3 Reasons Why Theism is Wrong.

pat · April 28, 2011, 5:22pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I refuse to give up on you Chris. (or you either Pat) St. Thomas has left you guys naked and bleeding in a den of lions. You give them home advantage every time you do this.[/quote]

OK - please make me BELIEVE. I earnestly want to believe in God. YOU are going to heaven. I am not. Most of my good friends are believers and I wish to be enlightened also.

If you have the truth, please enlighten me as I want to know the truth. I don’t care to be ignorant. I want to see all my friends in heaven when I die.

But my rational brain (the one that God gave me) refuses to accept mysticism.

So, help me out.
[/quote]

No one can make you believe except an intervention from the Holy Spirit himself. This is something many atheist/agnostic/confused…etc people misconceive because they simply do not take time to even read the Bible.[/quote]

You are right about one thing: reading the bible removes all confusion. Because it affirms so much that is undoubtedly known to not be. Because each of its worthless pages is more anachronistic and primitive than those before it. Because each fantastical story is more mind-numbingly ridiculous than the last. Because, as adult human beings with extensive access to information and the inborn ability to reason, we are expected to understand that ghosts, goblins, the tooth fairy, and talking snakes do not and have not ever existed save for in the minds of children and lunatics.

How could a smart human being be confused about it after all that? How can he or she do anything but laugh and wonder at the fact that millions of poor gullible needy simpletons give their hearts, their paychecks, and even their lives to these boisterous iniquitous clowns that we call the Abrahamic religions? How can anyone be confused when on one hand a scientist stands at the ready with mountains of empirical evidence and on the other an army of liver-spotted igors in dresses and medieval hats gather around an ancient book of fairy tales and pray to an eternally-silent invisible patron for guidance?[/quote]

Are you saying you’ve read it? Like the whole thing? Just curious…[/quote]

I’ve not sat down and read the Christian Bible in its entirety, no. I have completely read the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels and am extremely familiar with various other selections. I’ve studied it in an academic setting but have never read the Bible as would a believer, or under the guidance of a believer. I was always either focused on historicity or philosophical plausibility.[/quote]

K

smh23 · April 28, 2011, 5:56pm

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:
I’d rather put my faith in a God who doesn’t change. Rather than a scientist who screws up, but makes the sheep think their screw ups are progress.[/quote]

I’ll put faith in a scientist who I can see and touch and whose Doctoral diploma I can verify as authentic before I kneel in reverence to the invisible fabrication of ancient tribal primitives.

HyperUppercut · April 28, 2011, 7:17pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:
I’d rather put my faith in a God who doesn’t change. Rather than a scientist who screws up, but makes the sheep think their screw ups are progress.[/quote]

I’ll put faith in a scientist who I can see and touch and whose Doctoral diploma I can verify as authentic before I kneel in reverence to the invisible fabrication of ancient tribal primitives.[/quote]

Cool. I hope you are changed before its too late for you.

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 6:49am

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?

More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]

So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?

More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.

Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]

Well, next time they cut a skull in half please point out the self and conscious out to me. Or, since we’re on the internet shouldn’t be hard to find.

Are you saying complex language = wale song? As in you can read the language I am reading and that is the same thing as noise?

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 6:50am

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Not so recently, I have been interested in providing arguments against different illogical arguments in order to prove them to be wrong in day to day life. I decided that after I met the militantness which is the Sociological College, in which the army of lack luster atheists (if you can really call them that) reside when not protesting for their right to deny other people their first amendment right and pretending to be hipsters in scummy bars.

I came up with three (3) common wonders of the world that atheists simply cannot explain by science and with reason without coming to the conclusion of a supreme intelligence.

Conscious
Language
The Self

Discuss.[/quote]

Wonders of the world? All three exist to some degree in other species, particularly mammals. All three things exist in chimpanzees and they’ve been documented since the 1970s.[/quote]

Great, that is not what I am arguing.

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 7:09am

[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
Oh…you mean conscience? Just read the other posts.[/quote]

No. I do know how to spell.

[quote]

What is consciousness? Isn’t it awareness of external/internal stimuli due to the physiological responses of the central nervous system? Isn’t my computer aware that I am hitting certain keys on my keyboard? [/quote]

If that is your idea if conscious, that is a severely dumbed down version. Let me explain deeper.

We are conscious, we are aware we are conscious. We perceive, conceive, remember, sense, plan, intend, and choose. On top of being conscious, and being conscious of being conscious, we are conscious that our conscious it is different than the physical (a la, no shape or size).

We have pointed out the kinds of info carried out in the nervous system and we have hypothesized what parts of the brain allow consciousness to access such info. However we have no idea where sentience (what it feels like) came from.

How can something we experience something as qualitatively as the non-physical, in a purely physical world, especially at random?

[quote]
2. The field of linguistics encompasses numerous theories on the origin of language however note that animals communicate with each other and there is nothing inexplicable about us or them developing communication methods.[/quote]

Language is communication, communication is not always language. Specifically syntactical language, which is unique to humans. Found in ancient civilizations, with young children picking it up instinctively. Language is built around the beings ability to understand, and again no organ or part of the brain that performs this task.

