It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Huggy Bear]

So I take it you agree with that position then?

Do take a look at his actual work instead of wiki, will you?

Or keep talking out of your ass for all I care. And don't forget Brian Hare on you way. And all the others. I won't do your homework. If you want to be the fool, be my guest, for all I care.

For starters.

https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_...ave_morals

The rest is up to you.

Umm No, You made the claim you provide the evidence. Isn't that what you say to theists?

But explain this, what kind of moral code are we talking about when a Male ape kills the offspring of another? I mean, humans tend to frown upon killing children...

[abaris]

Umm No, You made the claim you provide the evidence. Isn't that what you say to theists?

I rubbed it under your nose, idiot.

And I gave you names and a video. What should I say to someone, who's obviously not willing or able to do a google?

Ignorant doesn't quite cut it.

[Huggy Bear]

Umm No, You made the claim you provide the evidence. Isn't that what you say to theists?

I rubbed it under your nose, idiot.

And I gave you names and a video. What should I say to someone, who's obviously not willing or able to do a google?

Ignorant doesn't quite cut it.

Another quote for you

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03...use-of-god

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."

[abaris]

Another quote for you

No, no quote. Look at the video.

Scared of doing it?

Scared of looking at the ones I mentioned?

You asked for evidence - got, get it, big man.

[Chas]

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?

Sounds like the other twin died. In which case we believe his/her soul is with God.

"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?

While we are in this world, it is our physical bodies (including all the chemistry in our brain) and our souls that make up who we are. They are one. Not separated until after death.  

Epilepsy surgery (corpus callosostomy) - 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?

It is simplistic to believe people go to Heaven/Hell depending on whether or not they believe in God. When a person dies, they leave behind their physical bodies, along with any mental illnesses/disorders it may have. At that point, the person is able to think completely clearly and make a conscious decision on whether they want to be with God or not.

Interesting questions, btw. You might find this article enjoyable: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html (written by an atheist, so it's safe)  

The "other twin" never existed except as a few cells - nothing died.  The absorbing of one by the other occurs very early in pregnancy.

There is no evidence for souls or dualism or heaven or hell.  The evidence from neuroscience flatly contradicts dualism.

[Huggy Bear]

Another quote for you

No, no quote. Look at the video.

Scared of doing it?

Scared of looking at the ones I mentioned?

You asked for evidence - got, get it, big man.

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.

I must Ask, do you agree with the statements Frans de Waal makes in his book?

[abaris]

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. He is a christian. Doesn't change the fact, he's a serious researcher also. Not mutually exclusive. Only with idiots it is.

You made the claim of animals not having morality and I presented you with researchers knowing differently. One's even a christian. The other one, I don't know what he is. And I don't care. They're authorities in their field and contradict what you claimed.

So, you're talking out of your ass.

[Huggy Bear]

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. He is a christian. Doesn't change the fact, he's a serious researcher also. Not mutually exclusive. Only with idiots it is.

You made the claim of animals not having morality and I presented you with researchers knowing differently. One's even a christian. The other one, I don't know what he is. And I don't care. They're authorities in their field and contradict what you claimed.

So, you're talking out of your ass.

You realize is book is called "The Bonobo and the Atheist" right? How much research did you do again?

I mean, you couldn't even spell the guys name right

[abaris]

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.

No, you're just a scared little idiot. Not even up to looking at something that might not confirm his biblical whoo. I'm sure, people will take you for the puny little yellow guy you are. Making a bold and ignorant claim. And not even being up to face the evidence. Just clinging to him being a christian like a crybaby. But ... but ... god ... christian ... boohoo.

Well, here's news for you, idiot. We don't make that distinction. We only look at the value of what a person says. And this one has you in his pocket, as far as your previous claim is concerned. Face it, or be exposed as the talk out of the ass coward as usual.

[Pat Mustard]

All of Genesis was symbolic?

Personally I believe all of the OT are just parables, not historic facts.

So every time the nt used 'biblical prophesy' to prove Jesus'supposed divinity, they were simply talking about fairy stories?

Seeing as you just stated the bible has no basis in fact* what actually separates you from atheists?

*That's a problem more modern outlook christians have, when they call the ot, and even parts of the nt allegory. The whole story depends on every part of it being taken as literally true, there are too many parts which depend on literalist readings of prior parts for any other possible reading to be feasible, and to still hold belief.