3 Reasons Why Theism is Wrong.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I actually do believe in God, in a way. I’m an agnostic who thinks that matter is best explained as being contingent upon an uncaused, non-contingent entity, which we call God. I actually find the notion of an infinite causal regress to be more far-fetched than the notion of a creator (though I admit that I cannot with certainty eschew any of the popular theories). However, I don’t believe that any of the world’s religions have anything to do with the true God, if it exists.

But I could be wrong. Which will probably be pretty bad for me, lol. Relatedly, your statement about hocus pocus brings up an interesting question for me: do you allow that your belief may be wholly incorrect? Do you ever worry that it is? And, if it were to turn out to be, would you regret having been devout?
[/quote]

This is an interesting perspective. Do you hate religion because it sounds ridiculous, or is it the practitioners of religions that make you want to hurl?

102

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
This is the pic of the area mentioned in the article.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Neurorobotics reveals brain mechanisms of self-consciousness

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/cp-nrb042511.php[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks! It looks innocuous enough, doesn’t it? Now the saying, “the voice in the back of your head” has new meaning (: [/quote]

There seems to be a lot of interesting stuff going on lately in neurology, more and more focus on nailing down where everything is.
[/quote]

So do you believe that if you copy the electo-chemical reactions from one brain to another, that you could manifest the exact same thought, even if the second brain had no previous experience related to that thought?[/quote]

I have no idea if this is even possible (the copying part). Has all that goes into thoughts been nailed down yet? I thought this was an area where there is still a lot of research going on, lots of discoveries.
Wouldn’t all that we are(have seen and done etc) contribute to the one thought that we might have, we would have to copy the thought in complete(the whole life experience) context. How do we copy memories, basically past brain activity?

103

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

  1. The guys in dresses and all of that make up, I guess you are referring to the catholic priests. Most of them draw attention to themselves, and I don’t agree with alot of the dogma of the catholics. As most of what they practice isn’t even in the Bible. I also find it sad that Catholicism is the face of Christianity to most of the world.

[/quote]

The church was before the Bible was…The church assembled the bible, Everything is scripturally based. Look it up.
[/quote]

No. The scriptures have been around since the old testament. The Church did not start until the book of Acts. The Bible however was not complete until the church finalized which books would be in the finished version. Google as much as you want, or actually read the Bible to figure it out.
[/quote]

The OT was around, but there were many books floating in and out of favor that did not make it to the final cut. The NT was written by the people in the church and it was assembled by the church in the Synod of Carthage for final assembly in 397 Anno Domini…

104

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
This is the pic of the area mentioned in the article.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Neurorobotics reveals brain mechanisms of self-consciousness

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/cp-nrb042511.php[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks! It looks innocuous enough, doesn’t it? Now the saying, “the voice in the back of your head” has new meaning (: [/quote]

There seems to be a lot of interesting stuff going on lately in neurology, more and more focus on nailing down where everything is.
[/quote]

So do you believe that if you copy the electo-chemical reactions from one brain to another, that you could manifest the exact same thought, even if the second brain had no previous experience related to that thought?[/quote]

I have no idea if this is even possible (the copying part). Has all that goes into thoughts been nailed down yet? I thought this was an area where there is still a lot of research going on, lots of discoveries.
Wouldn’t all that we are(have seen and done etc) contribute to the one thought that we might have, we would have to copy the thought in complete(the whole life experience) context. How do we copy memories, basically past brain activity? [/quote]

Precisely…

105

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Are you saying that all that is real is only what can be sensed?

Mind/ body problem isn’t necessarily related to existence vs. non-existence of God.[/quote]

If it’s not related then…

Are you an atheist who believes in the mind?

Or a believer who believes in the body?

I’m not really sure where the “what can be sensed question” is coming from. I don’t recall saying anything about it. Is this just a general curiosity question?

106

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
This is the pic of the area mentioned in the article.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Neurorobotics reveals brain mechanisms of self-consciousness

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/cp-nrb042511.php[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks! It looks innocuous enough, doesn’t it? Now the saying, “the voice in the back of your head” has new meaning (: [/quote]

There seems to be a lot of interesting stuff going on lately in neurology, more and more focus on nailing down where everything is.
[/quote]

So do you believe that if you copy the electo-chemical reactions from one brain to another, that you could manifest the exact same thought, even if the second brain had no previous experience related to that thought?[/quote]

I have no idea if this is even possible (the copying part). Has all that goes into thoughts been nailed down yet? I thought this was an area where there is still a lot of research going on, lots of discoveries.
Wouldn’t all that we are(have seen and done etc) contribute to the one thought that we might have, we would have to copy the thought in complete(the whole life experience) context. How do we copy memories, basically past brain activity? [/quote]

Precisely…[/quote]

Precisely what?

