okay, the whole idea between Christianity faith. And there is even a lot of proof still. To give one example, Ezekiel a prophet said there will be a city that which will have their walls destroyed without resistance, the watchtowers crumble and the city dirt will be scraped up to build a bridge. Guess what that’s what alexander the great did with his army. Over 400 years later the ancient city of Tyre was held siege, the romans surrounded it for months and they wanted the people to starve, after a few months they got tired of waiting and broke down the wall and watchtowers to pieces and saw nobody was there. Because the city evacuated to a nearby island. the romans used the rubble to build a bridge to there. that wasn’t enough so they started to scrape the dirt and that was enough, and they got to the island and destroyed it. And btw the bridge is still there, you can see it on google maps.
Nope. Did not happen…read the rest of that verse about never being rebuilt…oh whoops…here it is. I have had coffee on the beachfront.
I think your prophecies are, shall we say, marked by their inaccuracy?
First of all, there is no proof. At best, you might have evidence, but not proof. Secondly, you replied to this:
The base of christianity is that
- a god exists, and
- the character referred to as “jesus” in the bible existed and is the son of a god, and
- this jesus character performed supernatural acts of magic, and
- there is such a thing as supernatural acts of magic
Christianity needs these premises (all of them) to be true to have any merit. Therefore, without these premises being objectively evidenced, christianity does not have a leg to stand on. Without the above premises shown to be true, christianity is just another religion based on myths and wishful thinking. In fact, we can ignore what the bible says here, because the bible is just a book of claims elaborating on the four points I listed above; it is not a collection of evidence. And you cannot use a book of claims to prove the same book of claims has any merit.
Why do you think this hypothetical claim in the bible evidences any deity?
Guess what that’s what all sieges pretty much look like, guess what people predict the lottery every day of every week against massive odds, no deity required.
Cool story, those Romans eh, they sure did get around, tenacious and ingenious, but I saw no objective evidence for any deity, none? You might want to change the thread title to “just other associated things” and remove the word god… 
Don’t you just hate that, right in the middle of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy for a deity, the whole thing is utterly discredited. I’m not going to lie, this is disconcerting. Well it would be if I didn’t understand that the idea of prophecy involves a logical fallacy, and we hadn’t seen this particular canard torn apart like warm bread a gazillion times before.
This is the old “morality must come from God” chestnut that has been debunked time and time again.
When living things exist in groups, and rely on the group for survival, cooperation must exist or the group doesn’t exist.
Let us consider one of the most primitive animals that I know of, called the Portuguese man-o-war jellyfish.
The cnidarian man-o-war is actually a communal organism consisting of many animals living in a colony, and each animal has to do its part for the colony to survive. This entails cooperation. In order for cooperation to exist, each discreet animal must follow certain rules, like “Don’t attack your neighbor,” “Don’t kill our offspring,” and “Share food.”
So, I can argue that even an animal without a backbone and possessing only the most rudimentary, primitive nervous system seems to follow rules of morality.
The cnidarians have been around for a very, very long time . . . perhaps since even before the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago.
“Moral laws” don’t need to be created by God for us any more than they needed to be created by God for the cnidarians.
“Morality” is a by-product of being a social animal.
If we take these ideas a step further, then condsider your own body. White blood cells in your immune system will selfllessly sacrifice themselves in the fight against invading microorganisms. Maybe this can be considered a form of morality as well.
An apologist can take these points in and claim that something so universal must have been created by God, yet claiming “God did it” accomplishes nothing. If we resort to God just because we don’t understand something, then people would still be dying from lightning instead of using lightning rods.
Saying “God creates morality” accomplishes nothing . . . and spares us the hard work of thinking.
Two caims, no evidence, it’s getting more difficult to feign surprise.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Morality doesn’t exist objectively of course, it’s a subjective perception, we use our brains to form beliefs about the world, these include beliefs about what we think is wrong or bad, or paradoxically what is right and good behaviour.
The precursors likely derive from evolving to live in societal groups, as this would be a necessary trait, indeed we see objective evidence of morality and empathy in all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups.
False equivalence fallacy, and I’m being generous. The 1st amendment is the antithesis of the genocidal ethnic cleansing attitude towards all other faiths and religions depicted in the old testament.
You’re a liar, and that one is a straw man fallacy, when I make a claim I research that claim, you’re the one making a claim here, so no one needs to research it for you, which is a shame, as your claims need some research as they exhibit a woeful ignorance of your own religion, and some basic understanding of rational discourse.
Well I can’t predict the future obviously, and I don’t want to indulge this poisoning of the well fallacy, sigh, but if the ignorant biased subjective guff you’ve posted so far is any indicator, then that might well be true. Though rather hilariously you say it as if it is our fault, rather than yours, for the woeful apologetics you’ve presented, something of an irony overload.
Precisely, what we perceive as moral imperatives, likely started as behaviours that either increased or decreased the likelihood we’d reproduce. The rest is our evolved brains ability to imagine, and create complex ideas.
You have no idea at all what Ezekiel a prophet said.
According to Jewish tradition, the Men of the Great Assembly wrote the Book of Ezekiel , based on the prophet’s words. (Ezekiel did not write Ezekiel.)
The Book of Ezekiel describes itself as the words of Ezekiel ben-Buzi, a priest living in exile in the city of Babylon between 593 and 571 BC. Most scholars today accept the basic authenticity of the book, but see in it significant additions by a school of later followers of the original prophet. According to Jewish tradition, the Men of the Great Assembly wrote the Book of Ezekiel, based on the prophet’s words.[16] While the book exhibits considerable unity and probably reflects much of the historic Ezekiel, it is the product of a long and complex history and does not necessarily preserve the very words of the prophet.***[2]
So, what else do you have there skippy? You can’t even say that all that good prophetic stuff what written before it happened and not after. OOPS!
I have what I think are a better set of conditions for the existence of Christianity
- Compassion exists
- Christ is compassion personified
- An individual came to earth who, regardless of who he was, embodied Christ to the point where it got him killed
- To believe in Christ is to understand compassion personified
- Christians belong to the collective personified witnessing and experience of compassion
- Compassion may or may not have the power to heal illnesses. It’s actually irrelevant to believe in Christ based on whether or not the miracles were performed.
- Through compassion we find self forgiveness and true acceptance. Thus Christ, far from simply healing the blind and lame, forgives those who cannot forgive themselves. We find the ability to forgive ourselves through an understanding of the person of Christ
- The person of Christ need not have been sent from heaven to have fully embodied the principles of compassion which his followers took to mean that he was indeed the incarnation of that self same spiritual principle.
And so on and so forth. Once you’ve established what compassion is, the rest is fairly easy to understand. In exactly the same way that Satan is the personification of darkness, Christ is the personification of light. Many nihilists wrestle with the despair of darkness without seeing the comfort which lies in the power of Satan. That being said … Satanism exists on the same tenants as Christianity. However, Satan is the personification of beauty and love and, to this day, no human being has ever been able to embody those principles to the degree that a religious following would form over a single personage. Unless there’s a bunch of satanic cults I’m not aware of, which is quite possible. It’s been a while since I’ve been to my regular meetings.
- So what?
- Anonymous unevidenced hearsay.
- See (2)
- Subjective unevidenced claim.
- See (4)
- There is no objective evidence to support claims for miracles, and they are based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, ipso facto they are irrational by definition.
- Subjective unevidenced hearsay, and it reads like circular gibberish.
- Unevidenced speculation, like claiming unicorns need not be white, or mermaids aren’t necessarily wet to the touch, etc etc…
Nope, I know what compassion means, yet the rest was just a string of unevidenced assumptions you tacked onto it.
Or that Superman is susceptible to Kryptonite? Are you going to even try and evidence any of this at some point? For clarity, I don’t believe Satan exists or that supernatural demons are possible.
I gave up counting the unevidenced assumptions after that, but I got to 7 first.
Compassion can be defined as acting to relieve the suffering of other individuals, based on a sense of empathy and perhaps also with some altruism on top. Thus, the basis here is empathy, which has evolutionary sources, and is exhibited by not only homo sapiens, but also a host of other mammals. No empathy, no compassion.
The rest of your posting becomes irrelevant, as it is based on unevidenced assertions and presupposes supernatural shit. You don’t need supernatural shit to explain or elaborate on a natural phenomenon that has its origins in biology and evolution.
What does it mean, Sheldon?
Do you have first hand experience with Satan?
One need not even posit the existence of Satan to posit and understand Satan as an archetype of the human psyche. In much the same way that Jesus is and always will be an archetype of the human psyche. The difference lies in which spiritual facility we’re talking about.
Of course, this will go nowhere. I already know that. Because you’re going to tell me that compassion is a subjective emotion of the human brain and that even the Nazi’s had compassion. Right? Go ahead. I’d love to hear this again.
You’ve gone and defined it under a scientific paradigm. But the word was defined before the advent of science, biology and the theory of evolution.
Much like how the color red doesn’t gain any further redness because science has theorized light and measured different wavelengths
In fact, we know that the scientific definition of the colour red alone cannot produce the human intuition of red.
Similarly, scientific definitions of compassion as simply rooted in evolutionary mechanism completely dissociates the meaning of the word from the deeper feelings associated with the word.
I’d wager your stunted understanding of the word is not helped by your recourse to science for definitions.
Science would like to think it has domain over spiritual faculties. It doesn’t. Human experience informs us of what human experience is. So, you can call my definition irrelevant and full of spiritual bullshyte, that’s fine with me.
However when you meet a real Christian and you literally feel the compassion flowing out of them, it’s a whole other matter, and your weak scientific definitions mean absolutely nothing.
Compassion is a feeling. Unfortunately, we’re being guided into the day and age where words no longer have meaning. However, we still live in an age where the word “compassion” evokes a sense of its meaning just by hearing it. So does “God”. Something that even Atheists won’t deny if they’re being honest with each other.
But we live in a post modernist world where I might as well just say “pickle” when I mean compassion. We can tag your evolution inspired definition on it and then measure it according to how much “survival potential” and “offspring fidelity factor” it gives the user who demonstrates it.
You mention “altruism”. I wasn’t aware that altruism was something predicted by evolution. Again, we all know what “altruism” means just by the power of language to evoke meaning through sound. But i suspect “altruism” by any definition you’re able to provide in the context of evolution will be shrouded in the selfish desire of an organism to pass on its genes?
Look it up, it will take you a few seconds. Nothing in the definition requires or evidences any of the unevidenced assumptions you made about it.
There’s a definitive answer in the post you’re responding to, but seem to have ignored.
Since humans created the idea, it’s hardly surprising if it reflects notions we have about ourselves. Have you noticed how much Superman resembles humans physically and emotionally?
If you mean Jesus us a man made character that reflects ideas those who created him believed, then yes that’s likely true, whether he actually existed or not, that what they believed is archetypal for all humans and their psyches is more dubious, and again I’d need to see some objective evidence, my psyche recoils from religious laws that endorse slavery for example.
Straw man fallacy, pleased don;t assume you know what I think, and I ill extend you the same courtesy, compassion and morality have different meanings, I can only suggest you learn what those are, as you seem to be wrongly conflated the two.
So what? All words and language evolve and change, they have a current meaning that reflects common usage, language becomes meaningless pretty quickly if we just ignore that.
Colours don’t exist, colors are the result of neural processes in the human visual system, our brains interpret what our visual senses transmit, and this includes color.
Compassion is not a scientific definition? Like all words its definition is based on common usage, I don’t see any connection between science and the definition of compassion?
Another claim, and no pretence of evidence or explanation?
I’d wager that bs is two very obvious lies, one wonders what you hope to gain? Given you’ve been here long enough to know you’ll be called on such nonsense.
Compassion
noun
- sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.
