All aboard the atheist bus ....

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Would you agree that humans beings are primarily stimulus-response organisms, and that there are no behaviors or thought-patterns insusceptible to conditioning?

No I would not. I am not entirely sure what you mean by stimulus-response organisms though.

If not, what mysterious agency exists in the human organism, in your opinion, which cannot be affected by conditioning?
There is nothing mysterious about it. Its called a brain.

Can it be scientifically verified, as you say?
I don't see why not.

You said that dogs possess free will; where exactly does this free will reside in the dog,

and can it be scientifically verified?
I don't see why not.

My main point is that there is no difference in this matter between humans and dogs. The fact that you don't seem to know that implies that you are remarkably ignorant about animals. Have you ever had a pet?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No I would not. I am not entirely sure what you mean by stimulus-response organisms though.

[b]If not, what mysterious agency exists in the human organism, in your opinion, which cannot be affected by conditioning?
There is nothing mysterious about it. Its called a brain.

Can it be scientifically verified, as you say?
I don't see why no to know that implies that you are remarkably ignorant about animals. Have you ever had a pet?[/b]

I am not entirely sure what you mean by stimulus-response organisms though.

http://www.nwlink.com/~Donclark/hrd/history/pavlov.html

There is nothing mysterious about it. Its called a brain.

I asked you whether or not there is a mysterious agency in the human organism which cannot be affected by conditioning. Your answer was, "a brain." But what makes a human brain so impervious to conditioning? If I send an extremely painful electric shock through your body every time I say the word, "transatlantic," and do so thousands upon thousands of times, what in your brain would prevent you from feeling as if you were being shocked every time you heard "transatlantic" thereafter? Pavlov made a dog drool at the sound of a bell, and bad people could choose to do so to either you or I. Do you really believe there is an agency in the human brain which cannot be conditioned? Perhaps a non-material aspect which is not dependent upon the stimulus-response machinery of the brain?

My main point is that there is no difference in this matter between humans and dogs. The fact that you don't seem to know that implies that you are remarkably ignorant about animals. Have you ever had a pet?

I get that part of it. But you claimed that dogs have a free will which cannot be affected by conditioning. Are you saying that human beings also possess a free will which cannot be affected by conditioning? What I'm trying to understand is from where you believe this free will arises.

(I own two Border Collies and I've been a dog owner since I was five years old. Thanks for asking.)

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I asked you whether or not there is a mysterious agency in the human organism which cannot be affected by conditioning. Your answer was, "a brain." But what makes a human brain so impervious to conditioning?

I never said it was 'so impervious'. Pavlov type experiments work remarkably well on humans.

Do you really believe there is an agency in the human brain which cannot be conditioned?
Yes

Perhaps a non-material aspect which is not dependent upon the stimulus-response machinery of the brain?
Why non-material?
Do you honestly think the brain consists entirely of stimulus-response machinery?

Are you saying that human beings also possess a free will which cannot be affected by conditioning?
Yes

What I'm trying to understand is from where you believe this free will arises.
From the brain.

(I own two Border Collies and I've been a dog owner since I was five years old. Thanks for asking.)
Do you honestly believe that their behavior is entirely the result of stimulus-response machinery?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well that depends on:
a) whether there is an afterlife.
b) what exact afterlife.
If there is no afterlife, then atheism has no benefits for it, but neither does any religion / theistic belief.
If there is an afterlife, then atheism has as much chance of benefiting me than any religion / theistic belief does. In fact, if reports of gods are anything to say the same applies to someone who goes through adult hood believing that Santa Claus is real?

depends on whether he expects a present every christmas, a present that never arrives. if he is not, and santa claus doesn't demand blood sacrifices, would you say it is harmful if he believes in a being with white beard that makes children happy?

necessary? probably not. but harmful? only if you let it.

atheism attempts to rid the world of anything unnecessary. god isn't required to make the universe work.
but applying the same argument to extreme, one would claim that art is not necessary. love isn't required for the survival of the species. having some protein and vitamin pills is all the body requires to survive and not a juicy steak or icecream (EDIT) or pie or pizza, forgot those.

god, spirituality, isn't real. but it does make you feel good. like love. what is to stop man to say we don't need love either, marriage should be a contract between two individuals, void of sentiments, with the option of making a kid or two at a designated time.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
depends on whether he expects a present every christmas, a present that never arrives. if he is not, and santa claus doesn't demand blood sacrifices, would you say it is harmful if he believes in a being with white beard that makes children happy?

necessary? probably not. but harmful? only if you let it.

atheism attempts to rid the world of anything dividuals, void of sentiments, with the option of making a kid or two at a designated time.

================================
atheism attempts to rid the world of anything unnecessary
====================================

Like millions of "unnecessary" people too.

Ask Pol Pot, Mao Tsetung, Joseph Stalin

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
depends on whether he expects a present every christmas, a present that never arrives. if he is not, and santa claus doesn't demand blood sacrifices, would you say it is harmful if he believes in a being with white beard that makes children happy?

necessary? probably not. but harmful? only if you let it.

atheism attempts to rid the world of anything ...[text shortened]... dividuals, void of sentiments, with the option of making a kid or two at a designated time.

Atheism does NOT attempt to rid the world of anything unnecessary. Where do you come up with garbage like that? Atheism has nothing to say about art or love. And there are many loving artists who are atheists.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
atheism attempts to rid the world of anything unnecessary
====================================

Like millions of "unnecessary" people too.

