# The end of religious discussion in GD **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240 "2008-04-21T15:41:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/461 "2008-04-24T20:47:20Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] It applies equally in this case. You cannot have evidence that God exists if God permeates everything, because definition is as much about showing what something is as what something is not. You are asking me to prove universal monism within a dualistic framework. It simply doesn’t work. [/QUOTE] I think even Dawkins said that if you want to call the universe God, go right ahead. But that has nothing to do with the concept of God in western religions. Does the universe have independent will? this is similar to one guy in talk.atheism who said: Augustus was considered a god. Augustus existed. Therefore, god exists. If this kind of thing is the best you’ve got, you can join the atheist conspiracy. The black helicopter will be delivering your starter kit and your anti-rapture helmet as soon as you fill out the forms. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/462 "2008-04-24T20:48:21Z")
**Contrapuntal** Though I would like to point out that your cite clearly in one paragraph elucidates my argument on the topic. > [@](#): > > Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.” The statement generally is that, “I don’t believe in ANY gods.”, my argument is that it’s not really possible for me to provide evidence for something that is beyond all definition. Yet you guys persist. Maybe you’re simply not even reading what I write before you respond? I guess that’s possible. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/463 "2008-04-24T20:50:04Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Awesome! Prove that God doesn’t exist. [/QUOTE] Did you somehow interpret my response to mean that one can prove _all_ negatives? It seems to me that proving one negative would invalidate your assertion. > [@](#): > > Holy shit, you were able to find a website that reiterates your position! Wow, I’m convinced! How could I have ever missed this? My best guess is that A) You dismiss anything that does not conform to your worldview, and B) You have less interest in being informed than you do in scoring points. > [@](#): > > I understand the concept of burden of proof. The context wasn’t about God, the context was about proving that the brain =/= personality. So within the context of the anti-theist screed that you posted, how would I go out and prove the negative that the ‘brain =/= personality’, unless of course you are referring to falsifying the hypothesis which isn’t the same as proving a negative. That illustrates my point. There were several examples in the link that had nothing to do with God. Apparently, they were invisible to you. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/464 "2008-04-24T20:50:36Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I think even Dawkins said that if you want to call the universe God, go right ahead. But that has nothing to do with the concept of God in western religions. Does the universe have independent will? [/quote] What is the concept of God in western religions? You are acting like we are working from an accepted standard. > [@](#): > > this is similar to one guy in talk.atheism who said: Augustus was considered a god. Augustus existed. Therefore, god exists. Depends on what kind of properties someone ascribes to Augustus then. If one defines a god that way, and the properties are evident, then yes that is proof of the existence of ‘a god’. > [@](#): > > If this kind of thing is the best you’ve got, you can join the atheist conspiracy. The black helicopter will be delivering your starter kit and your anti-rapture helmet as soon as you fill out the forms. Hey, I’m a vague Deist, as I’ve said OVER AND OVER again. We clearly live in the same world, but see it from very different viewpoints. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/465 "2008-04-24T20:54:35Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Prove it. And while you do it, I’ll point out that the brain determining personality is not the same as the brain = personality. Now, let’s get cracking on those cites. [/QUOTE] So? Computer != funning process, but you’re going to have a lot of trouble running software with a dead computer. The hypothesis that the personality runs on the brain (in my computer scientist sense) is pretty well supported, with no contradictory evidence I know of. Unless you count l_k_tt. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/466 "2008-04-24T21:01:10Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Did you somehow interpret my response to mean that one can prove _all_ negatives? It seems to me that proving one negative would invalidate your assertion. [/quote] Your article was specifically about the burden of proof regarding Theism. > [@](#): > > My best guess is that A) You dismiss anything that does not conform to your worldview, and B) You have less interest in being informed than you do in scoring points. Again you are abusing context. Apply it to the context of the debate, about whether or not we can prove that the brain =/= personality. How would I set about proving that? > [@](#): > > That illustrates my point. There were several examples in the link that had nothing to do with