Table 2). REM also appears to be the most active state from the subjective point of view, with longer, more emotional, and more frequent dream mentation in REM than any other sleep stage (Hobson et al., 2000). REM therefore appears to be by far the best neural marker of dreaming, though it nonetheless remains problematic (see Methods).

A look at the Methods section provides a detailed exposition of the processes used to eliminate phenomena that might impact upon the utility of the neuroimaging techniques they used to perform their analysis, thus ensuring that their results are consistent.

After much discussion of detail, the authors provide this:

Neural evidence for dreaming as intensified mind wandering

To ensure a consistent picture of REM sleep brain activity, we only included in our meta-analysis studies that used relaxed wakefulness (instead of, e.g., other sleep stages) as a baseline condition. Thus the activations observed in REM sleep (Table ​(Table2)2) are in contrast to quiet, waking rest, which—though not directly examined in the studies in question—would very likely have resulted in spontaneous thought/MW at the subjective level, and recruited DMN brain regions. Since the observed foci of activation generally represent t-tests contrasting REM sleep > waking rest, it seems probable that our meta-analytic results actually represent regions showing greater activity during REM sleep than during DMN activation/MW. Because so many significant clusters for REM sleep activation overlapped with DMN regions, these results suggest that brain activity in REM sleep does not simply parallel DMN activity, but rather represents an intensified version of it (Figure 3). The finding of greater cerebral blood flow in DMN regions during REM sleep vs. probable waking DMN activity is consistent with the many qualitative, first-person results discussed above (Section First-person Reports of Content from Mind Wandering and Dreaming), which suggest that mentation during REM sleep is in many ways a longer, immersive, more intensive version of waking spontaneous thoughts and daydreams (Figure ​(Figure33).

Also of interest are prefrontal cortical (PFC) regions, involved in executive processes like cognitive control and goal-directed thought. It is well known that numerous such regions, particularly the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC), are consistently engaged by effortful, goal-directed tasks (Duncan and Owen, 2000). Though executive PFC regions are not part of the canonical DMN (Table ​3; Buckner et al., 2008), more direct, online assessments of MW, using first-person reports combined with fMRI, show that executive PFC areas, alongside core DMN areas, may also be activated during MW (Christoff et al., 2009). Though MW-related activity was not observed in some other PFC regions, robust activation was found in dorsal ACC and DLPFC (Christoff et al., 2009), suggesting that executive processes may to some degree be ongoing during MW. REM sleep, in contrast, shows no such activations; indeed, we found numerous executive PFC regions to be deactivated (Table 2, Figure 1). We propose the tentative notion that waking thought, waking MW, and dream mentation may lie along a continuum of intensity with respect to executive function, as well: executive regions are most active during waking goal-directed thought, undergo a large (but probably not total) diminution during waking rest/MW, and become relatively quiescent, perhaps even actively suppressed, during REM sleep (Figure 3; see also Christoff et al., 2011).

So, it's not as if there hasn't been any scientific research in this field.

But it gets even better, courtesy of this paper:

Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep by T. Horikawa, M. Tamaki, Y. Miyawaki & Y. Kamitani, Science, 340: 639-642 (3rd May 2013) DOI: 10.1126/science.1234330 [Paper available from here]

From the abstract:

Visual imagery during sleep has long been a topic of persistent speculation, but its private nature has hampered objective analysis. Here we present a neural decoding approach in which machine-learning models predict the contents of visual imagery during the sleep-onset period, given measured brain activity, by discovering links between human functional magnetic resonance imaging patterns and verbal reports with the assistance of lexical and image databases. Decoding models trained on stimulus-induced brain activity in visual cortical areas showed accurate classification, detection, and identification of contents. Our findings demonstrate that specific visual experience during sleep is represented by brain activity patterns shared by stimulus perception, providing a means to uncover subjective contents of dreaming using objective neural measurement.

Oh look. The authors of this paper demonstrate that a suitably programmed computer can reliably discern the nature of visual data occurring in dreams from fMRI data.

Looks like once again, our mythology fanboy is ignorant of the relevant research.

I've been aware for some time, of advances made in the reliable determination of images observed by individuals while awake using fMRI data, but this is the first paper I've encountered extending that research to dream imagery.

At bottom, it's all neurochemistry. No magic man needed.

Whitefire13's picture
Calilasseia...hey I

Calilasseia...hey I understood this. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, they are actually capturing “dream images” on screen. Maybe not these scientists but I had watched a special on it and the progress this particular area of study is making.

