# How to make an Athiest believe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179 "2003-07-31T17:30:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/141 "2003-08-03T14:02:12Z")
You know guys, if we ALL put **stupid people** ™ on our “ignore lists” and just ignored their stupidity, they would be forced to either A)be less stupid in their posting or B)Go to some other forum where other **stupid people** ™ will give them the attention they so desire. We could then get on with the business of intelligent debate without having to try and re-explain the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief or challenge **stupid people** ™ to “choose to believe” that Santa Claus exists and then choose back, only to see the challenge ignored and the erroneous assertions repeated. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/142 "2003-08-03T15:29:30Z")
**mic84** : > [@](#): > > Memory is an abstract concept, so it surely has no color etc. It exists because people have defined a whole lot of different processes in the brain to be known collectively as ‘memory’. > > If you think that, say, God exists only in the same sense that memory exists, I think you and most skeptics are actually in agreemnt. But of course God is an abstract concept like memory, how the heck _else_ would you characterize God? Unless you’re one of those people who believe that God is a semi-translucent old geezer with a beard or something. To those of us for whom the term has meaning (other than the meaning of “silly crap that some other folks believe in”), God is experienced, but then so is memory; both are abstractions in a sense and yet they are entirely real (just not physical). Or course I _am_ a skeptic… ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/143 "2003-08-03T15:39:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > \*\*You know guys, if we ALL put **stupid people** ™ on our “ignore lists” and just ignored their stupidity, they would be forced to either A)be less stupid in their posting or B)Go to some other forum where other **stupid people** ™ will give them the attention they so desire. > > We could then get on with the business of intelligent debate without having to try and re-explain the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief or challenge **stupid people** ™ to “choose to believe” that Santa Claus exists and then choose back, only to see the challenge ignored and the erroneous assertions repeated. > > Just a thought. \*\* Now, let me try to guess which side you will be on, the stupid people or the intelligent people. That’s a hard one for sure. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/144 "2003-08-03T15:57:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*Science doesn’t measure things. _People_ measure things. If people can’t measure (i.e. detect in some manner) something, then how can one even begin to claim that it exists? > > Memories can, indeed, be found. They exist as neuron connections within the human brain. And of _course_ they can’t be seen or weighed; Memories are _information_, not physical objects. > > Intelligence and accumulation of memories would not appear to be correlated, so, no, > > What color are electrons? > > You haven’t yet explained how creation can be considered a theory when it does not adhere to the definition of what a theory _is_, so your turn hasn’t ended yet. \*\* OK, if memories can be found, but can’t be seen, how did you find them to measure. What units do you use or what measurement tool. You also said memory was not physical. How do you measure memory as a non-physical object, if indeed it is an object. You seem to be stating some very confusing things. Please clear this up for me. You said: “If people can’t measure (i.e. detect in some manner) something, then how can one even begin to claim that it exists?” Then we can talk about “thoughts” they certainly exist. Where are they located and how do we measure them. Theories are guesses, if they were a set of facts, then they would be facts. Evolution is a guess, no one ever saw one species become another. Don’t try to push evolution off as fact. If you need to know the definition of theory, according to the dictionary, it is “a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done” or in other words a guess. Love ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/145 "2003-08-03T17:40:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > You know guys, if we ALL put **stupid people** ™ on our “ignore lists” and just ignored their stupidity, they would be forced to either A)be less stupid in their posting or B)Go to some other forum where other **stupid people** ™ will give them the attention they so desire. > > We could then get on with the business of intelligent debate without having to try and re-explain the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief or challenge **stupid people** ™ to “choose to believe” that Santa Claus exists and then choose back, only to see the challenge ignored and the erroneous assertions repeated. > > Just a thought. **Moderator’s Note:** _Ahem._ > [@](#): > > [Ignore list](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1949385#post1949385) - after much deliberation we decided to keep the ignore list (and buddy list) available to members. Part of the reason we were hesitant is because we didn’t want to see flame wars caused by PosterX telling PosterY “you can say whatever you want to me, I don’t care because you’re on my ignore list.” Hinting that any particular person or group of people is on your ignore list is very strictly frowned upon. **Revealing the usernames of people on your ignore list is forbidden at this board.