Home › Forums › Philosophy › Atheism Quarterdeck: Aspiring Christian Apologists Welcome
This topic contains 158 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
Sandals 4 years, 5 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
All that evolution, radiocarbon and other dating methods that converge on the age of the earth and life, and the fossil record, contribute is that they make literalism highly implausible, e.g. young earth creationism.
There is no proof for or against creationism. There is no fool proof way of knowing. With that being said, the fossil record based on Radio Carbon dating is not an accurate measurement as radio carbon dating requires variables to be pull from “thin air” or assumed. Tracks of human beings have been found next to dinosaur tracks, so the fossil record gives a sketchy view when compared to modern methods.
Evolution is not a theory, it’s a reality. Every year we have a different flue virus. Granted, viruses replicate rapidly so the process is quick.
No, it is a theory. Evolution does not explain diversity, as many of these viruses and other organisms do not have to mutate and even if they do they are still viruses. They do no mutate beyond being a virus. They might adapt to the circumstances, and if is that is what you mean my evolution then evolution repeats itself everytime an outside variable repeats itself. There is no evolving to a “higher” place. But arguing about evolution requires its own thread, simply because it is irrelevant to atheism and would require more time on its own terms.
In another culture this may be considered immoral, that even though our God says we should kill those damn apostates as the Bible clearly indicates, we are instead embracing tolerance as a cultural value.
Tolerance is about nullify previous cultures and creating a new one from the “ashes”. It has nothing to do with justice. In regards to the apostates I already answered this with the inquisition and government examples/arguments. Maybe I was not clear enough, and if that is the case than you will have to point out where.
Moral law has been subjective throughout the ages; slavery is accepted in the Bible, but isn’t so acceptable today
What do you think minimum wage workers are? There has and always will be slavery in some form. The question of how slaves are treated is a separate manner altogether.
human sacrifice, acceptable in the Bible, not acceptable today.
I literally addressed this in the above post.
The fossil record shows the evolution of species. Transitional forms exist and are well documented. This was an early criticism of evolutionary theory by literalist believers, the so-called ‘Missing Link’.
What transitional links? Second it does not matter because there are many organisms which have not evolved, meaning evolution is not a universal law for organisms. Third, just because there is diversity does not mean an organism “evolved” to a higher form. Take people for example. You have multiple races, is one more evolved over the other? If you want to view evolution as a theory of diversity, fine but I don’t want to argue it one this thread because it will take too much time and divert this one. Just start another. As I said before evolution is irrelevant to atheism, so in this respect it does not matter.
evolution can improve an organism;
Evolution is not required for survival, one may adapt to the circumstances, but are they any “higher” in existence than they were prior? No. If a human being becomes physically stronger, to adapt to the circumstances, are they more or less of a human being than they were prior? No.
As for evolving past organic life, I feel we are nearing the point where artificial intelligence may be achieved and thereby evolve beyond organic biology and mortality — or our creations will
This argument is a statement of faith. (I “feel” we are nearing…) How can a creation be greater than the creator? If this was the case than to create would be an inferior position.
If the windows of the firmament are opened again and the world flooded & the Heathens such as me & BTL drown aquatic life forms may predominate again.
The language of the times was not as complex as it is now. Take for example the term “brother/sister”. It was applied to many things including aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. It was not an exact word. Also when dealing with a language, you are also dealing with a philosophical interpretation of reality as certain words do not exist in some cultures while others do. However there are common concepts and words that do stretch across peoples.
The scriptural language as been the same through history. It might be translated to Greek or Latin and from that to a modern native tongue, but it was never translated from more than 1-2 languages. It is pretty exact. That and great emphasis was placed on accuracy in both oral and written traditions. Remember it was from a time where that is all people had to do.
I don’t understand your comparison of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire to biological evolution; we could debate why the Empire fell (military losses/failures, indebtedness, the split between Eastern and Western Empire prior to the Fall of the Western Empire, over-reliance on slave labor, a ‘model’ reliant on conquering territory to grow/survive, etc) — but I fail to see a tie-in to biological evolution.
It is quite simple. People are biological organisms that live in groups. If evolution is true then certain groups would have to evolve when certain circumstances are put forth not individuals. Also, from an atheistic perspective, evolution would have to be applied to all material matter since that is all that life forms are: material “robots” in a sense. Because Rome was literally subject to biological organisms (Rome could not be Rome without people) then Rome itself is subject to evolution.
Also atheistic evolution, when view on its own terms, would require all organisms to evolve but it does not take into account mental processes. Yes an organism may adapt, but abstract truths and concepts cannot be subject to evolution. One does not “evolve” into math if mathematics is unchanging. One may become aware, but if evolution is what defines awareness than awareness itself either ceased to exist, or always existed.
If it ceased to exist, than evolution cannot be as evolution is an act of awareness itself. This would mean evolution is subject to prior laws. However if awareness always existed, if may adapt, but it will always be “awareness” it is not something one could evolve past. And these are important questions to ask, because from an atheist perspective all “life” is subject to physics. However evolution does not work in the realm of physics because there are certain concepts and laws which do not change.
If life is nothing but physical matter, is evolution a theory about physics? It cannot be without violating the laws of physics itself.
But I do not want to talk about evolution. It is irrelevant.
The Germans had the best technology (Tiger Tank, rockets, air force, jet aircrafts never deployed, superweapons), but made major errors leading to loss in World War II (two front war, pogrom against the Jews costing them valuable scientists, and allowing politicians like Hitler to run the war rather than professional generals like Rommel).
Proof of technological evolution being unnecessary for survival. However that would have to tie into the organic theory
of evolution itself, since organisms “evolved” to tool making because tool making enables survival.
Acknowledging diversity is one thing, but evolution fails on its own philosophical merit. There is no proof of evolution,
just evidence of diversity. Some groups die, others don’t. One cannot blame evolution as the cause, because as you said
Germany had the more “evolved” military. The more complex military, yet the “primitive” russians beat them. Complexity
is not required for survival.you really didn’t address some of my questions such as how irreligious countries can be ‘moral’, if religion is the only source of morality?
In regards to the first question I did. Morality is a set of guidelines based around a value. Religion is a set of beliefs,
standards, and understanding of reality, (look it up in a dictionary) so in this sense as long as people have beliefs
(and we all do) or attempt to gain an understanding of the universe then we are all religious in some respect or another.
Even laminiae, although half jokingly, said we should worship asteroids and rocks. So because we are all religious in
some aspect, we aquire values from that faith. And because we aquire values we also gain a form of morality or at least
observe a necessity of it.I’m most interested in ‘thou shalt not kill’. Also, why do all these Gods need worshipped?
We were made in the image of God, and part of that is in free will expressed unhibiditly through faith. To cease to
worship a God, we were made in the image of, would be in essence to short ourselves of some good as we would ignore a part of ourselves or cease to exist in some respect.. God does not need to be worship by anything. Creation itself needs to worship Him to reflect within itself all that is of God, that is all things that are truly Good. Evil is a deficiency in a Good. It is not a Good in itself nor does it survive on its own
terms, but rather is a deficiency. In some respects it is parasitic as it cannot exist on its own.— and of course, if you do have other Gods, you’re supposed to kill the disbeliever yourself.
Part of this argument goes back to the brief explanation of government and religion I posted further. In regards to the
“no other Gods before me” point, it is some one cause and effect. If I was to base my existence around something corruptible
or deficient in nature, then I would in turn gain those qualities. Same if I was to base my life around something
incorrupible.In regards to God breaking his own commandments how can he steal what he created? How can he be accused of unjustly taking
a life when he created it? Also these commandments are relational of men between men men and God. You say God is a hypocrite
for killing, but how can he kill that which is subject only to physical laws? What life is in a man that is nothing but
dirt and gravel, because if we follow base instincts to their ends we become subject to them and in a sense to physics itself.Also, “thou shall not kill” is in regards to murder or to bring about a death without cause. Acts of self preservation are not murder, whether it be individual or
on behalf of a society. If a group of men are corrupting a society, they in and of itself will be causing its death.
God would have the right to protect that society.Another obvious point, I know you will not like because you will not understand it, is that God is God. He created existence.
He knows fully what has to be done for it to be fulfilled.Another point, is that God is not accountable to men. Men were made in the image of God. It would be like saying we
were accountable to robots, however that would be a poor example as robots cannot make a choice of anysort.When it comes down to it the commandments are a guideline for men to act fully in accords to their nature. God is not
breaking anything if it brings about man’s salvation.I don’t understand your point. What examples do you have where God is “murdering” or “stealing” from someone?
Also it would be wrong to say one is hypocritical, when atheism itself is the most hypocritical of all philosophies.
It has no rules, but condemns those that do. However, it cannot do that without having a set value system. But it does
not have one.In all reality one should ask the athiest why they judge others and on what authority do they do so? Because all they
point out is defiencies or twisted versions of nature and say “God does not exist”. However they never solved the problem
of why there are good things. If there is no God where does all the Good come from?Agnosticism and athiesm, are in many respect philosophies of hypocrisy. They always point out, but more likely project,
wrongs in others but never acknowledge there own. How can they even know the wrongs in others, if they are unaware of
their own?How can you claim immorality, when you do not even know what it is?
John, I simply can’t read your book long essays on here, much less reply in a way that you’d understand. You’re like a one man crusade against the obvious.
I started to read, but it was just more bulls~~~. I think I truly am done with you.
If you had any common sense, you’d see that you’ve lost big time when the people who either agree with you or disagree, lose the desire to even hear you out. It doesn’t help when you waste countless hours and after thousands of words, still arrive at zero logic.
Let me ask you John Doe, how long have you been identifying as MGTOW? What is your true age? Do you even know the history of the modern MGTOW collective online? Have you ever heard of Nacho? Do you know or have listened to any of Barbarossa, Sandman, JohntheOther, STARDUSK and many others I’m still slowly taking in?
I’ve been listening to MGTOW channels and content for a year and have barely touched the stuff. If you’d had even 1% of exposure to real MGTOWs you’d wouldn’t be on here writing THE F~~~ING STUPIDEST S~~~ INT HE WORLD.
My criticisms of you, you should remember, where I routinely tell you, “YOU DONT KNOW S~~~ BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T READ S~~~” still stand. Once again, get the f~~~ off MGTOW you f~~~ing poser blue pill christian bitch! You cant think your way out of a wet paper bag and honestly kid, you live with you parents! Youve admitted this! Your eligibility for MGTOW status is a laughing stock!
F~~~ off, read/listen to mgtow content, move out of your moms house, and grow up. You can’t tell me to grow up you little s~~~. I f~~~ing have a full time job, I actually pay a mortgage and live alone, I dont rely on family, I’ve actually been f~~~ed over by many women. Youre just a christian kid living with your mom! Nothing you say has any value so stop tweaking out with your keyboard here. You are a f~~~ing drama queen with zero intelligence
When is someone going to kick John Doe off this site? By his own admission, he lives with his mom! He has also said that “He doesn’t have to be MGTOW to be here.” He also identifies as Christian! Haven’t our mgtow predecessors covered this point over and over, Christianity is blue pill servitude. At best, John Doe is a wannabe stage 1 mgtow. I’d argue against it for reasons stated.
I’d even martyr my own presence here to get rid of him. I don’t care or rely on this site like a pussy beggar; John Doe does! He is here everyday spreading his idiocy, if the site crashed, he’d probably lay in bed all day. It’s not just dumb one-liners that he presents here either, this kid writes books of retardation on every thread.
