Knowing the mind of God

[cjd]

atheists were missing the relationship thereby not making them "fully human". That doesn't mean inferior......

Perhaps we are superior then? No matter how thinly you stretch 'less than human' it's terribly difficult to make it a positive thing, don't you think?

. His words were poorly chosen but he did define his definition of being "human" (not just physically) so your problem is with his definition and not with the next part.

hahaha

He wasn't saying that being an atheist was being inferior.......you've decided to add you own Sun newspaper headline.

Let's stop this bullsh1t should we. This is what he actually said. And please note, in this interview he is defending a statement that he had previously made, he's had time to refine it and wriggle a little - but he's still saying I'm less than human.

Lucky I'm not a Muslim and don't take it personally, right?

Interviewer, BBC’s Roger Boulton “ A lot of church leaders speaking on national matters sound rather defensive, but you’ve gone on the attack because you’ve talked about secularists having an impoverished understanding of what it is to be human. They might find that quite offensive mightn’t they?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Conner “I think what I said was true.

Of course whether a person is atheist or any other er, er <cjd, I think he almost said religion here, but that would have caused a war> there is, in fact, in my view, something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent, if they leave out an aspect of what I believe everyone is made for which is a search for transcendent meaning, we call it God.

If you say that has no place, then I feel that it’s a diminishment of what is being human. Because to be human in the sense that I believe humanity is directed because (man is) made by God. Because if you leave that out I believe you are not fully human.

 

[cjd]

Spit it out CJD are you a biochemical machine, evolved from less complex bits of biochemistry, tweaking your biochemistry to improve your spread of genes.

Yes

Or is there more to you?

Yes.

(You need to get past this false choice thing)

If your lucky "caring" is an imperfection defect that will be evolved out of you, in a few hundred generations. Just get back to whatever futile machines do.

Caring has proven to be very useful, genetically. Had it not been, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

However, your core problem is that you haven't been able to move beyond the silly 'I am robot' reductionist nonsense.

We are not controlled by our genes or our chemistry, as you very well know.

We have brains and consciousness. We have evolved beyond instinct - even us less than human types.

This is normally the point where a Christian says 'God did it' btw.

 

[stockdam]

Perhaps we are superior then? No matter how thinly you stretch 'less than human' it's terribly difficult to make it a positive thing, don't you think?

It's neither inferior or superior. He's saying that atheists are (in his opinion) missing out.

Let's stop this bullsh1t should we. This is what he actually said. And please note, in this interview he is defending a statement that he had previously made, he's had time to refine it and wriggle a little - but he's still saying I'm less than human.

Lucky I'm not a Muslim and don't take it personally, right?

He said that in his opinion if you leave out the tanscendental then you aren't fully human. From that I believe he means that you aren't allowing yourself to be fully developed.

You then throw in something he didn't say. He didn't imply that Muslims weren't fully human.

If we're limiting the discussion to him then I'd say he should have thought before opening his mouth or at least had somebody write his speeches for him so that his words are carefully chosen.

But we weren't talking about him......the issue was that you said that it's a general belief that atheists were less human and less moral. That's a stawman argument.....you decide what others think so that it justifies what you think in response.

I don't know of any Christians who think they are more moral than atheists as Christians are fully aware that everyone is immoral (as compared to purity)

 

We are not controlled by our genes or our chemistry, as you very well know.

.

Yes I know that.

You dont.

Your entire camp is that you are a biochemical process however complex ...responding to environmental and other stimuli with (quote top hat) a purpose of spreading your genes

Stick to your interpretation of sciene CJD, however emotionally difficult you find it to come to terms with your reality and futitlity.

 

[marchog]

I think maybe it needs pointing out that we are far from optimal gene propogating machines due to the constraints evolution imposes.

 

[cjd]

He said that in his opinion if you leave out the tanscendental then you aren't fully human. From that I believe he means that you aren't allowing yourself to be fully developed.

I'm a simple soul. If someone says to me 'I'm not fully human' I don't think he means 'I'm missing out on something'. I think he means I'm not fully human.

I would think that even if he had corrected himself over his 'poorly chosen words' to something more like what you'd like to think he means. But he didn't correct himself, he barely tried to change the meaning at all. When challenged about it being offensive he said

"I think what I said was true"

What he didn't say was "I think I've been misunderstood, let me clarify" or "Of course I didn't mean that atheists are somehow inferior"

He just went on to confirm that he does, after due reflection, think that I'm not fully human.

If we're limiting the discussion to him then I'd say he should have thought before opening his mouth or at least had somebody write his speeches for him so that his words are carefully chosen.

His words ARE carefully chosen, he made the statement then came back later to defend it and said it again - several times. Couldn't possibly be clearer.

But we weren't talking about him......the issue was that you said that it's a general belief that atheists were less human and less moral. ..........
I don't know of any Christians who think they are more moral than atheists

I have given you three examples (not two btw), so now you do. If you'd like to take my own experience as evidence, you need to accept that there are many, many more.

 

I think maybe it needs pointing out that we are far from optimal gene propogating machines due to the constraints evolution imposes.

You need to be more careful with alcohol march.

Aint good for gene propagations.

 

[cjd]

You dont.

O yes I do!

Your entire camp is that you are a biochemical process however complex ...responding to environmental and other stimuli with (quote top hat) a purpose of spreading your genes

He's behind you!

Stick to your interpretation of sciene CJD, however emotionally difficult you find it to come to terms with your reality and futitlity.

You have that inverted, Kim.

I have no trouble at all with reality nor do I think it futile.

It's the atheist's view that god was invented to make those who can't bear the reality and finality of death feel a bit better about their life.

 

[stockdam]

I'm a simple soul. If someone says to me 'I'm not fully human' I don't think he means 'I'm missing out on something'. I think he means I'm not fully human.

Now you are mixing up your definition of human with his. He said that you were loosing out on the relationship with God. Since you don't believe in God then his statement has little meaning to you so why pretend that you are worried. He is basically saying that you are missing out on something he believes in.....and if you believed in it then you wouldn't be an atheist so his statements are rather pointless.

I have given you three examples (not two btw), so now you do. If you'd like to take my own experience as evidence, you need to accept that there are many, many more.

Two or three doesn't matter......you said it was a general belief and the only thing you can now ask me to do is to believe you. Where's your evidence? Is there no Wikipedia page? You've shown one example which you claim shows (somehow) that Catholics think that atheists are less human....what about the moral bit....where's your evidence? I see many atheist sites claiming this but without evidence it's just putting up strawmen to knock down.

If you really listened then you'd hear the Christians saying that morals and goodness have nothing to do with it........we are all equal in that sense.

 

[marchog]

You need to be more careful with alcohol march.

Aint good for gene propagations.

Depends who I buy it for. Hey ad - your milkman's a cousin of TopHats. While TH is keeping you typing away on here....

 

[cjd]

He said that you were loosing out on the relationship with God.

I admire your determination to misquote him but I do think it a little futile given that we have a recording plus a transcript of what he actually said.

At no point did he say "loosing out on the relationship with God."

He said "...to be human in the sense that I believe humanity is directed because (man is) made by God. Because if you leave that out I believe you are not fully human"

Please note; he didn't say he was talking metaphorically or even infer that he was. He was being given the opportunity to clarify something he'd earlier said which he knew was controversial - if for no other reason than his PR people would have told him to and the interviewer warned him of at the begining.

He could have said what you wanted him to say - 'atheists are missing something good' - made it sound like opera, or marmite, but no, he deliberately repeated "I believe you are not fully human."

This guy was the head of the RC church in the UK for many years - he is not media naive, he has a full PR outfit behind him, was asked to do an interview to clarify a controversial statement but still confirmed what he said. This is quite deliberate.

I think I have to believe that he means what he says - because otherwise he's either a liar or an idiot.

You choose.

 

[stockdam]

I admire your determination to misquote him but I do think it a little futile given that we have a recording plus a transcript of what he actually said.

At no point did he say "loosing out on the relationship with God."

He said "...to be human in the sense that I believe humanity is directed because (man is) made by God. Because if you leave that out I believe you are not fully human"

If we are going to play with words, this is what you quoted him as saying

"there is, in fact, in my view, something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent, if they leave out an aspect of what I believe everyone is made for which is a search for transcendent meaning, we call it God."

In my interpretation he means that if you leave out the search for a higher meaning and that comes through a relationship with God.

To be human (in his opinion) is to have a spiritual side......a side that separates humans from animals. So he means you aren't "whole" without that part of you. Of course lots of people want to interpret that as being sub-human or below or inferior.

Anyway as I said he's trying to say something that he believes in which won't mean a jot to anyone who doesn't.

