420 Responses to “Atheists’ Billboard!”

1. dawnisis says:

   January 21, 2008 at 10:16 pm

   plausible and materialist explanation for the placebo effect

   The power of suggestion on the brain. You can turn a tape on at night and have it tell you to change behavior or learn a language. This doesn’t mean you have a “soul” that will become immortal after death.

   or how the symptoms of OCD are managed by the individual??or how phobias are treated with psychoanalysis and not drugs?

   Through thinking and self examination can a person change behavior.
2. dawnisis says:

   January 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm

   jcc,

   You make all kinds of insulting statements all the time as well, stop acting like you are above making snide remarks and just get on with the discussion. I apologized and I am doing so again. Which is more than you have ever done after insulting me.

   Let it go already.
3. KnowledgeIsPower says:

   January 21, 2008 at 10:20 pm

   Don?t know?can?t remember any of it. Now if I could only stop being aware of that real, quantifiable time gap in my consciousness?

   I don’t remember anything at all. It was more like going to sleep, then waking up, without quite realizing I had fallen asleep in the first place. I mean, without outside verification for the period of time you had been out, how could you possibly know how long you were unconscious?

   I disagree that it?s self-serving if restoration of the relationship is truly desired.

   If restoration of the relationship is the goal, it would be self-serving. I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on that point. Or maybe we will. I really can’t say.

   Explain to me again how God?s grace is limited?

   If faith is a requirement, and there are those who do not have faith (for various reasons), then to whom the grace is given is indeed limited.

   I fail to see how the refusing is morally superior to the martyrdom.

   I’ll bring it up again later when I figure out a more effect way to convey my meaning.

   May I point out that your awareness of, and frustration with, your imperfect mental faculties is itself a manifestation of the distinction of your mind from your brain?

   No more or less than the frustration a person would have with the any other physical imperfection. I think Dawnisis did bring up a relevant point. Why should animals be viewed any differently than humans when their brains work in precisely the same way?

   But with an overriding, self-aware, consciousness that is acutely aware of the physical dysfunction resulting from its cerebral impairment.

   All sensory information is received from the body by each hemisphere. If that information is then transfered to the mind, there should be no reason for each hemisphere to be unaware of the other’s information unless each hemisphere’s awareness is inseperable from the brain. If you mean to say that a person’s will is their soul, the ability of each hemisphere to act independently of the other indicates that they each would have seperate wills or minds.
4. dawnisis says:

   January 21, 2008 at 10:21 pm

   jcc asked twice:

   Please point out where I?ve insulted you.

   P.S.
   You never did point out where I insulted you.

   The following I cut from THIS THREAD ALONE:

   you are either incapable of comprehending my counter-arguments or you simply ignore them

   Your problem lies in your inability to acknowledge that the evidence you cite

   This was quite a run-on sentence which really didn?t have a coherent point

   Another bigoted question of yours

   that?s considerable evidence to show your lack of genuine curiosity and objectivity

   they indicate your lack of desire to carry on a meaningful discussion here.

   You?re too consumed with hatred

   It is you who has closed her mind here, not me.

   I don?t lose sleep after reading your infantile rants at me

   If anything, I?ve tried to point out to you the flaws in your arguments

   your bigoted rage borne of ignorance of me continues to blind you to objectively trying to see

   until you can conquer that hatred

   another typical, erroneous assumption you?ve made

   as always, you either can?t comprehend what I write or are intentionally ignoring it.

   you?re clearly not interested in wanting to understand my position

   you smugly decry them as ?fantasy.?

   this is why it?s useless trying to argue with you?all you?re doing is engaging in a one-sided monolog.

   which is something you?re clearly incapable of understanding or willing to concede.

   It?s fascinating how atheists claim to be so ?tolerant,? ?open-minded?, ?free-thinking? and ?inclusive? but when it comes to applying those character traits to anyone they disagree with they quickly show themselves to be the antithesis of all that

   Like I said, the epitome of hypocrisy.

   I have admittedly returned venom with full fire-power and I don’t deny it nor am I sorry. Once again jcc proves what a liar he is.