107

[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. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.

In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?[/quote]

‘smh’ wouldn’t happen to stand for ‘Sam Harris’ would it? You write a LOT like him, and use a lot of the same types of arguments. :wink:

108

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[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. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.

In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?[/quote]

‘smh’ wouldn’t happen to stand for ‘Sam Harris’ would it? You write a LOT like him, and use a lot of the same types of arguments. :wink: [/quote]

LOL aside from the phd in neuroscience right?

109

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

  1. The guys in dresses and all of that make up, I guess you are referring to the catholic priests. Most of them draw attention to themselves, and I don’t agree with alot of the dogma of the catholics. As most of what they practice isn’t even in the Bible. I also find it sad that Catholicism is the face of Christianity to most of the world.

[/quote]

The church was before the Bible was…The church assembled the bible, Everything is scripturally based. Look it up.
[/quote]

No. The scriptures have been around since the old testament. The Church did not start until the book of Acts. The Bible however was not complete until the church finalized which books would be in the finished version. Google as much as you want, or actually read the Bible to figure it out.
[/quote]

The OT was around, but there were many books floating in and out of favor that did not make it to the final cut. The NT was written by the people in the church and it was assembled by the church in the Synod of Carthage for final assembly in 397 Anno Domini…

http://www.ntcanon.org/Carthage.canon.shtml[/quote]

Let me clarify for you because you are saying little things which make your entire statement wrong. First, the books of the old testament were collected by Ezra. Although there were many scribes who had many books in the Apocrypha floating around, God limited the extent of the canonical books of the old testament because he accused the scribes of murdering all of the prophets he sent to Israel from Abel to Zacharias. This is in Luke 11:51. Abel is killed in Genesis or course and Zacharias is killed in Chronicles chapter 24. The Hebrew Bible has Zacharias as the final book in the OT as the English Bible has Malachi as the last book in the OT. This clearly tells you that the Bible has been around since before the Church as the church was not started until the NT. So your statment “The church was before the Bible was” is completely WRONG!!!

As far as the new testament, The Council of Carthage was the first to list all 27 books of the NT in AD 397. The took part in canonizing these books which were already acknowledged as scripture before 391. However, THEY DID NOT WRITE THEM. So you stating that the church wrote those books are completely WRONG!!!

Check out the book called A survey of Bible Doctrine by Charles C. Ryrie. Great book for basic understanding of Christianity.

110

On the subject of the Conscious Self, I like Marvin Minsky’s ‘Society of Mind’ and arguments that look at the mind as less of a single entity, and more of a disparate and loosely unified ‘crowd’. I couldn’t even begin to get into a detailed discussion at the moment, but would recommend the book as a well thought out treatise on the nature of conscious thought.

In short it explains a great deal of why we are often ‘riddled’ with self doubt, and hesitation.

It would seem that we often hold forum within ourselves, as if a tiny ‘Brother Chris’ and ‘smh23’ we’re deadlocked in heated debate within our skull. I for one am fascinated by how we can be at odds ‘within’, then so immediately galvanize for or against something from without.

It would seem that conscious thought conforms neatly to ‘crowd dynamics’ on many occasions.

Say Brother Chris, if we manage to nail this down, my next suggestion for topic would be what about our conscious causes or facilitates our attraction to someone else. (Be it Friend, Mate, or Deity)

111

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
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.[/quote]

Yes, I am close to a Theistic Evolutionary as they call them. However, this does not explain these three things. They are non-material, involving non-material functions, and in a purely atheist evolutionary point of view, they cannot exist as they are non-material. None of these have been found to be materialized in any fashion.

I have no problem with the Big Bang theory and Evolution, I actually quite enjoy reading on both subjects.

You’re equating communication the same thing as syntactical language, it is not. Language is part of communication, but communication is not always language.

112

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Are you saying that all that is real is only what can be sensed?

Mind/ body problem isn’t necessarily related to existence vs. non-existence of God.[/quote]

If it’s not related then…

Are you an atheist who believes in the mind?

Or a believer who believes in the body?

I’m not really sure where the “what can be sensed question” is coming from. I don’t recall saying anything about it. Is this just a general curiosity question?

[/quote]

I am not, I am a theist. Atheism is actually kind of absurd and illogical to me. But people do exist who, acknowledge the mind and do not believe in God.

The question is do our senses tell us everything there is to know about what is real and what actually exists?

113

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
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.[/quote]

Yes, I am close to a Theistic Evolutionary as they call them. However, this does not explain these three things. They are non-material, involving non-material functions, and in a purely atheist evolutionary point of view, they cannot exist as they are non-material. None of these have been found to be materialized in any fashion.

I have no problem with the Big Bang theory and Evolution, I actually quite enjoy reading on both subjects.