Words are simply codes and symbols signifying something. Can material objects perceive these meanings?

Richard Dawkins pointed out that there is two things that are interesting about language:

There’s no syntax in non-human animals. Evolution doesn’t equate for this.
Origin of semantics is not known.

[quote]
3. The self? Personally I was conceived due to coitus unlike the child of a certain lady who is full of grace and blessed amongst women.[/quote]

Yes, the self as in the same self at 8 and 88, every cell in your body will be new in 7 years time. You will still have the same self when you die. If man is just physical, then well how come self doesn’t change over time?

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 7:10am

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
One of our brightest minds, just won the Templeton Award, and he does not believe in God, although he practices in the “customs of his tribe”. He illuminates some very interesting developments in Cosmology and Theoretical Physics below. And against this incredible ability to evolve, understand, wonder and ask these questions, there will always be those of you that think it all started with Adam and Eve in a Garden of Eden. Given that, where can this conversation possibly go that all the others prior to it haven’t gone? Right in the toilet.

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge116.html[/quote]

I did a quick google but didn’t find anything saying he’d written the “Multi-verse” book yet. Do you know if he has? That sounded interesting.[/quote]

Multi-verse goes against Occam’s razor.

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 7:11am

[quote]HaveIronWillLift wrote:
4. A behavioural pattern/instinct that developed through evolutionary means allowing us to protect the family and continue to procreate. i.e. prevent mothers and fathers from killing their children etc.

Or did Adam and Eve develop it in the naughty corner for eating the magic apples the snake offered them?[/quote]

I’m not following, are you trying to say instinct is morals or something?

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 7:13am

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?

More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]

So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?

More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.

Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]

Perhaps, but what is “consciousness”? I am more interested in what it is then how it got there.[/quote]

Consciousness - Wikipedia (wikipedia) It has to do with our awareness of the world around us. This is an involved topic, people dedicate degrees to this stuff.

The op was asking where it came from. If it is a thought it comes from the brain. [/quote]

Where in the brain?

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 7:15am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I refuse to give up on you Chris. (or you either Pat) St. Thomas has left you guys naked and bleeding in a den of lions. You give them home advantage every time you do this.[/quote]Hmmm, St. Thomas or John Calvin? I think I will stick with a bonifide genius, philosopher, scientist, and theologin. Not some nut-job reformer who made shit up out of thin air and pass it off as theology; who even other reformers think is whacked.
But thanks…[/quote]Pat you’re too young for all this hypertension. Calm down my old friend. I’ll go with Paul like Calvin did. Zeb is right about how this is gonna go. You are in their intellectual arena attempting to fight with their weapons and they will win. Aquinas, despite being indeed an astronomical genius never did find the way out of father Adam’s broken epistemology. He didn’t even try. He willfully embraced it in the very Greek thinkers Paul denounces in his 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 1. His god bows the knee to the same allegedly eternal omnipotent laws that these unbelievers worship. I’m am holding out hope that you will see that one day, but I’m thinkin not today.
[/quote]

Where did the Bible come from?

Charlie_Horse · April 29, 2011, 7:16am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
In what way are any of these things contingent upon the existence of a God? The self? As in “me, not you”? In what way is that scientifically inexplicable?

More generally: the burden of proof lies with the theist, not the atheist. It is on you to prove that there is a God, not on me to prove that there isn’t. So it is on you to prove that God was responsible for these things, not on me to prove that He wasn’t. And you can’t do that.[/quote]

So you’re not going to explain how the conscious, language, and the self came about through natural evolution?

More generally: no it does not. Answer how the conscious, language, and the self came about through naturally. [/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean by language, all social animals communicate. Humans use language to communicate, wales use wale song.

Couldn’t evolution of the brain be where the self or conscious comes from?[/quote]

Well, next time they cut a skull in half please point out the self and conscious out to me. Or, since we’re on the internet shouldn’t be hard to find.

Are you saying complex language = wale song? As in you can read the language I am reading and that is the same thing as noise?[/quote]

I think it was Pat who called this a mind vs body question. If you believe that we were created by something(God) then it makes sense that language, the self, and the conscious would also need to just appear.

If, however, you believe that we have evolved then all these things(language, the self, the conscious) are as a result of the brain, throat, vocal chords, tongue, etc evolving.

If we can’t agree how we got here it is difficult to really argue/discuss this topic.

To other animals our language is nothing but noise. Wild cats do not meow like domesticated cats, some vets say they are just imitating us, making a bunch of noise.

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 7:17am

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. [/quote]

I am sorry this is how you feel and you presuppose this is my point. It is not. I think someone with a philosophy degree or a quantum physics degree would do better though.

Brother_Chris · April 29, 2011, 7:19am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I refuse to give up on you Chris. (or you either Pat) St. Thomas has left you guys naked and bleeding in a den of lions. You give them home advantage every time you do this.[/quote]

If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

Charlie_Horse · April 29, 2011, 7:25am