** Everyone please keep this rule in mind. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/146 "2003-08-03T17:44:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > Theories are guesses, if they were a set of facts, then they would be facts. Evolution is a guess, no one ever saw one species become another. Don’t try to push evolution off as fact. If you need to know the definition of theory, according to the dictionary, it is “a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done” or in other words a guess. According to the dictionary, a “[spirit](http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/S0646800.html)” is “[a]n alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance…[a]n alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor”. So, **lekatt** , your great insight into the Human Condition and the Meaning of Life is that the thing which makes us human and uniquely individual, and which survives and lives on forever after the death of our bodies, is _whiskey_? (And vodka, of course. And rum, gin, brandy, tequila…) Man, that’s a pretty wild [theory](http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/T0152000.html). ---
**Author:** ![Ryle\_Dup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Ryle\_Dup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryle_Dup)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/147 "2003-08-03T18:58:12Z")
_“Science can be separated from pseudo-science by the Principle of Falsification, the concept that ideas must be capable of being proven false in order to be scientifically valid.” James Schombert, University of Oregon"_ The _theory_ of gravity can be disproven by dropping a ball and seeing if it falls at 10m/s/s. The _theory_ of relativity can be disproven by having an atomic clock fly around in the air and measuring any time dilation that occurs. The _theory_ of evolution can be disproven by… (someone else knows this I’m not an anthrapologist). The “theory” of creationism can NOT be disproven. The “theory” of an afterlife can NOT be disproven This does **not** mean they are facts, nor does it mean they belong in the realm of science. You seem so keen on on defining things as theories, in the same way of science, yet you keep repeating yourself by saying science cannot be in conjunction with religious beliefs/“knowledge” of religious ideas. **Please** do not use terms of science inaccurately, as it leads to unnecessary confusion. A theory is **not** necesarrily a hypothesis, a hypothesis is **not** necesarrily an educated guess, and an educated guess is **not** at all the same as a guess or belief. Creationism is nothing more than an educated guess, seeing as how it relies on ‘evidence’ (the bible) and does NOT use the scientific method. If creationism could be tested via experimentation, then yes, it could become a hypothesis. If this experimentation is remotely verified then yes, it could become a theory. ---
**Author:** ![mic84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@mic84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mic84)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/148 "2003-08-03T19:19:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\ ***mic84** : > > But of course God is an abstract concept like memory, how the heck _else_ would you characterize God? Unless you’re one of those people who believe that God is a semi-translucent old geezer with a beard or something. To those of us for whom the term has meaning (other than the meaning of “silly crap that some other folks believe in”), God is experienced, but then so is memory; both are abstractions in a sense and yet they are entirely real (just not physical). > > \*\* But memory _is_ physical - it’s just a bunch of physical processes. If **Lekatt** says that God is real in the sense that memory is real, it would mean that God is some combination of processes in the brain. QED ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/149 "2003-08-03T19:40:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > **OK, if memories can be found, but can’t be seen, how did you find them to measure.** By noting that brain trauma to different areas causes memories to be lost. Stuff in the human brain is harder to locate and measure than most other phenomena simply because you have the potential to easilly kill (or totally screw up someone’s personality) if you do anything too invasive. As an aside, you seem too fixated on using the five senses to detect and measure things. A lot of things that exist must be measured with special equipment, and not by actually seeing it with our eyes. I mean, take ultraviolet light, for instance. We can’t see it, but it’s still pretty easy to detect and measure. > [@](#): > > **You also said memory was not physical. How do you measure memory as a non-physical object, if indeed it is an object.** Please define your usage of the term “measure”. Also, I never said that memory was a non-physical object. memory is not an object at all. It is the _information_ contained in a certain arrangement of neurons. The neurons contain the memories by way of their configuration and interconnections. Consider this text on your monitor. If the monitor were removed, then where would the words be? You would not be able to see them, nor would you be able to easilly detect them (without access to the computer’s specs). But the text is still there, as information stored in RAM, and being output in a method that we cannot natively understand to the video-out of your video card. > [@](#): > > \*\*You seem to be stating some very confusing things. Please clear this up for me. > > You said: > “If people can’t measure (i.e. detect in some manner) something, then how can one even begin to claim that it exists?” > > Then we can talk about “thoughts” they certainly exist. Where are they located and how do we measure them.