| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Alan Faircloth" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2003 05:45:55 PM |
| Object: |
anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
Chapter Eight
THE NATURE OF HUMANS
How could nonconscious matter have produced conscious beings? How could irrational
matter have produced beings capable of rational thought? How can you trust
your thinking, if you are only the result of nonconscious, irrational, material
causes? How could you be responsible for your decisions and actions if you
are only the result of irresponsible material causes? How could amoral matter
have created man with a moral sense of right and wrong? Obviously, man must
be more than the result of nonconscious, irrational, amoral, material causes.
Do you believe that your brain and mind came from nonliving matter by chance
evolution? If this is so, then you cannot trust your thinking. There is no
reason for you to be rational. There is no reason for your thinking to be
real or logical. Now you may argue with me, but there is no reason to believe
that your arguments are logical or true. If atheism is true, then the mind
of man was not designed for rational, logical thinking. If atheism is true,
the human brain and mind are the results of nonconscious, irrational, unintelligent,
illogical, material causes. If atheism is true, you cannot possibly trust
your mind to be rational and logical. If atheism is true, you cannot trust
your thinking and the thinking of other people. If atheism is true, you cannot
believe the arguments made by atheists for atheism.
However, you do argue with other people. This shows that you really believe
that you are conscious and rational. You know that you can think. Then you
must admit that man's brain and mind were designed for thinking. This shows
that man must be the result of a conscious, rational, intelligent Creator.
Either you must deny that you can think and reason, or you must admit that
man is the work of an intelligent Creator, GOD! Mathematician Rene Descarte
gave the axiom:
I think, therefore, I am a person. And I must have been brought into existence
by a being at least as perfect as I am, for the fountain cannot rise higher
than the source.
(Monser, An Encyclopedia on the Evidences, p. 35.)
You are able to choose and to decide. You are not just a determined machine.
You have a free will. You can even decide what you want to think about. This
shows that you are more than a programmed electrical brain.
Think about your behavior. You argue with other people about what is right
and wrong. However, by arguing, you show that you accept the fact that there
is real right and wrong. It is true that we are ignorant; that is why you
argue with the other person in order to convince him of what is really right
and wrong. You even condemn others for their evil. You could not do this
unless there is objective, absolute evil and good, which shows moral law
in the cosmos. If there is not real moral law, it would be foolish to argue
with others and to condemn them. It would be foolish to have police and judges.
People argue about which system of morality is better, which shows that there
is the best, absolute right and wrong.
We need to ask some questions. If everything is only material and the result
of material causes, how could there be real right and wrong? How could dumb
material produce a moral realm? How could your moral sense have come from
dumb material? If man is only material, how could you say that it is wrong
to move a little material, such as to put a hole through your head? Obviously,
there is more than only matter and material causes. Your moral sense and
the moral law that you argue about, show a Moral Law Giver, God.
Have you ever done something that you believed was wrong and within you this
deed was judged to be wrong? Yes, you have a conscience that condemns you.
Your conscience is a witness against you. You are guilty of sin and know
it. Where did your conscience come from? Certainly not from dumb material.
Moral conscience could only have come from a moral Creator, Holy God.
The Bible teaches about the people who did not have the Law that was given
to Israel:
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of
the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they
show the work of a Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing
witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
. . Romans 2:14-16.
You know that you are more than just material. You know and have experienced
justice, mercy, pity, compassion, love, trust, kindness and faith. These
are beyond the material cosmos. You have a spiritual nature, and you experience
it. Men have the ability to worship. While men are often ignorant, still
they do worship. They worship idols, the material creation, other men, or
some philosophy. Where did this spiritual ability to worship and have faith
come from? Surely it did not come from material. God created man. Why is
it that men ask the question, does God exist? Even atheists have considered
God since they deny him. Where did men get this ability to believe in God
and to worship him? Surely this spiritual ability did not come from animals
or material. There must be a Creator who created man with this spiritual
ability and the need to worship.
. . He has also set eternity in their heart, . . .
