tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4118154473001292037..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: My final (?) critique of the Outsider Test for FaithVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31378041767525496412012-06-13T14:53:59.516-07:002012-06-13T14:53:59.516-07:00FYI: I've blogged about the argument from phys...FYI: I've blogged about the argument from physical minds, including a reply to Alex's objection, at http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2012/06/evidential-argument-from-physical-minds.htmlSecular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34064124550927705782010-09-24T07:23:57.203-07:002010-09-24T07:23:57.203-07:00Just my: "too sense." Was interested in...Just my: "too sense." Was interested in what Loftus had to say (was thinking about buying the book) UNTIL I read through the thread. The others called it right - namecalling, not actually addressing the questions raised, a seeming lack of intellectual humility and a generally grouchy approach made change my mind. So much heat and so little light! When Aristotle wrote of the three foundations of effective argument he included credibility. Sorry John, but the above seriously damages yours - and therefore both your argument.jnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64993837883840463092010-09-18T13:33:00.074-07:002010-09-18T13:33:00.074-07:00Lowder and Draper have made similar arguments, cla...Lowder and Draper have made similar arguments, claiming that, on theism, mind-brain dependence is improbable (arguing that the brain is unnecessary as Loftus does, seems to be a non-sequitur).<br /><br />In response to Lowder's support of Draper on the Secular Outpost, I've attempted to argue that mind-brain dependence is probable on theism. I wrote that "Physical embodiment provides a nice mechanism for the antithesis of certain omni-attributes that God might not want to endow creatures with - spatial location, lack of intrinsic eternality, limitations on knowledge, etc." It might be said that God could have simply created spirits or souls that lack the omni-attributes, but a) it seems easy to think of other good reasons for physical existence and on mind-body dualism the brain is the interface between the mind/soul and such existence, and b) since bringing about mind-brain dependence is at least *one* way of limiting the attributes of a created being, I'm not sure it matters whether or not there are other means of doing this.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11273879825851805842010-09-17T20:58:45.267-07:002010-09-17T20:58:45.267-07:00Victor: Carrier's argument is a bit more subtl...Victor: Carrier's argument is a bit more subtle and convoluted, and as I suspected a much more slippery target that is not as obviously false as the bald claim that 'if dualism is true, then we wouldn't need brains' (which is what Loftus claimed). <br /><br />Rather, Carrier's argument is a reductio. <br /><br />First, assume God exists and is good. Then note that a brainless mind is better than a mind that is brain-dependent(because the latter is subject to injury and such). But we already know that the mind is brain-dependent (this is claimed to be an established empirical fact about minds). By modus tollens, this shows there is no God.<br /><br />While I find this argument unpersuasive, it is at least more interesting, less obviously false, and brings up some interesting points. And it is not equivalent to the claim that 'if minds are immaterial, we would have no need for brains.'<br /><br />It's an awful argument to use in a debate (the 13 step proof Carrier presented in the debate is bound to fall flat), but brings up enough interesting issues to start a fun discussion.<br /><br />It is more subtle than the Loftus claim, as it really isn't an argument about dualism at all, as it uses the claim that minds are "embodied" or brain-based, rather than minds in the absence of brains, as a premise (P15 in his argument).<br /><br />Carrier never suggests that dualism implies we don't need brains, period. Rather, his argument is that if dualism is true, then we don't need brains to explain those mental properties that inhere in the nonphysical mental stuff. This seems a reasonable claim.<br /><br />Even in that scenario, brains would still be required to explain early sensory processing, lower-level motor control,etc.. In that sense, his argument isn't baldly ridiculous.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24907113412164983542010-09-17T15:28:28.190-07:002010-09-17T15:28:28.190-07:00http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_car...http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-wanchick/carrier1.html<br /><br />It was in the Carrier-Wanchick debate, the argument from Mind/Brain dysteleology.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83327816059544602862010-09-17T14:59:15.790-07:002010-09-17T14:59:15.790-07:00Victor said:
The "no-brain" argument was...Victor said:<br /><i>The "no-brain" argument was one that I think I remember seeing in Carrier, and I thought it was nothing to worry about, so I am not surprised that BDK unendorses it. </i><br /><br />Carrier endorsed it? Where? I have trouble believing it, as he is usually a bit more subtle: I've never seen him make such a bald howler of an argument.<br /><br />Loftus, mooning someone is not an argument. I'm the one that brought up your argument, not Victor (what I now think of as the worst argument ever against dualism).<br /><br />At any rate, I'll be happy to respond to any actual arguments John.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29738747433703977422010-09-17T14:15:48.332-07:002010-09-17T14:15:48.332-07:00You don't clean your house, John. Whenever I p...You don't clean your house, John. Whenever I post over at your place I get called all sorts of names, and you didn't respond. You said that your commenters spoke for themselves, and not for you, which is fine. <br /><br />I, notoriously, don't moderate comments here, so I wasn't even in my blog when BDK's comments came in. <br /><br />In spite of all the favorable comments that your books received from endorsers, I am beginning to see more and more that you are an ideologue and an anti-Christian apologist. We should expect no more of a fair treatment of the issues surrounding the truth of Christianity from you than we get from Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. You announce that some Bible scholars aren't critical scholars because they are unwilling to undercut their own ideology in the interests of intellectual honesty. But you can be an uncritical unbeliever just as easily as you can be an uncritical believer. So long as you choose propaganda over debate and discussion, you show yourself to be a propagandist and not a philosopher (in the original sense of a "lover of wisdom"). Although you present some ideas that are challenging to Christianity, you have shown yourself incapable of carry on an decent discussion of those ideas in open dialogue. <br /><br />I have had numerous interesting exchanges with BDK. Especially look at Dangerousidea2 for the year 2007, when I was developing the arguments that appeared in my Blackwell chapter. The "no-brain" argument was one that I think I remember seeing in Carrier, and I thought it was nothing to worry about, so I am not surprised that BDK unendorses it. <br /><br />I've had my differences with Steve Hays and Paul Manata, and have objected to the tone they have adopted towards me. But I actually found the tone of The Infidel Delusion remarkably civil, and certainly very civil compared to the attitude you have adopted toward not only my criticisms, but those of people like Steve Lovell and Blue Devil Knight. <br /><br />I have even conceded that the OTF is, or rather can be, a reasonable thought experiment. However, we cannot presume upon the outcome that other people will reach if they perform that thought experiment themselves. Some of the statements made surrounding it just strike me as insane. You claim with absolutely NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER, that Christian critics of other religions either just question-beggingly argue from the Bible, or presuppose methodological naturalism in their arguments. Would you kindly go over to your old debating partner David Wood's site, not answering infidels, but Answering Islam, and show me this is true of his critique of Islam? Or go to the thousands of evangelical anti-Mormon websites to see if these guys are Humean methodological naturalists? Facts are stubborn things, John, but a good propagandist like you learns to ignore them. <br /><br />I think you are brainwashed, John. I think you have been brainwashed by the adulation you receive as a highly-regarded anti-Christian apologist. There is no way that you could have achieved the fame you have achieved as a Christian minister or Christian philosopher, but over at your echo-chamber at DC, you are the great leader. <br /><br />It takes a lot of provocation to get me to say things as not-nice as I have been saying here. But you have revealed your true colors with the comments you have left on my site. I will never argue for the truth of Psalm 14:1. But if atheists want to supply that argument for me, I'm not going to complain.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30598519770343355222010-09-17T13:31:17.963-07:002010-09-17T13:31:17.963-07:00Tell ya what BDK, if Vic doesn't straighten yo...Tell ya what BDK, if Vic doesn't straighten you out from here based on the premises then he's treating you as a patsy. Welcome to being his useful idiot. And this is one reason why I come here to antagonize because Vic won't clean his own house.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89070046193917756742010-09-17T13:10:31.884-07:002010-09-17T13:10:31.884-07:00Again we get the same argument from John:
"If...Again we get the same argument from John:<br />"If there is a non-material mind that tells the brain what signals to send to the muscles so that an arm is raised upon cue, then there is no reason why we need the brain at all. The mind could skip it and make it's connection directly to the muscles themselves."<br /><br />Why not argue that we don't even need muscles, as the mind could skip the muscles and makes its connection directly to the skeleton like a marionette? Real (as opposed to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" rel="nofollow">straw</a>) dualists believe the brain and mind are tightly connected. They believe this because the data shows it must be the case (for reasons I discussed above in reference to things such as blindness and paralysis). Why isn't the mind directly connected to the femur? Well, perhaps that would have been a possibility, but the evidence suggests otherwise, so no dualist has ever believed it. Not even Descartes.<br /><br />You continue to say that there is "no reason" that the mind shouldn't control muscles directly. How do you know that? Muscle works really well to move things, but are not good at processing complex information. Kidneys work really well to filter out waste products. Lungs are great for respiration. The brain, the organ intimately involved with thinking (under every view, even the dualist), seem particularly well-suited to interact with a mind. The brain is a wonderful processor of complex sensory information, able to receive signals, integrate information, and transmit commands like no other organ. It is ideally suited to interact with a mind that can make use of such information and influence decisions.<br /><br />Worst argument ever against dualism: if dualism is true, then we wouldn't need our brains. How many ways must I refute this claim?Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53591301913999304582010-09-17T11:56:41.065-07:002010-09-17T11:56:41.065-07:00So much for the worst argument ever, eh BDK?
