• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Resurrection

Originally Posted by zyzygy View Post
He gives children cancer. I would call that evil by any standard.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder - after all the mocks and ridicules you heap upon God - why are you still alive and well?
If God is evil......you'd think the first one to be struck dead, or given cancers, would be mockers.
 
devildavid said:
Like all physical emotions, it is shown by human behavior and physical reactions in the physical brain and nervous system.
Click to expand...

Tacking the word physical on the front of something doesn't make it physical... human behavior is not "emotions", the brain is not "emotions", the nervous system is not "emotions".

You're saying that emotions are physical because you can see the effects (on physical things) which were caused by the emotions. That still isn't showing that emotions are physical by nature; that is only showing that other physical objects can get affected as a result of emotions, such as your face turning red. But the redness is not the emotion.
 
Originally Posted by devildavid View Post
The mind is physical.
Click to expand...

nyet.

Wrong again.


While brain is considered to be a physical thing, mind is considered to be mental.

The brain is composed of nerve cells and blood vessels whereas the mind is not like that. While the brain has a definite shape, the mind does not have one. We can see and touch the brain whereas it is not possible to do this with the mind.

As the brain is made up of several materials, it can be studied. On the other hand, it is hard to conduct studies on the mind as it is not made up of any material.
Click to expand...
Difference Between Mind and Brain | Difference Between
 
tosca1 said:
I don't buy that.






Your reaction towards God - particularly, the Biblical God, is just way too intense.

Your reasons for it doesn't make any sense, either - they're more like babblings.
For Someone you claim to be fictional - He affects you so, and sure drives you to babble, doesn't He? :lol:


It's obvious.....you're drawn to God, reluctantly, like a moth to fire. It's all you ever talk about.
Just look at this thread, and your OP!
What's the point of it? :lol: To rile believers? Wasting what's left of your precious lifetime on it? For what? C'mon.



I still stand by my assessment (based on your own posts) that a part of you want to believe, but the other part resists.
You can deny it all you want. There's something going on inside you.
Click to expand...

tosca1 said:
What is it to you?

What a lame rationale.
Think of the Blair Witch Project - they sell it, claiming it's based on something real.
They sell so many books that claim to have been based on true events!
So it's really interesting that you'd SINGLE OUT the Bible.

As long as you believe it's all fiction.....and you don't buy into it, why would that affect you so much that you end up lashing out.......wasting your time creating topic after topic?


Think for a minute. If your only purpose is to deliberately inflict hurt on believers - aren't you the one who's evil?






What is it to you?

Does it prick you? By jove! It does, doesn't it?
It makes you "uncomfortable?" It does, doesn't it?
What else could it be?


Well........ don't blame the book, or its writers.
You're a grown up, aren't you? You should know how to keep yourself from getting carried away by something you believe
is fictional!
Click to expand...

tosca1 said:
If you're brain dead? If you can't make any rational decisions.
If you're being kept by others from enacting your rational decisions, and you're physically helpless to do anything about it, like you're held against your will.

Anyway - diagnosis can go sideways. Only God will know what's really going on in a person.
Doesn't He know what's in our hearts?


Luke 16
15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts.
What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.







How do you know God punishes people who has no control over their behaviour?
Click to expand...

tosca1 said:
Therefore, you can't really use them for facts in an argument!
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
gfm7175 said:
Where in the brain are emotions located?
Click to expand...

zyzygy said:
Many regions fundamental to mood are buried deep in the most primordial parts of the brain; that is, they are thought to have been among the first to develop in the human species. This is probably because mood is evolutionary important.

The emotion centre is the oldest part of the human brain: why is mood so important?

View attachment 67231235
The Brain - Diagram and Explanation
Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:
"regions fundamental to mood" are not "emotions".
Click to expand...

zyzygy said:
Wrong.
Definition of mood
1 : a conscious state of mind or predominant emotion : feeling He's been in a good mood all week.; also : the expression of mood especially in art or literature

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mood


What does all this have to do with the existence of gods?
Click to expand...

