Leyden and Teixeira: Political “Civil War” Coming Because of Global Warming

_{Cornelius Hunter

April 11, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently tweeted that Peter Leyden’s and Ruy Teixeira’s article, “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War,” is a “Great read.” The article both urges and forecasts a blue-state takeover of America where our current political divide gives way to a Democrat dominion. This new “Civil War” is to begin this year and, like the last one will have an economic cause. Unfortunately, the thinking of Leyden and Teixeira is steeped in scientific ignorance which drives their thesis. Read more

Comments

Hi Allan, and hmmm. Back at 110 you made a nice response to ba77. However, I think 136 is not so good: I certainly didn't intend for my first comment to be derogatory like that. I was thinking more about the length of his posts and their reliance on recycled quotes from people that aren't involved in the discussion, and that I was going to take the time to scan through his posts and address a number of issues.jdk_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Jdk,
Wading into discussion with ba …
That’s like voluntarily wading into four feet of manure. Very fertile ground, but it takes days to get that stink of shit off you. :)Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Wading into discussion with ba ... Let start with this. ba writes at 130.
It is interesting to note that the atheists here on UD fight tooth and nail against the materialistic belief, (stated by many leading atheistic philosophers no less), that they are merely neuronal illusions.
First, I find it interesting that disagreeing with ba is seen by him as "fighting tooth and nail". I'll let others think about whatever psychological explanations for that there might be. More importantly, as we have tried to point out to ba, although he does not respond, the fact that there are some famous people who have made statements about "neuronal illusions" does not mean that every one with the same general philosophical position as those people has to agree with what those famous people have said, or are obligated to defend them. However, ba's standard response to other views is to merely quote those same people over and over again, which is not an argument. ========= ba writes at 124,
As to the fact that materialism itself entails that personhood is an illusion, can you scientifically prove to me that you really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of being a real person? .... You see jdk, I know for 100% fact that I really do exist as a real person, but there is no way for you to ever scientifically prove to me that you really exist as a real person and that you are not just a ‘philosophical zombie’ going through the motions of being a real person!
We discussed this recently in a post by Barry. I think there was agreement that no one can be sure that everyone else isn't a zombie, but that is no more a useful position than Last Thursdayism or solipsism (both of which are incapable of being refuted), and that it is much more reasonable to assume that other people are like us and have internal conscious experiences just as we do. So, ba, I know for a 100% fact that my own conscious experience is real, but you can't possible prove, scientifically or otherwise, that you are not a "philosophical zombie" going through the outward motions of saying you believe in God. You have absolutely no privileged position in regards to this silly issue. ======== In 124 he also writes,
As Alvin Plantinga pointed out years ago in “God and Other Minds”, “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist,,,”
I find that a completely uncompelling argument. There is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that other people are very much like me in their biological existence, and so the most reasonable assumption is that they also have internal experiences like I do, especially since they all claim, for what that's worth, that they do have such experiences, and their descriptions of those experiences are much like mine. As stated above, this can't be "scientifically proven", but no one doubts it. On the other hand, God is an idea that some people have, but there is no common empirical experience of God (one that all people easily and voluntarily describe as they do their own consciousness), no common conception of God, and no process by which to investigate which ideas of God might be "true." Plantinga's assertion that "the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds", is extremely faulty for all practical purposes, and philosophically empty: if we have no way to know that other people might not be zombies, are we justified in likewise concluding that God might also be a zombie? ======== In 123, ba again refers to David Chalmers and the hard problem of consciousness, and links to a video of Chalmers discussing this at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw. I have twice pointed out to ba, and again he has never responded, that there is a hard problem for theism as well as materialism: 1) In materialism, the problem is how do the material activities of the nervous system give rise to consciousness. 2) For dualisms in general, and theism in general, the hard problem is how does the immaterial mind interact with the physical world to cause it to be different without manifesting any noticeable deviations from what appear as natural processes. More concretely, when I think about moving my arm, how does that thought "touch" the material brain to set off the cascade of biological actions that are necessary for my arm to move. 3. In the video, Chalmers says he himself favors a position that is perhaps close to my own position: that of panpsychism. This is not a materialist position, but neither is it a theistic "mind of God" position. The idea is that consciousness, at some elemental level, is a fundamental aspect of the universe, in a way analogous to that of energy and matter; and that just as elementary particles can coalesce into larger integrated bodies (stars, tornadoes, human beings), elementary consciousness coalesces into an integrated whole in a human being. I assure you this view also has hard problems, but I mention it for two reasons. First, because it is an alternative to ba's dichotomous position that either mind precedes matter or matter precedes mind: panpsychism is a position where consciousness and "matter" are complementary duals, each of whose functioning depends on the concomitant existence of the other. The second reason I mention it is because, since ba is so fond of quoting people like Coyne et al, as if that made a difference, he might fully quote Chalmers sometime as thinking panpsychism is worth consideration. ======== Last issue: quantum mechanics (QM) ba is fond of invoking QM as conclusive evidence for God. I am a reasonably well educated person about QM, at the popular science level. I understand, or at least know about, (although I know no one can say they really "understand" QM) the double split experiment, the delayed choice experiments, quantum entanglement, etc. I have no idea to what extent ba really knows about QM beyond the level I do, or whether he mostly has a large collection of quotes about QM that he has collected to support his theism. First, I don't think QM necessarily supports theism, or even necessarily "refutes" materialism. QM has taught us that the material world is vastly different than the old Newtonian worldview, based on our macro-experience, of substantial "things (matter) subject to forces, and possessing, somehow "energy". The material world, at it's core, is a ineffable probablistic primal underlayment that manifests itself as matter, energy, and force at the macro level. This itself doesn't refute materialism: it just changes our understanding of the physical world (and perhaps necessitates a different term.) I understand that one of the mysteries of QM is the role of an observer, and that some physicist/philosphers (Wheeler, for instance) believe that QM is evidence for the primacy of mind. However, there are other interpretations, with no definitive consensus: this is another hard problem. However, it seems to me reasonable that QM could easily fit into a panpsychism metaphysics, where consciousness exists, in a panpsychic sense, in every quantum event, as part of whatever underlies the transition into matter and energy, and thus human consciousness is a manifestation of this underlying panpsychic consciousness as it condenses in the human brain. Chalmers mentions this in the video ba posted as the hard problem of panpsychism, although he doesn't mention QM. And Roger Penrose has made suggestions about consciousness being an effect of QM. These are all just speculations: no one has any idea how to investigate them, and they may lie outside our ability to empirically investigate. But my main point is that they don't inevitably, conclusively, or even necessarily support the idea of a theistic God (much less the Christian one). ======== Final note to ba. If you decide to respond, I am interesting to see if you could do so without all your standards quotes from other people. I have made a lot of specific points, and perhaps those are ones that you, personally, could respond to. Just a thought.jdk_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Of related note to Theism being falsifiable,,,
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
There you go AK, prove the genesis of consciousness from matter and you will have falsified Theism and proven that materialism is 'talking about reality' instead of talking about neuronal illusions! And of related note to Materialism and/or Darwinian evolution being basically unfalsifiable (at least in the minds of Darwinists)
Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) - March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046 Moreover, the falsification criteria that were set forth by Charles Darwin himself have all been met by Michael Behe, by Douglas Axe, by Stephen Meyer, and by Lee Spetner. Yet, despite each of Darwin’s own falsification criteria being met, Darwinists STILL refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory (which is still yet more proof that we are dealing with a pseudoscience instead of a real science.) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ohia-only-human-intelligence-allowed/#comment-655865 Since falsifiability/testability is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, I want to delve a little more into falsifiability/testability. (and apply it to the basic precepts of the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ohia-only-human-intelligence-allowed/#comment-655886
bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Pathetic!
Finally, something we can agree onAllan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

