Evolution

[Amarok]

There is no conflict between dualism and atheism

---

Wrong again brother Aba.  
Atheism is a dogma BECAUSE the concept of a NO God is build on a guess not on solid evidence so when you come to the conclusion on a guess you fall in the corral of dogma.
Atheists too are floating in a sea of dogmas.
From.......the consciousness is a product of the brain to.......when we die is all over to......the universe can do without God because entropy can do the job.
Just to mention few of them.

How long have you been on the forums, Rik? The evidence for God is not built on solid evidence, so disbelief can hardly be considered dogma. Is it dogma to not believe in leprechauns? Unicorns?

Wrong again Aba.  

The word of a doctor is a lot lot more important than the definition given.
As far as a doctor say that a person is dead then it means that such a person is really dead and when a doctor see the same person alive after sometime that means that he-she is really alive.

Wake up, dude. A doctor is not an authority on what constitutes death. A doctor proclaims a patient dead when his/her condition falls within certain parameters that have more to do whether the patient's condition is reversible than the status of his immaterial soul.

It is absurd that something material such as the brain can give birth to something abstract and so much great as the consciousness.
It would be like if the vehicle can give birth to the driver.
The materialistic idea is so absurd that is laughable so only an idiot would believe along those lines.  

Nature also teaches me by these sensations of pain, hunger, thirst,
etc., that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that
I am very closely united to it, and so to speak so intermingled with it
that I seem to compose with it one whole. For if that were not the case,
when my body is hurt, I, who am merely a thinking thing, should not
feel pain, for I should perceive this wound by the understanding only,
just as the sailor perceives by sight when something is damaged in his
vessel; and when my body has need of drink or food, I should clearly
understand the fact without being warned of it by confused feelings of
hunger and thirst. For all these sensations of hunger, thirst, pain, etc.
are in truth none other than certain confused modes of thought which
are produced by the union and apparent intermingling of mind and
body.

Even Descartes (who was a dualist, and apparently your go-to source for metaphysics) realized that there must be a greater relation between the soul and body than that of a vehicle and it's driver. A lot of people have considered what Descartes had to say (me included) and do not find his case very convincing. That does not make us dogmatists. That makes us logical. We keep telling you that we have looked at your side and don't find it compelling, and the only response you can give is "FOOL. The only reason you disagree with me is that you haven't considered dualism due to atheist dogmas"

Bullshit, Rik. The only person in this thread who is unwilling to look at both sides of the issue is you.

---

---

So Rik keeps bringing the stupid of 

1.Calling atheists dogmatic when their anything but. Because he need them to be .

2. Pushing the all but dead ideology of substance dualism without merit . Proving it's him who never studied it .

3.And yup doctors are not the metric of death . That's why people have been buried alive .