Creation/evolution3

[Drich]

is your reading comperhension as bad as you are claiming mine to be? Or can you show me Where I said this?

lol, you must have missed the part where I explicitly stated that I was not saying you said that. To then chastise me for my comprehension is ironic.

again I am quite sure I have never said this either. Matter of fact I have pointed out the the doctrine of ' orginal sin' is not biblical. So again is this your failed reading comperhension or can you actually quote me.

See above for the issue of attribution. However, you still aren't reading this correctly; death was handed out to all humans by God because of the applebite, and that certainly is Biblical.

can you provide BCV to support this claim?

Genesis, throughout it.

I have seen you twist my words and the bibles words to make your Arguement work. What does this say about your arguement when you have to bend the truth to drive your points? It says either you fail to relay an accurate account of the message, or you yourself don't understand it.

I haven't twisted your words, and I haven't relied on your drivel to make any points. This charge of yours, unfounded as it is, is simply more evidence that you're a simpering fool who will grasp at any straw in order to protect his vapid worldview from that scary thing the rest of us know as reality.

Maybe if you weren't so blinded by hate you could see your way to the truth once and a while.

Don't flatter yourself; you're not worthy of an emotion as charged as "hate". You merit my contempt, to be sure. But hate? Nah. I've got a personal policy against emotions as strong as hate, especially wasting them on someone utterly unworthy of my emotional investment.

So to summarize your response here it a big nuh-huh? Is that the gist of everything? Just want to make sure before I respond.

[Davka]

I was a born-again evangelical Christian for 18 years, from age 27 to age 45.. Looking back, I believe that I had a psychotic break, triggered by too much LSD over too many years. However, my 'conversion testimony' was not significantly different from others I heard during that time.

I suspect that a lot of 'born-again' experiences are similarly triggered by a mental breakdown of some sort. It is extremely common to hear people say that they had hit rock bottom, were at the end of their rope, were up against the wall when they had their "come to Jesus" moment. Our brains can and do play some pretty weird shit on us when our lives are threatened.

Of course, after the initial breakdown, joining a church will surround you with people who reinforce your delusion. Everything about church structure is designed to keep the break from reality internally consistent, so as to prolong it.

Frankly, I think religion evolved as an answer to existential fear. Facing one's own inevitable demise is not easy, and would have been harder for those distant ancestors who first saw a pile of bones and thought "that will be me some day." How do primitive societies fend off deep depression brought on by existential fear? Tell stories about life-after-death!

/ crackpot hypothesis

One could force that square peg into my situation if the only thing that has ever happened to me was bad. However I clearly share many many impossible good things that happen as well. Which completely destroys your assumptions.

Nope.

Not even close. Lots of good things happen to all sorts of people. End-of-the-rope testimonies aren't the only kind of testimony, but they're very common.

And I didn't write any assumptions. I wrote what I suspect about a lot - not all - of born-again conversions. My conversion wasn't bottom-of-the-barrel exactly, but the first year or two afterwards i was convinced that i was being led by god, and that all the good things in my life were a result of that.

In retrospect, there were a few pretty noteworthy coincidences. But nothing even approaching the status of a miracle, or an "impossible" good thing.

---

Love is completely material. It's a set of physical triggers with a physical effect on our physical brains.

To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This

You can also read about the chemistry - literal chemistry - of love. It's a fascinating subject. There are a pretty significant number of studies and experiments designed to determine what love is.

Nothing mysterious here, sorry. You'll have to look for another argument from I-don't-understand-this-therefore-god.'

That's not true. Certain aspects of love (Eros/storge) do indeed have clear triggers and chemical changes, but not all. Agape and phila are a choice and not a feeling.

Agape and phila - the parts where you feel things - are simply biochemical impulses in our brains, triggered by our decisions & actions. The choice itself is the result of a thought process - more biochemical impulses. All emotions, all human impulses, all choices and thoughts and irrational sensations - everything we experience is perfectly explainable in terms of physical phenomena. No paranormal or supernatural explanations are needed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So to summarize your response here it a big nuh-huh? Is that the gist of everything? Just want to make sure before I respond.

I have relied upon your ability to read.

Apparently, my confidence was misplaced.

