justlookinla
Regular Member
What?
There is no 'you' or 'I' in Darwinist evolution. If you think there is, offer evidence for it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That statistic shows abortions happen, not a materialistic motivation. Did I not predict you would be unable to provide a source?
And you seem to be admitting that you can present no situation where I as an atheist would treat someone differently than you would as a Christian.
There is no 'I' or 'you' in the sack of chemicals world of Darwinist evolution. We're simply chemical reactions acting on various stimuli.
Why can't life that consists of complex chemical arrangements be sacred, even if that is what it consists of?Life is sacred, which computes to a near zero abortion tolerance.
While it might under materialistic terms be that a complex information processing entity that perceives itself as a self, there is no "self" other than that which the chemicals make it. That self has no choice in what that self is, chooses or thinks.I deny that. Instead, I assert that sacks of chemicals are capable of supporting such a complex information processing entity that it is a self. Can you prove me wrong, and actually prove that sacks of chemicals, even if arranged cunningly and complexly, cannot support a self concept, and a self motivation?
Consisting of is quite different than being totally and singularly chemicals and matter. That goes against Christian theology.Why can't life that consists of complex chemical arrangements be sacred, even if that is what it consists of?
Consisting of is quite different than being totally and singularly chemicals and matter. That goes against Christian theology.
Ok it is not Biblical. Does that help?In what way? What Christians? There are, after all, many varieties of Christian theology.
I deny that. Instead, I assert that sacks of chemicals are capable of supporting such a complex information processing entity that it is a self. Can you prove me wrong, and actually prove that sacks of chemicals, even if arranged cunningly and complexly, cannot support a self concept, and a self motivation?
Good point.A computer is a complex information processing entity but isn't a self. Simply because we are chemicals interacting due to stimuli doesn't prove self. What you believe to be a 'you' doesn't exist.
Humans are gestalts.Why can't life that consists of complex chemical arrangements be sacred, even if that is what it consists of?
What?
There is no 'you' or 'I' in Darwinist evolution. If you think there is, offer evidence for it.
What practical difference does this make? Perhaps you can give a straight answer to this question where Justlookinla is unable to.While it might under materialistic terms be that a complex information processing entity that perceives itself as a self, there is no "self" other than that which the chemicals make it. That self has no choice in what that self is, chooses or thinks.
A computer is a complex information processing entity but isn't a self. Simply because we are chemicals interacting due to stimuli doesn't prove self. What you believe to be a 'you' doesn't exist.
Humans are gestalts.
That is, they are more than the sum of their physical parts.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Christians believe that the Bible contains truth and that study of the Bible leads to knowledge of the truth.
Naturalist scientists disagree. They believe that knowledge comes from sense experience, experiments, and a peer-review process.
Some people in this thread have challenged Bible apologists to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether the Bible were true.
I challenge those scientific apologists here to design or identify a test that could be used to determine whether empiricism leads to truth.
More than 40 million abortions every year according to the Guttmacher Institute.
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/abortion.html
There is no 'you' or 'I' in Darwinist evolution. If you think there is, offer evidence for it.
The differences are those who believe we are just a sack of chemicals if true can not believe anything else but that. Life is illusion and nothing more. No mind, just brain...no soul...no real choices...no real emotions just what we were wired to think and even perhaps what we must feel as just an unplanned accident in the universe. If we are just a sack of chemicals there is no wrong in murder as it is just what that person's wiring led them to do, there is no moral right or wrong because we do not do right or wrong from motivation but that what we only CAN or can't do. Atheist have no more reason than do theists in their set positions because they have no choice in what they believe.What practical difference does this make? Perhaps you can give a straight answer to this question where Justlookinla is unable to.
This is a statement of faith.Here's one: spend a year without the fruits of empirical inquiry. Or, you know, two weeks. See how far you get. Science has literally built the world you live in. The fruits of empiricism and the truths it has led to are everywhere. Every element of your life has been molded and shaped by them. Empiricism tests itself. If gravity weren't true, we wouldn't be able to land a probe on a freakin' comet. If vaccines didn't work, we wouldn't have nearly eradicated many infectious diseases. I could go on and on explaining how the scientific method makes your life and everyone else's life better, but perhaps it will suffice to say: if you don't believe that science and empiricism leads to truth, I recommend throwing away your computer.
This is a statement of faith.
I might as well challenge you to spend a year without the blessings that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has given you. That would, of course, include not breathing air, not basking in the sun, not standing on the Earth, etc.
Or maybe all of these things are thanks to Woden. Go for a year without the blessings that Thor has brought into your life (such as electricity, without which your computer wouldn't work).
Christians... scientists... two sides of the same coin. Yet they fight like dogs and cats.
Minds like concrete: All mixed up and permanently set.
Jesus didn't die for chemical sacks.Seems to me it doesn't measure up to the quality of what a human being is, even IF humans are merely chemicals (a claim I don't support). In fact, I don't even see those particular chemicals even reacting.
Let's here a more reasonable defense of your idea that we can't possibly be made of just chemicals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?