Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 26, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:
(February 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: This brings up many questions.
Here are 3 that come to mind. I have asked theists about these examples many times. Not once have I received a coherent answer.
Human Chimeras - in somewhat rare instances, while twins are developing in utero, one twin will absorb the fetus of the other twin. It is unknown how rare this is, because it does not always show up in lab tests.
What happened to the second soul? Does the surviving twin have 2 souls? Does "god" recall the extra soul?
"Personality reset" - sometimes due to brain injury, a person can literally have their personality reset, to the point that they are almost unrecognizable.
I have an aunt that had a brain injury that went from being a sweet, caring person, to a raging, paranoid bitch. My uncle had to divorce her because she was literally not the person he married.
If the soul is responsible for what makes "you", "you", what happened to my aunt's soul?
Epilepsy surgery (hemisphereectomy) - to prevent seizures, surgeons will cut the connection between the 2 hemispheres of the brain. After the surgery, patients will have 2 different personalities.
There are even cases where one personality is a theist, the other is an atheist.
Does the soul get to go to heaven based on the theist side of the brain? Or is it doomed to hell based on the atheist side?
I just looked up "hemisphereectomy" and it appears to be the complete removal of one of the hemispheres, not the disconnection between the two. Is what you're describing known under a different medical term or is your description a less extreme version of the hemisphereectomy?
Aside from that, though, great points overall.
This is what you are looking for. Also, if you search "split brain" on YouTube there is a fascinating video of a man who went through the procedure. [emoji846]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
February 27, 2016 at 11:38 am (This post was last modified: February 27, 2016 at 11:43 am by LadyForCamus.)
(February 26, 2016 at 10:57 pm)abaris Wrote:
(February 26, 2016 at 10:51 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Look you fool, that video is from 2011, his book, you know where the quotes are taken from was published in 2013.
Keep digging though, I rather enjoy this.
Yeah. For the last time, watch the video. I dare you. Come back when you done it. There are many more of these, by the way. Younger ones, if you're not content with 2011. He didn't get a revelation in between.
LOL, this criticism is hilarious coming from Huggy, considering he just showed me an examination performed in the FIFTIES on a photograph he accepts as undeniable proof of God. Way to go, Hugs. [emoji849]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
RE: It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity
February 27, 2016 at 12:38 pm (This post was last modified: February 27, 2016 at 12:46 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(February 27, 2016 at 12:00 am)abaris Wrote:
(February 26, 2016 at 11:05 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I mean, you couldn't even spell the guys name right
So, you don't look at the video? Fine, keep your ass talking. It's just hot air with some smell.
No, I didn't look him up before posting and spelled his name. I just remembered him. Since I actually watched his work. As opposed to you, who don't look at his work but only on wiki shit.
*emphasis mine*
Oh so now you're too good for Wikipedia? So I guess that means you never used it as a source before?
oh wait... A quick search of your name with "wiki" yielded 4 pages of results. Here's just a small sample because YOU use Wikipedia a lot dude.
(January 1, 2016 at 3:06 pm)abaris Wrote: Hitler didn't really get elected. He got the majority of seats, that's true. But if the conservatives hadn't formed a coalition, he wouldn't have found a majority to rule. And what's more, Hindenburg wouldn't have appointed him, if Papen hadn't vouched for Hitler.
(November 1, 2015 at 9:34 pm)abaris Wrote: Carnegie wasn't. Look above. That he donated some of his dosh later on doesn't revive the ones he ordered to be killed.
Quote:The Homestead Strike, also known as the Homestead Steel Strike, was an industrial lockout and strike which began on June 30, 1892, culminating in a battle between strikers and private security agents on July 6, 1892.[3] The battle was one of the most serious disputes in U.S. labor history, third behind the Ludlow Massacre and the Battle of Blair Mountain. The dispute occurred at the Homestead Steel Works in the Pittsburgh area town of Homestead, Pennsylvania, between the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers (the AA) and the Carnegie Steel Company. The final result was a major defeat for the union and a setback for their efforts to unionize steelworkers.
(December 31, 2015 at 1:47 pm)abaris Wrote: The WMD tale is exclusively American - to make their own population toe the line. It's based on a single false source. An impostor named Curveball by the services, who previously had been kicked out by the German BND, who issued explicit warnings when he showed up in America.
abaris Wrote: Where do you think, hell comes from? Obviously from the Germanic goddess Hel and her domain. It's nearly the same word in German as well as english, so the connection is rather obvious.
(June 24, 2015 at 8:43 am)abaris Wrote: Just as with communism, they're not taking human nature into account. They were hoping for humans to behave without any rules, which is totally absurd, of course. And in their vast majority, they're anything but communist. That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.
Quote: Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.
(June 24, 2015 at 8:43 am)abaris Wrote: That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.
So Wikipedia is fine as long as YOU'RE using it to make a point, but if it's being used against you it's no longer credible?
You sir are a clown, always poppin off at the mouth, you really need to shut up and go sit down somewhere.
Quote:His 2013 book The Bonobo and the Atheist examines human behavior through the eyes of a primatologist, and explores how much God and religion are needed for human morality. The main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature.
Quote:Further, de Waal doesn't go so far as to equate animal goodness with morality. "I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being'," he writes. "There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."
What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."
A scientist and non-believer, de Waal isn't saying here that religion is required for human morality, only that the two have been entwined throughout human history.
*emphasis mine*
As you can see, he is clearly not a christian like you think he is.
Quote:At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.
*emphasis mine*
Now what?
(February 27, 2016 at 11:38 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:
(February 26, 2016 at 10:57 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah. For the last time, watch the video. I dare you. Come back when you done it. There are many more of these, by the way. Younger ones, if you're not content with 2011. He didn't get a revelation in between.
LOL, this criticism is hilarious coming from Huggy, considering he just showed me an examination performed in the FIFTIES on a photograph he accepts as undeniable proof of God. Way to go, Hugs. [emoji849]
What are you talking about? I don't need to waste time watching the video (I did anyway and in no way does de Waal equate animal morality with that of humans) when there are plenty of articles, not to mention books that clearly state de Waal's position.
(February 27, 2016 at 12:00 am)abaris Wrote: So, you don't look at the video? Fine, keep your ass talking. It's just hot air with some smell.
No, I didn't look him up before posting and spelled his name. I just remembered him. Since I actually watched his work. As opposed to you, who don't look at his work but only on wiki shit.
*emphasis mine*
Oh so now you're too good for Wikipedia? So I guess that means you never used it as a source before?
oh wait... A quick search of your name with "wiki" yielded 4 pages of results. Here's just a small sample because YOU use Wikipedia a lot dude.
(January 1, 2016 at 3:06 pm)abaris Wrote: Hitler didn't really get elected. He got the majority of seats, that's true. But if the conservatives hadn't formed a coalition, he wouldn't have found a majority to rule. And what's more, Hindenburg wouldn't have appointed him, if Papen hadn't vouched for Hitler.
(November 1, 2015 at 9:34 pm)abaris Wrote: Carnegie wasn't. Look above. That he donated some of his dosh later on doesn't revive the ones he ordered to be killed.
(December 31, 2015 at 1:47 pm)abaris Wrote: The WMD tale is exclusively American - to make their own population toe the line. It's based on a single false source. An impostor named Curveball by the services, who previously had been kicked out by the German BND, who issued explicit warnings when he showed up in America.
abaris Wrote: Where do you think, hell comes from? Obviously from the Germanic goddess Hel and her domain. It's nearly the same word in German as well as english, so the connection is rather obvious.
(June 24, 2015 at 8:43 am)abaris Wrote: Just as with communism, they're not taking human nature into account. They were hoping for humans to behave without any rules, which is totally absurd, of course. And in their vast majority, they're anything but communist. That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.
(June 24, 2015 at 8:43 am)abaris Wrote: That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.
So Wikipedia is fine as long as YOU'RE using it to make a point, but if it's being used against you it's no longer credible?
You sir are a clown, always poppin off at the mouth, you really need to shut up and go sit down somewhere.
Quote:His 2013 book The Bonobo and the Atheist examines human behavior through the eyes of a primatologist, and explores how much God and religion are needed for human morality. The main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature.
Quote:Further, de Waal doesn't go so far as to equate animal goodness with morality. "I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being'," he writes. "There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."
What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."
A scientist and non-believer, de Waal isn't saying here that religion is required for human morality, only that the two have been entwined throughout human history.
*emphasis mine*
As you can see, he is clearly not a christian like you think he is.
Quote:At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.
*emphasis mine*
Now what?
Holy ad hominem, or tu quoque, or both, Huggy. Why don't you try staying on track and addressing abaris's point to you?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(February 27, 2016 at 12:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I did
No, you didn't. You're quote mining.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
RE: It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity
February 27, 2016 at 12:52 pm
I'm not a big fan of Huggy, but I'd say he carried his point. If you want him to attend to some contradicting fact, you need do better than constantly bleat about him not watching your video. I'd say he documented de Waal's position quite well.
RE: It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity
February 27, 2016 at 12:56 pm (This post was last modified: February 27, 2016 at 12:57 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(February 27, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I'm not a big fan of Huggy, but I'd say he carried his point. If you want him to attend to some contradicting fact, you need do better than constantly bleat about him not watching your video. I'd say he documented de Waal's position quite well.
).
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