God. Apparently, they were invisible to you. You’re right. Fine, you can prove a negative. Now apply it to the context you were replying to rather than using it as a bludgeon to make a Deist feel bad about themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/467 "2008-04-24T21:02:58Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] What is the concept of God in western religions? You are acting like we are working from an accepted standard. [/quote] God has an independent will, can make things happen on Earth, talks to people, dictates morality, and usually has a plan. The Jewish and descendant religions have him omniscient and omnipotent also (at least after the first few chapters of Genesis) but the Greek Gods aren’t. > [@](#): > > Depends on what kind of properties someone ascribes to Augustus then. If one defines a god that way, and the properties are evident, then yes that is proof of the existence of ‘a god’. Exactly. If you define random things as god, then by your definition god exists. The problem is that if you define god as immortal and all powerful, then Augustus is not a god. If you define god as having a will, then the universe is not a god either - unless one has some very flaky beliefs, which believe me I’ve seen. > [@](#): > > Hey, I’m a vague Deist, as I’ve said OVER AND OVER again. We clearly live in the same world, but see it from very different viewpoints. Then why are you arguing so much? My wife is a vague deist, in that she feels more comfortable believing there is a purpose, but does not believe that this god has anything to do with us. Our actions with respect to religion and belief are identical. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/468 "2008-04-24T21:03:00Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] So? Computer != funning process, but you’re going to have a lot of trouble running software with a dead computer. The hypothesis that the personality runs on the brain (in my computer scientist sense) is pretty well supported, with no contradictory evidence I know of. Unless you count l_k_tt. [/QUOTE] Run on, but container != contained. If my heart stopped I wouldn’t have any blood flowing through my veins, and my brain would eventually shut down but that doesn’t mean brain = heart. My truck requires an engine to run, it’s a necessary component, but that doesn’t mean truck = engine. ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/469 "2008-04-24T21:03:01Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] This is one big obviously stupid strawman. He never said anything about surgeons operating on someone with the intent of doing anything to their personality. If a person’s personality is their brain then anything that pokes into their brain pokes into their personality, surgeon was just an example. You clearly do _not_ possess the common sense to keep your mouth shut when it interacting with others. [/QUOTE] Take the strawman and stick it. Saying that ones brain matter is ones personality is just bullshit. People have lost brain matter and not had thier personality altered in any way. He was making a smart assed comment and if you can’ see it you’re a bigger ass than he is. And before you type your immature ass “cite” bullshit you can stick that in your ass too. Fuckin’ snapperhead. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/470 "2008-04-24T21:07:15Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Run on, but container != contained. If my heart stopped I wouldn’t have any blood flowing through my veins, and my brain would eventually shut down but that doesn’t mean brain = heart. My truck requires an engine to run, it’s a necessary component, but that doesn’t mean truck = engine. [/QUOTE] No, since if you were on a heart machine your brain would still run. You can swap a heart, and have the same brain. Take out chunks of the brain, and it is a different story. A truck isn’t a relevant analogy, since no processes run on a truck. What is meant by a truck reminds me of the Argo(?) paradox - how is the identify of a thing preserved when you exchange all its parts. The quality of the heart affects the brain, just like fluctuations in the voltage supply affect a computer, but those are inputs it it, not it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/471 "2008-04-24T21:07:48Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] God has an independent will, can make things happen on Earth, talks to people, dictates morality, and usually has a plan. The Jewish and descendant religions have him omniscient and omnipotent also (at least after the first few chapters of Genesis) but the Greek Gods aren’t. [/quote] Ok, well the Jewish God cannot be disproven unless you can prove that he didn’t talk to Moses or Ezekiel. The Jewish God didn’t talk to everyone. > [@](#): > > Exactly. If you define random things as god, then by your definition god exists. The problem is that if you define god as immortal and all powerful, then Augustus is not a god. If you define god as having a will, then the universe is not a god either - unless one has some very flaky beliefs, which believe me I’ve seen. Then I guess it’s important to define God before arguing about it right? > [@](#): > > Then why are you arguing so much? My wife is a vague deist, in that she feels more comfortable believing there is a purpose, but does not believe that this god has anything to do with us. Our actions with respect to religion and belief are identical. I am arguing because I want to see more nuance come from the atheist side of the debate. It’s really unfortunate that these debates devolve because otherwise intelligent people defend **Der Trihs** and his obvious pap. The fact that people see **Der Trihs** as being a cut above **Lekatt** is evidence of a circling of the wagons. He makes imperious proclamations and never provides cites to back up his proclamations. It is a double-standard where the burden of proof on theists is more stringent than it is on atheists. If there were an equal standard, I’d have no problem. On the religious message board I post on, I end up siding with the atheists in most debates, and am perfectly comfortable in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/472 "2008-04-24T21:09:06Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] No, since if you were on a heart machine your brain would still run. You can swap a heart, and have the same brain. Take out chunks of the brain, and it is a different story. A truck isn’t a relevant analogy, since no processes run on a truck. What is meant by a truck reminds me of the Argo(?) paradox - how is the identify of a thing preserved when you exchange all its parts. The quality of the heart affects the brain, just like fluctuations in the voltage supply affect a computer, but those are inputs it it, not it. [/QUOTE] How is a truck a poor analogy? If I had a 454 in it and swapped it for a 350 it wouldn’t be the same truck would it? A brain without electrical impulses is still a brain, but it’s not my personality. You can touch my brain when I am dead, but my personality is no longer there. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/473 "2008-04-24T21:43:18Z")
**Der Trihs** is an ass, granted, but at least he’s not as annoying as **lekatt**. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/474 "2008-04-24T22:02:05Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] I see. So you do not require evidence for your assertions. You are above such petty things. I understand. [/QUOTE] Hey, did you hurt yourself with that incredible leap to conclusion? You should probably stretch before trying that. You’re sitting on the internet, demanding evidence for brain & personality connections. That’s like a person standing on the beach demanding evidence for sand or water. You want a cite? [Here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease) > [@](#): > > I do understand basic neurology BTW. In my study of neurology and cognitive science, I have never seen anything that says, that the brain IS the personality, only that they are related. Wait, you’ve studied this? And you sit there and demanding cites for something you claim you’ve already studied? :rolleyes: And in this study of neurology and cognitive science, did you find anything at all that indicated that there was something else responsible for personality? Anything this might lead you to conclude that there is a reason to think there is something else responsible? > [@](#): > > You are merely making imperious proclamations. You aren’t providing any evidence. So by **Der Trihs** logic, you must be lying. What they hell are you babbling about? You require evidence that there is no evidence of something? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/475 "2008-04-24T22:07:25Z")
[QUOTE=Omegaman] Take the strawman and stick it. Saying that ones brain matter is ones personality is just bullshit. People have lost brain matter and not had thier personality altered in any way. [/QUOTE] Bwahahahaha! That’s your argument? No wonder you needed to resort to swearing to try and make a point. No one has ever said that every single inch of your brain is your personality, or that every single brain cell helped determine your personality. As you’ve pointed out, some of them have to be reserved for trying to argue about things you don’t know squat about. > [@](#): > > He was making a smart assed comment and if you can’ see it you’re a bigger ass than he is. And before you type your immature ass “cite” bullshit you can stick that in your ass too. Fuckin’ snapperhead. Of course he was making a smart ass comment, it was all the reply that was needed to respond to your abject ignorance. And snapperhead? WTF? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/476 "2008-04-24T22:11:50Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Hey, did you hurt yourself with that incredible leap to conclusion? You should probably stretch before trying that. You’re sitting on the internet, demanding evidence for brain & personality connections. That’s like a person standing on the beach demanding evidence for sand or water. You want a cite? [Here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease) [/quote] See this is where you are outright lying. I didn’t need a cite for brain and personality connections. That’s not what you are defending. **Der Trihs** said that the brain IS the personality, that a brain surgeon TOUCHES your personality when he touches the brain. You don’t need to be straight up dishonest just because you don’t like my views on religion. > [@](#): > > Wait, you’ve studied this? And you sit there and demanding cites for something you claim you’ve already studied? :rolleyes: I’ve studied neurology, and nowhere does it say that the brain IS the personality. At least not what I read. The Visual Cortex processes visual information and sends it to the Cerebral Cortex where it is integrated into conscious thought, but that doesn’t mean that the brain IS the personality. Please do me a favor and actually READ MY FUCKING ARGUMENT before you attempt to refute it. You might find that you and I are not in disagreement. > [@](#): > > And in this study of neurology and cognitive science, did you find anything at all that indicated that there was something else responsible for personality? Anything this might lead you to conclude that there is a reason to think there is something else responsible? Again, more of your fucking bullshit idiotic straw man. > [@](#): > > What they hell are you babbling about? You require evidence that there is no evidence of something? _sigh_ If you can’t follow the thread of the debate why are you wasting my fucking time? Maybe if you spent more time actually paying attention to my arguments rather than knee-jerking and jumping to the defense of a serious dumbass, you’d do a little bit better. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/477 "2008-04-24T22:12:25Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] It’s your prerogative to discount all subjective experiences on the basis that they can not be replicated. [/QUOTE] How about I discount them on the basis that human perception is demonstrably unreliable? Or any number of examples of personal bias? Or the distortions introduced by memory? Or things like confirmation bias? Do those work too? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/478 "2008-04-24T22:23:37Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] See this is where you are outright lying. I didn’t need a cite for brain and personality connections. That’s not what you are defending. **Der Trihs** said that the brain IS the personality, that a brain surgeon TOUCHES your personality when he touches the brain. You don’t need to be straight up dishonest just because you don’t like my views on religion. [/QUOTE] Er, what? Where am I lying? Where did I say anything about your views on religion in there? And yes, according to everything we’ve found, the brain is personality. Everything we’ve found points to the brain as the source, whereas nothing we’ve found points to anything else as a source. A normal rational person would conclude that the brain is the source of personality, according to the evidence we have now. There is no proof, as there is always room for evidence to contrary. All you have to do to prove this wrong is come up with one bit of evidence, anything, that points to something other than the brain as the source of personality. But you keep not doing that… I wonder why. > [@](#): > > I’ve studied neurology, and nowhere does it say that the brain IS the personality. At least not what I read. The Visual Cortex processes visual information and sends it to the Cerebral Cortex where it is integrated into conscious thought, but that doesn’t mean that the brain IS the personality. Please do me a favor and actually READ MY FUCKING ARGUMENT before you attempt to refute it. You might find that you and I are not in disagreement. Holy crap, please tell me you don’t think that’s all the brain does. Cuz if so YOUR FUCKING ARGUMENT sucks. The brain does lots of things, and some of them include personality. Is it really that hard to get? > [@](#): > > Again, more of your fucking bullshit idiotic straw man. Strawman? Try again. You claimed that, and here I’m quoting: > [@](#): > > brain =|= personality If you studied what you claimed you studied, then you could answer that questions. And yet you’ve chosen to bust out some random accusation of logical fallacy. > [@](#): > > If you can’t follow the thread of the debate why are you wasting my fucking time? Maybe if you spent more time actually paying attention to my arguments rather than knee-jerking and jumping to the defense of a serious dumbass, you’d do a little bit better. And that’s three strikes. Maybe you should try to actually argue instead of just heaping imagined problems at your opponent. Which imperious proclamations did I make? Where do I need to present evidence for my arguments? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/479 "2008-04-24T22:30:35Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] Holy crap, please tell me you don’t think that’s all the brain does. Cuz if so YOUR FUCKING ARGUMENT sucks. The brain does lots of things, and some of them include personality. Is it really that hard to get? [/QUOTE] For you apparently. The brain performs the task of personality. As you have said, some of the things it does includes personality. That is different from ‘The brain IS personality’. I can answer, and I know that the brain IS NOT personality. Personality is but one function of the brain. A brain surgeon IS NOT touching your personality. Anyway, I started a GD thread about this asinine argument. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2008, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/480 "2008-04-24T22:35:01Z")
Also, the wikipedia entry for Alzheimer’s disease IS NOT A FUCKING CITE. Colon cancer affects a person’s personality also, that doesn’t mean that a proctologist is touching your personality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240.md?page=25)