John Doe is a Creationist Crustian who lives with his Mom, has no job, and admits ignorance of women and negligible interaction with them. He has no right to be here and has become a disruption in nearly every meaningful philosophic discussion for months. Even in a free-f0r-all, censorless male space, he is clearly a POS pussybeggar, beta drone simp! This guy really will fail in love at the smell of some pussy juice and have 5 kids with some whore from sunday school will he WILL marry and white knight till death.
Im calling on everyone, at least in this thread, to stop responding to his attention craved calls for drama.
John Doe has no scientific understanding of the world.
Ignore and scroll through his meaningless Creationist Christian apologetic bulls~~~.
Boycott and and ignore this little c~~~ until he stops coming here.
You know what? F~~~ this bulls~~~. This little bitch and fake ass mgtow has been doing this s~~~ for months. Im gone, see y’all in 6 months. Maybe John Doe will have hit puberty and fallen in love by then.
I have better things to do then spend hours scrolling past his diatribes.
Ill be on youtube acquainting myself with the vast mgtow content that people seem too f~~~ing lazy to take in. Instead, they waste space here.
I didn’t even know about Stardusk 2 days ago. Now I’ve got a hard-on for mgtow like never before. Sandman is also still a badass though he is sorta pussyish and tells people to go to therapy lol. He’s still a good mgtow! 100x’s more redpill than pussy f~~s like John Doe who are like a tampon that wont flush!
Peace out yall, see you in October.
F~~~ you John Doe, Crustian Apologist Bitch Simp, Oedipus Complex. pussy beggar.
John Doe Your all over the place like a bull, but still fall short of breaking all the crystal in the china cabinet. Why are you being difficult when its obvious you could put more effort into your nontribution and be totally impossible?
nontribution is a comment which adds little or no value to the discussion at hand; a failed attempt at contribution.example; “At first John Doe sounded smart, but the silence and blank stares filling the forum revealed the emptiness of his nontribution.”John Doe wrote; If something is not acting according to its nature then how can it be considered such? Humans have the potential to go past base animal desires, in this respect we are not animals simply because animals cannot do this. They follow appetite. Humans have the potential to go past this. Animals do not.I never said humans are not acting according to their nature you did.I say humans are animals. That is my stance and I am sticking to it. They act and think like animals. If not then What other form of life would John Doe classify them as? Two kinds of life on this planet plants and animals. This fact limits your choices severely. John Doe Choosing to be, act and think like a plant is no skin off my nose.We will always act like animals and no we will never move past acting like what we are..No matter how you act its still a human action and therefore an animal action..
Then why separate the two? Is mathematics a product of animals? Is it caused by some base survival drive? Because in reality we can survive without it.
I am not separating humans from animals you are. So the animal human produced math. easy answer to your question. Why we use math I will let you decide. I use math to build products for my customers who compensate me with FRNs that I use to buy food with..Maybe I could get food another way but for now I survive with the aid of knowing how to read a tape measure.
John Doe wrote; A person can be referred to as acting as an animal or as a human being.
No John.. this is more correct using the word must in place of the word can.. A person must be referred to as acting as an animal or as a human being.
John Doe asked; Do we have non animal behaviors? Yes.
You incorrectly answered your own question. 5th grade biology says two forms of life, remember? Plant and animal. So if we have non animal-behavior.. tell me what type of life form would you say we are acting or behaving like?
John Doe wrote; We cannot be classified as only animals unless we always exhibit the same behavior.
We always exhibit animal behavior because we can exhibit no other. If you would like to separate yourself from the animal kingdom fine by me… I shall from now on call you John Doe the eggplant. Eggplant posting nontributions!
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
There is no proof for or against creationism. There is no fool proof way of knowing. With that being said, the fossil record based on Radio Carbon dating is not an accurate measurement as radio carbon dating requires variables to be pull from “thin air” or assumed. Tracks of human beings have been found next to dinosaur tracks, so the fossil record gives a sketchy view when compared to modern methods.
We cannot prove or disprove creationism, in part because it’s a moving target that becomes narrower and narrower as scientific understanding grows. We can present evidence for and against its likelihood. No, radiocarbon dating doesn’t require ‘variables’ to be pulled from ‘thin air’. We measure decay rates and use a simple formula for half life. I was taught the relevant equations as a 16-year old kid in high school some 28 years ago. While I am an enginerd who loves math, the math here, exponential decay, is not rocket science — later, we used the same methods in college when I took a course in nuclear engineering, albeit that was a lot more in depth in the entire subject, involving calculus & criticality calculations. Think about it. What is the most accurate clock, so accurate you can prove relativity/time dilation with it? Answer: An atomic clock. What does NIST use for the standard for time measurement? Radioactive decay. No, there are no human footprints coexisting with dinosaurs. I think I’ve demonstrated in several postings the depth and breadth of my knowledge of science. I presume you’re referring to the Paluxy Trackways; the consensus is they were mis-interpreted. Hundreds of thousands of dinosaur fossils have been found. None in the same strata as homonid fossils. What do you mean by ‘modern methods’? Stratiography and the order in which strata are laid down give us some information, radiocarbon dating can give additional information, fossil morphology even more…
No, it is a theory. Evolution does not explain diversity, as many of these viruses and other organisms do not have to mutate and even if they do they are still viruses. They do no mutate beyond being a virus. They might adapt to the circumstances, and if is that is what you mean my evolution then evolution repeats itself everytime an outside variable repeats itself. There is no evolving to a “higher” place. But arguing about evolution requires its own thread, simply because it is irrelevant to atheism and would require more time on its own terms.
It’s a theory which has been proven — thus, a theory and a fact. Theory, because not all mechanisms are understood, fact, because we can see it in the lab for microorganisms, and measure mutation rates. As noted in previous messages, there is lots of evidence we are not ‘engineered’ beings as I would term it, or a ‘special creation’ as religionists might term it — non-coding DNA, vestigial organs, etc. What you seem to be arguing here is that there is no macroevolution between species, but microevolution/adaptation does occur. Since the fossil record shows the ‘transitional forms’ that early Creationists called ‘Missing Links’, I’m just not seeing this argument as sound. Evolution does not necessarily repeat itself as there may be different ways to adapt to change — a larger brain, faster speed, toxic venom, better senses, faster reactions, speed, etc.
Tolerance is about nullify previous cultures and creating a new one from the “ashes”. It has nothing to do with justice. In regards to the apostates I already answered this with the inquisition and government examples/arguments. Maybe I was not clear enough, and if that is the case than you will have to point out where..
Tolerance is NOT Biblical. Remember, the first commandments in the Big Ten are not about ‘Love Thy Neighbor’, but about having no other Gods — way down the list is not to murder. And the punishment for forsaking God in the Bible is DEATH to the Apostate. That is IMMORAL. This is but one example of many that I have noted. I can’t disprove the Abrahamic monotheistic God, but it’s trivial to demonstrate said God as unjust and immoral. There is no Atheist or Agnostic commandment to go out and kill Christians or offer them up as burnt offerings to Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins (hey, this could use a little humor).
What do you think minimum wage workers are? There has and always will be slavery in some form. The question of how slaves are treated is a separate manner altogether.
But why did not the just and moral God abolish slavery? There is a BIG difference between being bought & sold, separated from one’s family, and working an 8 hr dead-end job but having your evenings & weekends free to do as you please… Typically slaves don’t vote, they can’t improve their lot, own property, etc.
One other problem with this, there are many religions, how does one know which is right? Since science and reason obviously aren’t used in the process, you’re down to personal revelation.
You really don’t answer whether it’s moral to kill non-believers as the Bible directs or how to pick and choose which commandments are to be followed.What transitional links? Second it does not matter because there are many organisms which have not evolved, meaning evolution is not a universal law for organisms. Third, just because there is diversity does not mean an organism “evolved” to a higher form. Take people for example. You have multiple races, is one more evolved over the other? If you want to view evolution as a theory of diversity, fine but I don’t want to argue it one this thread because it will take too much time and divert this one. Just start another. As I said before evolution is irrelevant to atheism, so in this respect it does not matter.
Evolution is relevant in so far as it disproves literalism or the Genesis mythology. Transitional fossils? Look up that term on Wikipedia and examine the photos; that is much better than words in this case. There are species that are hundreds of millions of years old like sponges and cyanobacteria is billions of years old. If there are no predators and an organism can thrive, it will be successful. But there have been many changes on Earth; once the Oxygen concentration was higher, the climate has shifted in and out of ice ages, etc.
FrankOne wrote:As for evolving past organic life, I feel we are nearing the point where artificial intelligence may be achieved and thereby evolve beyond organic biology and mortality — or our creations will
This argument is a statement of faith. (I “feel” we are nearing…) How can a creation be greater than the creator? If this was the case than to create would be an inferior position.
We have already applied genetic engineering to crops; it isn’t a stretch to extrapolate and expect someday, we can reduce disease in humans, slow down aging, and improve our mental performance, as we understand more and more about genetics. Improving animals through domestication is ancient. While my crazy futurism may be pure speculation, it is based on existing trends, but it is not Faith. I readily admit most futurists have been wrong. Faith is bedrock to religion so you need to understand its precise meanings:
Faith: 1.) complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.I wouldn’t describe the rise and fall of civilizations as I would evolution; while ideas and memes may ‘replicate’, many factors determine rise & fall. Birth rates, military prowess, draughts, civil unrest, etc.
I didn’t understand what you were saying about evolution and physics. If there are laws and concepts that don’t change, how do you explain miracles? How do you explain radiocarbon dating? Since above you said it didn’t work, half lives and basic physical constants must be changing with time, no? Life evolved into self-awareness and discovered mathematics; evolution is not a self-aware process. So I really didn’t understand what you were saying with most of that.
There is no evidence that there is anything beyond physical matter to life. All evidence indicates physical matter alone is necessary and sufficient to explain the processes of a living entity. That is the basis of disbelief in manmade religions.
I really don’t understand a lot of your other comments; yes, technological advancement (I would not call it evolution, as it is a different process) isn’t necessary for human survival; there are remote tribes that live as they did thousands of years ago. But technological advancement has allowed for population growth and more leisure time.
I just don’t see how Germany’s stalemate with Russia on the Eastern front relates to biological evolution AT ALL. The Germans had bad luck (a harsh winter), didn’t get to Stalingrad quickly enough, and made some major strategic errors. The most technologically advanced military doesn’t always win. Look at Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan!
Many of your statements are contradictory; you say you can’t have morality without religion, but later acknowledge you can have entire irreligious countries that are moral.
We are not all religious; agnostics and atheists are not by definition religious. Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
You can be religious or irreligious and still attempt to gain an understanding of the universe; the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
I already gave numerous examples of God’s body count — the Flood, punishing future generations for the sins of Adam and Eve, etc.
Atheists with no values? We’ve covered that — those evil irreligious countries with lower murder rates than the Good Ole U.S. of A, remember?
Where does the ‘Good’ come from? I’ve seen lots of ‘Good’ — from good people — both religious and irreligious — when people live together peacefully. Many atheists are quite charitable. As are many churchgoers.
A couple other points I didn’t respond to:
The Popes initiated the inquisition and the Crusades. Crusaders were promised eternal life with a special indulgence. Of course, the Crusades spared Spain, France and Western Europe going Islamic — they’ll get there soon anyway due to birth rates, just a few centuries late. You can proselytyze in irreligious countries such as Denmark or Japan and no one is going to stone you to death. So I guess these irreligious countries do play by a bit different rulebook than the Devout.