Explain what this has to do with science or it’s methods? I think you don’t have the first clue, still, what science means or what it is, you still seem to be wrongly envisaging something with will or intent. Who knows why?
Well there you go, that’s risible, science can’t think, only people think.
Science can only examine something that offers data, that woo woo is an unevidenced subjective belief, there is no objective evidence it exists outside of the human mind.
have you offered a definition, I must have missed that, all I read was a string of unevidenced non-sequiturs about religious beliefs.
No true Scotsman fallacy, the second claim is risible nonsense. Please explain why you think science defines the word compassion? The Westborough Baptist church, the KKK, the SS, just for three examples, all have or had Christians in them, I’m not sure what’s flowing out of them, but it certainly isn’t compassion.
Gibberish, words don’t provoke a meaning, they carry meaning, and that words can provoke a response is trivially true, and I am dubious any atheists have ever or would ever deny this. What point are you trying to make here?
I can only ask why you believe this absurdity?
He didn’t offer one, nor does evolution, he merely explained the precursors of what we call compassion is empathy, and that empathy would lend a survival advantage to animals that have evolved to live in societal groups is almost trivially true, and research has demonstrated that other animals exhibit empathy. So sulking because you think this objectively evidenced fact, undercuts your unevidenced subjective beliefs is pointless, especially so here.
Yet I my compassion is not diminished because I know it likely has it’s origins in evolution, because it provided a survival benefit. You’re just railing against this objective fact, because it doesn’t evidence or require any woo woo superstition.
it’s been explained to you more than once? If you want to read about it, all you need do is Google it, but the research is well established, as forms part of an accepted scientific theory.
So you were aware of it, you just don’t understand that despite altruism not being mutually exclusive to evolution, and likely providing a survival benefit. FYI this doesn’t mean humans can’t choose to be altruistic in ways that might offer no survival benefit to themselves or their immediate relatives. I certainly have dones so, and am an atheist, who understands how altruism evolved.
Coward.
So, no? Okay. Well, you’re hardly qualified to comment on the nature of love, then, are you?
When did Jesus ever endorse slavery?
Do you think it’s possible to feel a colour?
Maybe because you’re responding to a series of posts you weren’t the author of?
No. This isn’t your thread. Go back and read Old man’s definition of compassion.
Clearly we have an expert in the nuances of metaphor.
On the evolutionary basis of compassion https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/spirituality-special-interest-group-publications-chris-irons-compassion-evolutionary-understandings-and-cft.pdf
Are they Christians then? If they don’t exemplify and live compassion at every point they can, is it true of them that they’re Christians? Christian by name only. Has nothing to do with the true Scotsman. We have countless designations in society which people with no qualifications assume. Being “Christian” is one of them, especially when the core principle that is required of a Christian is to exemplify and live out compassion, KKK members and SS units with “Christians” in them have “imposters”. You got really excited when I said “true Christian” didn’t you?
What does “provoke” mean? Is this farce? You just stated that words don’t provoke meaning while relying on the word “provoke” to establish that?
It was irony. Man. You’re off the ball today Sheldon.
Blah blah blah … yeah … sure. He didn’t evoke evolution to explain compassion. Right.
Now you e completely changed your slant. First you railed on me to provide a science based definition of evolution and here you’re going into the gory details. Funny stuff. I’ve got to admit.
Sheldon. We all know what altruism is. Maybe you didn’t five minutes ago before you read the dictionary definition. I know what it is the moment I read the word. The word encapsulates the concept in language. Language is the use of sound to convey meaning.
There it is. You know what altruism is too! And yet you have succinctly contradicted the concept of altruism by this:
… likely providing a survival benefit …
And how does say, stepping in front of a bus to save an old woman add to my survival benefit?
Ad hominem fallacy. I see you’d rather hurl insults than even try to evidence the string of woo woo claims you made about compassion, duly noted.
Irrelevant non sequitur. You asked a question about Satan that I had already given a definitive answer to, either read it or don’t, but the question was redundant, as it was already answered. I am not following down this latest irrelevant rabbit hole.
