Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"You cannot claim that a method of proof is invalid purely based off of the fact that it cannot prove the imaginary"
These words should be tattooed on the forehead of every duplicitous mythology fanboy, who erects fatuous apologetics to try and hand-wave away valid scientific findings, in order to admit the unsupported assertions of his mythology into the arena of discourse.
@Calilasseia, It is either you arent reading what you posted or you are actually at the peak of close mindedness.
What you posted is not new and have been inferred over time on how dream can come and processed. The technology either was borrowed from the field of image processing/virtual signaling.
I asked you of details of dream content, that is why such of it, you are posting a research yet to even conclude on a fact that dream can be tested.
Like i said there is nothing new to logic in all you put up there, the author its self still agreed that dreams are subjective.
The basis, foundation of this research up there is still anchor on measurable experience (real life/lifestyle) of the individual or others prior to dream. That is the baseline. A comparison of computerized imagery generated from anchoring tubes on individual arent new to science. In field of image processing, that is the foundation, a basis must exist to compare and generate or inferred a result. That basis of comparison in this case is still the human experiential capability and not far from what was documented even in the Bible you questioned most:
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.
That places some dreams in such realm. Not a new thing. What we spoke about was explaining the reason for its content: i quote myself again.
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.
That was my quote, and that isn't address in that work. The focus of that work is to know what was dreamt not why. Except you also want to make a costly assumption made in that research:
A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION made in the research is that ALL DREAMS COME FROM A BASE EXPERIENCE OR A PRIOR EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION, HENCE THE ESSENCE IT IS BENCHMARK WITH PREVIOUS DREAM RECORDS/INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO EXPLAIN.
As it is in most research, this is a very grievous error cum assumption.
Here are a few questions you seem determined to continue ignoring:
1. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
2. How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?
3. How many beliefs that form no part of your superstitious religious beliefs, do you hold that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for? (list them please)
4. Since you insist on repeatedly and dishonestly rehashing an argumentum ignorantiam fallacy that attempts to reverse your burden of proof, please tell us what "proof" you have that unicorns and mermaids, and all other deities humans have ever created are not real?
That'll do for a start.... no more of your dishonest evasion now, you have come to us, so piss, or get off the pot!
Oh look, it purports to be in a position to lecture me. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
The irony of being accused of "closed mindedness" by a mythology fanboy is truly delicious to savour. What part of "I found peer reviewed scientific papers that destroy your smug, self-satisfied, complacent and hubristic assertions" do you not understand?
So the fact that scientists are able to gather data on dreams, which destroys your assertions on this subject, is an inconvenient fact you're going to ignore in typical mythology fanboy fashion?
What part of "the researchers demonstrated that their computer was able to classify dream content reliably from the fMRI data" did you fail to understand from my post?
This lie of yours is so transparent in the light of the content of those papers, as to be beneath deserving of a point of view.
But, wait for it, we now have objective data we can call upon to determine the content thereof. Courtesy of the fact that different dream content is the result of the activation of different parts of the brain. Once again, it's neurochemistry all the way down, and you have no answer to this, other than to peddle fatuous assertions and risible apologetic fabrications.
The basis, foundation of this research up there is still anchor on measurable experience (real life/lifestyle) of the individual or others prior to dream.That is the baseline. A comparison of computerized imagery generated from anchoring tubes on individual arent new to science. In field of image processing, that is the foundation, a basis must exist to compare and generate or inferred a result.
Oh wait, you do realise that both dreams and hallucinations have been documented to be grounded in past real world experience, even when bizarre reworkings thereof form part of the content? Indeed, my six foot cockroach from my meningitis episode in 1994 is here to point and laugh at you in this regard. Would I have hallucinated a six foot cockroach without a prior background in invertebrate zoology? Methinks not.
Oh, and apparently you haven't learned from your own exposition above, that without data, you have nothing.
Ah, regurgitation of mythological assertion. Which means nothing. Because we've all seen mythology fanboys like you turn up here, presenting contradictory apologetic assertions about what said mythology is purportedly telling us. Which has much to do with the fact that mythology fanboys like you have no data to call upon.
What we spoke about was explaining the reason for its content: i quote myself again.
Love the sound of the music of the spheres of your own verbal diarrhoea, don't you?
And as those papers demonstrate, we're now in a position to determine with reliability said content from fMRI data. Which destroys your assertion.
Yes it is and you know it. You're doing nothing here but doubling down on your shit.