\*\* They are located within the brain as transient electro-chemical impulses, and can be measured with an EEG (electroencephalograph). We’ve gotten pretty good at this, and have even managed to figure out what general areas of the brain deal with different tasks, like language processing, visual perception, physical balance and coordination, etc. > [@](#): > > **Theories are guesses** That statement is flat out wrong. The term “theory” has a very specific meaning when dealing with science, and “guess” is not one of its synonyms. > [@](#): > > **if they were a set of facts, then they would be facts.** The world is not divided into guesses and facts. Theories are neither. Theories are testable, falsefiable explainations for observed facts. > [@](#): > > **Evolution is a guess, no one ever saw one species become another. Don’t try to push evolution off as fact.** Evolution _is_ a fact. Evolution is defined as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” That is the actual, scientific definition of evolution, and it is easilly observed. Once species evolving into another is an obvious outcome of evolution, not evolution itself. And just so you know, one species becoming another _has_ been observed: [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) Although you’ll probably argue that you don’t accept the scientific definition of “species”. > [@](#): > > **If you need to know the definition of theory, according to the dictionary, it is “a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done” or in other words a guess.** That is _one_ definition of the word “theory”. However, that is **not** the definition that is used when dealing with scientific theories. That is the definition as used by lay-people in normal conversation. It’s unfortunate that science doesn’t have a totally different word for its theories, since the concept is quite different. Specifically, a scientific theory is defined as: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena " The “scientifically acceptable” part is the key, since something must be testable and falsifiable to qualify as a scientific theory. I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that Creationism or Intelligent Design are valid theories. If by “theory” you mean “guess”, then I agree with you. However, neither of those “theories” qualify to be a _scientific_ theory, because they don’t have the necessary qualifications. If you feel the need to continue to try to show me something that I know exists but can’t measure, I suggest that you try something other than the functions of the brain, since we can measure brain waves. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/150 "2003-08-03T19:53:10Z")
I have to say that this post really stands out to me: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blahedo \* > The priest at my parish is fond of saying, “act as if you have faith, and faith will be granted to you.” Not instantly, but over a period of time. It’s entirely true. If you really desire a belief in God, act as if you already have one; pray to God (this needn’t be formal, but can be a simple mental “letter” to God, of the “it’s me, Margaret” variety), go to Mass (or temple, or services, or whatever). There will always be periods of doubt—Mother Theresa, who is on the fast track to sainthood, wrote that she had doubts for almost her whole life—but this does not negate the basic belief, and it does not make you “worse” at whatever religion you’re shooting for. I don’t want to insult anyone, but is there a point at which the ‘pretending’ stops, and ‘belief’ starts? How do you tell the difference? Do you ever wonder if you’re just pretending really well? After all, you’ve spent a lot of time practicing. I would feel pretty disingenous, if not outright deceitful, if I was to pretend to have faith in order to gain the benefits of having a religious community. Sure, it’d be great to have all the nice things listed in **blahedo** ’s post, community, comfort, moral debate. And man, I’d love a place to sing with others. But pretending to share in others’ beliefs in order to get there just seems dishonest. I understand that **blahedo** ’s pastor encourages that sort of ‘fake it till you believe it’ approach, but I find even that pretty creepy. It would be very weird for me to join a congregation who profess to believe in something, but encourage people who don’t believe to act like they do. Once again, the dishonesty involved is a barrier, but additionally, I’d spend all my time in church wondering who was there because they really, truly believed, and who was just pretending so they could have a church to go to. What if no-one there really, actually believed? ---
**Author:** ![Svt4Him](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@Svt4Him](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svt4Him)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/151 "2003-08-03T19:56:20Z")
Mottpot- why do you want to find God? And I’m not being patronizing, I’m really curious. Creationism is nothing more than an educated guess, seeing as how it relies on ‘evidence’ (the bible) and does NOT use the scientific method- Oh, the method of proving something, removing all variables, then testing to see if your conclusion was relevant and reliable, and it’s reliable if you can do it over and over again in the same conditions…so when was the last time science created something out of nothing? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/152 "2003-08-03T22:10:47Z")