Also, I was wrong about an atheist president, when I was growing up, they wouldn’t be trusted, now, a narrow majority would elect them, I just looked it up.
Again, suggesting non-believers have no ethics or moral code is just nonsense. If they have no morals, why is murder and rape not rampant in Japan and Denmark? There are people of many Faiths and no faith who possess morals and integrity.
Other points: I would argue precisely the OPPOSITE about Jews to your comments; historically they were FORCED to convert under Christendom, the inquisition, and pogroms. The centuries old, anti-semitic current in Germany and Europe was CAUSED by Christianity blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. Hitler just didn’t dream up anti-semitism in his prison cell whilst writing Mein Kampf. Jealousy of the wealth of Jews, their otherness, and the traditional Christian bias against them, all helped make the Final Solution acceptable. Also the small minority of Jews that want to rebuild the temple, that is tantamount to wanting to start WWIII with the Arabs, and they are just as bad as radical muslims. And the fundamentalist Christians that send money to Israel to help usher in the end times are likewise bad.
I understand the atonement, that is Christianity 101 — though obviously, as a secularist I don’t believe it. Of course, to me, it is just another resurrection myth like Orpheus, Mithras, and other contemporary ones in the first century AD. That is what I meant by religions being syncretic and drawing upon their forbearers — in other words Christianity borrowed from Judaism (obviously) and also Mithraism (lesser known). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems — I find religion facsinating from a scholarly perspective. I read Siddhartha and tried to read the Koran back when I was in high school. Hey, if a billion people swallow something hook, line, and sinker, it’s good to understand a little about it.
Everybody is biased to some extent, I just was curious what specifically made you say it. I acknowledge during the Inquisitions, heterodox Christianity was punished. Since I do not believe in punishing someone for thought crimes or their beliefs, I also consider this to be immoral. Burning Christians is as unjust as burning pagans. I actually favor the great schism, Luther, and the denominations because the divisiveness helped usher in an era of tolerance vs the corrupt, opaque monolithic Roman Catholicism that prevailed initially.Incidentally, I was raised Roman Catholic, but gave it up at 12 — I read too much to drink the Kool Aid — an irreverent reference to Jim Jones, a cult leader. Incidentally, the Catholic Church used to tabulate a list of books to read, for non-believers, called Index Librorum Prohibitorum, list of prohibited books. Unfortunately they canceled the project 4 years before I was born — too many books to rate. Incidentally, the Inquisition never ended; it was renamed 101 years ago to ‘<b>Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office’.</b>
Sorry for overlong post!
Lamiae, if you are going to revert to ad hominem attacks let me help you. You did not get any of my information correct. I currently work at a nuclear power plant with a red badge security clearance (that enables me to work in and around the reactor), have a bachelor’s degree, live on a farm with both parents and my soon to be engaged brother (my father had a heart attack with the past year, so I help with chores where needed) because it is cheap. I have read many historical/philosophical/etc works because I had to for university both traditional and non-traditional. There you go, this might help.
Harpo: First I did not say or imply that you said that “humans do not act according to thier nature”. You equated human and animal behavior to be equal. This would fundamentally leave all morality at a fundamentally animal level (base drives), if this was the case any violators of this morality would in affect not be acting according to their nature (that of an animal) and in a sense be less than an animal if they did not follow or achieve their moral code/conduct or if there were any variations in there values. After all, if an animal does not follow its base drive in some respects it is not acting in full accord with its nature and is deficient in many respects. Animals have to follow base drives. Humans do not. However a human being is only an animal according to you, and if this is the case how can an animal choose not to act as an animal? If base drives, (those of animal) do not always motivate human behavior, then on one instance they are violating a moral code in some respect or Human beings are “not only” animals in nature.
The dictionary definition of an animal (according to the oxford dictionary) is:
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli:
“animals such as spiders”
•a living organism other than a human being:
“are humans superior to animals, or just different?”
synonyms: creature · beast · living thing · critter · beastie · wildlife ·
More
•a mammal, as opposed to a bird, reptile, fish, or insect:
“the snowfall seemed to have chased all birds, animals, and men indoors”
•a person whose behavior is regarded as devoid of human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive: “those men have to be animals—what they did to that boy was savage”synonyms: brute · beast · monster · devil · demon · fiend · swine ·
More•a particular type of person or thing:You claim, because of biology books/dictionaries that humans are animals. However if one looks up the definition of “animal” it does not always include human beings.
This leads to a contradiction within the scientific and philosophical sources as some consider human beings animals, other do not.
I simply said, that human beings are not only animals as many of there actions cannot be attributed to the base survival drives of animals. And in that case human behavior is not equal to animal behavior, at all times.
I am not separating humans from animals you are. So the animal human produced math. easy answer to your question. Why we use math I will let you decide. I use math to build products for my customers who compensate me with FRNs that I use to buy food with..Maybe I could get food another way but for now I survive with the aid of knowing how to read a tape measure.
First, we do not know whether humans produced math or simply discovered/observed its laws. If it was subject to our production, it would not have cross cultural roots, but rather have various laws some of which might contradict eachother. So one cannot say we evolved into mathematics, unless conciousness itself is evolving. And if that was the case and conciousness evolves we are left with one of two
options. Either it was always there or it was created/started/began somewhere. If it was always there, then evolution
cannot be applied to it, as there was no beginning form from which it evolved from. This defeats evolution as a law and
by default says we did not evolve into an awareness of mathematics.
However if conciousness/awareness did begin somewhere from a prior evolved form, than that means conciousness is always
evolving leading us to inevitably contradict prior knowledge,as one would have to evolve past the knowledge or evolution itself is not a univeral law. If mathematics is produced as the ends of a conciousness,
which is always moving past itself, than the laws of mathematics would be subject to the laws of evolution and in many
senses have to change. If these laws changed than mathematics, as we know it is irrelevant.If mathematics, is not produced by human conciousness, than by default it has to be observe as a seperate law. If this
is the case, then all human behavior cannot be relegated to that of animal behavior as the act of observation is not
dependent on the base drives as those of animals. As the aquiring of abstract knowledge is defined by laws seperate from
those of “hunting/gathering/reproducing.” This act of observation, or awareness, cannot be associated with a physical
drive. Although it may affect the physical drive (I use math for work, work to live) the observation of knowledge itself
is a self sustaining activity itself that does not have to have a greater physical end. Take for example, the study of
theoretical mathematics. Observing theory has no immediate or guaranteed affect in enabling base drives to be met.
It does not satisfy basic animal drives, so it cannot be labeled a necessity for survival. In many respects, an act of
faith takes over instinct as the observation of theory gives no guarantee of meeting a physical drive.If mathematics, is not produced by human conciousness, than by default it has to be observe as a seperate law. If this
is the case, than all human behavior cannot be relegated to that of animal behavior as the act of observation is not
dependent on the base drives as those of animals.A person must be referred to as acting as an animal or as a human being.
If that is the case than you are differentiating human and animal behavior as different. If humans are only animals
then why “must” one differentiate the two behaviors? If they “must” be differentiated then that means they are not
on equal terms and there is no “hierarchy” in regards to animal behavior (in many respects) but rather animal behavior and
non-animal behavior.No, radiocarbon dating doesn’t require ‘variables’ to be pulled from ‘thin air’. We measure decay rates and use a simple formula for half life.
http://chem.answers.com/environment/problems-with-carbon-dating
No, there are no human footprints coexisting with dinosaurs. I think I’ve demonstrated in several postings the depth and breadth of my knowledge of science. I presume you’re referring to the Paluxy Trackways; the consensus is they were mis-interpreted.
There were other scenarios, such as the ones in Turkmenistan or the “meister” print in Utah.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/footprints/human-and-dinosaur-footprints-in-turkmenistan/
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/footprints/
What you seem to be arguing here is that there is no macroevolution between species, but microevolution/adaptation does occur.
What I am saying is that evolution is not necessary for survival and is not a universal law. Does variation occur? Yes. Do species adapt? Yes. And as I said prior is irrelevant towards atheism as believers and non believers accept it. Evolution still requires a root life form from which all life evolved from, and this life form cannot be changing or susceptible to evolution otherwise there is no starting point to life because it would require the life form to have no consistency/order to its existence. Life is not a variable, but requires order. One cannot evolve past life, otherwise the purpose of evolution is destruction of life, not the evolution of it. This separate point, would nullify evolution as a universal law. But as I stated multiple times, evolution literally requires its own thread.
But why did not the just and moral God abolish slavery? There is a BIG difference between being bought & sold, separated from one’s family, and working an 8 hr dead-end job but having your evenings & weekends free to do as you please… Typically slaves don’t vote, they can’t improve their lot, own property, etc.
Humans would have no free will. Allowing people to do what they want gives free will. One cannot be forced to worship a God. Even when faced with death, one still has a choice. Slavery exists all over the world. They also do not have rights over their own bodies, and with drug/seatbelt laws/safety regs in effect economic slavery is taking root again. Also you are implying slaves are always mistreated, however that is not always the case. Voting, improving their lot, property, etc. are only useful if they enable one to aquire peace and good health. If a slave is happy and healthy, where is the abuse?
There is no Atheist or Agnostic commandment to go out and kill Christians or offer them up as burnt offerings to Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins (hey, this could use a little humor).
If I remember correctly, and this is a big “if”, Harris and maybe dawkins acknowledges the necessity of killing under certain cirumstances. Harris was was also a martial arts master. You seem to say there is no God, because there is death but it does not solve the inquiry of why there is “life” or even if death is a bad thing, or if death is permanent, or a various multitude of other philosophical questions. It also does not give credence to humanity, under situations where human beings as individuals or in groups choose to commit suicide or cause death.
And the punishment for forsaking God in the Bible is DEATH to the Apostate. That is IMMORAL.
To forsake God would be in essence to forsake oneself, who is made in the image of God, and in essence be suicidal. Part of this argument also goes back to my prior one about government/social order/lack of mass communitication/physical cultural borders that I posted prior. To abandon a source of laws would be to abandon laws themselves which promote life and prosperity in many respects. Looking at the ten commandments one could quickly come to the conclusion of the importance of human life. To abandon these laws would in affect cause harm towards oneself, but also in many respect cause harm to others up to including death. To violate the health, prosperity, and dignity of others and creation itself would in many respects require an act of self defense or punishment.
Also there is no atheist or agnostic commandment period. There is no value system, so by default you cannot say another system is wrong with nothing to compare it to. That is very intolerant.
You really don’t answer whether it’s moral to kill non-believers as the Bible directs or how to pick and choose which commandments are to be followed.
Under the circumstances and psychology of the times it was moral then, but due to mass communication it is irrelevant today. That is one non-contradictory perspective to a mult-dimensional question.
Evolution is relevant in so far as it disproves literalism or the Genesis mythology.
This is false. Man was created from “mud”. This could be easily interpreted as a primordial soup in some respects. As I said before, educated “believers”, primarily Catholics, have gone through the theological implications and found no contradiction. Which is why I say this “argument” about evolution is irrelevant in regards to Atheism. At one point I read the argument, forgot it over the years, but remember it have not contradictions. Is my experience proof that it is right? No, I just remember being informed about it and not impress. We are literally wasting space on a thread about atheism.
The crocodiles, bacteria, etc that might have changed size with time have not changed in form or function. A crocodile has not evolved past the form of a crocodile. This applies the same to bacteria, etc. As I said before, basic forms have remained. There are certain forms that have not evolved past previous forms.
