Questions for the Atheists

[ketllac]

---

hala sorry for my grammar.nag dali ko post.hehehe

[nowpress*]

interesting position

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PVJlnvVeSM

wait till 3:09. puede pod ilahos na lang hangtod mahoman.

[silent-kill]

sir I already told you, this is not about human behavior. it refers sa atong ability to think for ourself. so the question still remains...How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

and don't say it doesn't exist kay kong mao na sir it means nga kining imong mga logical inference diri sa forum dili gikan sa imo but gikan sa programming sa imong nuerons then it further means nga mora ka og robot.

sir, kong di ka kasabot ayaw nalang og sturya cause your not making sense.

you can only observe free thought through behavior.

How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

simple rana, the chemicals serves as an input to the neural network of the brain...

free thought is not really free, it is controlled/influenced by many factors, like previous experiences,existing knowledge, chemicals present in your brain, oxygen level, etc. you will not be even aware of when you make the decision.

do you remember the day you were born?(im sure not) so where was your free thought at that time? so how come you suck on your mother's t-i-t-s? that's because that is managed by instincts which is pre-programmed(burned kong sa CD pa) in the brain for its survival.

your so called "free thought" is acquired through time through different stimulus, which is converted by the brain as chemical/electrical stimulus, which is stored inside your brain and triggered by another chemical/electrical signals to be reinterpreted when a similar situation occurs, and its not really free because it follows a pattern, it always does in a normal setting.

you can prove this through experiment:

Put 1 child in a white room for 15 years you only go in to feed him, and no interaction is to be made, no talking, no teaching. now, after 15 years observe his BEHAVIOR (because you cannot observe free thought outside of yourself duh). make him reason, make him answer questions... i'm sure he wont be able to answer any question and also think for himself. by then can you conclude if he has free thought? of course not because he lacks the stimulus in the first place to interpret your questions, he wont even know how to talk. but if you really want "free thought" then do this experiment to yourself.

i have a question for you too, do animals have "free thought"?

[nowpress*]

sir, kong di ka kasabot ayaw nalang og sturya cause your not making sense.

you can only observe free thought through behavior.



simple rana, the chemicals serves as an input to the neural network of the brain...

free thought is not really free, it is controlled/influenced by many factors, like previous experiences,existing knowledge, chemicals present in your brain, oxygen level, etc. you will not be even aware of when you make the decision.

do you remember the day you were born?(im sure not) so where was your free thought at that time? so how come you suck on your mother's t-i-t-s? that's because that is managed by instincts which is pre-programmed(burned kong sa CD pa) in the brain for its survival.

your so called "free thought" is acquired through time through different stimulus, which is converted by the brain as chemical/electrical stimulus, which is stored inside your brain and triggered by another chemical/electrical signals to be reinterpreted when a similar situation occurs, and its not really free because it follows a pattern, it always does in a normal setting.

you can prove this through experiment:

Put 1 child in a white room for 15 years you only go in to feed him, and no interaction is to be made, no talking, no teaching. now, after 15 years observe his BEHAVIOR (because you cannot observe free thought outside of yourself duh). make him reason, make him answer questions... i'm sure he wont be able to answer any question and also think for himself. by then can you conclude if he has free thought? of course not because he lacks the stimulus in the first place to interpret your questions, he wont even know how to talk. but if you really want "free thought" then do this experiment to yourself.

i have a question for you too, do animals have "free thought"?

sir balik sa question. it asked HOW, imo tobag is about behavior. imo pa gani gisulti nga "you can't really say free thought" mag boot na hinoon ka sa question? wa nimo directly gitubag ang question but instead imo gidala ang question sa imong personal interpretation of what free thought is. sayop na sir. kabalo ko sir kong onsa akong gipang storya,hehe.

sayon ra man sigoro sabton ng HOW sir, how it is produced? mao na ang question but imo answer is what? it is observed through human behavior. layo ra sir wa ma igo ang HOW IT IS PRODUCED?.

ah okay so naa nakay tobag. that's good, mao ni akong gihowat sir kay imo first nga tobag wa man matobag ang how. ingon ra man ka nga ma observed ra sa human behavior.

so basically what you are saying is we cannot really think for ourself. wala ta'y independent thinking. so mora diay ta og Robot/computer og mga animals? so how can you determine what is right and wrong? and how would you know nga kanang so called "right" nga na inculcated sa imong brain is really right? what if you were only brainwashed to believe nga mao na ang right when in fact it is not? mora ra gud ka og computer imo ra e assimilate ang mga infos nga imong masogatan. imong gikuha ang rationale sa tao sir. imo gi level siya sa mga robot og mga animals. when the fact is we are higher than them for we can think for ourselves. ang labas nato ani sir is A.I ra ni atong gi possess diay.

