Showing posts from November, 2017

Mark Did not Invent the Empty tomb!


Answering Atheist Questions About Consciouisness

This is in reference to BK's Nov 9 (2017) thread on Dennette, and especially the comment section affixed thereto.  Anonymous (aka "Pixie") has several questions which did not get answered,BK intimated that he feels that answering thee questions would be a waste of his time, so I will give my opinions instead. Giving my opinion i something I do rather well.
Anonymous (aka Pixie) said...

You have no actual theory of what consciousness really is, just a dogmatic belief in the soul, and that consciousness must somehow be there. So of course you want to avoid the mire of a myriad questions because you have no clue.We don't have to have an actual theory to understand that consciousnesses is not remediable to brain chemistry. I think you know that just expressing the opinion as you have is not a scientific theory, You are not constructing a scientific theory by telling us that you accept the atheist preachment of reductionist ideology and you reduce consistences to brain che…

Do Atheists Own the Internet?

This 2011 post I wrote on the Ticker is still as pertinent as ever. In the meantime, no one has yet bothered to ask if if it a good idea to want to own the Internet in the first place.


A certain YouTube atheist, CultofDusty, has staked the claim that "atheists own the Internet." I won’t link to his video here, because Dusty takes a George Carlin persona and has all the associated linguistic traits (and to be fair, he has in turn shown himself to be courteous in comments to me). He's a bit of a performer, so one may perhaps excuse him for some hyperbole. However, allowing for that, his reasons given for making this statement aren't particularly compelling:

Atheists are defeating Christians in debates on social media websites. Maybe so. I don’t hang around those at all. But they’re not winning on sites like TheologyWeb where serious discussion takes place, and social media sites aren’t exactly havens for people with a high interest in scholarship. At the s…

Mind is not Reducible to Brain part 2

J.P.Holding could not post on Friday I did a stand in for him That is where you find part 1 of this post, last Friday, JP will e back next Friday,

Empirical Data: There is No Empirical Data that proves reducibility

Both sciences and the general public have come to accept the idea that the mind is dependent upon the brain and that we can reduce mental activity to some specific aspect of the brain upon which it is dependent and by which it is produced. Within this assumption neuroimaging studies are given special credence. These kinds of studies are given special credence probably because the tangibility of their subject matter and the empirical data produced creates the illusion of “proof.”[1] Yet EEG and MRI both have resolution problems and can’t really pin point exactly where neural activity is located.” In short, neuroimaging studies may not be as objective as some would like to think. There are still large gaps between observation and interpretation – gaps that are ‘filled’ by theore…