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
Go on writing thousands of words. It’s all your vanity and profound ignorance. When you boil everything down, you only need to understand a few things to be a solid non-believer, just a few simple things to see how religious people like you are certifiably insane.
The reality of human anthropomorphic thinking is enough to flat line the Abrahamic god, period.
Apparently you still don’t understand what this means. To us, it means a critical failure to think objectively on your part.
There has never been evidence for god and there never will be, because the fever we’re under (anthropomorphic tendency), originates in us. No such ‘thing’ (god) could exist, especially in a deterministic universe.
religion is exclusively in the “feel-good” emotional comfort business.
Will you just go and please listen to Stardusk or MGTOW Talks? Maybe you need to stop being a Crustian and go your own way for once in your life
Anonymous42Tower wrote: I am ignorant of the symbolism here, but I am guessing it is something to do with the “futility” of discussion?
Not really, just that that my eyes were falling out of my head during this bombastic read, It symbolized my exit, another brain blender argument, that’s all, nothing personal.
First, the contributions made by Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Watt, or Edison, amongst many others, to humanity, far exceed the contributions of all the Churchmen, imams, cult leaders, witch doctors, ‘prophets (profits?)’, and ‘theologians’ combined, throughout history, in my opinion. What contributions did they actually make? Sure, Irish monks may have preserved ancient knowledge in the middle ages… But how many books did Christians BAN and BURN? Are you familiar with John Wycliffe? After he died the Pope dug him up to burn him at the stake! 42 years after he died. The Pope was living the Law of Love with posthumous execution that day… What kind of person does that? THAT is how dissent was handled in the good ‘ol days. Have there been corrupt popes? If a Pope is corrupt, how can he be trusted to make ex cathedra infallible statements? What does that say about the ‘doctrine’ of infallibility?
He [Galileo] did not have evidence at the time. It was strictly theory.
This is the difference between reasoned inquiry, and religious apologetics. You ask for evidence for any claims that counter your particular sacred holy book; but anything presented in same Holy book, requires no such evidence. What ‘evidence’ did the ‘theologians’ provide that their model of cosmology was correct (i.e. flat disc earth, floating on ocean held up by God’s will, water above that rains down when God created his Deluge). You have two different standards of proof or evidence. If your religion is in power, then anybody that violates it is punished — typically severely if they actually follow their Book (look up how Sharia is enforced in Saudi Arabia).
What ‘proof’ is there the Bible is true? Any more evidence it’s true than the Koran? The Aristotelean model was popular amongst charlatan churchmen because it called for a perfect heaven, among other reasons. Heaven could not be perfect if there were sunspots as Galileo observed with his crude magnification 30 telescope. The imperfect surface of the moon also contradicted a perfect Heaven. The phases of Venus, observed by telescope, were certainly evidence against the Ptolemaic model but not Tychonic. The moons of Jupiter indicated earth could move without leaving the moon behind. So Galileo had a theory and some observations. He did not outright prove heliocentrism. He provided an alternative model that didn’t agree 100% with the Bible, and was persecuted for it due to politics. And he did DISprove the Ptolemaic system with his observations (the official Church doctrine since Aquinas. Obviously, a perfect Heaven, eternal and inccoruptible, and an earth subject to decay and degeneration, meshes well with Biblical theology and the Fall. Since the Bible explicitly states the sun moved & Joshua stopped it, and due to Aquinas, the chuch was heavily invested in geocentrism — its negation would shred a good deal of their mountain of (man) made-up doctrine.
Why did Galileo’s book require a ‘license’ from the Inquisition to publish in the first place? Answer: When one religion controls the State it can grow into immense power, preventing freedom of expression. Should peaceful disagreement with authority result in death (as it did in the inquisition) or house arrest (as it did for Galileo)? As for Copernicus, he died shortly after publishing, so that’s why the the Inquisition didn’t target him as another heretic. Copernicus also delayed publication of his work for years out of fear, and then, only published in Latin to defer the wrath of the Inquisition, whereas Galileo published in Italian. Remember, the Church never allowed the Bible to be published in the vernacular (common language of the people) lest to intercessor or Churchmen would be needed for (mis) interpretation of scriptures. The mass itself was conducted almost exclusively in Latin until Vatican II in 1969.
Only because Galileo verbally recanted was he spared the more gruesome punishments of the Inquisition. The topic of HOW Copernicus wrote his theses (with IF) and HOW Galileo wrote his (a dialogue) is also another facsinating topic — you had to get permission from the Church to publish. As for it being about POLITICS, YOU GET IT. Heretics and apostates = people I can’t control. The more people I control, the more POWER I’ve got. When the Christians took over they inherited ALL the old titles. What do you think Pontifex Maximus means? Yep, head priest of Rome… One of the Pope’s many titles inherited from the pagan head priest of Rome when Christianity took over the World Religion con game. That pagan title, predates Christianity by a wee bit, haha. The Church was a bit busy circling the wagons during this era with the Counsel of Trent counter-reformation efforts… i.e. somebody else wanted ‘a piece of the action’ and it had to be stopped. So those are factors in why Copernicus was not treated as harshly too.
Literalism: You can call me ‘ill read’ all day, but the Indictment of Galileo explicitly states he made claims against the truth of Biblical cosmology. If Biblical cosmology is metaphorical, how can one make a truth claim against it? The indictment requires a literal reading…
If the Sumerian King’s list is accurate, the Earth is older than the Bible indicates AND lifespans exceed the 120 year limit. If it isn’t true I guess I don’t see how it’s evidence of longer lifespans in ancient times? Why isn’t there similar corroborating evidence of long lifetimes in ancient Egyptian records, from, say, 5000 years ago in the Old Kingdom?
There are certainly myths that reappear in many different cultures: Man becoming successively baser across the ages, explanatory myths for physical phenomena, etc. I don’t see how this ‘proves’ a specific religion. If anything, many are shown as outright ridiculous, as human knowledge grows; we no longer worship the Sun or believe Apollo pulls the Sun Chariot across the sky.
As far as the Holocaust, the detailed plan was laid out at the conference and we have the minutes — so I don’t call that ‘barely knowing’ what happened. I acknowledge we don’t have a precise death count but we have a lot more documentation than of other genocides. We’ll never have an exact count. As for UFO’s, I was joking about joining Heaven’s Gate, but my point was, there is no more, or less, evidence to worship Isis, Zeus, Horus, Allah, Jesus, etc. You say we need more information to believe in a UFO cult, but why do we NOT need more information to believe in a modern conception monotheistic God?How does a disbelief in deities lack logic? Because one is trying to prove a negative.
I’m not trying to disprove the existence of deities; you can’t. What I AM saying is I don’t believe in ANY of them without evidence. And logically, one religion/God is no more believable than another one. So there’s no logical way to choose which one(s) to believe in. Many of them are rather preposterous, such as Apollo, given our understanding of nature. Then again, the sun chariot, may be metaphorical too!
-The axiom required for the argument (God) is the same one being disproved. -By disproving one thing we only prove another, leaving the physical realm or people “contradictorly” to fill the role of a diety/dieties. -No standard for “proof/evidence” is given, leaving the argument fundamentally subjective and based on personal opinion. -It is an argument based solely on skepticism which lacks reason in itself and is fundamentally reactionary, leading to the next point: -The atheist argument cannot exist without acknowledging God. It cannot exist on its own terms. -Atheism would leave us having to disprove many of the philosopher’s (Aristotle, descarte, Ibn Rushd, etc) which helped pay the way for the scientific method. -Atheism depends on a lack of belief, but requires in the belief of other things (people’s observations, etc.) for it to work. -It elevated human observation to a God like status, but also lowers others who have different opinions. -There is no set value system. -and I can go on and on……
But why ‘one God’ and why not ‘Goddess’? Answer: Because most people in the West don’t believe in polytheism, but that was the prevalent belief only a few thousand years ago. You cannot disprove God(s) or Goddesses and I didn’t claim you could. You can prove whether their supposed sacred texts are self-contradictory or go against contemporary morals or ethics. You can also demonstrate whether such books verifiable claims (history, science) hold up to scrutiny. To put it another way, an atheist is a person who believes in one less God than you do. You are an atheist relative to all religions but Roman Catholicism. ‘God like status’? Not believing in God(s) doesn’t mean we believe we are a supreme being or should be worshipped. It does indicate God cannot be the source of all moral authority, if one believes God doesn’t exist. Belief in God also requires belief in observations — you observe the Good Word when you go to Mass & pay your tithings & don’t ask any difficult questions.
Many philosophers get things wrong. As do scientists — Newton spent a great deal of his time studying alchemy! You said we needed more evidence to believe in a UFO cult; don’t then we need more evidence to believe in, say, Christianity? Not everything Aristotle posited is true either. Atheism doesn’t depend on a lack of belief; it IS a lack of belief, by definition. Atheism makes no claims about value systems because it alone, is not a philosophy of life. I don’t understand much of the rest of it ‘make it work’ means what? Atheism lowers others? There is no official atheist Dogma; we don’t have a worldwide atheist organization that advocates beheading people if they aren’t atheists, or a dogma. If there are Gods, maybe they wanted us to figure out our own values? The Jews don’t believe the Messiah has arrived yet. What logical process does one use to determine whether he has? If it’s revelation, then why don’t the Jews feel it? Or do they only get revelations from the Evil One?It would be if the flood only covered the regions people were living in at the time. Remember, the “world” in antiquity was where humanity was in many respects. The same as if someone claims to want to leave “the world” behind, they are referencing people.
The Bible states the flood killed all life (God promised not to kill all life again & be nice in future after toking a huge eternal reefer = the New Testament Era of a loving God). Killing ALL life requires a global flood, and there is no evidence for it.
“Your” requirement that is must be read “literally” makes it fundamentally subjective in that you limit it to your interpretation only.
Sounds like Christian God wasn’t very clear despite divinely inspiring all this drivel. So we all have to choose a religion and denomination subjectively. And Christian God had some people he chose (the Jews), and others he didn’t (Egyptians, American Indians, aboriginal Australians, etc). He didn’t bother to reveal anything to those people, or give them any moral guidance so instead they all practiced various forms of idolatry. Since salvation is only through Jebus they are going to Hell. Is that just? His Ways are Not Our Ways is a GREAT and LOGICAL explanation for this.
You are equating morality (certain right/wrong conduct) with lifestyle choices. “Thou shall not kill”, although it may affect a lifestyle choice is not a life style choice in and of itself. There are certain choices in life which are fundamentally subjective and morally neutral. Living in a city or cave is not a moral choice in an of itself, but how I live in the city or cave is.