But as I said I couldn't care less what he (or any man/woman says) - his views have no more meaning than mine.

Focusing on his opinions detracts from your comments....... you jump to saying that what you interpret his views is a general view held by people of faith. As yet I'm waiting for any substantiated evidence......and without that it's just your opinion which isn't backed up by facts. But let's not let the lack of facts get in the way of a good dig at religion.

 

[cjd]

To be human (in his opinion) is to have a spiritual side......a side that separates humans from animals.

and therefore if I don't have a 'spiritual side' ie a belief in a Christian God, I am no better than an animal.

Keep digging chuck

So he means you aren't "whole" without that part of you. Of course lots of people want to interpret that as being sub-human or below or inferior.

Got it in one. No interpretation required

Anyway as I said he's trying to say something that he believes in which won't mean a jot to anyone who doesn't.

But as I said I couldn't care less what he (or any man/woman says)

-

Perhaps because you're not a Catholic? I wonder what Admagic thinks - as usual he's terribly quiet on matters relating to his own beliefs and institutions.

his views have no more meaning than mine.

I suspect the Pope would disagree. He speaks for the largest Christian organisation on the planet - I agree that he's a total prat but lots of people think differently - god bless 'em.

Focusing on his opinions detracts from your comments....... you jump to saying that what you interpret his views is a general view held by people of faith. As yet I'm waiting for any substantiated evidence......and without that it's just your opinion which isn't backed up by facts. But let's not let the lack of facts get in the way of a good dig at religion.

You know, I've a feeling that no evidence would convince you - just a hunch.

Can I suggest you do a bit of googling using terms such as 'can atheists be moral?' - you'll find all you need

 

Yes



Yes.

(You need to get past this false choice thing)



Caring has proven to be very useful, genetically. Had it not been, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

However, your core problem is that you haven't been able to move beyond the silly 'I am robot' reductionist nonsense.

We are not controlled by our genes or our chemistry, as you very well know.

We have brains and consciousness. We have evolved beyond instinct - even us less than human types.

This is normally the point where a Christian says 'God did it' btw.

Clearly you dont believe you are a product of evolution

Otherwise you would know that you are a biochemical process, nothing more. Since however complex the biochemistry is, that is ALL evolution by itself can produce.

No false choice.

You just dont like the consequence of your own belief.

 

[cjd]

Clearly you dont believe you are a product of evolution

Dash it all - you caught me out. After thousands of posts arguing for Darwin, you've seen through me at last.

It's a fair cop, take me to your creator.

On a less silly note, if we are not a biochemical process, then what are we?

 

[marchog]

Cjd is the exaption that proves the rule.


I've posted a page of stupid things Jesus 'said' - did he have any good sayings? Anything you couldn't find in a cracker?

 

Dash it all - you caught me out. After thousands of posts arguing for Darwin, you've seen through me at last.

It's a fair cop, take me to your creator.

On a less silly note, if we are not a biochemical process, then what are we?

You are nothing if not TOTALLY INCONSISTENT CJD

I would like to remind you of this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by admagic
Spit it out CJD are you a biochemical machine, evolved from less complex bits of biochemistry, tweaking your biochemistry to improve your spread of genes.

Yes

Quote:
Or is there more to you?

Yes.

(You need to get past this false choice thing)

So what in ADDITION to evolutionary biochemistry do you think you are?

 

Oi.

I see you lurking there Top Hat

Get out gene spreading, this instant.

Its your only purpose, remember.

FYI no virtual gene spreading works. To my knowledge...
You Have to do it in person.

 

[marchog]

Oi.

I see you lurking there Top Hat

Get out gene spreading, this instant.

Its your only purpose, remember.

FYI no virtual gene spreading works. To my knowledge...
You Have to do it in person.

Again you betray your ignorance. An individual does not have to breed to pass on genes. But you are entertaining, so keep going. Incidentally I tried a novel kind of seed dispersal out of my window - just in case you were really onto something - and thanks a lot ad now I'm grounded.

 

Again you betray your ignorance. An individual does not have to breed to pass on genes. But you are entertaining, so keep going. Incidentally I tried a novel kind of seed dispersal out of my window - just in case you were really onto something - and thanks a lot ad now I'm grounded.

Ever heard of reductio ad absurdum.

If EVERYONE decided they didnt have to breed to pass on genes.

You would prove your point dramatically.

So breeding helps - hard to deny!!

And anyway.

Top Hat shouldnt be here.