Well we cannot know what if anything Jesus did say, but here’s a biblical reference:
1 Peter 2:18
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
He also endorsed old testament law in it’s entirety of course, laws which themselves very specifically endorse slavery, Exodus 21, give it a read.
I find the notion dubious.
No, I am capable of understanding the written word, even when I am not the author. You conflated science and compassion, as if such a claim was made, and I saw no such claim.
This is a public debate forum, and I will post when and how I am minded to. Though it is duly noted you cannot justify your claim at all.
Clearly your claim was nonsensical, thrash about all you want, but science doesn’t think, isn’t sentient, has no will, forms no moral or ethical diktat, it is a collection of methods designed by humans expressly to gain knowledge and help us understand the natural physical world and universe.
Did you have a relevant point?
Since they claimed to be so, yes.
Au contraire, that is a text book use of that fallacy.
No true Scotsman fallacy, and no, I have seen this fallacy used in this context enough times so that it holds no surprise for me at all. Except that people are so relentlessly irrational perhaps.
Look it up, and stop clipping my posts to misrepresent the context, it’s dishonest.
So you don’t believe the meaning of compassion has been corrupted? Then your point escapes me sorry.
I literally said no such thing?
Good to know, but what has this to do with your assertion above, or my response?
Not necessarily to oneself, so an entirely selfless act might lend a survival benefit to a group, or even a species, have you not seen birds calling out to warn a predator approaching? And of course we have also evolved brains capable of making complex choices, so it easy to see why altruism is not mutually exclusive with evolution, which is what you claimed.
Straw man fallacy, as I never said it would. In hypothetical scenarios it is easy to see how an altruistic act, might help a group or species better survive. Have you never seen elephants or buffalo risk themselves to protect other less able members of the group?
" In evolutionary biology, altruism is when an organism behaves in a way that benefits other organisms at its own expense. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or the expected number of offspring. Altruism can be a group phenomenon, but it evolves through individual selection and group selection.
Here are some characteristics of altruism’s evolution:
Opposed by competition
Costly, complex, and slow
Produces imprecise, flexible altruism
Supplemented by group selection"
Which combined with your erroneous claim that altruism and evolution were mutually exclusive, was why I suggested you go read about it.
With increasing knowledge, you can explain things in a better and more precise fashion than before. And with better knowledge, we get better definitions of observed phenomena.
You are wrong. With scientific knowledge about colours and how human vision works, we can create imagery that fools our visual system to fill in and see colours that aren’t there. Like this optical illusion of a black and white photo “coloured” with a grid:
What seems like blue, green, red, etc. in the image is not.
When people in pre-scientific civilizations looked up at the sky and look at stars, they saw tiny dots, and they had no idea what they were. They hypothesized shit like a dome with small, discrete light sources, and other fanciful “explanations” to what they saw. Today, we know that they are, in fact, suns, of which many are much bigger than our own sun. This knowledge does not change our visual perception of them, but it changes what we think when we look at them. And we now know that “falling stars” are not stars that fall, but burning trails of light caused by a meteoroid entering the Earth’s atmosphere. So with this knowledge, the definition of “falling star” has changed.
It wasn’t until the understanding we obtained from the works of Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei that we started to understand that the sun does not circle around the earth, but that the earth revolves around the sun in a heliocentric system, and it is the spin of the earth that causes night and day. This does not change how we visually percieve things. It still looks like the sun rises, but the term “sunrise” has changed its definition with this new knowledge.
The Greek philosopher Anaxagoras was the first known person to figure out that the moon does not emit its own light, but “only” reflects sunlight. This realisation changed how the moon was perceived, i.e. not as a glowing body but as a reflecting body. So the term “moonshine” has different definitions that reflects what you know (or think you know) about the light reflected/seemingly emitted by the moon.
So again, you are wrong. Knowledge changes our perception of what we look at. The colour red (or any other colour) is created by the visual system of your brain based on input through your eyes. And your brain can be tricked to see redness where there is no redness. Thus, the human intution of red can fail you because someone with a little knowledge about human visual systems and the physics of colours can trick you.
Before I enter into a debate about “spiritual faculties”, please define what you mean by “spiritual” and “spiritual faculties”.
Not so much predicted, but explained, as altruism was a “thing” before the principles of evolution were formulated. See the Wikipedia page on Altruism, and its evolutionary explanations.
Those were Peter’s words. Not Jesus’. And Jesus also said:
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matt 5:22 - this was in response to whether or not Jesus had come to fulfill the laws of Moses. He said he did but he also said the above. Like a lot of the things Jesus said it has to be analyzed under the eye of compassion.
For example, Jesus did not endorse physical abuse when he said “turn the other cheek,”. Same with slavery.
Well, you can. You can hear colour and you can feel it too. It’s utterly irrelevant at this point however.
Gatekeeper of the Atheist Forum.
So that we can manipulate it for profit or gain. Noted. Thank you for clarifying that.
lol. That’s it! That’s the criteria for being a Christian. If I claim to be a frog, am I a frog 
?
I thought you liked it when I lied to you?
I’ve heard it. I’ve never seen a bird make a sound. Do they open their beaks real wide and scream out? We can see sounds now?
It’s called “free will”. What’s the gene for that behavior by the way? Since it’s genetically predetermined in members of the species who are equipped better to survive, there’s no actual concern for the other birds going on here, is there? It’s just a genetically predetermined behaviour which leads to a higher survival rate of genetically related members of the species.
Behavioural genetics is a reductionist, deterministic approach to talking about macroscopic phenomena. It demystifies that which is better off mystified. For example, you may have noticed the weather changing. People talk about “Fall coming” - and describe the coming of Fall in sentimental terms. A behavioural geneticist would approach this phenomenon by starting with “we have to demystify the whole thing” and then carry on describing such phenomena in terms of the parts of the brain which fire when the experience occurs, which genes account for the structure of the those brain areas and how they might have evolved over time. And then we feed these analysis to younger generations. Before we know it, we have a whole generation of young people who don’t know what it means to feel that “Fall is in the air.” At least in this case, the scientific endeavour has succeeded only in ruining the moment for everyone else.
Well. Even if everything you say is true, they shouldn’t be tricking people.
Sure. “Spiritual” - pertaining to the ability of the mind to determine itself according to the contents of the heart.
“Spiritual Faculties” - the emotional areas of the heart which pertain to both positive and negative spiritual states.
In particular we have these five distinctions:
- Faith
- Conscience
- Power
- Energy
- Wisdom
Wherein the heart is lacking in the above mentioned faculties, we have, respectively speaking:
- Anxiety
- Ill will
- Fatigue
- Torpor
- Doubt
Wherein the heart has a surplus, overused abundance of the the above mentioned faculties, we have (as a sort of corruption of spirit) these five respective qualities:
- Lust
- Shame
- Restlessness
- Sloth
- Self criticism
In the search for what I call “spirituality” one develops the spiritual faculties to arrive at the following respective spiritual manifestations of consciousness:
- Loving kindness
- Compassion
- Authority
- Sympathetic Joy
- Equanimity
To “be spiritual” is to develop the heart such that the internal mind and external awareness are filled, imbued, saturated, and concentrated with the above mentioned qualities.
To the degree that one is certain there are things which cannot be explained by science, the above mentioned spiritual manifestations of consciousness are particularly relevant. Science does not have the tools to quantify “compassion” for example. And since Christianity has largely failed to impact the majority of people in the world (as it has been able to successfully in the past) our society has largely moved away from a collective ethos which would facilitate the “oral tradition” (if you will) that is necessary for young people to transition into a world that goes beyond mere nihilism.
Nihilism is a root cause for anxiety. This is the effective thought, “I can’t do this.” And the frustration and fear surrounding that thought. In contrast, the underlying root of compassion is the thought “I want to do this.” So where as many young people today are merely struggling with the question “can I survive in this world” and many are just faking it till they make it. Once you’ve made it, the angst is in the thought “I don’t want to do this.”’ To want to do “life” is kind of like Nietzsches will to power, if Neitzche had ever been able to drag himself out of the abyss and realize the saving power of compassion.