AK, you do realize that to scientifically prove the genesis of consciousness from matter is to scientifically validate materialism and to scientifically falsify Theism don't you??? Or has that little detail escaped your attention in you zeal to find some sort of 'gotcha' moment against the precepts of Christianity? Pathetic!bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

BA77, so the answer to my question is no. You could have said it in far fewer words.Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

It is interesting to note that the atheists here on UD fight tooth and nail against the materialistic belief, (stated by many leading atheistic philosophers no less), that they are merely neuronal illusions. But, on the other hand, they have no problem whatsoever swallowing hook, line, and sinker all the many other 'illusory' consequences of their materialistic worldview., ,, to repeat,,,
Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355
Thus, Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic Materialism has turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

as to post 125: It is a problem for materialism not Theism. Theism starts out with the presupposition that the immaterial Mind of God is real and that our individual immaterial minds are real as well. Only under materialism is the reality of immaterial mind questioned. The 'philosophical zombie' problem highlights this distinction between the two philosophies rather well. Moreover, to even suggest consciousness could be an illusion (as many leading materialistic philosophers do) requires the immaterial mind to first contemplate the fact that it could be an illusion. i.e. For what does the illusion occur? As Descartes pointed out, he could doubt everything else existed except for the fact that he was there to do the doubting in the first place. i.e. "I think therefore I am" Simply put, consciousness is the required presupposition of all other presuppositions.
"In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931
And again, unlike materialists, it is not like the Christian Theist does not have abundant evidence for his belief that Mind is primary and matter is derivative
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Allan:
Can you?
Yes, he can. Just not to you and yours because you don't know anythingET_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Allan:
I assure you that I have heard several christians say that homosexuals should be castrated.
I can assure everyone that Allan Keith is a pathological liar that will say anything.ET_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

jdk:
This is circular reasoning that insulates him completely from from having a rational discussion with someone who holds a different view.
So bornagain77 is an evolutionist? That is what evos do every dayET_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

BS77,
As to the fact that materialism itself entails that personhood is an illusion, can you scientifically prove to me that you really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of being a real person?
Can you?Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

As to the fact that materialism itself entails that personhood is an illusion, can you scientifically prove to me that you really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of being a real person?
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11 “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER - Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection - 2004
If you can't experimentally prove to me scientifically that you really are self aware, then exactly how am I to know with 100% assurance that really are a real person and are not just a zombie going through the motions of personhood? You see jdk, I know for 100% fact that I really do exist as a real person, but there is no way for you to ever scientifically prove to me that you really exist as a real person and that you are not just a ‘philosophical zombie’ going through the motions of being a real person! Such as it is with the atheist’s refusal to ever accept any evidence for the personhood of God. As Alvin Plantinga pointed out years ago in “God and Other Minds”, “the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist,,,”
Another interesting argument comes from the leading philosopher and Christian, Alvin Plantinga—he asked, what evidence does anyone have for the existence of other people’s minds? He argued cogently that the evidence for God is just as good as the evidence for other minds; and conversely, if there isn’t any evidence for God, then there is also no evidence that other minds exist—see God and Other Minds, Cornell University Press, repr. 1990. http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational
bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

jdk, I assume nothing. I let the premises of materialism itself dictate what follows. The premises of materialism itself dictate that consciousness and/or mind is derivative from matter. How might material particles go about generating the self awareness of consciousness nobody has a clue and is referred to as the 'hard problem' of consciousness.
Hard Problem of Consciousness — David Chalmers - 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science’s “Hardest Problem” Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ David Barash – Materialist/Atheist - evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo19/opening_salvo_19.php "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness." - Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7. "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". “Every day we recall the past, perceive the present and imagine the future. How do our brains accomplish these feats? It’s safe to say that nobody really knows.” Sebastian Seung - Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist - “Connectome”: "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." Roger Wolcott Sperry - Nobel neurophysiologist As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian "We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind." - Eugene Wigner - Nobel prize-winner – Quantum Symmetries "Science's biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot." Nick Herbert - Contemporary physicist "No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." - Larry Dossey - Physician and author
Atheists, although not having any clue, much less experimental evidence, how consciousness may arise from matter, take it as an act of supreme blind faith that matter must somehow generate consciousness. Whereas the Christian Theist does not suffer from such embarrassing disconnect with experimental evidence. The Christian Theist can reference, as already mentioned in post 114, numerous lines of evidence from quantum mechanics which strongly indicate that Consciousness must precede material reality. Here is one of my favorite experiments supporting the Christian Theist's position that Mind must precede material reality. The "Wheeler Delayed Choice" experiment that was done with atoms instead of photons.
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - May 27, 2015 Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured. Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide? Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips. The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler's original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light. "Quantum physics' predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness," said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
In regards to the preceding experiment, in the following article Margaret Wertheim notes that consciousness is only a problem for modern day materialists and that consciousness never was a problem for Medieval philosophy. (A predominately Christian philosophy in Medieval Europe which, I might add, gave rise to modern science in the first place)
How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015 Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,, But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,, Such a view appalled many physicists,,, Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,, Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,, when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,, https://aeon.co/essays/how-and-why-exactly-did-consciousness-become-a-problem
bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Good point, Allan: I mistakenly assumed that you were invoking the Bible, rather than just the beliefs of a subset of Christians. My bad.jdk_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

TWSYF,
Also, if a/mats were honest they would admit that in an a/mat world there is nothing objectively wrong with murder, robbery, conquest, slavery, forced prostitution, etc.
I don’t believe that they are objectively wrong. But that is a different discussion. BA77,
Please provide the exact verse from Jesus where he said to castrate homosexuals.
It’s right next to the exact verse where Jesus said that homosexuality was a sin. :)Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

TWSYF
AK @ 110: Homosexuality is indeed considered a sin, a perversion, and a form of sexual immorality in the Bible. But nowhere have I found a passage calling for castration of homosexuals. Can you cite one?
I never said that it was in the bible. I was just using BS77’s own rationale for claiming that atheists believe that people are neuronal illusions. He bases this on what a few atheists have said and stupidly extrapolates this to all atheists. I assure you that I have heard several christians say that homosexuals should be castrated. By BS77 logic, this means that all christians must believe this. Or do you disagree with BS77?Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

ba write,
If you want to claim that you are a real person with real moral duties and responsibilities (i.e. with real free will), then you must adopt Theism as a coherent anchor for your worldview.
Once again, as usual, ba assumes that his definition of something (in this case, "real person") is the definitive correct definition, and includes in his definition the very conclusions he wishes to assume follow from that definition. This is circular reasoning that insulates him completely from from having a rational discussion with someone who holds a different view.jdk_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Allan is probably wrong about the Bible calling for castration of homosexuals, I think. However, I think the general point is valid: a whole group of people can't be held responsible for every position held by every member of that group. More realistically, for instance, some Christians object to all forms of contraception. Are all Christians who don't object "not being honest with themselves", or are these just disagreements among people who share some, but not all beliefs?jdk_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

AK @ 110: Homosexuality is indeed considered a sin, a perversion, and a form of sexual immorality in the Bible. But nowhere have I found a passage calling for castration of homosexuals. Can you cite one? Also, if a/mats were honest they would admit that in an a/mat world there is nothing objectively wrong with murder, robbery, conquest, slavery, forced prostitution, etc.Truth Will Set You Free_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

jdk:
I call bull.
So what? You don't seem to be ware of anything. Without Intelligent Design what, besides sheer dumb luck, do you have to explain the existence of neurons? Let's see who is being honest here, Jack.ET_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Materialism plays a role because it can't even account for the matter and energy of the universe, let alone this planet and fertile soil.ET_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith states:
Christians themselves (at least those who are honest with their faith) claim that homosexuals should be castrated.
Really??? Please provide the exact verse from Jesus where he said to castrate homosexuals. ,,,, There was a fake meme going around that said that Billy Graham said that but, as usual from atheistic attacks on Christians, it was found to be a lie that was without merit.
Did Billy Graham Say ‘All Homosexuals Should Be Castrated’? After preacher Billy Graham died, a meme appeared attaching him to an offensive quote. Excerpt: ,,,, The strongest possible sentiment attributed to Graham was a condemnation holding same-sex attraction was an “ungodly spirit of self-gratification.”,,, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/billy-graham-say-homosexuals-castrated/
Lesson? Don't believe everything you read on the internet Allan!,, (especially when an atheist says it about Christianity!) As to Atheistic Materialists denying the reality of their own personhood, well that follows directly from the premises of materialism itself. Either matter is primary and mind is derivative, or else Mind is primary and matter is derivative. Simply put, as a materialist you forsake the entire concept of 'personhood'. If you want to claim that you are a real person with real moral duties and responsibilities (i.e. with real free will), then you must adopt Theism as a coherent anchor for your worldview. The option of being a real person with real moral duties and responsibilities (i.e. with real free will) is simply unavailable to you on your materialistic premises. You then claimed that I 'irrationally' hate atheists. You are imagining things once again. Like you imagining that you are a real person. There are no atheists to hate! They don't exist! :) Moreover, since atheists deny free will they forsake rationality altogether.
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html
Then ever thing an atheist does must ultimately be based on the 'irrational' randomness of colliding atoms. Thus what I actually hate is I hate the actions of 'irrational' automatons who think they really exist as real persons. I do not hate the irrational automatons themselves. A few notes:
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.
Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://youtu.be/t5qphmi8gYE Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

And I now read 110 by Allan: much nicer way to say what I was trying to say.jdk_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

ba77 writes,
No Bob, atheists themselves (al least those who are honest with their materialism) claim they are not people but are merely neuronal illusions.
I call bull. A few people have made the remark about neuronal illusions. However many others see the situation differently. And this business about "honest with themselves" is all bull: who are you to tell someone that you know better, and more honestly, what they think than they do themselves? You may disagree with them – that's fine – but the "honest with themselves" bit is arrogant bs. </rant>jdk_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

All I see is an attempt to caricaturize atheists/materialists and thereby justify disregarding anything they have to say.
Allan, Invariably, a/mats arrive with bluster and leave having said very little which could be considered meaningful or helpful. Andrewasauber_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

BS77,
No Bob, atheists themselves (al least those who are honest with their materialism) claim they are not people but are merely neuronal illusions. I just took them up on their claim. i.e. Atheists are not ‘persons’ according to the materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution!
Christians themselves (at least those who are honest with their faith) claim that homosexuals should be castrated. Therefore, all christians must believe that homosexuals should be castrated. What gives you the right to force castration on homosexuals? See, it is easy to tell others how they must think. It is much harder, and more mature, to accept that others honestly believe what they say and provide logic, reason and evidence to counter their opinions. It is the latter that I see lacking in your irrational hatred of atheists. All I see is an attempt to caricaturize atheists/materialists and thereby justify disregarding anything they have to say.
Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. James 1:26
Your argument here with Bob O'H is a prime example. You are disagreeing with Bob O'H over whether or not fertile soil requires glaciation. How his lack of faith or his materialism plays into this I fail to see. Both sides of the argument are materialist arguments. Either glaciation, a purely physical/material process, is required for the production of fertile soil or it is not.Allan Keith_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

You are now saying that Allan and I are not people.
You guys are just overgrown fetuses. How dare you imagine you are people. Andrewasauber_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

No Bob, atheists themselves (al least those who are honest with their materialism) claim they are not people but are merely neuronal illusions. I just took them up on their claim. i.e. Atheists are not 'persons' according to the materialistic premises of Darwinian evolution! :) If you are going to be offended at anything, then be righteously offended at your very own worldview that forces you to believe, if you are honest, such insane nonsense. But then again, you have an issue with honesty don't you!bornagain77_{April 16, 2018
April
04
Apr
16
16
2018
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply