challenge to all christians

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect

Shakyamunison
I don't even know where to start. Wait, I'm not a Christian... I'm off the hook. rock

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't even know where to start. Wait, I'm not a Christian... I'm off the hook. rock Happy Dance

inimalist
computer model of the brain smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
computer model of the brain smile

Well, a complete and perfect working model would probable think it felt love, but I don't think that world prove or disprove a god. I don't think that the god of the bible has can show love. According to Christian mythology; god can only show his love through the blood of Jesus.

In that way of thinking, god would be incapable of showing love to the world. I guess, there are things that god cannot do.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, a complete and perfect working model would probable think it felt love, but I don't think that world prove or disprove a god. I don't think that the god of the bible has can show love. According to Christian mythology; god can only show his love through the blood of Jesus.

In that way of thinking, god would be incapable of showing love to the world. I guess, there are things that god cannot do. which proves my point

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by chickenlover98
which proves my point

You had a point? confused

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You had a point? confused yup my point was that god is bullshit especially the one from the bible

Jbill311
^^^^^
because THAT'S not unnecessarily abrasive...


Yay total disregard for NOMA! Happy Dance

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Jbill311
^^^^^
because THAT'S not unnecessarily abrasive...


Yay total disregard for NOMA! Happy Dance wtf is noma

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect

I'm a little slow here...what do chemicals and hormones have to do with the existence of God?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, a complete and perfect working model would probable think it felt love, but I don't think that world prove or disprove a god. I don't think that the god of the bible has can show love. According to Christian mythology; god can only show his love through the blood of Jesus.

In that way of thinking, god would be incapable of showing love to the world. I guess, there are things that god cannot do.

Which Christian mythology do you refer to? As plenty of Christians on these forums have been quick to point out, there are significantly different views concerning God within the realms of Christianity.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
yup my point was that god is bullshit especially the one from the bible

A point you intend to prove using chemicals and hormones, if I understand you correctly.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
I'm a little slow here...what do chemicals and hormones have to do with the existence of God?



Which Christian mythology do you refer to? As plenty of Christians on these forums have been quick to point out, there are significantly different views concerning God within the realms of Christianity.



A point you intend to prove using chemicals and hormones, if I understand you correctly. ok....im disproving the fact that the god of the bible is perfect. love is an imperfection caused by chemicals. im trying to prove that god cannot love people without chemicals, therefore being inherantly flawed

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quark_666
...Which Christian mythology do you refer to? As plenty of Christians on these forums have been quick to point out, there are significantly different views concerning God within the realms of Christianity.
..

The annoying type. wink











Evangelical!

Remember, you're not a Christian, you're a Mormon. laughing out loud wink

dadudemon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Remember, you're not a Christian, you're a Mormon. laughing out loud wink

laughing

I lol'd.

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok....im disproving the fact that the god of the bible is perfect. love is an imperfection caused by chemicals. im trying to prove that god cannot love people without chemicals, therefore being inherantly flawed

Oh I see! Now we're on common ground...I don't think the God of the commonly interpreted Bible exists anyway (the real one is a lot nicer) so even though I have to disagree with the "chemicals" part and the "imperfection" part, your main point is one that I'm totally rooting for!

On the other hand we could start talking about God according to my religion and suddenly my view would be completely different.

Bardock42
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok....im disproving the fact that the god of the bible is perfect. love is an imperfection caused by chemicals. im trying to prove that god cannot love people without chemicals, therefore being inherantly flawed How would you prove that God can not love without chemicals?

Healing Artisan
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect i believe in a higher being, and the limbic system near the corpus callosum of the brain influences our social behaviors (love in this instance) and our outerbody experiences.

i'll get more into that next time cuz it's really late^

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would you prove that God can not love without chemicals?

and that's where i'll continue from later^

Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to prove such a thing, as creating someone without the specific hormones is more than a tad difficult for our level of scientific advancement.

Also, this thread fails.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, a complete and perfect working model would probable think it felt love, but I don't think that world prove or disprove a god. I don't think that the god of the bible has can show love. According to Christian mythology; god can only show his love through the blood of Jesus.

In that way of thinking, god would be incapable of showing love to the world. I guess, there are things that god cannot do.

actually I was making a little joke. Having to copy the neural anatomy of the human brain on a computer to prove love would essential be the same as hormones or whatever. It, imho, would show that love is a neural chemical pattern of firing, rather than something that can exist without a physical or simulated system.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
love is an imperfection caused by chemicals.

This is grossly inaccurate. Love is not an imperfection, but an evolved reaction to social situations. It is adaptive and highly important to the human condition. It is also not caused by chemicals, especially in the way you are describing. Neurological function is highly resilient to reductionist views, and especially for something like love, it's causes will be based in developmental, social and cultural issues, and will not be caused by chemicals in the brain, but rather by the pattern of firing of neurons in certain regions as interpreted by higher cognitive areas based on past experience and expectation, added to genetic/automatic responses to the stimuli in a present situation where one feels love.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to prove such a thing, as creating someone without the specific hormones is more than a tad difficult for our level of scientific advancement.

Also, this thread fails.

I actually agree. I also don't feel that, even if we could, it would say anything about the existence of God.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
actually I was making a little joke. Having to copy the neural anatomy of the human brain on a computer to prove love would essential be the same as hormones or whatever. It, imho, would show that love is a neural chemical pattern of firing, rather than something that can exist without a physical or simulated system...

Well, you need to use more Smilies. eek! roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing Happy Dance mad sick embarrasment

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by chickenlover98
love is an imperfection caused by chemicals.

I'm having trouble accepting that statement.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect

Define love.

If you want people to prove to you, at least define it.

no expression

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by inimalist
This is grossly inaccurate. Love is not an imperfection, but an evolved reaction to social situations. It is adaptive and highly important to the human condition. It is also not caused by chemicals, especially in the way you are describing. Neurological function is highly resilient to reductionist views, and especially for something like love, it's causes will be based in developmental, social and cultural issues, and will not be caused by chemicals in the brain, but rather by the pattern of firing of neurons in certain regions as interpreted by higher cognitive areas based on past experience and expectation, added to genetic/automatic responses to the stimuli in a present situation where one feels love.


I agree with you there.


Xmarksthespot however, another fellow KMC scientist, argued that Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. I'm glad another scientifically well informed poster argued against that idiotic claim thumb up

lil bitchiness
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.

I believe its social conditioning. Its all psychologic and social.

There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.

If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.

Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turned on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.

inimalist
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I agree with you there.


Xmarksthespot however, another fellow KMC scientist, argued that Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. I'm glad another scientifically well informed poster argued against that idiotic claim thumb up

well, it is and it isn't. People get caught up in the chemicals, and they are HIGHLY important, but, for instance, the substantia nigra uses dopamine to both excite and inhibit areas in the pre-motor cortex to either produce or prevent movement. Everything is chemicals, but there is little explanatory power in saying a chemical is responsible for something. There are cases, but my reading of it is that more stuff is explained better using interaction of patterns of firing across many connected brain areas rather than chemical signals.

Love being a chemical reaction is not an idiotic claim. You reading is a chemical reaction, you moving is a chemical reaction.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.

I believe its social conditioning. Its not on a scientific side at all, but rather psychologic and social.

There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.

If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.

Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turne on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.

social conditioning is a chemical reaction

EDIT: LOL, I just thought about it, chemical reaction is probably the wrong term. Not being a chemist I do not know, but neurology isn't like mixing baking soda and vinegar. Chemicals are involved, but chemical "reactions"... I think that means something specific not being discussed here.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.

I believe its social conditioning. Its not on a scientific side at all, but rather psychologic and social.

There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.

If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.

Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turne on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.

I agree with you, but even if it was chemical, how does that prove or disprove god? confused

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
social conditioning is a chemical reaction

How is it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with you, but even if it was chemical, how does that prove or disprove god? confused

Yeah, i know, it doesn't at all. The whole question in this thread just makes no sense. I just went along with the discussion.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
See, I don't believe Love is a chemical reaction at all.

I believe its social conditioning. Its not on a scientific side at all, but rather psychologic and social.

There isn't one single thing that happens which triggers love. Thats why our feelings of love towards out partners, our mothers, our personal belongings, our grandparents and our friends is completely different.

If it was down to simply a chemical reaction, the feeling of love would be projected the same at everyone/thing.

Now being turned on is a chemical reaction. You get turne on by different things, but the feeling of being aroused doesnt change depending on who you're aroused by.

I like that you used the word "projected" because all the usually-amorphic term 'love' is, is a projection of a person's feelings onto a situation. Love is just the word for a lot of different feelings/responses/etc. and essentially arbitrary and useless as a defining concept.

I read a wonderful article (focused on consciouness, not love) that made a similar point about conscious experiences being a product of social conditioning and language acquisition, and he too rejected the reductionist view. Basically, if we have words (or some symbolic language, visual, auditory, or otherwise) to describe a situation, we can become conscious of it. A newborn isn't conscious because it has no frame of reference and no symbolic representations (language) with which to internalize the external world. The same goes for animals, most of whom cannot internally represent anything (some can, though they are limited severely by their inability to learn numerous words or symbols).

The only way we can accurately measure behavior is in behavioral terms, and love is no different. Which thus makes it a social phenomenon, not a reductionist biological one...though of course there are biological processes taking place during the projection of "love" by a person (though these of course differ greatly).

...I wish I could quote the article but I'm not at home. Maybe tomorrow.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with you, but even if it was chemical, how does that prove or disprove god? confused

It doesn't, of course. Chicken's just a bit overzealous. Though a lot of amusement can be gleaned from the "leap before you look" types.

BobbyD
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect

I can't. If I could, my God wouldn't be big enough for me. It's none of my concern to worry about whether or not love can exist w/o chemicals and hormones--just that it can, because anything is possible with God.

cool wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BobbyD
I can't. If I could, my God wouldn't be big enough for me. It's none of my concern to worry about whether or not love can exist w/o chemicals and hormones--just that it can, because anything is possible with God.

cool wink

Are you so sure that all things are possible with god? But I digress.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How is it?

For information to enter the brain and be processed, chemicals must be involved. When you look at your mother, the photon of light hits your eye, breaks a chemical chain, sending an electro chemical signal through many neurons into the visual cortex where similar electro chemical signals break down and process various parts and features of the image. Anything that would be considered "social", once it is inside of the brain being processed, is chemical. (I'm positive chemical is being used incorrectly, but I honestly don't know a better way to describe it).

Social conditioning can take many forms. If it is a simple reflex or automatic response, that is due to, iirc, long term potentiation in the hippocampus. As you hear a bell, the sound waves enter the ear, undergo transduction to become electro-chemical signals. These signals eventually enter the hippocampus. Now, say you are suppose to get some food when you hear the bell. The first few times, you wont necessarily be expecting it, but as the bell and the food are more commonly presented together, you associate the two automatically. So, there are 2 pathways that meet in the hippocampus, one from the ears, one about food expectation. The more the two are presented together, the more chemicals from the sound pathway excite the food pathway. Over time, this connection basically turns the 2 pathways into a single response.

From a developmental point of view, a concept called neuroplasticity would be relevant. Basically, brain cells to not develop with a great deal of specification. There is some, but nothing is set up. A good example of this is an experiment done with kittens. Some kittens were reared in an environment devoid of horizontal lines, and when later presented with horizontal lines, were unable to properly perceive and interact with them. Another kitten experiment had scientists cover one eye on many kittens as they went through their development period. Some, had the eye uncovered part way through. Those that had the eye covered the whole time only developed half a visual system, and some of the cortical area normally used for vision was being used for something else, whereas the kittens whose eye was uncovered developed a proper visual system. This works because of how neurons communicate with each other. Each neuron (generalization) has an axon and many dendrites. When neurotrasnmitters (chemicals) are released at the axon, they interact with the dendrites of the next neuron and either excite or inhibit its action. during brain development, the axons and dendrites of neurons have yet to connect or create proper connections. As stimuli hit the sensory organs (eyes ears mouth and nose... lol) those neurons release chemical signals that the neurons who will eventually connect to that neuron are sensitive to, and they grow either axons or dendrites in that direction (for some reason I think the neurons themselves can migrate based on these chemical signals). Once these connections are made, specialization occurs and the brain keeps and uses the strongest pathways.

blah, hopefully thats good. I'll leave it at that in case it doesn't make sense.

WrathfulDwarf
So if all information passes through the eye and all that chemical mechanism happen....then I wonder how does a blind person ever fall in love with another person?

Must be some sneaky chemical reaction in the eyes...






....

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
So if all information passes through the eye and all that chemical mechanism happen....then I wonder how does a blind person ever fall in love with another person?

Must be some sneaky chemical reaction.

through the nose...

inimalist
Originally posted by inimalist
well, it is and it isn't. People get caught up in the chemicals, and they are HIGHLY important, but, for instance, the substantia nigra uses dopamine to both excite and inhibit areas in the pre-motor cortex to either produce or prevent movement. Everything is chemicals, but there is little explanatory power in saying a chemical is responsible for something. There are cases, but my reading of it is that more stuff is explained better using interaction of patterns of firing across many connected brain areas rather than chemical signals.

Love being a chemical reaction is not an idiotic claim. You reading is a chemical reaction, you moving is a chemical reaction.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
through the nose...

I would go with touching most likely....

inimalist
lol, I'm going to be wondering about that for days now....

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I would go with touching most likely....

Not really. We all become attracted by smell first. wink

But what does that have to do with any god?

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not really. We all become attracted by smell first. wink

But what does that have to do with any god?

Jesus is love.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Jesus is love.

Jesus died over 2000 years ago. no expression

inimalist
love is dead

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus died over 2000 years ago. no expression

Originally posted by inimalist
love is dead

"Death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while."

You two should be more romantic and watch The Princess Bride. wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
"Death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while."

You two should be more romantic and watch The Princess Bride. wink

puke
embarrasment

WrathfulDwarf
lol

Jbill311
Originally posted by inimalist
love is dead

The king is dead. Long live the King

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Bardock42
How would you prove that God can not love without chemicals? simple all love is based on chemicals and hormones. without them it isnt possible. so unless christians are saying god has gormones, then he cannot love. if he DOES have hormones, he is flawed and therefore imperfect.