The issue here isn't the definition of mood; we both agree on that. The issue, rather, is that you said "regions fundamental to mood" (I'm assuming that "regions" means "specific sections of the physical brain"). When you made your claim, you didn't show that "mood" or "emotions" themselves are physical in nature, but rather you showed that "mood" and "emotions" have a physical effect on "specific sections of the physical brain". "Mood" and "emotions" are not physical like a pen is. I can grab a pen; I can't grab an emotion.
 
gfm7175 said:
The issue here isn't the definition of mood; we both agree on that. The issue, rather, is that you said "regions fundamental to mood" (I'm assuming that "regions" means "specific sections of the physical brain"). When you made your claim, you didn't show that "mood" or "emotions" themselves are physical in nature, but rather you showed that "mood" and "emotions" have a physical effect on "specific sections of the physical brain". "Mood" and "emotions" are not physical like a pen is. I can grab a pen; I can't grab an emotion.
Click to expand...

You also can't grab a mental image of a pen. What does all this have to do with the Jesus resurrection myth?
 
zyzygy said:
You also can't grab a mental image of a pen. What does all this have to do with the Jesus resurrection myth?
Click to expand...

Yes, because a mental image of a pen is not a pen. Just like a mental image of an emotion is not an emotion. You're trying to tell me that emotions (and everything else) are physical/material when they actually aren't.

There is much more to this world than physical materialism... emotions, logic, etc. etc. show that there is in fact a spiritual realm because those things are not physical in nature.

Seems like you want to avoid this discussion like the plague because you are intellectually losing the discussion, but if you want to talk about the resurrection, then we can talk about the resurrection. We just happened to get into a side discussion about "will" and "involuntary brain activity" and that led into a discussion about materialism. What about the resurrection do you want to discuss? Or do you want to continue comparing apples to oranges with me? -- you can't compare a mental image of a pen to an emotion... you would have to compare a mental image of a pen to a mental image of an emotion.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Yes, because a mental image of a pen is not a pen. Just like a mental image of an emotion is not an emotion. You're trying to tell me that emotions (and everything else) are physical/material when they actually aren't.

There is much more to this world than physical materialism... emotions, logic, etc. etc. show that there is in fact a spiritual realm because those things are not physical in nature.

Seems like you want to avoid this discussion like the plague because you are intellectually losing the discussion, but if you want to talk about the resurrection, then we can talk about the resurrection. We just happened to get into a side discussion about "will" and "involuntary brain activity" and that led into a discussion about materialism. What about the resurrection do you want to discuss? Or do you want to continue comparing apples to oranges with me? -- you can't compare a mental image of a pen to an emotion... you would have to compare a mental image of a pen to a mental image of an emotion.
Click to expand...

Losing the discussion? This thread has been derailed. It it about the resurrection myth. You are avoiding discussing that. All this verbiage about a mental image of an idea of a concept of an imagined pen is beside the point.
 
zyzygy said:
Losing the discussion? This thread has been derailed. It it about the resurrection myth. You are avoiding discussing that. All this verbiage about a mental image of an idea of a concept of an imagined pen is beside the point.
Click to expand...

Like I said in the last post, what do you want to discuss concerning the resurrection...
 
gfm7175 said:
Tacking the word physical on the front of something doesn't make it physical... human behavior is not "emotions", the brain is not "emotions", the nervous system is not "emotions".

You're saying that emotions are physical because you can see the effects (on physical things) which were caused by the emotions. That still isn't showing that emotions are physical by nature; that is only showing that other physical objects can get affected as a result of emotions, such as your face turning red. But the redness is not the emotion.
Click to expand...

The emotions are a physical reaction experienced by a physical being.
 
gfm7175 said:
The issue here isn't the definition of mood; we both agree on that. The issue, rather, is that you said "regions fundamental to mood" (I'm assuming that "regions" means "specific sections of the physical brain"). When you made your claim, you didn't show that "mood" or "emotions" themselves are physical in nature, but rather you showed that "mood" and "emotions" have a physical effect on "specific sections of the physical brain". "Mood" and "emotions" are not physical like a pen is. I can grab a pen; I can't grab an emotion.
Click to expand...

And without a brain and nervous system, you can't feel an emotion.
 
devildavid said:
The emotions are a physical reaction experienced by a physical being.
Click to expand...

I'll try with you what I tried with xyxygy...

A pen is real. An emotion is real. If both are physical in nature, why can I grab a pen but I can't grab an emotion?
 
devildavid said:
That said nothing about the probability of god.
Click to expand...

Yes it does!

Mind you, it's you who insist that mind is physical (and you've been proven wrong).......so, why should your opinion be taken like as if you know what you're saying? By the looks of it, you cannot understand even a simple statement by the NAS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom