- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anthropologists, at what point do you believe we became sentient?
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:18 pm to bayoubengals88
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:18 pm to bayoubengals88
I just don’t think the consciousness argument even needs to be addressed from a religious standpoint.
This is such a great book for those who are interested. An End to Upside Down Thinking: Dispelling the Myth That the Brain Produces Consciousness, and the Implications for Everyday Life
This is such a great book for those who are interested. An End to Upside Down Thinking: Dispelling the Myth That the Brain Produces Consciousness, and the Implications for Everyday Life
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:24 pm to Salmon
quote:
I'm not shutting down the idea of God or a god or some other unknown power.
I just need evidence.
Do you believe that laws of logic exist?
By definition they are abstract.They are universal, unchanging, and immaterial.
They are not conventional.
They are transcendental.
How does an atheist acknowledge and ascribe to such laws, much less try to justify them?
We know they exist. That's the problem. That's your problem.
But how can they be proven apart from God?
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:25 pm to lsut2005
quote:Thank you. I'd love to read it
lsut2005
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:31 pm to bayoubengals88
I am open to any theory. I just need actual data to discuss. Faith is not data. If your baseline is a book with no scientific information, then we cannot have a civil conversation as I will never respect your intellect.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:34 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
at what point do you believe we became sentient?
Still waiting on some of you motherfrickers.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:36 pm to AUCE05
Check out the link I posted.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:36 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
It's something. But it's not what Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche believed.
quote:Gravity in an evolution discussion?
gravity
quote:
mathematics
quote:Plenty of murderers and thieves. Not so universal.
murder, theft, etc.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:36 pm to AUCE05
quote:But why? We're both arguing from non neutral perspectives. What makes your's better by default?
If your baseline is a book with no scientific information, then we cannot have a civil conversation as I will never respect your intellect.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:37 pm to Korkstand
quote:Absolutely. There would be no basis for saying that 1+1=2 apart from the existence of God.
Without god, would 1+1=3?
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:39 pm to Korkstand
quote:who are punished according to the law.
Plenty of murderers and thieves. Not so universal.
You cannot penalize murder from a materialistic worldview. You must borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:40 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
But how can they be proven apart from God?
once again, you are just plugging God into everything you don't understand
why does abstract thought have to linked with God?
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:42 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
Absolutely. There would be no basis for saying that 1+1=2 apart from the existence of God.
1+1=2 because mathematics is the language we have invented to describe the world. It is a tool.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:43 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
You cannot penalize murder from a materialistic worldview. You must borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.
Even materialists have to coexist in a society. Morality may have evolved as a way to keep order, being beneficial to furthering the species. Either way, one doesn’t need to believe in God to see the benefit of laws and morality and pass it on to children.
This post was edited on 5/11/20 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:47 pm to Celery
I think evolution and the case for a creator are very compatible.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:47 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Without god, would 1+1=3?
The law of non-contradiction, which I assume you hold, prohibits us from saying 1+1=3.
This law is immaterial.
This law is universal.
This law cannot change.
Science cannot claim such things.
Science is theorized and is susceptible to change.
So when you say 1+1=2 you are appealing to a universal rationality that exists above and apart from yourself.
You are acting as if a rational creator exists. An immaterial, universal, and immutable creator. God.
But I'm supposed to use Science to appease some of you. Then you will listen to what I have to say? That's the true joke here.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:47 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:The laws we wrote.
who are punished according to the law.
quote:Absolutely false. We can penalize whistling if we want to.
You cannot penalize murder from a materialistic worldview. You must borrow from the Christian worldview to do so.
As it turns out, though, murder is highly detrimental from an evolutionary standpoint. This should be obvious. If a species makes a habit of killing itself, it would not last very long.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:49 pm to lsut2005
quote:Many very smart people believe this.
I think evolution and the case for a creator are very compatible.
Francis Collins is one of them.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:49 pm to lsut2005
quote:
I think evolution and the case for a creator are very compatible.
Totally
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:50 pm to Celery
quote:If you want to justify it you do. You absolutely do.
Either way, one doesn’t need to believe in God to see the benefit of laws and morality and pass it on to children.
Posted on 5/11/20 at 12:51 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
If you want to justify it you do. You absolutely do.
No you don't.
Popular
Back to top


1






