Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs " including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Zzyzx]


Hello Zzyzx,

Despite your objection in post #565 to the DVD I suggested, I have yet another that I watched this morning that I strongly suggest as well. It's titled,

"Why 66? The Canon of Scripture How Do We Know the Bible Is True?"
by Brian H. Edwards

found at,

https://creationsuperstore.com/product/ ... rettyPhoto

This video very well addresses your statement, "Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None"

Although I am happy to be available on this forum to help answer issues, there's lots of material far better able to answer your issues than I am.

The people at Answers in Genesis are among those that I most appreciate and have much good material available to enrich you!



Take care,
Earl

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 570 by Erexsaur]

Earl,

I do not debate DVDs or links or far-away people. I debate here with members of this Forum. If you wish to present an actual argument feel free to do so.

I do not watch DVDs, pornography, television, movies or events. That will not change to suit someone's agenda.

If the makers of DVDs or representatives of Answers in Genesis website wish to debate here on our level playing field, where their religious beliefs are not given preferential treatment, I will be more than happy to accommodate them. In fact, I encourage you (generic term) to attempt to recruit such people because the Forum needs competent Theist debaters.


Z

[JoeyKnothead]

From various comments in the thread:

For some country folk, there's this notion that the ol' lady risks an arrestin' for lesser offenses the ol' man committed, so's the ol' man doesn't get sent back to prison on a parole or probation violation.

Not saying it's right, but in a lot of cases, it's easier and cheaper to spring a hen than a repeat or just male offender. I say if the hen's cool with it, well there we go.

Jesus ain't the only one to suffer for our sins

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs " including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

Hello,

In order to answer the question, you pose, I would first have to understand what type of verifiable evidence would suffice. There are different methods to verify a claim.Different branches of science accept various degrees of evidence before a theory is considered plausible, valid and accepted. Most of the physical sciences require empirical evidence which can be duplicated in experiments. Other branches of science such as physics and theoretical physics rely less on empirical evidence, but more on mathematical equations and theorems which provide a succinct explanation of observed or postulated physical events.

Nevertheless, I want to present some evidence from the field of neuroscience. Neuroscience is not a Bible tale or claim, an unsubstantiated opinion, unverifiable testimonial or speculation. Neuroscience is "Any or all of the sciences, such as neurochemistry and experimental psychology, which deal with the structure or function of the nervous system and brain" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... uroscience). This evidence speaks specifically to your question about humans having a soul. I will use the dictionary definition of a soul to ensure we are all talking about the same thing.

soul:1The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/soul

Science does a good job of telling us what is happening, but to the question of why, science can only provide theories. A scientific theory is is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the public. Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts (1). Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step " known as a theory " in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. These scientific theories attempt to explain why an event or phenomenon is taking place. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves dont change.

Back to my evidence about humans possessing a soul. Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an American neuroscientist who is the Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and an Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. In 2006, a study was conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, led by Dr. Andrew Newberg to study the mechanisms associated with religious and spiritual experiences. This type of research is dubbed neuroethology because of the attempts to explain how spiritual constructs such as a soul interact with the physical neurology of humans. The study focused on meditation, prayer and a specific type of prayer which has been claimed by Christians to be entirely spiritual, speaking in tongues. One would expect that prayer requires a person to use both the frontal and inferior parietal lobes of their brain, the same area that is used during human concentration and communication, to be active during meditation and prayer. The results of the study is shown below:

To look at neurophysiology of religious and spiritual practices, we used brain imaging technology called Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT), which allows us to measure blood flow. The more blood flow a brain area has, the more active it is. When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the superior parietal lobe during meditation. This area of the brain is responsible for giving us a sense of our orientation in space and time. We hypothesize that blocking a sensory and cognitive input into this area during meditation is associated with the sense of no space and no time that is so often described in meditation. The front part of the brain, which is involved in focusing attention and concentration, was more active during meditation. This makes sense since meditation requires a high degree of concentration. We also found that the more activity increased in the frontal lobe, the more activity decreased in the parietal lobe.