EDITembarrasmentk inimalist if its a nuerological reaction, it doesnt change my point. it still has inherant flaws to it which is my overall point. i was under the impression it was all chemical, thanks for rectifying that.

digi i was just rantin a lil bit lol. not to over zealous ive been debating this with my friends. i would like someone to state how love for something can be possible without chemicals or neurons or any other handicap.

Deja~vu
Well if we don't feel love, then what is it? confused

Okay, it's just a spiritual revelation. An awakening to the power of of.........umm.

Okay, something bigger. There!

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Well if we don't feel love, then what is it? confused

Okay, it's just a spiritual revelation. An awakening to the power of of.........umm.

Okay, something bigger. There! you completely missed the point didntcha? we feel love, god cant. its a chemical/neurological reaction, and god dont have a brain

Deja~vu
are you sure? What if we are IT's brain.

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
you completely missed the point didntcha? we feel love, god cant. its a chemical/neurological reaction, and god dont have a brain

There are dozens of wonderful, logical atheist arguments you could use, but you decided to be a genius and use this one. Wow. Just remember we still love you after your argument gets sandblasted forty light years beyond the borders of Chuck Norris's Kingdom...

Before I get to that though, let me just point out that according to the most correct religion on the face of the earth (no this isn't bias just pure truth laughing out loud ), God has a physical body. Most of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews don't have any idea but that's their mistake!

Even if he were in spirit form though (as the misled majority of believers believe), the most obvious flaw in your argument is that the creator of brains couldn't possibly have the equivalent of a brain.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I agree with you there.


Xmarksthespot however, another fellow KMC scientist, argued that Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. I'm glad another scientifically well informed poster argued against that idiotic claim thumb up
LOL.

So it's gone from chemicals to neural impulses? Still ain't a whole lot there for you, SODomy.

(Haha, that's your new name.)

Jbill311
I think the Idea that god has love for his 'creations' is in the mystical sense that love is a force, not as a function of the brain. If you consider that he 'loves' those that go to hell, I'm almost afraid of what happens if someone less 'perfect' loves me.

(especially if they are omnipotent!)

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
There are dozens of wonderful, logical atheist arguments you could use, but you decided to be a genius and use this one. Wow. Just remember we still love you after your argument gets sandblasted forty light years beyond the borders of Chuck Norris's Kingdom...

Before I get to that though, let me just point out that according to the most correct religion on the face of the earth (no this isn't bias just pure truth laughing out loud ), God has a physical body. Most of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews don't have any idea but that's their mistake!

Even if he were in spirit form though (as the misled majority of believers believe), the most obvious flaw in your argument is that the creator of brains couldn't possibly have the equivalent of a brain. but bein illogical is way more fun! plus i have something to prove to my douche of a friend, who was on the forum for a while and will be coming back i tink(transfinitum) its actually a good point if you think about, because once you prove god is imperfect, you basically destroy a christians credibility

Devil King
Love isn't dead. In fact, the entire basis of this thread is bullshit.


Love isn't a matter of hormones or the argument between choice and genetics. What is important is that of the understanding that love is both hormones and the willingness to ignore, consider every thing above. Some times love is based on appearence; some times it based on understanding.

Love is what you make of it and what you are willing to understand about it. There is no "perfect" person out there, waiting for you. But there are those with whom you are willing to make "it" work.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by chickenlover98
simple all love is based on chemicals and hormones. without them it isnt possible. so unless christians are saying god has gormones, then he cannot love. if he DOES have hormones, he is flawed and therefore imperfect.

EDITembarrasmentk inimalist if its a nuerological reaction, it doesnt change my point. it still has inherant flaws to it which is my overall point. i was under the impression it was all chemical, thanks for rectifying that.

digi i was just rantin a lil bit lol. not to over zealous ive been debating this with my friends. i would like someone to state how love for something can be possible without chemicals or neurons or any other handicap.
Good grief, that's retarded.

NURH GOD DONT HAVE A BODY SO HE CANT LURVE

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Good grief, that's retarded.

NURH GOD DONT HAVE A BODY SO HE CANT LURVE prove that he can love. great rebuttal there dumbass. thumb up

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
but bein illogical is way more fun! plus i have something to prove to my douche of a friend, who was on the forum for a while and will be coming back i tink(transfinitum) its actually a good point if you think about, because once you prove god is imperfect, you basically destroy a christians credibility

I must agree sometimes you've just gotta be illogical...we all feel the need sometimes. So you'll forgive me I'm sure that I feel the need to call RETARD on the genius who is attempting to chemically overturn Christianity.

The core of your argument is that perfection requires chemicals that God doesn't have. But it isn't like chemicals in the human brain are exactly perfect. I sure hope God would behave differently than a person. The last thing we need is a normal brain with normal chemicals controlling the universe.

~KoK!~
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect Ok, I think you're getting a tad confused here.

Love is not a chemical reaction with hormones and shit. That would be attraction and infatuation. And while those two things CAN play a part in love, they don't necessarily. If you were to go up to some random guy on the street, and ask him if he loved his mother, he'd probably say yes. But does that mean he wants to **** his mother? Probably not, unless he's into incest. But that's another topic entirely.


Love is a thought, an abstract concept created by humans. Love is when you'd sacrifice yourself for someone else. Love is when you stay at the hospital for two straight days after your best friend got a heart attack. Love is breaking into tears when your mother dies. Love is putting someone else before yourself, regardless of whether or not the target does the same.

Infatuation and attraction is wanting to **** somebody. Does that mean you'll put them before yourself? Not necessarily. Hell, I probably wouldn't take a bullet for some random chick with a nice rack and a tramp stamp. So your whole thesis is just straight-up wrong from the get-go.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you completely missed the point didntcha? we feel love, god cant. its a chemical/neurological reaction, and god dont have a brain

How could you POSSIBLY know that? Assuming that the Bible is true, it states that man was made "In god's image." That would insinuate that God has a brain, yet one without error.

And if the bible's wrong about that part, then God might not have a "brain" but it could be safely assumed that he has something similar/greater.

And if you assume the Bible is completely wrong, teh WHY bother argueing this point?

Quark_666
Originally posted by ~KoK!~
Ok, I think you're getting a tad confused here.

Love is not a chemical reaction with hormones and shit. That would be attraction and infatuation. And while those two things CAN play a part in love, they don't necessarily. If you were to go up to some random guy on the street, and ask him if he loved his mother, he'd probably say yes. But does that mean he wants to **** his mother?

Freud might give quite an interesting answer...

~KoK!~
Originally posted by Quark_666
Freud might give quite an interesting answer... I was actually thinknig of Freud when I typed that, but I really don't care enough to mention him.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that he can love. great rebuttal there dumbass. thumb up
Re-tarded. I can't prove anything about God since He's untestable. For me, that doesn't matter. For someone as wycked smrt as you, though, I realize that this is not enough.

Devil King
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Re-tarded. I can't prove anything about God since He's untestable.

Because he doesn't exist in a word with measures or standerds like straight or gay or black or white or Jew or chiristian or Muslim or American or text books or colouring books. But you go on thinking that hating people because they disagree with you is worthy of superficial condemnation. It's certainly of little interest to god.

Otherwise, he's testable.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Devil King
But you go on thinking that hating people because they disagree with you is worthy of superficial condemnation. It's certainly of little interest to god./B]
You're going to have to elaborate because I'm afraid I don't understand your insult.

Devil King
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You're going to have to elaborate because I'm afraid I don't understand your insult.

yeah, that's why you responded.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
I realize that bitchiness is an inherent side-effect of having the gay, but would you care to clarify your post, y/n?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Re-tarded. I can't prove anything about God since He's untestable. For me, that doesn't matter.

It should.

What's the famous quote..."The invisible and the non-existant look the same." Yeah, that's it.

erm


....


Also, no one responded to my beautiful diatribe on consciousness and love on page 2. Go read it now. Respond, I say! Respond!

embarrasment

chickenlover98
me thinks im gonna stop posting on this particular thread, im beginning to sound like a douche bag(thats cause of zeal btw)

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by chickenlover98
me thinks im gonna stop posting on this particular thread, im beginning to sound like a douche bag(thats cause of zeal btw)
You bring out your own douchery.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You bring out your own douchery. you should trademark that word, i love it

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I realize that bitchiness is an inherent side-effect of having the gay, but would you care to clarify your post, y/n?

I wouldn't say bitchiness was an inherent side effect of being gay, unless you are gay. wink

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wouldn't say bitchiness was an inherent side effect of being gay, unless you are gay. wink
Gayness causes bitchiness, but bitchiness does not necessarily indicate gayitude.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Gayness causes bitchiness, but bitchiness does not necessarily indicate gayitude.

That is a false statement. Bitchiness comes from immaturity.

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
me thinks im gonna stop posting on this particular thread, im beginning to sound like a douche bag(thats cause of zeal btw)

You are now thinking of yourself the same way you think of God?

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is a false statement. Bitchiness comes from immaturity.
Uh-huh.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
You are now thinking of yourself the same way you think of God? yup. cept im a douche on a much smaller scale than god.

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
yup. cept im a douche on a much smaller scale than god.

For an atheist you presume to know a lot about God's personality stick out tongue

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
For an atheist you presume to know a lot about God's personality stick out tongue was waitin for the to come up. im speakin in teh hypotheticals

Devil King
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You're going to have to elaborate because I'm afraid I don't understand your insult.