**mic84** : > [@](#): > > But memory _is_ physical - it’s just a bunch of physical processes. Nope. No more than the contents of my hard drive are just a bunch of ones and zeros. Or a bunch of low-level magnetic fluctuations. No more than the universe is just a vacuum fluctuation, a splatter of positive charges and negative charges dancing around that add up to zero. It’s not that these things are not on some level true, but that knowing them and trying to understand the subject matter at hand by working from these truths alone won’t get you anywhere. The complete works of Shakespeare are not best understood by conceptualizing them as vegetable-based ink stains on the surface of flattened sheets of linen fibers. That’s not _what they are_; it’s how they are stored. Or manifested, if you prefer. > [@](#): > > If Lekatt says that God is real in the sense that memory is real, it would mean that God is some combination of processes in the brain. That’s a bit of a logical jump, now isn’t it? If a Snopes reader were to be chatting with me and I were to mention the SDMB and I said that it is in a similar sense (albeit a much more majectic and all-encompassing one, to be sure) an endeavor dedicated to eradicating ignorance, should the Snopes fan reply with [parody] > [@](#): > > If AHunter3 says that SDMB is an attempt to eradicate ignorance in the sense that Snopes is an attempt to eradicate ignorance, it would mean that the SDMB is a bunch of html files located at [http://www.snopes.com](http://www.snopes.com) [/parody] – ?? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/153 "2003-08-03T22:45:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*By noting that brain trauma to different areas causes memories to be lost. > > Stuff in the human brain is harder to locate and measure than most other phenomena simply because you have the potential to easilly kill (or totally screw up someone’s personality) if you do anything too invasive. > > As an aside, you seem too fixated on using the five senses to detect and measure things. A lot of things that exist must be measured with special equipment, and not by actually seeing it with our eyes. I mean, take ultraviolet light, for instance. We can’t see it, but it’s still pretty easy to detect and measure. > > Please define your usage of the term “measure”. Also, I never said that memory was a non-physical object. memory is not an object at all. It is the _information_ contained in a certain arrangement of neurons. The neurons contain the memories by way of their configuration and interconnections. > > Consider this text on your monitor. If the monitor were removed, then where would the words be? You would not be able to see them, nor would you be able to easilly detect them (without access to the computer’s specs). But the text is still there, as information stored in RAM, and being output in a method that we cannot natively understand to the video-out of your video card. > > They are located within the brain as transient electro-chemical impulses, and can be measured with an EEG (electroencephalograph). We’ve gotten pretty good at this, and have even managed to figure out what general areas of the brain deal with different tasks, like language processing, visual perception, physical balance and coordination, etc. > > That statement is flat out wrong. The term “theory” has a very specific meaning when dealing with science, and “guess” is not one of its synonyms. > > The world is not divided into guesses and facts. Theories are neither. Theories are testable, falsefiable explainations for observed facts. > > Evolution _is_ a fact. Evolution is defined as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” That is the actual, scientific definition of evolution, and it is easilly observed. Once species evolving into another is an obvious outcome of evolution, not evolution itself. > > And just so you know, one species becoming another _has_ been observed: > > [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) > > Although you’ll probably argue that you don’t accept the scientific definition of “species”. > > That is _one_ definition of the word “theory”. However, that is **not** the definition that is used when dealing with scientific theories. That is the definition as used by lay-people in normal conversation. It’s unfortunate that science doesn’t have a totally different word for its theories, since the concept is quite different. Specifically, a scientific theory is defined as: > > "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena " > > The “scientifically acceptable” part is the key, since something must be testable and falsifiable to qualify as a scientific theory. > I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that Creationism or Intelligent Design are valid theories. If by “theory” you mean “guess”, then I agree with you. However, neither of those “theories” qualify to be a _scientific_ theory, because they don’t have the necessary qualifications. > > If you feel the need to continue to try to show me something that I know exists but can’t measure, I suggest that you try something other than the functions of the brain, since we can measure brain waves. \*\* Just a few more observations: Many have suffered brain injury with no loss of memory. Our senses are the only things we can process data with. True, there are