You’re equating communication the same thing as syntactical language, it is not. Language is part of communication, but communication is not always language. [/quote]

We are going no where with this.
To the original question, all within the brain and body and evolved with brain and body.
I have heard of no other place this stuff could have come from.

So whatever your alternative theory of where this came from you’ll have to explain to me.

114

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

  1. The guys in dresses and all of that make up, I guess you are referring to the catholic priests. Most of them draw attention to themselves, and I don’t agree with alot of the dogma of the catholics. As most of what they practice isn’t even in the Bible. I also find it sad that Catholicism is the face of Christianity to most of the world.

[/quote]

The church was before the Bible was…The church assembled the bible, Everything is scripturally based. Look it up.
[/quote]

No. The scriptures have been around since the old testament. The Church did not start until the book of Acts. The Bible however was not complete until the church finalized which books would be in the finished version. Google as much as you want, or actually read the Bible to figure it out.
[/quote]

The OT was around, but there were many books floating in and out of favor that did not make it to the final cut. The NT was written by the people in the church and it was assembled by the church in the Synod of Carthage for final assembly in 397 Anno Domini…

http://www.ntcanon.org/Carthage.canon.shtml[/quote]

Let me clarify for you because you are saying little things which make your entire statement wrong. First, the books of the old testament were collected by Ezra. Although there were many scribes who had many books in the Apocrypha floating around, God limited the extent of the canonical books of the old testament because he accused the scribes of murdering all of the prophets he sent to Israel from Abel to Zacharias. This is in Luke 11:51. Abel is killed in Genesis or course and Zacharias is killed in Chronicles chapter 24. The Hebrew Bible has Zacharias as the final book in the OT as the English Bible has Malachi as the last book in the OT. This clearly tells you that the Bible has been around since before the Church as the church was not started until the NT. So your statment “The church was before the Bible was” is completely WRONG!!!
[/quote]
The you must be claiming that all of the NT was written between the ressurection and the ascension. Because the church started with the decent of the Holy Spirit in Act Chap 3. The NT was clearly written before then. The church was first, NT scripture was being written at the time of the early church, but the church already existed.

[quote]
As far as the new testament, The Council of Carthage was the first to list all 27 books of the NT in AD 397. The took part in canonizing these books which were already acknowledged as scripture before 391. However, THEY DID NOT WRITE THEM. So you stating that the church wrote those books are completely WRONG!!!

Check out the book called A survey of Bible Doctrine by Charles C. Ryrie. Great book for basic understanding of Christianity. [/quote]

So by this logic, you are telling me that St. Paul did not write his epistles, nor St. Peter, Nor St. John? That the gospels were written apart and separate from the church?
This is a matter of historical fact, if that book told you that partcipants in the church did not write the NT, then that book is flatly wrong.

115

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.

Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology.[/quote]

So you presuppose that G-d does not exist? And, no I have not wasted a minute of my time. I keep a very tight ship. Even if this was hocus pocus, how is learning something that influences so many people in the world a bad thing?

[/quote]

I actually do believe in God, in a way. I’m an agnostic who thinks that matter is best explained as being contingent upon an uncaused, non-contingent entity, which we call God. I actually find the notion of an infinite causal regress to be more far-fetched than the notion of a creator (though I admit that I cannot with certainty eschew any of the popular theories). However, I don’t believe that any of the world’s religions have anything to do with the true God, if it exists.[/quote]

Okay, I have no problem with this. All to their own level. Aristotle didn’t know of Jesus at all, yet he was very sure of a god/deity/intelligent mind/prime mover. I’m not arguing for a god, or god necessarily. I was speaking on the physical and non-physical realms in which the atheist (I admit they can be extreme to the point of denying human rights, &c.) deny the latter and claim only the former not because they logically argue that since the non-physical can be talked about in the realm of logic or science that it is a non-matter, but because they hypothesize that if it were real it is a logical and scientific question and therefore since they find it not logical or can do scientific studies on it, it is therefore nonexistent.

This is the thing, there is a 1001 reasons I am Catholic. Most of them deal with the fact that my main goal in life is to find truth. If something is not true, I won’t believe in it. No reason for me to, I am an upstanding citizen before I became Catholic (although definitely better afterwards), according to society I was dandy as is.

Now, could my belief be wrong? Statistically, it is a possibility. However, looking at the evidence: I can’t know everything, I can’t reason everything, and if I tried I would be in my grave a long time before I figured out some important questions. So, there is a element of tradition in everyone’s lives. Does the scientist reason for himself the validity of the scientific method? Does the singer reason for herself the validity of the proper way to sing notes?

