JMAN05:


Proved science is not at odds with the Bible. However, I understand why such a law in Ohio will break upon the hole of wrong believes. But human rights demands that you respect another's beliefs no matter how funny.

LordReed:


Depends on who you ask. There are people still saying the earth is flat and using the bible to backup their views.

JMAN05:


Am not surprised. But I don't see how the Bible could support such a view. The Bible rather give the sense of a globe, not flat. But I respect others right to there own believes. But what do you think?

LordReed:


I respect the right to hold your opinion but I may not respect your opinion.

The bible mentions circle, a 2d shape, not a sphere. I can see how someone can take it to mean the earth is flat. Which is in direct contrast to what we have discovered of our world. So I respect their right to believe the world is flat but i think that is a garbage opinion.

JMAN05:


Which Bible portion do you have in mind?

XxSabrinaxX:
https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion

This is so very sad! A student can’t be marked wrong if their answer is based on their religion but scientifically incorrect!

LordReed:

I repeat again every mental ailment is characterized by changes in the brain either structurally or functionally. You are hooked on the structural defects and forgetting the functional one which of course is also physical in nature. Functional defects are like hormonal and chemical imbalance.

If functional defects are like hormonal and chemical imbalances (too much or too little of this substances in the bloodstream), I went on to ask you, do hormones just get released into the bloodstream by their own will or when there's a request/demand for such?

It's a metaphor! They are not actually referring to any type of spirit but merely commenting on the attitudes or behaviour of the athletes. None of which things can be divorced from the physical bodies displaying them.

Language is quite descriptive, as such one would expect its use to be as well. And you just betrayed your assertion @bolded as you just implied that the bodies are but objects of display for something different than themselves. Just like saying the apparels cannot be divorced from the mannequins displaying them. Words are very deceiving sometimes, if not most times.

Indeed, which is why your postulations will remain as fantasies, they remain in the realm of imagination.

Fantasies indeed....

I didn't assume anything. I asked you for a method to determine the veracity of your postulations, you said to examine myself which I have and have given you the conclusion.

More than a method, I've put in your hands a most veritable way to discover. One every adept past and present did allude to although in allegories or sometimes parables. Know thyself!

All thoughts as far as they are in my head are mine, there are no external voices in my head.

That's a false imo but you're entitled to yours for sure. I rather would say I'm responsible for which thoughts hold sway and not entirely responsible for everything that comes up. Genesis 3 did give us a clear reference on that, man had fallen out of a state of Oneness and became like "Us" ( two or more ).

kumulus:
If functional defects are like hormonal and chemical imbalances (too much or too little of this substances in the bloodstream), I went on to ask you, do hormones just get released into the bloodstream by their own will or when there's a request/demand for such?

Language is quite descriptive, as such one would expect its use to be as well. And you just betrayed your assertion @bolded as you just implied that the bodies are but objects of display for something different than themselves. Just like saying the apparels cannot be divorced from the mannequins displaying them. Words are very deceiving sometimes, if not most times.

That's a false imo but you're entitled to yours for sure. I rather would say I'm responsible for which thoughts hold sway and not entirely responsible for everything that comes up. Genesis 3 did give us a clear reference on that, man had fallen out of a state of Oneness and became like "Us" ( two or more ).

LordReed:



What do you mean by requested or demanded?

You are funny. Of course you can divorce clothes from the mannequins but can you show me love floating in the air or lying on the floor?

What a load of rubbish. You just said I should know myself I report to you what I know and you go on to attempt invalidate my observation. If you are not confident in the result why did you suggest the method? I have no external voices in my head, if you do, good for you.

kumulus:


How and when does the body release hormones?

Oh the expression, ' love in the air' lol.... A very accurate one for this discourse, its a social description of a perceived romantic atmosphere. Love in that sense is not a tangible thing yet it is perceived and alluded to, do we now conclude that because of the intangibility of love it doesn't exist?

You really think I'm the one saying rubbish?? You are the one laying claim to what's not for whatever reasons and I did say of course you are entitled to your opinions.....but the truth and fact remains that no man alive will say he's in the absolute the initiator of all thoughts in his mind. The brain is a tricky device, consider a lady who left her home seductively dressed (apparently in order to impress her sexual attractiveness on men), a man sees her and this sexuality registers in his brain and in that very instant he's already thinking about her voluminous chest and voluptuous booty and every mundane thing he could be doing with her. Its very easy for such a man to say he initiated the sexual thoughts but would it not suffice that the lady did sow the seeds of those thoughts (suggestion/suggestive clothing). Most of the thoughts of man on a constant basis are based off manipulations in the form of suggestions, some are instinctive/behavioral (persistent repetition)...and some more. Your thoughts are never entirely initiated by you sir, to think otherwise is in itself folly.