Also a leg cannot evolved past being a leg, a wing cannot evolve past being a wing, teeth cannot evolve past being teeth. Certain fundamental core characteristics do not change in themselves nor do they always “evolve” out of being previous forms. If I had a son that gained more weight than I did, does that mean he is more evolved than me?
We have already applied genetic engineering to crops; it isn’t a stretch to extrapolate and expect someday, we can reduce disease in humans, slow down aging, and improve our mental performance, as we understand more and more about genetics.
It is a faith based statement. Also disease, may or may not be reduced, but are not eliminated. Also the gmos, you quoted as an example, have been found to cause health effects in certain animals such as pigs.
I wouldn’t describe the rise and fall of civilizations as I would evolution; while ideas and memes may ‘replicate’, many factors determine rise & fall. Birth rates, military prowess, draughts, civil unrest, etc.
However, from an atheist perspective, all these things would have to be subject to the evolution of the animal which either causes and/or effects these things. If it does not affect these subjects (which affect survivability) than evolution is irrelevant as a law.
I didn’t understand what you were saying about evolution and physics.
According to the atheist all existence is fundamentally physics, chemical reactions, etc. Human beings cannot “evolve” if they are subject to these laws, as they would always be required to maintain a certain form due to these laws. If human beings do evolve, and they are nothing but particles, then the particles themselves would have to evolve also thereby eliminating the laws of physics. If they particles, what makes humans, do not change then there are fundamental portions of life which do not change thereby eliminating evolution as a universal law.
Also if life is nothing but particles, then what is the necessity or point of evolution, as particles themselves do not need ever increasing complexity to exist.
I really don’t understand a lot of your other comments;
I don’t think you understand your own argument.
The Popes initiated the inquisition and the Crusades. Crusaders were promised eternal life with a special indulgence.
I covered the inquisition and the crusades. One would have to understand there necessity through a psychohistorical account of the times (I think you coined or acknowledge the term, or at least a similar one.) The Crusades were viewed as a punishment by many of its believers and followers. And the purpose was primarily defense.
though obviously, as a secularist I don’t believe it. Of course, to me, it is just another resurrection myth like Orpheus, Mithras, and other contemporary ones in the first century AD. That is what I meant by religions being syncretic and drawing upon their forbearers — in other words Christianity borrowed from Judaism (obviously) and also Mithraism (lesser known).
A constant acknowledgement of a resurrection type event points to either a twisted form of a prior faith and/or a constant reoccurring theme existent within the depths of human as a group conscious event. The constant reoccurance of a resurrection event and the debate over it points less towards an absence of it, but rather an acknowledgement of it in some form. Similar to a group of people watching the same event, although the stories may vary an event is acknowledged.
Also, I was wrong about an atheist president, when I was growing up, they wouldn’t be trusted, now, a narrow majority would elect them, I just looked it up.
I would have to agree with both points, which is why I stated “assuming you are correct” or something similiar. Athiesm is going to become more popular, along with nihilism. It is an intellectual fad that will eventually give rise to another non-Abrahamic religion. It is a temporary “solution”.
I would argue precisely the OPPOSITE about Jews to your comments; historically they were FORCED to convert under Christendom, the inquisition, and pogroms. The centuries old, anti-semitic current in Germany and Europe was CAUSED by Christianity blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. Hitler just didn’t dream up anti-semitism in his prison cell whilst writing Mein Kampf. Jealousy of the wealth of Jews, their otherness, and the traditional Christian bias against them, all helped make the Final Solution acceptable.
And the same could be said for all persecutions, even those against Christians. This partially goes back to the government/religion/social order I talked about prior. In the new testament, it is expressed stated not to kill if someone does not convert. (there is a story, where some disciples are about to go to a town to preach. They are not accepted. They asked Jesus if they should “rain fire from the heavens” to destroy them. They were told to shake the “dust of their feet” and walk away.) However one must give “to Caesar what is Caesars” and that does imply government having some authority which bring me to my second point: Economics. The jews were considered to have a strong effect on the economy due to being primarily of middle and some upper class positions. They were often and still are in positions of power. The extermination of the Jews has a strong secular theme to it.
Since I do not believe in punishing someone for thought crimes or their beliefs, I also consider this to be immoral.
Then all governments are immoral to some extent. Social order requires ideological order, and this was always important. However in a time without mass communication and cultures/ideas/governments being strongly influenced and define through borders in many respects it is a sad necessity. But you have to remember that these people chose to die rather than change. The option was/is given to these people. At the end of the day, not everyone can be reasoned with. You know this. Some people force death on themselves.
Incidentally, the Inquisition never ended; it was renamed 101 years ago to ‘<b>Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office’.</b>
You have to remember “inquisitions” are a universal and necessary action of all governments and groups. It is unavoidable. Even here, “no girls allowed” takes this form for the sake of social order. You have to understand people do not all want the same things, if we did then how free could we really be?
Sorry for overlong post!
Don’t be, for several reasons. First these subjects are always indepth, it cannot be avoided. Second, I enjoy our discussion because you have, or least give the impression, a diverse background. You do not repeat the same thing over and over again and then say “because I am right” or “because I feel” (at least not a lot). And you do not keep quoting Sam Harris as an authority figure(that is a joke, maybe a bad one).
These discussions are very difficult to keep short.
Eggplant wrote; Harpo: First I did not say or imply that you said that “humans do not act according to thier nature”. You equated human and animal behavior to be equal.
Yes and I stand by it. Human= Animal and so Human behavior=animal behavior… Just because we have developed a moral code that other animals don’t use does not make us any less an animal. It also does not make us more important just more advanced in our reasoning and thinking skills. Your saying that because we have specialized skills that no other animals have this magically changed us into non animals, but you failed to answer the question every-time..
What are we if not animals? what are we behaving like if not animals?
My answers are as follows.. No matter how advanced our mental capabilities become we are no less or more than an animal with those capabilities period..Humans have no choice but to behave like the creatures they are..If they use free will to participate in the school play as a tree they are still an animal pretending to be a tree…pretending is an animal action. If any animal completely renders this planet useless and uninhabitable it will be the arrogance of man thinking he is so important to have risen above being just an animal..You are showing this arrogance and ignorance every time you dispute being and acting like an animal. I will continue to honor your assertion that you are not an animal. I choose to acknowledge my ignorance and overcome it by accepting the 5th grade level biology text as being accurate. If your not an animal your an ignorant and arrogant eggplant that refuses to tell anyone what we are if not an animal. If you reply without answering my two questions above I will have no further reason to abandon the eggplant premise that you leave me with..Your an eggplant to me until you define yourself.
I am not letting you change the subject from biology (the study of life) to mathematics. I will not debate math with an Eggplant.
Eggplant wrote; If that is the case than you are differentiating human and animal behavior as different. If humans are only animals
then why “must” one differentiate the two behaviors? If they “must” be differentiated then that means they are not
on equal terms and there is no “hierarchy” in regards to animal behavior (in many respects) but rather animal behavior and
non-animal behavior.NO NO NO NO we MUST NOT differentiate, I WILL NEVER AGREE THAT THERE CAN BE NON ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AMONG HUMANS PERIOD..WHY BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO TELL ME WHAT WE ARE BEHAVING LIKE IF NOT ANIMALS. THE WORD HIERARCHY IS NOT RELEVANT IN ANY RESPECT OTHER THAN IN MEASURING THE HUMAN ANIMALS ARROGANCE. YOU ARE THE FIRST EGGPLANT THAT I HAVE EVER KNOWN TO EXHIBIT THE HUMAN ANIMALS BEHAVIOR OF ARROGANCE.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Frank. Dont waste your time. I really am leaving for 6 months in hope that when I come back, there will be more REAL mgtows here.
Go listen to Stardusk on Youtube. I guess he doesnt make vids anymore, but if you want to hear what real philosophical mgtows sound like, there a compilation of Stardusk 5 hours long. I was able to get through 4 hours last night and will have to listen a few more times. He covers sociological/biological factors and understands what he is talking about.
Its apparent to me that John Doe really is some sort of drug addict or major loser. Anyone who posts 6 pages of bulls~~~ at 830 in the morning has been up all night.
Anyway, MGTOW.com is the s~~~ and its bound to get popular. Eventually, with time, real mgtow with fill these threads. In the mean time, Im going to hear out many of our mgtow forefathers online. After I exhaust Stardusk stuff for a month or two, Im going to explore BarBarossa.
It beats the hell out of being here, at least for now. I cant believe the retarded bulls~~~ here, Creationism, Christians, hatred of proven fact, people pretty much acting retarded. Fake ass mgtow teenie boppers who’ve been brainwashed by sunday school teachers. Who cant even understand themselves, let alone the state of gender sociology.
I choose to acknowledge my ignorance and overcome it by accepting the 5th grade level biology text as being accurate.
The oxford dictionary definition of “animal” says otherwise. Also, according to the standards of others, this would fall under the fallacy of authority.
If your not an animal your an ignorant and arrogant eggplant that refuses to tell anyone what we are if not an animal.
I never said we were not animals, I said we were not only animals in nature. Big difference.
I am not letting you change the subject from biology (the study of life) to mathematics. I will not debate math with an Eggplant.
Theoretical mathematics is an example of an activity that does not fulfill a base survival drive that animals possess and only possess. I never changed the subject at all, it was an example of an act that was non instinct/survival based drive.
Eggplant wrote; Harpo: First I did not say or imply that you said that “humans do not act according to thier nature”. You equated human and animal behavior to be equal.
Eggplant wrote; If that is the case than you are differentiating human and animal behavior as different. If humans are only animals then why “must” one differentiate the two behaviors? If they “must” be differentiated then that means they are not on equal terms and there is no “hierarchy” in regards to animal behavior (in many respects) but rather animal behavior and non-animal behavior.
I am confused because then you said in a “loud” quote:
[quote=40840]NO NO NO NO we MUST NOT differentiate, I WILL NEVER AGREE THAT THERE CAN BE NON ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AMONG HUMANS PERIOD..WHY BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO TELL ME WHAT WE ARE BEHAVING LIKE IF NOT ANIMALS. THE WORD HIERARCHY IS NOT RELEVANT IN ANY RESPECT OTHER THAN IN MEASURING THE HUMAN ANIMALS ARROGANCE. YOU ARE THE FIRST EGGPLANT THAT I HAVE EVER KNOWN TO EXHIBIT THE HUMAN ANIMALS BEHAVIOR OF ARROGANCE.
then you said on the “Free will vs Destiny thread #38508:
“..He is quick to anger and has made the comment that nothing seems to bother me much..I just said, that I have gained nothing useful I can recall from feeling anger or frustration..”
Why so serious now? According to you I am wrong, so why does it matter what I say?
And with that being said…… I was acknowledging certain acts of awareness and consciousness (using theoretical mathematics as an example) as fundamentally non animalistic in both form and function due to them not being driven by base drives. Animals are only driven by base drives. People are driven by base drives in many respects. But they are also not driven by base desire in many other acts. What are we to do with actions that are not driven by base drives. We cannot chaulk them up to animal reasoning because many of these
things (such as mathematical laws) can only be observed not created. Awareness, not driven by physical drives, is what
also seperates us from the animals.Anyone who posts 6 pages of bulls~~~ at 830 in the morning has been up all night.
I love my hours too.
You said:
I cant believe the retarded bulls~~~ here, Creationism, Christians, hatred of proven fact, people pretty much acting retarded. Fake ass mgtow teenie boppers who’ve been brainwashed by sunday school teachers. Who cant even understand themselves, let alone the state of gender sociology.
but before you said this on the first page:
“For starters John, glad you could make it.”
