Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:33 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5773
Thanks: 1354
Thanked: 949 times in 815 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Johnson wrote:

Quote:
He slammed you for being unreasonably dickish in response to interbanes perfectly reasonable, un-provacative post.


Interbane was chippy in his own fashion.
Stop being a one-sided whinny wuss here.

Do what a moderator is supposed to do.
Start with yorky and move from there.

Gosh, you're such a child. Only those that play in your sandbox get a pass, right?



Last edited by ant on Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:36 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5773
Thanks: 1354
Thanked: 949 times in 815 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
Do you disagree with Dawkins that if you lined up your ancestors, they would show a very gradual shift until you've reached a very primitive species?

If you agree with this non-controversial statement -- which was the sole purpose of this thought experiment, I just thought it was a good way of stating it -- then what are you getting all bent out of shape about? And how can you reconcile this with a unique human soul, which I assume you believe in? When did God put it in?

If you disagree, then you believe in Creationism, yes?


This is all really very idiotic to take this thought experiment and turn it into an undisputed fact, which is exactly what Dawkins is attempting to do.

He states in the video that the chapters begin with a mythical answer and then "the true scientific answer."

Dawkins states that his family picture game is taken to an arbitrary 185 millionth generation.
He goes on to state that homo erectus would have been our 1 1/2 millionth ancestor.

Then he goes on to say "every person, every animal belonged to the same species as his parent."
He concludes by stating the following:

Quote:
take it back as far as you like - I take it back 185 million years ago and you reveal your 185 million years greats granfather was a fish


Really? A fish? That's a scientific fact, as he stated in his introduction to the thought experiment?

Where is the fossil evidence for this claim?
We were taken back 185 million years, stopped at homo erectus as being a parent because "every person every animal belonged to the same species as his parent" and then wound up with a fish.
Based on what continuous stream of evidence?

"The whole process is incredibly gradual."

Uh., well, duh.., yeah, but what evidence is there that the process was as he stated - regression to a fish?

There was a nice picture of a fish at the end.
Is that the evidence you're going to present here for us, Dexter?
BWAHAHHAAHA!

What evidence is there that setsforth the overlapping of species related to homo erectus?

Are you just going to babble on by saying it all took millions of years and that it's so slow that we don't have one parent to point to but that it surely in the end points to a fish?

And again, how do we test this hypothesis to prove it's a scientific fact?
That's what he said.., we have the mythical answer and the "true" scientific answer."

This isn't the sharing of scientific facts. This is dressing up biological narrative as fact in the hope of indoctrinating minds that won't question beyond the claim that there was no parent ancestor, no first human being because you can't pin-point when you became and adult in time, and because evolution is a process on a time scale of millions and millions of years, we can nevertheless safely say it's a fact that your 185 million year greats grandfather was a fish.

Bullcrap.

But this is a great post because it's so silly.



Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:28 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1788
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 742 times in 556 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
ant wrote:
Bullcrap.

But this is a great post because it's so silly.


Your protests are not making much sense.

You say you accept evolution, but because Dawkins gave a specific example of what your distant ancestor looked like, you say it's "idiotic," "silly," "bullcrap," "indoctrination." Again, what are you getting all bent out of shape about? Would you be OK with it if he made a disclaimer and said a fish or some kind of fish-like animal?

I have his book that this comes from, it's not meant to be a scientific treatise but it mentions both fossil and DNA evidence that has helped to construct the evolutionary tree -- showing, for example, that chimps are our close cousins, mice are more distant cousins, mammals share a common ancestor about 180 million years ago, etc.

Are you holding out hope that all of this is based on flimsy evidence?

Take a stand if you're going to hurl insults at the mere mention of evolutionary claims-- what are you trying to say?



The following user would like to thank Dexter for this post:
geo
Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:17 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4529
Location: NC
Thanks: 1977
Thanked: 2036 times in 1524 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
There's quite a lot of evidence that we evolved from fish, not just humans but all terrestrial animals. Neil Shubin wrote a book called YOUR INNER FISH. But right, it's not ironclad that we evolved from fish. But if life arose from the seas, it's a pretty good bet that we evolved from some aquatic creature. Let's call it a . . . a fish.

Do we know the precise evolutionary line? Of course not. This is a thought experiment, meaning conjecture into what might be and what might have been based on our limited understanding which itself is based on a limited fossil record. When Dawkins says 350 million years or some such number, he doesn't mean that this is the precise year in which the evolutionary line branched. It's simply absurd to have to explain this.

Some people seem to want things to be black and white and can't help but protest (loudly and incoherently) when it doesn't work out that way.

Image


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Chris OConnor, johnson1010
Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:14 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5910
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2369
Thanked: 2289 times in 1727 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Ignoring the troll infestation here, this reminds me of a comment I made this morning on the Anthropocene thread, that humans are different in kind from animals because we have language and they do not.

It is interesting how evolution can somehow cross tipping points such that a difference of degree eventually transforms into a difference of kind. Fish can't talk about philosophy, but humans can. Somewhere along the way, a threshold was crossed, marking the emergence of humanity. But the threshold is so gradual that you cannot say at any one point that the child was human and the parent was not.

We discussed Your Inner Fish here. your-inner-fish-by-neil-shubin-f85.html

Great book.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
Chris OConnor
Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:37 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Ant, you sound very confused about evolution.

Why don't you write out, briefly, what you think the theory of evolution has to say about the origin of new species and let's see if we can spot where you diverge from what the theory actually has to say about the topic.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:36 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Star Member


Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 138
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 22 times in 20 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Robert Tulip wrote:
Ignoring the troll infestation here, this reminds me of a comment I made this morning on the Anthropocene thread, that humans are different in kind from animals because we have language and they do not.

The "troll infestation here", are you referring to yourself, Robert? Or is this another in the never ending atheist gang attacks on theists posters? I wish you guys would just grow up and stop the ad hominen attacks on us theists. If you've got gripes against theists, post the gripes but lay off the crappy putdowns, OK?

It is interesting how evolution can somehow cross tipping points such that a difference of degree eventually transforms into a difference of kind. Fish can't talk about philosophy, but humans can. Somewhere along the way, a threshold was crossed, marking the emergence of humanity. But the threshold is so gradual that you cannot say at any one point that the child was human and the parent was not.


Elijah was fed by ravens and most every day I feed ravens on my walks. They talk to each other. They tell each other where I am walking and then they meet up at the spots where I usually feed them. They know my car because when I go to the market a couple of miles away some are there to "talk" to me, crow at me, and they are silent with every one else in the market parking lot. These ravens are smarter than the dogs I've fed on my walks before. I don't think our "human" monopoly on language will hold up as we learn more about animal communication.

We discussed Your Inner Fish here. your-inner-fish-by-neil-shubin-f85.html

Great book.



Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:18 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
Ant:
Then he goes on to say "every person, every animal belonged to the same species as his parent."
He concludes by stating the following:

Quote:
take it back as far as you like - I take it back 185 million years ago and you reveal your 185 million years greats granfather was a fish



Every person and every animal do belong to the same species as their parent, but that is not true of our 1 millionth ancestor. Remember the branching tree diagram. Where any divergence occurs in the branching, everything that shoots off from that node is all part of the same clade, or lineage, up to the point of branching. All the lineages which shoot off become their own thing not involving their sister branches, but they will all forever remain in the same clade up to the point of their divergence.

So imagine a node labeled “tetrapoda” which means a bony skeleton adapted for four extremities. This branches off into a wide variety of animals. Dogs, cats, deer, elephants, apes, dinosaurs, birds, lizards etc… but it also includes whales, dolphins and seals.

There is a very wide variety of animals here and they are indeed different species. They cannot interbreed and the offspring of the lizard is not the same as the offspring of the bird. Dawkins was not saying that all offspring of everything from the node “tetrapoda” would all be the same species, only that each of those diverging branches would have children of the same species, within that lineage, but with slight variation until those variations add up to a different species.

So, you can never evolve out of being a tetrapod, even when you lose your hind legs as the whales did. And the offspring of a set of parents will only be like the parents. In other words, no fish gave birth to a lizard. No lizard gave birth to a snake. Instead small variations add over time until the “ten thousandth” generation would not have been able to breed with the “first” generation (generation numbers are arbitrary and only relatively accurate).

There is some nit-picking we can do with Dawkin’s statement. For instance our ancestor would not be in the same clade as a trout. It was not a “fish” since it lacked many of the definitive characteristics that identify fish (they had lobes instead of the fin you see on fish), but for brevity the word “fish” gives people the rough idea of what to picture in their heads. Fish is really a colloquial word and difficult to assign to a clade, just as the word reptile also is not really appropriate.

“Like saying all things that are grey”


Quote:
Really? A fish? That's a scientific fact, as he stated in his introduction to the thought experiment?

Where is the fossil evidence for this claim?


The fossil record is the evidence for this claim.

Quote:
We were taken back 185 million years, stopped at homo erectus as being a parent because "every person every animal belonged to the same species as his parent" and then wound up with a fish.


So the difficulty you encounter is that he didn’t present you with every ancestor in a continuous lineage from modern man back to a single celled organism?

I recommend you check out AronRa’s youtube channel and find the “falsifying phylogeny” playlist as an interesting primer. He sets out in those videos what it is the theory of evolution says should happen, how we could tell if that were incorrect, and how we know that it is not.

Quote:
"The whole process is incredibly gradual."

Uh., well, duh.., yeah, but what evidence is there that the process was as he stated - regression to a fish?


Literally all research about evolution and cladistics points us to this conclusion, and still further… you have ancestors that looked like flat worms and eventually a single celled organism, and before that, some kind of proto-cell chemical reaction.

Did you not realize this about evolution? Everything springs from a common ancestor. If you trace the lineages back and end up with a “fish” and a plant, you haven’t traced back far enough, because that plant shares a common ancestor with the “fish”.

Quote:
Are you just going to babble on… by saying it all took millions of years and that it's so slow that we don't have one parent to point to but that it surely in the end points to a fish?


From now on I might start calling “accusing others of the things you are guilty of” “Anting”.

Quote:
by saying it all took millions of years and that it's so slow that we don't have one parent to point to but that it surely in the end points to a fish?


What don’t you like about the time frames of evolution, and how do you propose we do anything about it?

Quote:
And again, how do we test this hypothesis to prove it's a scientific fact?

Haha.

Quote:
This isn't the sharing of scientific facts.


He wasn’t presenting a research paper to peer review. He was explaining evolution through a story that would be easy to comprehend and give people an understandable representation of what it is that the theory is telling them.

Quote:
This is dressing up biological narrative as fact in the hope of indoctrinating minds that won't question beyond the claim that there was no parent ancestor, no first human being because you can't pin-point when you became and adult in time, and because evolution is a process on a time scale of millions and millions of years, we can nevertheless safely say it's a fact that your 185 million year greats grandfather was a fish.


Directionless tantrum.


Quote:
But this is a great post because it's so silly.


“Anting.”


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:28 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Star Member


Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 138
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 22 times in 20 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Dexter wrote:
sonoman wrote:

It's an exercise in atheist propaganda and a feeble one at that. It's nothing more than stating the obvious but it obviously does the job of convincing atheist fundies that something important was being said. Every bullet counts in the atheist arsenal against theists, right?


It's hard to pin down you or ant on making any actual arguments, but lets try again. Do you disagree with Dawkins that if you lined up your ancestors, they would show a very gradual shift until you've reached a very primitive species?

If you agree with this non-controversial statement -- which was the sole purpose of this thought experiment, I just thought it was a good way of stating it -- then what are you getting all bent out of shape about? And how can you reconcile this with a unique human soul, which I assume you believe in? When did God put it in?

If you disagree, then you believe in Creationism, yes?


An aside on reincarnation: Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind. The Hindus and all believers in reincarnation have it wrong. Only Spirits are able to move from body to body through time and space. Spirits can appear in different people, e.g. the Spirit of Elijah reappearing in John the Baptist and John and Elijah's Spirit appearing in my work.

As for Darwin's theory of natural selection explaining evolution, yes and no, as to it's overall validity. As most of you know by now I've been into anthropology actually since I was a kid and am thoroughly grounded in Darwin's ideas and have no complaint with them anymore than I do with a lot of scientific theories that are based on a worldview that all things are ultimately "explained" by measurement, measuring this with that to see differences and formulate theories to explain them. Unfortunately, Spirit is not subject to controlled experimentation so science is left with anecdotal reports which science doesn't accept as valid no matter how high the stack of reports go, even 40,000 years worth is not enough to convince atheist science that they might not actually know something other than the accepted atheist fundamentalist mantras. Such as Creationists aren't thinking rationally, which is true of Bible believing Creationists but not at all true of my type of Christian belief in the origin and unfolding of Creation. Yes, "unfolding" as it is like a giant Universal Tree or Tree of Life through time and space that has developed from its Big Bang "seed" beginning and will eventually whither away sucked into its own Black Hole annihilation system that keeps Creation continually going...for those of us within it in our mortal bodies. But it's not at all a "random" purposeless universe. Creation has a definite purpose and while it has all the technical effects of grand illusion down to the very last Higgs-Bosun and further down still to come because no matter where we look Creation will appear what it needs to appear as--for our learning. In other words, it is truly illusion but the only "real" way to know this is either by the extremely rare I've discovered experience of "maya", the world as illusion, or by death itself when our souls move on to that "World to Come". And learn what Creation was put here to teach each and every soul for entry into that World to Come.



Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:55 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
sonoman wrote:
and Elijah's Spirit appearing in my work.


yes i saw his work in "the lord of the rings" and i'm amazed i didn't pick up the similarity before :lol:

(sorry sonoman but you do take yourself a bit too seriously at times i think, i'm much worse though)



Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:59 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Quote:
“Anting.”


oh excellent, a new verb!

when you ask a kid if he would like an ice cream and he responds by punching you in the nuts, this is called "anting" :D

or when someone is having a discussion with you and you try to answer them thoughtfully and they respond by saying "oooooh you're a bright one, moron!" this also is "anting" :lol:

i like it, i'm partial to a bit of "anting" myself.



Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:21 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
All Star Member


Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 138
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 22 times in 20 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
youkrst wrote:
sonoman wrote:
and Elijah's Spirit appearing in my work.


yes i saw his work in "the lord of the rings" and i'm amazed i didn't pick up the similarity before :lol:

(sorry sonoman but you do take yourself a bit too seriously at times i think, i'm much worse though)


You must think yourself cute, casting slander as usual from atheists at theists because that's all you really got. Forget intellectual debate when tossing verbal mud pies is so much easier than thinking about what others post. Yes, I do take myself seriously, most religious activists do and I have spiritual work to accomplish, one of which is destroying the fundamentalist atheist belief system once and for all time for all rationally thinking people. Which has been done on Booklist forum because here it is months later and not one single atheist has been able to give one single rational answer why the logic of history and the logic of infinity do not counter atheist negative belief in God or spiritual reality. Atheism is a dead man walking and always has been but like all fundamentalist belief systems trying to get atheists to look rationally at their beliefs is nigh on impossible. Wouldn't be a fundamentalist belief system if atheists were open to reasoning. It would be agnosticism which is the only valid philosophy to apply to subject matter that is not readily measurable.

As for my demonstrable spiritual activist work that mirrors Elijah and John the Baptist, well, it's there historically now with hundreds of eye-witnesses in the Holy Land and a growing number in the New World as both the Paxcalibur and Josephine visions keep in spiritual motion. Http://biomystic.org/paxstory.htm and http://biomystic.org/josephine.htm. Your attempt to belittle me and my work and all the people involved with it, including the highest level priest in Nazareth, Israel, including one Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses, one Palestinian biologist scientist, one major candidate for Bethlehem who's daughter blessed Pax in 2010, one CEO of the largest corporate employer in our county when helping in the Paxcalibur sanctification ritual, one leader of all seven Lakota nations, only reflects yours and all atheists' ego problems when faced with this mind that thinks holistically and is not stuck in one brain hemisphere to the detriment of rational thought when it comes understanding spiritual phenomena. Better minds than yours have seen my work and so your putdowns about it are so much fluff in the air. But there's always comfort in numbers and here, with atheists owning and running this forum, you are assured of group support.



Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:34 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
:D

i did say

youkrst wrote:
i'm much worse though


sonoman wrote:
You must think yourself cute,


no but others have occasionally commented :wink:

sonoman wrote:
casting slander as usual from atheists at theists


lighten up brother, i'm no atheist :) well not on tuesdays, DOH! it's thursday, you got me!

sonoman wrote:
because that's all you really got.


no, i've also got some lovely almond croissants, well i did have, i ate them.

sonoman wrote:
Forget intellectual debate


oh i think intellectual debate is the least of our worries.

sonoman wrote:
easier than thinking about what others post.


oh i think about what you post more than you do sonoman.

sonoman wrote:
Yes, I do take myself seriously, most religious activists do and I have spiritual work to accomplish


don't we all, and what about all those who lived before you were born? do you feel sorry for them, starved of the unique perspective only you can furnish them with, pity poor leonardo (da vinci i mean not dicaprio) imagine him struggling for insight unaware that the wisdom of sonoman was just unavailable to him.

sonoman wrote:
one of which is destroying the fundamentalist atheist belief system once and for all time for all rationally thinking people. Which has been done on Booklist forum because here it is months later and not one single atheist has been able to give one single rational answer why the logic of history and the logic of infinity do not counter atheist negative belief in God or spiritual reality. Atheism is a dead man walking and always has been but like all fundamentalist belief systems trying to get atheists to look rationally at their beliefs is nigh on impossible. Wouldn't be a fundamentalist belief system if atheists were open to reasoning. It would be agnosticism which is the only valid philosophy to apply to subject matter that is not readily measurable.


well i wish you all the luck with the atheists, some of them seem quite happy though.

