[quote]Buff HardBack wrote:
pat wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
pat wrote:
Why are you seeking to mock Christianity? A bible quiz from an atheist website, really? Seems a transparent effort to bash religious folk. I guess if you need to do so to feel better about yourself, go ahead. I will not play.
You can look up every freaking verse from that “atheist website” and…wait for it…ITS ALL TRUE. Its not a transparent effort to bash religion. I find it more along the lines of ‘how in the hell can people believe this’. I for one pray to the flying spagetti monster, or the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater. They seem nicer than the vengeful god described in that book.
I hope that works out for you.
Im thinking it will. God has chosen not to “speak to me” and correct me in my flawed ways so ill go this route.[/quote]
I think the bigger issue is, are you ready to listen?
I have to break out the conversation stopper, again. If I’m wrong, then I’d like to put forth the idea that I am simply an animal acting out cues from complex bio-chem reactions. For this topic, my individual bio-chem reactions makes me orientated to Christianity. It’s what makes my bio-chem soup satisfied. Thus, if I’m wrong and the atheist right, it means I’m Christian orientated by nature. And makes the rest of you Christianphobes (closeted Christians acting out in anger due to self denial of their own Christian yearnings).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The soul and the brain are distinctly different. They are not synonyms.[/quote]
I haven’t claimed otherwise. But if the soul is immaterial; if it doesn’t have a physical component, then there has to be some mechanism in place for it to control the body through the brain. We should be able to isolate and examine that mechanism and show that some unknown non-physically caused force is operating.
And you dodged my question about why, if the soul is a separate entity from the brain and the soul is the actual person; why does messing up the brain’s chemistry change the person?
Yet.
Science is an ongoing investigation into figuring out our world. The fact that some things are currently unknown or unclear doesn’t mean that they won’t be understood in a decade, a century or a millenia. The brain is staggeringly complex, but it is still a finite system composed of understandable parts (neurons, etc) and processes.
It’s just a matter of time.
It used to be that nearly everything - the wind, tides, the sun, the moon, earthquakes, etc - required God or gods to explain. As our understanding of climate, astronomy, plate tectonics, etc has appeared and progressed, we can explain all those phenomenons from purely physical natural processes. Science is a light getting ever brighter, pushing back the darkness into which the concept of God has to hide.
As for why a bunch of atoms - a fucking large bunch though, mind you - have those capabilities, anyone who’s ever played Conway’s “Game of Life” on a computer knows that extremely complex behavior can arise from just a few simple rules and a few hundred bits of information… Seeing complex behaviors from hundreds of billions of interacting neurons is not really surprising.
Well, technically, there’s nothing stopping you, but if it doesn’t hold under peer review, or it’s findings are not reproducible, or if it doesn’t propose falsifiable theories, then it’ll end up in the garbage eventually.
There are tons of scientific ideas that were once seriously considered and which couldn’t stand up to scrutiny: phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, the miasma theory of disease, Lamarckism, the “electrons in orbit like planets” model of the atom… and so on. Science is not dogma. And while the process is often subverted or badly performed, the whole system is designed to eventually self-correct.
It’s really one of mankind’s crowning achievements; one from which many, many others have been brought forth.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have to break out the conversation stopper, again. If I’m wrong, then I’d like to put forth the idea that I am simply an animal acting out cues from complex bio-chem reactions. For this topic, my individual bio-chem reactions makes me orientated to Christianity. It’s what makes my bio-chem soup satisfied. Thus, if I’m wrong and the atheist right, it means I’m Christian orientated by nature. And makes the rest of you Christianphobes (closeted Christians acting out in anger due to self denial of their own Christian yearnings).
[/quote]
Well there we go.
If you admit that your “orientatation” towards Christianity is a purely random and arbitrary choice that simply make you feel good, I have absolutely no problem with that.
You do understand, though, that people will oppose you trying to govern their lives based on rules found in your arbitrary “feel good” bio-chem soup.
