Meta:No, there's no basis for that. We don't have a part of the brain that lights up when we talk about UFOs. we don't have long term positive effects from seeing them.
So, what? The brain still perceives them.
No, if that was the case no one would ever claim there's a God part of the brain. There's clearly a distinction between the way one kind of speech or heading effects us than the way speech in general effects. With God talk there is a cluster around several areas in the perital lobe which is not there in other kinds of talk.
[quote[Um, such areas exist for most kinds of stimulation and feeling........[/quote]
No. Newberg says they don't. you are just gainsaying the evdience. why do you think Cheatergy and Newberg all the researchers research something that's not different than anything else and that is really well established.
If you really read the Newberg book you would have to know that.
If you had read any more books on this subject you would know why it did not matter.
that's not an answer, it's posturing. I've read several books and articles and written 50 page chapter on it. I don't' see any evidence that you read anything on it.
No, I answered that on carm
that's ridiculous. You have to answer them in this debate. that's totally a slough!
(1) Placebo is not a way of saying "not real." it's real, it's something in the mind that is really effecting the body.[/quote]
Yes, a belief causing an effect because the mid believes and not because there is anything actually in the pill; an atheist would compare you long term benefits to is because you have not established god is there.
Yes, an atheist would do that because atheists are idiots and they don't think. Atheists just look for excuses to let themselves off the hook. A real thinker would answer, which you did not do.
(1) no answer to the expectation argument: Placebo has to be expected. that's the point., they think it's meidicine. So something that is totally unexpected cannot be compared to placebo.
(2) Placebo is real, it's an actual case of mind over matter. It not a case of creating an illusion of something that's not real. So the arguemnt about opening receptors would apply the idea that it's just made up and not real would not apply.
(3) you have no studies and no data linking the two. you are using your on lay person uneducated understanding to make a clinical diagnosis of something that requires empirical studies.
You are still playing that really where you pretend you answered something because you mentioned it but you don't pay any attention to what yous say.
MEta:(2) you can't claim the placebo is just going to make everything in your head work. it's about medical so you can't apply it non medical. it's about controlling pain, you cannot show (there is no data to show) that it effects things like self actualization
(3) arguing from analogy (well they's both in the head so it must be the same) that's a fallacy
They are analogous not the same
I just showed why they are not analogs. admitting they are not the same is also admitting you don't have an argument. All you have is an analogy. analogies aren't proof it's a fallacy to argue from them.
(4) Placebo works by expectation, most RE does not come on by expectation it's usually totally surprising the first time.
Because no one grows up thinking god exists........
are you crazy? everyone in my childhood grew up thinking. everyone I ever knew did. Maybe you grew up with no no religious background but most people do.
that is also not an answer. In fact it helps me! you are answer adds weight to my argument that's not placebo. can't a genus like you see why?
and all other cause we know of are natural in origin.
Meta:No, you didn't take into account what I said. I answered this you are again pretending I didn't answer it.
Because you did not do so, as I explain in my other post.
liar you know I did butthole
Meta:(1) all things we know must come to us through this system. so just becasue it comes through doesn't mean it's only naturalistic
The most logical answer is that all come from natural sources and not god through this system. Not a problem for me logically.
Ok little fellow. I think you have a misconception about the natrue of arguments. I think that may be at the root of the whole problem. Since atheists don't like logic and cant' think they just don't understand how to work an argument.
See I just said something that answered you. It has to come through that anyway. that means it doesn't mother fucking matter if you say "it's naturalistic" because it doesn't answer my overall argument. So you can't just slough that off and say "i used the buzz word naturalistic and means I win." NO you have to academically answer what i just said. you have to show that it wouldn't come through that. otherwise it doesn't matter if it does.
here's an analogy to explain what i'm saying. Supposes the police are looking for robbery suspect and the witness says "he wore shoe." So they chasing off looking for some one wearing shoes. how many people would they find? a Whole bunch right. So they bring back person A and they say "this is him because he wears shoes." But his lawyer says "but almost everyone wears shoes so any suspect will wear shoes, that's not enough of an identification."
do you see the problem now? Its' like saying "all people who had religious experience also drank water. therefore it's just caused by drinking water. If it is something one does anyway and it would have to be that weather God did it or not then it's not an argument.