instruments, these instruments are only extensions of the senses. It is still the senses we use, after all, without them we could not see, hear, feel, taste, or smell anything, might as well be dead (pun). There are also inner spiritual senses, sometimes known as intuition. You did say memory is not physical. You said it is the _information_ contained in a certain arrangement of neurons. Can these neurons be seen, and if not, how do you know they are there? If you have determined this by the study of brain waves, how can you be sure the waves are coming from the brain, rather than going to it. The spiritual nature of man would suggest the waves would be going to the brain. Now, about theory, I was taught the theory of evolution as theory over 40 years ago. I have kept up to date by reading the science publications. I see no need to upgrade the word theory. Evolution is theory, no one has seen it happen. Recently near death experiences have proven consciousness lives after the death of the body. This information, not new to NDEers, will be assembled before long into the knowledge base of science. It was scientific studies that proved it. I think this will change a lot of science in a positive way. I am looking forward to it. [http://www.ndeweb.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=65&post=730#POST730](http://www.ndeweb.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=65&post=730#POST730) [http://www.ndeweb.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=65&post=798#POST798](http://www.ndeweb.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=65&post=798#POST798) Love ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/154 "2003-08-03T23:44:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Just a few more observations: > > Many have suffered brain injury with no loss of memory.\*\* Which can be used to show that certain areas of the brain are not directly involved in the storage of memories, thus narrowing down the possible “locations” where memories reside. > [@](#): > > **Our senses are the only things we can process data with. True, there are instruments, these instruments are only extensions of the senses. It is still the senses we use, after all, without them we could not see, hear, feel, taste, or smell anything, might as well be dead (pun). There are also inner spiritual senses, sometimes known as intuition.** I was nodding in agreement until that last sentence. No one has been able to demonstrate that any sort of spiritual sense exists. And it’s not because the spiritual sense is some sort of “inner sense”. Our sense of balance is completely internal, as well. But we still know the mechanism by which it operates. With this supposed “spiritual sense”, there is no mechanism proposed by which it would operate, nor is there any method for testing for the existance of such a sense. Thus, I cannot see how one can claim that such a sense exists. > [@](#): > > **You did say memory is not physical. You said it is the _information_ contained in a certain arrangement of neurons. Can these neurons be seen, and if not, how do you know they are there?** Yes, neurons can be seen (under a microscope). They’re just brain cells, after all. Nothing mysterious there. > [@](#): > > **If you have determined this by the study of brain waves, how can you be sure the waves are coming from the brain, rather than going to it.** By the fact that ony sensors placed in close proximity to the brain pick up any electrical activity (i.e. brainwaves). > [@](#): > > **The spiritual nature of man would suggest the waves would be going to the brain.** If I suggested that light went _to_ lightbulbs instead of coming _from_ lightbulbs, you’d think I was crazy. If we were unable to determine whether something were a transmitter or a receiver, most of our technology would never have been invented. It is quite clear, from _all_ the evidence, that brain waves are caused by activity within the brain. Also, you’re begging the question. You are assuming that the spiritual nature of man demnands that we receive brainwaves, yet you have failed to demonstrate that man has a spiritual nature. > [@](#): > > **Now, about theory, I was taught the theory of evolution as theory over 40 years ago. I have kept up to date by reading the science publications. I see no need to upgrade the word theory. Evolution is theory, no one has seen it happen.** So you’re still refusing to accept that, in science, “theory” does not mean “guess”? Using alternate definitions of words in improper context is intellectually dishonest of you. In science, the word “theory” does not mean “guess”. It never has. If you were taught that that was its scientific meaning, then you had a very poor teacher, and I hope they were fired. You are also conflating the theory of evolution with the fact of evolution. That allele frequencies change within gene pools between generations is an observable fact. That also happens to be what evolution is defined as, thus evolution is a fact. The _theory_ of evolution is seperate from the _fact_ of evolution. They’re two completely different things. The theory attempts to explain how evolution works, based on the fact that evolution _does_ happen. > [@](#): > > **Recently near death experiences have proven consciousness lives after the death of the body. This information, not new to NDEers, will be assembled before long into the knowledge base of science. It was scientific studies that proved it.