When we looked at the brains of Franciscan nuns in prayer, we found increased activity in the frontal lobes (same as Buddhists), but also increased activity in the inferior parietal lobe (the language area). This finding makes sense in relation to the nuns doing a verbally based practice (prayer) rather than visualization (meditation). The nuns like the Buddhists, also showed decreased activity in the superior parietal lobe.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

We also looked at the brain of a long-term meditator who was also an atheist. We scanned the person at rest and while meditating on the concept of God. The results showed that there were no significant increase in the frontal lobes as with other meditation practices The implication is that the individual was not able to activate the structures usually found in meditation when he was focusing on a concept that he did not believe in.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

In addition we looked at the images of five individuals who claim to pray with their spirit by a phenomenon known to Christians as speaking in tongues. In contrast to the Buddhist, nuns and atheist, the individuals who prayed while speaking in tongues had little to no activity in the frontal and parietal lobes. The individuals were not in a trance-like state as the regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were still active, but it was unclear which region was driving the behavior. Our finding of decreased activity in the frontal lobes during the practice of speaking in tongues is fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak. Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity, which is consistent with their description of a lack of intentional control while speaking in tongues.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

This led one researcher to suggest that we are hard-wired for interaction with God. To this the lead researcher stated:

The term "hard-wired" suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience cannot answer the question of purposeful design. However, what we can say is that the brain has two primary functions that can be considered from either a biological or evolutionary perspective. These two functions are self-maintenance and self-transcendence. The brain performs both of these functions throughout our lives. It turns out that religion also performs these two same functions. So, from the brain's perspective, religion is a wonderful tool because religion helps the brain perform its primary functions. Unless the human brain undergoes some fundamental change in its function, religion and God will be here for a very long time.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

Principal Investigator Dr. Newberg went on to state:

These findings could be interpreted as the subjects sense of self being taken over by something else. We, scientifically, assume its being taken over by another part of the brain, but we couldnt see, in this imaging study, where this took place. We believe this is the first scientific imaging study evaluating changes in cerebral activity -- looking at what actually happens to the brain -- when someone is speaking in tongues. This study also showed a number of other changes in the brain, including those areas involved in emotions and establishing our sense of self.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Rel ... olalia.htm

The study concluded with an affirmation that it was the immaterial part of the mind which directed the activity of speaking in tongues (glossolalia). Newberg concludes that the changes in the brain during speaking in tongues reflect a complex pattern of brain activity caused by immaterial invisible phenomenon.

Once again, the soul is defined as the immaterial part of a human being. This study provided credible, verifiable evidence that interaction takes place between the immaterial part of the mind, and the physical brain.

Feel free to check out the actual research in the links below. (Source #4 will require purchase, as this is where the core research is presented.)

Sources
1. http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/healt ... .html?_r=0
3. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ngues.html
4. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2706001211
5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8915007751

[H.sapiens]

Hello,

In order to answer the question, you pose, I would first have to understand what type of verifiable evidence would suffice. There are different methods to verify a claim.Different branches of science accept various degrees of evidence before a theory is considered plausible, valid and accepted. Most of the physical sciences require empirical evidence which can be duplicated in experiments. Other branches of science such as physics and theoretical physics rely less on empirical evidence, but more on mathematical equations and theorems which provide a succinct explanation of observed or postulated physical events.

Nevertheless, I want to present some evidence from the field of neuroscience. Neuroscience is not a Bible tale or claim, an unsubstantiated opinion, unverifiable testimonial or speculation. Neuroscience is "Any or all of the sciences, such as neurochemistry and experimental psychology, which deal with the structure or function of the nervous system and brain" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... uroscience). This evidence speaks specifically to your question about humans having a soul. I will use the dictionary definition of a soul to ensure we are all talking about the same thing.

soul:1The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/soul

Science does a good job of telling us what is happening, but to the question of why, science can only provide theories. A scientific theory is is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the public. Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts (1). Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step " known as a theory " in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. These scientific theories attempt to explain why an event or phenomenon is taking place. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves dont change.

