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.
Bad faith of the agnostic
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
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
Well-known member
Something has to trigger the action of seeking or not seeking water.
Yes, the need for water. Brains don't drink water.
ZenMode
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
Addressed ad nasseum on the other thread.
Why won't you explain your motives for lying about having a glorious geochem PhD,?
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.
Try to stick to the topic. This argumentum ad hominem is tiring. It is beneath your "intelligence".