/sci/ - Science & Math

1. We accept that alien life likely exists because life on Earth exists and it's less plausible that other life exists as well than it is that we're totally unique in the universe.

2. We don't. You just imagine we do because it eases your butthurt.

3. We don't. If you'd actually read any of those atheist books you hate you'd find they are staunchly anti-Islam.

4. Because we need that technology for our species to survive in the long term.

5. I don't support partial birth abortions for precisely this reason. But nobody who is rational should have any problem with halting a bodily process while the 'baby' is just a clump of cells.

6. You're listing scientists who lived centuries ago. That's why they believed in god, because they were comparatively ignorant. It's what we've discovered since then that supports atheism. Yes, there are SOME christian scientists, but a majority are now atheists.

7. Actually we have strong evidence now that the big bang does not violate the law of conservation. The total energy of the universe, balancing matter/energy with negative gravitational energy, works out to be zero. It didn't come out of nothing, it IS nothing, but in a separated state.

8. We don't have that faith. You just imagine we do because you haven't researched the specific scientific findings which we accept that you don't, therefore you don't understand why we accept them, and it looks to you like faith.

>>3448714

Actually, nobody gets thrown into hell. No afterlife exists, as souls don't exist. You think with your brain, not a ghost that lives in your brain.

Most of you rightfully laugh at Creationists because from your point of view the Creationist is backwards, as he selectively denies some scientific findings but not others based mainly on whether or not those findings conflict with what he wants to believe.

The thing is, moderate Christians do the exact same thing. This accusation often elicits a raised eyebrow. "Whatever could he mean?" they think, "I already accept evolution". Moderate christians seem to think that, having accepted evolution, their beliefs are completely consonant with science.

Then, when they're introduced to the problems that neurobiology poses for the concept of the soul, and the fact that a scientific explanation for the cause of the big bang *does* exist, they go into denial mode using the same exact arguments that Creationists use, just applied to a different field.

What happened to being accepting of scientific findings? In what way is your selective denial of only that evidence which threatens your beliefs any less backwards than the Creationist's?

I'll just leave this here.

>>3241068

>>I bet you're just another below average ignorant chump about what spiritual intelligence means?

I make no claim to brilliance but I know that if you mean 'spiritual' as 'pertaining to the spirit', and 'spirit' as 'disembodied consciousness/personality', neurobiologists have some bad news for you.

As little as we know of the brain, it's clear at least that it's not just a 'vessel' or an 'antenna'. It's structurally subdivided into specialized portions which light up on fMRI as they process the sort of input they're responsible for[1]. Everything from emotions like hate and love[2] to physical memory to personality and face/name association has a corresponding mechanism in the brain. Conscious thought is information (in the form of electrical impulses) being processed,[3] and for information to be processed in that manner a physical structure is needed, i.e. a processor. Without that, it's simply an electric charge. You can no more separate human consciousness from the brain it runs on than you can take a program running on your PC and separate it out of the CPU, GPU, ram, hard drive and the rest of the physical structure responsible for executing it. You can transmit that information to another machine wirelessly, but even then it's a material phenomenon (radio waves) and the program cannot continue to execute while in transmission as it hasn't any physical, organizing structure to process it.

Perhaps one day we'll be able to capture the contents of a brain, transmit it as digital information and have it written to a new brain or sufficiently brainlike machine. But our own brains, as they are, appear to have no natural mechanism for accomplishing this. The brain runs on very, very little electricity and waste radiation (delta waves mainly) penetrates only 1/4th of an inch past the skull before dissipating completely. If consciousness were preserved after death we might expect to see some unique process take place within the brain as a patient dies, but those few times it's been observed, neuronal activity simply destabilized, coinciding with the release of DMT, until brain activity ceased entirely.[4]

>>2058570

>>1. How did consciousness evolved and what is consciousness?

You're joking right? Neurology doesn't understand it fully but it's not as if nothing is known about it. We can for instance say with some certainty that it's a biological process and a product *of* the brain, not something separate or extricable from the brain.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16775-consciousness-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brain.ht
ml

[x]Told
[ ]Not Told