Chil...So much for the worst argument ever, eh BDK?<br /><br />Child's play really. But Vic won't chime in because he really doesn't want to tell his patsy what an ignoramus he is for he's his own special useful idiot. <br /><br />BDK let's agree to ignore one another from now on. I'll ignore your ignorance and you stop comenting with ignorance on what I write.<br /><br />Agreed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49975247693041711072010-09-17T11:35:27.156-07:002010-09-17T11:35:27.156-07:00JS I'm not a neurologist and my comments are n...JS I'm not a neurologist and my comments are not directed to you, but to BDK. I can usually only respond to one person at a time, like I do in what follows.<br /><br />BDK. I see no reason to accept the claims of dualists who must incorporate the brain into their dualism <b>because it's obvious we all have one</b>. And so I see no reason at all why this is a strawman. You might as well tell Vic to abandon his AFR argument because no metaphysical naturalist agrees with it. Of course we don't. But that no more should dissuade him from pressing his case as it does me when dealing with this particular argument. And so I see absolutely no reason why I should accept anything my opponents agree about just as Vic should accept what metaphysical naturalists say about his argument.<br /><br />It's the nature of arguments to do this and this is basic stuff really.<br /><br />If there is a non-material mind that tells the brain what signals to send to the muscles so that an arm is raised upon cue, then there is no reason why we need the brain at all. The mind could skip it and make it's connection directly to the muscles themselves.<br /><br />This seems obvious to me and nothing has approached dissuading me of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13909598599853541872010-09-17T11:13:29.712-07:002010-09-17T11:13:29.712-07:00John: you are attacking a straw man.
Dualists ac...John: you are attacking a straw man. <br /><br />Dualists accept that the brain is the seat of interaction with the mind because that's what the best evidence suggests (e.g., Eccles, Popper, Descartes, Lashley all realized this). You are not attacking a theory the dualists actually believe.<br /><br />You would actually have a good point if your standard dualist thought that mind directly caused muscle contraction (and responded to stimuli in the environment). But no actual dualist believes that, so you are attacking a straw man.<br /><br />Now of course you are free to ask <i>why</i> God decided to make us with a brain that interacts with a mind. For that matter, why do we need muscles why can't the mind directly pull on the skeleton to make us move? You could also ask that. But that wouldn't stand up as a criticism of any real dualist.<br /><br />I gave four specific things left for the brain to do in a dualist world, and you have not addressed one of them.<br /><br />Again, I'm not defending dualism, I'm just pointing out that this argument should have been sucked out in the first trimester.<br /><br />JS: the argument is about substance dualism, not mind in general. I actually have been convinced lately that substance dualism is not necessarily the best reading of the Bible, that the Bible teaches us that humans are made of stuff of the Earth. So you can respect neuroscience, and respect the Bible at the same time.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82063836986899547792010-09-17T10:59:00.498-07:002010-09-17T10:59:00.498-07:00John, was that a response to me?
If the mind tell...John, was that a response to me?<br /><br /><i>If the mind tells the arm to raise then there is no need for the brain to do so. The mind has a connection to the body so why must it have a brain? Why can't the mind connect to the muscles themselves and tell them to move? Why isn't the mind everywhere the body is anyway? Why must it be located anywhere specific in the brain or located anywhere at all?</i><br /><br />Why would the theist have any different answer than Daniel Dennett or John Searle? To your first question, Dennett would say that the mind supervenes on the brain, which seems compatible with theism. To your second question Searle would argue that the mind that supervenes on the brain is not truly alive without a body (i.e. a disembodied mind makes no sense). That, too, seems like standard Christian orthodoxy.<br /><br />I guess I'm having trouble seeing how this is a theist vs. atheist issue.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52142131244941901852010-09-17T10:39:51.624-07:002010-09-17T10:39:51.624-07:00BDK allows a dualist to make inconsistent statemen...BDK allows a dualist to make inconsistent statements as matters of fact for which I am supposed to account for on their terms.<br /><br />That's funny to me.<br /><br />Since when must I agree to inconsistent statements from people I disageee with?<br /><br />I know what they claim, silly. I don't buy it. If the mind tells the arm to raise then there is no need for the brain to do so. The mind has a connection to the body so why must it have a brain? Why can't the mind connect to the muscles themselves and tell them to move? Why isn't the mind everywhere the body is anyway? Why must it be located anywhere specific in the brain or located anywhere at all?<br /><br />That's what the theist must wrestle with and I claim there is no need for a brain if there is a mind DESPITE their inconsistent statements to the contrary.<br /><br />Sheesh, are you that dense? There are indeed people on my side of the fence who I wish were on the other side, like BDK. Imagine this, he takes what a theist says as fact and asks me to account for these statements as if they were facts when I'm claiming instead there is no reason for me to do so on their own grounds.<br /><br />Petrie dishes are calling, BDK.<br /><br />Hey, let's agree to ignore one another from now on. I will ignore you if you will ignore me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71455983407996475042010-09-17T10:10:35.022-07:002010-09-17T10:10:35.022-07:00Nonetheless if the mind exists and does all of wha...<i>Nonetheless if the mind exists and does all of what the theist claims it does, then please tell us specifically why, if it does that which the theists claims it does, God needed to create us with brains.</i><br /><br />Can someone elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested in understanding what the question is.<br /><br />Christian creeds profess bodily resurrection, which would seem to me to be compatible with naturalism's view about the brain. Am I missing something?JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64254876940224311162010-09-17T10:04:09.069-07:002010-09-17T10:04:09.069-07:00John responded to my argument while I was posting,...John responded to my argument while I was posting, so let's look at what he said.<br /><br />John said:<br />"A subconscious mind can do all of this work without a brain."<br /><br />But you would need to establish that the dualist must believe that there is nothing left for the brain to do (whether that mind is conscious <i>or</i> unconscious). No dualist would agree to that, you are just throwing up a straw man. I listed four ways the dualist would think the brain is important, and you didn't address any of them directly.<br /><br />John also said:<br />"and theists already believe there is some connection between the mind and the body anyway so there is once again no need for a brain if there is a mind. "<br /><br />They believe there is a connection between the mind and brain, yes. How would that show the brain is not needed? There is a connection between the liver and the circulatory system, does that mean the liver isn't needed?<br /><br />I will respond to the arguments, am done responding to personal attacks.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81596059938680198162010-09-17T09:52:17.317-07:002010-09-17T09:52:17.317-07:00...and theists already believe there is some conne......and theists already believe there is some connection between the mind and the body anyway so there is once again no need for a brain if there is a mind. Now God might have reasons for creating a brain, but it's simply unnecessary upon the supposition there is a mind. <br /><br />I think you misjudge me based on the bad judgment of Reppert who based his judgment on the almost daily posts by Steve Hays and company a few years back.<br /><br />Shame on all of you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57895890293434709582010-09-17T09:50:21.279-07:002010-09-17T09:50:21.279-07:00John I'm not going to engage in psychoanalyzin...John I'm not going to engage in psychoanalyzing how other people respond to you. Jeesh.<br /><br />I'm done with you. There is enough in this thread and other threads for people to decide if I am reasonable, out of line, mean, dishonest, ignorant, or whatever. It's all out there. I've got work to do.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29187268785545064812010-09-17T09:48:41.157-07:002010-09-17T09:48:41.157-07:00BDK, you lack imagination, a theists imagination. ...BDK, you lack imagination, a theists imagination. To the theist there is a conscious and a subconscious mind. That's one of the tricks Bill Craig and JP Moreland uses to defend how Jesus could be both God and man and yet be tempted without sin.<br /><br />A subconscious mind can do all of this work without a brain. There is nothing you can say that would show otherwise for all that you would say presupposes what you must deny in making your case, that there is a mind which includes both a conscious and a subconscious side.<br /><br />You don't even see this even to the point of claiming it's the worst argument you ever heard.<br /><br />Once again proof to me all you're good for is observing stuff in a petrie dish and writing down the results.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81136894599271572382010-09-17T09:43:13.788-07:002010-09-17T09:43:13.788-07:00BDK, one thing needs to be explained if you are ri...BDK, one thing needs to be explained if you are right about me. Why do so many scholars say such nice things about my work and agree to write chapters for my books?<br /><br />Oh, don't bother, you can't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19544059770931718522010-09-17T09:42:41.303-07:002010-09-17T09:42:41.303-07:00John yes I encourage people to read your response ...John yes I encourage people to read your response and decide if I am ignorant as you say, and if your response is sufficient.<br /><br />Also people here can decide if, as you say, I lack critical thinking skills. I certainly post here enough for people to decide on that. Or maybe I am just a stamp collector scientist. Is that relevant to my arguments? Will you ever actually engage with an argument? <br /><br />Oh, by the way here's my response to that awful argument.<br /><br />===================<br /><br />Rebuttal to the worst argument I have ever seen against dualism.<br /><br />Claim: if dualism is true, then there is no reason to have a brain. <br /><br />Rebuttal: there are at least four reasons to have a brain if (substance) dualism is true (I invite readers of this blog to add to the list):<br /><br />1. Gather and process sensory information from the environment. Dualists realize that damage to V1 makes you blind, after all. <br /><br />2. Control behavior by activating muscles, helping us walk, etc.. Dualists realize full well that severing the spinal cord, or damaging the motor regions in the brain, produces paralysis. <br /><br />3. Send signals to the nonphysical mind about its (the brain's) activity: let the mind know what is happening in the world and body.<br /><br />4. Receive signals from the nonphysical mind about the mind's activity to help it better carry out roles 1 and 2.<br /><br />Note I'm not endorsing dualism, just calling out the worst argument against dualism I have ever heard. <br /><br />A better argument would be: given all the neuroscience we know and the functions carried out by the brain, it isn't clear what is left over for the nonphysical mind to do. <i>That</i> would actually be a good inductive argument against dualism.<br /><br />I imagine it is entertaining for the Christians to see two atheists go at each other. It does not make me happy to give consolation this way. :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28955975582491021952010-09-17T09:31:45.971-07:002010-09-17T09:31:45.971-07:00Oops, here's the direct link to our discussion...Oops, here's the direct link to our discussion <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/08/quote-of-day-by-michael.html?showComment=1283343472973#c5306064508765676908" rel="nofollow">right here</a>. But BDK carries on as if we never had it. Sheesh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1353473279734257022010-09-17T09:25:59.274-07:002010-09-17T09:25:59.274-07:00BDK, I know you can place things in a petrie dish ...BDK, I know you can place things in a petrie dish and write down what you see. Anyone can do that. But I honestly do not see any critical thinking skills coming from you. <br /><br />There is a difference you are not even remotely aware of. It the history I have had with people, and now with you too. <br /><br />The very fact that you repeated this claim of your without my responses mean you don't care about honesty. <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/09/paul-tobin-responds-to-infidel-delusion.html?showComment=1283875488981#c2234078268135505890" rel="nofollow">Others can see for themselves though</a> our discussion ten days ago. Did you forget we had it in such short order, or is it you will not be persuaded no matter what I say?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3065011299546213282010-09-17T09:18:54.339-07:002010-09-17T09:18:54.339-07:00John, seriously you stand by it? I will give you o...John, seriously you stand by it? I will give you one chance to think about it before I kill it. Perhaps read up on some neuroscience. I'll respond when I get back from lunch.<br /><br />On a personal note, I do not have issues with Sam Harris, even if he is wrong in that one silly line about brains (which I would bet he will never publish, if he actually said it at all). <br /><br />You have already tried to say I have a personal problem with "militant atheism". Let me repeat what I have already said...<br />=============<br />I don't mind militant atheists at all. I think Dawkins is incredibly entertaining and witty, have enjoyed the work of Harris.<br /><br />What I mind is your willingness to substitute name-calling for real argument, your tendency to overstate the originality and strength of the arguments that you do present (e.g., the outsider test). You are just awful at the give-and-take of real argumentation, as evidenced by how you dealt with Reppert/McGrew recently. <br /><br />I mind that you hypocritically hammer people that you think don't have credentials, but then act as if your lack of serious specialization (i.e., PhD) shows you are some kind of intellectual jack of all trades poised to be especially damaging to the Christian philosophy. <br /><br />The shameless plugging of your books doesn't do anything for your credibility either, whether or not it helps sales.<br /><br />So, John, my problem isn't militant atheists: it's you. You are taking on the roll of a public face of atheism, and you make us look arrogant and incapable of logical argument. It is embarrassing to have you out there implicitly representing something I believe personally, and doing such a crappy job of it.<br /><br />With your actions on the blogosphere, you are giving the Christians as much ammunition as you think you are giving them doubt. You are to atheism what that crazy communist lady on the corner handing out 9-11 conspiracy pamphlets is to progressivism.<br />=============<br /><br />My hope is that Christians here don't take you seriously as a representative of atheists/naturalists more generally.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3229891879967551812010-09-17T08:50:46.284-07:002010-09-17T08:50:46.284-07:00BDK, I think you have emotional issue with me and ...BDK, I think you have emotional issue with me and perhaps with Sam Harris too. <br /><br />Nonetheless if the mind exists and does all of what the theist claims it does, then please tell us specifically why, if it does that which the theists claims it does, God needed to create us with brains.<br /><br />I'm all ears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com