You should make up your mind, you are confusing everyone.
I am also disappointed in you, after all this thread is for “serious” atheist “militants” and I feel like I am being robbed of my “crusade” (as you put it). You were a marine, you are better than this. These are just words. Now get some of that Gung Ho spirit and go prove me wrong. I am counting on you to put up a good fight. Don’t let me down…who else is going to tell me about Sam Harris and the work all his colleagues done for him?
FrankOne wrote:
No, radiocarbon dating doesn’t require ‘variables’ to be pulled from ‘thin air’. We measure decay rates and use a simple formula for half life.http://chem.answers.com/environment/problems-with-carbon-dating
I didn’t claim carbon dating was 100% accurate; it has a margin of error of around 15% as I recall. Nothing is being pulled from ‘thin air’ as you put it; there are correlations to account for variations in C-14 in the atmosphere. Carbon dating correlates well to tree rings. It certainly has limits — 50,000 – 100,000 years maximum age, there is too little C-14 left to measure after that. Other forms of dating using inorganic isotopes have much higher accuracies because they aren’t dependent upon these factors — I’ve hiked to the basin of the Grand Canyon and the Vishnu Schist is 1.7 billion years old. It was probably dated with the Uranium-Lead radioisotope method, accurate to within 1%. There are many ways to measure how old the universe is, from the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature, to red shifts. All of these argue against young earth creationism or biblical literalism.
There were other scenarios, such as the ones in Turkmenistan or the “meister” print in Utah. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/footprints/human-and-dinosaur-footprints-in-turkmenistan/ http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/paleontological/footprints/
I won’t even respond to some link from Answers in Genesis; they start with a conclusion and try to make up facts that fit it. This isn’t science or reason; it’s apologetics. The order of events in Genesis isn’t even consistent with how the earth formed. There are numerous other apologetic groups for other religions that promote their beliefs in a similar fashion. AIG = Ken Ham = Founder of Creation Museum. If we find numerous homonid fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, that’s proof.
FrankOne wrote:
What you seem to be arguing here is that there is no macroevolution between species, but microevolution/adaptation does occur.What I am saying is that evolution is not necessary for survival and is not a universal law. Does variation occur? Yes. Do species adapt? Yes. And as I said prior is irrelevant towards atheism as believers and non believers accept it. Evolution still requires a root life form from which all life evolved from, and this life form cannot be changing or susceptible to evolution otherwise there is no starting point to life because it would require the life form to have no consistency/order to its existence. Life is not a variable, but requires order. One cannot evolve past life, otherwise the purpose of evolution is destruction of life, not the evolution of it. This separate point, would nullify evolution as a universal law. But as I stated multiple times, evolution literally requires its own thread.
The claims believers make have necessarily become narrower, ever narrower with time, as science has advanced. Evolution contradicts literal belief in many religions, but doesn’t outright disprove the existence of God or Gods. Many believers do NOT accept evolution, about 14% in the US.
Evolution doesn’t require a root life form; life could evolve, a cataclysm occur, and it evolve again, or it could evolve in two different geographic places at once. On earth, though, life does happen to share the same nucleic acids and cell organelles indicative of common ancestry. There is some dispute on the last universal ancestor (LUA). Your statement that the universal ancestor couldn’t change doesn’t make sense; change can occur in an ordered structure. You should download a cellular automata simulator. Evolution doesn’t have a ‘purpose’, it isn’t conscious or directed. My computer can run a different program when I switch to AutoCAD from Excel to Firefox to Outlook; it’s still a complex machine and ordered but it can certainly change. Similar, if I change the program on an expensive CNC milling machine, it will produce a very different physical part. Just as a cell can change depending upon its genetic material. Cell organelles may stay the same but the ‘program’ they run, or genetic code varies widely. All our cells have the same genetic material, but which genes are expressed determines what tissue they make up. Life shares the same nucleic acids and cell structures; something can be ordered but also change.
Slavery: ‘When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)’
Immoral. Next question?
FrankOne wrote:
And the punishment for forsaking God in the Bible is DEATH to the Apostate. That is IMMORAL.To forsake God would be in essence to forsake oneself, who is made in the image of God, and in essence be suicidal. Part of this argument also goes back to my prior one about government/social order/lack of mass communitication/physical cultural borders that I posted prior. To abandon a source of laws would be to abandon laws themselves which promote life and prosperity in many respects. Looking at the ten commandments one could quickly come to the conclusion of the importance of human life. To abandon these laws would in affect cause harm towards oneself, but also in many respect cause harm to others up to including death. To violate the health, prosperity, and dignity of others and creation itself would in many respects require an act of self defense or punishment. Also there is no atheist or agnostic commandment period. There is no value system, so by default you cannot say another system is wrong with nothing to compare it to. That is very intolerant.
So, is killing apostates still approved behavior or not? How do you know when the jig is up and you’re supposed to stop following Biblical or Qoranic commandments? Once you have one too many secular neighbors who will throw you in jail? I’m not talking about suicide, I’m talking about KILLING your fellow man who has decided not to follow your God. Or killing your slaves. When did slavery become bad & why didn’t God just say, for you my chosen people, American plantation owners, it’s cool until 1860, then it’s game over.
To call not killing people who don’t share my religion or lack or religion, intolerant, is laughable. In the modern world, most people (aside from religious radicals) don’t believe in killing people because they don’t share their faith. I’ve never known an atheist who killed someone because they were religious or flew an airplane into a temple or church. As discussed previously, irreligious people are NOT without values or ethics. I have repeatedly noted entire countries with low religiousity and low crime rates. These people are NOT stabbing, shooting, and raping each other to any greater extent than in Christian or Muslim majority countries.
FrankOne wrote:
You really don’t answer whether it’s moral to kill non-believers as the Bible directs or how to pick and choose which commandments are to be followed.Under the circumstances and psychology of the times it was moral then, but due to mass communication it is irrelevant today. That is one non-contradictory perspective to a mult-dimensional question.
It’s an out. Kind of like a cafeteria Catholic who believes in birth control despite what the infallible cross-dressing pope-in-a-dress commands. In the American South, the confederates used the Bible to defend slaveholding; the Abolitionists in the North selectively read verses favoring the opposite position.
FrankOne wrote:
Evolution is relevant in so far as it disproves literalism or the Genesis mythology.This is false. Man was created from “mud”. This could be easily interpreted as a primordial soup in some respects. As I said before, educated “believers”, primarily Catholics, have gone through the theological implications and found no contradiction. Which is why I say this “argument” about evolution is irrelevant in regards to Atheism. At one point I read the argument, forgot it over the years, but remember it have not contradictions. Is my experience proof that it is right? No, I just remember being informed about it and not impress. We are literally wasting space on a thread about atheism. The crocodiles, bacteria, etc that might have changed size with time have not changed in form or function. A crocodile has not evolved past the form of a crocodile. This applies the same to bacteria, etc. As I said before, basic forms have remained. There are certain forms that have not evolved past previous forms. Also a leg cannot evolved past being a leg, a wing cannot evolve past being a wing, teeth cannot evolve past being teeth. Certain fundamental core characteristics do not change in themselves nor do they always “evolve” out of being previous forms. If I had a son that gained more weight than I did, does that mean he is more evolved than me?
If nobody is finding any contradictions, why has religiosity been on the decline in much of the world, coincident with easily available information? The internet is where religions go to die. You didn’t examine any of the photographs of transitional forms from an unbiased source, and continue making implicit claims that dinosaurs are large lizards. There are species that have not changed because they survive in their current form. I don’t understand all these statements about one generation relating to evolutionary change, it doesn’t make sense. The fossil record of the transitional forms exists and is readily visible if you have the courage to examine it with an open mind — see link, previous message. The bible & its ilk don’t have a very good track record of prophecy, either.
FrankOne wrote:
We have already applied genetic engineering to crops; it isn’t a stretch to extrapolate and expect someday, we can reduce disease in humans, slow down aging, and improve our mental performance, as we understand more and more about genetics.It is a faith based statement. Also disease, may or may not be reduced, but are not eliminated. Also the gmos, you quoted as an example, have been found to cause health effects in certain animals such as pigs.
No, it isn’t. Because it is at least based on some facts — extrapolations can be wrong, Faith is a belief despite absence of proof. The proof here is the successful genetic engineering already achieved. Genetically Modified Organisms to produce grains have helped feed the planet.
FrankOne wrote:
I wouldn’t describe the rise and fall of civilizations as I would evolution; while ideas and memes may ‘replicate’, many factors determine rise & fall. Birth rates, military prowess, draughts, civil unrest, etc.However, from an atheist perspective, all these things would have to be subject to the evolution of the animal which either causes and/or effects these things. If it does not affect these subjects (which affect survivability) than evolution is irrelevant as a law.
No. We haven’t had any wars with different species of hominids fighting one another. That’s the basis of my argument that these other factors predominate. Cultural differences have been greater than genetic differences in these wars.
FrankOne wrote:
I didn’t understand what you were saying about evolution and physics.According to the atheist all existence is fundamentally physics, chemical reactions, etc. Human beings cannot “evolve” if they are subject to these laws, as they would always be required to maintain a certain form due to these laws. If human beings do evolve, and they are nothing but particles, then the particles themselves would have to evolve also thereby eliminating the laws of physics. If they particles, what makes humans, do not change then there are fundamental portions of life which do not change thereby eliminating evolution as a universal law. Also if life is nothing but particles, then what is the necessity or point of evolution, as particles themselves do not need ever increasing complexity to exist.
Yes to first sentence, it’s humbling. I’m not a special creation. Everything thereafter above, does not make sense. We can evolve (our genetic code can change), but such evolution, can’t violate, say, conservation of mass or energy — since we’ve observed no processes that can do so. Just as I can play a video game on my computer or run a spreadsheet, depending upon the program running, in a cell, depending on what genetic code is ‘programmed’ by the blind watchmaker of evolution, different results ensue — the program can be a neuron in a complex brain, part of muscle tissue, a bacterium, etc. So far there isn’t evidence that physical constants are changing over time; even if they did, there is no ‘replication’ of reality that we know of or can prove, so I don’t understand the comparison to evolutionary processes? In the last sentence you impart anthropomorphic characteristics to atoms and molecules; they exist whether life exists or not. They exist in interstellar gas clouds and form planets like our moon. Evolution is a process, it doesn’t have a necessity or point, it just IS, like gravity or the four forces.
FrankOne wrote:
though obviously, as a secularist I don’t believe it. Of course, to me, it is just another resurrection myth like Orpheus, Mithras, and other contemporary ones in the first century AD. That is what I meant by religions being syncretic and drawing upon their forbearers — in other words Christianity borrowed from Judaism (obviously) and also Mithraism (lesser known).A constant acknowledgement of a resurrection type event points to either a twisted form of a prior faith and/or a constant reoccurring theme existent within the depths of human as a group conscious event. The constant reoccurance of a resurrection event and the debate over it points less towards an absence of it, but rather an acknowledgement of it in some form. Similar to a group of people watching the same event, although the stories may vary an event is acknowledged.
No, it doesn’t. There are thousands of religions and many of them are polytheistic or introspective rather than focused upon worship deities (take Buddhism). In Buddhism the goal is to STOP the reincarnation process/cycle of birth and death. And hundreds of millions of people believe in Buddhism — and it has no God or Gods. Monotheistic religions are new. Most civilizations were polytheistic in ancient times. As I have tried to indicate to you, religions change with time — the Jews were originally a polyheistic tribe, a syncretic religion with Babylonian influences. That divided and one sect became Christianity. And it split and changed with the Reformation. Much can be learned by moving out of the Abrahmic comfort zone and learning about the world’s religions.
I would have to agree with both points, which is why I stated “assuming you are correct” or something similiar. Athiesm is going to become more popular, along with nihilism. It is an intellectual fad that will eventually give rise to another non-Abrahamic religion. It is a temporary “solution”.
Has nihilism risen with atheism in irreligious countries? Have the non-believers in said countries converted to some non-Abrahmic religion? ‘Solution’ to what? Evidence please.
I think this puts it succinctly:
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” — Dt.13:6-10
Questions: Why doesn’t it apply today, and why the cafeteria Christianity?
There is a big difference between a group excluding people as a private endeavor (e.g. mgtow.com, Men’s Clubs, etc), and killing people.
I never said we were not animals, I said we were not only animals in nature. Big difference.
we were not only animals in nature. diagram that sentence and explain it to me. I don’t understand it for real. and you did say we are not animals when you wrote this;
Eggplant differentiated humans from animals when posting this; If something is not acting according to its nature then how can it be considered such? Humans have the potential to go past base animal desires, in this respect we are not animals simply because animals cannot do this. They follow appetite. Humans have the potential to go past this. Animals do not.
Humans can’t move past base animal desires, such as appetite. Why? We will starve like any other animal if we try… You are differentiating humans and animals in the block quote above so don’t lie and say you never said humans are not animals.”If” is a bad word to start any sentence in a debate and doubly so if its a question…I have held that human nature is animal nature and should not be differentiated..you start with this unfounded unproven premise: ” If something is not acting according to its nature then how can it be considered such?” clearly a question that starts with the word “if”. This premise asserts that humans do not act like animals and at the same time leaves you a hole to crawl through in the word “if” Humans are animals and can behave like nothing else period. With the exception of John Doe the backpedaling Eggplant…
I give up Eggplant your correct in differentiating yourself from animals..I will always be an animal and act like an animal. I don’t have any desire to differentiate but every reply you insist I must this is why I agree that you may be different from an animal. I just can’t get you to tell me what you are if not an animal so I am left with the only other life form on the planet.. . HITTING THE CAP LOCK MAKES NO MORE NOISE WHEN I TYPE THAN LOWER CASE LETTERS AND FOR SOME MAY INDICATE ANGER, BUT I COULD NOT BE ANGRY AT AN EGGPLANT. SUCH A HARMLESS LIFE FORM..it got your attention, as I wanted..I will attempt understanding this sentence again..
we were not only animals in nature.
Could mean we were, but are no longer.. Could mean we are not only animals but also something different.. could mean only in nature are we animals, but not in nature we are something different.. What does this mean? or is it a meaningless attempt to back-peddle on what you posted before?
Were is a past form of the verb to be. For example, “We were on vacation last week.” So the big difference you speak of is that you are not making complete sentences or much in the way of common sense..
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
I didn’t claim carbon dating was 100% accurate; it has a margin of error of around 15% as I recall. Nothing is being pulled from ‘thin air’ as you put it; there are correlations to account for variations in C-14 in the atmosphere. Carbon dating correlates well to tree rings. It certainly has limits — 50,000 – 100,000 years maximum age, there is too little C-14 left to measure after that. Other forms of dating using inorganic isotopes have much higher accuracies because they aren’t dependent upon these factors — I’ve hiked to the basin of the Grand Canyon and the Vishnu Schist is 1.7 billion years old. It was probably dated with the Uranium-Lead radioisotope method, accurate to within 1%. There are many ways to measure how old the universe is, from the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature, to red shifts. All of these argue against young earth creationism or biblical literalism.
In regards to the carbon dating, we were not observing it 50,000+ years ago to see if it was accurate to that long. Assuming I am correct, it still does not matter because we are still stuck with the concept of how “long” a day was. We do not know if the rotation of the earth has sped up or slowed down so what might have been 100 years along time ago might have been 10 years today, when compared to the measurement of atomic time. You have to understand, that although time might be measured atomically by today’s standards, it was dependent on when the sun went up and down back then. Take for example, the ancient Romans did not have hours equivalent to ours. It was based on when the sun went up and down. Although time is measured by atomic movements today, it was measured by celestial movements back then. So we cannot compare time measurements the same.
Getting back to the carbon dating, rates of decay can and do vary based on time and environmental factors. This is inherent in Iron-57 and Uranium 238 (as the article says) in regards to carbon we do not yet know if and what can change rate times.
It also assumes the atmosphere has a consistent level of Carbon -12 and 14 atoms, which is not evident historically speaking. There have been fluctuations.
Mollusk that have died several days prior were tested and measured to be dead for 2000 years.
As to the “being pulled out of thin air”:
“When a sample is given to a lab to determine age the lab is also told the expected age range. If ages are found that are wildly outside the expected age window, they are dismissed as cross-contamination or lab error. For instance, with samples from Egypt the lab is told the age should be about 4,000 years old. If the data suggest that the age is 10,000 years old the scientists conclude the data must be wrong.”
sited from prior article.
This isn’t science or reason; it’s apologetics.
And atheism is no different? With that being said the issues of the footprints are still issues to be dealt with, not matter how you want to interpret them.
Evolution doesn’t have a ‘purpose’, it isn’t conscious or directed.
Then one cannot say it is necessary for survival, as in evolution’s purpose is not survival.
Evolution doesn’t require a root life form; life could evolve, a cataclysm occur, and it evolve again, or it could evolve in two different geographic places at once.
Yes it does, because otherwise it implies evolution created life because evolution is a “physical” law. If that was the case, of it being a physical law, then in many aspects it would have to be applied to all particles. Particles themselves would have to
change in form, otherwise evolution is not a universal law. Gold could not always be Gold, neither iron to iron, at some
point in the evolution of particles they would have to cease to exist.This is also with electrons, etc. If evolution was only a physical process then in many respects it would have to be
applied to basic physics/chemistry/etc. Evolution, if universal, would have to eventually nullify many aspects of
scientific law.My computer can run a different program when I switch to AutoCAD from Excel to Firefox to Outlook; it’s still a complex machine and ordered but it can certainly change.
But it will still be a computer (something that computes). Although there can be changes, there are also things that don’t evolve.
Cell organelles may stay the same but the ‘program’ they run, or genetic code varies widely. All our cells have the same genetic material, but which genes are expressed determines what tissue they make up. Life shares the same nucleic acids and cell structures; something can be ordered but also change.
This is similiar to my prior point, however the changes the “cell” makes does not make it any more of less of a cell.
Nor does it require the cell to “evolve” into something else. There are fundamental part of biology, in both the micro
and macro, sense that evolution is not required for. That is a huge problem with evolution, it is not always required
or evident. Somethings change, others don’t, but that change is not always required for survival nor does it make
the prior thing any “more” or “less” of what it is/was.Slavery: ‘When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)’ Immoral.
False, if there were circumstances where the slave rebelled, caused harm to others, damaged something, etc. this would
according to common sense require punishment. This law basically says not to kill a slave over a non-serious offense.
The punishment of “the rod” in Judaism was about chastising flesh, not breaking bone. It would be the equivalent of
giving non-life threatening bruises, scratches, etc. This law is about not going “overboard” in punishment over an
offense in regards to slaves, but also including employees.So, is killing apostates still approved behavior or not?
Back then yes, today no. I feel, like I am repeating myself and you are just closing your ears (metaphorically speaking)
This goes back to cultural and government differences in both form and function and the
issue with ideas being spread in an era without mass communication. Also the New Testament superceded the old and
revealed much of what was done back then was only applicable because the people were “tougher/harder” in many respects.
Which, from a biological perspective is true, as the bone density of “cave-men” etc. was considerably denser than
the average person of today. It would not be much of a stretch to “assume” that their psyche was no different.It’s an out. Kind of like a cafeteria Catholic who believes in birth control despite what the infallible cross-dressing pope-in-a-dress commands. In the American South, the confederates used the Bible to defend slaveholding; the Abolitionists in the North selectively read verses favoring the opposite position.
No because the person is choosing to go against there faith. And the pope doesn’t “command” these things. And the verses
in regards to the civil war were either right on one side or taken about of context in both. In regards to the “slave”
issue, slavery is unavoidable. There are and will always be certain people that have to be told what to do. Slavery
is necessary, in many circumstances, for the sake of the slave itself. It still exists, take fast food worker positions.
You say slavery is wrong, but most of the products you use were created by them.Also you have the issue with biblical definition, as the work “slave” oftentimes meant a “bodie” or a low position.
In many respects this was temporary also, as some slaves were to be free after a specific time period or any person in
debt was required to have their debt forgiven within seven years. So even in these positions, they were often times
temporary low pay jobs.Mosaic law, did not create slavery but just regulated an already existing custom. Slavery was part of the ancient world,
no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it.If nobody is finding any contradictions, why has religiosity been on the decline in much of the world, coincident with easily available information? The internet is where religions go to die. You didn’t examine any of the photographs of transitional forms from an unbiased source, and continue making implicit claims that dinosaurs are large lizards. There are species that have not changed because they survive in their current form. I don’t understand all these statements about one generation relating to evolutionary change, it doesn’t make sense.
Religion is also on the increase some areas, such as africa, parts of Europe, etc. It fluctuates and as to how and
why it fluctuates is for a multitude of reasons. You cannot blame it on the internet because there is little evidence
of the internet even making people smarter. On average, the IQ points have dropped by 14 since the victorian era. Now
I do not agree with the IQ test, that is another subject, but according you your own standards you would be incorrect.And as to the “dinosaur” point to mentioned: Just look it up in the dictionary if you don’t agree with me. Dinosaurs
are classified as massive reptiles. And in regards to certain organisms not changing, that is correct some do not.
Which is proof that evolution is not a universal biological law.You are under a false assumption that religious people are not scientifically minded (assuming science is a medium for all
truth) and that is not the case. There have been many religious orders that contributed alot to the sciences (Jesuits,etc)
The Vatican owns one of the largest telescopes in the world. Strict psychological testings in applied before getting
involved with exorcism cases. Many miracles are put through a strict set of testing, both scientific and non-scientific.
Etc. Etc. You cannot make these claims as true without either being misinformed or lying.The proof here is the successful genetic engineering already achieved. Genetically Modified Organisms to produce grains have helped feed the planet.
Success in what regards exactly? Because the GMOs meant to prevent weeds have failed. The GMOs meant to create “bigger”
vegetables, do not contain enough nutrients. Studies of feeding pigs, GMO only grain have concluded with the pigs
dying of organ failure. And the list can go on. You say GMO fixed alot of problems, I am saying nothing has changed.
If anything the issues have become more complicated and in some respects even worse due to GMOs.
And in regards to the “world hunger” problem. The issue is mulifaceted. Parts of Africa and India still suffer from
starvation. And the average American cannot gain the right amounts of nutrients from a healthy diet. We have “full”
stomachs and are still deprived of essential nutrition. What solution did the GMO’s give?
Parts of Eastern Europe and Europe itself have banned GMOs altogether.Because it is at least based on some facts — extrapolations can be wrong, Faith is a belief despite absence of proof.
I wish to have faith with an absence of proof (because it would be truer and fuller)
but many have faith because of some miracle in some form, but public
and/or private. In regards to proof itself? What do you mean exactly, because even the subject of proof ends up
relating to a philosophical issue.No. We haven’t had any wars with different species of hominids fighting one another. That’s the basis of my argument that these other factors predominate. Cultural differences have been greater than genetic differences in these wars.
But these cultures would inevitably have to be a by product of evolution in some form, if evolution is to be taken
as a universal law. Otherwise what else could account for advanced culture/techonology/physique, except for biology and physics, from the point
of view of an atheist evolutionist. An evolutionist is still stuck with the question of the issue of differences between races as
diversity is an evolutionary aspect. In many respects a culture could have been created due to a genetic predospition,
according to the evolutionist. So your points is null in many different respects.In the last sentence you impart anthropomorphic characteristics to atoms and molecules; they exist whether life exists or not.
Complexity is not an anthropomorphic feature, and if according to your standards it is (and anthropomorphization
bring falsity) then we would never come to terms with truth through computers or machines which are complex in themselves.
Also books cannot be used in aquiring knowledge, as they are complex. However, the athiest in many cases, requires
these things for knowledge, so it leads to logic loop. After all, the things made by anthropomorphic hands and in many
respects literally defined by anthropomorphism itself and have anthropomorphic reflections.Evolution is a process, it doesn’t have a necessity or point, it just IS, like gravity or the four forces.
You literally just said process=force. Evolution is not a force, because it is not applied universally, like gravity.
Also this would imply that evolution has to be applied to physics which cannot be the case, otherwise it is not universal
, and also because it applies only to biology as you previously mentioned.A process is a procress. According to the oxford dictionary a process is: a series of actions or steps taken in order
to achieve a desired end.This points to a lot of contradictions, because it means evolution is somewhat anthropomophized and has a purpose.
However you said it lacked these two prior things.In Buddhism the goal is to STOP the reincarnation process/cycle of birth and death.
At one point the Buddha was considered a saint in the Orthodox church, because he predicted a Christ-like figure “greater
than himself (the buddha). So the Buddha, through his own admittance, did not claim to be the “end/all” be all in truth.
To acknowledge some truths, does not make him wrong, but rather incomplete (philosophically speaking or lacking in awareness.
But getting back to the point, it still acknowledges a resurrection in some form. Which was my point, that the issue
of a resurection is a universal facet of all religions, however there obviously is distortion due to the interpretation
of how/why a resurrection takes place. And as to having no Diety(ies) would be senseless as it deifies existence itself.
Also introspection, in many respects, is to seek deification of oneself through “understanding” and awareness. The
destruction of the ego does not eliminate the Buddha, or how else could he be acknowledged, except as nothingness.As I have tried to indicate to you, religions change with time — the Jews were originally a polyheistic tribe, a syncretic religion with Babylonian influences. That divided and one sect became Christianity. And it split and changed with the Reformation. Much can be learned by moving out of the Abrahmic comfort zone and learning about the world’s religions.
Yes I know this, but to say it has had babylonian influences would still implie there were core truths to Judaism which
did not change. Otherwise what could be influenced? Judaism is monotheistic. One can say there is multiple “dieties”
but they are all subjective, in many different respects, to one. So one can look to polythiesm either as a distortion
of truth or as incomplete knowledge, because one cannot have multiple Gods without being subjected to one true law/existence
/universal being/concept/etc.Many of the Psalms, books (Daniel/Isaiah/etc), were non babylonian in nature and these are where the prophecies of
Christ came from. Christianity did not “come from babylonian” texts, but rather strictly Judaic texts only. Tell
me how the book of Psalms was inspired by ancient babylon?In regards to the reformation, much of it had to do with theological issues. Many of which had nothing to do with
the Resurrection, but rather theology. But even after the Reformation there were still some metaphysical/theological/
etc. truths that did not change. But regardless of that, even the motives of the Reformation were heretical. Martin
luther wanted to take out scriptures that did not fit his philosophy, and he was just one of the schismatics.
There are constants regardless. Also there was a philosophical change in many viewpoints as “nationalism” took
precedent over religion. So there was a variety of factors.Your argument is that religions change, and because of change
there is ambiguity. However there are constants that are not ambiguous and certain things which never change. Even
if one were to say that “Change is the only truth” would be subject to contradictions as “Change” “is” “only” and “truth”
cannot change meanings in themselves without causing contradiction and because they cannot change meanings there are
certain things that do not change, thereby nullifying the statement. Also certain “non-changing” observations have to
be made before even acknowledging this sentence, as in acknowledging forms which may vary in appearance but do not
fundamentally change.Has nihilism risen with atheism in irreligious countries? Have the non-believers in said countries converted to some non-Abrahmic religion? ‘Solution’ to what?
Laminae, along with you, say everything is “meaningless” (or that purpose is not required) so how is that not Nihilistic? Nihilistic and Atheism are two philosophies that f~~~ed and the bastard child was the ego. I simply said Athiesm and Nihilism is on the rise and that
people believe it will be a solution to thier problems (religion for example) however these philosophies lack reason and
have no merit or value. Because of this they are only “temporary” and people will eventually move on to some other religion.Why doesn’t it apply today, and why the cafeteria Christianity?
The revelation of Christ supercedes old abrhamic law. This is old-judaism, not Christianity. Christ himself revealed this
when a crowd was about to stone Mary Magdeline. The laws were for a people who were children in nature. As a people
matured, through time/faith/reason/and revelation, new laws superceded the old. It is not that the laws were wrong, but
rather for a infant version of humanity. The resurrection of Christ, in Christianity, fulfilled the nature of man and
enabled him to move past certain actions and thinking. Christs resurrection enabled the everlasting life of man as
Christ was the first man to do it. If a disciple ran into unbelievers he was to walk away. The governments, as in all,
gain their authority through the divine, so in many respects to attack a God/religion would be to attack the authority
or government itself. A good government (one that is properly following its role as government) enables order and
prosperity for its people. In this case the government was obligated to act in self defense and quell the heresy as all
true heresy to fundamental to the well being of a people. The role of a government is different than that of the individual.
Most modern governments still act against any ideas which threaten authority (whether that is a good or bad thing).
Also, as I said multiple times, this was an act of heresy to serve other Gods. On one hand one denies their own image and
likeness to God and in respect harms oneself and harms others. It would be the equivalent to removing a bad apple from
the barrel. That is how governments and cultures operated at the time, before mass communication. Atheist governments
do that now. It is a function of authority to preserve order and maintian prosperity. It would be the equivalent of
killing in self defense, as some values are greater than the life of one man. And to undermine those values or truth,
would not only hurt the people, but bring destruction. However to punish heresy was an act of government. And to
“banish” as you would say was the equivalent of death in many respects.MGTOW is not a government so you cannot compare it to one. It does not bring order. The forums point to the corruption
of a society, while implying a morality, so you cannot say it really has any authority over life an death to begin with.
There is a big difference between an authority and a government. Also MGTOW does not have any physical violence against
it, so you cannot imply that it is right for not killing people, as if was and can never be put under circumstances that
morally obligate it to.I will say again. MGTOW is a forum. It is not a government. To compare the authorities/actions/rights would be to
compare apples and oranges.And I will say this again, if you argument against Christianity is this, then you would be bias not to go against
Athiestic governments also. And if this is would leads you to agnosticism, that one cannot know anything, then this
is a contradiction as you stated some truth. You cannot deem a God immoral or wrong with having a prior value or morality
to this. In a sense you would have to deify yourself, and if this is the case you would blatantly have to say you can
do no wrong, which is why agnosticism suits you. Because it makes morality ambiguous.I feel like I am either repeating myself because do not understand what I am saying. Maybe I am not being clear
enough. Or maybe you are more bias than you want to admit to yourself. I do not know. Besides how can you judge
a Christianity (or Catholicism to be more precise) when you don’t even fully know it?I think I accidentally won the longest post.
we were not only animals in nature. diagram that sentence and explain it to me. I don’t understand it for real. and you did say we are not animals when you wrote this;
We have both animal and non animal qualities and these qualities are evident through action. In one respect, through actions, we are animals but do to non-animal actions and the potential to go past base desires one is also an animal.
An animal can not go past base desire. Base desires are fundamentally animalistic. Humans have base desires but do not operate solely on them. Human beings have animal qualities. Human beings also have non-base driven actions. These actions are not animalistic. Human beings have non-animal actions.
= Human beings can act in both animalistic (base desire driven) and non animalistic ways (not animalistic ways). Human beings can be animals in some respects, but cannot be fully animals as they both have the potential to act in another way and also act in another way. The ability to act and the potential to act not as animals (base drives) is what makes us not fully base desire driven (which is the quality of animals.)
If something is not acting according to its nature then how can it be considered such? Humans have the potential to go past base animal desires, in this respect we are not animals simply because animals cannot do this. They follow appetite. Humans have the potential to go past this. Animals do not.
And when I wrote this where did I say “humans are not animals”? I said “in this respect we are not animals”. Because we have both animal and I guess you can say “divine” qualities, but also neither in different respects. One would best understand our nature as that of a “fusion”. Are we animals? In one respect yes in another no. To deny this last sentence would be to deny common sense itself/lower humanity/raise animals.
Humans can’t move past base animal desires, such as appetite. Why? We will starve like any other animal if we try
Actually we can eat because it is good for us, not because of impulse or desire. Eating is not a desire, it is an act. An animal cannot differentiate desire from act, as it acts on desire. I may desire something and still choose to ignore it. On a personal note, I ignore my appetite all the time. I am known as a guy who can go all day without eating. And when I go home, I can eat knowing that it is good for me not just because I desire too.
If” is a bad word to start any sentence in a debate and doubly so if its a question…I have held that human nature is animal nature and should not be differentiated..you start with this unfounded unproven premise: ” If something is not acting according to its nature then how can it be considered such?” clearly a question that starts with the word “if”. This premise asserts that humans do not act like animals and at the same time leaves you a hole to crawl through in the word “if” Humans are animals and can behave like nothing else period. With the exception of John Doe the backpedaling Eggplant…
You do not understand much in this life do you?
Here is what I said:
If something is not acting according to its nature then how can it be considered such?
If a human being is only an animal, as you say, than how can it be considered an animal when it exhibits non-animal qualities or ceases to act in animalistic (base-driven) ways?
What is the issue? It is a legitimate question, which is one of the many questions/examples which refutes the dictionary definition of people.
HITTING THE CAP LOCK MAKES NO MORE NOISE WHEN I TYPE THAN LOWER CASE LETTERS AND FOR SOME MAY INDICATE ANGER, BUT I COULD NOT BE ANGRY AT AN EGGPLANT. SUCH A HARMLESS LIFE FORM
You may say I make no sense, but you are the one talking to an “eggplant”. Also this has to do with intent, as one cannot scream on a forum. Screaming, must be communicated in different means. Or “loud intent” to be exact. It must be communicated differently. I remember a disagreement on a prior thread, and you literally followed every post I made to disagree with it. Even though the prior disagreement was on an entirely different thread on an entirely different subject. To be exact, and without room for misinterpretation, I am saying you have no patience. I don’t know why you bother with the name calling, I am just exposing a different form of mortality you are just coming to terms with.
Am I an asshole? It doesn’t matter when you are older than me and should know better.
Could mean we were, but are no longer.. Could mean we are not only animals but also something different.. could mean only in nature are we animals, but not in nature we are something different.. What does this mean?
Actually it can mean the first two statements. I have not stated the last one. Here is the quote of what I said:
never said we were not animals, I said we were not only animals in nature. Big difference.