Ask Pol Pot, Mao Tsetung, Joseph Stalin[/b]

my point is not to involve religion in the case of deviants, of psychos that would have killed even if they were religious.

my point is that torquemada was a sadistic bastard, that would have become a serial killer, religion just gave him the chance of not getting hanged as a common murderer.

the crusades were basically for political reasons, the feudal lords kept bashing their skulls in so the pope got the idea its better to kill muslims than each other and instead of causing chaos in europe, they were sent to cause chaos abroad.

the conquistadors wanted gold. the souls of the natives were a distant second.

and so on.

it is hard to think that religion or lack of it was an important factor in the cases of most genocides. People find reasons to kill each other all the time. Some will attempt to give religion to them, others to take it away, while they should take care of the real issues.

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism does NOT attempt to rid the world of anything unnecessary. Where do you come up with garbage like that? Atheism has nothing to say about art or love. And there are many loving artists who are atheists.

perhaps you should think for a sec before attacking a post so passionately. perhaps explaining your opinion politely.

atheism claims god doesn't exist. why? because it is improbable, it has not been proven. and the universe does a good job being, without divine intervention. so god is unnecessary. so my claim that atheism tries to get rid of something unnecessary isn't such garbage. it is an opinion. if you judge everything in absolutes no wonder you can't think outside the box and discuss ideas that contradict your opinion.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
perhaps you should think for a sec before attacking a post so passionately. perhaps explaining your opinion politely.

atheism claims god doesn't exist. why? because it is improbable, it has not been proven. and the universe does a good job being, without divine intervention. so god is unnecessary. so my claim that atheism tries to get rid of something un ...[text shortened]... tes no wonder you can't think outside the box and discuss ideas that contradict your opinion.

God is unnecessary. What has that got to do with love being unnecessary? Or art? Or ice cream and pizza? Absolutely nothing. I repeat: your previous post was garbage.

Originally posted by rwingett
God is unnecessary. What has that got to do with love being unnecessary? Or art? Or ice cream and pizza? Absolutely nothing. I repeat: your previous post was garbage.

perhaps if we go step by step you would get what i was suggesting. and after that we can discuss manners if you have the time.


why is god unnecessary?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
my point is not to involve religion in the case of deviants, of psychos that would have killed even if they were religious.

my point is that torquemada was a sadistic bastard, that would have become a serial killer, religion just gave him the chance of not getting hanged as a common murderer.

the crusades were basically for political reasons, the feud ...[text shortened]... o give religion to them, others to take it away, while they should take care of the real issues.

Okay, fair enough.

My point is that saying Atheism does the service of attempting to rid the world of the uneccessary, well, You're trying to make dung look like icecream.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said it was 'so impervious'. Pavlov type experiments work remarkably well on humans.

[b]Do you really believe there is an agency in the human brain which cannot be conditioned?
Yes

Perhaps a non-material aspect which is not dependent upon the stimulus-response machinery of the brain?
Why non-material?
Do you honestly think the ...[text shortened]... honestly believe that their behavior is entirely the result of stimulus-response machinery?[/b]

If there is a physical component of the brain wherein the "free will" of men and dogs resides, can you tell me what it is called?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If there is a physical component of the brain wherein the "free will" of men and dogs resides, can you tell me what it is called?

The brain is a large complex organ consisting of many parts with interrelated functions. Your attempts to simplify it into a 'free will' part, and stimulus response machinery is over simplification.
There is no good reason for thinking that a persons 'will' is not a normal part of brain functioning. There is also no good reason for thinking that it differs significantly from an animals 'will'. Your whole argument from the beginning is based not on observation, but on a superiority complex.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The brain is a large complex organ consisting of many parts with interrelated functions. Your attempts to simplify it into a 'free will' part, and stimulus response machinery is over simplification.
There is no good reason for thinking that a persons 'will' is not a normal part of brain functioning. There is also no good reason for thinking that it diffe ...[text shortened]... ole argument from the beginning is based not on observation, but on a superiority complex.

It is your claim that animals and humans have a free will which cannot be affected by conditioning. You allow that animals and humans can be conditioned to a certain degree, but that an essential part of their nature is somehow indomitable.

You have no reason to believe this.

So far, all that you've been able to muster in defense of your ad hoc position is, "If you owned a dog, then you'd know that I'm right."

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
depends on whether he expects a present every christmas, a present that never arrives. if he is not, and santa claus doesn't demand blood sacrifices, would you say it is harmful if he believes in a being with white beard that makes children happy?

necessary? probably not. but harmful? only if you let it.

atheism attempts to rid the world of anything dividuals, void of sentiments, with the option of making a kid or two at a designated time.

…god isn't required to make the universe work..…

Correct -no “god” is necessary to “explain” why anything works in the universe or, indeed, “why” the universe exists (not that I think there is a reason “why&ldquo😉 -that is why “god” is an unnecessary hypotheses.

…but applying the same argument to extreme, one would claim that art is not necessary. love isn't required for the survival of the species.
.….

But that is an idiotic way of extending this argument “to the extreme“- nobody is disputing the fact that “love” and “art” exists because we have evidence for these things but, in contrast, there is no credible evidence for the existence of a “god” which is why this is in dispute and there is no rational to extending the argument from just the said existence of certain things that we have no credible evidence for the existence of (and so should assume to be unlikely to exist) to those things that we know exists because we DO have credible evidence for the existence of those things.