I picked a poor example for a value. My point was simply that sharing a value doesn’t mean we will necessarily have the same morals. ‘Thou shalt not kill’? It’s okay when God commands it, presumably — as when he commanded Amalekite genocide — kill every man, woman, and child. Interpretation of ‘thou shalt not kill’ is certainly subjective to a believer — if drafted, some Christians may become consciencious objectors, others may fight. This is but one example of many. If killing the Amalekites was just, should we not kill all infidels engaged in idolatry? God knows the future per the Bible and His property of Omniscience; how, then a loving God create beings, he knows will be doomed to hell?
My point was not for you to answer the questions, although there is nothing wrong with that, but rather showing when one acknowledges there values it is not just a simple thing in and of itself, but rather something which gives defintion to reality and requires an understanding. Because this is the case, one cannot create their own morality, because it would require them to have a full understanding of existence/cause and effect/the nature of things/etc. To say one must create their own morality would by default condemn anyone who is ignorant of the nature of the things they are forming the morality around. In many respects, ignorance condemns us if one is to come from this perspective.
In practice, morality comes by consensus, it is taught across generations, and laws enacted to enforce it. Values don’t give any definition at all to reality — reality stays the same whether I’m a sociopath, pragmatist, Christian, etc. You can accept a morality from an existing religion but morality is still subjective because you had to choose to be a theist, select a religion to follow, and what sect of that religion (if it has more than one depending on whether it’s schismed yet due to a power grab or disagreeement on number of angels that can dance on a pin (a.k.a. theology) ). If atheists are immoral I’d expect the prisons to be full of them; obviously this isn’t the case.
FrankOne wrote:
I would say people not ‘owning it’ — lack of personal responsibility — has caused most of our problems.
A temporal way of thinking is fundamentally being irresponsible of the future, so your assertion that atheism can create a morality that can only affect certain temporal aspects of humanity is to create a morality which is fundamentally self centered by its very nature.By ‘problems’, I meant societal problems — poverty, crime, unemployment — a lot of that is due to work ethic and socialization/how children are raised. A temporal way of thinking means to me, you believe life ends at death. Atheists have different moral views from one another; they’re not all the same. What you are saying here is, you need a Sky Daddy to be moral or care about others? Bill Gates said in ’95 ‘I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid’ — Warren Buffet is similar. These are MAJOR philanthropists. Are they self-centered? Perhaps one could argue the opposite? If the Second Coming isn’t coming soon, maybe we should be better stewards of the earth and environment?
FrankOne wrote:
Yes. Mathematics and Chemistry aren’t tools to write a good story, achieve compromise, or motivate peopleAnd I will expand on this point. The observation of mathematical/chemical/physical laws, etc. required motivation from the beginning. However if we are fundamentally only made up of such reactions then motivation cannot be the source of acknowledging these laws through the sciences. In other words, if we are only a manifestation of physical laws, then all physical existence is reflecting back on itself. However if that is the case, then physically existence is unaware of certain aspects of itself since we (a combination of particles) are unware many of the physical laws of the universe. To put it simply. If we are just particles and we are seeking deeper knowledge of particles (chemistry/physics/etc.) then that means particles are seeking knowledge about particles. If that is the case than particles are unaware of the many laws which govern themselves. This is assuming particles are aware, and according to the atheist, they would have to be since we are only particles. However this cannot be the case since, particles (manifesting themselves as “Humans”) lack an awareness of themselves in many different respects.
You just are not making sense here. One reason is, physical laws exist regardless of observation. A rainbow can form without me understanding diffraction; I was born without understanding cell division. My ‘particles’ (I prefer ‘cells’ for this discussion) don’t ‘know’ anything because they aren’t miniature versions of me with a conscious/awareness — certain COMBINATIONS of huge numbers of cells do possess awreness (for example, a human being) and certain other combinations likely can also be aware. Forces and cause and effect do not appear to depend on awareness; an object falls according to the Earth’s gravitational field both before and after gravitation was (partially) understood by an individual or society. This argument just completely falls apart; if I take the motor out of a car I can’t drive it. I don’t know what is meant by motivation here; are you talking about causation or first cause arguments?
FrankOne wrote:
If that’s the case I’d expect theologians in various denominations to heal the rift & re-unify. The scholars in the different denominations typically don’t change denominations because they find theirs flawed. You don’t choose, join, and follow a religion based on reasoning, but instead, by Faith or circumstance.To the first point: That is happening with the Anglicans and Catholics and in a lesser degree with the Orthodox too. In regards to the seconde point that is a false assumption. I heard many stories of people leaving a faith due to it being “flawed” or at least percieved to be flawed. In regards to the third point: That is also false in several respects. Some people leave to another faith becausing of “reasoning”. Also “reasoning” is the basis with which people make many of there decisions. Also we all operate on some level of faith. We have to in many different respects because we cannot observe everything.
I was talking about scholars (theologians) rarely switching religions, as stated; in contrast, the general population DOES change religions frequently; typically going irreligious & then back to Christian faith or switching denominations within Christianity in America. The most common reason for a change per Pew surveys is ‘spiritual needs were not being met’ — i.e. felt more comfortable in one church than another, typically losing Catholics to protestantism or unaffiliated is a common transition. ‘Beliefs’ is second reason as I recall from Pew surveys. Marriage and changes in values (e.g. to churches that focus more/less on afterlife, etc) factor in. There is fierce competition for a flock to fleece with lots of mega churche$ vieing for the prophet, err I mean Profit. Unlike other businesses, religion are non-profit tax exempt in America so all-profit but no true prophesy at the same time. Except the prophesy of growing the business and making more money. I concede that prophesy.
My point about subjectivism was, you have moral relativism with or without God(s). And when you join a denomination you effect it. All these denominations keep changing — they split off the Roman Catholic Church, some of them now admit gays or marry homosexuals.FrankOne wrote:
Let us say two people both value human life. You regard a fertilized egg as life and thus abortion is immoral; the second person does not.
I covered this above. You say the value is “human life” however that value is manifested differently so one must question what that value is. The person who interprets the value of “human life” through a faith based premise has one understanding of human life. The other who interprets the value of “human life” through the acknowledgement of human pleasures has a different understanding of human life. The example is flawed because the premise defining the two seperate values is inherentally different.No. Protestant denominations position on abortions vary widely
And of course, different denominations may believe killing is always wrong, others are okay with joining the military. Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren have been historical pacifists. Of course, that’s changed too. Remember how Pope (not so) Innocent III said to go on the Crusades to spread Christianity by the sword. This is no longer in favor. So even with a faith-based premise there is disagreement and subjectivism. Literalists may want to follow the admonition to kill the apostate and kick start a new Inquisition as discussed previously; those damned liberal Christians and Catholics are too wishy-washy for that sort of Biblical thinking anymore.FrankOne wrote:
Rooting morality in God is still arbitrary; why is God’s opinion better? Because God said so is circular.
To say our opinion is better than God’s, makes us take the place of God, and is self defeating. Also you started this point with a false premise, that God had an opinion. To say one has an opinion, is to imply that one is not fully aware or in some respects is uninformed. If God is unaware of somethings, then he is fundamentally subjective to what is hidden and therefore cannot be God as something hidden from him in many respects overpowers his awareness.Are you sure? Old testament God has a pretty high body count. So I question ‘his’ intrinsic goodness or morality. Incidentally, why did God NEED a new covenant? He is omniscient; he knew we’d sin and need salvation so why not save us from the beginning and dispense with the Talmudic Law? Since he already knows the outcome of all our choices what’s the point in having us live them out? How can he know our future choices (as is clear from the Bible) AND us have free will. Catholic belief in predestination is actually somewhat strange; he predestines some to Heaven but none to hell (look it up).
FrankOne wrote:
And you still have to choose which God and sect (denomination in Christianity), which makes for subjective morality.
But you cannot define the sect for yourself. The evidence of a present choice makes the “choice-bearer” subjective to laws outside their own influence meaning there are concrete morals in some respects.I can choose radical Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. Is God equally pleased if I join ISIS and fly an airplane into a building vs leading a peaceful life? The very act of joining a denomination has potential to change it; too many liberals and they’ll allow women priests, and start marrying homosexuals instead of stoning them to death along with apostates and other never-do-wells as the Good Book recommends. And the opposite holds true: We get enough Conservative members we can start the Inquisition back up, and start giving away ‘Just Say No to ZOG’ T-shirts as door prizes. Re-start the banned book list AND enforce it. And I can certainly start a new denomination, and become a highly profitable prophet.
FrankOne wrote
And THAT authority is certainly subjective and changing; infallible Pope Paul V had Galileo indicted for beliefs in conflict with the Scriptures; subjective Pope John Paul II later said ‘Oops’ — guess Paul V wasn’t infallible that day. Other doctrines are made up as they go (assumption of Mary into heaven); heretical in one age, Official Dogma in another. This isn’t so much a criticism of Roman Catholicism as of all religion.Actually it does specifically go against Catholicism, for the most part, because it is one of the few religions (if only one) that claims infallibility as an actual law. The church never claimed “infallibility” for any ordinary trial (including) Galileos’. The tribunal had judicial and disciplinary authority only. No ecumenical counsel or the popes authority were central in defining the decision of the tribunal. Both of these would be required for an infallible statement. Infallibility goes like this: “Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.” http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy However, I am sure I stated this already. Yet you ignored it.
Infalibility got made up. There’s no biblical basis for it. It’s part of the tradition of the Roman church. The Pope directed the trial because he was afraid for his own career; the Jesuits didn’t like Galileo for some other reasons and he had to make sure he played (or at least looked like) a tough guy. Also the Pope took offense at Simplicio’s statements written by Galileo in the Dialogue on World Systems…
You’re correct about no explictly stated statement of the infallibility of geocentricity being made. I was trying to be funny about infallibility and concede, the Pope never made any infallible statements on it. Instead, he made very many very FALLIBLE statements on it…FrankOne wrote:
Greater depth? There are many miracles reported in India. And Muslims report miracles — e.g. mosques surviving the Tsunami in Bandi Aceh. Link But did these buildings survive due to the power of Allah (pieces of shrapnel be upon him), or due to good construction and foundations relative to surrounding structures, with high arches and a path for the water to flow through? Statues seem to do a lot; Mary’s cry, Ganesh’s drink goat milk… I wonder if I could find a statue of Venus… http://themiraclespage.info/phenomena/index.htm And Allah’s name sure does appear on a lot of stuff!The quantity and depth (difficulting to explain away) lies with the Catholic church. At the end of the day, there are many things that cannot be explained away. Here is a list by a less bias source of some top 10 ones. There are stories of miracles, in scriptures, of Christians going against the miracles of other faiths and not only rivaled, but outdid the others. Also many of the Miracles, relate to some Christian influence on one way shape or form. Most muslim miracles refer to seeing a name in something, not far from the example of Rorsach cards. Miracles aside, the Catholic church in more universal as it accepts the possiblility of someone reaching salvation regardless of their faith, under certain conditions (specifically those of genuine ignorance.) It does take a universal approach to faith and people, but at the same time acknowledges certain truths as right without compromising them. So with miracles aside, although and important part, the rationality is not deficient or excluding to everyone. If anythiing it brings about a “fullness” of truth in many different degrees.
All of this, really, really, really makes me want to make a custom bumper sticker reading MY God is Almightier than YOUR God(s)’. If I really do it right I can put the ‘o’ in God right above the trailer hitch and hang some b~~~~ on that ‘o’ (you know, a big pickup truck, right?). If these miracles can’t be explained away, have they caused a lot of conversions? Remember, France is one of those irreligious countries… Fatima is in France… And that’s miracle Headquarters. France is largely irreligious; nominally Catholic but Church attendance next to nothing AND surveys showing ‘belief’ not among the top 4 things people value most. Probably due to not enough evangelicals selling Hope Dope to the lower classes… That and better education. And a tradition of secularism. Look up some articles about Indian miracles. There the statues lap up the milk; Christian Mary cries. Maybe we should put Mary above Ganesh and see if one statue can drink the tears of another?
Tower wrote:
I am ignorant of the symbolism here, but I am guessing it is something to do with the “futility” of discussion?
Ya think, hahaha. If this message isn’t TL;DR, what is?
zone wrote:
umm.. excuse me ..i think i am going to f~~~ my toaster oven now..what a giant load of s~~~ ! i mean that in the nicest way possible ;} ha ha ha !LIGHTEN THE F~~~ UP !!!!Even better comment, that is an expression I have never heard!
BTL: I actually don’t agree with Sam Harris on determinism, but not because I believe we are something MORE than physical or we need a soul or animus to ‘explain’ consciousness. To me, you either have determinism or you don’t for the physical universe, which we are a small part of. My main criticism of it is that quantum transitions don’t appear deterministic and are best described statistically. For example, I can’t tell whether one atom of C14 will decay, but if I have a large number of atoms, I can statistically predict what percent will decay in a given time quite accurately.. Just not which atoms.. This may be incomplete knowledge of the underlying laws governing decay but it is what we know now. But even a small contribution of such effects across huge numbers of neurons may cause 2 identical brains to ‘diverge’ (of course, we can’t create 2 identical brains or put them in precisely the same environment).
Quantum biology is still in its infancy; some critical processes, like photosynthesis, DO have aspects employing quantum effects: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html All this means to me, though, is some of our behavioral outcomes might be indeterminate on random. QM isn’t voodoo. Just like a random cosmic ray can pass through me, cause a cell to mutate and I develop cancer a year or two later, random events on a small scale can influence us. Most cosmic rays won’t do that, but there is some infinitesimal probability that one might…
It is also interesting to note you have a GENETIC disposition to be religious or not — look at this twin study: http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html — of most note is 50% of religiosity being determined by genes. Clearly if we all had ‘Biblical’ free will, our genetics would not impact AT ALL upon whether we become religious or irreligious. This also makes a case for PARTIAL determinism but you’re left asking, how much of the remaining difference is due to different experiences (i.e. if it’s 50% w’re deterministic), and how much to quantum effects? I’d expect almost all of it to be experience variation but we just don’t know… I don’t see how it’s possible to have NO quantum effects. Even a baseball has a DeBroglie wavelength, but it’s infinitesimal. Either way I view Free Will as an illusion on the grounds your brain is physical. Random effects, large or small, may mean indeterminism, but they don’t mean YOU are choosing — i.e. no free will possible.
Of course, this study is absolutely a destroyer of a just God because God determined your probability of religiosity when She/He/It (sheit?) assigned your genetics. i.e. a Fair God would give us an equal chance of salvation. But His Ways are Not Our Ways is always the answer to everything. Not 42. Of course, the concept of free will outside of biology makes little sense… if biology/genetics impacts religiosity as this study indicates…
Anonymous1Take the quiz and see how you live and feel the —————>>>>http://beezbuzz.sendlane.com/view/beez-buzz
Anonymous1
Anonymous421st wish:Bulls~~~ genie! 2n wish: flush! 3rd wish; never return!
Pardon the absence due to work. Now where were we?
When you boil everything down, you only need to understand a few things to be a solid non-believer, just a few simple things to see how religious people like you are certifiably insane.
I would have to agree, you do understand few things. That fact that you are “well read” and still am able to point to contradictions and circular thinking makes me question what you mean by “rational”.
The reality of human anthropomorphic thinking is enough to flat line the Abrahamic god, period.
Apparently you do not know what this means, it means the inability for critical thought. Why? You demonize
anthropormiphism as hindering any objective proof yet you yourself are an anthropomorphic being so by default you
cannot objectively observe anything.Also you want to “praise” people for being able to come to terms with the truth, yet these are anthropomorphic beings.
I understand your “argument” completely, I just think it is hypocritical and circular. But don’t blame yourself, after
all, the universe made you who you are. You have no choice…remember?FrankOneParticipant 29 Topics 0Replies 40Total 40 First, the contributions made by Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Watt, or Edison, amongst many others, to humanity, far exceed the contributions of all the Churchmen, imams, cult leaders, witch doctors, ‘prophets (profits?)’, and ‘theologians’ combined, throughout history, in my opinion. What contributions did they actually make? Sure, Irish monks may have preserved ancient knowledge in the middle ages… But how many books did Christians BAN and BURN? Are you familiar with John Wycliffe? After he died the Pope dug him up to burn him at the stake! 42 years after he died. The Pope was living the Law of Love with posthumous execution that day… What kind of person does that? THAT is how dissent was handled in the good ‘ol days. Have there been corrupt popes? If a Pope is corrupt, how can he be trusted to make ex cathedra infallible statements? What does that say about the ‘doctrine’ of infallibility?
Listen, we can go back and forth about the “church holding back humanity”. I pointed out that the church did not hinder
scientific advancement (not that scientific advancement made the world a better or worse place, if anything it stayed
more the same than ever). Most of the early and many modern scientists were/are believers. But we can go on and on.It is your turn. Show me where atheism (or agnosticism) has been successful. I want you to have your moment to shine.
For the sake of argument, let us assume I am wrong (but I am not, this is for your sake not mine), show me an atheist government
institutuion that was somehow more “just” than the church.In regards to the infallibility I already explained that. An ecumenical council is needed. The statements originate
from the church through the pope, it is not a one man army deciding everything. Using similiar logic, you would
have to come to the conclusion that not all science or scientific discoveries can be held accountable if the people doing
them either committed some wrong/were biased/recieved corporate funding so you cannot put some men (and their authority/knowledge/etc.) on pedestals and belittle others without judging all on equal terms.You ask for evidence for any claims that counter your particular sacred holy book; but anything presented in same Holy book, requires no such evidence.
And you have no standard definition for evidence/proof. It is entirely subjective in definition, and dependent on
subjective sensory knowledge (ex: “I only believe what I see for my self”). So point a finger all you want, but your
philosophy is dependent on faith in sensory experience, is subjective, lacks definition to terms (evidence/proof/reason),
and has no epistemology. Your philosophy of “doubting” is fundamentally reactive in nature. Take for example athiesm.
The argument that “there is no God” is entirely dependent on “God”. It gives no definition of God (and it can’t because
it is irreducible) however uses arguments such as the “spaghetti monster” to prove people can believe in anything. However
it is a poorly written argument since 1) noone believes in a spaghetti monster, they just fake it and 2) You are switching
the axioms of the argument, so it is not the same argument (God is not spaghetti monster vice/versa).Also you are making assumptions that no evidence is required, yet throughout the whole scriptures people are demanding
evidence from God. Scriptures cover this. The second point is that there is evidence, in one form or another, however
that is entirely dependent on what you mean by evidence. And I will repeat this point that I mentioned earlier: “What
do you mean by evidence” because whenever I ask this question you either ignore it (and so do many others). Your argument
is dependendent on an axiom which has no definition and is subjective in nature. In many respects you are claiming
that there is no God because you have had no subjective experience of God, yet you claim objectivism. And don’t
get me started on objectivism that is another point altogether….What ‘evidence’ did the ‘theologians’ provide that their model of cosmology was correct (i.e. flat disc earth, floating on ocean held up by God’s will, water above that rains down when God created his).
The quote of Isaiah 40:22 points to the earth being circular, it does not say flat nor does it attempt to argue it. And
yes the earth is circular, from any viewpoint. Spheres are circular in nature. There is no indepth cosmology in the
bible, just a basic imagery of it that basic people can understand.You have two different standards of proof or evidence. If your religion is in power, then anybody that violates it is punished — typically severely if they actually follow their Book (look up how Sharia is enforced in Saudi Arabia).
I am not arguing for Islam, if you want to do that then talk to a muslim cleric. Don’t lump all religions together, they
have major differences. You are an adult you should know better.The Aristotelean model was popular amongst charlatan churchmen because it called for a perfect heaven, among other reasons.
Aristolean philosophy was popular everywhere, it is even popular today. Even objectivism has some roots in it.
But why ‘one God’ and why not ‘Goddess’? Answer: Because most people in the West don’t believe in polytheism, but that was the prevalent belief only a few thousand years ago. You cannot disprove God(s) or Goddesses and I didn’t claim you could. You can prove whether their supposed sacred texts are self-contradictory or go against contemporary morals or ethics. You can also demonstrate whether such books verifiable claims (history, science) hold up to scrutiny. To put it another way, an atheist is a person who believes in one less God than you do. You are an atheist relative to all religions but Roman Catholicism. ‘God like status’? Not believing in God(s) doesn’t mean we believe we are a supreme being or should be worshipped. It does indicate God cannot be the source of all moral authority, if one believes God doesn’t exist. Belief in God also requires belief in observations — you observe the Good Word when you go to Mass & pay your tithings & don’t ask any difficult questions. Many philosophers get things wrong. As do scientists — Newton spent a great deal of his time studying alchemy! You said we needed more evidence to believe in a UFO cult; don’t then we need more evidence to believe in, say, Christianity? Not everything Aristotle posited is true either. Atheism doesn’t depend on a lack of belief; it IS a lack of belief, by definition. Atheism makes no claims about value systems because it alone, is not a philosophy of life. I don’t understand much of the rest of it ‘make it work’ means what? Atheism lowers others? There is no official atheist Dogma; we don’t have a worldwide atheist organization that advocates beheading people if they aren’t atheists, or a dogma. If there are Gods, maybe they wanted us to figure out our own values? The Jews don’t believe the Messiah has arrived yet. What logical process does one use to determine whether he has? If it’s revelation, then why don’t the Jews feel it? Or do they only get revelations from the Evil One?