Calilasseia's picture
Well the paper I provided

Well the paper I provided above isn't yet documenting the display on screen of relevant images, but previous research involving images perceived by awake individuals has started to move into this area - reproducing on screen images that are consonant with what the subject has viewed. But the mere fact that the paper I described above, demonstrates that a computer can classify the images appearing in a dream reliably, given the fMRI data, is a step forward that the mythology fanboys are completely unaware of, and which is already shattering their complacent notions on this subject.

The Intruder's picture
@LogicFTW,

@LogicFTW,

YOU: "You just made up your own definition for the word "atheism." If you can not stick to commonly accepted and agreed upon definitions, you begin to erode the ability to even communicate basic ideas to other people."

You said i made it up. Lol it wasnt. Somethings have different textbook definition and real life definition/application. Such is atheism.

Atheism textbook definition, is about believe in God (disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.)
Atheism real life (as repeatedly display on Atheist Republic and anyother forum) is lack of believe in anything that can not be objectively proven. Dont shy away from such reality. You want to confined the meaning of Atheism to textbook, yet want to expand your view and contribution beyond lack of believe in God. Is Unicorn God? Flying horses? Jazz? Supernatural elements? Do you believe in them? Or you see all things unproven as God/god?

It will take lack of confidence in what you truly stand for to be changing ground on definition or scope of your belief. Atheism in practice have shown over time that the scope of their disbelief is beyond a deity but include this can doesnt have proven evidence or facts. So stay on that

YOU: "Just because an idea is not testable by science, does not suddenly makes it true. I really hope you know at least that. All it means when science tools are unable to investigate is: simply that is outside the purview of science. Your (and any other) god idea falls within that, by design. Guess where that puts your god idea? On the same level as the idea that I logictfw, is your god. You cannot scientifically prove that I am not your god. By your reasoning and your requirements to believe your current god idea, you cannot refute that means I am your god based on the same standards."

Good, it doesnt change my point in showing that scientific scope has limit or confined to handle certain facts and not all facts. I emphasize this so that we can rest on AR from words like "it cannot be scientifically proven, so it doesnt exist" This is very fundamental. Hence needed to be knocked off. Your other statement of you being God still falls in that, that it cant be scientifically proven. This is the essence of this very section of discussion.

YOU: "They have multiple tools to detect dream states already. We can use a tool and tell when someone is dreaming or not. Furthermore some progress has been made on even detecting what sort of dream someone is having."

This did not answer by question. We know there are tools to know if one is dreaming, even by simple physical observation we can detect in few occasions. My question is premised on the content of the dream, the served rice, not yam, the rice without meat, why, the very events in dreams. No such tool exist, not even logical truth. So leave that.

YOU: "you cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea."
Good, doent forget this. Very key to our discussion. A second facts you have agreed on this discussion. So there are things that are strictly subjective. I will get to this soon.

YOU: "Evil is a human created descriptor of certain types of actions measured in strictly subjective ways. We decide that evil exist. We can just as easily decide it doesn't. Because it is all subjective and has no bearing on reality. It is just a word, a descriptor, of a shared idea humans have, but "evil" does not actually exist. Put another way, if all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no "evil" tomorrow, because there would be no humans around to talk about/think about this strictly subjective idea.
No. But objective evidence certainly does help move a simple human created idea, to the realm of actionable reality.

Depends what kind of objective evidence we are comparing to experimental evidence.
Evidence based on "experiential" (I assume you mean evidenced experienced first hand by our senses,) can be better or worse than other types of objective evidence. But this is a whole different subject, that really has nothing to do with the rest of what you have been talking about. We can discuss further if you want, but I will keep it on topic for now."

Dont assume yet that a concept or things are outside what we are discussing, I am only developing our argument gradually. Hence, we are building up systematically. Experiential issues cant be neglected in this.

Now, to two key things we agreed on:
1. We cant use science to prove all things as it wasnt design to handle some certain things (i have shown you examples overtime in our previous discussions). Science at its best will produce accuracy when applied to events, facts and existence that its designed to handle. Somethings are obviously outside the purview of science.

2. We cant rely on objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.
For example, you spoke about evil being subjective. But you made a very wrong assumption as below:

" "evil" does not actually exist. Put another way, if all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no "evil" tomorrow, because there would be no humans around to talk about/think about this strictly subjective idea."

This is premised on the fact that what defines evil is human. Since it is subjective, how do you know animals dont know evil, experience it and feel it? how do you know that when all men died, then evil died? Better still, if you say no man will experience/know evil again when all men died, fine.

On subjective matters, it is known that experiential truth cannot always be subjected to objective evidence. For example, you we spoke about evil, subjective, and experiential.

Experiential Truth
Truth gained through experience. Most times are usually subjective. When experiential truth are objectively proven they can only be done accurate by the one who had the experience not by external measure. For example, how do you know color blue? you experienced it. A blind cannot have such truth even if it was well detailed and explained. Such has to be experienced to know.

