He is right. There is something in medicine known as the placebo effect. If you are convinced that the pill I am about to give will cure your headache then your mind will accept this and fix your headache. Intercessory prayer is a great example of the placebo effect. The main difference is that medicine will never give you a pill and say "this will grow your arm back"
Our brain and body is a massive chemical system that functions with electricity and nutrition. Emotions are just change of chemical balances ... hormones...
If you cant understand that then you will also get confused on why woman are so aggressive when on PMS ...
While science may not be as far as to determine someones precise actions, we can calculate many parameters that makes the uncertain picture of future of bit less bury ..
No such thing as soul, we are our brains ... it hold who we are.
@davelantor If all we have is brains and thus have no minds or souls then why cant our thoughts, ideas, beliefs and intentions be observed like all other natural phenomena taking place in the brain? If all we have is brains and thats it then we should be able to explain all these phenomena using a naturalistic worldview. However, we cannot so you cant really posit the assertion that we have no soul.
have you ever seen a mind without a brain? second of all,.. if the mind isn't the product of the brain,..i mean according to your belief the complexity of our brains,..which has over 100b neurons, and over 10,000 synapses are for nothing? and are our emotions part of the immaterial mind of that immaterial brain? the study of the mind and brain is just beginning, and most of the evidence show that the mind is the product of the brain. all neuroscientists agree on that
@Atheist603 As i said, the mind could be dependent on the brain so why would I see a mind without a brain? I never said the complexity of the brain was for nothing did I? No, I believe emotions are from the brain. However, the brain cannot account for thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and logical inferences. If the brain was the only thing we were using then neuroscientists would be able to observe our thoughts on a brainscan or under a microscope. Can they? No they can only observe brain states
@mrstevenjake22 "explain to me how the material brain gave rise to immaterial?" brain cell to cell communication (synapses) which is what make us able to think, keep memories, etc..when a person ages and starts loosing neurons and synapses in the cerebral cortex. subcortical regions this what a person this is what causes Alzheimer's, I guess you know what it is. Also, have you ever heard of split brain disorder? does that mean a person has 2 immaterial souls? or minds,?
@Atheist603 which are different from mental states. Your last statement is a bold one. Really? ALL neuroscientists agree on that? So, then please explain to me how the brain(material) gave rise to the mind(something immaterial).
@mrstevenjake22 Alcohol alters affects your mind by binding to a receptor of the brain’s neurons in several ways. It alters their membranes as well as their ion channels, enzymes, and receptors. Alcohol also binds directly to the receptors for acetylcholine, serotonin, GABA, and the NMDA receptors for glutamate. i mean saying that the mind is not part of the brain is like saying digestion is not part of the stomach,
@mrstevenjake22 actually it can be observed. Do a bit research before you claim something that has.
Heard of brainwaves moron ?
While our technology may not be at a state where we get perfect images like you are looking for. There has been experiments where pictures has been reconstructed on computer from just thinking a it, There also has been studies on rats to manipulate brainwaves to give commands to it.
Search for Electroencephalography. Try to learn and search before making assumptions.
this guy is fucking retard lol i mean think about alchol which is a pure phyiscal think and the effect it has on so called and quote non physical mind and consciousness lol there's more than evidence that shows how the mind is and consciousness are the product of the brain lol but this idiot won't admit it,..why? cuz he's so dogmatic and so enslaved by his retarded beliefs
@Atheist603 Just because things like alcohol can affect the processing of the brain doesnt mean that an immaterial mind is nonexistent. The brain could simply be the medium that the mind works through. Therefore, when the brain is damaged or temporarily affected then the mind cannot correctly work through its medium. I agree that the mind could be dependent on the brain but not that its the result of the brain.
There is a new ebook, only 99 cents, if you can afford it, which actually explains a science behind NDEs and how esp works.
'God Stopping A Nuclear War'
There are a few chapters on how Satan and God are fighting in today's world.
Wall Street corruption, sucide bombers, black rioting and crime in the UK, failure of education, the seizing of the internet, and banking, are all there.
Also there is a link to a secret website used by Hollywood for religious themes in movies
a placebo is not actually proof of anything. a placebo is the ZERO HYPOTHESIS, the default effect, the default outcome. actually proof needs to show an effect beyond that of a placebo effect! this is one of the simplest ideas in science, and it is also why every experiment ever devised in the field of physiology and medicine has at least one placebo control group. dinesh, dinesh.. stick to preaching to gullible people, the rest of us are informed and willing to think for ourselves :<
Material things like neurons and non material things like thoughts? Can Dinesh be that ignorant? Neurons carry learned synaptic patterns of electricity (THOUGHTS) following these material laws. Placebo effect is not proof at all. A person can pretend they feel better but they still have AIDS or Cancer. In fact I would love to see a placebo or prayer work for aneurysm or DVT where the neurons cannot work. No separation of thought and neuron there
Very well done, Dinesh! "What's so great about Christianity" is an awesome book regarding the tenets of Christianity and the profound and spectacular effect Christianity had on the formation of Western thought, science, goverment etc.
lol, The true Christian tradition is one of humility? Oh yeah, totally...It's been that way for like...4 years. Thanks to the success and human prosperity brought about by the secular state. Religions don't have the power to police people into their beliefs anymore so they are forced into ecumenicism because they have nothing else left. Insincere doesn't even cover it, half the names he mentioned publically endorsed the physical punishment of heretics.
I work in the computer industry and all those things D'Souze things are in the "immaterial" realm are actually in the material realm. The patterns that are ideas, the "software", always has some physical instantiation. There are no free floating ideas, or information. It all has physical existence. The fact that it can be copied is what is mistaken for the immaterial. It the power of copying and evolution which is exact what he doesn't get. Thus he believes in spirits.
Dinesh completely misunderstands the placebo effect. The person Thought they were sick and they Think they are cured. Nothing has changed but the persons Belief.
Alright I'll look into that thanks. Btw, can you show me how neurologist can account for abstract entities please? I'ld like to see the evidence for that.
@Kolbe19 Computers deal in abstractions all the time and there is nothing immaterial going on there. Ideas don't live on some platonic immaterial plane. They always exist as physical instantiations. Copies in the real world. This fallacy of duality is nonsense. There is no duality.
@ReligionOfNice You are not implying that computers are actually freely thinking are you? Can computers fall in love, can computers feel sadness or joy? Are you really willing to admit this? How do abstract concepts of love, justice, beliefs, theories, etc. exist in a materialist universe? How do you explain free will? If we think as computers does this not negate free will?
@Kolbe19 No I am not implying that. Different physical instantiations have different capacities. A hand held calculator can not handle the same abstractions as a supercomputer. A human and a chimp have different capacities. Despite all those differences you still need a computer to play a video game, and you still need a human body to fall in love, feel sadness, or joy, know a bout love, justice, or have beliefs. Vacuums have none of these characteristics.
@Kolbe19 It's the brain that produces all those things and damage to the brain shows that this is true. If personality, love, perception, understanding, memory, etc. were of an immaterial world then such damage should not have the effects it does.
@Kolbe19 The same goes for drugs. We understand quite a bit about how neurons operate as information processing components, how they communicate chemically, and how drugs interfere with that. There are other examples like stimulating portions of the brain during surgery. All these effects are inconsistent with a immaterial spirit driving a physical body. The reverse is the case. It's just an misinterpretation to think there is a immaterial spirit at all, it's all the brain.
PJ, I think we are going in circles here. I also think we both know that you didn't answer my questions. Again, I can give you quotes from atheist scientist that state they don't know how thoughts work in a brain or how they can even trust their own thoughts. The best you can do is say that science may someday figure it out. But i dont think that will ever happen Accounting for abstract entities in a materialist worldview logically is impossible.
@Kolbe19: I don't know how a car works. That doesn't mean someone else can't know. Neurologists and the like, know more about the brain than other scientists. Also, science has already accounted for abstract entities in a realistic worldview: the left part of the brain causes it. (or the right, I always get those 2 mixed up) Regardless, 1 side is for abstract thinking, the other for logical thinking, with the hypothalamus for primordial thinking.
PJ, I noticed you didn't answer my questions. Also, how do you know God is being evil if you have no objective standard to judge what is good and what is evil? You say you are good. This begs the question how do you know that you are good? Perhaps you are evil. If there is no objective moral law, is not your claim of you being good completely arbitrary?
@Kolbe19: maybe you should take a look at my previous 3 comments and notice my answers...how do I know God is being evil? Because he orders and performs evil deeds, in the sense that his deeds are detrimental. While you could see God as a child with a magnifying glass, burning ants (us), it's still bad for us and thus we deem it immoral. That is, if you're sane. While morality in general is subjective, the laws of nature give it some objectivity. So it's not completely arbitrary at all. (con)
@PJDesseyn This is a logical fallacy. How can morality be subjective and objective? And yes, your answer is still completely arbitrary. How about this, without objective morality how can moral progress take place? If you have no objective plum line to ground morality, in your worldview morality can only change and not progress. I think it is clear that the atheist worldview can't account for the most important things of life, morality, knowledge, and meaning. Thanks for the dialog.
@Kolbe19: No logical fallacy, but duality. Just like light consists of both waves and particles, morality is both objective and subjective. We have the objective laws of nature, and we have the subjective experiences. Also note: if morality was completely objective, aka rigid, then there would be no progress. It would already be complete. Therefore it must be (partially) subjective. In my world view, it can change AND PROGRESS, not in yours, where it's already complete.
@PJDesseyn How can you even have objective morality in an atheist universe PJ? Can you list these objective laws and show how they are not completely arbitrary in an atheist/materialist universe? Let me save you the trouble. You can't do it. Morality is objective because it reflects God's character. Moral progress and moral decline are possible in a theist universe because of a fallen nature and free will.
@Kolbe19: easy: the laws of nature. That's what makes objective morality. Note that this concerns basic rules, and we all know rules can be broken. For example: nature encourages not killing people, but that doesn't make us incapable of murder. Let me give you some more trouble: how about proving God's existence BEFORE you start attributing things to him. You can't claim morality reflects God's character, if you haven't even proven he exists in the first place. (cont)
@Kolbe19: it's clear that your world view is wrong, and that the atheist worldview is misrepresented by you, as we CAN account for morality, knowledge and meaning. Morality is caused by evolution, knowledge by experience and meaning by philosohophy. None of it is caused by God, as God doesn't exist.
The "placebo" is better used as an example of how delusional our minds can be if we place a BS story in it and then DREAM that it's real-kind of like CHRISTIANITY!
Did Dinesh really just claim that the placebo effect is the result of the mind using magic (non-natural forces) to cure diseases? Gimme a break. I'm sure most placebo cures don't have anything to do with any physical change at all, but instead the mental perception that something has changed... You're telling me supernaturalism is more plausible than positive-thinking relieving stress and helping the immune system function properly? Every supernatural argument is an inference about the unknown..
@Tibberclaw he's not referring to magic. the placebo effect basically implies an reservoir of extra strength that sick people have. Like how if you go to a happy place (lol) when you're getting a TB shot, it make the pain more tolerable.
@outtaker Right - but my point is: what reason do we have to infer that there is some unnatural explanation for this effect? Isn't it starting to get very naive for a person to infer a supernatural explanation for the remaining gaps in our knowledge? It's as foolish as medieval people thinking that disease was the result of God's wrath (germ theory was not available). The trend of history is that of replacing the supernatural with the natural - it's what the evidence bears out.
@Tibberclaw Well, because we can't physically sense the placebo effect-it has no smell, color, taste, touch...I don't really agree, because without empirical means to test said "object", one must resort to mere logical inference. Actually, I'm not opposed to the theory that disease is a form of punishment from on high. It's only logical to assume when an omnipotent and good God causes a believer to be ill, they will jump to a conclusion : "Do I merit this?" Improbable, yes but not impossible
@outtaker What in the world are you trying to argue for? Is it really that hard to see that a placebo effect is the result of the brain communicating with the rest of the body? It seems like you are trying to argue for something equivalent of the mind using the "will" to bend spoons.
Plus, your comment about considering God as an active agent of destruction is just absurd. Presumably, you believe god is "omnibenevolent" as well? ...Yeah, I rest my case.
I take it Dinesh doesn't know about neuroscience or at least the basics. I'm no professional but I know more than him regarding that and he avoided the question regarding neurons, the placebo effect doesn't cure anything.
poor answer, completly evasive, in the base of "we don't know how somethings works, than Jesus may be God..."
Dinesh, even the placebo effect can obey natural laws, because it originates from an external cue, that affects an internal belief that resonates across a range of neural responses that may well trigger healing processes. As we know, the body has great healing capacity, and would not be surprising that this capability can be turned "on" when we intend it.
D'souza was brilliant in this debate. Even atheists admit he beat Dennett. I would go even further than that. Dennett was reduced to a jabberring stuttering mess. I felt sorry for the guy. I haven't seen an atheist get beat that badly since the Greg Bahnesn vs Gordon Stein debate.
True, but Dennett isn't much of a debator anyway. He is certainly more tolerable than Dinesh, who is a proven pathological liar and propagandist, who is incapable of writing or even speaking the truth much less writing it.
All throughout this debate from Dinesh it was nothing but rapid fire non-sequitor and strawman arguments, not to mention his ignorant use of the reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy against atheists which is an automatic FAIL in any debate.
dude,were you even listening to Dinesh? And haven't you heard of people living longer while hospitalized because they had the "will to live"? The placebo effect is not something D'Souza pulled out of nothing.
Just to reassert what I already stated, the mind can "feel better" but the idea of a placebo is that you have the effect of a relief of symptoms when in fact the underlying problem still exists. So as Dinesh tries to say we can change a physical state when in fact no physical state changes but we trigger a biochemical pathway which always existed and it becomes utilized. It's as if you were happy to see someone or not happy to see someone, you change your reaction type. Dinesh answers hopelessly
The insult from dinesh is his response "you assert dogmatically that matter shapes mind". I don't know how he managed to say that the placebo effect reshapes matter and the physical condition is altered but then in the same breathe says it's not known what really happens. In biomedical science i've never found anything about the mind actually reshaping anything. I can however trigger chemicals because of the way Im thinking such as endorphins to make me happy and other cytokines as a placebo.
As for the idea of mind shaping matter, you're going to have to go a great deal deeper than biomedical science. You're going to have to venture into the quantum field. Much to their astonishment, scientists have observed and documented that at the quantum level mind literally shapes matter. Without mind entering into the equation, there is no universe, in effect. Two people can see two completely different things while observing the same object...see two things and it only be one thing, etc.
The question was simply posing the possibility that the mind is a composition of physical forces. His answer is based entirely on the presumption that there is a mind that can be referred to as immaterial, completely separate from physical forces. FRAARRRG!
If Dinesh says Christians are to be open-minded and asking questions, why does he repeatedly accuse the guy who's asking him a good question of being dogmatic and predecided?
Because the guy was trying to back Dinesh into a corner. The difference between a rock (even animals) and humanity is that we have a soul and something called free will. While our brains operate according to nature, we DO have the ability to control our actions. The questioner implied that we are not that different than the rock... he WAS predecided.
Free will is arguable. We humans are now capable of comprehending the biochemical factors that determine our behavior. I believe in "choice" in a relative sense, as a human attempting to understand its own condition, but if you're the sum of your atomic parts, you'll make the choices they dictate - the fact that it's easier and 'makes sense' to humanize it doesn't make Dinesh right.
I'd also say the questioner was at worst no more predecided than Dinesh, who already believes he has the truth.
Free Will doesn't exist in any way. If it's natural, then free will is decided by previous experiences and reasoning capabilities, calculating an outcome and making a choice. If it's supernatural and there's an all-knowing god, then this god already knows your choice before it's made, thus eliminating free will as well.
So Free Will is an illusion. We're always bound to something.
So by what you have said, we really can't say Hitler was wrong because his neurons made him do it? If there is no free will then how can someone really be wrong or right?
@Kolbe19: his neurons are part of who he was. "my brain caused me to kill, not me" isn't a good excuse, as your brain = you. So free will exists, as long as there's no god. And in that sense, right and wrong CAN exist, as we make up the rules. Do note that morality is subjective. We no longer have the same morality as 1000 years ago, nor the same as in China, and we differ on many things, but the overal picture is the same: do no harm, be good, help each other.
@PJDesseyn How can we have free will if our thoughts are pre-determined? And if there is no God, then why should we do no harm, be good, and help each other? If all we are is matter in motion, why should anyone care about that?
@Kolbe19: but our thoughts AREN'T pre-determined. While our nature may put us in a general direction, our nurture can change all of it, and even go against our nature. Not to mention our experience. A trauma can have serious effects. And if there's no God, why do no harm, be good, help each other? Because it's beneficial to both the group as well as the individual. It increases your chances of survival, as well as those of others. THAT'S why.
Survival of the fittest includes being nice at times
@PJDesseyn May i ask how you can freely choose thoughts in an atheist universe? How can "nature change all of it" as you say? Secondly, how are abstract entities such as thoughts possible in an world with nothing but matter? Is not your answer to my question on morality completely arbitrary? If there is no God, why should I care about being moral? Saying I "ought" to do something, or I "should care", are immaterial concepts that you cant appeal to in an atheist universe.
@Kolbe19: "how can you choose your thoughts?"...I suggest you think about it. How can NURTURE change nature? Conditioning, education, brainwashing,...think of Pavlov's experiments, for example. Next, note that the universe is ENERGY, not just matter. After all, all matter is ultimately energy as well. Thoughts (any) are neuro-chemical reactions, which means both matter and energy are used. The brain is the "computer" to process the data. I think our left brainhalf is for abstract thinking. (con)
@Kolbe19: My answer concerning morality isn't completely arbitrary, as humans are still social animals. This means we need a group to survive. Therefore, actions which benefit the group, will benefit you, and actions which harm the group, will harm you as well. That's how morality is. If, say, we all thought it was good to kill everyone, we wouldn't last very long, now would we? Why should you care about being moral? For your benefit as well as those of others. You might die, you know. (con)
Your moral answer is still arbitrary. So what if it harms the group? What is wrong with me killing who I want for the will to power? Mao, Hitler, and Stalin felt this way. Why were their actions objectively wrong if there is no universal standard of morality? You didn't actually answer my question regarding how you freely chose your thoughts and how you know them to be true. Please directly answer this question, thanks.
@Kolbe19: lets consider machines that fly, as moral. While we can make several designs to make things fly, the designs are still limited to the laws of nature. So, like morality, you can still have variation, but within certain limits. Outside those limits, it's no longer moral. Mass murder, for example, isn't moral, as it harms the group as well as the individual, which is detrimental to our species.
Again: how you freely chose your thoughts: THINK about it...HINT HINT. (cont)
@Kolbe19: as for how you know them to be true (which is a new question): you can test it. Although we're limited by the material world and Plato's Cavern might apply, since we can't perceive Plato's Cavern, it's pointless to refer to it and thus we stay with the world we can perceive. In that sense, we can test it. That's how we know Evolution, Gravity, Germs and such are true, and flat Earth, global floods and magical sky daddies are not.
@PJDesseyn This too begs the question, how do you know if you're really testing anything? Why do you trust the electro-chemical firings in your brain? In a closed, causal system are they not predetermined. You do realize that many atheists reject the notion of free will. Can you prove to me that your not a brain hooked up to electrobes in a lab somewhere?
@Kolbe19: claiming morality is a reflection of God's character, and that he's goodness and perfection himself, is as flawed as it can get. The bible supposedly speaks of his deeds, and through rationality, we see that his deeds are evil in a lot of cases. We also see a lack of deeds in the present: where was God to stop Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Apparently the ancient tribes were too dangerous for Israel, but Hitler wasn't...? If you think about it rationally, you see the holes in the god theory.
@PJDesseyn Pj, with all due respect, I would invite you to study a little more about the Christian position of free will and progressive revelation. Don't just read atheist sources on the subject. Be even handed and open minded and find out how Christians explain these things. If you would like for me to point you to some sources I would be happy to do so.
@Kolbe19: free will doesn't exist, and neither does progressive revelation. I suggest you study your own scripture rationally, for a change. Btw, I used to be a Christian myself, so I've been there and done that. I know the Christian position. I also know it's WRONG.
I extremely strongly advise you educate yourself, using SCIENCE, not religion. As science is the truth, and religious is a perversion of reality.
@PJDesseyn Daniel Dennett would disagree with you on the idea that free will doesn't exist. It depends on what you mean by free will. Christian free will doesn't exist, but other kinds do. BTW, the idea that the kind of ffree will we have and a deterministic world are incompatible is a fallacy. Read Dennett to find out why.
@Kolbe19: now you're invoking Plato's Cavern, as I pointed out earlier. We can only perceive this world. So yes, maybe this world is but a shadow of the real world, or to use a better known example: the Matrix. However, we can't perceive "the Matrix" in any way, just like we can't perceive the non-existing in any way. It is therefore completely void and useless to consider it. For the same odds, we might all be part of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's fantasies.
(con)have mass? What color is humility? When you think and practice laws of logic how do you know that the atoms inside your head have a 1 to 1 correlation with the atoms found in nature? How do you know what is true? In a materialist universe, isn't it just your brain making you say them? This problem is insurmountable for the atheist/materialist. Many atheist admit this including atheist scientist.
@Kolbe19: justice has mass, in the sense that it's your brain. the colour of humility is grey-red-ish, like the brain. The atoms in my brain are the same as in nature, because my brain IS nature. We're all part of nature, and we've analysed the brain well enough to know it's mostly hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. How do I know what's true? Empirical science. This problem is NOT insurmountable for realists. It is, however, insurmountable for theists: explain non-belief and God's non-existence.
@Kolbe19: are our thoughts pre-determined? No, they're not. We continuously receive data, and this alters our actions. In fact, scientists have managed to manipulate one's brain using their own electric signals. They were even able to change a man's perception of morality during the experiment. We have free will, but also limit ourselves, knowing the consequences. So morality as well as thoughts can be manipulated...which means they can change, which means they can't be "set in stone".
@PJDesseyn How does this buttress your position? This does absolutely nothing to show that thoughts aren't predetermined our the reality of free will. This just shows that the predetermined thoughts have changed. Again, How do the neuronal firings and electro-chemical processes conceive thoughts, beliefs and practice the laws of logic? If I were to look inside your brain could you show me your thoughts? Can you look at the abstract concept of love under a microscope? Does the notion of justice
@Kolbe19: on fallen nature and free will: if God is omniscient, he knows everything of past, present and future. Since he knows the future, the future is thus predetermined. If it's predetermined, we don't really have free will at all, but are mere puppets in his play. Free will is thus non-existent, according to biblical teachings. Fallen nature: God made us perfect, and thus made Adam and Eve in such a way that they'd eat the fruit, so they're still perfect, not fallen.
@Kolbe19: you fail at construing my position, because you fail to realise God doesn't exist and the universe makes more sense without him. "could you show me your thoughts if I looked in your brain": as a matter of fact, YES, YES WE COULD! THANKS TO SCIENCE! It's still a work in progress, but we've analysed the brain well enough to know what areas are used for certain thoughts, and we can even stimulate these parts to create those thoughts.
@Kolbe19: but how about this: how do you know what's good or evil, if you base your morality on the whims of 1 being? You may claim it's a perfect being, even thought there's no evidence for its existence, let alone its perfection, but that doesn't make it so.
Again: God ordered several mass murders, in particular, the tribes which were a threat to the Jews. Yet when Hitler killed them by the masses, God was nowhere to be found. Slavery used to be okay, now it isn't. His morality changes.
@Kolbe19: so if the bible proves that God's morality changes, how can you say it's universally objective? Objective morality means it's always the same. Also note that: if God created morality, then how can morality be moral? If a being created a version of morality, without being moral first, then this version of morality can't be very moral. In order for God to be moral, morality must exist FIRST, and thus God couldn't have created morality.
@PJDesseyn I dont think you can prove that God's morality changes. Due to limited space and to avoid to many rabbit trails, i would ask you to look into the Christian answer of progressive revelation and the difference of man's accountability between the old and new covenants. Morality is a reflection of God's character. I don't see the problem of your argument here if God is goodness and perfection itself.
@Kolbe19: progressive revelation fails here. One simple issue: slavery. In the OT, God approves of it, and in the NT, he still doesn't speak out against it. So according to the god of the bible, slavery is good. According to human rights, slavery is bad. I'm in favour of human rights over God's "morality". Also note that our accountability doesn't concern the difference in OT and NT, but rather the specific situations. In general, we're fully responsible, and should shove our guilt on Jesus.
@PJDesseyn Regarding slaver. Due to my limited space here and this rather large topic, please Google "God and slavery." You will find some Christian sources that goes into this in great detail. Thanks for the dialog.
@Kolbe19: the bible clearly states that God approves of slavery. There's absolutely no doubt about it. I've read it myself and know it with absolute certainty. God approves of slavery, THE BIBLE SAYS SO! Do you deny your own holy book?
@PJDesseyn Ild be willing to do this in another format. I'm interested in how you lost your faith. However, I insist in rational discussion. When I pose a question, please directly answer it and not skirt around it with semantics. If you can't answer the question, just admit it. If I can't answer the question you pose to me, I will do the same. No word games. Just a charitable honest discussion.
@Kolbe19: How I lost my faith: first, I was a Christian, I lived a normal life, and at some point, I felt I wasn't really very religious anymore, so I picked up a bible and started reading it rationally, seeing if I still believe it/agree with it. Lets say Genesis gave me enough reasons to be an atheist. And so, now I'm a confirmed atheist for almost 3 years. Also check the message I sent you, with questions you have yet to answer.
@Kolbe19: You believe morality comes from God, yet if you read the bible and compare it with what we consider moral today, we see God as being evil. After all, God ordered several mass murders, approves of slavery, likes burnt offering, a few human sacrifices, or the nice stories about ripping children apart for mocking a prophet, or having a man killed for gathering wood on the Sabbath.
I'm good, because it's good, not because some deity demands it of me. You have much to learn, child.
You are pulling this idea that humans have a soul from a book written by fallible people. You have no evidence of this metaphysical idea of a soul. I find this idea of a bodyless afterlife rather funny. Why create a complex brain if a mind or soul doesn't need it. If we have eternal life, then why must we die first? Or at least the illusion of it? Only a disgusting being would do that to lesser creatures.
All these theist guys are a fraud. The bottom line is there are some deep mysteries about the universe and life that we don't know yet, and by pretending to know and making supernatural answers don't help. It's simple, there are deep mysteries about the universe and life that we don't know, and i'm fine with not knowing until there is a proper answer. I don't have to know the origins of the universe to have sex, to have fun, do what i like and love. Fuck all this religion bull shit.
You are correct, we do not know all the mysteries of the universe. You would agree, then, that scientists and theists end up at the same point ... their conclusions are based on faith. A human explanation of how things work & how they came to be. We cannot test the laws of nature (as we know them here on earth) in all places of the universe, we (yourself included) must rely on faith. You can't deny it. Meanwhile, enjoy doing what you like and love.
How many times does it have to be said to those who adhere to a predominantly religious world view?: There is NO conformity or consensus between atheists apart from the lack of belief in a deity(s)!! Atheists are not a coherent group with scriptures and laws etc.. It is stupid to think that atheists murdered in the "name" of atheism. The individual's mindset is what mattered. People who are murderous will murder, whether they are theists or atheist. Given power, murderous people are dangerous!!
This isn't a question about theism or atheism. It's a question about the nature of consciousness. I love how the atheists are dumbfounded when their dogmatism is challenged.
earthypig...I don't care what you believe. But if you are going to maek decalrative statements about what I believe then you should at least be factually correct. no harm done.
see...you are so self important. I challenged your stand on Dinesh (which you made evident by saying you wanted to do physical violence on him) NOT God. Instead of dealing with that you turn the debate to the existence of God...I can only gues why that is. Atheists have a strange way of debating...no metter what the actual subject is they retreat to the "show me evidence of your God" default. No surprise.
can only really pertain to one particular god of one particular religion
because the idea of gods have been so VASTLY different in different cultures and different times.
so YES when we debate christians it would be about THE CHRISTIAN GOD and about the proof of the CHRISTIAN god
when we debate a zeus believer, the content of the debate would be different, because zeus isn't even supposed to be a MORAL character (what christians scream about)
lol...I haven't even mentioned Jesus. But you just keep moving the discussion away from the topic at hand...and keep telling ytourself that this is a reasonable substitute for having a logical arguement.
But yes the point of Judeo-Christianity is that is is different than all other prior diety systems since God is not the imposition of human attributes upon natural phenomenon like the pagan gods. Gee read much...or at all?
the argument for VENUS the goddess of love would be quite DIFFERENT from the argument for the christian God.
to say you were arguing for this *vague* notion of god is ignorant and disingenuous and, yeah, i gotta mention it again. TOTALLY IGNORANT as to the many varieties of gods INVENTED by different men/different cultures over time
well, if I don't "get the point" that must be because you are difficient in proving it. In fact you haven't done one thing to prove your point yet. I wasn't arguing any point about god. But any time you want to prove that you are smarter than Aristotle, Philo, Plato, or Socrates you go ahead and show me some evidence. Simple invective and declarations of disbelief are vastly different than actually proving a point.
actually we believe that even primitive pagan religions point toward the one God...because truth is truth no matter what form it takes. You should remember that it was Socrates who arrived at the idea of the one Logos without benefit of jewish or christian dogma.
and no I wasn't argueing my brand of anything...just opening a can of whoop ass on your otherwise silly pandentics
yes exactly...we believe something entirely different from what you think we believe and something entirely different from what you claim we believe. Which pretty much renders you as completely intellectually dishonest. Your fight is not with Christianity since you barely know what Christianity is.
oh yes I am sure there is...and you wouldn't mind producing this, would you? Yeah didn't think so.
And I don't yearn to believe, honey...I reached a reasoned and logical conclusion. It takes a hell of a lot more faith to be an atheist than a theist, this much is true.
there is greater evidence for ZEus, becuase Zeus is not supposed to be all powerful and all loving -- and when you look at all the shit that's going on in the world with kids born with brain cancer and genocides etc. the evidence for ALL POWERFUL and ALL LOVING god is zero.
ie. if anything, there is more evidence for a not all powerful and a not all loving god, such as Zeus.
right...unlike atheists who hold the high score in death counts. I'm sorry how many Christians were killed by other Christians over theological points in the last, oh I don't know, 100 years? Now compare that to the over 100 million slaughtered by atheists. Yeah...that's what I thought.
this does not change the fact that you are factually wrong about almost every theological point you bring up...but hey if you can't beat 'em make shit up right?
are u talking about fascism and communism? because those are also irrational dogmas that i oppose - religion isn't the only irrational dogma that man invented. though religion served to be the perfect model that communism with their personal cult, built upon.
without religion to pave the way to totalitarianism, (believe like a flock of sheep and do not question) neither communism nor fascism would have been as successful.
holy historically ignorant, batman! Every totalitarian regieme in history has been anti-theist..specifically anti-Christian. The Christian message that every person has a dignity and is equal stands opposite of totalitarianism. Your claim that the atheists who invented communism and naziism were using theism as a basis is completely and totally incorrect. And any deaths brought in the name of religion are miniscule compared to those brought in the name of atheism.
actually yes it does. Space here is limited I am not going to give you an entire dissertation on what I studied at university. I am going to stand on history and let you conclude that you are spinning bullshit about the atheist pillars of communism and naziism. I stand on my original declaration that atheists slaughtered more than 100 million people in the last 90 years...while all the people killed in the name of Chrsitianity in the last 2000 make up but a slight fraction of that total.
wjb67: you have completely misunderstood my post. I can't give you a lesson in reading comprehension - get your skills up to par first before you bother me again.
hm, apparently ad hominem is yet another concept that you do not grasp fully.
when you do not address the points i raise and start babbling on about something quite irrelevant, there's nothing i can do but patiently wait for you to learn to read and get back to me when you have comprehended my arguments.
Rainyfield...try quoting my entire response and the answer is hidden within...you are curiously like the evangelicals who quote scripture out of context to prove their point. silly.
Why does he always have to shout?
TaoTeChing00 2 weeks ago
"it's believed that 20-30%....... Concrete example..." how can he use these two fragments so close to each other?
TheStJames23 3 weeks ago
but the mind, that shapes the matter is shaped by matter. i dont get his argument...
undee01 2 months ago
Dinesh the douche.
Hohnetraz 2 months ago
He is right. There is something in medicine known as the placebo effect. If you are convinced that the pill I am about to give will cure your headache then your mind will accept this and fix your headache. Intercessory prayer is a great example of the placebo effect. The main difference is that medicine will never give you a pill and say "this will grow your arm back"
ptango101 4 months ago
Oh the irony, the religious placebo, there there, all better now, God loves you.
simmy3000 4 months ago
I love how dinesh seems to never answer a question
marksuave25 4 months ago
Our brain and body is a massive chemical system that functions with electricity and nutrition. Emotions are just change of chemical balances ... hormones...
If you cant understand that then you will also get confused on why woman are so aggressive when on PMS ...
While science may not be as far as to determine someones precise actions, we can calculate many parameters that makes the uncertain picture of future of bit less bury ..
No such thing as soul, we are our brains ... it hold who we are.
davelantor 5 months ago
@davelantor If all we have is brains and thus have no minds or souls then why cant our thoughts, ideas, beliefs and intentions be observed like all other natural phenomena taking place in the brain? If all we have is brains and thats it then we should be able to explain all these phenomena using a naturalistic worldview. However, we cannot so you cant really posit the assertion that we have no soul.
mrstevenjake22 4 months ago
have you ever seen a mind without a brain? second of all,.. if the mind isn't the product of the brain,..i mean according to your belief the complexity of our brains,..which has over 100b neurons, and over 10,000 synapses are for nothing? and are our emotions part of the immaterial mind of that immaterial brain? the study of the mind and brain is just beginning, and most of the evidence show that the mind is the product of the brain. all neuroscientists agree on that
Atheist603 4 months ago
@Atheist603 As i said, the mind could be dependent on the brain so why would I see a mind without a brain? I never said the complexity of the brain was for nothing did I? No, I believe emotions are from the brain. However, the brain cannot account for thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and logical inferences. If the brain was the only thing we were using then neuroscientists would be able to observe our thoughts on a brainscan or under a microscope. Can they? No they can only observe brain states
mrstevenjake22 4 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 "explain to me how the material brain gave rise to immaterial?" brain cell to cell communication (synapses) which is what make us able to think, keep memories, etc..when a person ages and starts loosing neurons and synapses in the cerebral cortex. subcortical regions this what a person this is what causes Alzheimer's, I guess you know what it is. Also, have you ever heard of split brain disorder? does that mean a person has 2 immaterial souls? or minds,?
Atheist603 4 months ago
Comment removed
Atheist603 4 months ago
@Atheist603 which are different from mental states. Your last statement is a bold one. Really? ALL neuroscientists agree on that? So, then please explain to me how the brain(material) gave rise to the mind(something immaterial).
mrstevenjake22 4 months ago
Comment removed
Atheist603 4 months ago
Comment removed
Atheist603 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrstevenjake22 Alcohol alters affects your mind by binding to a receptor of the brain’s neurons in several ways. It alters their membranes as well as their ion channels, enzymes, and receptors. Alcohol also binds directly to the receptors for acetylcholine, serotonin, GABA, and the NMDA receptors for glutamate. i mean saying that the mind is not part of the brain is like saying digestion is not part of the stomach,
Atheist603 4 months ago
@mrstevenjake22 actually it can be observed. Do a bit research before you claim something that has.
Heard of brainwaves moron ?
While our technology may not be at a state where we get perfect images like you are looking for. There has been experiments where pictures has been reconstructed on computer from just thinking a it, There also has been studies on rats to manipulate brainwaves to give commands to it.
Search for Electroencephalography. Try to learn and search before making assumptions.
davelantor 4 months ago
What piss me off in relation to Dinesh is his phony Yank accent(and his stupid oversized suits).
rubstrol 5 months ago
this guy is fucking retard lol i mean think about alchol which is a pure phyiscal think and the effect it has on so called and quote non physical mind and consciousness lol there's more than evidence that shows how the mind is and consciousness are the product of the brain lol but this idiot won't admit it,..why? cuz he's so dogmatic and so enslaved by his retarded beliefs
Atheist603 5 months ago
@Atheist603 Just because things like alcohol can affect the processing of the brain doesnt mean that an immaterial mind is nonexistent. The brain could simply be the medium that the mind works through. Therefore, when the brain is damaged or temporarily affected then the mind cannot correctly work through its medium. I agree that the mind could be dependent on the brain but not that its the result of the brain.
mrstevenjake22 4 months ago
Comment removed
Atheist603 4 months ago
ok I am an atheist and I seem to be failing with Dinesh's Argument..
sonuEEE 5 months ago
0:39 Because compared to a rock we have a brain
pochopaz7381 5 months ago
There is a new ebook, only 99 cents, if you can afford it, which actually explains a science behind NDEs and how esp works.
'God Stopping A Nuclear War'
There are a few chapters on how Satan and God are fighting in today's world.
Wall Street corruption, sucide bombers, black rioting and crime in the UK, failure of education, the seizing of the internet, and banking, are all there.
Also there is a link to a secret website used by Hollywood for religious themes in movies
mikeymensa 6 months ago
a placebo is not actually proof of anything. a placebo is the ZERO HYPOTHESIS, the default effect, the default outcome. actually proof needs to show an effect beyond that of a placebo effect! this is one of the simplest ideas in science, and it is also why every experiment ever devised in the field of physiology and medicine has at least one placebo control group. dinesh, dinesh.. stick to preaching to gullible people, the rest of us are informed and willing to think for ourselves :<
sinprelic 6 months ago
Material things like neurons and non material things like thoughts? Can Dinesh be that ignorant? Neurons carry learned synaptic patterns of electricity (THOUGHTS) following these material laws. Placebo effect is not proof at all. A person can pretend they feel better but they still have AIDS or Cancer. In fact I would love to see a placebo or prayer work for aneurysm or DVT where the neurons cannot work. No separation of thought and neuron there
tsunami770 6 months ago
Very well done, Dinesh! "What's so great about Christianity" is an awesome book regarding the tenets of Christianity and the profound and spectacular effect Christianity had on the formation of Western thought, science, goverment etc.
LeperKing 7 months ago
lol, The true Christian tradition is one of humility? Oh yeah, totally...It's been that way for like...4 years. Thanks to the success and human prosperity brought about by the secular state. Religions don't have the power to police people into their beliefs anymore so they are forced into ecumenicism because they have nothing else left. Insincere doesn't even cover it, half the names he mentioned publically endorsed the physical punishment of heretics.
CrapnellGates 9 months ago
He's incapable of understanding neurons because he hasn't got too much of them...
rafaelkoki 11 months ago
Dinesh, the master of spiritual masturbation.
Evidence: the sploodge inhibiting his neurons from triggering rational/reasonable thoughts.
Ematched 11 months ago
I work in the computer industry and all those things D'Souze things are in the "immaterial" realm are actually in the material realm. The patterns that are ideas, the "software", always has some physical instantiation. There are no free floating ideas, or information. It all has physical existence. The fact that it can be copied is what is mistaken for the immaterial. It the power of copying and evolution which is exact what he doesn't get. Thus he believes in spirits.
ReligionOfNice 11 months ago
Dinesh completely misunderstands the placebo effect. The person Thought they were sick and they Think they are cured. Nothing has changed but the persons Belief.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
this asshole desouza could not suck money out of india, so he came to america
PikPobedy 1 year ago
WTF?? This guy was not being "dogmatic"! He asked the question perfectly calmly and politely!
D'Souza is a very thought-provoking speaker, but he can also be an arrogant douche.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
Dinesh D'Souza = self satisfied jerk.
kaduisaui 1 year ago
Alright I'll look into that thanks. Btw, can you show me how neurologist can account for abstract entities please? I'ld like to see the evidence for that.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19 Computers deal in abstractions all the time and there is nothing immaterial going on there. Ideas don't live on some platonic immaterial plane. They always exist as physical instantiations. Copies in the real world. This fallacy of duality is nonsense. There is no duality.
ReligionOfNice 11 months ago
@ReligionOfNice You are not implying that computers are actually freely thinking are you? Can computers fall in love, can computers feel sadness or joy? Are you really willing to admit this? How do abstract concepts of love, justice, beliefs, theories, etc. exist in a materialist universe? How do you explain free will? If we think as computers does this not negate free will?
Kolbe19 11 months ago
@Kolbe19 No I am not implying that. Different physical instantiations have different capacities. A hand held calculator can not handle the same abstractions as a supercomputer. A human and a chimp have different capacities. Despite all those differences you still need a computer to play a video game, and you still need a human body to fall in love, feel sadness, or joy, know a bout love, justice, or have beliefs. Vacuums have none of these characteristics.
ReligionOfNice 11 months ago
@Kolbe19 It's the brain that produces all those things and damage to the brain shows that this is true. If personality, love, perception, understanding, memory, etc. were of an immaterial world then such damage should not have the effects it does.
ReligionOfNice 11 months ago
@Kolbe19 The same goes for drugs. We understand quite a bit about how neurons operate as information processing components, how they communicate chemically, and how drugs interfere with that. There are other examples like stimulating portions of the brain during surgery. All these effects are inconsistent with a immaterial spirit driving a physical body. The reverse is the case. It's just an misinterpretation to think there is a immaterial spirit at all, it's all the brain.
ReligionOfNice 11 months ago
PJ, I think we are going in circles here. I also think we both know that you didn't answer my questions. Again, I can give you quotes from atheist scientist that state they don't know how thoughts work in a brain or how they can even trust their own thoughts. The best you can do is say that science may someday figure it out. But i dont think that will ever happen Accounting for abstract entities in a materialist worldview logically is impossible.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: I don't know how a car works. That doesn't mean someone else can't know. Neurologists and the like, know more about the brain than other scientists. Also, science has already accounted for abstract entities in a realistic worldview: the left part of the brain causes it. (or the right, I always get those 2 mixed up) Regardless, 1 side is for abstract thinking, the other for logical thinking, with the hypothalamus for primordial thinking.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
This is the Indian low caste lapdog. More older white women should marry and lapdogs like this!
tyler5055 1 year ago
PJ, I noticed you didn't answer my questions. Also, how do you know God is being evil if you have no objective standard to judge what is good and what is evil? You say you are good. This begs the question how do you know that you are good? Perhaps you are evil. If there is no objective moral law, is not your claim of you being good completely arbitrary?
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: maybe you should take a look at my previous 3 comments and notice my answers...how do I know God is being evil? Because he orders and performs evil deeds, in the sense that his deeds are detrimental. While you could see God as a child with a magnifying glass, burning ants (us), it's still bad for us and thus we deem it immoral. That is, if you're sane. While morality in general is subjective, the laws of nature give it some objectivity. So it's not completely arbitrary at all. (con)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn This is a logical fallacy. How can morality be subjective and objective? And yes, your answer is still completely arbitrary. How about this, without objective morality how can moral progress take place? If you have no objective plum line to ground morality, in your worldview morality can only change and not progress. I think it is clear that the atheist worldview can't account for the most important things of life, morality, knowledge, and meaning. Thanks for the dialog.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: No logical fallacy, but duality. Just like light consists of both waves and particles, morality is both objective and subjective. We have the objective laws of nature, and we have the subjective experiences. Also note: if morality was completely objective, aka rigid, then there would be no progress. It would already be complete. Therefore it must be (partially) subjective. In my world view, it can change AND PROGRESS, not in yours, where it's already complete.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn How can you even have objective morality in an atheist universe PJ? Can you list these objective laws and show how they are not completely arbitrary in an atheist/materialist universe? Let me save you the trouble. You can't do it. Morality is objective because it reflects God's character. Moral progress and moral decline are possible in a theist universe because of a fallen nature and free will.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: easy: the laws of nature. That's what makes objective morality. Note that this concerns basic rules, and we all know rules can be broken. For example: nature encourages not killing people, but that doesn't make us incapable of murder. Let me give you some more trouble: how about proving God's existence BEFORE you start attributing things to him. You can't claim morality reflects God's character, if you haven't even proven he exists in the first place. (cont)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: it's clear that your world view is wrong, and that the atheist worldview is misrepresented by you, as we CAN account for morality, knowledge and meaning. Morality is caused by evolution, knowledge by experience and meaning by philosohophy. None of it is caused by God, as God doesn't exist.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
The "placebo" is better used as an example of how delusional our minds can be if we place a BS story in it and then DREAM that it's real-kind of like CHRISTIANITY!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
since he brought the subject up is not riligion one big placebo?
megamus3 1 year ago
DMT
Redcaster916 1 year ago
Fail D'Souza, fail!
aguteempasil 1 year ago 2
@aguteempasil
how so?
BrokHomz 1 year ago
Did Dinesh really just claim that the placebo effect is the result of the mind using magic (non-natural forces) to cure diseases? Gimme a break. I'm sure most placebo cures don't have anything to do with any physical change at all, but instead the mental perception that something has changed... You're telling me supernaturalism is more plausible than positive-thinking relieving stress and helping the immune system function properly? Every supernatural argument is an inference about the unknown..
Tibberclaw 1 year ago
@Tibberclaw he's not referring to magic. the placebo effect basically implies an reservoir of extra strength that sick people have. Like how if you go to a happy place (lol) when you're getting a TB shot, it make the pain more tolerable.
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker Right - but my point is: what reason do we have to infer that there is some unnatural explanation for this effect? Isn't it starting to get very naive for a person to infer a supernatural explanation for the remaining gaps in our knowledge? It's as foolish as medieval people thinking that disease was the result of God's wrath (germ theory was not available). The trend of history is that of replacing the supernatural with the natural - it's what the evidence bears out.
Tibberclaw 1 year ago
@Tibberclaw Well, because we can't physically sense the placebo effect-it has no smell, color, taste, touch...I don't really agree, because without empirical means to test said "object", one must resort to mere logical inference. Actually, I'm not opposed to the theory that disease is a form of punishment from on high. It's only logical to assume when an omnipotent and good God causes a believer to be ill, they will jump to a conclusion : "Do I merit this?" Improbable, yes but not impossible
outtaker 1 year ago
@outtaker What in the world are you trying to argue for? Is it really that hard to see that a placebo effect is the result of the brain communicating with the rest of the body? It seems like you are trying to argue for something equivalent of the mind using the "will" to bend spoons.
Plus, your comment about considering God as an active agent of destruction is just absurd. Presumably, you believe god is "omnibenevolent" as well? ...Yeah, I rest my case.
Tibberclaw 1 year ago
I take it Dinesh doesn't know about neuroscience or at least the basics. I'm no professional but I know more than him regarding that and he avoided the question regarding neurons, the placebo effect doesn't cure anything.
HybridD91 1 year ago
poor answer, completly evasive, in the base of "we don't know how somethings works, than Jesus may be God..."
Dinesh, even the placebo effect can obey natural laws, because it originates from an external cue, that affects an internal belief that resonates across a range of neural responses that may well trigger healing processes. As we know, the body has great healing capacity, and would not be surprising that this capability can be turned "on" when we intend it.
afterlifeless1 1 year ago
He's definately not a scientist...
HardforJesus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ORDER AND CHAOS!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
ORDER AND CHAOS!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
ORDER AND CHAOS!
lmhjs1000 1 year ago
so can we say jesus never performed miracles but helped people believe he performed miracles?
wokkitout 1 year ago
D'souza was brilliant in this debate. Even atheists admit he beat Dennett. I would go even further than that. Dennett was reduced to a jabberring stuttering mess. I felt sorry for the guy. I haven't seen an atheist get beat that badly since the Greg Bahnesn vs Gordon Stein debate.
Kolbe19 2 years ago
True, but Dennett isn't much of a debator anyway. He is certainly more tolerable than Dinesh, who is a proven pathological liar and propagandist, who is incapable of writing or even speaking the truth much less writing it.
All throughout this debate from Dinesh it was nothing but rapid fire non-sequitor and strawman arguments, not to mention his ignorant use of the reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy against atheists which is an automatic FAIL in any debate.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago 14
@LordMalice6d9 that's a lot of bull you have there! If you didn't use a ton of Ad Hominem, I might just believe your response was a genuine reaction!
outtaker 1 year ago
Dennet is an aweful speaker/debator. He really should stick to writing because he's really embarrasing in debate.
BillKiernan 2 years ago
@Kolbe19
Are you kidding? I admit that Dennet was bad, but D´Souza did not make one good point.
merryvinbock 1 year ago
according to Dinesh D'Souza cancer pt should just THINK about getting well rather than getting a chemo !!
umalim 2 years ago
@umalim what a cheap shot.
dude,were you even listening to Dinesh? And haven't you heard of people living longer while hospitalized because they had the "will to live"? The placebo effect is not something D'Souza pulled out of nothing.
outtaker 1 year ago
The answer is "i have no idea bloke", that why theist tend to lose debates, when they dont have any idea they just avoid or invent some nice story.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
This was your question? If so, you owned him. I couldn't have put it better myself.
lundenmetal 2 years ago
this guy is full of shit--material shit that is.
mbfinancial 2 years ago
Just to reassert what I already stated, the mind can "feel better" but the idea of a placebo is that you have the effect of a relief of symptoms when in fact the underlying problem still exists. So as Dinesh tries to say we can change a physical state when in fact no physical state changes but we trigger a biochemical pathway which always existed and it becomes utilized. It's as if you were happy to see someone or not happy to see someone, you change your reaction type. Dinesh answers hopelessly
DrewAWeeks 2 years ago
The insult from dinesh is his response "you assert dogmatically that matter shapes mind". I don't know how he managed to say that the placebo effect reshapes matter and the physical condition is altered but then in the same breathe says it's not known what really happens. In biomedical science i've never found anything about the mind actually reshaping anything. I can however trigger chemicals because of the way Im thinking such as endorphins to make me happy and other cytokines as a placebo.
DrewAWeeks 2 years ago
As for the idea of mind shaping matter, you're going to have to go a great deal deeper than biomedical science. You're going to have to venture into the quantum field. Much to their astonishment, scientists have observed and documented that at the quantum level mind literally shapes matter. Without mind entering into the equation, there is no universe, in effect. Two people can see two completely different things while observing the same object...see two things and it only be one thing, etc.
sphericalpyramid 2 years ago
Comment removed
speedsk8r27 2 years ago
That was about as close to 30 seconds as all his other answers in this debate.
amensure 2 years ago
The question was simply posing the possibility that the mind is a composition of physical forces. His answer is based entirely on the presumption that there is a mind that can be referred to as immaterial, completely separate from physical forces. FRAARRRG!
preachingsin 2 years ago
If Dinesh says Christians are to be open-minded and asking questions, why does he repeatedly accuse the guy who's asking him a good question of being dogmatic and predecided?
kreskinkun 2 years ago
Because the guy was trying to back Dinesh into a corner. The difference between a rock (even animals) and humanity is that we have a soul and something called free will. While our brains operate according to nature, we DO have the ability to control our actions. The questioner implied that we are not that different than the rock... he WAS predecided.
Amach74 2 years ago
Free will is arguable. We humans are now capable of comprehending the biochemical factors that determine our behavior. I believe in "choice" in a relative sense, as a human attempting to understand its own condition, but if you're the sum of your atomic parts, you'll make the choices they dictate - the fact that it's easier and 'makes sense' to humanize it doesn't make Dinesh right.
I'd also say the questioner was at worst no more predecided than Dinesh, who already believes he has the truth.
kreskinkun 2 years ago
Free Will doesn't exist in any way. If it's natural, then free will is decided by previous experiences and reasoning capabilities, calculating an outcome and making a choice. If it's supernatural and there's an all-knowing god, then this god already knows your choice before it's made, thus eliminating free will as well.
So Free Will is an illusion. We're always bound to something.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
uhh, making a choice is what freewill is.
telephonemoose 2 years ago
@PJDesseyn
So by what you have said, we really can't say Hitler was wrong because his neurons made him do it? If there is no free will then how can someone really be wrong or right?
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: his neurons are part of who he was. "my brain caused me to kill, not me" isn't a good excuse, as your brain = you. So free will exists, as long as there's no god. And in that sense, right and wrong CAN exist, as we make up the rules. Do note that morality is subjective. We no longer have the same morality as 1000 years ago, nor the same as in China, and we differ on many things, but the overal picture is the same: do no harm, be good, help each other.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn How can we have free will if our thoughts are pre-determined? And if there is no God, then why should we do no harm, be good, and help each other? If all we are is matter in motion, why should anyone care about that?
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: but our thoughts AREN'T pre-determined. While our nature may put us in a general direction, our nurture can change all of it, and even go against our nature. Not to mention our experience. A trauma can have serious effects. And if there's no God, why do no harm, be good, help each other? Because it's beneficial to both the group as well as the individual. It increases your chances of survival, as well as those of others. THAT'S why.
Survival of the fittest includes being nice at times
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn May i ask how you can freely choose thoughts in an atheist universe? How can "nature change all of it" as you say? Secondly, how are abstract entities such as thoughts possible in an world with nothing but matter? Is not your answer to my question on morality completely arbitrary? If there is no God, why should I care about being moral? Saying I "ought" to do something, or I "should care", are immaterial concepts that you cant appeal to in an atheist universe.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: "how can you choose your thoughts?"...I suggest you think about it. How can NURTURE change nature? Conditioning, education, brainwashing,...think of Pavlov's experiments, for example. Next, note that the universe is ENERGY, not just matter. After all, all matter is ultimately energy as well. Thoughts (any) are neuro-chemical reactions, which means both matter and energy are used. The brain is the "computer" to process the data. I think our left brainhalf is for abstract thinking. (con)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: My answer concerning morality isn't completely arbitrary, as humans are still social animals. This means we need a group to survive. Therefore, actions which benefit the group, will benefit you, and actions which harm the group, will harm you as well. That's how morality is. If, say, we all thought it was good to kill everyone, we wouldn't last very long, now would we? Why should you care about being moral? For your benefit as well as those of others. You might die, you know. (con)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Your moral answer is still arbitrary. So what if it harms the group? What is wrong with me killing who I want for the will to power? Mao, Hitler, and Stalin felt this way. Why were their actions objectively wrong if there is no universal standard of morality? You didn't actually answer my question regarding how you freely chose your thoughts and how you know them to be true. Please directly answer this question, thanks.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: lets consider machines that fly, as moral. While we can make several designs to make things fly, the designs are still limited to the laws of nature. So, like morality, you can still have variation, but within certain limits. Outside those limits, it's no longer moral. Mass murder, for example, isn't moral, as it harms the group as well as the individual, which is detrimental to our species.
Again: how you freely chose your thoughts: THINK about it...HINT HINT. (cont)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: as for how you know them to be true (which is a new question): you can test it. Although we're limited by the material world and Plato's Cavern might apply, since we can't perceive Plato's Cavern, it's pointless to refer to it and thus we stay with the world we can perceive. In that sense, we can test it. That's how we know Evolution, Gravity, Germs and such are true, and flat Earth, global floods and magical sky daddies are not.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn This too begs the question, how do you know if you're really testing anything? Why do you trust the electro-chemical firings in your brain? In a closed, causal system are they not predetermined. You do realize that many atheists reject the notion of free will. Can you prove to me that your not a brain hooked up to electrobes in a lab somewhere?
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: claiming morality is a reflection of God's character, and that he's goodness and perfection himself, is as flawed as it can get. The bible supposedly speaks of his deeds, and through rationality, we see that his deeds are evil in a lot of cases. We also see a lack of deeds in the present: where was God to stop Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Apparently the ancient tribes were too dangerous for Israel, but Hitler wasn't...? If you think about it rationally, you see the holes in the god theory.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Pj, with all due respect, I would invite you to study a little more about the Christian position of free will and progressive revelation. Don't just read atheist sources on the subject. Be even handed and open minded and find out how Christians explain these things. If you would like for me to point you to some sources I would be happy to do so.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: free will doesn't exist, and neither does progressive revelation. I suggest you study your own scripture rationally, for a change. Btw, I used to be a Christian myself, so I've been there and done that. I know the Christian position. I also know it's WRONG.
I extremely strongly advise you educate yourself, using SCIENCE, not religion. As science is the truth, and religious is a perversion of reality.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Daniel Dennett would disagree with you on the idea that free will doesn't exist. It depends on what you mean by free will. Christian free will doesn't exist, but other kinds do. BTW, the idea that the kind of ffree will we have and a deterministic world are incompatible is a fallacy. Read Dennett to find out why.
ReligionOfNice 11 months ago
@ReligionOfNice: Dennett can disagree all he wants. Disagreement alone doesn't make something valid or invalid.
PJDesseyn 11 months ago
@Kolbe19: now you're invoking Plato's Cavern, as I pointed out earlier. We can only perceive this world. So yes, maybe this world is but a shadow of the real world, or to use a better known example: the Matrix. However, we can't perceive "the Matrix" in any way, just like we can't perceive the non-existing in any way. It is therefore completely void and useless to consider it. For the same odds, we might all be part of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's fantasies.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
(con)have mass? What color is humility? When you think and practice laws of logic how do you know that the atoms inside your head have a 1 to 1 correlation with the atoms found in nature? How do you know what is true? In a materialist universe, isn't it just your brain making you say them? This problem is insurmountable for the atheist/materialist. Many atheist admit this including atheist scientist.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: justice has mass, in the sense that it's your brain. the colour of humility is grey-red-ish, like the brain. The atoms in my brain are the same as in nature, because my brain IS nature. We're all part of nature, and we've analysed the brain well enough to know it's mostly hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. How do I know what's true? Empirical science. This problem is NOT insurmountable for realists. It is, however, insurmountable for theists: explain non-belief and God's non-existence.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: are our thoughts pre-determined? No, they're not. We continuously receive data, and this alters our actions. In fact, scientists have managed to manipulate one's brain using their own electric signals. They were even able to change a man's perception of morality during the experiment. We have free will, but also limit ourselves, knowing the consequences. So morality as well as thoughts can be manipulated...which means they can change, which means they can't be "set in stone".
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn How does this buttress your position? This does absolutely nothing to show that thoughts aren't predetermined our the reality of free will. This just shows that the predetermined thoughts have changed. Again, How do the neuronal firings and electro-chemical processes conceive thoughts, beliefs and practice the laws of logic? If I were to look inside your brain could you show me your thoughts? Can you look at the abstract concept of love under a microscope? Does the notion of justice
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: on fallen nature and free will: if God is omniscient, he knows everything of past, present and future. Since he knows the future, the future is thus predetermined. If it's predetermined, we don't really have free will at all, but are mere puppets in his play. Free will is thus non-existent, according to biblical teachings. Fallen nature: God made us perfect, and thus made Adam and Eve in such a way that they'd eat the fruit, so they're still perfect, not fallen.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: you fail at construing my position, because you fail to realise God doesn't exist and the universe makes more sense without him. "could you show me your thoughts if I looked in your brain": as a matter of fact, YES, YES WE COULD! THANKS TO SCIENCE! It's still a work in progress, but we've analysed the brain well enough to know what areas are used for certain thoughts, and we can even stimulate these parts to create those thoughts.
Love is a neuro-chemical reaction, my friend.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: but how about this: how do you know what's good or evil, if you base your morality on the whims of 1 being? You may claim it's a perfect being, even thought there's no evidence for its existence, let alone its perfection, but that doesn't make it so.
Again: God ordered several mass murders, in particular, the tribes which were a threat to the Jews. Yet when Hitler killed them by the masses, God was nowhere to be found. Slavery used to be okay, now it isn't. His morality changes.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: so if the bible proves that God's morality changes, how can you say it's universally objective? Objective morality means it's always the same. Also note that: if God created morality, then how can morality be moral? If a being created a version of morality, without being moral first, then this version of morality can't be very moral. In order for God to be moral, morality must exist FIRST, and thus God couldn't have created morality.
So God didn't create morality. Think about it.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn I dont think you can prove that God's morality changes. Due to limited space and to avoid to many rabbit trails, i would ask you to look into the Christian answer of progressive revelation and the difference of man's accountability between the old and new covenants. Morality is a reflection of God's character. I don't see the problem of your argument here if God is goodness and perfection itself.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: progressive revelation fails here. One simple issue: slavery. In the OT, God approves of it, and in the NT, he still doesn't speak out against it. So according to the god of the bible, slavery is good. According to human rights, slavery is bad. I'm in favour of human rights over God's "morality". Also note that our accountability doesn't concern the difference in OT and NT, but rather the specific situations. In general, we're fully responsible, and should shove our guilt on Jesus.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Regarding slaver. Due to my limited space here and this rather large topic, please Google "God and slavery." You will find some Christian sources that goes into this in great detail. Thanks for the dialog.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: the bible clearly states that God approves of slavery. There's absolutely no doubt about it. I've read it myself and know it with absolute certainty. God approves of slavery, THE BIBLE SAYS SO! Do you deny your own holy book?
P.S.: how about mailing instead?
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Ild be willing to do this in another format. I'm interested in how you lost your faith. However, I insist in rational discussion. When I pose a question, please directly answer it and not skirt around it with semantics. If you can't answer the question, just admit it. If I can't answer the question you pose to me, I will do the same. No word games. Just a charitable honest discussion.
Kolbe19 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: How I lost my faith: first, I was a Christian, I lived a normal life, and at some point, I felt I wasn't really very religious anymore, so I picked up a bible and started reading it rationally, seeing if I still believe it/agree with it. Lets say Genesis gave me enough reasons to be an atheist. And so, now I'm a confirmed atheist for almost 3 years. Also check the message I sent you, with questions you have yet to answer.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@Kolbe19: You believe morality comes from God, yet if you read the bible and compare it with what we consider moral today, we see God as being evil. After all, God ordered several mass murders, approves of slavery, likes burnt offering, a few human sacrifices, or the nice stories about ripping children apart for mocking a prophet, or having a man killed for gathering wood on the Sabbath.
I'm good, because it's good, not because some deity demands it of me. You have much to learn, child.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
You are pulling this idea that humans have a soul from a book written by fallible people. You have no evidence of this metaphysical idea of a soul. I find this idea of a bodyless afterlife rather funny. Why create a complex brain if a mind or soul doesn't need it. If we have eternal life, then why must we die first? Or at least the illusion of it? Only a disgusting being would do that to lesser creatures.
PatrioticEagle50 2 years ago
"he WAS predecided."
And Dinesh is not? Dinesh believes that God made everything. Period. How is that not pre-decided?
Dinesh backed himself into a corner by saying something patently untrue: that chemistry in the brain doesn't have any effect on human decision.
Most people rightly reject such absurdity with ease.
F33bs 2 years ago
"we have a soul"
We do? Prove this.
F33bs 2 years ago
All these theist guys are a fraud. The bottom line is there are some deep mysteries about the universe and life that we don't know yet, and by pretending to know and making supernatural answers don't help. It's simple, there are deep mysteries about the universe and life that we don't know, and i'm fine with not knowing until there is a proper answer. I don't have to know the origins of the universe to have sex, to have fun, do what i like and love. Fuck all this religion bull shit.
Omid45 2 years ago
You are correct, we do not know all the mysteries of the universe. You would agree, then, that scientists and theists end up at the same point ... their conclusions are based on faith. A human explanation of how things work & how they came to be. We cannot test the laws of nature (as we know them here on earth) in all places of the universe, we (yourself included) must rely on faith. You can't deny it. Meanwhile, enjoy doing what you like and love.
Amach74 2 years ago
The placebo effect doesn't require the supernatural. This is not a case of mind reshaping matter. Fuck this guy and the bible.
splendorfulguris 3 years ago
How many times does it have to be said to those who adhere to a predominantly religious world view?: There is NO conformity or consensus between atheists apart from the lack of belief in a deity(s)!! Atheists are not a coherent group with scriptures and laws etc.. It is stupid to think that atheists murdered in the "name" of atheism. The individual's mindset is what mattered. People who are murderous will murder, whether they are theists or atheist. Given power, murderous people are dangerous!!
OriMeissa 3 years ago
This isn't a question about theism or atheism. It's a question about the nature of consciousness. I love how the atheists are dumbfounded when their dogmatism is challenged.
melonbarmonster 3 years ago
earthypig...I don't care what you believe. But if you are going to maek decalrative statements about what I believe then you should at least be factually correct. no harm done.
wjb67 3 years ago
strange that u challenged what my stand is, without knowing what it was :) oh well, but religious people do stranger things ;)
no surprise there.
peace.
earthypig 3 years ago
see...you are so self important. I challenged your stand on Dinesh (which you made evident by saying you wanted to do physical violence on him) NOT God. Instead of dealing with that you turn the debate to the existence of God...I can only gues why that is. Atheists have a strange way of debating...no metter what the actual subject is they retreat to the "show me evidence of your God" default. No surprise.
wjb67 3 years ago
listen nutjob.
of course there's no surprise. all religion is a scam. atheists are against all established religions.
wtf are u on about? u are like a train wreck with corpses that still tries to climb over the hill.
all your posts will be ignored from now on.
saw enough of this train wreck and saw enough horror to continue.
earthypig 3 years ago
just for the record
yes atheists do NOT believe in man-made gods as espoused by RELIGION.
u dont believe in ZEUS do you?
when u argue for the existence of God are u arguing for the existence of ZEUS? or OSHUN? or anyone of the Hindu gods?
no, u r arguing for YOUR particular brand of woooo allmighty god aren' you?
how do you know that the GOD BIT isn't divided upinto MANY GODS like the greeks thought? or the Hindus thought?
please don't even go there, trainwreck!
earthypig 3 years ago
any particular argument for God
can only really pertain to one particular god of one particular religion
because the idea of gods have been so VASTLY different in different cultures and different times.
so YES when we debate christians it would be about THE CHRISTIAN GOD and about the proof of the CHRISTIAN god
when we debate a zeus believer, the content of the debate would be different, because zeus isn't even supposed to be a MORAL character (what christians scream about)
earthypig 3 years ago
so if any jesus freaks like wjb67 are wondering WHY atheists who talk to them stick to the subject of CHRISTIAN god, there's the reason.
again: not all gods in the past have been a stickler for *morality* and in particular "christian morality*
some gods have come down from heaven for the specific purpose of raping earthly women.
most ancient cultures believed in MANY DIFFERENT GODS. monotheism is one particular branch of theism that began with judaism.
earthypig 3 years ago
lol...I haven't even mentioned Jesus. But you just keep moving the discussion away from the topic at hand...and keep telling ytourself that this is a reasonable substitute for having a logical arguement.
But yes the point of Judeo-Christianity is that is is different than all other prior diety systems since God is not the imposition of human attributes upon natural phenomenon like the pagan gods. Gee read much...or at all?
wjb67 3 years ago
u really don't get the point do you?
the argument for VENUS the goddess of love would be quite DIFFERENT from the argument for the christian God.
to say you were arguing for this *vague* notion of god is ignorant and disingenuous and, yeah, i gotta mention it again. TOTALLY IGNORANT as to the many varieties of gods INVENTED by different men/different cultures over time
earthypig 3 years ago
well, if I don't "get the point" that must be because you are difficient in proving it. In fact you haven't done one thing to prove your point yet. I wasn't arguing any point about god. But any time you want to prove that you are smarter than Aristotle, Philo, Plato, or Socrates you go ahead and show me some evidence. Simple invective and declarations of disbelief are vastly different than actually proving a point.
wjb67 3 years ago
actually we believe that even primitive pagan religions point toward the one God...because truth is truth no matter what form it takes. You should remember that it was Socrates who arrived at the idea of the one Logos without benefit of jewish or christian dogma.
and no I wasn't argueing my brand of anything...just opening a can of whoop ass on your otherwise silly pandentics
wjb67 3 years ago
mdr
"we believe'' "we believe"
that's right. You Believe
earthypig 3 years ago
yes exactly...we believe something entirely different from what you think we believe and something entirely different from what you claim we believe. Which pretty much renders you as completely intellectually dishonest. Your fight is not with Christianity since you barely know what Christianity is.
wjb67 3 years ago
there's a much greater evidence for ZEUS than the christian god for instnce.
ie. less evidence for all loving, all powerful god
and more evidence for less loving, less powerful god.
if you have to be a believer, since your brain yearns to BELIEVE i suggest u try Zeus ;)
earthypig 3 years ago
oh yes I am sure there is...and you wouldn't mind producing this, would you? Yeah didn't think so.
And I don't yearn to believe, honey...I reached a reasoned and logical conclusion. It takes a hell of a lot more faith to be an atheist than a theist, this much is true.
wjb67 3 years ago
there is greater evidence for ZEus, becuase Zeus is not supposed to be all powerful and all loving -- and when you look at all the shit that's going on in the world with kids born with brain cancer and genocides etc. the evidence for ALL POWERFUL and ALL LOVING god is zero.
ie. if anything, there is more evidence for a not all powerful and a not all loving god, such as Zeus.
earthypig 3 years ago
Naw naw, tell them to worship Eris. She is the goddess of dicord and disarray. That would actually make sense...sorta.
= )
ThePublicPolemic 3 years ago
agreed :-p !!
earthypig 3 years ago
"u barely know what christinaity is"
yeah even christians aren't in agreement as to what christianity is.
neither are muslims as to what islam is.
yeah yeah yeah
so much so they would kill each other over it.
if this doesn't tell u how ridiculous religion is, nothing else will.
no hard feelings.
thanks for the laughs and ths time i promise not to read your posts for real since, if i read them i can't resist smacking u ;)
earthypig 3 years ago
right...unlike atheists who hold the high score in death counts. I'm sorry how many Christians were killed by other Christians over theological points in the last, oh I don't know, 100 years? Now compare that to the over 100 million slaughtered by atheists. Yeah...that's what I thought.
this does not change the fact that you are factually wrong about almost every theological point you bring up...but hey if you can't beat 'em make shit up right?
wjb67 3 years ago
over 100 million slaughtered by atheists?
are u talking about fascism and communism? because those are also irrational dogmas that i oppose - religion isn't the only irrational dogma that man invented. though religion served to be the perfect model that communism with their personal cult, built upon.
without religion to pave the way to totalitarianism, (believe like a flock of sheep and do not question) neither communism nor fascism would have been as successful.
earthypig 3 years ago
holy historically ignorant, batman! Every totalitarian regieme in history has been anti-theist..specifically anti-Christian. The Christian message that every person has a dignity and is equal stands opposite of totalitarianism. Your claim that the atheists who invented communism and naziism were using theism as a basis is completely and totally incorrect. And any deaths brought in the name of religion are miniscule compared to those brought in the name of atheism.
wjb67 3 years ago
re-read my post again, this response does NOT address the points i raised.
earthypig 3 years ago
actually yes it does. Space here is limited I am not going to give you an entire dissertation on what I studied at university. I am going to stand on history and let you conclude that you are spinning bullshit about the atheist pillars of communism and naziism. I stand on my original declaration that atheists slaughtered more than 100 million people in the last 90 years...while all the people killed in the name of Chrsitianity in the last 2000 make up but a slight fraction of that total.
wjb67 3 years ago
wjb67: you have completely misunderstood my post. I can't give you a lesson in reading comprehension - get your skills up to par first before you bother me again.
earthypig 3 years ago
you retreated to ad hominem attacks so quickly? I must have spread a little truth at you...you disappoint me.
wjb67 3 years ago
hm, apparently ad hominem is yet another concept that you do not grasp fully.
when you do not address the points i raise and start babbling on about something quite irrelevant, there's nothing i can do but patiently wait for you to learn to read and get back to me when you have comprehended my arguments.
cheers!
earthypig 3 years ago
"i don't care what you believe"
hm.. if u don't even know what she believed, then why did you challenge her?
u r just weird.
Rainyfield 3 years ago
Rainyfield...try quoting my entire response and the answer is hidden within...you are curiously like the evangelicals who quote scripture out of context to prove their point. silly.
wjb67 3 years ago
quoting all of what u said would not havechanged rainy's point....? why are u always going on about useless technicalities?
oh... cos u are a d'souza follower... ok.
earthypig 3 years ago
A) yes quoting what I wrote in it's entirety would render rainy's point moot.
B) I don't follow D'Souza, I just enjoy that way he lays the smackdown on mental midgets
wjb67 3 years ago
a) no it wouldn't
b) u r a mental midget
:)
earthypig 3 years ago
Ah, now you've gone to empty contradition. Nope never met an atheist who would resort to that when they run out of other tired arguements...
wjb67 3 years ago
believe me, it was an appropriate response to your original post =)
earthypig 3 years ago