There are alot of questions here. I could attempt to answer them, but that would take hours. Some of them I can’t answer,
but that is not just me that is people in general. But there is one common thread, I have noticed were you contradict
yourself. You have to rule out all other possibilities/probabilities in order to “believe” (not sure that is a fitting
word) however there are “infinite possibilities” according to many (and including you if I remember correctly). You
are under a false assumption that one has to know “everything” in order to believe, yet (using your own standards)
there is no objective evidence for this. As long as one is able to doubt then that “said thing one is doubting” cannot
be true, yet people can doubt anything for any reason. You do not doubt objectivism, yet it is an abstract thought
(contradicting its argument that all knowledge comes through sensory expierience. You do not doubt man’s ability to
observe the natural world, yet I gave arguments that it is not all correct (GMOs/etc.) So I am confused, because
you seem bias just like everyone else. How do you even know that you questions are even the right ones to ask?You want to explore all various angles with various questions.
Yet this can literally go on forever. So if one has the infinite potential to keep exploring angles before they believe
then they by default are setting themselves up for doubt. Why? Because we will always be finite and unable to explore
all various questions.Also you keep misquoting me. For example: I need more evidence to “believe in a ufo cult”. I never said that, I said
that we have not enough evidence to state what exactly ufos are. The more we go on in dialogue, the more bias you seem.
Either that or you do not know what you are talking about.The Bible states the flood killed all life (God promised not to kill all life again & be nice in future after toking a huge eternal reefer = the New Testament Era of a loving God). Killing ALL life requires a global flood, and there is no evidence for it.
If all life originated near a single area, and that area was wiped out then yes it is correct. You have to remember, and
I said this multiple times, that the world was defined as all that was observed by “people”.Sounds like Christian God wasn’t very clear despite divinely inspiring all this drivel. So we all have to choose a religion and denomination subjectively. And Christian God had some people he chose (the Jews), and others he didn’t (Egyptians, American Indians, aboriginal Australians, etc). He didn’t bother to reveal anything to those people, or give them any moral guidance so instead they all practiced various forms of idolatry. Since salvation is only through Jebus they are going to Hell. Is that just? His Ways are Not Our Ways is a GREAT and LOGICAL explanation for this.
In regards to the first statment: Clear as to what exactly? It states that the world does not even agree with God’s ways
multiple times. People do there own thing. It clearly states this point too multiple times. You are mixing choice
with subjectivism also, as in all choices are merely subjective truths. However that is not the case as many people do
not believe in concrete truths. You are equating all choice with subjective truth, yet are making a concrete truth statment
that requires belief as it has no evidence. Also, it clearly states in the Gospels that people cannot be judge guilty
if they do not know. Real, genuine ignorance, does not condemn a person. In regards to denying Jesus, and going to hell,
is right to deny him? What is He guilty of exactly? Also to deny him is a sin (or wrong act) yet the mercy we show in this
life will be shown to us in our deaths. Does that mean a merciful non believer can be forgiven through Christ? This is another
important question. All things wrongs can be forgiven. So we can say they are wrong and they do lead to death, but
we do not know where this mercy begins and ends with the people who commit these wrongs. After all, even the believers
commit wrongs which merit death also.Also, and this is a major point, who are you to ask what is Just? What epistemology of Justice, or definition of Justice
do you have to compare what is just to what is not Just? You say injustice, yet it is based upon your subjective values.
However if one says God’s ways are superior to ours, that person is wrong. However they are acknowledging something
that is not subjective to their own whim. But what concrete proof do you have for your values? If you are truly a skeptic
where is the self skepticism? If there is none, then you argument is entirely subjective. Yet you will then argue
that everything is subjective, and contradict yourself with a concrete truth.I really do not know how to deal with your statements, because your reasoning is starting to become circular.
I picked a poor example for a value. My point was simply that sharing a value doesn’t mean we will necessarily have the same morals.
But you have no example (evidence) for this.
‘Thou shalt not kill’? It’s okay when God commands it, presumably — as when he commanded Amalekite genocide — kill every man, woman, and child. Interpretation of ‘thou shalt not kill’ is certainly subjective to a believer — if drafted, some Christians may become consciencious objectors, others may fight.
Go back to my previous statements about war and governments. If I was not clear enough, point out where. In regards
to the “conciencous objectors” you are quoting U.S. law. Go argue that with an attorney.God knows the future per the Bible and His property of Omniscience; how, then a loving God create beings, he knows will be doomed to hell?
Hell is a place for people who do not want to observe God’s presence. It is a kingdom where people can “go their own
way without God” so to speak. God does not force people into heaven or hell, we choose where we want to go through our actions/etc.
We do not have to accept his mercy if we do not want to. We can believe what we want. We can place our faith in
our selves. That is what hell is.Values don’t give any definition at all to reality — reality stays the same whether I’m a sociopath, pragmatist, Christian, etc.
False. Example: Mother values safety in vehicle. Child seat was created. Child seat, never existed prior yet
appears in reality.Protestant denominations position on abortions vary widely And of course, different denominations may believe killing is always wrong, others are okay with joining the military. Mennonite, Quaker, and Brethren have been historical pacifists.
But one cannot be a mennonite without believing as a mennonite, so although we have choices not everything is subjective.
How can he know our future choices (as is clear from the Bible) AND us have free will. Catholic belief in predestination is actually somewhat strange; he predestines some to Heaven but none to hell (look it up).
I know all this already. What is your point? You say it is strange, but why exactly? God can know our choices, but
we still make them. If he knew some were going to choose to go to hell, and he did not make them because of it, then
in effect we would have know free choice as only those “choosing” heaven would exist yet this cannot be the case
as there would be no choice involved as only those in heaven would exist.I was trying to be funny about infallibility and concede, the Pope never made any infallible statements on it. Instead, he made very many very FALLIBLE statements on it…
What I don’t understand is, if you are not bias then how can you demean other’s beliefs with humor and not your own.
I talked about infallibility, and explained it. You are literally taking it out of context…again. Tell me something,
have you ever doubted yourself, or are you the sole authority of truth and virtue? Maybe I should just follow you, after
all you “know” so much. Maybe the problem with the world, is that we are not following you. That is it. You should
lead us with your “epistemology” of truth. We should doubt everything but you. After all skepticism is infallible
according to you. Tell me more of what you don’t believe in. See I can crack a joke too…want to here another one? Just read your argument. How is that for a punchline?Either way I view Free Will as an illusion on the grounds your brain is physical.
Why do we need an illusion when there is no choice?
John Doe, you really need to leave thinking and philosophy to people that have a talent for it. You are neurotic; I can’t stress that enough. We’re all neurotic to a degree but you sir, seriously are unable to think in a logical manner. No amount of drugs is going to help.
yet you yourself are an anthropomorphic being so by default you cannot objectively observe anything.
This demonstrates that you don’t understand what anthropomorphic means nor my argument that it alone refutes the Abrahamic god and Abrahamic faiths in total. There are no anthropomorphic beings, that’s the whole f~~~ing point!
How can “we” be anthropomorphic beings when we are human, that’s what the ‘anthropo’ part means dude! Perfect example of completely misunderstanding a word and it’s use.
Lets rewind. Listen and read very carefully, clear your mind and try your hardest to pay attention. There is nothing to talk about in this thread because the next paragraph utterly destroys the logic of Abrahamic faith and the Abrahamic god, period. There is no rebuttal. There is literally nothing left to say because this cuts through everything, to the source, it logically wipes out the original misstep, therefore annihilating any chance of your faith making sense. The only s~~~ left is Pantheism which is so vacuous, it too is unworthy of devoting a minute of thought to.
Anthropomorphism: The attribution of human characteristics to non-human things. Hopefully you understand that, now take a step out of anthropomorphic thought processes for one minute and take a look at life on Earth, objectively. Just because we’re human doesn’t mean we can’t think objectively, that’s f~~~ing stupid. You and your points always are.
99% of every species that ever walked the Earth is extinct, gone forever. Nearly all of them inhabited Earth eons longer than humans have. Dozens of different hominid species are all extinct as well. They too were on Earth longer than humans have been but they are wiped out, gone forever.
Now you have humans. They’ve been around an incredibly small amount of time, having already narrowly escaped extinction themselves (TOBA super volcano that bottle-necked the species down to less than a thousand people 80,000 years ago)
They are a peculiar species. They look around, seeing how every species is indifferently annihilated through extinction from natural events. But they don’t think they are bound for the same fate. In fact they don’t even think they are animals.
Similar to their extinct cousins, they participate in weird activities such as burying their dead with perfectly good tools that could aid their survival. Why would they do this? They also tend to waste their mortal time and precious energy, mutilating themselves and creating objects and structures that serve no purpose. Why do they do this?
They do this because they have an anthropomorphic tendency. They look at the indifferent, hostile environment they live in and since they can’t make since of it, they begin behaving as if the environment itself is conscious. Similar to how they try to out smart eachother and anticipate each others motives, they try treating reality like it’s one of them! They think that if they make presents and structures, dedicated to the Sun, that the clouds will go away or not become “angry.” They think that if they punish themselves, they can gain a more favorable standing with their environment, that the environment is conscious and will grant them mercy.
Are you starting to see, through an objective lens, the problem with the humans? Their thinking and behavior is not only based in fear but it has been evolved to be. Their brains account for fear by means of coping mechanisms grounded in vain anthropomorphic thought. “If I act good towards others and my environment, my environment with act kindly towards me as a reward.” This is an anthropomorphic delusion. This is antithesis to the way natural selection works. This is antithesis to how reality works. Reality is not conscious, there is no reward or consideration for how you think and behave in the face of an indifferent and deterministic structure; the Universe.
There is no f~~~ing god who loves you. It’s a lie and false comfort that has been plaguing our minds (and the minds of the other hominid branches that are now extinct!) It’s the #1 reason why we have not become star-faring, hell we can’t even stop the hungry from starving.
It’s time to wake up and start thinking about how our thinking is f~~~ed up. Anthropomorphic tendency is a vain and narcissistic lens that warps our view of reality. It then warps our views, which warp our beleifs, which them warp our actions. This is why the world is so f~~~ed up, because people like you John Doe, ruthlessly cling to a vain false comfort rather than accept reality and try to help our species by observing reality correctly, objectively.
Anthropomorphism: The attribution of human characteristics to non-human things.
I understand that. One cannot attribute an anthropomorphic nature to a Diety without first acknowledging a Diety. Yet you say there is no Diety, but we anthropomorphize what exactly if nothing is there?
Also you are acknowledging human qualities as a “thing” which holds us back from knowledge, yet these very same qualities are what leads us to knowledge.
They are a peculiar species. They look around, seeing how every species is indifferently annihilated through extinction from natural events. But they don’t think they are bound for the same fate. In fact they don’t even think they are animals. Similar to their extinct cousins, they participate in weird activities such as burying their dead with perfectly good tools that could aid their survival. Why would they do this? They also tend to waste their mortal time and precious energy, mutilating themselves and creating objects and structures that serve no purpose. Why do they do this?
But according to you, we have no free will as we are just a biproduce of the the physical laws of the universe. How can you claim human beings are flawed without acknowledging the laws which govern the universe are flawed? If following your line of thinking, it is as if you disagree with the physical laws of the universe.
Are you starting to see, through an objective lens, the problem with the humans?
According to you: Human beings are flawed. Human beings created objectivism (as a philosophy). Objectivism is then flawed.
Their brains account for fear by means of coping mechanisms grounded in vain anthropomorphic thought. “If I act good towards others and my environment, my environment with act kindly towards me as a reward.” This is an anthropomorphic delusion. This is antithesis to the way natural selection works
How can you disreguard the brain and also claim it is a byproduct of evolution and a material only universe which regulates our existence? You make no sense.
This is why the world is so f~~~ed up, because people like you John Doe, ruthlessly cling to a vain false comfort rather than accept reality and try to help our species by observing reality correctly, objectively.
But the universe made me this way, according to you. Would a genocide be the best option for removing this thinking?
I’m literally squirming in my chair in frustration and amazement. There are so many logical fallacies and flat out retarded s~~~ in your last post that I’m beyond words here.
You are seriously beyond help John. My arguments are sound. My arguments are also watered down so much that a 12 year old kid could understand them in one afternoon. Yet, you can’t even understand it. Why? It has to be that you’re trying to f~~~ with me; either that or you are extraordinarily ignorant and strive to stay that way.
I can’t even respect myself by wasting time pointing out the glaring logical fallacies in your last post. F~~~ing incredibly ignorant bulls~~~. I hope like hell you never reproduce.
They are a peculiar species. They look around, seeing how every species is indifferently annihilated through extinction from natural events. But they don’t think they are bound for the same fate. In fact they don’t even think they are animals. Similar to their extinct cousins, they participate in weird activities such as burying their dead with perfectly good tools that could aid their survival. Why would they do this? They also tend to waste their mortal time and precious energy, mutilating themselves and creating objects and structures that serve no purpose. Why do they do this? They do this because they have an anthropomorphic tendency. They look at the indifferent, hostile environment they live in and since they can’t make since of it, they begin behaving as if the environment itself is conscious. Similar to how they try to out smart eachother and anticipate each others motives, they try treating reality like it’s one of them! They think that if they make presents and structures, dedicated to the Sun, that the clouds will go away or not become “angry.” They think that if they punish themselves, they can gain a more favorable standing with their environment, that the environment is conscious and will grant them mercy. Are you starting to see, through an objective lens, the problem with the humans? Their thinking and behavior is not only based in fear but it has been evolved to be. Their brains account for fear by means of coping mechanisms grounded in vain anthropomorphic thought. “If I act good towards others and my environment, my environment with act kindly towards me as a reward.” This is an anthropomorphic delusion. This is antithesis to the way natural selection works. This is antithesis to how reality works. Reality is not conscious, there is no reward or consideration for how you think and behave in the face of an indifferent and deterministic structure; the Universe. There is no f~~~ing god who loves you. It’s a lie and false comfort that has been plaguing our minds (and the minds of the other hominid branches that are now extinct!)
Pardon the absence due to work. Now where were we?
Beware the Lamiae wrote:
When you boil everything down, you only need to understand a few things to be a solid non-believer, just a few simple things to see how religious people like you are certifiably insane.
I would have to agree, you do understand few things. That fact that you are “well read” and still am able to point to contradictions and circular thinking makes me question what you mean by “rational”.I understand completely, I got called in to work to get a pump going twice in a row… Not my idea of a great Saturday night! I started writing this when I got back & am finishing it now.
I would actually disagree with BTL about religious people being insane. Was Newton insane? Irrationality can be compartmentalized; are superstitious people insane? At the same time, religion is inherently not rational; that is why it is ‘faith-based’. I would say Newton was irrational regarding religion, since he believed in it. I guess to me, insanity means clinical insanity. I would argue one cannot disprove Gods or Goddesses but you can most certainly prove contradictions in doctrine, changes in doctrine over time, incorrect science and history, etc. Faith is, by definition, irrational (unless, I suppose, one has witnessed miracles), but irrationality doesn’t equate to certifiable insanity.Beware the Lamiae wrote:
The reality of human anthropomorphic thinking is enough to flat line the Abrahamic god, period.
Apparently you do not know what this means, it means the inability for critical thought. Why? You demonize anthropormiphism as hindering any objective proof yet you yourself are an anthropomorphic being so by default you cannot objectively observe anything. Also you want to “praise” people for being able to come to terms with the truth, yet these are anthropomorphic beings. I understand your “argument” completely, I just think it is hypocritical and circular. But don’t blame yourself, after all, the universe made you who you are. You have no choice…remember?One comment that should be made – whether you believe in predestination or not, does not invalidate Christianity. After all, Calvinists believe in double predestination (both who is hell-bound and heaven-bound are determined in advance by the oh-so-loving God that predestines some to Hell – same g*d that created the Angel Lucifer to tempt us, righto? Even though same all-knowing God knew Lucifer was going to tempt us when God created Lucifer). Whereas Catholics believe in only half that (God saves some but damns no one). Anthropomorphic Gods certainly make Gods less believable in my opinion. And it makes little sense for God to ‘judge’ an entity that he predestined so that seems to me also to be a big logical FAIL for those who hold to Calvinism at least… How do you ‘judge’ something that had no choice? I believe we need to do that on Earth, because otherwise criminals prone to recidivism would repeat their crimes, but that is different than creating beings and then punishing them for doing what you pre-ordained them to do.
FrankOne wrote:
First, the contributions made by Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Watt, or Edison, amongst many others, to humanity, far exceed the contributions of all the Churchmen, imams, cult leaders, witch doctors, ‘prophets (profits?)’, and ‘theologians’ combined, throughout history, in my opinion. What contributions did they actually make? Sure, Irish monks may have preserved ancient knowledge in the middle ages… But how many books did Christians BAN and BURN? Are you familiar with John Wycliffe? After he died the Pope dug him up to burn him at the stake! 42 years after he died. The Pope was living the Law of Love with posthumous execution that day… What kind of person does that? THAT is how dissent was handled in the good ‘ol days. Have there been corrupt popes? If a Pope is corrupt, how can he be trusted to make ex cathedra infallible statements? What does that say about the ‘doctrine’ of infallibility?
Listen, we can go back and forth about the “church holding back humanity”. I pointed out that the church did not hinder scientific advancement (not that scientific advancement made the world a better or worse place, if anything it stayed more the same than ever). Most of the early and many modern scientists were/are believers. But we can go on and on. It is your turn. Show me where atheism (or agnosticism) has been successful. I want you to have your moment to shine. For the sake of argument, let us assume I am wrong (but I am not, this is for your sake not mine), show me an atheist government institutuion that was somehow more “just” than the church. In regards to the infallibility I already explained that. An ecumenical council is needed. The statements originate from the church through the pope, it is not a one man army deciding everything. Using similiar logic, you would have to come to the conclusion that not all science or scientific discoveries can be held accountable if the people doing them either committed some wrong/were biased/recieved corporate funding so you cannot put some men (and their authority/knowledge/etc.) on pedestals and belittle others without judging all on equal terms.Really? Let’s say all the resources/money spent on the witch doctors, priests, imams, cult leaders, temples, burnt offerings, pyramid building, Crusades, etc, across human history, instead went to technological research? What is the likelihood the automobile and computer would have been invented several centuries earlier? What are some major innovations that the Catholic Church brought forth given their massive wealth? Does the domination of one religion in a society stifle innovation and democracy? If the Roman Catholic Church had not buttressed the divine right of Kings to Rule, would democracy have prevailed sooner? We had democracies in pre-Christian Greek city-states, after all. Instead of charity, would it be better to promote self-sufficiency?
Certainly there have been some great Catholic scientists; Copernicus was a clergyman, and we have Lamarck and Mendel of course. Despite your comments about me being ‘ill read’, I have never denied any of this.
We can go ‘on and on’, but you conveniently ignored what I stated about Copernicus, the banned book list, posthumous executions ordered by the Pope, etc. Scientific – and with it technological – advancement HAVE made the world a lot better place. We now have vaccines, rapid transport and communication, access to healthy food and clean drinking water. I do not dispute many scientific luminaries were and are religious. What I DO dispute is that these massive resources could have been directed to better purpose.
I would say ‘humanist’ or ‘Western secular’ governments are more just than governments dominated by one religious belief system – as measured by civil liberties. In most such nations, you can choose your religion (or lack thereof) and practice it without interference from the State. This is VERY different than the way the Catholic Church ran the countries comprising ‘Christendom’ for a millenia. They had inquisitions, banned book lists, burning witches at the stake, expelling jews, permission required to publish anything, etc. I view the Roman Catholic church as particularly pernicious due to its top-down structure and the inherent secrecy and lack of decisionmaking and transparency to the laiety; the priest sex abuse scandal would have been dealt with much sooner if you had open institutions like in Protestant churches – they too, like secular entities, have sex scandals, but not with the same scope as the Roman Church’s. While that is a Church governance issue it’s still very real. To me, ‘Just’ means I can exercise freedom of religion and conscience and so can my neighbors. Now, if a nation is governed by a religion that knows it is right, they tend to discriminate against other faiths (don’t try preaching Christianity in Saudi Arabia!), and even prosecute people for what they’re wearing (fashion police in Saudi Arabia). Christianity has liberalized in the modern era; those were its ways in the past, but not today. Such is the change of God’s unchanging Church. I hold the Pope and his Clergymen to a high moral standard because they’re supposed to be in the morality business – not covering up men who repeatedly raped children. Governments exercising religious neutrality, to me, ARE more just than ones that kill apostates and burn witches in the Christian tradition which spans centuries.FrankOne wrote:
You ask for evidence for any claims that counter your particular sacred holy book; but anything presented in same Holy book, requires no such evidence.