Back to my evidence about humans possessing a soul. Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an American neuroscientist who is the Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and an Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. In 2006, a study was conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, led by Dr. Andrew Newberg to study the mechanisms associated with religious and spiritual experiences. This type of research is dubbed neuroethology because of the attempts to explain how spiritual constructs such as a soul interact with the physical neurology of humans. The study focused on meditation, prayer and a specific type of prayer which has been claimed by Christians to be entirely spiritual, speaking in tongues. One would expect that prayer requires a person to use both the frontal and inferior parietal lobes of their brain, the same area that is used during human concentration and communication, to be active during meditation and prayer. The results of the study is shown below:

To look at neurophysiology of religious and spiritual practices, we used brain imaging technology called Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT), which allows us to measure blood flow. The more blood flow a brain area has, the more active it is. When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the superior parietal lobe during meditation. This area of the brain is responsible for giving us a sense of our orientation in space and time. We hypothesize that blocking a sensory and cognitive input into this area during meditation is associated with the sense of no space and no time that is so often described in meditation. The front part of the brain, which is involved in focusing attention and concentration, was more active during meditation. This makes sense since meditation requires a high degree of concentration. We also found that the more activity increased in the frontal lobe, the more activity decreased in the parietal lobe.

When we looked at the brains of Franciscan nuns in prayer, we found increased activity in the frontal lobes (same as Buddhists), but also increased activity in the inferior parietal lobe (the language area). This finding makes sense in relation to the nuns doing a verbally based practice (prayer) rather than visualization (meditation). The nuns like the Buddhists, also showed decreased activity in the superior parietal lobe.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

We also looked at the brain of a long-term meditator who was also an atheist. We scanned the person at rest and while meditating on the concept of God. The results showed that there were no significant increase in the frontal lobes as with other meditation practices The implication is that the individual was not able to activate the structures usually found in meditation when he was focusing on a concept that he did not believe in.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

In addition we looked at the images of five individuals who claim to pray with their spirit by a phenomenon known to Christians as speaking in tongues. In contrast to the Buddhist, nuns and atheist, the individuals who prayed while speaking in tongues had little to no activity in the frontal and parietal lobes. The individuals were not in a trance-like state as the regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were still active, but it was unclear which region was driving the behavior. Our finding of decreased activity in the frontal lobes during the practice of speaking in tongues is fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak. Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity, which is consistent with their description of a lack of intentional control while speaking in tongues.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

This led one researcher to suggest that we are hard-wired for interaction with God. To this the lead researcher stated:

The term "hard-wired" suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience cannot answer the question of purposeful design. However, what we can say is that the brain has two primary functions that can be considered from either a biological or evolutionary perspective. These two functions are self-maintenance and self-transcendence. The brain performs both of these functions throughout our lives. It turns out that religion also performs these two same functions. So, from the brain's perspective, religion is a wonderful tool because religion helps the brain perform its primary functions. Unless the human brain undergoes some fundamental change in its function, religion and God will be here for a very long time.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

Principal Investigator Dr. Newberg went on to state:

These findings could be interpreted as the subjects sense of self being taken over by something else. We, scientifically, assume its being taken over by another part of the brain, but we couldnt see, in this imaging study, where this took place. We believe this is the first scientific imaging study evaluating changes in cerebral activity -- looking at what actually happens to the brain -- when someone is speaking in tongues. This study also showed a number of other changes in the brain, including those areas involved in emotions and establishing our sense of self.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Rel ... olalia.htm

The study concluded with an affirmation that it was the immaterial part of the mind which directed the activity of speaking in tongues (glossolalia). Newberg concludes that the changes in the brain during speaking in tongues reflect a complex pattern of brain activity caused by immaterial invisible phenomenon.

Once again, the soul is defined as the immaterial part of a human being. This study provided credible, verifiable evidence that interaction takes place between the immaterial part of the mind, and the physical brain.

Feel free to check out the actual research in the links below. (Source #4 will require purchase, as this is where the core research is presented.)

Sources
1. http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/healt ... .html?_r=0
3. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ngues.html
4. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2706001211
5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8915007751

You are not providing evidence, you are providing an opinion and making a spurious appeal to authority.

Besides, MDs are notoriously poor scientists. His attempts at puffery (that you parrot) fall flat. "Adjunct Professor" is the lowest rank of part time faculty (often meaning nothing more than sitting on a Masters student's committee) and his C.V. is full of semi-finalist and finalist rankings for awards that no one ever heard of (e.g., Semifinalist for Most Influential Radiology Researcher Award" at AuntMinnie.com, or Finalist for Books for a Better Life Award). Such entries are the hallmark of an egotist. I (and most other academics) never list Adjunct positions and only list awards that I actually received.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 574 by H.sapiens]

Besides, MDs are notoriously poor scientists. His attempts at puffery (that you parrot) fall flat. "Adjunct Professor" is the lowest rank of part time faculty (often meaning nothing more than sitting on a Masters student's committee) and his C.V. is full of semi-finalist and finalist rankings for awards that no one ever heard of (e.g., Semifinalist for Most Influential Radiology Researcher Award" at AuntMinnie.com, or Finalist for Books for a Better Life Award). Such entries are the hallmark of an egotist. I (and most other academics) never list Adjunct positions and only list awards that I actually received.

I was not aware that you could become an MD by only sitting on a Masters student's committee. Not all instructors are full time faculty. Some actually have other jobs (such as being a neuroscientist). Research professors do not teach full time. They typically teach in a limited capacity so they can devote more time to conducting actual research. If you recall:

Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an American neuroscientist who is the Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and an Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Just to be clear, the person I quoted was the Director of Research and not just some adjunct professor. If you actually want to dispute or discredit the research please do so on the merits of neuroscience and not by throwing out wild unfounded accusations.

[H.sapiens]

I was not aware that you could become an MD by only sitting on a Masters student's committee.

Neither was I. But you can become an MD and never have had a single course in evolutionary biology.

Not all instructors are full time faculty. Some actually have other jobs (such as being a neuroscientist).

True enough, but the puffery of listing Adjunct positions as though they were meaningful and honor-bearing appointments is just ego preying on public misunderstanding.

Research professors do not teach full time.

Research professors are not the same as Adjunct professors or Clinical professors and none of those are the same as "real" faculty.

They typically teach in a limited capacity so they can devote more time to conducting actual research. If you recall:

Research professors often do not teach at all and are usually self-supporting through "soft" money.

Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an American neuroscientist who is the Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital,

So what? This is a "center" that advertises on its website such scientifically rigorous programs as: Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, Facial Rejuvenation, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Integrative Cancer Care, Integrative Mental Health and Integrative Pain Management. Note, no program in neurosciences.

an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and an Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

The Adjunct position means nothing, the Associate professorship is the lowest ranking "real" position, but I'd bet that in reality he's nothing more than a Clinical Associate Professor (which translates as a doc that works at a teaching hospital, nothing more).

Just to be clear, the person I quoted was the Director of Research and not just some adjunct professor. If you actually want to dispute or discredit the research please do so on the merits of neuroscience and not by throwing out wild unfounded accusations.

The Director of Research at a center that leads with: Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine and Facial Rejuvenation and that doesn't even list neuroscience as one of it's attributes? I'm not impressed, and you should not be impressed either.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 576 by H.sapiens]

But you can become an MD and never have had a single course in evolutionary biology.

Does this man evolutionary biology is the only type of science which makes ones research valid? What does this comment mean in light of all other non-biology sciences?

I hope this was not what you were insinuating. If it were discovered that you had a tumor in your brain, would you want a MD in neuroscience to evaluate you or an evolutionary biologist?

To the rest of your post, I still ask for you to actually debate the evidence on the merits of neuroscience and not make wild unfounded accusations. Rather than looking at the actual research, you attempt to discredit the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine. Is this your best method for evaluating actual scientific evidence?

If it doesn't agree with what you already believe just reject it. Sounds similar to the accusations launched against believers.

To ensure that the actual evidence presented doesn't get lost in future posts, I will re-post it here:

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Hello,

In order to answer the question, you pose, I would first have to understand what type of verifiable evidence would suffice. There are different methods to verify a claim.Different branches of science accept various degrees of evidence before a theory is considered plausible, valid and accepted. Most of the physical sciences require empirical evidence which can be duplicated in experiments. Other branches of science such as physics and theoretical physics rely less on empirical evidence, but more on mathematical equations and theorems which provide a succinct explanation of observed or postulated physical events.

Nevertheless, I want to present some evidence from the field of neuroscience. Neuroscience is not a Bible tale or claim, an unsubstantiated opinion, unverifiable testimonial or speculation. Neuroscience is "Any or all of the sciences, such as neurochemistry and experimental psychology, which deal with the structure or function of the nervous system and brain" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... uroscience). This evidence speaks specifically to your question about humans having a soul. I will use the dictionary definition of a soul to ensure we are all talking about the same thing.

soul:1The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/soul

Science does a good job of telling us what is happening, but to the question of why, science can only provide theories. A scientific theory is is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the public. Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts (1). Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step " known as a theory " in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. These scientific theories attempt to explain why an event or phenomenon is taking place. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves dont change.

