Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 383

Let's start with your first point:

1. We can demonstrate that while a person is conscious, there is electrical activity in the brain.

Where's the evidence?

I can demonstrate both of these easily, but I'll need a willing participant, an EKG, and a gun.

I'll settle for a journal article.

You're quite right that I have no medical texts at my place of work, nor the inclination to go on a Google search to prove both of the above statements - it would be a waste of my time.

I agree. It's a waste of time as you won't find anything. That's my point.

If you disagree with them, say so. If you agree with them, say so.

I thought we were talking about facts and evidence, not my personal beliefs? What's your obsession with what I personally believe?

My guess? You're just avoiding the truth.

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 383

Which constituent part of "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain" are you suggesting is incorrect?

Your claim: There exists "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain".

Present some evidence to support that claim. If you're claim is true, this should be really really easy. That's dramatically different from your earlier claims, but I don't expect that you acknowledge a difference, so we'll roll with it for the time being. Once we get you to post something other than pure assertion, we'll work on deconstructing your original post.

Of course, it's impossible for you to meet that simply challenge as no such evidence exists. You won't believe that, of cousre, until your search turns up empty. I suspect by now that you've figured it out, which is why you STILL haven't offered any evidence in support of your claims.

Either you don't know what you believe, or you're too afraid to state it for fear of persecution or simply being provably wrong about something.

What I believe is irrelevant to the discussion. After all, what I believe will not alter my claim: that you presented baseless speculation as fact.

Arguing with you is boring.

What argument? I've only asked you for one thing: present evidence to support your claims which are obviously, as I asserted earlier, baseless speculation. You seem more concerned about my personal beliefs and motivations, which are completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. I suspect it's because you really don't like the conclusion you'll be forced to draw if you face my simple challenge head-on. :)

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 383

There is, however, plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain

Then present some. (This may be difficult for you as none actually exists.)

My assertions ARE the result of the scientific process.

Then present the evidence!

Actually, you have asserted something - you believe in life after death.

I made NO such assertion! Like the imaginary evidence you allude to above, you'll find that a quote from me making such an assertion does not exist.

Now, go do some reading. I'd say that you're in for a surprise, but I've already spoiled the ending.

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 383

Everything I've stated is a proven, testable fact. The mechanisms at play are established in current theory.

Absolute nonsense. Go ahead, try to support your assertions with established science. You'll find that it's impossible.

If you refer to results of the scientific process as "baseless speculation" then you have advanced a position - that being that you don't trust the scientific process.

Again, you're confused. Your assertions are NOT in any way the "results of the scientific process". You'll discover this as you try to address the challenge presented above.

Why are so many "defenders of science" scientifically illiterate?

Comment Re:Hmmm... (Score 1) 383

Ah, you're just confused. See, you've come to your conclusions from a set of metaphysical assumptions, which you've confused with "established medical and scientific fact".

That's why you can't actually support your assertions -- they're completely baseless!

If you have any contrary opinion, then you need to provide evidence to support YOUR position.

Again, you're confused. My thoughts and opinions on the larger issue are completely irrelevant, which is why I haven't advanced any position. You seem to think that by pointing out the obvious fact that your post was nothing but baseless speculation was an indictment of your claims or was made in support of the parent's. That's all in your imagination.

The only position I've advanced is that you presented baseless speculation as fact and that what the parent presented was also mere speculation.

Comment Re:Science works (Score 1) 434

When did I ever say that being an atheist necessitates additional qualities?

You wrote:

A religious person lacks much of the reasoning ability that scientists require

Which implies that non-religious people do not lack those abilities. But it looks like you got over it, as you contradict that here:

Netwon is arguably on of the smartest men to have ever existed. Newton's religious beliefs do not detract from his brilliance

any opinion I have has to be carefully scrutinized because I understand my brain is not very good at being rational.

I can't argue with that.

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman