Christianity is Morally Bankrupt

Tangle writes: I don't have any beliefs.

Do you believe that there is no god?

Tangle writes: That quote does not cover the whole report. It covers the bit that you think supports your view but it doesn't do that either. What it's saying is that in the people they've tested they've found brain activity that equates to empathy when certain activities that the experimenter does switch it on. In normal conditions the psychopathic brain does not show that activity. In your language that means that the psychopath does not hear the 'still small voice of god' because the switch is set to off.

OK. Here is a quote from the quote.

quote:

---

"Our work shows it's not that simple. They don't lack empathy but they have a switch to turn it on and off. By default, it seems to be off."

The fact that they have the capacity to switch empathy on, at least under certain conditions, could have a positive side to it, Prof Keysers said.

---

The point is that "they don't lack empathy". They do have that "still small voice" but it is by default switched off except that "under certain conditions", THEY have a switch to turn it on.

Another quote:

quote:

---

"Now that we've shown they have empathy - even if only in certain conditions - we can give therapists something to work with," Prof Keysers told BBC News.

Brain activation in criminals with psychopathy was greater when asked to empathise (foreground)
But he explained that it was not yet known how this wilful capacity for empathy could be transformed into the spontaneous empathy most of us have.

---

Yes, the experimenters were able to bring about the conditions but those conditions were also something they could encounter without the experimenters.

In your quote they even say that "even though they CAN empathise doesn't mean they will". I tend to think that you don't have to be a psychopath for that to be true.

Percy writes: Of what use is belief? To be useful an idea must be supported by evidence, and it's even better if the evidence is consistent with the rest of the fabric of evidence, fitting into an accepted framework of understanding. To address the specifics of your comment, if there is no evidence related to the roots of our existence, then anything we think about it is mere belief. But there *is* evidence. Nothing conclusive at this point, but evidence nonetheless.

What evidence are you referring to? It is easy to say that there is evidence without naming it.

I would say there is evidence as well. The fact is we exist with sentience, emotions and even a sense of morality. We can look at the evolutionary process and see how it is that we are the way we are physically. We can even look at Dawkin's meme hypothesis and can see that we are influenced by the cultural replicators that we encounter.

Just because we can discern natural processes at work does not mean that we can discern the underlying intelligence, or lack of intelligence, behind those processes. As I said here multiple times, I contend that the belief that there exist multiple complex natural processes, driven by chance, resulting in even a single cell stretches credibility beyond its limits.

Percy writes: Paley's place in history is due to his Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia. He did go on to draw an analogy with the eye, but your automobile assembly plant example is just Paley's watch analogy.

Turns out you are at least partly correct. Here is from your link.

quote:

---

Others, however, consider the watchmaker analogy to be compatible with evolutionary creation, opining that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

---

I had always taken the view of those who saw Paley as making an argument against evolution but apparently it can also be compatible with evolutionary creation.

Percy writes: I can't tell if you're talking about evolution or the origin of life.

Both

Percy writes: We already know it's turtles all the way down.

...of course that holds true both ways. It is either a regression of God or a regression of processes. At least with theism we have an answer which of course is that God's dimension/universe is not subject to just one dimension of time.

Do you believe that there is no god?

Nonbelievers have no belief that there is a god.
So for most of us we do not believe there is no god. We have no belief there is. Before you start whining, yes there is a difference. At least for me. I cannot speak for others beliefs or lack thereof.

GDR writes: Do you believe that there is no god?

Haven't you learned anything here? Atheists just don't believe in god(s).

I don't believe that there are no god(s), I just don't have a belief in gods. Exactly like I don't have a belief in elves.

GDR writes: The point is that "they don't lack empathy". They do have that "still small voice" but it is by default switched off except that "under certain conditions", THEY have a switch to turn it on.

If your TV is switched off, does it still produce a picture? The TV doesn't lack the ability to receive a picture, someone external to the TV has to switch it on.

Yes, the experimenters were able to bring about the conditions but those conditions were also something they could encounter without the experimenters.

That's just wrong. They're called psychopaths because they don't hear this voice of yours. If they could, they would - the paper is telling you that their ability to empathise is switched off by default. They're now hopeful of finding ways to switch in on.

In your quote they even say that "even though they CAN empathise doesn't mean they will". I tend to think that you don't have to be a psychopath for that to be true.

He's saying that just because a bit of the brain of a psychopath that has had the intervention lights up in the same area as it does when normal people are shown the photograph and told to try to empathise, does not mean that they are actually feeling empathy. That is not known but it sounds hopeful that psychopaths might be able to taught to feel something.

But again, this doesn't help you, this is science trying to fix the creationist's error and meanwhile psychopaths can not hear the creationist's still small voice.

You still haven't told us why he would deny them that voice.

You still haven't told us why he would deny them that voice.

For a nonbeliever, none of this is a problem. Life is what it is. For believers, these sorts of questions cause strife in our conscience and internal world view. I believe that God does not simply make life comfortable for every single one of us. I also believe that there is a reasonable strategy behind why not. It isn't that God is simply cruel and arbitrary and uncaring. Humans are given other humans in need to offer us an opportunity to help them and become stronger ourselves through the process.

Sure it all seems cruel from your standpoint as if you were God and could imagine what YOUR response would be to human problems. But your empathy, while noble, cannot see the complexities of the vast whole. Believers trust that God can see it and that God is good. If you have any repulsive reaction to such a God, (hypothetically, then by all means vent. Talk. Pray. Otherwise, don't just criticize believers for embracing what you charge to be an unreasonable god. You cant judge our God if you yourself dont yell at Him once in awhile.

You cant judge our God if you yourself dont yell at Him once in awhile.

I have never yelled at your god. He does not exist. Your own argument belies it's existence.

Phat writes: For believers, these sorts of questions cause strife in our conscience and internal world view.

Good, that's the point of them - to make you think beyond the propaganda.

Sure it all seems cruel from your standpoint as if you were God and could imagine what YOUR response would be to human problems. But your empathy, while noble, cannot see the complexities of the vast whole. Believers trust that God can see it and that God is good.

You can't see any of this 'complexity' either. You just have a learned belief that won't let you draw the obvious conclusion. Either the god you believe in doesn't exist or he doesn't love you. God can not be both good and kill and torture you. Nor can those that can not hear him be capable of having this free will bunkum that religionists talk about.

All you are saying is 'I believe, I believe, don't trouble me with reality.'

Think for yourself Phat.

What evidence are you referring to? It is easy to say that there is evidence without naming it.

You doubt there's any scientific evidence for how life might have originated? That's way off the topic of this thread (Christianity is Morally Bankrupt), and even of this sub-discussion, but if you'd like to get into it we can pick it up in one the Origin of Life threads, say On the origin of life or The great basic question of science on origin of life or any other one you like. Or you can start a new thread.

Just because we can discern natural processes at work does not mean that we can discern the underlying intelligence, or lack of intelligence, behind those processes.

As Wittgenstein said, "That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent."

As I said here multiple times, I contend that the belief that there exist multiple complex natural processes, driven by chance, resulting in even a single cell stretches credibility beyond its limits.

Again, not the thread to argue this.

Percy writes: I can't tell if you're talking about evolution or the origin of life. Both

They're not the same thing. An appropriate argument against one is not automatically appropriate against the other.

--Percy

Im not certain that believers and unbelievers *see* the same thing. The obvious conclusion for me is that Jesus lives in my heart and soul. He never did before. What you call whacko I call obvious. In addition, the very fact that you call a lack of belief an obvious conclusion shows me the learned belief that rational thinking gave you.

Phat writes: Im not certain that believers and unbelievers *see* the same thing.

Of course they don't.

The obvious conclusion for me is that Jesus lives in my heart and soul. He never did before. What you call whacko I call obvious.

You might call it obvious, but it's obvious only to you and to me it's pure, meaningless drivel. You've been challenged to explain that mantra but you never, ever do.

In addition, the very fact that you call a lack of belief an obvious conclusion shows me the learned belief that rational thinking gave you.

And yet you can't attack the logic that leads to the conclusion.

I'm going to keep asking until you answer, how can the god that loves you also torture and kill you? How can your god withhold his voice from some people but not others

Attacking me does not answer the question - it's just a diversion from something you don't like to think about.

Phat writes: The obvious conclusion for me is that Jesus lives in my heart and soul. He never did before.

Then why is there no outward manifestation of Jesus "living in your heart"?

Then why is there no outward manifestation of Jesus "living in your heart"?

That's not a valid assertion for an internet forum. Neither of us knows if the other guy has any outward manifestation of Jesus in their heart. All that we have to go on is the words each of us writes here at this forum.

You have no idea what I do or do not do except for things I have shared here. Perhaps you should think about withdrawing your assertion and find another chink in my arguments.

Phat writes: ... any outward manifestation of Jesus in their heart

It would help if you told us how to identify and test any outward manifestation of Jesus in their heart.

You see Phat, that's just another meaningless phrase, a feel good cop out to avoid making any sense.

What we do have as evidence is what you post and so far nothing you post has shown any outward manifestation of Jesus in ones heart.