Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for reminding me just how insulting christians can be. Must be the eleventh commandment.
Remember this is a public forum, if you come on it you have agreed to answer her questions the way she wants them answered and of course never have the indecency to ask her a question.
She has been asked to explain how humans are not, according to her, animals and told the first poster to look it up themselves but seems to enjoy insulting those who have tried to honestly discuss the topic but are in disagreement with her.
Every biology textbook I have ever seen place humans as animald. N9 9ne needs to be able to describe why in their own words however I think that when one disagrees with those books and are asked why, the right thing would be to answer the question not to bring up how some humans insult other humans.
Come on, Arq! Your so-called "default" eliminates from consideration any and all potential inferences that could lead to acknowledging a purpose or design to our existence. You assume it away as non-existent and make no attempt to validate or verify even the possibility. If that is not bias, what is???
I'll tell you what is old chum; appeals to unknowns, faith -claims and gap for God arguments.
Reporting the findings of science is crucial to promoting a realistic understanding of reality. But when it proceeds from the typical scientific premise that there is NO purpose or design to what is discovered, it commits a great disservice to enlightenment.
Where do you find no purpose in what I've posted about these scientific discoveries? I am not sure what you are referring to with respect to design. Design of what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is okay to prefer to believe that, but to preclude purpose or design prevents seeing the implications of what is discovered and drawing reasonable inferences from them.
I see no such thing being stated in what I posted. Again what design are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
For example, the tendency of brain states to be responsive to external EM fields by producing experiences of "oneness" or a "presence" or "out-of-body" experiences has scant evolutionary precursors or purposes for such a capability.
What evidence to you have that these experiences are due to our brain responding to EM fields? Exactly what EM field are you referring to?
The work done by this physician does not reflect what you are claiming.
Reporting the findings of science is crucial to promoting a realistic understanding of reality. But when it proceeds from the typical scientific premise that there is NO purpose or design to what is discovered, it commits a great disservice to enlightenment. It is okay to prefer to believe that, but to preclude purpose or design prevents seeing the implications of what is discovered and drawing reasonable inferences from them. It is the subtle anti-Theist bias that prevents certain inferences from ever being drawn in the mistaken name of objectivity. For example, the tendency of brain states to be responsive to external EM fields by producing experiences of "oneness" or a "presence" or "out-of-body" experiences has scant evolutionary precursors or purposes for such a capability. The evidence that brain states can alter our life experience dramatically by internally evoked changes through dedicated and purposeful devout prayer, ritual or meditation practice suggests that it is an inherent capability for a reason. Just saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Where do you find no purpose in what I've posted about these scientific discoveries? I am not sure what you are referring to with respect to design. Design of what?
I see no such thing being stated in what I posted. Again what design are you referring to?
What evidence to you have that these experiences are due to our brain responding to EM fields? Exactly what EM field are you referring to?
The work done by this physician does not reflect what you are claiming.
I am not referring to a purpose for YOUR posts. I am referring to the so-called "default" position of science that there is NO purpose for our existence itself and that therefore there is no design to human existence or reason for it other than randomness or natural selection. That is NOT an objective position because that has NOT been verified nor has its opposite been falsified in any way. It is a preference and an opinion. The famous God Helmet experiences are the EM fields I was referencing, Mat. I was directly referring to your physician's work when I said: "The evidence that brain states can alter our life experience dramatically by internally evoked changes through dedicated and purposeful devout prayer, ritual or meditation practice suggests that it is an inherent capability for a reason." It almost seems like you get triggered by some parts of my posts and do not read other parts.
Come on, Arq! Your so-called "default" eliminates from consideration any and all potential inferences that could lead to acknowledging a purpose or design to our existence. You assume it away as non-existent and make no attempt to validate or verify even the possibility. If that is not bias, what is???
No, that's called evidence.
You know, the thing you ignore while using creationist argument (while pretending you're not).
For example, the tendency of brain states to be responsive to external EM fields by producing experiences of "oneness" or a "presence" or "out-of-body" experiences has scant evolutionary precursors or purposes for such a capability.
The brain is quiet capable of having false experiences, for deluding itself, and for trying to make sense out of something it does not understand by referring to cultural precursors.
The fact that you refuse to consider your experiences of "oneness" or a "presence" or "out-of-body" experiences are nothing but the mind making an error (something it is very good at) shows where the bias really lies.
No, that's called evidence.
You know, the thing you ignore while using creationist argument (while pretending you're not).
Present the evidence that verifies that there is NO purpose to our existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your so-called "default" eliminates from consideration any and all potential inferences that could lead to acknowledging a purpose or design to our existence. You assume it away as non-existent and make no attempt to validate or verify even the possibility. If that is not bias, what is???