So please, let people live together if it makes them happy, let them have equal rights even if your soup rules say it’s wrong; don’t support policies that cause needless suffering to anyone - even if your soup does. Just enjoy your soup at home, and every one will be happy.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I have to break out the conversation stopper, again. If I’m wrong, then I’d like to put forth the idea that I am simply an animal acting out cues from complex bio-chem reactions. For this topic, my individual bio-chem reactions makes me orientated to Christianity. It’s what makes my bio-chem soup satisfied. Thus, if I’m wrong and the atheist right, it means I’m Christian orientated by nature. And makes the rest of you Christianphobes (closeted Christians acting out in anger due to self denial of their own Christian yearnings).
Well there we go.
You do understand, though, that people will oppose you trying to govern their lives based on rules found in your arbitrary “feel good” bio-chem soup.
If you admit that your “orientatation” towards Christianity is a purely random and arbitrary choice that simply make you feel good, I have absolutely no problem with that.
[/quote]
Well, I didn’t say that. I was saying it is in my nature to “feel good,” because of my organic makeup, when following the doctrines and teachings of my faith. Nothing random about that. It is the natural path this organism, Sloth, must follow.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Read Moreland. There is just no way I’m going to take the time to type out a reasonable facsimile of what he has to say on the subject.[/quote]
Moreland doesn’t appear to be qualified to dissert on the subject. He has no - as far as I can tell - scientific standing to discuss the brain, so my guess is that he will concentrate on the soul aspect. Problem is, of course, that existence of the soul would need to be established first.
Long story short: Referring me to Christian apologists is a weak way to leave a debate. I’ve read enough of them to know that unless you’re already completely converted, they offer nothing that a child above 5 years old wouldn’t be able to poke holes in.
Goody. Then why do you argue as if science was done and had said all it was going to about the world?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Almost reminds me of…a god? Possibly a religion?[/quote]
Really? Do you have a religion that can be tested through experiment? A religion that’s amenable to change when it is discovered that a current technique is wrong, or even just suboptimal? That is ready to revise its core values following a breakthough?
Please, tell me of this fascinating religion. It seems so much better than all the other ones I know of.
If you admit that your “orientatation” towards Christianity is a purely random and arbitrary choice that simply make you feel good, I have absolutely no problem with that.
Well, I didn’t say that. I was saying it is in my nature to “feel good,” because of my organic makeup, when following the doctrines and teachings of my faith. Nothing random about that. It is the natural path this organism, Sloth, must follow.[/quote]
Organism Sloth appears to be arguing that it has no free-will. Did a bug get in your soup? Because I’m pretty sure that one of the delicious flavors in your soup has free-will as it’s main (make-believe) ingredient.
Organism Sloth will be happy to hear, though, that recent progresses in neuroscience and neuropsychology do seem to indicate that free will is entirely illusory; and that our conversation will play out as it will with neither of us having any choice in it; even though both our soupy beings will be entirely convinced of the contrary.
As mentioned in the other thread, I got 40 in this. I expected more, but ah well it’s been a while since I had a proper delve in those myths.
As far as mocking religion goes, I’m all for it. Mock, mock, mock away. All religions are fair game, all points of view. We’re so tiny and pathetic in the face of the universe that you have to laugh about these little disputes.
Organism Sloth appears to be arguing that it has no free-will. Did a bug get in your soup? Because I’m pretty sure that one of the delicious flavors in your soup has free-will as it’s main (make-believe) ingredient.[/quote]
No, no. This is entirely “for the sake of arguement.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bottom line? Don’t ask any fuckin questions if YOU want to define the fuckin answers. [Said in a spirit of Christian brotherly love[/quote]
Don’t confuse asking for scientific rigor and evidence with wanting to define the answers. I’m all for new ideas, as long as they don’t require one to already be living in the fantasy world they claim to “prove”.
You’re posting quotes from Moreland where he ends with “The point is that there is no scientific answer.” Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but that left me under the distinct impression that you were trying to make a point with it. If not, please bracket your random cut-and-pastings as such so that we know to overlook them in the conversation.
As for gonorrhea, I give it no thought at all. I’m the monogamous atheist, you’re the swinging Christian, remember? I’m sure it’s more of a concern in your God sanctioned lifestyle than in my slow, materialistic doom.