Can you really not understand what I'm saying? You have to answer that specific point. you can't keep just repeating the original argument you made. you have to answer that. that's debate.
META:(2) it could just be the way God did it, the real reason to think it's God not the quality of the immediate experince, but the long term positive effects.
Effects are the result of the experiences. If , as I have shown, the effects can be natural, and natural is the most logical explanation, we must then refer to all causes of such effects as logically natural.
think hard now, focus. If even miracles have to natural conduits, if any sort of contact with God has to come through natural chemitry of the brani, then saying it did int his case is not an answer to the arugment. do you understand? Its' like saying "he suspect wore shoes," but everyone wears shoes. do you get it?
The argument does not turn on the immediate experince. it turns on the long term consequences of having had it. can you not understand what 'm saying? do you understand the words I'm putting here? that means that to answer the argument you can't just asset that it's naturally caused just because the immediate experince goes through the brain chemistry because all experinces will do that. You have to deal with the long term effects.
you can't assert that they are naturalistic because nothing else produces them. Only the religiously oriented experiences do that. So you have to answer that argument. the thing about brain chemistry is not an answer.
Now don't just repeat your answer argument, you have to answer what I just said. do you understand it? Is it something you can't comprehend.
(4) Meta:No data has ever shown that lTPF can be produced from the artificially stimulated experinces.
Same experiences so I do not care.
not an answer so you lose the argument. So this is what debate is. you cant' keep repeat the same stupid ideas, you have respond to the new things. do you understand?
A good analogy only in that tv program is created by human minds.
(5) you are just turning on the tv and because you see a program you assume it originates in the box and not at a broadcast station.
that doesn't' affect the argument. It's a case of something the causality of which can be confused. So you are making a mistake about the causality in both cases. You are assuming that immediate results are proof of cause rather than must correlations.
do you understand those terms, cause and correlation?
that applies to miracles. I never said these are miracles.
God causing us to experience such things is a miracle.
No it is not. I explained that. you are making an assumption not in evidence.
I said God works in the natural,
Thats like saying "gravity works because of angels pulling things together". It can never be proven and it goes againt Occam's Razor, and is therefore illlogical.
that's an argument from analogy. you can't prove God doesn't working in the natural by mocking the concept. God created the natural world and it works the way God created it to work.
but what stands out and what can't be accounted for is the long term effects, becasue nothing else produces them and no one knows why they do. Until you answer that you have not answered the argument.
there's no reason to link it to miracles. you are trying argue that Hume can stop miracles because he knew best, the man was an ass, he knew nothing. he was smart alec alchi who hated God and was real stuck on himself. he knew nothing.
Hume s widely regarded as the most important philosopher ever to write in English. This is so wrong that anyone with any knowledge will laugh at you, even Christians admit he is one of the greats.
that's bull shit. he is not the most highly regarded by a long shot. Nothing he said is still important today. He was totally replaced by Kant. Even if that were true it wouldn't make him right about miracles. His argument is miracles is circular. and it doesn't prove anything.
How does it contradict?
David Hume on Miracles:
that right there contradicts what HRG said everything. so your great Guru says you are wrong do you not realize that?
Pay attention now:
(1) first line Hume says miracle violate the laws of nature.
(2) HRG says there are not prescritive laws of nature, he says there are only deiscriptions of behavior.
(3) I say if there are not laws against miracles then they might exist, there's no reason to say they don't other than you just haven't seen one. but others have.
(4) my argument doesn't turn on miracles.
He is also saying such a thing can never be shown to have happened and so do not functionally exist.
but his proof is circular. the only proof he offers is that he hasn't seen them so they must not happen thus any evidence for them has to be discounted up front without even examining it, then on the basis of that assertion he asserts there's no proof. circular.
no proof because he ruled out having any proof before anyone could examine the proof.
I'll put up a special post for this on adventure of faith. I don't want it here gumming up the works since it doesn't apply.
It does and you can't beat it IOW. You lose I'm afraid.
that's just the kind of little slough off bull shit hired raters have to pull because you can't answer a single argument. you haven't' you have not extend on one single argument I've mad but instead fail to get the drift on most of them\
O you lose I'm afraid. the person who can't extend the arguments or the answer the extensions loses. show me an singe extension you have answered? we have been through three rounds of extension you are still repeating the carp you said the first time.