karon sir what if you say nga sayop ko, how would you know nga sayop ko nga na forced ra man ka og tobag ana "nga sayop ko" tungod sa neuro-chemical wiring sa imong brain. so kana di ay imong atheism sir or whatever belief nimo sir is nothing more than just a product of chemical states. so ayaw lang padala sigoro ana sir kay na high ra ka sa chemicals mao ng you think atheism or impersonalism tinood but in fact produkto sa chemical firing ra diay na siya. no offesne sir ha. mora ba kanang na boang ka sa drugs bisan onsa na lang imong makita prodokto sa Chemicals pero katong imong mga nakita dili diay to tinood.





by the way kanang example nimo is sakto na siya gamay but we cannot really say nga mao jud na ang mahitabo kay wa pa man na mahitabo jud. in other words di na conclusive, no solid basis.

mas dali sigoro masabtan ang term nga freethought kong ato pod gamiton ang term nga freewill.

[nowpress*]

so dili diay tinood nga wala gagamit sa ilang otok ang mga theists.

List of former atheists and agnostics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mortimer J. Adler - Philosopher who co-founded Great Books of the Western World. Agnostic convert to the Catholic Church.[3][4]
Steve Beren - Former member of the Socialist Workers Party (United States) who became a Protestant conservative politician.[5]
Anders Borg - Sweden's Minister for Finance.[6]
Paul Bourget - French author who became agnostic and positivist at 15, but returned to Catholicism at 35.[7]
Ferdinand Brunetière - Rationalist and freethinking writer who became a Catholic.[8][9]
Julie Burchill - British journalist and feminist.[10]
Kirk Cameron - An American actor best-known for his role as Mike Seaver on the television situation comedy, Growing Pains, as well as several other television and film appearances as a child actor. Today he is a Protestant Evangelical. Recently, he portrayed the lead roles in the Left Behind film series and in the 2008 drama film, Fireproof.[11]
Whittaker Chambers - Former Communist turned conservative writer.[12][13]
Francis Collins - Geneticist who was an atheist until age 27, but then converted to Christianity.[14]
Larry Darby - Holocaust denier and former member of the American Atheists.[15][16]
Joy Davidman - Poet and wife of C. S. Lewis.[17]
Avery Dulles - A Jesuit priest, theologian, and cardinal in the Catholic Church. He was raised Presbyterian, but was an agnostic before his conversion to Catholic Christianity.[18][19]
Dawn Eden - Rock journalist of Jewish ethnicity who went from an agnostic to a Catholic writer, who was particularly concerned with the moral values of chastity.[20][21]
André Frossard - French journalist who was atheist, but converted to the Catholic Church in 1935.[22]
Eugene D. Genovese - Historian who went from Stalinist to conservative theist.[23]
Bo Giertz - Atheistic in youth he became a Lutheran bishop and writer.[24]
Simon Greenleaf - One of the principle founders of Harvard Law School, professor of law at Harvard University and president of the Massachusetts Bible Society.[25]...continue here...List of former atheists and agnostics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kit_cebu]

so far nobody has countered the TS post satisfactorily.

Of course.....it's like an atheist asking for an emperical evidence (at least "satisfactorily") that there is a god....

this is failure in logic sir. besides by definition God is Spirit, he cannot be tapped by our senses,

the red part explains exactly why there are atheists......

[tokidoki]

Kung si Ping Lacson pa na bai: I will show myself when Justice is served.
What he really means: I will show myself when Justice is served IN MY FAVOR.

Believer: Prove to me that there is no God.
What he really means: Prove to me that there is no God BUT I WANT YOU TO ULTIMATELY TELL ME THERE IS.

The believers are teeming with hypocrites.

[kit_cebu]

not to mention asking a question that already has a "definitive" answer para nila....

[yanong_banikanhon]

so kana di ay imong atheism sir or whatever belief nimo sir is nothing more than just a product of chemical states. so ayaw lang padala sigoro ana sir kay na high ra ka sa chemicals mao ng you think atheism or impersonalism tinood but in fact produkto sa chemical firing ra diay na siya. no offesne sir ha. mora ba kanang na boang ka sa drugs bisan onsa na lang imong makita prodokto sa Chemicals pero katong imong mga nakita dili diay to tinood.

Tua ra! Paskang igoa bay.

Dili gyud lagi mosalir kanang panglantaw sa mga atheist nga ang tanan mugna lang sa chemical process sa utok. Not all things are based on conventions. Dunay mga butang nga constant, universal and most of all immaterial (not made of matters). Usa na ana ang laws of logic nga maoy lintungay'ng basehanan pagtino unsa ang tinuod ug unsa ang bakak.

If the laws of logic trancends the material world dayag na lang nga dili ni minugna sa tawo ug bisan unsa pang nilalang. It should originate from someone who is not bounded by the material universe(s).

[treize]

Wow conversations are getting more interesting.. keep it up... can't read all of them for the mean time. I'm too busy drinking booze.. hehehe..