Despite your self-lauding regarding your by-the-rules pretend perspective, you dismiss the validity of actual scientific methods in favor of mocking others who point out the inconsistant nature of the real agenda-pushing methods of the people who support your perspective.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Devil King
Despite your self-lauding regarding your by-the-rules pretend perspective, you dismiss the validity of actual scientific methods in favor of mocking others who point out the inconsistant nature of the real agenda-pushing methods of the people who support your perspective.
In other words, I call you on your "OMG XTIAN" bullshit.

Got it.

Deja~vu
Are you gonna celebrate X-mas?

ushomefree
According to the Holy Bible, human beings were made in the image of God; more specifically, addressing the core issue, human beings have consciences. We human beings are spiritual. Human beings are not merely "machines"--so to speak--computing stimulus. Human beings have the capacity to question and reason, not to mention "experience" cause and effect; joy and happiness--love too--produces certain chemical reactions in the human nervous system. But, we human beings, are not machines. Human beings actually "experience" stimulus. For instance, you know what it is like to be you. Do computers? No! Computers merely compute stimulus. Computers are not alive. Do you understand? Human beings--in every day life--make decisions based upon the conscience; many would argue that this point to the supernatural. But that is a different conversation all together. Or is it?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree


According to the Holy Bible, human beings were made in the image of God; more specifically, addressing the core issue, human beings have consciences. We human beings are spiritual. Human beings are not merely "machines"--so to speak--computing stimulus. Human beings have the capacity to question and reason, not to mention "experience" cause and effect; joy and happiness--love too--produces certain chemical reactions in the human nervous system. But, we human beings, are not machines. Human beings actually "experience" stimulus. For instance, you know what it is like to be you. Do computers? No! Computers merely compute stimulus. Computers are not alive. Do you understand? Human beings--in every day life--make decisions based upon the conscience; many would argue that this point to the supernatural. But that is a different conversation all together. Or is it? im gonna destroy ur computer argument in about 1 line. scientists will make it possibl to download your brain in within 10 years. we experience thing through reactions chemicals or not. and if we were made in gods image god must have a shitload of flaws

ushomefree
Okay... look... first of all, we are not God; we are merely creations of God--in His image, as I said. All that stipulates--in a nut shell--is that you and I are not robots. We have free will, "experience" life, and understand the meaning of intrinsic value; we all value ourselves. This has nothing to do with "capabilities!" Anyway, back to the point, computers, for example, do not experience life--calculations and commands. They are dead--non-living. Computers will never be able to vote (ha ha ha)! And by the way... the root of you first comment is a bit short-sighted. Scientists will never be able to "download" your thoughts and emotions. Why you actually entertain the notion is beside me. Scientists, in the future, will be able to better "map" brain activity, but that is about as exotic as it gets. Where do you get this information from?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree
Okay... look... first of all, we are not God; we are merely creations of God--in His image, as I said. All that stipulates--in a nut shell--is that you and I are not robots. We have free will, "experience" life, and understand the meaning of intrinsic value; we all value ourselves. Computers, for example, do not experience life--calculations and commands. They are dead--non-living. Computers will never be able to vote (ha ha ha)! And by the way... the root of you first comment is a bit short-sighted. Scientists will never be able to "download" your thoughts and emotions. Why you actually entertain the notion is beside me. Scientists, in the future, will be able to better "map" brain activity, but that is about as exotic as it gets. Where do you get this information from? we dont have free will. not if theres a god. my info? oh ya know prominent technology sites/magazines. you would know right? just because you dont think it will happen doesnt mean it wont. go to engadget.com and search downloading brain or something similar. or google it for christ sakes

ushomefree
Well, if human beings do not have free will, how were you able to write me back, or even open this thread for the matter?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree
Well, if human beings do not have free will, how were you able to write me back, or even open this thread for the matter? let me put it this way. if god is all knowing, then he knows what we are going to do before we do it, from the moment of our birth. therefore we are INSTANTLY condemned to heaven or hell. therefore free will doesnt matter.

dadudemon
Originally posted by chickenlover98
let me put it this way. if god is all knowing, then he knows what we are going to do before we do it, from the moment of our birth. therefore we are INSTANTLY condemned to heaven or hell. therefore free will doesnt matter.

Exactly. Why would he create us and give us the chance to fail or succeed by measurements set by Eternal Laws IF he knew the outcome before he organized our spirits?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by dadudemon
Exactly. Why would he create us and give us the chance to fail or succeed by measurements set by Eternal Laws IF he knew the outcome before he organized our spirits? im glad someone understands. ^_^

ushomefree
Guys, I understand the premise; I really do. However, having knowledge on one's course of action, does not warrant that he/she does not have free will. The "action" was not "forced."

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree
Guys, I understand the premise; I really do. However, having knowledge on one's course of action, does not warrant that he/she does not have free will. The "action" was not "forced." im gonna use a simple argument here. if we create bunnies in a testube then proceed to torture them for no reason it is unjust right? god creates us with the knowledge of our condemnation. therefore he is no different. he is condemning us to torture

ushomefree
First and foremost, hell is not a torture chamber; hell is "separation from God--from all that matters." Period. The Bible describes hell as a place of eternal fire and torment. Anyone who has read the Bible--and has made effort to study the meaning of such--knows that "fire" commonly refers to eternal "judgement," not a bunsen burner. The torment aspect describes one's spiritual/mental state. All who dwell in hell realize that they have sinned against God, the one who they owe their entire existence to. And God, being holy and pure, not to mention a judge, has not choice but to punish evil. If God did not do such, it would go against God's very nature and being! To put this into perspective, it would be, for example, you having anal sex with a 10 year old boy. You would never--ever!--commit or give in to such nonsense. If you did so, however, you would be, in retrospect, denying yourself and all that you stand for. Understand? In any case, God being our creator--our designer--knows what is best for us; hence God's commandments. Jesus summed all the commandments in one sentence by saying: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Such commandments were in our best interest to experience life to the fullest, not to be a bully or a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants. But yes, God did know that you and I could not be perfect; we are not God (or Gods). If you had read the Hebrew Bible, you'd know that God knew this in advance; hence Jesus the Christ to redeem mankind--in faith--to have eternal life in heaven. It ain't a raw deal, and God did all the work for you and I. God took the punishment upon Himself! Jesus' last words were: "It is complete."

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
First and foremost, hell is not a torture chamber; hell is "separation from God--from all that matters." Period. The Bible describes hell as a place of eternal fire and torment. Anyone who has read the Bible--and has made effort to study the meaning of such--knows that "fire" commonly refers to eternal "judgement," not a bunsen burner. The torment aspect describes one's spiritual/mental state. All who dwell in hell realize that they have sinned against God, the one who they owe their entire existence to. And God, being holy and pure, not to mention a judge, has not choice but to punish evil. If God did not do such, it would go against God's very nature and being! To put this into perspective, it would be, for example, you having anal sex with a 10 year old boy. You would never--ever!--commit or give in to such nonsense. If you did so, however, you would be, in retrospect, denying yourself and all that you stand for. Understand? In any case, God being our creator--our designer--knows what is best for us; hence God's commandments. Jesus summed all the commandments in one sentence by saying: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Such commandments were in our best interest to experience life to the fullest, not to be a bully or a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants. But yes, God did know that you and I could not be perfect; we are not God (or Gods). If you had read the Hebrew Bible, you'd know that God knew this in advance; hence Jesus the Christ to redeem mankind--in faith--to have eternal life in heaven. It ain't a raw deal, and God did all the work for you and I. God took the punishment upon Himself! Jesus' last words were: "It is complete."

Hell is only in your mind. wink

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ushomefree
First and foremost, hell is not a torture chamber; hell is "separation from God--from all that matters." Period. The Bible describes hell as a place of eternal fire and torment. Anyone who has read the Bible--and has made effort to study the meaning of such--knows that "fire" commonly refers to eternal "judgement," not a bunsen burner. The torment aspect describes one's spiritual/mental state. All who dwell in hell realize that they have sinned against God, the one who they owe their entire existence to. And God, being holy and pure, not to mention a judge, has not choice but to punish evil. If God did not do such, it would go against God's very nature and being! To put this into perspective, it would be, for example, you having anal sex with a 10 year old boy. You would never--ever!--commit or give in to such nonsense. If you did so, however, you would be, in retrospect, denying yourself and all that you stand for. Understand? In any case, God being our creator--our designer--knows what is best for us; hence God's commandments. Jesus summed all the commandments in one sentence by saying: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Such commandments were in our best interest to experience life to the fullest, not to be a bully or a kid with a magnifying glass burning ants. But yes, God did know that you and I could not be perfect; we are not God (or Gods). If you had read the Hebrew Bible, you'd know that God knew this in advance; hence Jesus the Christ to redeem mankind--in faith--to have eternal life in heaven. It ain't a raw deal, and God did all the work for you and I. God took the punishment upon Himself! Jesus' last words were: "It is complete." if hell is separation from god im here buddy, we're both in hell.

EDIT: and further more, my point is that just cause god created us does not give him the right to do whatever he wants to us

Dark-Jaxx
Me and my toaster love eachother, and my toaster doesn't have chemicals or any of that bullshit. no expression

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Me and my toaster love eachother, and my toaster doesn't have chemicals or any of that bullshit. no expression **** yo toaster nigga

Dark-Jaxx
Originally posted by chickenlover98
**** yo toaster nigga Niggaplulz.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Niggaplulz. get the hell out my hizzizzouse

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
im gonna use a simple argument here. if we create bunnies in a testube then proceed to torture them for no reason it is unjust right? god creates us with the knowledge of our condemnation. therefore he is no different. he is condemning us to torture

There is a difference. The difference is we aren't willing to sacrifice our lives to help those bunnies.