LordReed:


In response to stimuli. Can you now answer my question and stop answering questions with questions.

If functional defects are like hormonal and chemical imbalances (too much or too little of this substances in the bloodstream), I went on to ask you, do hormones just get released into the bloodstream by their own will or when there's a request/demand for such?

I never claimed intangibles do not exist, it is you claiming they are spirit and separate from physical processes.

Now can you demonstrate your spirit or spiritual realm as things that are independent of physical processes? This has been the question I have asked you to answer from the beginning.

Do you understand the things you read or are you wilfully misrepresenting what I wrote? Where did I claim that all my thoughts were initiated by me? I wrote that all my thoughts are mine, I never claimed they were initiated by me.

kumulus:

I would believe this two (intangible and spirit) are synonymous in the context of explaining what spirits are and can be interchangeably used. You may then agree with me that saying intangibles (spirits) is not separate from physical (tangible) processes is not really smart.

The questions are coming because you say defects in the brain are all physical (be it structural or functional), hence ruling out psychological defects which obviously is not a physical impairment but occurring on the plane of intangibility (mental) and I needed to make you see the falsehood in that assertion so we can make progress.

I still don't know how you expect me to demonstrate an intangible experiment with tangible materials as it seems that's what you're asking me to do. I had supplied you with the truth in its most basic form that the laboratory is in your mind and the apparatuses are within it, go in as you will and discover was my earlier admonition. Moreover, your question from the beginning was based on the nonexistence of spirits or the spiritual realm and not whether they are things independent of physical processes or not.

In absolute honesty, I can't say I do all the times.... I try not to assume which is why I ask questions but that doesn't seem to settle well with you. I made it clear I was talking about thoughts starting point but you insisted all the thoughts in your head are yours, they are all on the first page, do go back and see for yourself.

As kids, physical sciences did fascinate us a great deal but as we grow we realized that is just one of the many sciences. If you're arguments are fiercely centered on physical sciences, I bet you'd easily dispute the field of metaphysics been a thing at all.

LordReed:


Isa. 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

JMAN05:


Now the upon can be translated above. That is more logical. The circle could also be translated sphere. This is logically, what the prophet meant. That the Earth is spherical.

I understand why some people would want to believe in a flat Earth. That was the belief among the philosophers .

LordReed:


Those are not logical steps those are just leaps of conjecture because you are not showing why we should conclude that the person who wrote it meant sphere. Why didn't the author write just write sphere instead of expecting us to arrive at the conclusion while writing circle?

LordReed:


Depends on who you ask. There are people still saying the earth is flat and using the bible to backup their views.

JMAN05:
Now the upon can be translated above. That is more logical. The circle could also be translated sphere. This is logically, what the prophet meant. That the Earth is spherical.

I understand why some people would want to believe in a flat Earth. That was the belief among the philosophers.

JMAN05:
The author is a Hebrew. He used a word in his language that can mean circle or sphere. If you chose to translate circle, nothing is wrong, you only have to recognize that what the writer means is that the Earth is round in shape, not flat.

At job 22:14 the words of the appeared as "vault" of heaven (ASV). Which is a hemisphere as could be deduced from Earth. So when he used the same word for the Earth, it won't be consistent to think of a flat Earth. Rather, a globe or round shape.

Emusan:


I don't know why some Atheists will just be lying boldly...

Is it only a religious person that support the flat earth model?

Are there not people who are saying the earth is flat without using Bible?

LordReed:
If you don't understand English in the morning why don't you wait till afternoon before replying, by then your brain would have adjusted to understand.

Did I say the only people who think the world is flat are religious?

LordReed:


They are not interchangeable because you are not referring to properties of physical processes. You are referring to things that are separate from physical properties.

Mention one psychological diagnosis that has no physical root.

That's for you to figure out since you insist that they exist. Why do you expect me to tell you how you should prove the thing you insist exists and I don't believe exists?

I used the method you supplied and arrived at a conclusion that is at odds with your assertions. It is left for you to figure out why your method does not work.

My question has always been for you to show that these things you call spirit are not results of physical processes. If they are the result of physical processes then spirit does not exist. Is that clear now?

I have answered this already, i didn't claim initiation of thoughts always arise from me. I claimed ownership of all my thoughts. The 2 are not the same.

Metaphysics is not science, its philosophy. You can philosophize all you want but when your thoughts intersect with reality then you must produce substance or else your philosophy remains a fantasy. I would have substance not fantasy, thank you very much.

JMAN05:


The author is a Hebrew. He used a word in his language that can mean circle or sphere. If you chose to translate circle, nothing is wrong, you only have to recognize that what the writer means is that the Earth is round in shape, not flat.

At job 22:14 the words of the appeared as "vault" of heaven (ASV). Which is a hemisphere as could be deduced from Earth. So when he used the same word for the Earth, it won't be consistent to think of a flat Earth. Rather, a globe or round shape.

Emusan:


When in reality you're the very one who needs to enroll in English class.

This is your statement again: "Depends on who you ask. There are people still saying the earth is flat and using the bible to backup their views"

kumulus:

Intangible I suppose should mean something that can't be touched or lacks PHYSICAL presence.... How did we arrive at physical processes or properties, could this be a deliberate attempt at making a convolution?

Narcissism

Again, I say your mind is a wonderful tool at your disposal.

I would choose to believe the strength of atheism follows the path of objectivity and honesty, anything otherwise is aimed at creating confusion and a lack of willingness to be open-minded.

Very clear sir! I would like to ask you this tho; does a man think because of what he becomes/became/even what he wants to be or he became this/that because of what he thinks?

LordReed:


Their understanding of the sky being a hemisphere doesn't preclude them from thinking it is a flat plain covered by a dome. This is even how current flat earth believers say the earth is.

One thing is clear though, the bible leaves enough room for all manner of interpretation.

JMAN05:


I agree that people can make all manner of interpretation out of that which the Bible says, but not that such floodgate of interpretation is suggested by the Bible.

The Hebrew word when used for the heavens is clearly talking about a vault, so I think when said about the Earth, a globe should logically apply. Of course, I respect other people's right to there interpretation, but I don't think the Bible is to blame.

XxSabrinaxX:
https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion

This is so very sad! A student can’t be marked wrong if their answer is based on their religion but scientifically incorrect!

LordReed:


Intangibles are results of physical processes. No physical process, no intangible. You can demonstrate the incorrectness of this by showing us an intangible that is divorced from any physical process.

https://www.livescience.com/37684-narcissistic-personality-disorder-brain-structure.html

People who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, which is characterized by extreme arrogance and self-absorption, have structural abnormalities in a region of the brain that has been linked to empathy, a new study finds.

Which I have used as per your direction.

Except when the honesty is at variance with your perceptions right?

This is one of them chicken or egg questions. A person has to exist first before his thoughts can exist and in the course of existing his thoughts influence his being.

kumulus:


Your stance from the onset was on the nonexistence of spirits (Intangibles).......it would seem we arrived at a consensus on that subject.

That they have a structural abnormality does not indicate the source/cause of the abnormal. You will agree with me there are cases of narcissistic individuals who earlier on had normal brain structures, didn't suffer any physical mishap to the brain that could lead to such condition yet the subsequently are diagnosed for same. Consider a lady that was raped and thence became hateful towards men who she loved before the incident or a lady who became hateful and dreadful towards males because she repeatedly heard stories of women who were terribly abused by their lovers as she grew. I'm quite sure clinical sciences must have some explanation relating to some certain regions in the brain having abnormalities in their structure but that doesn't explain how the abnormalities developed/came to be since it wasn't like that earlier, otherwise you'd be saying such an individual's brain had been like that right from birth.

Who/what is a person?

There is no evidence of any sort of spirit. Mental illness is as far as we know are physical defects in the brain or brain functioning. We never see mental illness in brains functioning within normal parameters.

There is no evidence of spirits, intangibles are not spirits. Mental illness is not caused by spirits so there is no consensus here.

My question was name a mental illness that has no physical component, narcissism has physical component as seen here. You don't get to dodge it. Either you name a mental illness that has no physical component or you concede the point.
BTW hatred is not a mental illness. Try again.

A person is an autonomous individual.

kumulus:
Like I stated earlier words over time had been terribly abused and misuse became inevitable, hence, they can be misleading/misinterpreted, one of such is spirit. You demanded I provide a method to prove their existence which I already told you I don't have one beyond the regions of the mind (yet, if there ever will be any). Even science will agree with me that to physically perceive an entity, light need reflect off such entity which in this case is impossible (I believe you possessed this understanding all along). While science deals with natural phenomena, philosophy is concerned with understanding the nature of man, existence (entities/forms which man exist) and the relationships between these two, hence its the only premise on which the entity (spirit) can be examined and understood. Its philosophy since it borders around studies(experimentation) carried out in the mind from which hypothesis are drawn and further observations(experiments) are made to test/ascertain this hypothesis. No one can deny that philosophy is what birth science, so saying only scientific explanations are infallible is not very apt in this case.

There's no dodging anything here, my point from the beginning had been on the cause of these defects(physical components) experienced in the regions of brain as observed by clinical science. If you would revisit the early posts, you would see I sited an instance of an enraged man and you attributed it to mental illness (I believe that is where you got the message wrong, hence, you keep going on about mental illness and its physical components/processes).

Do understand this isn't a conquest for me

Just in case you missed my point, I was talking about the meaning according to the origin of the word.