And you have no standard definition for evidence/proof. It is entirely subjective in definition, and dependent on subjective sensory knowledge (ex: “I only believe what I see for my self”). So point a finger all you want, but your philosophy is dependent on faith in sensory experience, is subjective, lacks definition to terms (evidence/proof/reason), and has no epistemology. Your philosophy of “doubting” is fundamentally reactive in nature. Take for example athiesm. The argument that “there is no God” is entirely dependent on “God”. It gives no definition of God (and it can’t because it is irreducible) however uses arguments such as the “spaghetti monster” to prove people can believe in anything. However it is a poorly written argument since 1) noone believes in a spaghetti monster, they just fake it and 2) You are switching the axioms of the argument, so it is not the same argument (God is not spaghetti monster vice/versa). Also you are making assumptions that no evidence is required, yet throughout the whole scriptures people are demanding evidence from God. Scriptures cover this. The second point is that there is evidence, in one form or another, however that is entirely dependent on what you mean by evidence. And I will repeat this point that I mentioned earlier: “What do you mean by evidence” because whenever I ask this question you either ignore it (and so do many others). Your argument is dependendent on an axiom which has no definition and is subjective in nature. In many respects you are claiming that there is no God because you have had no subjective experience of God, yet you claim objectivism. And don’t get me started on objectivism that is another point altogether….Which scriptures have ‘evidence’? Answer: Many beyond the Christian ones, if one has a very week standard of ‘evidence’ comprising self-referential claims. Why are the Christian Bible’s more believable than, say, the Buddha’s twin miracle? Or Gilgamesh? Or the Koran? Or a story I make up myself right now? You miss the point of the Spaghetti monster; if we are going to teach intelligent design, why should we then not teach a range of other theories lacking evidence? I will confess to a fondness for Pastafarianism. May we all be touched by his noodly appendage. Ramen.
The other question that ought be posed is what comprises evidence AGAINST: self-contradiction in the Holy texts, incorrect science, incorrect history. Since these ARE provable, I have focused upon them, and been told, oh, that, that’s just metaphorical. Ignore it. Move along now. We’re in an era of mass communications, so slavery is no longer moral. That part of the Bible is now canceled. BUT your cancellation is NOT subjective, certainly not!
Since I haven’t observed Zeus or his thunderbolts, I don’t believe in him; ditto for Christian God. Atheism doesn’t require a definition of a specific God(s) or Goddesses; it’s simply a position of not believing in them. The reason most atheists I have known, to not believe in any of them, is lack of evidence.
I cited the evidence for the age of the earth and many other scientific observations. I explained that PI is not 3 as indicated in the bible. I explained the Earth rotates around the sun and that Biblical cosmology, is nonsensical. All those ‘explanations’ are admittedly based on observations. I haven’t ignored questions about evidence. Evidence comprises the facts or information indicating whether something is true or false; I see no problem producing a standard definition for this. How much ‘evidence’ is required to ‘prove’ something is certainly debatable; I’ve seen many objects fall, but can I PROVE all objects having mass will fall? I have only a finite set of observations I can make. Depending upon what your threshold is for ‘proof’, I may or may not be able to ‘prove’ this proposition. As I stated, it isn’t possible to prove whether God(s) exist; but you can prove or disprove many claims made in their Holy books, particularly those made about the natural world. You can also examine said books for internal consistency – presumably a divinely inspired work would be internally consistent; everyone is aware of the contradictions of the bible. The morality of the Bible is indefensible; I’ve already cited genocides. What about the racism? Favoring Jews over other Ethnic groups and smiting those than intermarry? Also, Ammonites and Moabites, were PROHIBITED in the Bible, from entering the congregation of the Lord.
Is whether to believe in religion subjective? Of course – it depends upon the observer. Some may feel a burning in the bosom, but can you prove that comes from Christian God? Why do the followers of Muslim God that fly airplanes into buildings and strap explosives to their belts also feel this? Mormons believe they feel something too. Or are they lieing? I’m not claiming there is no God; I’m claiming I don’t believe in God or Leprechauns (except in my Lucky Charms cereal) until I see them. If you do believe in God without evidence, why don’t you believe in these other Gods without evidence? If these miracles are so convincing, why isn’t a greater percentage of the World’s population Christian? Why doesn’t God also answer people’s prayers about which God and denomination are true with an appropriate burning in the bosom?FrankOne wrote:
What ‘evidence’ did the ‘theologians’ provide that their model of cosmology was correct (i.e. flat disc earth, floating on ocean held up by God’s will, water above that rains down when God created his).
The quote of Isaiah 40:22 points to the earth being circular, it does not say flat nor does it attempt to argue it. And yes the earth is circular, from any viewpoint. Spheres are circular in nature. There is no indepth cosmology in the bible, just a basic imagery of it that basic people can understand.Biblical cosmology closely parallels Sumero-Babylonian cosmology as one would expect. Despite an all-knowing God, there are no revelations about, say, the surface features of the moon or how many satellites orbit the various planets. Biblical cosmology comes from several verses; it is not all in one place.
Isaiah 40:22 refers to a ‘circle of the world’. A ‘circle’ is a 2 dimensional geometric figure, a DISC, it is flat, it is NOT a 3-dimensional globe. Read it all; ‘He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.’. This is where the churchmen came up with the dome of the Sky; they used to read and interpret the Bible for what it actually SAID until the facts demolished this. A tent has a floor. Then there is the ‘firmament’ supporting the ‘waters above’ (a vast reservoir of water above the sky). What do you think the ‘firmament’ is? Why did God have to open it for it to rain? Aquinas and others didn’t make up cosmology on their own; they read the Word of their God. There is no storehouse of snow and hail in the hydrologic cycle – only the Biblical hydrologic cycle.
How could the Devil show Jesus all the Kingdoms of Earth from a high mountain if the Earth is spherical? No matter how far away I am from a sphere, I can see only one half of the surface. Only if the Earth is flat does this make ANY sense. How can morning stars sing? Are they alive? You’re entering the realm of provable assertions – dangerous territory. And THIS is what I am talking about when I discuss two standards of proof. All of this must be dismissed by it ‘just being metaphorical’. It’s no more difficult to provide ‘basic imagery’ using the term for a sphere than a circle. The Hebrews had a word for sphere. The divinely-inspired authors of the Bible didn’t use it. You can’t view an entire globe from a single point outside it. THIS is the realm of evidence. I guess this part was metaphorical too. Is all the ‘objective morality’ also metaphorical? Are you subjectively deciding what to believe in and what to discard because it clashes with modern cultural norms and then rationalizing the choice with the religious hamster?FrankOne wrote:
You have two different standards of proof or evidence. If your religion is in power, then anybody that violates it is punished — typically severely if they actually follow their Book (look up how Sharia is enforced in Saudi Arabia).
I am not arguing for Islam, if you want to do that then talk to a muslim cleric. Don’t lump all religions together, they have major differences. You are an adult you should know better.My point is, when one MONOTHEISTIC religion dominates, it typically bans all others. Muslims actually got along with Jews and Christians when the Profitable Prophet’s cult was tiny & he couldn’t fight them – until the profit-making Prophet Mohommad became more powerful, then it was time (read: convenient for) the Christians and Jews to pay a special religious tax or be anhillated. The history of Islam is a part of the history of world religion, and is relevant to the discussion. The religious tax is actually more humane than just killing those who don’t share one’s faith, although Muslims often massacred Jews and Christians instead of merely subjecting them to Dhimmitude status & their Koran is contradictory on tolerance too. There are most certainly parallels to Christianity; look at the power the Church exhibited during the Middle Ages, approving and banning books, declaring heretics, conducting inquisitions, burning witches, killing William Tyndale for translating the Bible into English, etc. There have been eras of tolerance in both religions; the West tolerates different beliefs today, for instance. In ancient times, there was not so much animosity between polytheistic religions; when the Romans conquered new peoples religion wasn’t so much an issue, except with the Jews — of course, monotheism and polytheism clash with one another. Adding another God to the polytheistic pantheon, not so much so.
FrankOne wrote:
The Aristotelean model was popular amongst charlatan churchmen because it called for a perfect heaven, among other reasons.
Aristolean philosophy was popular everywhere, it is even popular today. Even objectivism has some roots in it.Yes, Aristotle and the ancient Greeks made some contributions to knowledge. Since they are not ensconced in religion, we can say also they were WRONG about some things. It is not permissible for a religion’s doctrine to ever be WRONG about anything. Or, if it is, it requires new revelations to ‘adapt’ (e.g. the Mormons 1978 receipt of a Revelation to allow blacks into the priesthood).
FrankOne wrote:
But why ‘one God’ and why not ‘Goddess’? Answer: Because most people in the West don’t believe in polytheism, but that was the prevalent belief only a few thousand years ago. You cannot disprove God(s) or Goddesses and I didn’t claim you could. You can prove whether their supposed sacred texts are self-contradictory or go against contemporary morals or ethics. You can also demonstrate whether such books verifiable claims (history, science) hold up to scrutiny. To put it another way, an atheist is a person who believes in one less God than you do. You are an atheist relative to all religions but Roman Catholicism. ‘God like status’? Not believing in God(s) doesn’t mean we believe we are a supreme being or should be worshipped. It does indicate God cannot be the source of all moral authority, if one believes God doesn’t exist. Belief in God also requires belief in observations — you observe the Good Word when you go to Mass & pay your tithings & don’t ask any difficult questions. Many philosophers get things wrong. As do scientists — Newton spent a great deal of his time studying alchemy! You said we needed more evidence to believe in a UFO cult; don’t then we need more evidence to believe in, say, Christianity? Not everything Aristotle posited is true either. Atheism doesn’t depend on a lack of belief; it IS a lack of belief, by definition. Atheism makes no claims about value systems because it alone, is not a philosophy of life. I don’t understand much of the rest of it ‘make it work’ means what? Atheism lowers others? There is no official atheist Dogma; we don’t have a worldwide atheist organization that advocates beheading people if they aren’t atheists, or a dogma. If there are Gods, maybe they wanted us to figure out our own values? The Jews don’t believe the Messiah has arrived yet. What logical process does one use to determine whether he has? If it’s revelation, then why don’t the Jews feel it? Or do they only get revelations from the Evil One?