To that extent one further develops the mind by concentrating inwardly, then outwardly, such that rapture, tranquility, and bliss are achieved. Having accomplished this task, the mind is put to the task of eliminating three moral corruptions:
- Greed
- Hatred
- Delusion
And that is the whole of the spiritual path in a nutshell.
The words of his closest disciple allegedly, so if you are going to consider the biblical claims valid, on what grounds are you dismissing these? Jesus specifically endorses all old testament law, including the very specific endorsements of slavery in Exodus 21, you didn’t address that at all, surprise surprise?
Read exodus 21, he specifically endorses that and all other old testament law, and this includes endorses beating slaves, even to death, as long as they don’t die within 48 hours.
I don’t believe your bar claim, as it is (as usual) unsupported by any objective evidence? If it’s utterly irrelevant wtf did you raise it?
That’s another rather silly lie, as I neither said or implied any such thing.
That’s a false equivalence fallacy, right on the heels of your previous no true Scotsman fallacy, your original assertion was simply untrue, though I doubt you even remember or care what that was.
Are sound and sight mutually exclusive? More dishonest deflection, rather than admit you were wrong about altruism and evolution being mutually exclusive.
You’re missing the point, deliberately I suspect, altruism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, though I’d love to see you even try and evidence how you know what birds think, Dr Doolittle.
This is a common desire among people who want to preserve woo woo superstitious beliefs.
Muscle and blood?
Emotions are created by the brain, your heart is a pump made of muscle.
Not one shred of objective evidence offered, it’s woo woo nonsense.
This is a textbook no true Scotsman fallacy, that creates a subgroup, to remove anyone you subjectively deem sufficiently lacking in compassion, as “not Christian”.
By your rationale mother teresa was not a christian, since she not only revelled in the suffering of others, but believed the more they suffered the closer to Jesus they became? I look forward to you mangling the definition of compassion or returning to a no true Scotsman fallacy to deny the fact she was a Christian, or denying the well established objective evidence of her lack of compassion for the suffering of others.
Do you with this promote not understanding whatever you are talking about?
False dichotomy fallacy. It is quite possible to understand a natural phenomenon, and at the same time enjoy its perceived beauty. In fact, after having studied physics and read up on other natural science fields, I am enjoying certain natural processes and phenomena even more, now that I better understand what is actually going on.
The point is not in the tricking people part. The point is that you can’t trust your intuition of “redness” (or whatever) to be a failsafe and nonerring way of perceiving your environments. If you are wrong about such a simple thing as perceiving colours, what else might you be wrong about?
Besides, if you trust your intuition when asserting something, and that intuition turns out to not be correct or not trustworthy - aren’t you the one tricking people by making your audience believe false shite?
The heart is a muscle with cavities that contain blood. So, you define “spiritual” as the ability of the mind to determine itself according to blood. Which does not make sense. Unless you didn’t mean this literally, but in some figurative sense. Either way, your definition is indirect, unclear, imprecise, and sets the stage for later moving of the goalposts. Try again.
The emotional areas of a muscle? Emotions are associated with a brain, which is a huge collection of neurons, not muscle tissue. You also introduce “positive and negative spiritual states”, which you do not define. So far, this seems like a circular definition - you define spirituality to have something to do with the heart, and then you define “spiritual factulties” to have something to do with emotional states, which is associated with the brain.
Please try again.
Power is the rate of energy per time unit. Energy can be kinetic or potential, and can be stored in several possible ways and states. The rest needs to be defined. Besides, I don’t get what the physics terms power and energy have to do with the rest of the terms. If that is not what you meant by power and energy, you have to explain what you mean. You need to try again.
In short, you have presented incomprehensible ramblings, not clear definitions of “spiritual” and “spiritual faculties”. The rest of your posting is equally incomprehensible, so no point in commenting that.