Ecclesiastes 3:11.
. . and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries
of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope
for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him
we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, `For
we also are His offspring.´ "Being then the offspring of God, we ought not
to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image
formed by the art and thought of man. "Therefore having overlooked the times
of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent,
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness
through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by
raising Him from the dead." Acts 17:26-31.
You have now read seven evidences of God. Each one stands alone but together
they give you seven pillars for your decision to believe in God.
Yes, you can come to know God and believe in Him. Your eternal destiny depends
on this.
You know that you are going to die. Maybe you do not believe that you are
going to die; however, you will die. It is better for you to get to know
God now, rather than after it is too late.
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes
judgment. Hebrews 9:27.
Germaine Lockwood
Copyright ©1996 by Germaine Charles Lockwood. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Scripture quotations in this work, unless otherwise indicated, are from The
New American Standard Bible, Copyright ©1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972,
1973, 1975, 1977, The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations from The New King James Bible (NKJB), Copyright ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Nashville, TN. Used by permission.
Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)
Previous Chapter
Table of Contents
Next Chapter
title: God
http://members.tripod.com/~foldey0/duplindex.html
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
15 Oct 2003 01:07:16 PM |
|
|
"Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com> writes:
You are able to choose and to decide. You are not just a determined machine.
You have a free will. You can even decide what you want to think about. This
shows that you are more than a programmed electrical brain.
No, it merely shows that the processes that lead to making a
decision, the emotional machinery that tips your decision-making one way
or the other, is inaccessible to your conscious self. That doesn't mean
it isn't deterministic.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
With the advance of biogenetics, it is not so much that we are losing
our dignity and freedom but that we realise we never had them in the
first place. - Slavoj Zizek
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
16 Oct 2003 05:09:34 AM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
"Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com> writes:
You are able to choose and to decide. You are not just a determined
machine. You have a free will. You can even decide what you want to
think about. This shows that you are more than a programmed
electrical brain.
No, it merely shows that the processes that lead to making a
decision, the emotional machinery that tips your decision-making one
way or the other, is inaccessible to your conscious self. That
doesn't mean it isn't deterministic.
Elf
Indeed. However, Quantum Mechanics tells us that the brains
consciousness is inherently not predictable. Haven't made up my mind yet
as to whether classical uncertainty or quantum uncertainty is the main
player though.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
10 Oct 2003 09:33:23 PM |
|
|
"Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com> wrote in
news:3f8736a3_1@127.0.0.1:
Chapter Eight
THE NATURE OF HUMANS
How could nonconscious matter have produced conscious
beings?
Alternatively, how could matter always be prevented from
producing conscious beings? Both questions are dubious.
How could irrational matter have produced beings
capable of rational thought?
Same question really, with an escalating undertone of
improbability.
How can you trust your
thinking, if you are only the result of nonconscious,
irrational, material causes?
Ontology?
The simple answer is that we can't trust our thinking (but not
necessarily because what you say is true). That's why we so
severely limit the scope of science.
How could you be responsible
for your decisions and actions if you are only the result
of irresponsible material causes? How could amoral matter
have created man with a moral sense of right and wrong?
Responsibility is a legal fiction (in a technical sense).
Morals are a cultural fiction (in a similar sense).
Obviously, man must be more than the result of
nonconscious, irrational, amoral, material causes.
"Obviously" means that something is obvious.
Do you
believe that your brain and mind came from nonliving matter
by chance evolution?
More of less.
If this is so, then you cannot trust
your thinking.
That doesn't follow. It assumes that the properties of
something are just a combination of the properties of the
elements it's made from. The properties of water are
dramatically different from the properties of either hydrogen or
of oxygen. How can water be a liquid at room temperature, when
neither hydrogen nor oxygen are?
There is no reason for you to be rational.
True, but not proof that rationality is unreasonable (if you
see what I mean).
There is no reason for your thinking to be real or logical.
Right, which is why science attempts to be extremely strict
concerning these matters.
Now you may argue with me, but there is no reason to
believe that your arguments are logical or true.
Unless of course, you are convinced that they are.
If atheism
is true, then the mind of man was not designed for
rational, logical thinking.
Right, it requires no designer to gain an advantage in nature by
the use of logic.
If atheism is true, the human
brain and mind are the results of nonconscious, irrational,
unintelligent, illogical, material causes.
Right, your point is....
If atheism is
true, you cannot possibly trust your mind to be rational
and logical. If atheism is true, you cannot trust your
thinking and the thinking of other people. If atheism is
true, you cannot believe the arguments made by atheists for
atheism.
More classical mind-control technique. Note the droning
repetition. He hopes we're lulled enough to accept the idea
that atheism needs to be believed or proved.
However, you do argue with other people.
This
shows that you really believe that you are conscious and
rational.
Not necessarily.
You know that you can think. Then you must admit
that man's brain and mind were designed for thinking.
Doesn't follow any more than, that because a flower can be
flattend out and pasted in a book proves that a flower was
designed for that purpose.
This
shows that man must be the result of a conscious, rational,
intelligent Creator.
I don't think so.
Either you must deny that you can
think and reason, or you must admit that man is the work of
an intelligent Creator, GOD!
False dichotomy.
Mathematician Rene Descarte
gave the axiom:
I think, therefore, I am a person. And I must have been
brought into existence by a being at least as perfect as I
am, for the fountain cannot rise higher than the source.
(Monser, An Encyclopedia on the Evidences, p. 35.)
Oh well, we all make mistakes. I can sell you an electric pump
which puts that idea to rest.
You are able to choose and to decide. You are not just a
determined machine. You have a free will. You can even
decide what you want to think about. This shows that you
are more than a programmed electrical brain.
OK, the tempo of unsupported, unconnected assertions is starting
to rise. This usually indicates that a longer bow is being
drawn.
Think about
your behavior. You argue with other people about what is
right and wrong. However, by arguing, you show that you
accept the fact that there is real right and wrong.
Doesn't follow. I can argue why I think something is right
while allowing the possibility that I could be wrong.
It is
true that we are ignorant; that is why you argue with the
other person in order to convince him of what is really
right and wrong.
Not necessarily, maybe I'm just an arsehole who doesn't really
give a ***** about what you think, or even about what is right.
You even condemn others for their evil.
Do I? Sorry about that chief.
You could not do this unless there is objective, absolute
evil and good, which shows moral law in the cosmos.
Yes I could. I could just make up a totally specous definition
of evil, from case to case, and apply it without any
justification or consistancy.
If
there is not real moral law, it would be foolish to argue
with others and to condemn them.
Right, it would be more expedient simply to destroy them.
Aren't you glad that humans (for the most part) are capable of
creating a social contract?
It would be foolish to
have police and judges.
As also would it be if you believe that God is the judge of
everything.
People argue about which system of
morality is better, which shows that there is the best,
absolute right and wrong.
People argue about almost anything, what's your point.
We need to ask some questions.
Why?
If
everything is only material and the result of material
causes, how could there be real right and wrong?
Humans and their morallity (whatever that may be from time to
time and from place to place), could be the result of natural
selection and also the cause of morality.
How could
dumb material produce a moral realm?
Oops, you skipped a step. Dumb material produced thinking
humans and then they produced a moral realm (whatever that is).
How could your moral
sense have come from dumb material?
It didn't. It came from other humans.
If man is only
material, how could you say that it is wrong to move a
little material, such as to put a hole through your head?
It's wrong if we decide that it's wrong. That is why christians
send their accused to court, rather than trusting in God's
judjement.
Obviously, there is more than only matter and material
causes.
"Obviously" referrs to something that is obvious.
Your moral sense and the moral law that you argue
about, show a Moral Law Giver, God.
It shows that thinking humans are capable of creating a social
contract.
Have you ever done
something that you believed was wrong and within you this
deed was judged to be wrong?
I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I might
incriminate myself.
Yes, you have a conscience
that condemns you.
You hope.
Your conscience is a witness against
you.
I just...
You are guilty of sin and know it.
.... have to...
Where did your
conscience come from?
.... break this rythm.
Certainly not from dumb material.
Why not?
Moral conscience could only have come from a moral Creator,
Holy God.
Opinion, not conclusion.
The Bible teaches about the people who did not
have the Law that was given to Israel:
And about the people who did. Neither of them were considered
morally upright.
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively
the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law
to themselves, in that they show the work of a Law written
in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and
their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
. . Romans 2:14-16.
You know that you are more than just material. You know and
have experienced justice, mercy, pity, compassion, love,
trust, kindness and faith. These are beyond the material
cosmos. You have a spiritual nature, and you experience it.
More mind-control
Men have the ability to worship. While men are often
ignorant, still they do worship.
Are you implying that worship is born of ignorance?
They worship idols, the
material creation, other men, or some philosophy.
It looks like you are.
Where did
this spiritual ability to worship and have faith come from?
Surely it did not come from material.
God created man.
False dichotomy.
Why
is it that men ask the question, does God exist?
Because some scam-merchant said that God wants either the very
best of the first fruits of our labour, or our money (whichever
is more convenient; at least they're reasonable about the
nature of tender).
Even
atheists have considered God since they deny him.
Ooh, you got me there. Quickly, don't think about a giraffe
walking down your street. If you considered that for a second,
can I say that you really believe that it is so?
Where did
men get this ability to believe in God and to worship him?
From his own mind?
Surely this spiritual ability did not come from animals or
material.
More repetition of the unproven assertion, presented as if it
had been proved above.
There must be a Creator who created man with this
spiritual ability and the need to worship.
False dichotomy. It could have come from a process involving
both animals and material (animals are made of matter, btw).
. . He has also set eternity in their heart, . . .
Ecclesiastes 3:11.
Meaningless but poetic.
. . and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live
on all the face
of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and
the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek
God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him,
though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we
live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets
have said, `For we also are His offspring.´ "Being then the
offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine
Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by
the art and thought of man. "Therefore having overlooked
the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that
all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in
which He will judge the world in righteousness through a
Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all
men by raising Him from the dead." Acts 17:26-31.
You have now read seven evidences of God. Each one stands
alone but together they give you seven pillars for your
decision to believe in God. Yes, you can come to know God
and believe in Him. Your eternal destiny depends on this.
You know that you are going to die. Maybe you do not
believe that you are going to die; however, you will die.
It is better for you to get to know God now, rather than
after it is too late. And inasmuch as it is appointed for
men to die once and after this comes judgment. Hebrews
9:27.
I'm not disputing that those words appear in a book.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
10 Oct 2003 06:38:15 PM |
|
|
"Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8736a3_1@127.0.0.1...
Chapter Eight
THE NATURE OF HUMANS
Snip arrogant spew.
Man, these guys think their poop don't stink. They just HAVE to be the
cherished creation of a universe spanning being for their lives to have any
meaning. What ego! What nerve!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
10 Oct 2003 09:42:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:38:15 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8736a3_1@127.0.0.1...
Chapter Eight
THE NATURE OF HUMANS
Snip arrogant spew.
Man, these guys think their poop don't stink. They just HAVE to be the
cherished creation of a universe spanning being for their lives to have any
meaning. What ego! What nerve!
Arrogant stupidity.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
10 Oct 2003 10:45:09 PM |
|
|
"Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:<3f8736a3_1@127.0.0.1>...
All quote, and no opinion.
What do *you think, Alan?
Chapter Eight
THE NATURE OF HUMANS
How could nonconscious matter have produced conscious beings? How could irrational
matter have produced beings capable of rational thought?
How could dumb water molecules form delicately organized snowflakes?
How can mindless rocks orbit each other and the sun for billions of
years?
By expressing a handful of behaviors (called "laws") seen everywhere
in the universe. simple rules can lead to complex behavior.
How can you trust
your thinking, if you are only the result of nonconscious, irrational,
material causes?
Why do you trust your thinking now?
I trust my legs, I trust my brain. Why would thinking be unreliable in
any way? The human mind is only present inside of a functioning
brain. It has *never been shown to "leave" it and come back. Damage
the brain, and change the mind. The only rational way to approach it
is to assume the mind is one of the things the brain *does. Some
brains even think gooey and unsupportable thoughts, and publish them
on the web.
How could you be responsible for your decisions and actions if you
are only the result of irresponsible material causes?
How can a match burn down a forest? How can a man lift a great weight
if he was once a child? How can a great city hustle and bustle if it
was once a sleepy village?
How could amoral matter
have created man with a moral sense of right and wrong? Obviously, man must
be more than the result of nonconscious, irrational, amoral, material causes.
Because you lack imagination it's obvious? I think not. Got any other
reasons to think so?
Do you believe that your brain and mind came from nonliving matter by chance
evolution? If this is so, then you cannot trust your thinking.
That's the dumbest aassertion I've heard since... well, since I last
read this newsgroup.
There is no
reason for you to be rational.
Apes who were too irrational died young. We are *all descended from
apes who were *not too stupid at the wrong time.
There is no reason for your thinking to be
real or logical.
Nature has a way of keeping it real. I don't understand this image
these fundamentalists have of a "souless" body, wandering around,
bumping into walls or somethin'. *I have no soul that I can see, and
I function just fine.
Now you may argue with me, but there is no reason to believe
that your arguments are logical or true.
You haven't made any arguemtns yetl just bald assertions.
If atheism is true, then the mind
of man was not designed for rational, logical thinking.
Sigh. I wish I could argue with you here, but you refute me by your
very existence. RAtional thought *is, however, capable of being taught
to variying degrees. But the fundamentalists who raised me seemed to
treat cleat thinking as anathema.
If atheism is true,
the human brain and mind are the results of nonconscious, irrational,
unintelligent, illogical, material causes.
Yup. Ain't nature grand?
If atheism is true, you cannot possibly trust
your mind to be rational and logical.
Um... I know that you are unpracticed at thinking rationally, but
could you offer a reason why we should think so?
If atheism is true, you cannot trust
your thinking and the thinking of other people.
Ah, but we can now, yes?
If atheism is true, you cannot
believe the arguments made by atheists for atheism.
Please justify. Please explain. These are bizarre assertions, you
know.
However, you do argue with other people. This shows that you really believe
that you are conscious and rational. You know that you can think.
<Blush> Aw, shucks.
Then you
must admit that man's brain and mind were designed for thinking.
Evidence shows how it arose from natural processes. Ever study
neurochemistry, or brain anatomy, or vertebrate comparative anatomy,
or psychobiology or cultural anthropology or vetebrate evolution,
bucko? Did you get *all of your education from Chick Comics?
This shows
that man must be the result of a conscious, rational, intelligent Creator.
Either you must deny that you can think and reason, or you must admit that
man is the work of an intelligent Creator, GOD!
False dichotomy.
Also, argument from incredulity.
Mathematician Rene Descarte
gave the axiom:
I think, therefore, I am
He only went this far ^
After that there was much unpersuasive speculation. We all thank him
for his contributions to the Cartesian graph and the path to calculus.
a person. And I must have been brought into existence
by a being at least as perfect as I am, for the fountain cannot rise higher
than the source.
He didn't have the benefit of modern science, or he would know that
people are not fountains, and we certainly can. We grew out of this
universe as an apple from a tree. We did not drop in from anywhere
else.
(Monser, An Encyclopedia on the Evidences, p. 35.)
You are able to choose and to decide. You are not just a determined machine.
You have a free will.
And what, exactly, does this free will look like? does it look like my
cat, when she's trying to decide to go out or not? Are you saying that
you have no reason for what you do? What are you free *from, exactly?
You can even decide what you want to think about. This
shows that you are more than a programmed electrical brain.
How? My brain is programmed to think clearly most of the time, and to
consider new ideas. (I haven't seen any new ones here.) I partially
programmed it myself. I was programmed to do that :)
Think about your behavior. You argue with other people about what is right
and wrong. However, by arguing, you show that you accept the fact that there
is real right and wrong.
Okay...
It is true that we are ignorant; that is why you
argue with the other person in order to convince him of what is really right
and wrong.
Okay.
You even condemn others for their evil.
Sometimes.
You could not do this
unless there is objective, absolute evil and good,
These terms are awfully ...absolute. I have several moral priorities,
but I cannot rank one as ultimately higher than the other, and I can
only weigh them against each other when in doubt, and there is no way
to quantify them
(For the record, I value life, intelligence & awareness & knowledge,
humanity. Fortunately, these rarely conflict.)
which shows moral law
in the cosmos.
I'm not sure there is moral law outside of humankind. I tend to think
so, but I have doubts. You, apparently, have none. Do you think that
makes you more likely to be correct?
If there is not real moral law, it would be foolish to argue
with others and to condemn them.
We could still argue and come to agreements even if we thought moral
law were completely a social construct.
It would be foolish to have police and judges.
What? You don't believe in maintaining order and mutual protection
from dangerous people?
People argue about which system of morality is better, which shows that there
is the best, absolute right and wrong.
We argue about which sitcom is better, also. Does that mean that there
is an absolute, objectively best sitcom? If so, how could we determine
that?
We need to ask some questions. If everything is only material and the result
of material causes, how could there be real right and wrong?
We were genetically selected for a predisposition to learn moral
behavior. Apes that mistreated others of their tribe were less
reproductively successful; "good" apes had more babies in the log run.
But so did apes that 8sometimes betrayed other apes. Hence, we learn
right and wrong from our elders and ocassionally have trouble doing
the right thing. Social mores get confused with ultimate right and
wrong, but cultural differences are arbitrary. Our brain evolved to be
flexible (if not necessarily logical) and our concepts of authority,
tribe, family, honor, justice, etc. can expand or shrink as
circumstances demand.
Anything else I can explain for you?
How could dumb
material produce a moral realm? How could your moral sense have come from
dumb material? If man is only material, how could you say that it is wrong
to move a little material, such as to put a hole through your head?
You know that you repeat yourself, don't you?
Obviously,
there is more than only matter and material causes.
Actually, I've never seen any evidence for any cause which are not
"material". I *have seen many people walking aroudn saying "How could
it be otherwise? Isn't it obvious?" It's not obvious to me. Is it
obvious to you that we are the dreams of Brahma?
Your moral sense and
the moral law that you argue about, show a Moral Law Giver, God.
Excuse me? Is this the imaginary diety that killed 42 children for
making fun of a bald man's head? Who allowed Noah to curse not only
one of his sons but all of Ham's descendants - for telling his
brothers that Noah was on a drunk? Who gave the Hebrews a law to give
a formerly virgin rape victim to her rapist as a wife (sex slave)?
*That God?
Have you ever done something that you believed was wrong and within you this
deed was judged to be wrong? Yes, you have a conscience that condemns you.
Your conscience is a witness against you. You are guilty of sin
No. Mostly I don't do wrong. When I do, it has nothing ot do with
"sin" - it means I've behaved in a shabby way to another human, and I
must make it right if I can.
and know
it. Where did your conscience come from? Certainly not from dumb material.
No; from my brain, after a normal childhood.
<snip *much more of the same>
title: God
http://members.tripod.com/~foldey0/duplindex.html
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Alan, if you have a mind, offer an opinion.
--- kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
15 Oct 2003 10:39:26 PM |
|
|
"Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:<3f8736a3_1@127.0.0.1>...
Blah blah blah.
Just what exactly is the purpose of scouring the web for examples
of Theist Thought Disorder? Sure, you can always find them. But
what do you do with the little bag of nuggets you collect? Is there
some assay office where you can take them and get goodies in
return?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
11 Oct 2003 01:41:13 AM |
|
|
10/11/2003, around 12:45:55 AM, Alan Faircloth wrote:
Chapter Eight
THE NATURE OF HUMANS
How could nonconscious matter have produced conscious beings? How
could irrational matter have produced beings capable of rational
thought? How can you trust your thinking, if you are only the result
of nonconscious, irrational, material causes? How could you be
responsible for your decisions and actions if you are only the result
of irresponsible material causes? How could amoral matter have
created man with a moral sense of right and wrong? Obviously, man
must be more than the result of nonconscious, irrational, amoral,
material causes. Do you believe that your brain and mind came from
nonliving matter by chance evolution? If this is so, then you cannot
trust your thinking.
I don't trust *your* thinking, if that counts?
There is no reason for you to be rational. There
is no reason for your thinking to be real or logical.
There is no reason for me to be rational? Are you to say that there is
no reason for me to be an atheist?
Now you may
argue with me, but there is no reason to believe that your arguments
are logical or true. If atheism is true, then the mind of man was not
designed for rational, logical thinking. If atheism is true, the
human brain and mind are the results of nonconscious, irrational,
unintelligent, illogical, material causes.
No, you were not the cause of my brain and mind. Oh, an btw, "so?"
If atheism is true, you
cannot possibly trust your mind to be rational and logical. If
atheism is true, you cannot trust your thinking and the thinking of
other people. If atheism is true, you cannot believe the arguments
made by atheists for atheism. However, you do argue with other
people. This shows that you really believe that you are conscious and
rational. You know that you can think. Then you must admit that man's
brain and mind were designed for thinking.
No.
This shows that man must
be the result of a conscious, rational, intelligent Creator.
So using the same logic I can conclude that you were not the result of
such a creator.
Either
you must deny that you can think and reason, or you must admit that
man is the work of an intelligent Creator, GOD!
No. I have decided that there are two creators.
Mathematician Rene
Descarte gave the axiom: I think, therefore, I am a person. And I
must have been brought into existence by a being at least as perfect
as I am, for the fountain cannot rise higher than the source.
(Monser, An Encyclopedia on the Evidences, p. 35.)
But of course. You are to say that a car is as useless as thousands of
parts laying around. Also, a star is just the same as lots of hydrogen
atoms in a gascloud. Is that what you're saying?
You are able to
choose and to decide. You are not just a determined machine. You
have a free will. You can even decide what you want to think about.
This shows that you are more than a programmed electrical brain.
Explain how.
Think about your behavior. You argue with other people about what is
right and wrong. However, by arguing, you show that you accept the
fact that there is real right and wrong.
We all have different views on what's right or wrong. If there were no
lifeforms in this universe, there would be no morals. It's not some
kind of law of nature.
It is true that we are
ignorant; that is why you argue with the other person in order to
convince him of what is really right and wrong. You even condemn
others for their evil. You could not do this unless there is
objective, absolute evil and good, which shows moral law in the
cosmos.
Yes I can, from my own perspective.
If there is not real moral law, it would be foolish to argue
with others and to condemn them. It would be foolish to have police
and judges. People argue about which system of morality is better,
which shows that there is the best, absolute right and wrong.
No, it shows us that we all have different views on the matter.
We
need to ask some questions. If everything is only material and the
result of material causes, how could there be real right and wrong?
How could dumb material produce a moral realm? How could your moral
sense have come from dumb material? If man is only material, how
could you say that it is wrong to move a little material, such as to
put a hole through your head? Obviously, there is more than only
matter and material causes. Your moral sense and the moral law that
you argue about, show a Moral Law Giver, God.
The fact that we have to argue, shows us quite the opposite; that there
is no universal right or wrong, no black or white, no sharp lines
between right or wrong.
And then it gets too long, really.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: anti-Atheist article I found on the WWW |
10 Oct 2003 09:42:13 PM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2003 17:45:55 -0500, "Alan Faircloth" <wha@eudoramail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
I think, therefore, I am a person. And I must have been brought into existence
by a being at least as perfect as I am, for the fountain cannot rise higher
than the source.
Same old crap. The "perfect being" must have been created by an even
more perfect one.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