There are alot of questions here. I could attempt to answer them, but that would take hours. Some of them I can’t answer, but that is not just me that is people in general. But there is one common thread, I have noticed were you contradict yourself. You have to rule out all other possibilities/probabilities in order to “believe” (not sure that is a fitting word) however there are “infinite possibilities” according to many (and including you if I remember correctly). You are under a false assumption that one has to know “everything” in order to believe, yet (using your own standards) there is no objective evidence for this. As long as one is able to doubt then that “said thing one is doubting” cannot be true, yet people can doubt anything for any reason. You do not doubt objectivism, yet it is an abstract thought (contradicting its argument that all knowledge comes through sensory expierience. You do not doubt man’s ability to observe the natural world, yet I gave arguments that it is not all correct (GMOs/etc.) So I am confused, because you seem bias just like everyone else. How do you even know that you questions are even the right ones to ask? You want to explore all various angles with various questions. Yet this can literally go on forever. So if one has the infinite potential to keep exploring angles before they believe then they by default are setting themselves up for doubt. Why? Because we will always be finite and unable to explore all various questions. Also you keep misquoting me. For example: I need more evidence to “believe in a ufo cult”. I never said that, I said that we have not enough evidence to state what exactly ufos are. The more we go on in dialogue, the more bias you seem. Either that or you do not know what you are talking about.The point is simple – there is no rational way to decide which religion to follow even after you accept the existence of a Diety or Dieties. Objectivism can certainly be doubted; we cannot prove we don’t exist in a simulation or a dream. Biased? Of course I am – by my particular set of lived experience and genetics. I apologize for mis-quoting; you said we needed more evidence to believe in UFO’s; I linked belief of UFO’s to belief in a UFO cult such as Heaven’s Gate. My point there was that none of these religions are more believable than any of the others, and that a World Religion now, was a ‘cult’ or ‘sect’ some time in the past when it had fewer followers. The questions were meant to be rhetorical in many cases – once you believe in God, you typically adopt the God of your culture. As for GMO’s, I believe increased yield is a great good – just like other technologies, there may be unintended consequences. I don’t see it relating to faith.
FrankOne wrote:
The Bible states the flood killed all life (God promised not to kill all life again & be nice in future after toking a huge eternal reefer = the New Testament Era of a loving God). Killing ALL life requires a global flood, and there is no evidence for it.
If all life originated near a single area, and that area was wiped out then yes it is correct. You have to remember, and I said this multiple times, that the world was defined as all that was observed by “people”.Really? But the BIBLE is the DIVINELY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. So I’d expect a lack of internal contradictions, accurate cosmology, accurate history, accurate prophesies, and precision. All the conferences to decide what books to include in it as canonical, were divinely inspired. Otherwise, what’s the point? Where is the ‘objective morality’ you keep talking about? Why would the world be defined as all that was observed by limited ‘people’ living at the time when the Word is inspired by God? God is omniscient. If the Bible is limited this way, are the prophecies all made up? Why wouldn’t God punish idolators on other Continents by giving them a nice long swim in his Great Flood? Didn’t he have enough water reserve up in the Firmament to flood the entire earth when he opened the windows of said solid Firmament dome that holds the water above the sky (I’m speaking in Biblical explanations here to be clear). He didn’t care a wit about collective punishment at other times when He commanded genocide of the neighbors of the Jews, right?
FrankOne wrote:
Sounds like Christian God wasn’t very clear despite divinely inspiring all this drivel. So we all have to choose a religion and denomination subjectively. And Christian God had some people he chose (the Jews), and others he didn’t (Egyptians, American Indians, aboriginal Australians, etc). He didn’t bother to reveal anything to those people, or give them any moral guidance so instead they all practiced various forms of idolatry. Since salvation is only through Jebus they are going to Hell. Is that just? His Ways are Not Our Ways is a GREAT and LOGICAL explanation for this.
In regards to the first statment: Clear as to what exactly? It states that the world does not even agree with God’s ways multiple times. People do there own thing. It clearly states this point too multiple times. You are mixing choice with subjectivism also, as in all choices are merely subjective truths. However that is not the case as many people do not believe in concrete truths. You are equating all choice with subjective truth, yet are making a concrete truth statment that requires belief as it has no evidence. Also, it clearly states in the Gospels that people cannot be judge guilty if they do not know. Real, genuine ignorance, does not condemn a person. In regards to denying Jesus, and going to hell, is right to deny him? What is He guilty of exactly? Also to deny him is a sin (or wrong act) yet the mercy we show in this life will be shown to us in our deaths. Does that mean a merciful non believer can be forgiven through Christ? This is another important question. All things wrongs can be forgiven. So we can say they are wrong and they do lead to death, but we do not know where this mercy begins and ends with the people who commit these wrongs. After all, even the believers commit wrongs which merit death also. Also, and this is a major point, who are you to ask what is Just? What epistemology of Justice, or definition of Justice do you have to compare what is just to what is not Just? You say injustice, yet it is based upon your subjective values. However if one says God’s ways are superior to ours, that person is wrong. However they are acknowledging something that is not subjective to their own whim. But what concrete proof do you have for your values? If you are truly a skeptic where is the self skepticism? If there is none, then you argument is entirely subjective. Yet you will then argue that everything is subjective, and contradict yourself with a concrete truth. I really do not know how to deal with your statements, because your reasoning is starting to become circular.It may state people can’t be judged guilty in the Gospels, but that’s not what Roman Catholics believed until recently. Look it up, the quote below is one of dozens spanning centuries:
Pope Pius IX (1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.”Morality is not the realm of concrete truths; you’re mixing up the physical world and the moral landscape.
Who am I to say what is just? Who are YOU to say what is just? Why do your statements of justice based on a holy book carry more weight than someone else’s holy book or someone who believes in no Gods? You already answered that by saying the Bible is the only source of objective morality… But YOU have to pick & choose which parts of it to follow. Slavery was a perfect example.
There’s nothing circular about morality being subjective. We can’t agree on it. You can’t do experiments showing yours is ‘better’. It depends on values, which are very subjective. Even those with the same religion who share the same values, don’t share the same morals. I’ve already demonstrated this by varying beliefs on murder even between different Christian denominations. What more can I say on this topic?
I’ve never felt like I had to adopt Dawkins’ or Hitchens’ dogma to consider myself an atheist. Nor do I need to try to change anyone’s mind about it to make myself feel smart or more secure in my non-belief in supernatural things.
Being MGTOW is a simple idea. Don’t volunteer to be owned by a woman (or man, for our gaybros on here) and live for your own purpose. Religion or non-religion has f~~~-all to do with whether a man is able or unable to do that.
There is a lot to cover, and I am in and out at random times now. So I am going to “try” to boil things down to simpler points if possible. Because of the exponential growth of some of these answers I am wondering if we should debate one subject or point at a time. For now I will respond to some basic points, however may I recommend that you pick one criticism of yours which we then focus on before we move on to a new one? For instance instead of debating multiple issues you pick one (ex: gallilleo, morality, etc.) and we focus on that for simplicity. Then after we cover all that can be covered we move on to the next point. For a start you can pick the subject.
Really? Let’s say all the resources/money spent on the witch doctors, priests, imams, cult leaders, temples, burnt offerings, pyramid building, Crusades, etc, across human history, instead went to technological research?
This is a statement of faith about technology solving all of man’s problems. A not to far off philosophy would be that “power” alone solves everything. However I do not see how technology can be the source of all solutions when one is stuck with the question of how/when/were/etc. to use it. A moral code/ethics/philosophy/etc. cannot come from technology alone. To create something and expect it to give you answers/power/etc would be the modern day equivalent of carving a human figurine out of wood and then asking it for the answers for everything. In many aspects we are already there. There is no evidence, objectively speaking, of technology completely solving a problem that does not snowball into something else or remains unsolved.
Certainly there have been some great Catholic scientists; Copernicus was a clergyman, and we have Lamarck and Mendel of course. Despite your comments about me being ‘ill read’, I have never denied any of this.
For the sake of clarity “ill read” refers to one not being completely educated on a subject. I am guilty of this too, as are all people. It was not a personal jab.
We can go ‘on and on’, but you conveniently ignored what I stated about Copernicus, the banned book list, posthumous executions ordered by the Pope, etc. Scientific – and with it technological – advancement HAVE made the world a lot better place.
And what was the issues with these again? Maybe we can focus on that as a single point, as part of the recommendation of the opening paragraph. In regards to the second point, nothing has changed. There is still war, starvation, disease (which antibiotics are beginning to fail) etc. Nothing has changed. I mean we might have flashier technology than in the past, but the core reasons that technology was created were never solved. To place technology on a pedestal would be like me placing my hammer or scaffolding wrench on an altar (I am a carpenter) and worshipping it.
I would say ‘humanist’ or ‘Western secular’ governments are more just than governments dominated by one religious belief system – as measured by civil liberties.[/quote.]
Read or preferably look up the summary of “Manufacturing Consent” by Naom Chomsky. Civil liberties do not guarantee freedom or justice in most modern democracies.
[quote=47784]Christianity has liberalized in the modern era; those were its ways in the past, but not today. Such is the change of God’s unchanging Church. I hold the Pope and his Clergymen to a high moral standard because they’re supposed to be in the morality business – not covering up men who repeatedly raped children.
I agree with the first point. In regards to the second, the doctrine of infallibility is about core tennets of faith and the core morality of the faith. Some things are fundamentally neutral. Those who do not follow these things (core of faith/morality) are not following the faith but making there own path. In regards to the last point that is complex. A whole paper can be written on that (you can use this as a point to start on the next post). To summarize it very briefly. There is a split in the church. There are certain groups and subcultures which are seeking to root in and oust certain parts of the churches identity. I have seen this for myself. There is an “infiltration” of certain groups.
If you do believe in God without evidence, why don’t you believe in these other Gods without evidence? If these miracles are so convincing, why isn’t a greater percentage of the World’s population Christian?
The evidence for the Christian is the crucified Christ. Do I expect you to understand it? No. Miracles convert some, but are to strengthen the faith of those who already believe. If a miracle had to convert someone, had to, then we would have no free will or choice and in many respects be forced to obey.
Isaiah 40:22 refers to a ‘circle of the world’. A ‘circle’ is a 2 dimensional geometric figure, a DISC, it is flat, it is NOT a 3-dimensional globe. Read it all; ‘He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.’. This is where the churchmen came up with the dome of the Sky; they used to read and interpret the Bible for what it actually SAID until the facts demolished this. A tent has a floor. Then there is the ‘firmament’ supporting the ‘waters above’ (a vast reservoir of water above the sky). What do you think the ‘firmament’ is? Why did God have to open it for it to rain? Aquinas and others didn’t make up cosmology on their own; they read the Word of their God. There is no storehouse of snow and hail in the hydrologic cycle – only the Biblical hydrologic cycle.
#1- a circle and a disk are two separate things. They are even diffentiated.
#2- “like” a tent and a tent are two separate things.
