10 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI am not recanting any statement I made. I believe that human conciousness requires a functional living brain. There is plently of evidence that if a brain becomes disfunctional (for example, damaged) the person's personality (normally) is also lost.
Are you recanting this statement?
[b]What a load of tosh. Humans ARE just horrendiously complex chemical reaction. Believe noone that tells you otherwise.
We all know that spirits don’t rely on chemical reactions, only the physical does. If you believe what you said then you’re say that there is no afterlife.
Perhaps the more accurat ...[text shortened]... position of science is that there is no afterlife until proven otherwise. Would you accept this?[/b]
On the other hand, I cannot disprove the possibility of an afterlife. Likewise, it cannot be proved. As I said earlier, Occams razor. I have no evidence that an afterlife exists, and the most parsimonious argument is, therefore, that it does not, since it would require, for example, a belief in the supernatural.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSome would say that the bible is evidence of the existance of god. I do not. Apparently, I do get to decide what I choose to be evidence, based upon the ability to verify it or not.
Sorry, YOU don't get to decide what is evidence or not; you only get to decide what weight to put on the evidence presented.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThere are as many links to show that the opposite is true. Here, jerk.
Here, jerk. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html
2/3 of scientists in the US believe in God according to this survey. Admit you are wrong, clown.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2000/belief_in_god.html
According to these studies the majority of scientists are atheistic.
Admit you are wrong, clown.
BTW, this was my “claim”
Originally posted by The Chess Express
How do you know that only a “small minority” of scientists would argue that there is no afterlife? How do you know that the majority wouldn’t in fact argue this?
Why don’t you pretend that you are actually a passing lawyer and read the details. My “claim” was a question.
Always such a pleasure debating with the jerk of the forum…
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzOk, sounds like an atheist.
I am not recanting any statement I made. I believe that human conciousness requires a functional living brain. There is plently of evidence that if a brain becomes disfunctional (for example, damaged) the person's personality (normally) is also lost.
On the other hand, I cannot disprove the possibility of an afterlife. Likewise, it cannot be prove ...[text shortened]... therefore, that it does not, since it would require, for example, a belief in the supernatural.
10 Jan 06
Apparently, a study by the journal 'Nature' shows that belief in religion is fading from science.
From athiests.org
"The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3😵, while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%."
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
10 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs pointed out above, the question asked is loaded; one does not have to believe that God is in "an intellectual and affective communication" with humankind to believe she exists. The study also relied on only 250 responses and limited itself to certain fields; the study I quoted used neutral questions and 1,646 responses. You tell me which study is more scientifically valid.
Apparently, a study by the journal 'Nature' shows that belief in religion is fading from science.
From athiests.org
"The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "pers iences fields -- only 5.5%."
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYour ignorance is appalling. You truly believe that belief in a "personal God who is in an intellectual and affective communication with humankind" is universal among people who believe in God?????????????? All you are showing is how arrogant you are.
You're a complete joke.
1. BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD
2. BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY
Sounds pretty universal to me. Set aside your idiotic nature and try reading the details.
This was my original claim
[b]It’s my belief that science will prove one day that there is an afterlife, and science and religion will converge.
I don’t necess ...[text shortened]... d, but I would like it if they did. Usually lawyers don’t try to make the others case for them.[/b]
10 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYour ignorance is appalling, and so is your arrogance. Most of the world’s religions tell us that God is in communion with us. Though it is clear you know nothing about God or religion, you insist that you get to decide what questions that pertain to God and religion are relevant. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Your ignorance is appalling. You truly believe that belief in a "personal God who is in an intellectual and affective communication with humankind" is universal among people who believe in God?????????????? All you are showing is how arrogant you are.
Originally posted by no1marauder
the study I quoted used neutral questions and 1,646 responses.
Hmmm, 1,646 out of how many millions? Try not to let your stupidity show so much.
10 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressLMFAO!!!!!! You use a study with 250 responses and then ridicule one with over 1600! Pathetic.
Your ignorance is appalling, and so is your arrogance. Most of the world’s religions tell us that God is in communion with us. Though it is clear you know nothing about God or religion, you insist that you get to decide what questions that pertain to God and religion are relevant. Stop making a fool of yourself.
[i/]Originally posted by no1marau ...[text shortened]... ponses.
Hmmm, 1,646 out of how many millions? Try not to let your stupidity show so much.[/b]
The questions are based on religious beliefs similiar to yours. A more valid question is simply "Do you believe in God?" IF you want to know whether someone is "atheistic". It's pretty obvious someone of your incredible stupidity never actually used a survey to get useful data. The survey questions were garbage, so the data is useless except for convincing gullible jerks like you of things your cult leaders tell ya.
10 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by no1marauder
LMFAO!!!!!! You use a study with 250 responses and then ridicule one with over 1600! Pathetic.
The questions are based on religious beliefs similiar to yours. A more valid question is simply "Do you believe in God?" IF you want to know whether someone is "atheistic". It's pretty obvious someone of your incredible stupidity never actually u ...[text shortened]... a is useless except for convincing gullible jerks like you of things your cult leaders tell ya.
You use a study with 250 responses and then ridicule one with over 1600!
Same difference. Do you know how to count to a million? Or spell similar? Only gullible jerks like you would take any of these surveys seriously.
The questions are based on religious beliefs similiar to yours.
Like I said, you know nothing of religion, or my beliefs for that matter.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Most of the world’s religions tell us that God is in communion with us.
Also, most tell us that we are immortal. It is just a question of where we spend eternity.
10 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressSo we should simply take your and your cult leaders' word that most scientists are atheistic?? Sorry, I'm not as gullible as you. 1600 members of the faculties at leading universities is a pretty good statistical sample. I realize that statistics is a science so you're opposed to it and don't think it's of any use but that's your ignorance talking yet again.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]You use a study with 250 responses and then ridicule one with over 1600!
Same difference. Do you know how to count to a million? Or spell similar? Only gullible jerks like you would take any of these surveys seriously.
The questions are based on religious beliefs similiar to yours.
L ...[text shortened]... s.
Also, most tell us that we are immortal. It is just a question of where we spend eternity.[/b]
You keep trying to change the words showing that not only are you stupid but you are also dishonest as well. The study asked whether someone believed in a "personal God who is in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" not "communion" (whatever the hell that is). That is a far from universal belief. And a question asking about "personal immortality" is too vague to be useful; most people don't believe that everyone lives forever or that this body does. Learn how to read, dimwit.