I don't get "moderate" christians...

[Hydra009]

I would simply say that the fact that our brain is the mechanism by which the material and immaterial interface

[gomtuu77]

Not at all.  Is that how you respond to people who don't think materialism provides an accurate description of the world?

[the_antithesis]

Why?  My thoughts are immaterial, but they are often the basis for action in the world.  What "real stretch" are you sensing?

Thoughts are electrico-chemical impulses in the brain, hence material.

Try again.

[Colanth]

Even if you hold that thoughts are immaterial, they themselves don't materially affect the material world.  They cause people to affect it.

Now if you claim that an immaterial part of God causes his material part to materially influence the world, that's fine, but where can we find this material part?

Oh, and a few different branches of science show that there was no single pair of human beings who are ancestral to all of us.  There may have been (and probably - but not definitely - was) a single organism that's ancestral to all of us, but not a single pair of human beings, or even a single pair of mammals.  Claiming that Adam and Eve were real people is being anti-science.

(And why aren't you assuming - like you wanted us to assume that we're talking to a Christian - that you're talking to atheists?  Most of us don't assume that Jesus was a real person.)

[viocjit]

The moderate Christians (the majority of Christians that I know because the majority of them are cafetaria catholics) have a problem : They refuse to admit some historicals truth.

Examples :
1.My grand-father think that the "Testimonium Flavianum" isn't a forgery. But in reality this is a forgery.
2.Many of them think that the Bible don't contain interpolations. But this is untrue because the "pericope adulteræ [John 7:53 , 8:11]" wasn't in the original text. We know it because we have many Greek uncials and method to analyse texts to confirm that this is an add.
3.They believe that the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was inspired from the Canonical Gospels. But they don't give any proofs. Some of these writers were Christians (Charles Malik) but that doesn't means that they were inspired by the texts from the NT.
4.They minimise the impact of inquisition.
5.They don't know really the history of the catholic church. (This is the case for me too but I know more about it that them).

[Brian37]

Sam Harris blasts ALL "moderates" and "liberals" of ALL religious labels. I agree, because of their "good intent" the well intended lend cover to the nuts and enable them to fester.

Now, that is not to say the way to fight fascism is to become fascist and ban all religion. That is not Harris's message.

It is to say our priority as a species should be our common existence, and part of that common existence is the ability to call others on their claims.

"Can't we all just get along" sounds nice, but in reality we don't always get along. I do not think getting along should involve waking on eggshells. The worst religious and state fascists from Hitler and Iran think getting along means "do as I say". Not that far from a god character.

[Brian37]

So it's your position that thoughts or even images in your mind are actually identical to brain matter, neurons, etc...  So the interface mechanism itself is identical to each thought and image?

I would simply say that the fact that our brain is the mechanism by which the material and immaterial interface or interact doesn't mean that that they are the same things.  In other words, a particular chemical in my brain or neuron firing may correspond and/or correlate with a particular thought, set of thoughts, or image(s), but they are not the same things.  This is a category error.

I hate arguments like this.

This is like equating  speed of a car as being the car itself.

[Colanth]

The moderate Christians (the majority of Christians that I know because the majority of them are cafetaria catholics) have a problem : They refuse to admit some historicals truth.

Examples :

Nitpicking:

1.My grand-father think that the "Testimonium Flavianum" isn't a forgery. But in reality this is a forgery.

One passage is a later insertion, it's not a forgery.  (And whoever did it was about as intelligent as modern-day Christians - it's written from a Christian viewpoint, and Josephus was Jewish.)

[Brian37]

The moderate Christians (the majority of Christians that I know because the majority of them are cafetaria catholics) have a problem : They refuse to admit some historicals truth.

Examples :

Nitpicking:

1.My grand-father think that the "Testimonium Flavianum" isn't a forgery. But in reality this is a forgery.

One passage is a later insertion, it's not a forgery.  (And whoever did it was about as intelligent as modern-day Christians - it's written from a Christian viewpoint, and Josephus was Jewish.)

Ok, so if I write Harry Potter and someone plagiarize it that means boys can fly around on brooms.

[gomtuu77]

Why?  My thoughts are immaterial, but they are often the basis for action in the world.  What "real stretch" are you sensing?

Thoughts are electrico-chemical impulses in the brain, hence material.

Try again.

Electro-chemical impulses in the brain may correspond to or correlate with thoughts, but they are not identical things.

[the_antithesis]

Electro-chemical impulses in the brain may correspond to or correlate with thoughts, but they are not identical things.

Show us thoughts without a brain and we'll consider your position.

Until then, your position is not even worth considering.

[viocjit]

The moderate Christians (the majority of Christians that I know because the majority of them are cafetaria catholics) have a problem : They refuse to admit some historicals truth.

Examples :

Nitpicking:

1.My grand-father think that the "Testimonium Flavianum" isn't a forgery. But in reality this is a forgery.

One passage is a later insertion, it's not a forgery.  (And whoever did it was about as intelligent as modern-day Christians - it's written from a Christian viewpoint, and Josephus was Jewish.)

Some people think that this is a complete forgery (Charles Guignebert , Jérôme Prieur , Prosper Alfaric etc...)  and others think that this is a partial forgery (Ernest Renan , Henri Wallon , Shlomo Pines etc...). Also there are some people who believe that this is an authentic writing by Josephus and my grand-father is one of them.
"One passage in a later insertion" I call that a partial forgery.

[Plu]

Electro-chemical impulses in the brain may correspond to or correlate with thoughts, but they are not identical things.

Show us thoughts without a brain and we'll consider your position.

Until then, your position is not even worth considering.

And before you try, yes, we can show you thought inside a brain if you like. We've made some fascinating advances in mind reading and have some basic abilities to reconstruct images by reading electronic waves inside the brain. It seems very plausible that thoughts are entirely material things, that you can see and measure.

[SGOS]

Saying a thought is immaterial is rather irrelevant, unless you believe in a soul and having thoughts after you're dead.  I've monitored this thread with mild interest at best.  Right now I'm wondering what an immaterial thought makes a case for?  I'm not sure of the point, and not interested enough to read backwards to find out.

[the_antithesis]

[youtube:sx6lb4du]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00[/youtube:sx6lb4du]
[youtube:sx6lb4du]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc[/youtube:sx6lb4du]