“Were” is still correct. “Are” would be more accurate. Also “animals in nature” means to act as an animal as in its nature. Not nature, as in “outside”. My fault is not in a contradiction but rather not being accurate enough. However this small sentence in the scheme of the dialogue does not matter as you have not countered: the issue of “awareness” of non base driven laws, the example of non-base driven activities within people, the issue of the premise of your argument (5th grade biology book) contradicting other sources of equal or greater value, and your “fox” example of evolution. (This is what I can so far remember) And these should have no issues in accuracy.
Save the shaming language for someone who cares. Besides talking to an “eggplant” is a sign of mental retardation.
In regards to the carbon dating, we were not observing it 50,000+ years ago to see if it was accurate to that long. Assuming I am correct, it still does not matter because we are still stuck with the concept of how “long” a day was. We do not know if the rotation of the earth has sped up or slowed down so what might have been 100 years along time ago might have been 10 years today, when compared to the measurement of atomic time. You have to understand, that although time might be measured atomically by today’s standards, it was dependent on when the sun went up and down back then. Take for example, the ancient Romans did not have hours equivalent to ours. It was based on when the sun went up and down. Although time is measured by atomic movements today, it was measured by celestial movements back then. So we cannot compare time measurements the same. Getting back to the carbon dating, rates of decay can and do vary based on time and environmental factors. This is inherent in Iron-57 and Uranium 238 (as the article says) in regards to carbon we do not yet know if and what can change rate times. It also assumes the atmosphere has a consistent level of Carbon -12 and 14 atoms, which is not evident historically speaking. There have been fluctuations. Mollusk that have died several days prior were tested and measured to be dead for 2000 years. As to the “being pulled out of thin air”: “When a sample is given to a lab to determine age the lab is also told the expected age range. If ages are found that are wildly outside the expected age window, they are dismissed as cross-contamination or lab error. For instance, with samples from Egypt the lab is told the age should be about 4,000 years old. If the data suggest that the age is 10,000 years old the scientists conclude the data must be wrong.” sited from prior article.
Earth’s rotation slows down a couple milliseconds a year; a few billion years ago a day was 18-20 hours. So that is something we do know. This has been documented in banding structures of rocks caused by tides. The cause is tidal acceleration. Unfortunately, the argument is ever-changing; first, it’s carbon dating is pulled from thin-air; then when radionuclide dating is accepted as accurate, a ‘day isn’t a day’. Does the word also mean an age in every other biblical context? Your statement regarding the length of a day relating to the length of a year doesn’t make any sense; even if the earth spins 24 times faster, that has NO impact upon its orbital period/length of the year. I am aware of how time was measured on a sundial relative to local/seasonal noon but I don’t see how that bears on the question. I already addressed isotopic ratios; correction for that is in tree rings; as noted, C-14 dating is one of the less reliable forms of dating, but it useful for organic specimens. Even +-15% is better than 0% accuracy for prophecy, right? Yes, sample contamination can and does occur in all analytical methods. Samples get interchanged. So if we don’t know if and what might change half lives, we must assume they changed?
FrankOne wrote:
This isn’t science or reason; it’s apologetics.
And atheism is no different? With that being said the issues of the footprints are still issues to be dealt with, not matter how you want to interpret them.No, they aren’t, by credible scientists — research it, along with the transitional forms. There is some molecular genetic research indicating ancestral primates may have coexisted with dinosaurs. Unlike fixed religious beliefs established in Holy Books, the corpus of knowledge is not static and can grow when subjected to further study.
A good example of the difference between science and religion is on a question such as the age of the earth. Under Christendom, Usher estimated it by Biblical Chronology; scientists like Lord Kelvin later tried to estimate it by thermodynamics (how quickly a molten earth would cool). Those estimates, 20-100 MM years, were way off; but unlike dogmatic truth, the scientific method prevailed as more was learned about plate tectonics, fission and nuclear processes, and now we have estimates based upon numerous scientific fields that converge. The difference between this and apologetics is, in apologetics, you are a biased party (a member of a religion), you start with a conclusion, and seek to prove it, throwing away any contradictory facts or explanations. In science, you start with observations, develop theories, and reach conclusions.
FrankOne wrote:
Evolution doesn’t have a ‘purpose’, it isn’t conscious or directed.
Then one cannot say it is necessary for survival, as in evolution’s purpose is not survival.As stated, some species have not needed to evolve to continue to survive. Evolution was necessary for life, though — the cell organelles had to evolve for even an organism like a bacterium. There are sulfur bacteria that haven’t evolved for 2 billion years and still reside today at the bottom of the ocean (microfossil evidence for lack of evolution). If the physical or biological environment isn’t changing, these organisms may thrive for another 2 billion years. To me, the word ‘purpose’ doesn’t relate to natural processes; does gravity have a ‘purpose’? No. Does a shovel have a purpose? Yes, for a human to dig a hole. I suppose a bird’s wing has a ‘purpose’ or at least ‘use’, to allow it to fly. I suppose you could say evolution improves chances for an organism to survive in a changing environment by allowing adaptation.
FrankOne wrote:
Evolution doesn’t require a root life form; life could evolve, a cataclysm occur, and it evolve again, or it could evolve in two different geographic places at once.Yes it does, because otherwise it implies evolution created life because evolution is a “physical” law. If that was the case, of it being a physical law, then in many aspects it would have to be applied to all particles. Particles themselves would have to change in form, otherwise evolution is not a universal law. Gold could not always be Gold, neither iron to iron, at some point in the evolution of particles they would have to cease to exist. This is also with electrons, etc. If evolution was only a physical process then in many respects it would have to be applied to basic physics/chemistry/etc. Evolution, if universal, would have to eventually nullify many aspects of scientific law.
No, it doesn’t. Life could evolve with codon triplets coding for different proteins. It could evolve with biological molecules possessing left-handed chirality but instead they possess right-handed chirality. What do you mean by ‘particles’? A macroscopic particle doesn’t possess the features of a living system; I can’t combine pieces of paper to form a self-replicating entity so how it is going to evolve? Gold is not a ‘particle’, it’s an element, and the only way to transmutate it into another element is fission or fusion according to known scientific processes. Since it doesn’t replicate, how is evolution supposed to apply to it? AndI also should clarify my previous statements, while I don’t think evolution occurs to societies, they most certainly change, based upon beliefs, knowledge, foreign influences, new ideas, etc, this is a different process than biological evolution.
FrankOne wrote:
My computer can run a different program when I switch to AutoCAD from Excel to Firefox to Outlook; it’s still a complex machine and ordered but it can certainly change.But it will still be a computer (something that computes). Although there can be changes, there are also things that don’t evolve.
True, conservation of mass, conservation of energy apply to biological and non-biological systems and there is no evidence of them changing. I don’t even understand the word ‘evolve’ in this context for the reasons stated above — if the computer doesn’t self-replicate with transcription errors than how is an evolutionary process even applicable? My point is, I can change the form by changing the program or the nucleic acids/DNA. If a cell is infected by a virus, it will replicate the virus instead of performing its normal function. If cell division goes awry we get a tumor.
FrankOne wrote:FrankOne wrote:
Cell organelles may stay the same but the ‘program’ they run, or genetic code varies widely. All our cells have the same genetic material, but which genes are expressed determines what tissue they make up. Life shares the same nucleic acids and cell structures; something can be ordered but also change.This is similar to my prior point, however the changes the “cell” makes does not make it any more of less of a cell. Nor does it require the cell to “evolve” into something else. There are fundamental part of biology, in both the micro and macro, sense that evolution is not required for. That is a huge problem with evolution, it is not always required or evident. Somethings change, others don’t, but that change is not always required for survival nor does it make the prior thing any “more” or “less” of what it is/was.
No, lack of change ISN’T a problem. Scientists are not questioning evolution because of organisms that haven’t changed for 2 billion years as discussed above. If the physical and biological environment isn’t changing an organism can survive indefinitely. The deep ocean is a relatively unchanging environment. More or less of what it was? The Influenza virus of 1918 was a lot ‘more’ than the one in 1917. You haven’t addressed the reality of the fossil record that shows the change in ‘forms’. Why not examine the visual evidence and THEN make a critique? This is tantamount to an ancient Greek philosopher who couldn’t be bothered by empirical evidence.
FrankOne wrote:
Slavery: ‘When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)’ Immoral.
False, if there were circumstances where the slave rebelled, caused harm to others, damaged something, etc. this would according to common sense require punishment. This law basically says not to kill a slave over a non-serious offense. The punishment of “the rod” in Judaism was about chastising flesh, not breaking bone. It would be the equivalent of giving non-life threatening bruises, scratches, etc. This law is about not going “overboard” in punishment over an offense in regards to slaves, but also including employees.I guess it’s okay to start a Bible-based religious community, hold slaves, and kill them then as long as they survive for a day or two. I agree to disagree on the immorality of slavery and killing said slaves. Since I don’t believe in slavery, rebellion is not cause for murder. The verse says nothing about why the slave was struck or acceptable or ‘just’ reasons for striking the slave and places no qualifications on killing the slave so we’ll agree to disagree on the morality of holding slaves and killing them. The verse doesn’t discuss a rod; it discusses KILLING them. Don’t obfuscate when you’re pinned down and can’t move.
FrankOne wrote:
So, is killing apostates still approved behavior or not?Back then yes, today no. I feel, like I am repeating myself and you are just closing your ears (metaphorically speaking) This goes back to cultural and government differences in both form and function and the issue with ideas being spread in an era without mass communication. Also the New Testament superceded the old and revealed much of what was done back then was only applicable because the people were “tougher/harder” in many respects. Which, from a biological perspective is true, as the bone density of “cave-men” etc. was considerably denser than the average person of today. It would not be much of a stretch to “assume” that their psyche was no different.
NO. Jesus ridicules the Jews for not killing their children for disobeying (old testament law) and repeatedly states the law must still be followed. I can cite the numerous verses relating to this but I don’t think it’s necessary.
FrankOne wrote:
It’s an out. Kind of like a cafeteria Catholic who believes in birth control despite what the infallible cross-dressing pope-in-a-dress commands. In the American South, the confederates used the Bible to defend slaveholding; the Abolitionists in the North selectively read verses favoring the opposite position.No because the person is choosing to go against there faith. And the pope doesn’t “command” these things. And the verses in regards to the civil war were either right on one side or taken about of context in both. In regards to the “slave” issue, slavery is unavoidable. There are and will always be certain people that have to be told what to do. Slavery is necessary, in many circumstances, for the sake of the slave itself. It still exists, take fast food worker positions. You say slavery is wrong, but most of the products you use were created by them. Also you have the issue with biblical definition, as the work “slave” oftentimes meant a “bodie” or a low position. In many respects this was temporary also, as some slaves were to be free after a specific time period or any person in debt was required to have their debt forgiven within seven years. So even in these positions, they were often times temporary low pay jobs. Mosaic law, did not create slavery but just regulated an already existing custom. Slavery was part of the ancient world, no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it.
‘The slave itself?’ Not himself or herself? I think you and I have a very different view of right and wrong, apart from our religious differences. Some of the products I use were likely created by slave labor. I’m just not seeing a low-income worker in the US at least, as a slave. I was a low income worker in my teens but I could still QUIT my job and find another one; I was free to do as I saw fit outside work hours, and my employer couldn’t sell me. Yes, slavery in the ancient world wasn’t based on race, more on conquest and you could become a freeman after a certain number of years in some cultures. I would argue slavery is a part of the world up and including today, though not to the extent as a relative percent of population as in the past.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