This forum doesnt help him spread genes.

If he tried it, the mods would delete them.

 

[cjd]

So what in ADDITION to evolutionary biochemistry do you think you are?

Nothing more is needed, thanks, I'm fine.

I don't see any conflict at all - what is your point?

Are you trying to say that evolution and biochemistry is insufficient to explain consciousness? If so then you need to say why.

If you can do it without the personal attacks, so much the better.

 

[stockdam]

and therefore if I don't have a 'spiritual side' ie a belief in a Christian God, I am no better than an animal.

Keep digging chuck

There you go again.......Sun Newspaper headlining. Twisting facts to make claptrap. You are mixing up your beliefs and values with his to deliberately create an issue. He implied that humans (and that includes you) have a spiritual side and that (I said) is one differential between us and animals. If you choose not to use your spiritual side then that doesn't make you "no better than an animal".......that's a stupid thing to say but then you love making silly comments. On the other hand there are your beliefs and you don't believe you have a spiritual side so his comments are not relevant. You don't have the same definition of being a "whole" human so you put his comments with your definition and then get offended or make an issue. You have to put his comments along with his definition. I've explained that to you but you want to ignore it and stir the pot using your definitions and his comments.

You know, I've a feeling that no evidence would convince you - just a hunch.

Can I suggest you do a bit of googling using terms such as 'can atheists be moral?' - you'll find all you need

Evidence? You haven't provided any. Where are all the web links you are so fond of? Yes I can Google.........but the internet is full of weirdos on both "sides" who have extreme views. The vast majority of people don't write articles on the internet as they haven't anything extreme or contraversial to say. What's the top selling newspaper.......do you want me to take my knowledge from that rubbish?

Can atheists have morals? Most articles I have read are about where atheists get their morals from. Religious morals are set externally and as such are audited externally. Atheists morals are self-set (either individually or by society). Individuals can set their own morals but generally that means they will set them to justify their behaviour.

 

[marchog]

Oi.

You made me jump. I think cjd's one of those parallel computers noone's managed to make yet. I think he's only 'apparently more' than the sum of his parts. I don't think he's the son of God - the stupid preachings would give him away.

 

Nothing more is needed, thanks, I'm fine.

I don't see any conflict at all - what is your point?

Are you trying to say that evolution and biochemistry is insufficient to explain consciousness? If so then you need to say why.

If you can do it without the personal attacks, so much the better.

No personal attack.

I was asking why YOU clearly SAID there was MORE to you than evolutionary biochemistry.

I accept that you now change your mind.

And without raking old ground, I believe there is a massive amount of evidence that conscience can exist beyond the confines of the body.

As bilocation experiences prove. I cited one inexplicable example of evidence earlier up the thread.

It Stuffs the idea that ALL a human is is evolutionary biochemistry.

 

[marchog]

Ever heard of reductio ad absurdum.

If EVERYONE decided they didnt have to breed to pass on genes.

You would prove your point dramatically.

So breeding helps - hard to deny!!

And anyway.

Top Hat shouldnt be here.

This forum doesnt help him spread genes.

If he tried it, the mods would delete them.

Doesn't help him spread genes directly. Your entertaining posts perk him up and he works harder and makes more loot to increase the survival chances of his offspring. And while you're here his cousin the milkman...

 

Doesn't help him spread genes directly. Your entertaining posts perk him up and he works harder and makes more loot to increase the survival chances of his offspring. And while you're here his cousin the milkman...

Marchog

Extract the serious from the humorous

My question is why, using TH hypothesis "sole purpose is gene spreading" does man not only have capacity to do things way beyond that remit, ie pure pass times....and a brain that leads him a zillion directions other than gene spreading.

Like. Try as you may, you will find it hard to give gene passing credence to posting on this thread. or Golf for that matter.


ANd anyway.

TH does not post in that name for anything but this thread

He uses his other id...for business posting. Something eminently sensible, but I have been attacked for in the past.

So TH as an identity definitely does not use this forum for any attributable gene passing purpose. Not singling him out, just the line of reasoning.

That if gene passing is the purpose, why do you all buck the purpose?

Coming to which marchog you dont use that identity for business either- so business is not your purpose to be here.

 

[Top Hat]

Spit it out CJD are you a biochemical machine, evolved from less complex bits of biochemistry, tweaking your biochemistry to improve your spread of genes.

I'm happy to except that.

I'm interested as to when this special stuff you believe is within us all was added and where it resides.

Both in our evolutionary past and within the growth human foetus (is it added at conception, does it grow as the baby grows).

Was there a time when it instantly added or did it evolve/arrive gradually over many years/thousand of years

 

I'm happy to except that.

I'm interested as to when this special stuff you believe is within us all was added and where it resides.

Both in our evolutionary past and within the growth human foetus (is it added at conception, does it grow as the baby grows).

Was there a time when it instantly added or did it evolve/arrive gradually over many years/thousand of years

TH.

DId you read the example I gave of "lady of ephesus"? - serious evidence of bilocation.

How can that work, if conscience is biochemistry, confined therefore to the brain.

Your choice. You make up your mind. But read the evidence before being quite so dismissive.

 

[marchog]

Coming to which marchog you dont use that identity for business either- so business is not your purpose to be here.

It was originally - a year or two ago - but I got distracted. Anyway we should give all our possessions away surely?

You have to notice ad that a human is a pretty ridiculous long-winded roundabout way for a gene to make another gene. Never mind what the point of a mind is. Trouble is no law-maker to stop these kinds of silly things. Back to trees being taller than they need be.

 

[Top Hat]

ANd anyway.

TH does not post in that name for anything but this thread

He uses his other id...for business posting. Something eminently sensible, but I have been attacked for in the past.

So TH as an identity definitely does not use this forum for any attributable gene passing purpose. Not singling him out, just the line of reasoning.

Top Hat only uses this name for posting on this forum.

 

[cjd]

I accept that you now change your mind.

For the avoidance of doubt. I think that consciousness IS biochemistry so I have not changed my mind and I see no contradiction in that.

And without raking old ground, I believe there is a massive amount of evidence that conscience can exist beyond the confines of the body.

If you can provide any recent, non-marian related evidence I'd be happy to see it. You have on several occasions said you have OoBE evidence but so far have not disclosed it.

 

Top Hat only uses this name for posting on this forum.

You have it your way TH.

The evidence belies you.

And causes further problem for giving any "gene passing" credence to your presence here.

 

[Top Hat]

TH.

DId you read the example I gave of "lady of ephesus"? - serious evidence of bilocation.

How can that work, if conscience is biochemistry, confined therefore to the brain.

Your choice. You make up your mind. But read the evidence before being quite so dismissive.

Can you have a go at answering my questions about when this special stuff occurs.

Can you give us another example that can be properly tested/repeated.

 

[Top Hat]

You have it your way TH.

The evidence belies you.

And causes further problem for giving any "gene passing" credence to your presence here.

Yes I know your evidence compass is way off North.

Top Hat only posts as Top Hat

 

[marchog]

It could be a sexual selection driven phenomenon ad - Top Hat sharpens his wit against your intellect and elsewhere enjoys increased success with the ladies as a result. Or it could be the handicap principle at work - like the peacock's tail - that Top Hat is successful inspite of the handicap of addiction to ukbf advertises the fact that he is a particularly fit specimen.

 

Can you have a go at answering my questions about when this special stuff occurs.

Can you give us another example that can be properly tested/repeated.

Until you do me the courtesy of researching one instance, it is pointless giving you another.

As regards when. See for your self.

And as regardis "tested/repeated" you fall in a trap of your making - your bed you lie in it.

 

[Top Hat]

Until you do me the courtesy of researching one instance, it is pointless giving you another.

As regards when. See for your self.

And as regardis "tested/repeated" you fall in a trap of your making - your bed you lie in it.

OK I'll have a look at your example.

Can you point me at a good place to start, time is limited, breeding

Now will you have a go at my questions

 

[Beachcomber]

Got it!

It's been bugging me for a while but I've just remembered what this thread reminds me of!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhTBGoIrGjY

 

OK I'll have a look at your example.

Now will you have a go at my questions

Just as there is no PROOF of evolution, or mechanism for at least some of its parts, Im not obliged to offer either for any hypothesis of mine.

Suffice to say I find the evidence of consciousness straying beyond the confines of time and space compelling

And if true renders the biochemical assumption underlying darwinism, at very best incomplete. At worst erroneous.

You can of course grasp at physics straws such as space time wormholes.
You still have entropy problems, even if they exist.

 

Can you point me at a good place to start,

I did, About 3 weeks ago. You were around at the time, I saw you surfing.
So no , I cannot be bothered to repeat.

You crawl back, or search.