Of course it does. Why else do you think I always lose?
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Of course it does. Why else do you think I always lose?
I would have liked you to put on the Music thread. That is lovely.
You're not a loser in my eyes.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Since the point wasn't related to nuances of one religion vs another it could be believers in Zeus or Thor.
Of course, most of those arguing here are Christian "Apologists" with their tiring terminology designed to obfuscate and otherwise wear out anyone questioning their religion.
You'll recognize them by the use of "worldview,Cosmological Argument, Epistemology, Ontological Argument, Teleological Argument, arguing about Category mistakes".
No one talks like that in their everyday life. You read something and it doesn't make sense on the face of it. They are just arguing from some Apologetics book. It's a debating trick where one can argue any side of the subject and where one "wins" by shaping the argument to their terms and then obscuring through logic terminology.
The whole "Apologetics" thing is just a sign that plain talk isn't going to convince anyone. I would imagine a cult would need to use similar techniques to keep the flock together.
Since the point wasn't related to nuances of one religion vs another it could be believers in Zeus or Thor.
Of course, most of those arguing here are Christian "Apologists" with their tiring terminology designed to obfuscate and otherwise wear out anyone questioning their religion.
You'll recognize them by the use of "worldview,Cosmological Argument, Epistemology, Ontological Argument, Teleological Argument, arguing about Category mistakes".
No one talks like that in their everyday life. You read something and it doesn't make sense on the face of it. They are just arguing from some Apologetics book. It's a debating trick where one can argue any side of the subject and where one "wins" by shaping the argument to their terms and then obscuring through logic terminology.
The whole "Apologetics" thing is just a sign that plain talk isn't going to convince anyone. I would imagine a cult would need to use similar techniques to keep the flock together.
You were talking about theists:
as if you would be referring to all theists, regardless of their denomination.
And what you are saying simply isn't true for all theists/religionists.
Moreover, there are only about two "Christian apologists" participating in this thread, no more; one of whom doesn't say much, and the other has been banned.
So it's not clear whom you're talking about.
Dreams and hallucinations can be.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
OK, I'll play.
What theists wouldn't say that since love isn't tangible and since God isn't tangible that they both require "faith"? Are there some Gods that are tangible? I guess that would be religions where God is nature or something like that?
Since the point wasn't related to nuances of one religion vs another it could be believers in Zeus or Thor.
Of course, most of those arguing here are Christian "Apologists" with their tiring terminology designed to obfuscate and otherwise wear out anyone questioning their religion.
You'll recognize them by the use of "worldview,Cosmological Argument, Epistemology, Ontological Argument, Teleological Argument, arguing about Category mistakes".
No one talks like that in their everyday life. You read something and it doesn't make sense on the face of it. They are just arguing from some Apologetics book. It's a debating trick where one can argue any side of the subject and where one "wins" by shaping the argument to their terms and then obscuring through logic terminology.
The whole "Apologetics" thing is just a sign that plain talk isn't going to convince anyone. I would imagine a cult would need to use similar techniques to keep the flock together.
You have a good way of expressing my own thoughts on this. It seems that nearly all Apologists today are just Fundies, probably mostly entrenched in the propaganda of Creation Science. I have so many of them on 'ignore' it fills my screen with grayed-out boxes in a thread like this, but it makes posts like yours stand out all the more.
The reason for ignoring them is that they just won't drop the act and own up to their Creation Science roots. But with a sane voice like yours (welcome BTW) it adds a nice counterpoint to the tired hackneyed apologetics. I simply see no purpose for a person to sign up to this board just to use it as place to vent about the world that pisses them off since it won't take evolution out of the classrooms or outlaw abortion and maybe even reinstate the sodomy laws.
As far as I can tell all of the hoopla here can be rolled up into those main political agendas. All the rest is styrofoam.
So hello! :wave:
Oh please. Feel free to explain how any emotion is more than a chemical process in the brain, or how you could even fathom it being anything else. And if you resort to "but it feels so ____" you lose.
Oh, and LOL at Mazulu's tantrum. Way to humiliate yourself in public, dude.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Nothing is more than a chemical process in the brain since that's where our reality comes from.
God is just a chemical process in the brain as well to those for whom he exists. My point however was that it's not something you can touch.
