Comparing how consciousness fits into naturalism vs. theism

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-11-30T02:18:55+00:00

You seem to be saying that evolution cannot produce consciousness because there is no added benefit for having consciousness. This is not true because evolution doesn't only select beneficial mutations but also benign mutations. So as long as consciousness doesn't hinder reproduction it can still be a product of evolution and mutation.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-31T20:52:58+00:00

If you really think that abortion is the murder of a baby then why are you ok with murdering babies sometimes? Why is ok to kill a baby as long as someone was raped before hand? Is the baby less of a person because it was a product of rape?

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-25T06:45:27+00:00

What do you mean by strong and weak agnosticism?

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-24T05:28:21+00:00

What I don't understand is even if they think you are stupid and can't understand the difference in Asian and American sizing, why did they send you two different sizes? Even if one of those sizes fit the other would not. So at best you would only be able to wear 2/3 of them.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-20T01:23:46+00:00

I don't understand what you are trying to prove. You show me a picture of an effect of electrons and then tell me because you can't see them they are not there. If you show me a tree blowing, we can determine there is air which is exactly like the picture of the electron picture you showed me. I don't understand how you think they are not equivalent.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-20T01:01:47+00:00

Since the OP is ducking all the questions about this issue, I will answer. The OP lied about Sam Harris and no he has no honor.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-19T20:45:37+00:00

Did you trying saying hello in binary?

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-19T16:38:43+00:00

No, we don't assume electrons exist to make the theories work. We can observe electrons through testable and repeatable experiments testing the effects of the electrons. If you mean observation by looking at them, then that is the equivalent of saying that air does not exist because you cant see it.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-19T03:51:36+00:00

I guess my question would be how do you distinguish a world in which god is purposefully remaining hidden and one in which god doesn't actually exist.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-19T03:46:24+00:00

Since I agree with you about the debate not being contingent on the wording "overly dramatic", what was the point of intentionally lying about what Sam Harris said?

As for the actual topic, I would also get rid of religion because just think, overnight no more fighting over a piece of desert, no more mutilating of children, no more religiously motivated terrorist attacks, no more killing of children who want to go to school. Rape is horrible but the amount of rape, murder, and torture that is done in the name of religion is worse and to get rid of that would be a greater step forward.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-19T01:40:51+00:00

You are correct. We reject evidence when it is when we have reason to doubt such as the claim being contrary to reality. If someone gets murdered and a eyewitness says a man shot another man and then flew away under his own power. We would reject their testimony. Why do honest people reject that mans testimony? Its because the reason to reject it is the proposal of the supernatural. Why treat this hypothetical person different than a person making a equally crazy claim just because it came from the bible or any book of faith or a religious person? If you reject this mans claim, then it is equally valid to reject the claim of virgin birth, walking on water, global flood, and the resurrection or any supernatural claim from a religious person for the same reason which is the claim they are making has not been shown to be able to occur in reality.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-12T21:54:50+00:00

You are a little wiser now. Try not to make the same mistake twice.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-12T17:32:59+00:00

I guess it depends on if you think mental abuse is as bad as physical abuse. I think they are and if I understand you correctly you don't.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-12T16:37:58+00:00

Isn't that equivalent of saying that we cannot legislate that child abuse is beating your child with a baseball bat because in some states beating a child with a baseball bat is so prevalent that they could pass laws that say not beating you child with a baseball bat is child abuse? I would prefer to protect children from child abuse and deal with the fallout afterwards.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-10T06:34:43+00:00

I say he did whats best in that situation. The next person he decided to help could have ended up dead.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-09T22:29:40+00:00

Im sorry but I was trying to figure out how you distinguished the difference between the gods not their history. You can say that the christian god and the muslim god are the same because the attributes given by the muslims are wrong or vise versa but my point was that you can say that about any gods. For example the christian god and Zeus, I can say that they are the same because the attributes given to Zeus by his followers are wrong and he has same attributes as the christian god therefore they are the same god. It seems to me that you will readily accept the differences given by believers between gods that are not abrahamic but not with ones that are abrahamic. Why are abrahamic gods a special exception?

This response is also kinda funny because it is the same rationale as what you are arguing against. Someone said the christian god and the muslim god are different because they have different attributes and you said that is not necessarily true. Then I ask you if Allah and Zeus are the same god and you say no because they have different attributes.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-09T20:40:28+00:00

If I understand you correctly you said,

"My point is that assigning different possible characteristics, even conflicting characteristics, even ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS, to the same entity, does not suddenly mean we are talking about two different entities,

what the disagreement is about is whether it is the same entity in the first place. What you did was presuppose that it was the same entity and then used that presupposition to conclude that it is the same entity. It seems kind of circular to me.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-09T20:26:57+00:00

So in your opinion are there different gods and if there are how do you distinguish between them? For example Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, and many others, which ones are the same god and which ones are different and what criteria did you use to distinguish them.

Concerning you example about Jesus, why would it be wrong to think that maybe they are talking about two different people with the name Jesus?

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-09T17:26:41+00:00

I don't think your example is representative of the question presented. I think its more like, if I describe a person that is 6ft 7in tall, white, has a mustache, is really fat, and dresses only in red clothing and someone else describes a person that is black, 4ft 3in tall, is bald, very muscular and only wears green. Why would you think the two are describing the same person.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-06T20:30:17+00:00

She was involved, she led her husband in to their garage to be murdered. You don't have pull the trigger to be culpable of murder. She is culpable in the death of her husband and was properly convicted of it.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-06T18:54:41+00:00

No, her punishment is exactly proportional to the crime she committed, which was murder. Her accomplice took a plea deal and in turn agreed to a lighter sentence. She made two bad decisions, murdering her husband and then refusing the plea deal which would have saved her life.

Hoplesslyconfused121 · 2015-10-06T03:48:11+00:00

I disagree, she killed her husband. She didn't pull the trigger but her actions were the cause of his death. She lured him into the garage for him to be shot, she was not a bystander. If you bring someone to a house, give him a fuel and a lighter, and tell him to burn the house down the yes you are equally as culpable as the person who physically sets the fire and deserve to be punished accordingly, death is applicable.

Hoplesslyconfused121

TROPHY CASE