4 random arguements for atheism.

[Purple Rabbit]

Nope! There is absolutely no evidence that thought can exist independent of it's supporting infrastructure (nerves/brain) and A LOT of evidence that damage to said infrastructure causes sometimes huge changes in thought/mind therefore it is absolutely reasonable to infer that mind/thought CANNOT exist without a supporting infrastructure and as such it is YOU that is making the extraordinary claim and YOU that must provide the extraordinary evidence.

I agree with you on this, Kyu. Confusing isn't it?

---

Dotard, you provide good arguments and are capable of expanding on them clearly. But to me the most important one is the moral fallacy. More than anything for me the abject moral inherent in given god concepts together with the claim of impeccable divine moral is the argument that invalidates these god concepts most. It shows severe inconsistencies of the kind 'A is not A'.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I agree with you on this, Kyu. Confusing isn't it?

Agreement is often a good thing.

Technicalities aside (I'm not a worker in the field) I don't find it that confusing ... to me it's straight forward logic (the kind that Frodo either never gets or, more likely, ignores).

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Now I'm finding you disingenuous Kyu. I never said thought is independent of physical. Once again.. I suggested that the physical is the generator, transport and receiver. What you say in no way intrudes on that.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Now I'm finding you disingenuous Kyu. I never said thought is independent of physical. Once again.. I suggested that the physical is the generator, transport and receiver. What you say in no way intrudes on that.

Frodo ... that thought/mind changes when nerves/brain are damaged is clear evidence that infers the PHYSICAL nature of thought. If you want to consider that me being disingenuous then go right ahead but we both know who's been on the level here (and it sure as hell don't exist ain't you).

Kyu

[fr0d0]

You really aren't listening Kyu. You continue with the insults although I've strictly abstained.

The brain, being a chemical/ electrical machine that produces thought and contains the mind, OF COURSE affects thought/ mental capacity/ processes when damaged. This in no way provides any evidence against the idea that thought is produced by the brain but does not physically exist.

So the bus is damaged, the passengers either get to their destination slowly or not at all. The bus and passenger are two different things. Please show me how you think they are the same thing.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fr0do, could you please show me any evidence that these 'passengers' (thought I assume?) are somehow non-physical, thereby being an exception to everything else we know of which is physical.

Why can't thought actually not be 'passengers', but just a physical part of the bus? Why the exception? As I myself keep asking, and wondering why you (and others who believe thought is non-physical) keep making the exception.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Like many people here have said Evie, the burden of proof is on you to prove (or provide evidence of) a positive, and not on us to prove a negative.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yours is a positive too. You are saying there is something immaterial, non-physical, called thought, that is an exception. There is evidence for the material however, and not the immaterial so is is what you are claiming that is an exception, lacks evidence.

Any 'others' who have also said here that the burden of proof is on me, I of course also believe to be wrong for exactly the same reasons. I don't care who says it, why make an exception? Why?

You are claiming that there is something extra to what we need to believe. We know there's material, we don't know of anything immaterial, so you are making the exception, you are making the positive claim. Any 'positive claim' that I am making, there's already plenty of evidence of. We know of matter, the immaterial however, where's the evidence?

At least thus far physically undetectable doesn't mean it's non-physical, not made of matter, etc.

Why do thoughts have to be immaterial? Why the exception and the special case simply because we haven't detected it as physical at least yet? Or even if we can't ever? Why the exception?

To believe they're non-physical, immaterial, not made of matter - would be to believe in some sort of bizarre one-off exception that I would require evidence for in order to believe myself.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove that non-physical thought does exist. That the non-physical exists at all, as an exception to the physical. I know of no evidence whatsoever for anything non-physical. So where's your evidence?

Proving a negative is the fallacy of proving that something doesn't exist.

I'm asking how does the non-physical thought - or indeed the non-physical at all - exist? Where's your evidence for that?

BoP is therefore on you for you are making the bizarre one-off exception to the rest of the known universe, and you are the one that lacks evidence, not me.

EvF

[fr0d0]

We're splitting the post topic - we should link and continue there/ split these posts over.

I'll reply to you over there... here's the direct link

[Kyuuketsuki]

You really aren't listening Kyu. You continue with the insults although I've strictly abstained.

Who the hell was being insulting?

The brain, being a chemical/ electrical machine that produces thought and contains the mind, OF COURSE affects thought/ mental capacity/ processes when damaged. This in no way provides any evidence against the idea that thought is produced by the brain but does not physically exist.

Yet the fact that thought IS affected by such events infers STRONGLY that thought is of physical nature ... your attempts to claim otherwise supported by bugger all evidence is special pleading.

So the bus is damaged, the passengers either get to their destination slowly or not at all. The bus and passenger are two different things. Please show me how you think they are the same thing.

A bus and passengers ARE NOT specifically linked items whereas nerves, electrochemical activity and thoughts have been shown to be linked, linked so strongly that one cannot survive without the other.

You just get better and better don't you? Arguing that a bus/passenger analogy in some way not linked and as such neither are thoughts and nerve/brain is not only very poor debate, it's a fallacy referred to as a strawman, so nice one Frodo!

Kyu