Right! They're Smartter Than atheists.

[Graceless]

What question? I thought that we already answered all of your objections. If you still have some, it would be helpful if you'd state them plainly instead of making oblique references.

And seriously, read the papers. Especially the sections about methodology. It's just rude to argue about something if you haven't even done the required reading. It makes you look stupid, and it wastes other peoples' time explaining things to you.

[gomtuu77]

What question? I thought that we already answered all of your objections. If you still have some, it would be helpful if you'd state them plainly instead of making oblique references.

And seriously, read the papers. Especially the sections about methodology. It's just rude to argue about something if you haven't even done the required reading. It makes you look stupid, and it wastes other peoples' time explaining things to you.

I've asked the question in every different way I can think of.  Here are examples of the progression...

1)  First, how did they find the 5 neurochemicals that you're speaking of?

2)  What was necessary for them to find them?

3)  In other words, how did they know what to look for?

4)  My point is simply, did they not require some kind of first person account from someone in order to be able to isolate the 5 neurochemicals?

5)  Wouldn't someone, at least initially, have had to be telling them what they were thinking or what they were feeling in order for them to correlate and identify the 5 neurochemicals in question?

6)  So you're saying they needed no 1st person response to stimuli to isolate the 5 neurochemicals?

7)  And you're saying they didn't correlate what they were seeing on the fMRI with any 1st person response to stimuli?

For obvious reasons no one wants to answer the questions.  They certainly like to reply, but not actually answer.  Ah well...

[ApostateLois]

What exactly are you expecting, magic? If you are even tempted to say yes, then you've essentially admitted that you haven't even tried to take anything seriously.

What is the difference between miracles and magic? They are both said to accomplish the impossible, both are said to be able to cause people to do things that can't be explained by the laws of nature. You know, if a guy walks on water, or changes water into wine, or causes a dead person to come back to life, I see no reason why you couldn't call it magic. Do you remember the story of Moses? There were certain miracles he performed that the king's magicians were easily able to replicate. Now, to an outsider, "miracle" and "magic" are just different terms for the same thing, and this story proves it. Since it is outsiders whom you are trying to convince of the reality of your God, you will simply have to accept this fact and explain to us why we should believe in magic. I wish that magic were real. I wish we really could say the right incantations or pray the correct words and have children be instantly healed of their diseases, but that never happens. Whether you pray to God, or invoke the powers of nature, the cancer-stricken child will remain ill, and likely get worse until she/he dies. At this point, the Christian claims that God DID answer the prayer, he just answered it with "No." But this is mere bullshittery designed to make it look as if God did something when he obviously did nothing. By the same reasoning, if someone were screaming for help in a burning building, and I didn't even bother calling 911, I could say that I DID answer their pleas, I just answered with "Fuck you, the answer is No."

[Graceless]

For obvious reasons no one wants to answer the questions.  They certainly like to reply, but not actually answer.  Ah well...

I've beaten the answers into your head the best that I know how. Either you're being deliberately dense because you don't want an answer, or there is some kind of spectacular communication failure going on.

No one wants to answer your questions because that would entail clicking on the links that were posted for your edification, scouring the material intended for your benefit, and then regurgitating said information to you in a simplified form like a mother bird feeding a chick. If you were genuinely curious about the topic and not just here to be smug, you'd read it yourself.

[Icarus]

So are you going to keep retreating from answering the question?  It's very simple...

And just to be clear, I am not attempting to create a weakness.  All I'm attempting to do is to make an important distinction that materialists skip past, ignore, or deny for a multiplicity of reasons.

No, I'm not going to answer the question because you've already told me you don't want the answer. God only helps those who helps themselves, and since you have yet to prove that I'm not your god, by your own logic that makes me your god. You're attempting to get out of educating yourself by making a point that isn't a point.

It's up to you to devise some kind of method. You were asking if theism or Christianity could be falsified. Part of my answer is that proving that God does not exist would be one way to do that very thing.

I'm your god until you falsify it, because you believe the burden of proof is not on the one making the claim. If you actually wanted any of your questions answered you'd spend an hour reading up on it, instead of begging people to educate you.

5)  Wouldn't someone, at least initially, have had to be telling them what they were thinking or what they were feeling in order for them to correlate and identify the 5 neurochemicals in question?

