Bad faith of the agnostic

[Obtenebrator]

Not at all. Your inclination to murder or not, in any given situation, is based on any number of external causes that shape your brain and thoughts.

Agreed. But it's patently obvious no "metaphysics" is necessary to understand that murdering a fellow member of your social group is a bad thing.

 

[ZenMode]

I find your philosophy of action to be bizarre. My brain does not want water, my body does.

Something has to trigger the action of seeking or not seeking water.

 

[Hume]

Something has to trigger the action of seeking or not seeking water.

Yes, the need for water. Brains don't drink water.

 

[ZenMode]

Agreed. But it's patently obvious no "metaphysics" is necessary to understand that murdering a fellow member of your social group is a bad thing.

Depends. If you're apart of an inner-city gang, murdering a member of your social group may seem perfectly reasonable in a specific situation for some people. That exatly same situation may seem perfectly horrifying to a suburban housewife. It all depends on how external causes have shaped your brain/thoughts.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, the need for water. Brains don't drink water.

Once the brain is aware that more water is needed, it drives the decision to physically seek or not seek water.

 

[Hume]

Once the brain is aware that more water is needed, it drives the decision to physically seek or not seek water.

So, the brain does not need water.

 

[ZenMode]

So, the brain does not need water.

I'm sure it does. The brain regulates all of the goings on in the body.

 

[Hume]

I'm sure it does. The brain regulates all of the goings on in the body.

I think you are using the brain as the site of agency. Instead of "self" you substitute "brain."

 

[ZenMode]

I think you are using the brain as the site of agency. Instead of "self" you substitute "brain."

I'm actually not. The way we believe things work is that "we", the self, weigh options, consider different choices and then make a decision. There is a separate self that sits outside of your stream of thought that is doing all of the considering before making a choice.

That's not how it works.

Just like I had no control over the fact the thought "We have friends coming over tonight" never entered my consciousness, and would have caused the decision of mowing the yard, we don't control any of our thoughts. They just manifest in consciousness, completely outside of our control. Those thoughts drive basically every action or in acton.

 

[Hume]

I'm actually not. The way we believe things work is that "we", the self, weigh options, consider different choices and then make a decision. There is a separate self that sits outside of your stream of thought that is doing all of the considering before making a choice.

I never claimed there is a separate self. If you want to debate someone who takes that position, seek them out. It's not me.

 

[Cypress]

you're a masonic bullshitter, doing the same shit masons always do.....

...which fight hard to keep religion (morality) crazy and stupid, so you can keep dividing mankind for your retard forever wars.

get a new job, parasite.

I sense your anger and impotence at realizing you do not have the chops to discuss Chrisitan history, theology, ethics.

You have to actually do your homework to have a working knowledge of Christianity.

I didn't try to learn about religion to make holly rollers look like fools. I studied religions because I didn't think I could understand history and the human condition without it.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I sense your anger and impotence at realizing you do not have the chops to discuss Chrisitan history, theology, ethics.

You have to actually do your homework to have a working knowledge of Christianity.

I didn't try to learn about religion to make holly rollers look like fools. I studied religions because I didn't think I could understand history and the human condition without it.

Why won't you discuss your hypothesis of Jesus running off like a conman in the dark of night after he "came to" in the Tomb and why you think the Disciples would lie about where Jesus went.

 

[Cypress]

Why won't you discuss your hypothesis of Jesus running off like a conman in the dark of night after he "came to" in the Tomb and why you think the Disciples would lie about where Jesus went.

Addressed ad nasseum on the other thread.

Why won't you explain your motives for lying about having a glorious geochem PhD,?

 

[Obtenebrator]

Addressed ad nasseum on the other thread.

I don't buy it. I'd rather it be a made-up story decades later by people innocently assuming the supernatural stuff happened than to assume Jesus was out to con everyone and the Disciples were willing abettors to the lie.

Why won't you explain your motives for lying about having a glorious geochem PhD,?

Try to stick to the topic. This argumentum ad hominem is tiring. It is beneath your "intelligence".