** Do you mean the study done in the Netherlands? Have you actually looked at the study yourself? Because it does not prove that the consciousness survives the death of the body. The study doesn’t even _claim_ that. In fact, they say: > [@](#): > > With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. That’s it. They say that it “should be discussed.” They actually flat out state that the existance of consciousness outside the body has never been proven (including by them). So if you’re attempting to use that study to prove life after death, or the existance of the soul, or anything similiar, then you’re misusing the study, and putting words in those doctors’ mouths. Im sure that they wouldn’t appreciate that. You have thus far failed to demonstrate why creation or intelligent design should be considered theories on par with evolution, which I have been asking you to do for quite a while now. You keep attacking evolution to try to tear it down to the same level as creationism (i.e. the level of a “guess”). I presume this is because you are unable to build creationism up to the same level as evolution (i.e. the level of “scientific theory”). ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/155 "2003-08-03T23:52:32Z")
> [@](#): > > **You did say memory is not physical. You said it is the _information_ contained in a certain arrangement of neurons. Can these neurons be seen, and if not, how do you know they are there?** [Yes](http://www.student.seas.gwu.edu/~dmlab/on_going_research.html), [neurons](http://ulysses.carthage.edu/departments/neuro/) [can](http://www.med.harvard.edu/publications/On_The_Brain/Volume4/Number2/SP95In.html) be [seen](http://www.egcrc.org/). They are cells. You need a microscope. On preview: I see **Joe Random** beat me to it, but have a look at the piccies, just in case you think he’s making it all up. Ain’t they purdy? ---
**Author:** ![Ryle\_Dup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Ryle\_Dup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryle_Dup)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/156 "2003-08-04T01:59:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > **There are also inner spiritual senses, sometimes known as intuition.** Intuition is a subconcious thing. Basically meaning your subconcious has answered a question which your concious mind has yet to solve, leading you to an inner sense of belief upon one choice over the other. Also, Svt4him, about your response, I have **no** idea what the hell you are saying, can you please word that more clearly? ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/157 "2003-08-04T02:00:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > **Evolution is theory, no one has seen it happen.** This hasn’t been true for years. There have been observed cases of both micro-evolution and speciesation/macro-evolution in both controlled laboratory conditions and in the real world (Mostly with insects). And I see you seem to be avoiding answering my question. Since I couldn’t find any reference to the question in all your “documentation,” would you care to put here, in your own words, the evidence that Reynolds’s brain did not create the very dream-like images and experiences while her brain was “shutting down” or “starting up”, instead of while her brain was inactive? For that matter, I’ll drag up another question you never answered, in your previous NDE hijacks: Do you think it is impossible for a person to dream of floating out of their physical body, looking down upon it, and conversing with some “being of light,” the typical story-line of an NDE “experience?” ---
**Author:** ![Ryle\_Dup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Ryle\_Dup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryle_Dup)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2003, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/158 "2003-08-04T02:12:59Z")
[Also](http://images.google.com/images?q=neuron&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search), neurons tying into memory is a [well](http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/kreiman/academia/media/the_dallas_morning_news_science.html=) established [fact](http://pweb.jps.net/~cryocoo/periastron/sep2001/howmemwork.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Ryle\_Dup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Ryle\_Dup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryle_Dup)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/159 "2003-08-04T02:19:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \* > \*\*This hasn’t been true for years. There have been observed cases of both micro-evolution and speciesation/macro-evolution in both controlled laboratory conditions and in the real world (Mostly with insects). > " \*\* One method of helping understand evolution is looking at [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian\_inheritance](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance)]Mendel’s Law of Inheritance ---
**Author:** ![Ryle\_Dup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Ryle\_Dup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryle_Dup)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179/160 "2003-08-04T02:20:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ryle Dup \* > \*\*One method of helping understand evolution is looking at [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian\_inheritance](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance)]Mendel’s Law of Inheritance \*\* :smack: that would be [**Mendel’s Law of Inheritance**](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance) :smack: :smack: :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-make-an-athiest-believe/192179.md?page=9)