Did you not read my post earlier that said the number was 8 not 5? You responded to it so I'll have to assume you read it. Please improve your reading comprehension, this may be the thing that is causing you the most confusion.

[Solitary]

gomtuu77, please explain how you first knew there was a God? Was he sitting on a tree stump? Or was he found inside your material brain as a thought?  :roll:  Solitary

[Colanth]

gomtuu77, please explain how you first knew there was a God? Was he sitting on a tree stump? Or was he found inside your material brain as a thought?  :roll:  Solitary

He's not here to honestly answer our questions, he's here to dishonestly ask us questions in an unanswerable form so that he can at least believe that he did his best to make us "see the light".  Proselytizing 101.  Whether he changes our minds or not, he "spread the good news", so he gets the points.

[gomtuu77]

What exactly are you expecting, magic? If you are even tempted to say yes, then you've essentially admitted that you haven't even tried to take anything seriously.

What is the difference between miracles and magic? They are both said to accomplish the impossible, both are said to be able to cause people to do things that can't be explained by the laws of nature. You know, if a guy walks on water, or changes water into wine, or causes a dead person to come back to life, I see no reason why you couldn't call it magic. Do you remember the story of Moses? There were certain miracles he performed that the king's magicians were easily able to replicate. Now, to an outsider, "miracle" and "magic" are just different terms for the same thing, and this story proves it. Since it is outsiders whom you are trying to convince of the reality of your God, you will simply have to accept this fact and explain to us why we should believe in magic. I wish that magic were real. I wish we really could say the right incantations or pray the correct words and have children be instantly healed of their diseases, but that never happens. Whether you pray to God, or invoke the powers of nature, the cancer-stricken child will remain ill, and likely get worse until she/he dies. At this point, the Christian claims that God DID answer the prayer, he just answered it with "No." But this is mere bullshittery designed to make it look as if God did something when he obviously did nothing. By the same reasoning, if someone were screaming for help in a burning building, and I didn't even bother calling 911, I could say that I DID answer their pleas, I just answered with "Fuck you, the answer is No."

In the most basic sense, the difference between miracles and magic is the difference between nonfiction and fiction.  And as I've explained in other places, the idea of a miracle accomplishing the impossible is really a misnomer.  A person attempting to grapple with an action or event from a place of universal public & private ignorance, as to how it was accomplished, and utter impotence regarding your own ability or that of others, to accomplish the same; might well describe such an action or event in terms of impossibility.  But in terms of theological understandings over time, virtually all theologians have understood God's all-powerfulness (i.e. omnipotence) to refer to an ability to do all things that power can accomplish without violating His own nature or character.  In short, the fact that God could not lie, create squares without corners, produce one-ended sticks, create another God like Himself, or make Himself not exist was never considered to be an infringement upon the concept of God's omnipotence.  In that sense, strictly speaking, miracles are actually not the accomplishment of impossible things, though they may well be the accomplishment of things that are entirely impossible for you and I.

Magic is something of a different sort entirely. Most typically, it is a falsehood based on some level of deceit.  In other words, the things claimed to be done are not done in reality.  Beyond that, it can also refer to seemingly impossible things (i.e. for us) actually accomplished by lesser powers other than God (i.e. limited demonic powers).  But like I said, most typically, magic refers to little more than a fiction or a deceit.  So whether something is a miracle or magic does depend greatly upon whether the thing I question is truly accomplished and by who or what power.  The story of Moses actually just proves my point.  Assuming the story is true, the true miracle was carried out by the winner.  Pharoah's magicians were able to accomplish certain things, but in the end, they proved to be mere pretenders.  To the extent that their snakes were real, they were accomplishing their task by way of a lesser power that could not match or overcome the miraculous power of the one true God.

I don't have to accept the fact you speak of because I've explained that there is a qualitative difference between the two, which the story you mentioned illustrates.  I think there is good reason to believe in the existence of God for multiple reasons, and if His existence is a true fact, then there is little reason to deny His ability to perform tasks (i.e. miracles) that are far beyond our ability to explain and/or fully comprehend.