sonoman wrote:
Your attempt to belittle me and my work and all the people involved with it, including the highest level priest in Nazareth, Israel, including one Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses, one Palestinian biologist scientist, one major candidate for Bethlehem who's daughter blessed Pax in 2010, one CEO of the largest corporate employer in our county when helping in the Paxcalibur sanctification ritual, one leader of all seven Lakota nations,


wow that's an impressive list, i expect i'll see you and pax on oprah, or the view soon! 60 minutes perhaps that paragon of journalistic excellence.

sonoman wrote:
reflects yours and all atheists' ego problems when faced with this mind that thinks holistically and is not stuck in one brain hemisphere to the detriment of rational thought when it comes understanding spiritual phenomena.


yes my dreadful ego problems, i have such a deep attachment to my sense of self it's embarrassing!

thank you for calling me on it.

sonoman wrote:
Better minds than yours have seen my work


yes, better minds than mine have seen my work too. :D

sonoman wrote:
and so your putdowns about it are so much fluff in the air.


putdowns? that is an honour coming from your good self, you who have put me down so effectively, it is no doubt your tremendous transcendence of ego that allows you to see through my thinly veiled insecurity! i thank you.

sonoman wrote:
But there's always comfort in numbers and here, with atheists owning and running this forum, you are assured of group support.


yes the atheist mafia are everywhere these days, i find paying them the protection money is well worth it not to have to worry about Bane and the boy's beating me up.

______________________________________________________

seriously though sonoman what makes you think you have anything worth buying, aren't we all children of the most high?

i have found traces of interest in your posts but mostly i find it amazing that it hasn't occurred to you that you may be underestimating the omniscience and omnipresence of god.

let me close with a quote from the great sonoman, one of my faves.

sonoman wrote:
Spirits can appear in different people


but i think you've got it wrong here where you say

sonoman wrote:
Only Spirits are able to move from body to body through time and space.


surely the flu has also mastered this skill :D

well may the universe humble me greatly for failing to take it's major oracle as seriously as he takes himself. :)

all kidding aside and as hard as it may be to believe, i hope you have a truly GREAT day sonoman.



Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:32 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Getting Comfortable


Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7
Thanks: 14
Thanked: 8 times in 5 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Sonoman, you said in the above statement that:

Quote:
Souls come with the formation of each individual human being. Souls are unique to each person and cannot be reincarnated into another body because each body has its own unique soul and no two souls can occupy the same body at the same time. If it could happen it would result in what we used to call "possession" but now call "schizophrenia", "multiple personalities", but it's still just one person's mind.


So according to you the soul is in the brain and the body. What happens when you share a body like these conjoined twins that only have one body but two heads?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... China.html

Look at these poor parasitic twins. How many souls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=betgxtosi7Y



Who gets the soul in this case?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo


What about when there are two bodies but one shared brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lQ_QBxdwQ

What about when you have one body and a head but no brain such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... pzKNI&NR=1

:mrgreen:


_________________
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave. – William Drummond


The following user would like to thank Akhenaten for this post:
Chris OConnor, johnson1010, youkrst
Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:39 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16279
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3549
Thanked: 1357 times in 1068 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being
Akhenaten, you're problem is you're thinking too much. Just listen to Sonoman. Trust him. Stop that senseless thinking stuff.

The video of the little boy born with no brain is quite perplexing and sad. At first I thought it was a fake news story such as what The Onion puts out, but after watching it I see that this is a real 2-year old boy. Quite sad.



Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:16 am
Profile Email WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm


Recent Posts 
• Coronavirus

Fri Jul 03, 2020 9:24 pm

geo

• Why isn't Joe Biden holding press conferences?

Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:50 pm

ant

• Buy U-47700 Online With Discrete Overnight Delivery Within USA And Canada

Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:27 pm

SAGORCHEMS

• Buy U-47700 Online With Discrete Overnight Delivery Within USA And Canada

Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:26 pm

SAGORCHEMS

• Buy U-47700 Online With Discrete Overnight Delivery Within USA And Canada

Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:24 pm

SAGORCHEMS

• What do you like to read on the hoildays?

Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:45 am

Cattleman

• Do you have a quote to share? Funny? Positive? Thought Provoking?

Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:39 am

Cattleman

• CHAPTER 3 of Scorpion-man I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:57 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 2 of Scorpion-man I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:57 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 2 of Fantastic Five I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:53 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 3 of Fantastic Five I, a new novel and Superheroes story

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:53 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 7 of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:46 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 6 of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:45 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER 3 of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:38 pm

LoicCabrel

• CHAPTER I of Terrie, The Sorcerer, a new novel of a Wizarding World

Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:30 pm

LoicCabrel


Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank