I don't believe in Christianity primarily because of the brain

[KevinM1]

Yes, I'm sure others want to feed your incessant need to quote mine in seemingly every thread you take part in.

Quote mine? I defy you to name one instance where I've taken someone out of context.

You defy me? What's next, daring me? Double-dog daring me?

See, Huggy, your mistake with me, and I can only assume with others, is that you apparently believe I'm someone who cares about your opinion. That I care about whatever contest you think we're engaged in. That I have any interest at all in answering your asinine challenge, or that I have emotionally invested myself into the notion of ultimate victory on an online forum.

With you, and Drich (can't forget about our living Dunning-Kruger exhibit), I'm mostly just pushing buttons. Why? Because you guys are fucking hilarious when you get into your tizzies, and it happens like clockwork. You guys fall for it every time. With you, it's your pathological need to prove everyone wrong by bringing up shit said months, if not years ago that barely has any relevance to the discussion at hand. With Drich, challenging his egotistical view of himself generally does the trick (note that my one sentence about him using the word 'sport' resulted in several paragraphs of response).

You're both incredibly predictable. And it's hilarious to me to see you guys respond in such ways to obvious needling. I would've ignored me a long time ago.

[KevinM1]

All that said, out of the two of you, I think that deep down under all the crap you're a good guy Huggy. And I know I've said some terrible things to you referencing your wife and daughter (I believe you have a daughter) that totally crossed the line. I sincerely apologize for that. Truly, no joke.

I can be a jerk, but I don't want to be a monster.

[Silver]

I think monsters are better than jerks.

[Angrboda]

Generally speaking, derailing a thread to prove yourself right does nothing to dispel the image that you have an incessant need to prove yourself right.

[Crossless2.0]

Whatever floats your boat, Drich. No one really cares about your comical need to appear to win at all costs, any more than they do with Huggy's similar affliction. 

Hold up I have a need to "appear" to win? Anyone that doesn't think I win any arguments I defy you to ask me to provide evidence. let's see how many people will take me up on that request. If no one request the evidence then that speaks of itself. If on the other hand you're crazy enough to take me up on that challenge then don't whine when I put a number of you on blast.

We can do it this the easy way or the hard way.

Further more It's not a "need to appear to win", it's a need to come to a conclusion so that the same argument isn't brought up for discussion ad nauseam.

[Huggy Bear]

Generally speaking, derailing a thread to prove yourself right does nothing to dispel the image that you have an incessant need to prove yourself right.

Ofcourse I need to prove myself right why enter into a debate otherwise? Crossless was implying that being right was just some figment of my imagination, except I have plenty of evidence that says otherwise.

Furthermore it isn't a derailment to address nonsense when I'm mentioned specifically. I wasn't even in the discussion until my name was mentioned.

---

Your silence is golden.

BTW, that's the typical response of someone who realizes they done messed up and are making desperate attempt to save face.

[Crossless2.0]

You're priceless, Huggy. Drop a fucking line in the water, and watch the fish leap into the boat.

[Huggy Bear]

All that said, out of the two of you, I think that deep down under all the crap you're a good guy Huggy. And I know I've said some terrible things to you referencing your wife and daughter (I believe you have a daughter) that totally crossed the line. I sincerely apologize for that. Truly, no joke.

I can be a jerk, but I don't want to be a monster.

Apology accepted although I don't have any kids, either way I haven't taken any offense.

[Mister Agenda]

Again, my time here doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that you are an absolute tool. I like to read, and I've read plenty of your previous posts to be unconvinced of your ability to formulate a cohesive argument. You can't prove your way out of your own ass. All you do when you get pushed into a corner is start challenging everyone with as much testosterone as possible, when it's clear to the rest of us that you have already run out of steam. I got tired of you before I even bothered getting into a proper topic with you.

So please stop making everyone laugh. It's not cute anymore.

Ok young'n If I've never been able to "prove my way out of my own ass" as you put it, then there shouldn't be any evidence of me doing so right? Will you be willing to apologize if  I provide evidence of the contrary?

He had the facts on his side on that bee thing, IIRC.

[Whateverist]

There are many reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.  The one that makes the most sense is that there is no soul.  Without a soul there is no heaven, hell or anything to do wit spirit.

There iw no use for a soul.  Modern science is showing that the brain is responsible for all the functions human bodies have.  I evolved into a complex individual, but when my brain ceases to work, I cease to exist.  Christianity is just myth and superstition.

Do you agree?

Yes, and see the YouTube video below for a talk by Sean Carrol, on this :-





Also if evolution is true, (and I have no reason to reject it), and therefore, there was no Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden, then there was no original sin, and therefore nothing for any "Christ" to save us from. So regardless of the existence of an historical figure (or not), called Jesus, any such character could not save us from sin, because the whole premise is a load of bovine fertiliser, (fertilizer in U.S.).

Hope this isn't too annoying but I'm just now getting around to this thread.  So here is a flash back to page one.  Magilla, if you're still in the building, I find it odd to contrast the truth of a science claim with the literary truth of a fictional claim.  The implications of evolution cannot undermine the garden of Eden story anymore than it can Moby Dick.  The 'fall' of man from a state of nature is about our acquiring the capacity to set aside our time-honed mammalian responses and make another choice.  We must leave the garden because we have to that extent left a state of nature ourselves.  As for being saved by 'Christ' that too would have to be understood allegorically as achieving some rapprochement with our repressed animal nature.  

What is a load of bovine fertilizer is the literalization of the story of the fall.  The garden is an idea.  The alienation from the garden is another idea.  Becoming whole again is still another idea.  But neither the garden of Eden nor the serpent nor the Christ are literal objects in the physical cosmos.  They are elements of the mind, not the cosmos.