- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Human evolution: astounding new story of the origin of our species
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:44 am to LSURep864
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:44 am to LSURep864
quote:
Just that the person I responded to, had no basis to claim a deity behaved morally wrong.
Incorrect, the basis would be the theists own religious moral system.
Use their own moral system to show how its inconsistent with their gods behavior.
You're probably confusing that with atheists making objective moral claims.
1
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:44 am to Azkiger
quote:
Wow.
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
quote:
The Science of Reincarnation UVA psychiatrist Jim Tucker investigates children’s claims of past lives
by SEAN LYONS
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=La8vG4mA0is
quote:
Evidence of Reincarnation in Childhood by Dr. Jim Tucker (Full Presentation)
51,372 views 528 26 Share Save Report Things Are Changing Productions SUBSCRIBE
Published on Sep 7, 2016
"From the 2014 Synchronicity Symposium © Gary S. Bobroff 2016 LINK (Audio quality improves at 5 minutes). Jim B. Tucker, M.D. is Bonner-Lowry Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia. He is continuing the work of Ian Stevenson at the UVA Division of Perceptual Studies with children who report memories of previous lives. His overview of the research, Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives, was published in 2005 and has been translated into ten languages. His latest book, Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives, is a collection of recent American cases he has studied
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:45 am to Boatshoes
quote:
Progressive Atheist: Criticizes God for the 10th plague of Egypt. Supports planned parenthood.
The inverse is just as ridiculous.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:49 am to ThinePreparedAni
So a kid's overactive imagination is your basis for consciousness arising outside of our brain?
I don't feel like following you down that unfalsifiable rabbit hole.
I don't feel like following you down that unfalsifiable rabbit hole.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:49 am to ThinePreparedAni
Since you started the conversation, you go first. Show where:
quote:
consciousness is primary. Our hardware (brains) tune into it. The signal continues when the hardware expires...
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:50 am to Azkiger
quote:
Incorrect, the basis would be the theists own religious moral system.
Use their own moral system to show how its inconsistent with their gods behavior.
You're probably confusing that with atheists making objective moral claims.
You are out in left field brah.
The guy I replied to said X action by God is screwed up.
Saying an action is screwed up is making an objective moral claim.
You just jumped in, without reading anything clearly. Based on your incoherent replies you clearly think I'm addressing you. I'm not, and was not.
Read my original post, then read the the person I replied to. Then don't bother replying because "DOES GOD EXIST?" threads on tiger droppings are about as productive as congress.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:
t’s amazing the lengths people go to in order to reject their creator.
It's amazing the lengths people go to in order to insist that God conform to THEIR beliefs.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:51 am to Boatshoes
quote:
Progressive Atheist ... Supports planned parenthood
Citation needed.
Also how many progressives support the constitution and votes for Trump?
But I get it, it's much easier to form a worldview by painting with a large brush.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:52 am to Kentucker
quote:
Since you started the conversation, you go first. Show where:
Look a few posts up for starters
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:56 am to LSURep864
quote:
The guy I replied to said X action by God is screwed up.
Saying an action is screwed up is making an objective moral claim.
Not necessarily. People make subjective judgements all the time. Did he claim objectivity? If not you've just assumed it.
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 10:21 am
Posted on 4/3/20 at 9:59 am to ThinePreparedAni
No, that’s crap. I’m familiar with Dr. Tucker’s work. I even participated in it. He’s not making the claims that you’re illustrating. Rather, like a good scientist, he’s documenting cases while staying open to all possibilities.
Now, show us how consciousness exists outside the body and the brain “tunes into it.”
Now, show us how consciousness exists outside the body and the brain “tunes into it.”
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:01 am to Azkiger
quote:No, you're incorrect because you haven't thought through what your basis for rationality is and whether or not that basis, itself, is rational.
Incorrect.
God provides the preconditions that are necessary for rationality. Not only does rationality as an immaterial concept not make sense in a strictly material world, there is no imperative to be rational in a random and meaningless world that came about by chance. Whether someone is rational or not in such a worldview simply irrelevant and therefore trying to be rational to convince others to be rational is an arbitrary endeavor.
quote:See here's the confusion. You made it sound like it's OK for humans to murder other humans, and specifically children, in a Biblical worldview.
Noah's flood, 10th plague of Egypt, we've had conversations about instances like those and you eventually got to a point where you agrees that the most moral response to instances like that was to kill children (because that's what God did).
You can scoff at Evolution as nonbelievers grasping at straws and doing everything they can to deny a creator, but theres a certain level or irony when you'll agree that killing children is moral in order to maintain your own beliefs.
You're conflating the authority of God to justly take the lives of His own creations and the lack of authority for humans to unjustly or unlawfully (according to God's law) take the lives of other humans. That's why I asked for clarification.
It's "moral" for God to execute justice against sinners. It's not moral for humans to unlawfully kill their children.
quote:It's both correct and very relevant when you make moral judgements against me or God. In fact, to make any moral judgements you have to borrow from Christianity's objective morality. And even when you borrow from it to attempt to show how the accounts in the Bible are contrary to that moral standard, you still can't do it because you don't even understand the standard you're borrowing.
Both irrelevant and incorrect. Let's assume it's true though, all I have to do is borrow Christianity's objective morality and show how they're (the aforementioned instances) mutually exclusive to make my point.
You think that God is on equal footing with man when it comes to taking lives and that it's immoral for Him to do it or to command other humans to be the hands of His justice from time to time because if we can't do it, He can't, either. That's incorrect, and it's the basis for why you are wrong about your moral judgements. You have no objective standard to judge by and you misunderstand the nature of the only objective moral standard that exists.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:02 am to Kentucker
How did you participate in Dr Tucker’s work?
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:02 am to ThinePreparedAni
quote:
We know so very little...
This.
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:03 am to Azkiger
quote:
IQ is highly dependent on childhood nutrition.
Oh Dear God, it was an analogy about the stupididty of the H sapien timeline
And FYI, the 1st guy that discovered metallurgy had the same childhood nutrition as his ancestors had for 100,000 years, and yet no metallurgy
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:05 am to Kentucker
quote:
Physics is reality.
The reality that you can perceive...
I also take offense to using the word reality which most people do not understand when they wield it..
quote:
It is important to realize that “reality” was a fluid concept before the scientific revolution arrogated to scientists the final word. Reality was composed of both natural and spiritual phenomena, with religious concepts at the heart of the worldview. The very word real is problematic, for it derives from an Indo-European root that has given Romance languages, for instance Spanish, the word real as in “royal” as well as real for “reality,” thus leading us to understand that “reality” was whatever the “royal” said it was. Reality, in this case, is not what we experience; reality is a social construct of science, technology, and cultural attitudes that has been crafted by specialists who are in the employ—via government grants—of the state, i.e., of the “royalty,” and which can change considerably from culture to culture, society to society.
Civilian authorities realize, however, that personal experience can be in conflict with—or entirely opposed to—what the state considers discipline of psychology comes in. Psychology picks up where religion left off: it fills a vacuum created by the scientific revolution. Psychologists can point to behavioral motivations, unconscious states, instincts left over from an earlier, prehistoric age, etc., as the malleable and therefore faulty mechanisms that cause us to see things that are not there, in the sense that they are not part of the sanctioned reality of science and state. Love—which for Marsilio Ficino, Giordano Bruno, and so many others of the Renaissance and the centuries since then was a force of nature, a magical emotion that effected communication and influence across time and space, even “spooky action at a distance”—became something entirely personal, i.e., psychological, and incapable of being measured. Love was analyzed as being the result of a complex of hormones, pheromones, and deep-seated, unresolved psychological conflicts and neuroses, of which Freud’s Oedipal and Electra complexes serve as examples. In their zeal to be accepted as scientists, since science is the only game in town, psychologists attempted to impose standards of measurement and predictability onto the human mind, resulting—after World War II—in the first-ever Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-1).
Look at how currently "reality" is being shaped...
What about quantum physics? Is it also a reflection of the truth/reality???
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 11:17 am
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:08 am to Azkiger
quote:Yes, there are majorities and I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning your specific statistic and wanted to make sure you weren't just throwing a number against a wall to justify your position.
Pew poll: America
They differentiate between different Christians sects but even then you're talking about overwhelming majorities. The same trend is seen in other countries as well.
But like I said, it's irrelevant because truth isn't determined by majority rule and it isn't determined by who your parents are or what they believed, which is why I mentioned missionaries and the early Christian Church.
quote:I think you're having an issue with cause and effect here.
Because, as it turns out, 5-10% (on average) of a community is still a lot.
In a village of 1,000 that's 50-100. 500-1,000 for a town of 10,000.
To answer my own question, missionaries exist to teach people about the Faith and to show them the truth that others may not know or believe. It's not a matter of percentages but a matter of truth.
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 10:21 am
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:17 am to Kentucker
quote:
Now, show us how consciousness exists outside the body and the brain “tunes into it.”
Give me some time (not an easy question you are asking). I will bump tonight or this weekend (and not evade/deflect/dismiss questions as you are...)
Start here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/
quote:
COGNITION
Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?
Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about “panpsychism”
By Gareth Cook on January 14, 2020
Reference Huxley "brain as a reducing valve"
Same analogy I am trying to make...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-psychedelics-expand-mind-reducing-brain-activity/
quote:
Do Psychedelics Expand the Mind by Reducing Brain Activity?
New evidence suggests drugs like LSD open the doors of perception by inhibiting parts of the brain
By Adam Halberstadt, Mark Geyer on May 15, 2012
quote:
The English author Aldous Huxley believed that the brain acts as a “reducing valve” that constrains conscious awareness, with mescaline and other hallucinogens inducing psychedelic effects by inhibiting this filtering mechanism. Huxley based this explanation entirely on his personal experiences with mescaline, which was given to him by Humphrey Osmond, the psychiatrist who coined the term psychedelic. Even though Huxley proposed this idea in 1954, decades before the advent of modern brain science, it turns out that he may have been correct. Although the prevailing view has been that hallucinogens work by activating the brain, rather than by inhibiting it as Huxley proposed, the results of a recent imaging study are challenging these conventional explanations.
The study in question was conducted by Dr. Robin Carhart-Harris in conjunction with Professor David Nutt, a psychiatrist who was formerly a scientific advisor to the UK government on drugs policy. Drs. Carhart-Harris, Nutt, and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the effects of psilocybin on brain activity in 30 experienced hallucinogen users. In this study, intravenous administration of 2 mg of psilocybin induced a moderately intense psychedelic state that was associated with reductions of neuronal activity in brain regions such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).
This post was edited on 4/3/20 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:28 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Your take on this is so bizarre. I mean, it makes zero sense.
Yet it makes sense to you that we, in our current form, existed for 400,000 years and couldnt develop a system of counting? Money? Written language? Reading? Construction? Use of animals? Farming?????
That the smartest man to live during that period got up each and every day for 50 years and learned/passed on nothing? And that behavior went on for over 11,000 generations. With no discernible improvements? No written legacy? No group fortifications?
bullshite. Didnt happen
Posted on 4/3/20 at 10:54 am to RobbBobb
quote:Well, we did not exist in our current form that long. But, you were saying this when the time period was much shorter.
Yet it makes sense to you that we, in our current form, existed for 400,000 years and couldnt develop a system of counting? Money? Written language? Reading? Construction? Use of animals? Farming?????
quote:Yes.
That the smartest man to live during that period got up each and every day for 50 years and learned/passed on nothing? And that behavior went on for over 11,000 generations. With no discernible improvements? No written legacy? No group fortifications?
quote:Of course it did
bullshite. Didnt happen
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News