Now, This shows us that experiential truth are subjective issues and can be objectively discussed based on experience. That means objective evidence will be premised on experiential truth when most things fails. This is where objective evidence lack strength.

- Then can we conclude a non existence of Unicorn because it cant be objectively proven? Are there claims of its existence? Yes. Have we seen one? No. Do we now, throw away and conclude such never exist or it should call for further studies, continued research?

There is different between these three statement:
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, HENCE IT DOESNT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT, I KNOW IT EXIST

The First: [/b]I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST
This is much more of an open minded than lack of knowledge. It opens for further study, thinking, research and explanation. Not conclusive or rash ending of thought. So, i am not sure it exist >>> it might and it might not. [b]THIS IS OBJECTIVITY OF THOUGHT

The Second: I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, HENCE IT DOESNT EXIST.
Even science in its valor, hardly make such statement. It is a conclusion, a finality and absoluteness of thought. It is best described as closed minded. Such wont survive, if applied to other natural issues that discoveries unveiled overtime. THIS IS FINALITY OF THOUGHT

The Third: I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT. I KNOW IT EXIST
This though might not be objective but absolutely experiential and cannot be thrown away but explained the events or call for further studies.
THIS IS SUBJECTIVITY OF THOUGHT

Now, let me ask you ,
1. Where does Atheism or your opinion falls in these three
2. How reliable can such opinion stand considering human history of discoveries through research, experiences and thought expansion.

Sheldon's picture
You said i made it up. Lol it

You said i made it up. Lol it wasnt. Somethings have different textbook definition and real life definition/application. Such is atheism.

That's a lie, the commonly understood definition is the dictionary definition.

When atheists here say they are atheists they are referring to that dictionary definition, you don't get to lie and claim they mean something else, only an atheist can do that for themselves. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. When I say I am an atheist that is what I mean.

"I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST"

Atheism is not a claim no deity exists, until you grasp this simple fact you will fail to see your position is irrational. I don't need to be sure something doesn't exist in order to disbelieve the claim, in fact I find the idea I would believe a claim until I was sure it is invalid is a preposterous position.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The Intruder - I emphasize

The Intruder - I emphasize this so that we can rest on AR from words like "it cannot be scientifically proven, so it doesnt exist"...

Fictitious quote.

Sheldon's picture
The Intruder I HAVE NOT SEEN

The Intruder I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, HENCE IT DOESNT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT, I KNOW IT EXIST

Where does Atheism or your opinion falls in these three

Nowhere, as you already now, because it's been explained to you many times already.

I don't believe any deity exists, this is not an opinion, or a claim, it is the rejection of a claim for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated, and I disbelieve all such claims.

Whitefire13's picture
Holy fuck ... Here’s a quick

Holy fuck ... Here’s a quick example.

Germ theory. Little buggers aren’t seen. Doctor stumbles on to some weird connection between washing your hands before delivering babies and mortality rate dropping. Suggests washing hands. Other doctors laugh. He sets up a protocol and tests his hypothesis... blah blah blah now we can see the buggers...
It’s a Theory. Did you know it can still be adjusted dependant on new information.

Now...let’s say You are right (this is verrry important to you). Let’s say God exists just like those little germs (even as I write this I’m shaking my head) but unlike Germs we can’t “see God” yet... we the atheists are like those doctors that laughed when the first doctor washed his hands after touching the dead...
But you dear sir and your ilk are not like that first doctor. You are running around the hospital telling us what the germs want us to do and how the germs want us to behave. The germs have a plan for us and they only kill the bad. The germs talk to you and you’ve written it all down... Except you don’t know what a “germ” is either. You’ve only washed your hands.

I am 99% sure God does not exist. I am 100% sure any God as described by humans does not exist...I leave room for more information.

So I ask...can you define the God you believe in?

Andromeda's picture
It is so funny that you

It is so funny that you criticize science for being unreliable in methods of proof, yet believe in something purely by blind faith. I can make up a deity in an hour and claim the same things you do, and say that it is "unprovable by science". Of course something made up without regard to the laws of the universe cannot be proven by said laws.

Your argument is invalid because you fail to take into account that your entire belief system was thought up thousands of years ago by people with no concept of natural and physical law, in a place and time where modern science was not even considered as a possibility. Now, we do have methods to call BS on most Christian beliefs, but some doctrines and dogmas of Christianity are so far fetched from reality that logic and reason cannot be used to prove or disprove it.

So, you cannot claim that a method of proof is invalid purely based off of the fact that it cannot prove the imaginary.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.