Quite simply, the data tells us that dreams arise because of neurochemical events in the brain during sleep, events that have both a chemical and electrical signature. Please explain to us all how this basic fact is purportedly "wrong", given that dreams can be influenced by the consumption of psychoactive substances before sleep, and have been documented being thus influenced? Indeed, a simple food such as cheese can exert a detectable effect, courtesy of the fact that cheese is rich in the amino acid tryptophan, and tryptophan is converted to serotonin in the brain, serotonin being, of course, a well known, well documented and powerful neurotransmitter.
Oh here we go with the mythology fanboy erection of "assumptions" ... seen plenty of this shit from creationists ...
This isn't an "assumption", it's a documented fact. this paper alone is but one of many documenting this, viz:
Except it isn't an "assumption", nor is it an error.
Here's a clue for you ... you would do better here if you had paid attention in classes devoted to the real world.
You have to see the hilarity of that risible claim, especially when he proceeds to this vapid unevidenced rhetoric form the bible.
He is also still ignoring the fact that his original argument on which this request for evidence is based is of course an informal logical fallacy called an argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy. Not knowing how or why something happens cannot rationally be used to justify a claim about it. I look forward to him lying again, and telling me my use of cold hard rational logic is somehow laughably nothing but an emotional answer?? Bizarre even by the standard The Intruder's posts have set.
The simple fact remains no one can demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. The Intruder, like all theists I encounter are happy to cite this a sound basis for everything they disbelieve in, including of course all the deities humans have ever created barring one version of one deity, handed to them by the geographical happenstance of their birth. Yet with breathtaking dishonesty and even hypocrisy insist atheists justify using that same rationale fro extending their disbelief to this one version of one single imagined deity, bizarre, and of course I am never convinced they don't see their inherent bias either, especially when they dishonesty evade or ignore requests to list all beliefs that they hold without any supporting objective evidence, but that form no part of their religious beliefs,, then the bias is too manifest to ignore.
Just as when asked to list all scientific facts they deny that in no way contradict their superstitious religious beliefs they become equally reticent, and in the case of The Intrude use the farcical lie they don't know what superstitious means, unless he was serious;y claiming he doesn't know what religious beliefs meant? either way it was an absurd piece of hand waving, and one can only infer he knows the answer is none, and knows what such obvious bias implies.
I can assure you that most people do not change their minds to be mean spirited. They change their minds because they thought it through and they thought they were wrong. It is emotionally very difficult. The attached link is from clinical psychologist Dr. Caleb Lack.
@RF Interesting clip.Thanks
However ,I think you're preaching to the choir. Be very surprised if Intruder bothers to watch it, or if he does, probably rejects it out of hand.
Seems to me that it may not be not just militant theists but any 'true believer' in any ideal who is burdened with conformation bias. Politics is another example . EG how on earth can poor and ignorant members of the US bible belt convince themselves a rich white man gives a flying continental farnarkle about them?
Of course you made it up, see below. Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is therefore ipso facto not a belief. As you claimed, in the quote below...
If you start any assertion atheism or atheists believe, then it is demonstrably false. You can only assert what an atheist believes when they tell you, until then all you can correctly infer is that they do not believe in any deity or deities. This is not debatable, it is an objective fact, that a cursory online search can validate with the dictionary definition of atheism.
NB If you repeat the claim after your error has been explained it ceases to be an error, and becomes a lie, so don't start whining like Jo, at being labelled mendacious if you do this, as I am not alone on here in having zero tolerance for deliberate mendacity or willful ignorance.
Looks like The Intruder has left the building...
@The Intruder Re comment #85: https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/proof?page=2#comment-...
You made a long post so I will respond even if you are no longer replying.
So who decides when we use commonly accepted definitions of words versus "real life" you? I suppose for the sake of argument you would like the ability to change word definitions at will to suit your arguments.
Does that sound very fair to you? Or can we be adults and agree we are using commonly accepted word definitions we can all access in .5 second google search?
"Such is atheism" .... do you really want to deny you make up your own definitions of words to suit yourself and your argument?
You got the word "atheist" confused with another word, skeptic. Look it up if you are still confused. I am fine if you describe me as a skeptic, as I proudly consider myself one. I am skeptical of all un-evidenced claims. Various un-evidenced god ideas included. Calling every atheist a skeptic, and you are making another blanket assertion with no way to back it up. Sure you may have experienced many atheist that are skeptics, but can you prove all of them are? Nope. Has anyone ever told you about labeling entire groups of people? If you do such things then you can't be bothered if I label all theist idiots if it advances my argument even if I know that is not true I could not possibly prove that?