Back to my evidence about humans possessing a soul. Andrew Newberg, M.D. is an American neuroscientist who is the Director of Research at the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies and an Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. In 2006, a study was conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, led by Dr. Andrew Newberg to study the mechanisms associated with religious and spiritual experiences. This type of research is dubbed neuroethology because of the attempts to explain how spiritual constructs such as a soul interact with the physical neurology of humans. The study focused on meditation, prayer and a specific type of prayer which has been claimed by Christians to be entirely spiritual, speaking in tongues. One would expect that prayer requires a person to use both the frontal and inferior parietal lobes of their brain, the same area that is used during human concentration and communication, to be active during meditation and prayer. The results of the study is shown below:

To look at neurophysiology of religious and spiritual practices, we used brain imaging technology called Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT), which allows us to measure blood flow. The more blood flow a brain area has, the more active it is. When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the superior parietal lobe during meditation. This area of the brain is responsible for giving us a sense of our orientation in space and time. We hypothesize that blocking a sensory and cognitive input into this area during meditation is associated with the sense of no space and no time that is so often described in meditation. The front part of the brain, which is involved in focusing attention and concentration, was more active during meditation. This makes sense since meditation requires a high degree of concentration. We also found that the more activity increased in the frontal lobe, the more activity decreased in the parietal lobe.

When we looked at the brains of Franciscan nuns in prayer, we found increased activity in the frontal lobes (same as Buddhists), but also increased activity in the inferior parietal lobe (the language area). This finding makes sense in relation to the nuns doing a verbally based practice (prayer) rather than visualization (meditation). The nuns like the Buddhists, also showed decreased activity in the superior parietal lobe.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

We also looked at the brain of a long-term meditator who was also an atheist. We scanned the person at rest and while meditating on the concept of God. The results showed that there were no significant increase in the frontal lobes as with other meditation practices The implication is that the individual was not able to activate the structures usually found in meditation when he was focusing on a concept that he did not believe in.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

In addition we looked at the images of five individuals who claim to pray with their spirit by a phenomenon known to Christians as speaking in tongues. In contrast to the Buddhist, nuns and atheist, the individuals who prayed while speaking in tongues had little to no activity in the frontal and parietal lobes. The individuals were not in a trance-like state as the regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were still active, but it was unclear which region was driving the behavior. Our finding of decreased activity in the frontal lobes during the practice of speaking in tongues is fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak. Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity, which is consistent with their description of a lack of intentional control while speaking in tongues.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

This led one researcher to suggest that we are hard-wired for interaction with God. To this the lead researcher stated:

The term "hard-wired" suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience cannot answer the question of purposeful design. However, what we can say is that the brain has two primary functions that can be considered from either a biological or evolutionary perspective. These two functions are self-maintenance and self-transcendence. The brain performs both of these functions throughout our lives. It turns out that religion also performs these two same functions. So, from the brain's perspective, religion is a wonderful tool because religion helps the brain perform its primary functions. Unless the human brain undergoes some fundamental change in its function, religion and God will be here for a very long time.

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

Principal Investigator Dr. Newberg went on to state:

These findings could be interpreted as the subjects sense of self being taken over by something else. We, scientifically, assume its being taken over by another part of the brain, but we couldnt see, in this imaging study, where this took place. We believe this is the first scientific imaging study evaluating changes in cerebral activity -- looking at what actually happens to the brain -- when someone is speaking in tongues. This study also showed a number of other changes in the brain, including those areas involved in emotions and establishing our sense of self.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Rel ... olalia.htm

The study concluded with an affirmation that it was the immaterial part of the mind which directed the activity of speaking in tongues (glossolalia). Newberg concludes that the changes in the brain during speaking in tongues reflect a complex pattern of brain activity caused by immaterial invisible phenomenon.

Once again, the soul is defined as the immaterial part of a human being. This study provided credible, verifiable evidence that interaction takes place between the immaterial part of the mind, and the physical brain.

Feel free to check out the actual research in the links below. (Source #4 will require purchase, as this is where the core research is presented.)

Sources
1. http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-i ... heory.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/healt ... .html?_r=0
3. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ngues.html
4. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2706001211
5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8915007751

[/quote]

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 576 by H.sapiens]

But you can become an MD and never have had a single course in evolutionary biology.

