John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Anybody can post a link to twenty arguments for anything.

  And what are the arguments from Atheism?

  The new Atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. The "Four Horsemen".) only provides Scientism and Sola Scriptura mumbo-jumbo as arguments. And a huge amount of vitriol and mocking.

  Your so precious problem of natural evil has some possibilities of explanations. If not 100% convincing, they are a good reason to keep the benefit of the doubt at least.

  Ironically the very problem of evil is also a problem to Atheists too. Why the human mind developed the perception of evil? We are the only specie with a perception of evil. Why? What is the evolutionary advantage/pressure of it? And how it developed? Where are the traces of this feature in other species?

  The 19th century atheists were way more consistent because their Atheism was not a conclusion but a starting point. Atheism was an axiom and they agreed with the non existence of God implies the non existence of meaning and morality.

  Nietzsche (the most intelligent person of the 19th century IMHO), for instance, provided no argument for Atheism at all. He simply accepted Atheism as an axiom not a logical conclusion. The only argument from him was the knowledge of atheism brought joy to him, that's why he called his atheistic axiom as gay science (joyful knowledge).

  When I look to the new Atheism arguments I still see men just feeling good with this joyful knowledge and not a single logical argument!

  
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  For your sake, I do hope that you will live on after death. Be sure to let us know what the afterlife is like and about your conversations with God.

  My sake? Hope after death?

  I thought your position was oblivion.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  By conscient nihl I didn't mean a conscient pursuit of nihl. I meant a sentient, perpetual and hopeless experience of nihl, taking place as a consequence of a metaphorical original sin by a couple of man and woman 6.000 ago in mesopotania. Is that your definition of hell?

  Partially. Because Hell must be an intentional choice.

  Please start by telling me where in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus you find that notion, so that it can clearly be lablelled "christian" - and I say this because you define your beliefs as christian.

  I'm not a Sola Scriptura Christian.

  It seems to me that you don't take Adam and Eve literally to be the common acestors of all makind, as per the literal reading of Genesis.

  I believe this is literal.

  1. ^ Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT; Olson; Chang (September 2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7008): 562–6. Bibcode:2004Natur.431..562R. doi:10.1038/nature02842. PMID 15457259. calculate an age of 2,000 to 4,000 years based on a non-genetic, mathematical model that assumes random mating although it has taken into account important aspects of human population substructure such as assortative mating and historical geographical constraints on interbreeding. This range is consistent with the age of 3,100 years calculated for the MRCA of the JC virus, an ubiquitous human polyomavirus usually transmitted from parents to children by L. A. Shackelton et al., "JC Virus Evolution and Its Association with Human Populations" Journal of Virology, Vol. 80, No. 20 (Oct. 2006), doi:10.1128/JVI.00441-06.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

  If 6.000 years ago god decided for the first time to give a soul to some random couple in mesopotamia, and many more human beings were already in existence around the globe,

  Yes. Homo sapiens have been around by 200.000 years ago.

  About 50.000 years ago they achieved a sophisticated mortal soul (probably by evolution).

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
  

  what do the non-descendants of that couple have to do with it all?

  Probably nothing. They did not had souls so they were not conscious. They were just like the bicameral men proposed by Julian Jaynes.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

  Why the burden of the original sin was imposed upon them?

  They don't had immortal souls.

  At what point the non-descendants of that couple began to have souls?And why? And how?

  They never got souls. But some of them married the sons and daughters of Adam and their offspring received souls. They went extinct by assimilation and killing.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  - every function which you have attributed to the immaterial soul is performed by our brains.

  Please, scan a brain, build a virtual model of it, run it an show me a consciousness.
  
  

  - the functions which you have attributed to the immaterial soul are altered when one experiences brain injury or neurological disorders.

  Correlation is not causation.

  You can alter a driver's performance by altering his car. Or you can alter a radio's reception by altering the device without affecting in nothing the broadcasting station.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  It's good that you are open to this possibility since, of the millions of the dead, no one has been back to tell us what the afterlife is like and about their conversations with God.

