Jason Lisle #fundie

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

Why in the secular worldview should we suppose that our mind has the capacity to be rational? Rationality involves choice; we consciously consider the various options and then choose the best. But in the secular worldview, the brain is simply chemistry – and chemistry has no choice. Chemicals always react according to prescribed laws of nature. In the secular worldview, there is no more reason to trust a human brain than there is to trust in reading tea leaves. Both are just the inevitable result of chemical reactions.

29 comments

old comment by Nomen Nescio

wonder of wonders, he's actually stumbled on a (semi-)relevant conundrum; determinism versus free will. i'm not holding my breath for him to see how most folks resolve it very much like they resolve the issue of solipsism versus not. viz, while we can't prove we have free will any more than you folks can prove you're not just figments of the imagination of my brain in the jar i'm hallucinating i can't see, it doesn't make much sense to assume otherwise.

objectively looking at what we know of how the universe works, there doesn't seem to be any way for free will to creep in; it looks deterministic. but free will is what we subjectively feel like we have, and trying to live as if we're choice-less automatons does us no good. so we might as well pretend we have choice, made our decisions on that basis, and see where it leads us.

old comment by

Are you seriously advocating using the buybull's "morality"? If you say anything written below is wrong, then you're using those "chemical reactions".

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/god's not pro-life.htm

If you say that the above is "taking things out of context", what possible context could there be that makes correct to stone unruly children or those that work on the sabbath? What about killing an entire town if there within is one person worshipping another god? Were there no innocent children born just before the flood? What about beating slaves as long as they don't die within a few days?

If you think the buybull is consistent and without contradiction, see the following:

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical Contradictions.htm

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Hmmmmm... just another example of tl;dr to use as an argument against Atheism. Jase, with no need of a so-called 'God', we take full responsibility for our own actions, and thus we take the credit for all things we do that have a positive impact on others.

As opposed to the alternative...!

Taking responsibility for ourselves:

US prison population:

Christian: 80%

Atheist: 0.02%

We Atheists apply Ethics on ourselves far more rigorously than Tom Cruise Control does. [/That leaked $cientology video]

Our obviously more than infinite moral superiority to those who represent the 'alternative': Feels good, man, nay, making the right choices can be empowering, ergo our superiority to you & all your ilk. We make the right moral choices because we can. Christian terrorism. Compared to the alternative, eh Jase? Well, speaking as a British Atheist, and you know what we Brits are famous for...

(*pours cup of tea*)

image

Cheers! [/hyper-smartarse]

I prefer my Tea chemicals to that Cthulhu's own diarrhoea called 'Coffee"; 'Boston Tea Party', and all that jazz. Contrariness just for the sake of it?! 'TEA Party'? Flip-flop more than Mitt Romney in a sandal factory, much?; 'Anyone but Obama'? Nope, no hypocrisy on you right-wing Fundamentalist Christains' part, nosiree! [/mega-sarcasm] Nooooo, that wouldn't be rational now, would it?! I mean...

...who would consider rational the alternative to Atheism: a book - the Bible - which claims a talking snake actually existed?! [/Doug Piranha-levels of sarcasm]

old comment by Prayster

PRAYER FOR THE GRANTING OF ENHANCED GULLIBILITY

O Mighty King of the Universe please hear our humble plea and grant us our all our petty wishes, if it doth please you.
We are of course already gullible servants of thy Ming-like magnificence but feel that we could attain even greater feats of grovelling sycophancy if thou wouldst but favour us with thy great gift of fawning obsequiousness.
And, O Supreme Leader of the Cosmos, we do implore thee to reduce our brains to just their lizard bits and only as much else as will be needed to glorify thy most Mighty Majesty.
If we could but cast aside our reason and increase our stupidity, we feel that we would improve our cosmic gullibility a billionfold.
We have much money, O Nebulous Lord, much money that we could supply to thy humble mouthpieces on Earth, so that they may glorify thy shining brilliance with Lamborghinis and Rolls Royces.
We know that attaining ultimate stupidity will enable thy greater glorification and we do implore thy Stupendous Splendiferousnousness to grant us, thy servile but not yet quite dumb enough numpties, our most inane desires.

Amen

“Why in the secular worldview should we suppose that our mind has the capacity to be rational?”
Computers, airplanes, the moon landings, pretty much ‘results.’

“Rationality involves choice; we consciously consider the various options and then choose the best.”
You can define rationality the same way twice in a row and wonder if we’re capable of rationality?

“But in the secular worldview, the brain is simply chemistry – and chemistry has no choice.”
Citation needed.

“Chemicals always react according to prescribed laws of nature.”
Yes, as do computers. They can process lots of variables, though.

“In the secular worldview, there is no more reason to trust a human brain than there is to trust in reading tea leaves”
Which is why we have peer review and other processes to remove individual bias.

“Both are just the inevitable result of chemical reactions.”
And yet, we still made it to the moon and back.

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

29 comments

Confused?