Respond as you will. Put cogent thoughts together and manufacture your argument, such as it is. But -- I'd suggest a couple of years of remedial English first, because quite frankly you aren't really qualified to read much beyond MacGuffey's Readers, so far as you've shown in the thread.

[Drich]

So to summarize your response here it a big nuh-huh? Is that the gist of everything? Just want to make sure before I respond.

I have relied upon your ability to read.

Apparently, my confidence was misplaced.

Respond as you will. Put cogent thoughts together and manufacture your argument, such as it is. But -- I'd suggest a couple of years of remedial English first, because quite frankly you aren't really qualified to read much beyond MacGuffey's Readers, so far as you've shown in the thread.

You've listed no references cited no support material, you simple opose what I have said.. Hence the "nuh-uh."

Since my request for clarity/specifics has only generated ad hoc attacks, I guess our conversation is at an end.

However if you wish to continue then I ask that you clarify all of the broad brush answers you gave. Otherwise find someone else to play your game.

---

One could force that square peg into my situation if the only thing that has ever happened to me was bad. However I clearly share many many impossible good things that happen as well. Which completely destroys your assumptions.

Nope.

Not even close. Lots of good things happen to all sorts of people. End-of-the-rope testimonies aren't the only kind of testimony, but they're very common.

And I didn't write any assumptions. I wrote what I suspect about a lot - not all - of born-again conversions. My conversion wasn't bottom-of-the-barrel exactly, but the first year or two afterwards i was convinced that i was being led by god, and that all the good things in my life were a result of that.

In retrospect, there were a few pretty noteworthy coincidences. But nothing even approaching the status of a miracle, or an "impossible" good thing.

this is a dishonest rebuttal of your initial assessment. Everything I said in my last post hinged on yours, and now it seems you have moved the goal posts.

(You said my faith was the result of prolonged hardship, and now somehow the opposite is true.) what does it say about your position if you have to keep switching sides?

---

That's not true. Certain aspects of love (Eros/storge) do indeed have clear triggers and chemical changes, but not all. Agape and phila are a choice and not a feeling.

Agape and phila - the parts where you feel things - are simply biochemical impulses in our brains, triggered by our decisions & actions. The choice itself is the result of a thought process - more biochemical impulses. All emotions, all human impulses, all choices and thoughts and irrational sensations - everything we experience is perfectly explainable in terms of physical phenomena. No paranormal or supernatural explanations are needed.
[/quote]

Again agape and phila are not feelings, try again.

[Davka]

Agape and phila - the parts where you feel things - are simply biochemical impulses in our brains, triggered by our decisions & actions. The choice itself is the result of a thought process - more biochemical impulses. All emotions, all human impulses, all choices and thoughts and irrational sensations - everything we experience is perfectly explainable in terms of physical phenomena. No paranormal or supernatural explanations are needed.

Again agape and phila are not feelings, try again.

Try reading for comprehension. I specifically stated "the part where you feel things," as in the effects of agape and phila. I deliberately split the answer into the actions and the effects. To re-phrase, "The effects of agape and phila (in which there are emotions involved) are simply biochemical impulses . . . whereas the choices we call "agape" and "phila" are the results of thought processes - more biochemical impulses."

I foolishly thought you were capable of simple comprehension. Perhaps i was wrong.

I also stated that "All emotions, all human impulses, all choices and thoughts and irrational sensations - everything we experience is perfectly explainable in terms of physical phenomena." Are you claiming that agape and phila are not choices?

Really, your only chance of demonstrating that agape is not a physical process occurring inside the brain is to define agape out of existence.

[watchamadoodle]

Again agape and phila are not feelings, try again.

Try reading for comprehension. I specifically stated "the part where you feel things," as in the effects of agape and phila. I deliberately split the answer into the actions and the effects. To re-phrase, "The effects of agape and phila (in which there are emotions involved) are simply biochemical impulses . . . whereas the choices we call "agape" and "phila" are the results of thought processes - more biochemical impulses."

I foolishly thought you were capable of simple comprehension. Perhaps i was wrong.

I also stated that "All emotions, all human impulses, all choices and thoughts and irrational sensations - everything we experience is perfectly explainable in terms of physical phenomena." Are you claiming that agape and phila are not choices?

Really, your only chance of demonstrating that agape is not a physical process occurring inside the brain is to define agape out of existence.

Davka, when you were a Christian, did you ever debate apologetics with atheists?

I'm just wondering, because I suspect you could have won some arguments even though the Christian case is weaker than the atheist case.

[Esquilax]

I foolishly thought you were capable of simple comprehension. Perhaps i was wrong.

You've seen the man's spelling ability, right? Why are all you people surprised that the grown man who spells like a child and refuses to do even basic reading on the topics he speaks on has a comprehension problem? This is like the third "I thought you were capable of reading comprehension" post I've read in response to Drich.

I also stated that "All emotions, all human impulses, all choices and thoughts and irrational sensations - everything we experience is perfectly explainable in terms of physical phenomena." Are you claiming that agape and phila are not choices?

No, he's claiming that it's magic. That's the basis of his argument here; he doesn't understand how it works, therefore nobody does. Therefore, when he assumes it's immaterial, it must be.

That's what you get, when you outright refuse to do any research on a subject, nor to acknowledge that other people might find some information that contradicts his opinions.

That's right, still haven't forgotten your blundering on the earlier pages, Drich.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You've listed no references cited no support material, you simple opose what I have said.. Hence the "nuh-uh."

This is false. I cited Genesis.

Since my request for clarity/specifics has only generated ad hoc attacks, I guess our conversation is at an end.

You're certainly hoping as much, no doubt.

However if you wish to continue then I ask that you clarify all of the broad brush answers you gave. Otherwise find someone else to play your game.

I've made it as clear as I can: you worship an evil monster who gave every human the death sentence for the "sin" of the first two. If you cannot understand such a simple statement, perhaps you should stick to cleaning toilets, and let people with brains do the thinking.

[Esquilax]

You've listed no references cited no support material, you simple opose what I have said.. Hence the "nuh-uh."

Ugh, god, how did I miss this?

Drich, don't you think it's a little rich to be demanding citations from other people, when in this very thread one of your justifications was "this thing I saw on Netflix once said..."?

[Davka]

Try reading for comprehension. I specifically stated "the part where you feel things," as in the effects of agape and phila. I deliberately split the answer into the actions and the effects. To re-phrase, "The effects of agape and phila (in which there are emotions involved) are simply biochemical impulses . . . whereas the choices we call "agape" and "phila" are the results of thought processes - more biochemical impulses."

I foolishly thought you were capable of simple comprehension. Perhaps i was wrong.

I also stated that "All emotions, all human impulses, all choices and thoughts and irrational sensations - everything we experience is perfectly explainable in terms of physical phenomena." Are you claiming that agape and phila are not choices?

Really, your only chance of demonstrating that agape is not a physical process occurring inside the brain is to define agape out of existence.

Davka, when you were a Christian, did you ever debate apologetics with atheists?

I'm just wondering, because I suspect you could have won some arguments even though the Christian case is weaker than the atheist case.

Yeah, I did. but the only arguments i ever 'won" were those where the person i was arguing with didn't know the Bible as well as they thought they did, and i was able to quote chapter and verse to show them their error. More often than not, i was forced to acknowledge that there was no empirical evidence for my position.

The thing is, Christianity is not just a weaker case, it's an unsupportable case. In the end, all the arguments for Christianity boil down to:

1) I had a subjective experience or experiences which convinced me to become a Christian,
2) In my Christian life I experienced some seemingly extremely unlikely coincidences which further convinced me,
3) It feels really, really true, but
4) In the end, none of these subjective experiences can be shown to be attributable only to God, nor are any of them replicable or falsifiable.

As someone who accepts the Scientific Method as a trustworthy way of determining the nature of reality, fundamentally Christianity became more and more difficult for me to embrace. I dropped the YEC arguments pretty early on, and concluded that the first chapters of Genesis from Creation until Abraham and Sarah were not intended literally. Eventually I abandoned eternal torment in Hell, and towards the end i was toying with Universalism.

The only way i held on as long as I did was that there exists a huge publishing industry which provides lies dressed up as science, and it took me a while to find the holes in their arguments. Also, I spent a long time studying Hebrew, Judaism & Christianity in antiquity, historical context of the biblical books, and similar actual disciplines which are just as true for secularists as for theists.