  Of course I'm open to the possibility of oblivion.

  Actually I don't see other logical options than Catholicism or oblivion.

  But in this worldview doesn't matter if you are a Catholic, an atheist or a JW.

  And if I really was very confident about this reality I would try to kill myself.

  Because life is suffering and I would end in oblivion no matter what.

  Evil still exist no matter what you believe and the most logical thing to reduce the experience of evil is going to oblivion.

  Why wait?
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  One sure way to know whether this is just my opinion about justice - try telling a court of law that it is your children who should be penalized if you should commit a crime.
  Please be sure to let us know the outcome if you should ever find yourself in this situation.

  Try to ask if is fair a child inherit the exact financial status, nationality, genes, etc, from their parents and ancestors.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The discussion is still going on because John_Mann can't bring himself to confront and come to terms with his mortality.
  He needs something to make him feel good about death so he went from believing that he was going to live forever on a Paradise earth to believing that his soul will live on after he dies - he exchanged one venue for another: earth for heaven.
  In trying to make himself feel good about death, he tenaciously tries to defend his indefensible alternate faith of Catholicism.

  Not only my soul but my body too. Catholics believe the human nature must be in soul and body forever. We're not ghosts in biological machines. And we're not just biological machines.

  I believe there are only two options after death: God or oblivion.

  I'm not trying to avoid death like a JW. I know everyone is doomed to die. It's a very unpleasant fate but...

  My belief is about AFTER death. Not death itself.

  If I'm wrong so oblivion is reality and ironically I will never know.

  But if I'm right so my belief produces a possibility that's infinitely (literally) worse than oblivion.

  That's when I think about the Pascal's wager. It says if you have a very small doubt about the certainty of oblivion it's better to believe in God because there's a possibility of infinite loss.

  God must be 100% obvious nonsense and we must have 100% of certain evidence against the existence of God.

  So in a psychological way my position can bring something worse than oblivion.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  You said that god gives each man a soul at the moment of conception.

  Yes.

  That makes god the causing agent of that soul, not the physical parents.

  Yes. The parents being the only causing agents is called traducionism. Of course parents are causing agents too, this process needs sex.

  God isn't bound by any law according to which he must abide to give a soul to every fertilized human egg.

  He's bound by His nature. He can't lie or be evil, for instance. The nature, the will and the intellect of God/angels/men are very distinct things.

  He made a pact with Adam and every descendant of Adam must have a soul.

  He has a choice to give it or not give a soul.

  Idk.

  By causing a soul to exist, god is taking responsability for such soul.

  In a sense yes. He must give opportunities to this soul.

  If god is the causing agent of the existence of that soul, it is entirely god's responsability that such soul is made to pay for the original sin.

  Idk if I understand what you mean.

  Because, you know, he chose to create that soul.

  He has made a pact.

  If, because of the original sin, that human is born defective, or dies in a horrific tsunami, it is entirely god's will.

  No.

  Because an almighty god could a) decided to not give that human a soul;

  Maybe He has no choice.

  b) have crated a world where tsunamis didn't exist, because they're entirely not needed for life to exist;

  I don't agree. How do you know is possible to exist worlds suitable for free-willed beings in a physical world without natural laws?

  c) have created a world where humans would be miraculously protected from natural disasters and genetic defects.

  Same thing. How do you know that?

  And finally, after injustly subjecting millions of human beings to needless suffering during their physical life, god decides, after a few years, to resign from responsability towards the soul he created by doing nothing to stop that soul from falling into a perpetual state of sentient nihil.
  I wonder - is this a god worth believing and worshipping?

  I don't agree with your premises so I can't accept your conclusion.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

  various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

  i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Is this still going on?

  For 2000 years, day and night, in every corner of this planet.

  And considering the concept of symmetry, I think it will go more 2000 years in this world.