Or at least I'm not, even though I have had a few affectionate relationships...

Captain REX
Please don't make comments like that, Chickenlover. I know they were in jest, but they can offend someone.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Captain REX
Please don't make comments like that, Chickenlover. I know they were in jest, but they can offend someone. sorry just saw a perfect oppurtunity and i just HAD to go for it. my apologies

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
There is a difference. The difference is we aren't willing to sacrifice our lives to help those bunnies.

Or at least I'm not, even though I have had a few affectionate relationships... just like with the purple deathsquirrel eh?

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
just like with the purple deathsquirrel eh?

Well......we've kinda got something going on behind the bunny's back but keep it quiet!

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
Well......we've kinda got something going on behind the bunny's back but keep it quiet! hey i wouldnt mess up ur relationship with the squirrel man, but the beavers all mine.

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
hey i wouldnt mess up ur relationship with the squirrel man, but the beavers all mine.

Fine with me. But we'll leave the porcupines to WrathfulDwarf.

Read this. You'll see what I mean: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f75/t478493.html

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
Fine with me. But we'll leave the porcupines to WrathfulDwarf.

Read this. You'll see what I mean: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f75/t478493.html LOL

dadudemon
Originally posted by chickenlover98
hey i wouldnt mess up ur relationship with the squirrel man, but the beavers all mine.


HAHA....that was awesome.

Indeed....the "beavers'...heh heh. shifty

chickenlover98
Originally posted by dadudemon
HAHA....that was awesome.

Indeed....the "beavers'...heh heh. shifty least u got it embarrasment

~KoK!~
Originally posted by chickenlover98
im gonna destroy ur computer argument in about 1 line. scientists will make it possibl to download your brain in within 10 years. we experience thing through reactions chemicals or not. and if we were made in gods image god must have a shitload of flaws For someone who apparently believes only in science, you have a very tenuous grasp on how technology works.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by ~KoK!~
For someone who apparently believes only in science, you have a very tenuous grasp on how technology works. computer technology is coming to the point where it can replicate emotion. the ability to "download" ones brain isnt that far off.

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
computer technology is coming to the point where it can replicate emotion. the ability to "download" ones brain isnt that far off.

Um, yeah it is. What you mean to say is, programmers can simulate some effects of a brain, but that is all experimental. The relationship between psychiatry and neurology is becoming easier to define, but both rely on each other. You have no idea how tough it would be to create a program that runs like a brain.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
im gonna destroy ur computer argument in about 1 line.

Obviously not. His argument has yet to be "destroyed".

Originally posted by chickenlover98
scientists will make it possibl to download your brain in within 10 years.

We aren't even getting to mars until 2025. Quit basing your science off star trek.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
A scathing rebuke.

Quark_666
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
A scathing rebuke.

Not meant to be. I already know chickenlover is joking about half the stuff he posts. I usually feel like going along, but sometimes ya just get the urge to contradict somebody in a rude way.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
Not meant to be. I already know chickenlover is joking about half the stuff he posts. I usually feel like going along, but sometimes ya just get the urge to contradict somebody in a rude way. actually im being quite serious about this. ill link you to an article if youd like.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/24/pearson-sees-downloaded-brains-in-our-future/

i made an error im sorry it was in the next 50 years, my bad sad

Quark_666
Okay, that sounds plausible. And Ian Pearson has been pretty accurate about his predictions so far (with a few obvious exceptions of course...his job isn't an easy one lol).

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
Okay, that sounds plausible. And Ian Pearson has been pretty accurate about his predictions so far (with a few obvious exceptions of course...his job isn't an easy one lol). thx. though the thought of that kind of scares me.

Bicnarok
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect

"LOVE" there you go, that word is made of bits of electrical pixels, no hormones or chemicals, pure energysmile

Council#13
Originally posted by chickenlover98
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect

Do we even know what Love really is? Chemicals and hormones. Aren't those things usually used when referring to lust?

willofthewisp
I don't really understand the question. As a Christian and psychology major, I can confirm the fact that your brain and the rest of your body do undergo physical changes when you "fall in love." It even undergoes physical changes when you just see your loved one.

As a Christian, I believe that God is love. Are you asking me to prove that God doesn't have those physical changes when he experiences love? It's a typical question an atheist would ask, if you want my opinion. God does not have a physical body if he does not want one and therefore does not have hormones or nerves that interpret various stimuli.

When God decided to come down here and become a human, Jesus, he did so in part so he could have the human experience. He then did have hormones and chemicals in a physical body. He went through puberty, pain, hunger, illnesses, etc.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.