You seem to try to find arguments where none exist. Did we take our bitter pill today?
Peace out brother Okay, no matter how much someone has an issue with Bells or any other mod, there is really no reason to do this kind of thing, Mazulu. It goes well beyond saying something is idiotic or delusional. Seriously, dude, Bells does not deserve this kind of behavior at all.
But, notice how it does indeed show Christian behavior at its finest.
Wow, Bells, I must say you are indeed extremely patient, I have a whole lot more respect for you.
Balerion,
Frack that! I've given you my answer, deal with it.
If it is true, then disclose the truth of it in a way that I can understand, if you can't, then maybe it's not the truth you thought it was.
I'm not trying to debunk evolution. In fact, I accept evolution, and every single scientist that I've heard talk on the subject, accepts it wholeheartedly.
It doesn't matter what it is, or what it is called. The fact is my feet are on the ground, and if the ground or platform gives way, I will fall to next available level.
That IS the knowledge. Unless I'm going to make things that float or fly, I don't need any more information.
Yes, based on what he can experience.
Darwinian evolution is not based on anything that we currently observe in our life, in fact it contradicts current reality.
It asks us to accept something that is totally unrelated to reality as the realistic basis of our existence, by mere explanations fuelled by an atheist worldview.
It's strength is in it's philosophical application, giving much needed character and strength to explicit atheist ideologies. But even then, it's weak.
No problem.
No.
jan.
Frack that! I've given you my answer, deal with it.
If it is true, then disclose the truth of it in a way that I can understand, if you can't, then maybe it's not the truth you thought it was.
I'm not trying to debunk evolution. In fact, I accept evolution, and every single scientist that I've heard talk on the subject, accepts it wholeheartedly.
It doesn't matter what it is, or what it is called. The fact is my feet are on the ground, and if the ground or platform gives way, I will fall to next available level.
That IS the knowledge. Unless I'm going to make things that float or fly, I don't need any more information.
In other words, the layman gets an education.
Yes, based on what he can experience.
Darwinian evolution is not based on anything that we currently observe in our life, in fact it contradicts current reality.
It asks us to accept something that is totally unrelated to reality as the realistic basis of our existence, by mere explanations fuelled by an atheist worldview.
It's strength is in it's philosophical application, giving much needed character and strength to explicit atheist ideologies. But even then, it's weak.
No problem.
No.
jan.
Just because the heart has stopped doesn't mean the brain has quit functioning. I suspect many near death experiences are simply the result of the brain in the process of shutting down. Probably due to a lack of oxygen (due to lack of bloodflow).
The fact that so many NDEs have common characteristics implies to me that the brain shuts down in a fairly predictable and orderly fashion.
I think you are basically correct but would tell it differently than "orderly shut down" as I think sensory depredation experiments show.
I.e. after 30 minutes or so of floating (very lightly resting on a support actually) in slightly less than body temperature water in dark with no sounds etc. all start to hallucinate.
In my POV, their consciousness is much like that in a dream state where sensory inputs are also greatly suppressed, so the RTS is "free running" or creative. More on the RTS in quote below.
wegs,
Are you speaking of a soul, Jan?
That remark was for Robbitybob, but he seems reluctant participate (I wonder why )
My question for you was:
If you are observing yout body and consciousness, who/what is the observer?
jan.
Are you speaking of a soul, Jan?
That remark was for Robbitybob, but he seems reluctant participate (I wonder why )
My question for you was:
If you are observing yout body and consciousness, who/what is the observer?
jan.
Note the overwhelming dishonesty here. Jan must resort to labeling evolution as "an atheist worldview - atheist ideologies", this due in part to the fact that Jan has never taken the time to understand anything about evolution coupled with indoctrinated religious beliefs. Since, Christianity does not teach morals and ethics, Jan has never learned to be honest about anything that would contradict or jeopardize Christianity.
That question is also answered in the longer GFW link given in the click-on link of post 1035.
By edit later: I see you have no interest in learning more about how the brain may work as well as about the strong EVIDENCE supporting evolution.
I'm in a completely different time zone - may account for it.
I don't think so.
I think you're afraid of what might be revealed to you.
You may have to rethink your concept of God, and like any other explicit atheist: That's not an option.
jan.