Oy vey. How can you understand this simple concept that we should not accept unevidenced ideas. You just refuse to understand that it also applies to your god idea. I reject your god idea, something easy to do because its unevidenced. I do not have to "prove" why I reject it. Just like you do not have to "prove" that I am not your god, because I have zero actual evidence that I am your god, just like you have zero evidence for you god idea? Get it yet? Guessing no.
You are wrong there. Their are tools that can simulate different parts of the brain, eithir via electric or even physical contact (if there's access.) But I am happy to leave it, I dont think dreams really have much to do with the overall debate here.
Yes there is, and since your god idea remains completly unevidenced, your god idea remains strictly in the subjective realm, and since it is subjective I can dismiss your god idea simply because its completely subjective and unevidenced. Just like you can dismiss Santa Claus story not being real, even if you do not have any objective "evidence" that santa is NOT real.
Never denied people acting on unevidenced ideas. IF only people would not act on unevidenced god ideas, we would not be having this conversation. I could care less what people believed in, if they kept it strictly to themselves. But people coming to atheist forums and telling us atheist are something they are not, and trying to make atheist wrong, yeah, I am going to respond to that.
Fully agreed. The various god ideas are outside the purview of science. At least until people try to pass off their god ideas as real. Then we apply the idea to vigours of science, and boy do the various god ideas come up lacking. Back to square one, people talking about unevidenced ideas, ideas outside of science, just like the idea that I am your god. Its all just.. talk, at least until people act on these unevidenced ideas.
Glad you agree with the "fine."
I have easy and obvious proof. Tell me did "evil" in any way shape or form exist before there was humans that developed that word/idea? With the absence of humans could you find "evil." Remember you are a human yourself, so any observations you make do not count. This is a difficult concept for some, separating out ideas humans have from reality. How about water. Will water still be around after all humans are gone? The name "water" may be gone, but what we describe as water will still be there. Evil? Could an alien civilization find "evil" like we describe it, like they would "water" if they visited this planet after humans are gone?
Oof, you write like you understand what experience based evidence is, but you refuse to connect this concept to your own god idea. But it seems like we both agree there is no "experience" based evidence for your god idea. Cool, we agree.
However, You are in error if you think "experience" based evidence compromises the whole of any type of objective evidence. And yeah there are plenty of scenarios where experienced "evidence" fails or lacks strength.
You went a step to far. You do not even have to make any conclusions on the unicorn, it has zero reason/need to be disproven, for the same reasons that the 1001 gods I just made up, you do not need to go through and conclude that each one does not exist, you can simply leave it with: and evidence please? No? Then your idea has no real world merit and I can dismiss it. Exactly the same way I dismiss your god idea (and any other unevidenced god idea I come across.) Just like how you reject odin, zeus, RA, etc. Do you feel you need to "prove" why Zeus, Ra etc do not exist? Of course not, you just dismiss them, because you can, and because you should. Just apply that to your own unevidenced god idea, because it is on the EXACT same level, of: just an idea. Well unless you want to apply argumentum ad populum to it, and if you do, I got news for you: if you want to go down that fallacy, the atheist viewpoint wins the popularity contest of various deity ideas by a mile. Especially when you realize many religions are all too happy to kill each other over slight differences in various god ideas.
How about number 4? I have not seen it before, I have not experienced it, I do not know if it exists, but I do know I have not found any real evidence for it, nor has anyone else has seen it, it remains just an idea people like, kind of like how kids like santa claus idea.
Seems to do quite well, ideas that can be evidenced, are done so, and great advances are made, where other ideas that cannot be evidenced in any way continue to fall to the wayside, slowed only by the cycle of religious brainwashing, most often via parents and important peers on our young, that teach us to, for the god idea, ignore that it has the same merit in reality as santa claus does. (I would almost argue that santa claus idea is more evidenced than the various god ideas.) In the grand scheme of things, the various god ideas has only declined in power and total population participation in the last few centuries. I live in the US, a fairly religious country, but I live in Denver metro area, a fairly secular area. Colorado religious entities has 100's of thousands of people go to church on a given sunday, but millions of people that do not. Religion is in serious decline, as we get more and more answers readily available to everyone. Science has made a lot of progress, there really is no unanswered cosmic questions left.
How did we come to be? Answered.
Origin of life? Answered.
Source of solar system and galaxy, answered.
Why do we die? Answered
Why do people clutch their chest and fall over dead? Answered
*add another 1000 questions science has answered.
The questions the various god ideas used to answer with "cause god", have been properly answered by science, via actual real, testable repeatable evidence.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.