   From Websters:

   Main Entry:
   in?sult
   archaic : to behave with pride or arrogance : vaunt
   transitive verb
   : to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly
   synonyms see offend

   Still wanna pretend you haven’t insulted me?
   01/06/08 @ 08:50
   Comment from: dawnisis [Member] ? http://aiaproject.blogspot.com/
   This is actually hilarious. I didn’t go far enough back to the top of the thread to cut the rest of the insults jcc made:

   betray the ubiquitous and benighted bigotry of atheists

   I wonder if these atheists will ever dare to venture into reality long enough

   does your bigotry borne of your ignorance make you too dumb to be director of AA?

   as long as you wallow in your blinded, self-absorption

   and if you ever happen to be struck by an urge to enlighten yourself objectively

   Like I said, blinded self-absorption:

   yet another glittering example of how can?t I possibly expect to be able to argue with someone who thinks that that?s an ?intelligent? reply
5. KnowledgeIsPower says:

   January 21, 2008 at 10:31 pm

   I am? Then can you come up with a plausible and materialist explanation for the placebo effect??or how the symptoms of OCD are managed by the individual??or how phobias are treated with psychoanalysis and not drugs?

   I don’t think I’ve ever tried. If you’d like, I’ll add that to my reading list so we can discuss it later. Its been about four years since I attended a Psycology class.
6. dawnisis says:

   January 22, 2008 at 12:19 am

   Then can you come up with a plausible and materialist explanation for the placebo effect??or how the symptoms of OCD are managed by the individual??or how phobias are treated with psychoanalysis and not drugs?

   I would point out here that although jcc never wrote the phrase subconscious or unconscious mind this statement he made seems to indicate that is what he is equating with a soul.

   Freud coined this term and it has never been proven to actually exist. It merely means “thinking done without being consciously aware of it”. It is not a separate being or the “real” you. It is used to describe mental states that occur without conscious knowledge.

   Freud originally proposed this term to indicate repressed memories, but the logical explanation of repressed memories is that you did think about the unpleasant memories and it was so upsetting/disturbing you commanded yourself to never think on it again. (a conscious act)

   The memory you refused to think on again was important for freud to “bring out” and he would use such methods as hypnotism to get you to over-ride your decision not to think about it again. Once he got a patient to think about the memory he could then discuss and reason with them until the memory (and the actual event that caused the memory) stopped affecting you negatively when you thought about it and he would elimate any conditioned negative emotional responses the event caused i.e. guilt, low self-esteem.

   Thought commands to the brain are extremely effective such as in the case of commanding yourself never to think about specific memories. This is also why a placebo works because you THINK it is the real medicine. You “tell” your brain through thinking how effective the medicine will be and your brain begins to release or reduce chemicals or for example command the body to up it’s white blood cell count. I actually think thinking itself is usually the best treatment for illness.

   This concept of “mind” is not, nor was it intended to be a code-word for soul. It’s just a psychological term.

   If the “soul” or “subconscious-mind” was signalling the brain or vice-versa it would be detectable but it’s not. JCC used the example that the “mind” is the one sense data is transmitted to for it to decide emotion but this transmition, via electical impulse, would be detectable by an EEG and we would thereby know the exact location of this “subconscious mind”, but that’s not what happens.

   The brain receives waves and translates them, this translation is considered by the frontal lobe or appropriate brain area and then thoughts are created and based upon your conscious thinking emotions are created and chemicals released.

   There is no subconscious mind involved in this scenario. It is just you thinking and consciously deciding your reaction.

   And as I pointed out animals have emotional responses as well.
7. dawnisis says:

   January 22, 2008 at 12:38 am

   This got me thinking about “will” being the possible soul but what is will?

   Will seems to be the same as desire. If you think about how you can move your hand or walk without considering every step that might lead one to think there is an unconscious mind controlling these activities, but the reality is that such things are LEARNED through repetition.

   A great example is video games, or specifically the video game controller, last year I bought my mommy an xbox 360 and she was very awkward with the controller and she had a real hard time at first, but now because of repetition she no longer has to consider which button to push. Same for learning musical instruments or talking.

   So “will or desire” may appear to be mysterious but when you consider the mystery you realize you in fact LEARNED to walk, you learned to talk, you learned to play the guitar. Repetition leads to instantaneous response time.

   It is a great function of the brain otherwise it would take 12 hours to take a shower if you had to stop and give specific commands for each little movement.

   And of course animals have will/desire as well.
8. karen says:

   January 22, 2008 at 12:52 am

   dawnisis

   Freud originally proposed this term to indicate repressed memories, but the logical explanation of repressed memories is that you did think about the unpleasant memories and it was so upsetting/disturbing you commanded yourself to never think on it again. (a conscious act)

   I have a lot of experience in this area. Unfortunately, the mind does not obey the command to “never” think of this again. Continual sensory input eventually overrides that command and forces the mind to revisit, sometimes with terrible consequences. It is true however, that one can work to desensitize and lessen the effects the memories have. It’s a long and arduous process.

   If jcc equates the subconscious with the soul, I’d like to know if that’s who he thinks does the (Sleep)dreaming. And if so, why would the soul dream?
9. KnowledgeIsPower says:

   January 22, 2008 at 9:58 am

   http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/brain-region-central-to-placebo-effect-identified.html

   Very interesting.
10. dawnisis says:

    January 22, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    karen,

    You certainly worded it much better than I did. I made my description seem to permanent and easy when people repress memories. You are right the memories still seep out and effect the person which is why they usually need professional help.

    I didn’t mean to simplify it so much. Just wanted to point out the reason freud invented the term and that it was never meant to imply “soul”.
11. dawnisis says:

    January 22, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    knowledge,

    Thx for the link. The placebo effects the same area as a promise of money in the brain.

    The researchers found that the people who showed greater activation of the NAC during this reward-expectation task also showed a greater anticipation of effectiveness of a placebo.

    The “reward-expectation” thoughts cause the brain to begin acting out the thinking occurring.

    The brain is a marvelous organ and I can certainly understand why it seems so mysterious to some people but thx to EEG the mysteries are being solved.

    I am sure animals have the brain area as well because pets sure do like reward-expectation. In fact my kitties try to get their treats every time I go into the kitchen

    Bad kitties!
12. dawnisis says:

    January 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Dreams can be viewed on EEG machines and animals have dreams as well. So the “soul” isn’t responsible.

    I recently watched the first 2 series of “Hero” on DVD. It’s about people who discover their super-powers and I spent the entire week having the best dreams of my life because of that show

    Video games do the same thing to me if I play for many hours. I end up acting out the game in my dream which is also big fun.

    I don’t think my soul, unless it really likes tv and video games is responsible for my dreams. Probably too much sensory information causes the brain to engage in some kind of organizing/discarding activity.
13. dawnisis says:

    January 22, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    knowledge,

    Your link to the study of the placebo effect activating the reward/expectation section of the brain makes me think if you hooked up religious people to an EEG machine the same area of the brain would be activated when their religion was mentioned.

    Religion is all about reward/expectation and because they believe this the brain acts on those thoughts just like a placebo.

    From the discussions with the religious folk here you can see how their brain refuses to follow their thinking through when it contradicts their god idea.

    Not to pick on jcc but he refused to finish this discussion even after I apologized and pointed out he was equally guilty of making rude comments. He needed an excuse to stop because his brain demands that he not go further.

    Just a theory I will look around online because I vaguely remember reading a study about religious people hooked up to EEGs to see which sections of the brain contemplates god.
14. dawnisis says:

    January 22, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Well the only neuroscience studies I found were on people who meditate and those that claim to have mystical experiences i.e. hearing the voice of god.

    I thought the wiki section on cognitive dissonance really explains why religious people experience a type of denial when presented with conflicting ideas:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    This seems to be extremely relevant to the behavior of the religious:

    Social psychologist Leon Festinger first proposed the theory in 1957 after the publication of his book When Prophecy Fails, observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader’s prophecy failed. The failed message of earth’s destruction, purportedly sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake

    Near the bottom “self concept” is mentioned:

    He said that cognitive dissonance did not arise because people experience dissonance between conflicting cognitions; rather, it surfaced when people saw their actions as conflicting with their self-concept. Thus, in the Festinger and Carlsmith study, Aronson would interpret the dissonance as between “I am an honest person” and “I lied to someone about finding a task interesting”. Thus, according to Aronson, a person would not experience dissonance in this situation if his self-concepts involved perception of himself as a liar.

    The religious people identify themselves, their very lives and future as their religious beliefs. It would make sense that if their “self-concept” is intricately linked with their god idea it would lead their brain to reject all contradicting information without considering it.

    For example evolution is perceived by the religious as a personal attack on their self-concept which is why they fall into a total immovable state of denial even though they are aware they lack the necessary scientific knowledge to make such a denial.
15. jcc says:

    January 23, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    dawnisis:

    How can you say I didn’t give your hypothesis thought? I researched and thought about it most of the day.

    You no doubt did. But you did so with the intent to prove me wrong (apparently at all costs)?not to determine if my argument had any merit?and therein lies the problem I have in trying to have a discussion with you. Your mind has been made up and you refuse to consider my assertions from an objective point of view?you admitted as much with:
    

    I already know you will come back with more unprovable hypothesis-tic BS that you are making up on the fly with zero evidence

    Time is short for me again today, but I hope to elaborate more on this shortly.
16. dawnisis says:

    January 23, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    jcc,

    But you did so with the intent to prove me wrong

    I just don’t even know how to respond to your baseless allegations. I spent time researching and thinking to understand our discussion so that I could add my thoughts. My mind does not revolve around unmovable concepts.

    My thinking is fluid and evolving and changes by leaps and bounds every day I am alive. You don’t know me so don’t tell me my motives for my conclusions.

    The conclusions I outlined above are the result of my thinking, which you still haven’t addressed. Your continued martyr act and refusal to accept my apology is transparent and sad.

    Either make your counter arguments or don’t but I am boring of your tantrums.
17. dawnisis says:

    January 23, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    If your hypothesis can’t stand up under critical thinking then it wasn’t a well thought out theory to begin with. It’s not like I only found one or two contradictions your entire soul idea is flat out erroneous.

    I didn’t even realize until the end you were trying to equate the subconscious mind with a soul, which is ludicrous because it is just a psychological term not a scientific one.

    It basically has no meaning in reality. It used to describe thinking done without being aware of it. I addressed that above, but will add most decisions are made in split seconds and are not recorded to memory because it isn’t necessary for your brain to remember them. Other functions are carried out automatically by the nervous system.

    There is no mystery or subconscious “mind” freud didn’t have access to EEGs or advanced neuroscience so he coined a term. That’s it.

    So your entire soul hypothesis was based on an abstract term never intended to mean “soul”.
18. dawnisis says:

    January 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Let me just clarify I am not saying there are not things going on “behind the scenes” in our brain i.e. reacting to a hormone secretion etc.

    There are lots of things the brain does without our conscious input, if it didn’t we’d have to make crazy decisions like how many heart beats per minute we need to keep our heart rate steady.

    But these functions do not add up to the “soul idea” you believe which is becoming a conscious immortal that will have human-like form, a set of memories separate from the brain, and continue after death to have sense experiences without the necessary organs or a brain to translate the signals.

    My conclusion is if there is a soul it is pure energy and I also think this energy could be what gives us the capacity for abstract thought during life.

    After death however without a brain or physical being this “soul” would cease to be you in any definable way. In fact it may just join other soul energy and do things like supply the energy in nature, but you would be totally unaware of any of that because you would have no brain.
19. dawnisis says:

    January 23, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    Reincarnation becomes a possibility at that point via the energy entering other living things. I would not claim that without evidence but that is more likely than the heaven scenario which you are trying to hypothesize.
20. Ralph says:

    June 19, 2008 at 12:00 am

    If you found this book intriguing, you will definitely enjoy reading My Stroke of Insight – a Brain Scientist’s Personal Journey” by Jill Bolte Taylor, and her talk on TED dot com about her stroke which is an 18 minute talk you Must Not Miss! (there’s a reason it’s been forwarded friend to friend millions of times!). When you read the book and see the TEDTalk, you’ll understand why this Harvard brain scientist was named Time Magazine 100 Most Influential People. Her unique experience, combined with her perspective as a neuroanatomist, and her sensitivity and awareness (not to mention beautiful writing style!) has produced something so powerful and so revolutionary that I think it’s going to become a transformational movement in itself. Oprah also did four interviews with her (that I was able to download on the Oprah website) that are also worth checking out. I am trying to share Dr Taylor’s story with as many people as I can because I truly believe if everyone saw it the world would be so much better and people would love one another and no longer fight.