No, these are simple examples that I am sure a scientist or a singer could do if they wished. However, it is unneeded, these are the accepted principles in how things are done. Now, do I know that the writings themselves about Jesus (biblical and extra-biblical) are true? Well, for 1950 years or so they have been held to be true be the general people and scholars. Now, looking at the Bible historically (not as a divine text), we can see that Jesus clearly came as the Jewish Messiah and to establish a Church in which to protect his teaching and to do his work.

Looking at the Messiahs that came around that time, if someone was the Messiah, they would not die. That is the litmus test, kind of tough, eh? Messiah or die!

Well, if Jesus really did fulfill what he said (die, raise from the dead three days later, &c) then he really was the messiah and really did build a church in which to have authority over his revelation and teachings.

This is the part that goes historical, if there really wasn’t a Messiah, and Jesus really didn’t come back to life. Why the change in attitude, why did Jesus’ people go from cowardly to being bold martyrs? Why were people hiding in one chapter and then in the next they were going from town to town baptizing people in the name of the guy that just got killed?

Doesn’t make sense if he didn’t actually raise from the dead. As well, you ask well how do I know this, well I don’t know personally, but it’s kind of like the saying [kinda] goes ‘only an education can make a man look so foolish to believe that.’

116

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

  1. The guys in dresses and all of that make up, I guess you are referring to the catholic priests. Most of them draw attention to themselves, and I don’t agree with alot of the dogma of the catholics. As most of what they practice isn’t even in the Bible. I also find it sad that Catholicism is the face of Christianity to most of the world.[/quoter]

Where do the Bible come from?[/quote]

God who gave mostly Jews/Hebrews special revelation to write it. The church had a big part in canonization though. [/quote]

Okay. And, how did the Church know which books to Canonize?

117

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Are you saying that all that is real is only what can be sensed?

Mind/ body problem isn’t necessarily related to existence vs. non-existence of God.[/quote]

If it’s not related then…

Are you an atheist who believes in the mind?

Or a believer who believes in the body?

I’m not really sure where the “what can be sensed question” is coming from. I don’t recall saying anything about it. Is this just a general curiosity question?

[/quote]

I am not, I am a theist. Atheism is actually kind of absurd and illogical to me. But people do exist who, acknowledge the mind and do not believe in God.

The question is do our senses tell us everything there is to know about what is real and what actually exists?[/quote]

Well I don’t know of any who believe in the mind and not god.

If you want to carry on having the discussion about the last question then you will have to get to the point. I don’t like traps or being lead. I have given my honest opinion to the ops question.

118

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:
You are absolutely correct, you were created by God. But you are an enemy of God because of sin. As as for putting faith in Scientists or God. 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. and go ahead and strike up a convo with a crocodile if you want. You’ll be finding out if God is real or not sooner thank you think.[/quote]

If you’re going to be fucking rude to my friends, please leave the thread. I don’t need hostility when trying to have a logical argument. If you can’t hold your water, maybe you need to go study up on civil discourse.[/quote]

Not being rude to anyone. Stop whining. And I don’t care who your friends are.[/quote]

Yes, telling someone that they are going to be eaten by an alligator is not rude. And, I’m sure you don’t. You’re a fine representation of Christians.

119

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]HyperUppercut wrote:

  1. The guys in dresses and all of that make up, I guess you are referring to the catholic priests. Most of them draw attention to themselves, and I don’t agree with alot of the dogma of the catholics. As most of what they practice isn’t even in the Bible. I also find it sad that Catholicism is the face of Christianity to most of the world.

[/quote]

The church was before the Bible was…The church assembled the bible, Everything is scripturally based. Look it up.
[/quote]

No. The scriptures have been around since the old testament. The Church did not start until the book of Acts. The Bible however was not complete until the church finalized which books would be in the finished version. Google as much as you want, or actually read the Bible to figure it out.
[/quote]

Wait, so Jesus didn’t actually build his Church on Peter, Luke built it when we wrote Acts?

120

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
On the subject of the Conscious Self, I like Marvin Minsky’s ‘Society of Mind’ and arguments that look at the mind as less of a single entity, and more of a disparate and loosely unified ‘crowd’. I couldn’t even begin to get into a detailed discussion at the moment, but would recommend the book as a well thought out treatise on the nature of conscious thought.

In short it explains a great deal of why we are often ‘riddled’ with self doubt, and hesitation.

It would seem that we often hold forum within ourselves, as if a tiny ‘Brother Chris’ and ‘smh23’ we’re deadlocked in heated debate within our skull. I for one am fascinated by how we can be at odds ‘within’, then so immediately galvanize for or against something from without.

It would seem that conscious thought conforms neatly to ‘crowd dynamics’ on many occasions.

Say Brother Chris, if we manage to nail this down, my next suggestion for topic would be what about our conscious causes or facilitates our attraction to someone else. (Be it Friend, Mate, or Deity)[/quote]

You’ve peaked my interest…Do go on.