I agree with you that formulaic and simplistic understandings of both God, His power, and how it might be used is typically a mistake on the part of we humans.  Effective prayer depends far more on the purity of one's heart before God and the trust and devotion that one has to God Himself than it does on any formulaic incantations or right words we might say.  For example, my son was born premature, nearly died at the age of 1, and has spent almost 6 of the last 9 months in the hospital, much of that in a hospital ICU.  If fact he was just discharged yesterday after a 17-day stay.  I want nothing more than for him to be healed and for this burden to be taken from my family.  However, I also know that God may have morally sufficient reasons for not conceding to my wishes, and because I have such deep trust in His character and intentions; I am content to trust Him as my family and I attempt to love and care for my suffering little boy.  That's not to pat myself or anyone else on the back, but it is simply to demonstrate that a proper understanding of the connection between God's power and the prayer of a Christian has little in common with magic or your particular conception of what you'd like miracles to be.

Regarding what you term "bullshittery", I can only say this.  God can choose to say "No" or to not answer a particular prayer, as he's done in my life many times.  I'm not aware of that response or non-response as having been designed by me or anyone else to make God look any particular way.  From my perspective, God doesn't need my help to look good or bad.  I talk to people about God out of a sense of gratitude and a desire to act in obedience.  In addition, I feel compassion for those who don't understand and do not know Him.  I will say that in hindsight, I can see the many positives that have come from non-answers to prayer, and the many disastrous circumstances that would have sprung up in my life had my desires been fulfilled.  I wouldn't even be alive today, had I been given what I wanted.  I can't say that with certitude, since I'm speaking of a counter-factual, but I can say with a high level of confidence that I wouldn't have survived my own desires based upon what I know about myself during given periods of time in my life.

Regarding your very last statement, I can only ask...what's your point?  So you can say no, and God can say no.  So?  What follows from that?  The point I am making is that even when someone does not receive an answer to prayer, there is often very good things that result.  It has been my experience that I have learned the most and grown more as a human being during the difficult and painful times in my life than I ever did when life was easy and things were going well.  What's the old saying?  Something like 'Winning is easy.  It's in losing that you really have to work hard.'  So I say, take that for what's it's worth.  Any Christian worth his salt isn't going to candy-coat anything for you.  Believing in God or becoming a follower of Christ might unleash a torrent of burning questions that a person has never really had before.  The reason isn't because they hadn't thought of or asked them.  But most often, it's because, for the first time, they are actually seeking answers.

I hope that helps explain a few things.

[gomtuu77]

For obvious reasons no one wants to answer the questions.  They certainly like to reply, but not actually answer.  Ah well...

I've beaten the answers into your head the best that I know how. Either you're being deliberately dense because you don't want an answer, or there is some kind of spectacular communication failure going on.

No one wants to answer your questions because that would entail clicking on the links that were posted for your edification, scouring the material intended for your benefit, and then regurgitating said information to you in a simplified form like a mother bird feeding a chick. If you were genuinely curious about the topic and not just here to be smug, you'd read it yourself.

This is entirely false.  That's because I'm not questioning the underlying science at all.  My question is a logical one.  Unfortunately, no one seems to want to approach it, likely because they know what it means and don't want to admit it.

[Sargon The Grape]

In the most basic sense, the difference between miracles and magic is the difference between nonfiction and fiction.

[youtube:2mb7v9pz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA2GOIKzjI[/youtube:2mb7v9pz]

Are you for real?

[gomtuu77]

No, I'm not going to answer the question because you've already told me you don't want the answer.

I've told you nothing of the kind.  I am quite anxious for an answer, but you keep wanting to examine the science, when my question isn't about the science at all.  My question is about logical categories.  It's really quite simple.

God only helps those who helps themselves, and since you have yet to prove that I'm not your god, by your own logic that makes me your god.

This is also false, for there is no human being that can help himself.  If we could help ourselves, there would have been no reason for Christ.

You're attempting to get out of educating yourself by making a point that isn't a point.

I have no qualms with the underlying science, so why would I be trying to get out of educating myself?  I don't think that they are wrong about the 8 not 5 neurochemicals for example (Ha ha ha!).  Your assertion indicates that you either haven't understood what I'm asking, or you do understand what I'm asking and simply don't want to admit to the answer.  I'm not taking exception with the science itself though.  If that's what you think, then you're mistaken.

I'm your god until you falsify it, because you believe the burden of proof is not on the one making the claim. If you actually wanted any of your questions answered you'd spend an hour reading up on it, instead of begging people to educate you.

Why would anyone concede to this assertion?  Why would your being anyone's God be the default position of reality?  I'd only spend an hour reading if I had a question about the science.  Since my question isn't about the science, reading wouldn't do me a great deal of good.  I'm asking questions that are simple enough to be answered with one word or a simple sentence.

Did you not read my post earlier that said the number was 8 not 5? You responded to it so I'll have to assume you read it. Please improve your reading comprehension, this may be the thing that is causing you the most confusion.

Since you have yet to demonstrate comprehension of any of the questions I've asked, I could certainly say the same thing.  I actually find this entire display pretty amusing at this point.

[gomtuu77]

In the most basic sense, the difference between miracles and magic is the difference between nonfiction and fiction.

Are you for real?

Who wants to know?

[MrsSassyPants]

I don't need christs help sir. I enjOy beING imPerFect.  Your just brainwashed.  Ever thought of that possibility?

[Icarus]

I've told you nothing of the kind.  I am quite anxious for an answer, but you keep wanting to examine the science, when my question isn't about the science at all.  My question is about logical categories.  It's really quite simple.

By continuing to ask me to hold your hand when I've already provided you with a list of resources is you telling me you don't want to learn. You're question is about their method, which is provided in the methods section of the paper. I've told you this several times but you don't quite seem to grasp it.

This is also false, for there is no human being that can help himself.  If we could help ourselves, there would have been no reason for Christ.

I needed a good laugh, thank you for providing the means.

I have no qualms with the underlying science, so why would I be trying to get out of educating myself?  I don't think that they are wrong about the 8 not 5 neurochemicals for example (Ha ha ha!).  Your assertion indicates that you either haven't understood what I'm asking, or you do understand what I'm asking and simply don't want to admit to the answer.  I'm not taking exception with the science itself though.  If that's what you think, then you're mistaken.

Again, I've told you several times I don't understand what your asking because it doesn't make any sense. If I asked you how many hornets fit into the mouth of a snugafoo you would be confused right? That is basically what you've been asking me. I read your 7 step thing and it didn't make what your asking any clearer.

Why would anyone concede to this assertion?  Why would your being anyone's God be the default position of reality?  I'd only spend an hour reading if I had a question about the science.  Since my question isn't about the science, reading wouldn't do me a great deal of good.  I'm asking questions that are simple enough to be answered with one word or a simple sentence.

I'm glad you now understand the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, now prove your god.

Since you have yet to demonstrate comprehension of any of the questions I've asked, I could certainly say the same thing.  I actually find this entire display pretty amusing at this point.

You should find it very amusing, the seriousness of this conversation went out the window as soon as you started talking about snugafoos. Here I'll help you out by going step by step through this thing.

1) First, how did they find the 5 neurochemicals that you're speaking of?

Methods section of the scientific papers.

2) What was necessary for them to find them?

Introduction section of the scientific papers.

3) In other words, how did they know what to look for?

Introduction section of the scientific papers.

4) My point is simply, did they not require some kind of first person account from someone in order to be able to isolate the 5 neurochemicals?

No, if you do fMRI's of several hundred brains when husband and wife are kissing, parents are caring for their child and others (I have no idea if these are the specific ones, if you want those see the methods section of the scientific papers)

5) Wouldn't someone, at least initially, have had to be telling them what they were thinking or what they were feeling in order for them to correlate and identify the 5 neurochemicals in question?

No, because if hundreds of people are showing exactly the same results in a given situation where love is being expressed, there isn't a need for that. They often do this through a double blind test so the participants don't know what the experiment actually is (or are told a lie) thus they can't attempt to manipulate the results. Do this 100 times and you have evidence.

6) So you're saying they needed no 1st person response to stimuli to isolate the 5 neurochemicals?

That's the joy of science, we aren't reliant on the honesty of people. If we were, we would be religion.

7) And you're saying they didn't correlate what they were seeing on the fMRI with any 1st person response to stimuli?

This is answered in 6). Do you now understand why reading the papers would have answered all your questions? This is why I didn't understand your questions, they are all answered by the papers. What really confuses me is why you think the papers wouldn't have answered these questions, when you've never read a scientific paper.

[MrsSassyPants]

If your objective is to argue, then you came to the rt spot JESUSFREAK LOON.