Straight to the business at hand

[picklemonkey]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

you mean Cliff Notes. I just don't understand you Canadians sometimes.

[DancingQueen]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

ummm are there Coles Notes for this thread??

Way to much reading

[Corven]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15

im curious but what genre of music is Joy Electric

[Kinetic]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15

Honestly, I?m probably missing something here, but if I wanted serious and in-depth conversations aboutt religion, [MS] would not be the place I?d come to.

Not because I think people here aren?t intelligent enough for it, but simply because it is not the place for it.

[speciale]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15

how did you ever find that

[picklemonkey]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

[jarble187]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I know this thread is getting serious but for me [MS] is not the place I come to discuss GOD or for that matter, a "higher power"- maybe this forum is better suited-

http://www.zpoc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15

[KinKyJ]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

I have a few names and some papers written on the subject by some of the (considered) worlds best neurologists. I will try to find them and post them here. It is really a very interesting read if you are interestd in the brain that is.

goodie, more copy pastin'

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

http://www.sfn.org/ society for nueroscience

http://www.jneurosci.org/ journal of nueroscience online

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Talk to your local neuro surgeon or psychiatrist: emotions can be defined as chemical/neurobiological processes in the brain.

I did not say that emotions could not be defined in the brain. That is absolutely true and you will get no argument from me on that subject. The point I was making is that you can not prove at all that a persons outward expression is is their true thoughts. That is not measurable in any form other than taking their word for it.Unless there is a thought reading scientific test then you are still in the realm of no real physical tangible evidence of anything that goes on in a person mind.

I am not talking about the physical firing of nuerons and the such, of course that is recordable it is a physical/chemical reaction. I am talking about the thought that sets the firing into motion. That is in no wise recordable.

Check into some of the research done by some neurologist and you will see that a persons "thoughts" are considered in the realm of the unknown for lack of scientific evidence and the ability to test the thoughts.

I have a few names and some papers written on the subject by some of the (considered) worlds best neurologists. I will try to find them and post them here. It is really a very interesting read if you are interestd in the brain that is.

[KinKyJ]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

It cannot be denied that you have absolutely no way of 100% concrete physical or chemical evidence that a person loves you. Love is a thought with no determinable physical or chemical properties.

In fact the more you think about it, any type of emotion is a non-physical, non-chemical thing. There is actually no way to determine with 100% infallibility that a person’s outward expression of an inward emotion is the true thought of their heart.

So again I will say that motivation is 100% mental and cannot be determined with any physical or chemical evidence and emotions are as well.

Talk to your local neuro surgeon or psychiatrist: emotions can be defined as chemical/neurobiological processes in the brain. You want evidence of that? If my statement wouldn't be true, Prozac et all. wouldn't be effective. Inform yourself: http://www.heartmathreport.com/index.php/weblog/C64/

So much for the double standard and the attempt to get your right by limiting the broadness of perception.

Furthermore, not everything is to be proved with chemistry and physics alone: sociology, antropology, psychiatry, ... can offer evidence as well. Like in your murder case...

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

Sitting at work tonight I was thinking about the things that have happened lately here in this forum. I have come to the conclusion that there is a very serious double standard going on here.

Let me break it down like this.

Each and every one of you knows what evidence is. It is used in your lives everyday. You are fully aware that it is as much a part of your life as breathing. If any of you say that it is not you are simply avoiding a law of nature.

Lets put evidence into a specific example.

The police receive a call from a man saying that he came home and found his spouse dead. They arrive on the scene and the very first thing that happens is the area is secured as to not allow the evidence to be corrupted. There are very strict rules they have to follow in collecting evidence. They go to extremely meticulous measures to make sure that the evidence is preserved. Why? Because they are aware of how critically important each and every single thing from the most obvious to the seemingly irrelevant piece is. The entire process of determining if it was a murder, suicide, or accidental death depends on evidence.

For this example we will say it was a murder.

Then the evidence collected is used to see if a suspect can be determined. That evidence varies greatly. If suspecting a person were not valid then there would never be a case unless someone actually saw the murder. There are circumstances that the police look for. If that were not the case then why is it usually the spouse who is often times the first suspect. The answer is motivation. Motivation is a form of evidence. Yes motivation. It is used to determine if the suspect had a reason to kill his wife.

So lets take a look at motivation.

It is neither physical nor chemical. It resides strictly in thought. It is 100% mental. To deny that is impossible. You cannot experience motivation with any of the senses. Yet it is enough for the investigator to determine if a suspect should be investigated more thoroughly. Now before you start saying that motivation is not enough to convict a person let me say I agree. However my point is not about convicting it is about using evidence that is neither physical nor chemical. Take the context of what I am saying. If one of your loved ones was murdered and there was a huge insurance policy on them it is natural to suspect that would motivate certain people to kill their spouse.

Motivation is even taken to court where the person?s freedom and or life is dependent on evidence used. Proving there was a motive involved is often times the first step in determining if a person ?could? have been involved in the murder.

Lets try another form of non-physical, non-chemical evidence.

You can in no way determine if another person loves you. And when I say that I mean that you have absolutely no way to know the actual true thoughts of that person. Sure they can say they love you with words. That can be determined with the senses. You hear the words. They can give you things in the form of gifts and accompany those gifts with the words I love you. They can touch your arm, hold your hand and kiss you. These are physical you can feel those things.

But when you take away everything and strip it down to it?s most basic form, love is still a mental process. No amount of talk, or touch, or gifts in the world is absolute proof of love. Is hearing the words I love you proof? No. Why? The undeniable fact is that people can lie. Is getting a kiss proof of love? Absolutely not. Actors kiss each other and they are not expressing love they are faking it for the sake of entertainment.

It cannot be denied that you have absolutely no way of 100% concrete physical or chemical evidence that a person loves you. Love is a thought with no determinable physical or chemical properties.

In fact the more you think about it, any type of emotion is a non-physical, non-chemical thing. There is actually no way to determine with 100% infallibility that a person?s outward expression of an inward emotion is the true thought of their heart.

So again I will say that motivation is 100% mental and cannot be determined with any physical or chemical evidence and emotions are as well.

If one were to sit and think long enough I am sure you could reason many other non-physical, non-chemical evidences in your life.

So non-physical and non-chemical evidence is good enough to use in your everyday lives yet you turn the standard against non-physical, non-chemical evidence when God or creation is mentioned. Clearly you all hold a double standard. When you get right down to it you are deceiving yourselves if you say you are not.

You say things like God exists in a persons mind so there is no way of proving He exists in reality. You say things like there is no way to prove God?s existence without physical or chemical evidence and there is nothing you can do to change that. Yet again I point out the fact that non-chemical, non-physical evidence is used everyday in each and every one of your lives.

Why the double standard? Can any of you actually answer that with any serious credibility? It is inconsistency at work here.

Is it simply because it is God we are talking about?

Is it because if you were to say yes that non-physical, non-chemical evidence were good enough to determine proof of something, then by that admission you must give actual credibility to the fact that God could exist based on the evidence that believers use? Could that be the reason for the double standard?

Lets take this a step further and follow a chain of events, as they would unfold.

If you were to say that non-physical, non-chemical evidence was viable proof of something, hence giving credibility to the Christians claim of God, this in turn would give viability to God?s statutes. Which in turn would give credibility to heaven and hell thereby raising the standard by which people would be judged and allowing the opportunity for your after-life to be either forever tormented or forever glorious.

Could the thought of being punished eternally be the reason for the double standard?

Is it the idea that God will reward those He chooses to reward and punish those He chooses to punish the reason for the double standard when it comes to evidence?

I am sure that some of you will come up with many different reasons for the double standard and I am even willing to go out on a limb and guess that some will even say that there is no double standard at work here. Clearly there is though. I have given clear and concise proof that non-physical, non-chemical evidence is at work in everyday life so that can not be denied. If you can say non-physical, non-chemical evidence in one aspect is credible then say non-physical, non-chemical evidence is not viable proof of anything in another aspect then certainly you can see that there is some very serious inconsistency at work here.

Again I ask why the double standard?

The burden of proof is not that non-physical, non-chemical evidence exists and is used in everyday life, the proof lies in someone proving that it does not exist and is not used in everyday life therefore proving that it can not be used to determine creation over evolution and the existence of God over the non-existence of God.

Until that is done then non-physical, non-chemical evidence has 100% credibility and can be used.

[KinKyJ]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

^^^ and the smallest amount of social life

[FM]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

on the flipside, I vote for CDJ with the longest posts ever...

[cowardly dj]

Re: Straight to the business at hand

CDJ, you claim to be looking for intelligent discussion yet avoid every single question or point sent your way. When you dodge everyone else's point and continue to rattle on with yours claiming a lack of "intelligent discussion" (even though yours involves no original thought) it is actually you who is insulting other posters.

But you will play the victim claiming you are being attacked for your beliefs. My friend, it is not your beliefs which you're being given a hard time about, but rather your condescending attitude and reluctance to respond to the very discourse you claim to be seeking.

CDJ, you claim to be looking for intelligent discussion yet avoid every single question or point sent your way.

That is not an entirely accurate statement. I am only one person and just because I do not get to answer all the questions right away does not mean I am avoiding them. I get numerous statements and questions sent my way and I just have not had the time to answer them all.

However I do feel the need to defend myself at times from all the negativity that is sent my way. If that is the problem here then I apologize for feeling like I should defend myself and I will try to do something different.

Saying I have a condescending attitude without providing your reason for thinking that is a generalization. Please provide my posts that give you that impression and I will try to clarify them.