Does this man evolutionary biology is the only type of science which makes ones research valid? What does this comment mean in light of all other non-biology sciences?

Medicine relies primarily on biological sciences and, as Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." A physician who lacks a good, up-to-date understanding of evolution is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

I hope this was not what you were insinuating. If it were discovered that you had a tumor in your brain, would you want a MD in neuroscience to evaluate you or an evolutionary biologist?

There is no such thing as an "MD in neuroscience." I'd want an oncologist and a neurosurgeon, both familiar and current in evolutionary biology.

To the rest of your post, I still ask for you to actually debate the evidence on the merits of neuroscience and not make wild unfounded accusations.

When you post actual scientific evidence rather than claptrap I'll be happy to show you where you went wrong.

Rather than looking at the actual research, you attempt to discredit the Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine. Is this your best method for evaluating actual scientific evidence?

Considering the source is always good rule, especially when a mistaken appeal to authority is the primary evidence.

If it doesn't agree with what you already believe just reject it. Sounds similar to the accusations launched against believers.

I have no beliefs, I deal in probabilities.

To ensure that the actual evidence presented doesn't get lost in future posts, I will re-post it here:

You could have saved a lot of bandwidth by just citing Post 573.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Hello Zzyzx,

Are we still at war? I hope not.

You said,

There are no gods in Atheism.

Although true there are no gods in Atheism, does that necessarily mean that God of the Bible is non-existent? Would the sun automatically disappear from the sky if someone claims theres no sun? If God is truly non-existent, may I ask why is there so much back-breaking effort by atheists to defend the supposed state of Gods non-existence as if trying to force God out of existence? That brings the implication that atheists know very well that God exists but denies the fact. Is that right?

You said,

We live in societies that establish mores, ethics, morals, laws, customs " irrespective of religion. Religious people and societies are not immune from atrocities.

US law is supposed to be religion-neutral but has been somewhat corrupted in that regard.

But the items you listed are dependent on the religion variable. As impossible to serve more than one master, so is it true with more than one religion master. Theres no neutrality between diametrically opposed religious concepts. Neither is there any such thing as religion-neutral law. George Washington stated,

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness"these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.


Thanks for your reply (Post #571) to my last post #570. Are you so afraid of whats on the DVDs I suggested that you think there may be a need to debate the material? (I wouldnt suggest such.) For what if thats the case? Silly me! I thought that the material on the DVDs would arm you with greater knowledge in addition to what we expect to gain from the debates! Are you telling me its not good to always increase in personal knowledge? You talked as if you put the material I suggested in the class with pornography? Shame on you! Neither do I care for pornography.

Debates are good but we must caution ourselves of the danger of wrongfully using them to unsettle instead of settling things.

You said,

Foundation NOT accepted

But the foundation I mentioned is indispensable. Please be careful.

Back to my example of a company you started: Suppose one of your employee, having no confidence in your ability to lead despite the fact that you run your company well and did nothing wrong, negates every word from your mouth as if they are all myths and try very hard to persuade others to believe that you dont exist. What would you do with this guy? Such an individual would be your showplace for how God sees unbelief.


You said,

I am unaware of any systems of justice (or reasoning) that allow a person to take punishment for another.

Where is assurance that Jesus was anything more than human? Guesswork?

Whether you or I like the way Jesus died for us or not, I only know that its the only way you or I would escape the justice we both deserve. Im much thankful! Have you considered what it would be like if Jesus was not more than human? I would never want any taste of absolute hopelessness!

The person that cant see the word of God as truthful assurance is blind to the fact that assurance awaits him.

Finally, may I please leave the following items before I go with the hope that you wont be offended by them? I only advise that which I would do myself and not what I wouldnt do! It is written:

O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever (Psalms 118: 1).

Rejoice in the LORD, ye righteous; and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness (Psalms 97 12).

Protocol, not anti-protocol brings the rewards of protocol. Dont you think that someone deserves to be thanked for that extremely complex, priceless body of yours thats a miracle in itself? How could anyone appreciate driving a very fine car while despising its builder?

If you decide to fuss about what I just said, I would much rather that you do it now because I told you rather than later because I didnt tell you.

Take care,
Earl