#3-and water is not stored in the sky? (clouds, moisture, etc)
Alot of your critism both above and prior are due to the bible being written in a language that does not parrellel
much of the western (mostly german) philosophy that dictated much of the western world. You are looking at the bible and
saying that because it is not written in a way a machinist would understand it then it is primarly false. This is an
important point, as a philosophy is dictating what you deem as “wrongs”. I am guessing you are a machinist of some form
or another and because of this you see the world in a certain way. Am I wrong? I am not degrading machinists or those
of technical trades though.How could the Devil show Jesus all the Kingdoms of Earth from a high mountain if the Earth is spherical? No matter how far away I am from a sphere, I can see only one half of the surface. Only if the Earth is flat does this make ANY sense. How can morning stars sing? Are they alive? You’re entering the realm of provable assertions – dangerous territory. And THIS is what I am talking about when I discuss two standards of proof.
It doesn’t make anysense even if the earth is flat, as one could only see so many miles. Given a vision is no different
than seeing this does not limit itself to metaphor or a literal interpreation. Also, how many times have you or someone else step on to a high rise balcony to look at “the world”. Jesus
could even have been looking at one city, and still this verse would have no issues. And I could go on. In regards to
the morningstars, all existence gives off some vibration in one form or another. In many respects, everything “sings”.You can’t view an entire globe from a single point outside it.
If I am in space and I look at the earth, how can I not say I am looking at the earth? Also you can see the whole thing from
one aspect in space, because it rotates. (this goes back to the circle point earlier). But I am assuming you are refering
to the “Jesus on top of the mountain” which I have mentioned earlier.Are you subjectively deciding what to believe in and what to discard because it clashes with modern cultural norms and then rationalizing the choice with the religious hamster?
Are you disagreeing with scripture because it is the cultural norm? Is your faith in technology and man’s will because
of the cultural norm? What about the evidence to the contrary? Because you are stuck in an odd position, because if
all scripture was not divinely inspire (written by man alone) you are acknowledging the source of your problems (people)
as the solution to them all.My point is, when one MONOTHEISTIC religion dominates, it typically bans all others.
Really?….. You know, historically speaking, you are wrong. But you would also have to criticize athiest governments
also where is that criticism? I could say the same about agnostic governments, but those don’t exist because a leader
cannot be clueless about everything.It is not permissible for a religion’s doctrine to ever be WRONG about anything.
If you want me to defend every religion I am not. I am defending Catholicism, so it would be better if you focus
your efforts on that. With that being said, you are correct. Which is why I will bring up this example article:http://elitedaily.com/life/8-surprising-scientific-facts-changed-since-grade-school/
The point is simple – there is no rational way to decide which religion to follow even after you accept the existence of a Diety or Dieties.
There is barely a rational way to understand reality itself.
My point there was that none of these religions are more believable than any of the others, and that a World Religion now, was a ‘cult’ or ‘sect’ some time in the past when it had fewer followers.
And then you are stuck only believing what your eyes can see, so if your eyes trick you reality must not be real. Getting
back to the prior point about “experiences” and “genetics” making you bias: Well if that is the case then certain genes
are more superior than others. You claimed there was a religious gene, but religion is wrong, so the gene must be wrong.
However we are a biproduct of evolution. You do understand your understanding of the world (philosoph) makes no sense
at all right? (assuming I look at it threw your perspective argument). So how can you say someone else makes no sense (when sense (reason) is what determines truth according to
you) when you make no sense yourself? I get it, you will say we will eventually learn something new, but there is no
evidence that we will stop learning, because there is no evidence that we can observe everything. So you are stuck on
a premise of faith, however faith is irrational according to you. And we can only come to truth through reason. Do
you understand my point? I say this objectively, criticize religion (Christianity specifically) all you want, but
it comes off as “hate” (which may be a strong word) because your beliefs make even less sense. Its almost as if you have
none of your own.Really? But the BIBLE is the DIVINELY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.
And history is suppose to be thrown out the window? The world is what people observed/lived in. Also to get back to
a point (I don’t know if I mentioned, but should have) what proof exactly?http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood.htmWhy would the world be defined as all that was observed by limited ‘people’ living at the time when the Word is inspired by God? God is omniscient. If the Bible is limited this way, are the prophecies all made up?
This was in response to only the “middle east being flooded out” which had a big “if” before it. To observe the world
is to live in it during that time. So although, I could have been more accurate I am not incorrect. And what prophecy
is not observed? How can a prophecy be a prophecy and not be observed? God is omniscient remember? He sees what we see
and knows what we see and what we don’t.Didn’t he have enough water reserve up in the Firmament to flood the entire earth when he opened the windows of said solid Firmament dome that holds the water above the sky (I’m speaking in Biblical explanations here to be clear).
This was in response to only the “middle east being flooded out” which had a big “if” before it. To observe the world
is to live in it during that time. So although, I could have been more accurate I am not incorrect. And what prophecy
is not observed? How can a prophecy be a prophecy and not be observed? God is omniscient remember? He sees what we see
and knows what we see and what we don’t.And the “also the fountains of the deeps and the floodgates of the sky were closed”. You are arguing against scripture,
attempting to use scripture, yet you do not know the scripture. You take alot of stuff out of context, I have brought
this up on multiple occasions on multiple posts. You literally look like someone who hates religion and religious people
but are just trying to hide it so you fit in and give the appearance of being “fair”. Am I right? I could be, or could
be false. Either way, you talk about things “having to be read literally” yet you take things out of context when they
suit you. If this was the first, second, hell even third time I would just brush it under the rug but I can’t. I am
losing respect for you, I don’t know how else to say it. Take it personally, or don’t, I do not care. But I am debating
alot of things which are either taken out of context/incomplete history/etc.I will say this for clarity. None of the world makes complete sense, we are stuck with faith regardless of what we
believe in. Christainity makes more sense than you do. At best you can attack Christianity, but that is because you have
nothing to offer. I feel like I should be quizzing you more. Is that clear enough?It may state people can’t be judged guilty in the Gospels, but that’s not what Roman Catholics believed until recently. Look it up, the quote below is one of dozens spanning centuries: Pope Pius IX (1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.”
Acknowleding a wrong and condemning people are two seperate things. To deny the true faith (Roman Catholcism) is a
wrong and to disreguard the truths about Christ (and Christ in some respects himself). The Romans acknowledge the
eastern catholic and orthodox sacraments as legitimate, however the Orthodox do not see this as vice versa. And different
aspects of protestant can also be applied. The Roman Catholic Church is the “fullness” of the faith and to deny any
part of this fullness (intentionally, and not out of genuine ignorance [which only God and the individual may know] is
to deny truth itself. To live in a wrong is to invite
personal destruction. Roman Catholicism is a faith, but also an understanding/expression of reality,
so salvation is a fundamentally Catholic thing. (Catholic means universal) To simplify everything: Heaven is a Catholic
(universal) place where the fullness of existence is expressed. Because the Catholic Church is the fullness of faith, if
under certain circumstances a non Catholic recieves salvation they would be many respects be Catholic. So yes in one
respect only Catholics are saved, in another anyone can be saved, and in another non catholics are not saved. There is
no “contradiction”. If I am not clear enough in this point, you will have to say so.Morality is not the realm of concrete truths; you’re mixing up the physical world and the moral landscape.
Yes it is, as if morality is only subjective and I say it is not then by default I would be lying and therefore immoral.
There are certain “non-changing” aspects of morality which are unavoidable. Saying morality is subjective does not
save you from this, as you would be lying by making a concrete moral statement.We can’t agree on it. You can’t do experiments showing yours is ‘better’. It depends on values, which are very subjective. Even those with the same religion who share the same values, don’t share the same morals. I’ve already demonstrated this by varying beliefs on murder even between different Christian denominations. What more can I say on this topic?
Yes it is, as if morality is only subjective and I say it is not then by default I would be lying and therefore immoral.
There are certain “non-changing” aspects of morality which are unavoidable. Saying morality is subjective does not
save you from this, as you would be lying by making a concrete moral statement.To determining morality through an experiment would require that certains values being controlled making us superior
to the values themselves as we are making them subject to us. We in a sense become the ultimate value, however we cannot
subject ourselves to an experiment as the experiment is our own doing. So your statement is false. Also the scientific method
is a way of understanding the natural world. If according to you, morality is subjective than that means the way
in which one achieves a value is fundamentally subjective. If I valued knowledge about the natural world, but the way I
achieve it is subjective, then under certain circumstance the scientific method is invalid. However, you claim we
cannot determine morality because we cannot subject it to experiments (the scientific method) as that is the only way to
prove a morality.Values themselves are not necessarily subjective. If you value human life but human life defines what a value
is then you go for a logic loop. To be subject to subjectivity is to acknowledge certain “non-changing values”.In regards to the Christian denominations, you did not demonstrate anything. Catholic values must be Catholic values,
Methodist must be methodist, etc. Now a person may choose what values they follow but say one is a Catholic or Methodist
and not follow those said values would be incorrect. A faith stays the same, at most we may be revealed more about it, and
not create anything new but rather acknowledge what was there the whole time yet unforseen to us.
People change. You are confusing subjectivity with the behavior of people. People behave immorally, there is no avoiding
this.As a skeptic if you are not skeptical of everything, then you are bias and therefore immoral (in regards to straying from a path
for acheiving a value). Also anytime a value is not achieved you would be immoral. To change what you value to avoid
failure of achieving a value would also be immoral as you would be submitting to a constant state of valueness and therefore
immoral.Criticize the Christians all you want, but applying your own moral code to you only points to immoral intellectual abuses
done of your own free will. How can you point at the splinter in the eye of your brothers when you have a stick in your own?Stupid Bulls~~~
FrankOne wrote:
Really? Let’s say all the resources/money spent on the witch doctors, priests, imams, cult leaders, temples, burnt offerings, pyramid building, Crusades, etc, across human history, instead went to technological research?
This is a statement of faith about technology solving all of man’s problems. A not to far off philosophy would be that “power” alone solves everything. However I do not see how technology can be the source of all solutions when one is stuck with the question of how/when/were/etc. to use it. A moral code/ethics/philosophy/etc. cannot come from technology alone. To create something and expect it to give you answers/power/etc would be the modern day equivalent of carving a human figurine out of wood and then asking it for the answers for everything. In many aspects we are already there. There is no evidence, objectively speaking, of technology completely solving a problem that does not snowball into something else or remains unsolved.I’m not arguing technology solves all problems; I am arguing vaccines, clean water, sanitation, antibiotics, and other technologies have reduced infant mortality and improved human health and well-being. If resources had been devoted to science and technology rather than cults and charlatans (a.k.a. religion), it is not unreasonable to suggest that advancement would be more rapid in health and medicine. If more young people become mechanics and engineers, do you think technology will advance more rapidly than if they go to Bible college and study theology? Remember, faith is a ‘complete trust or confidence in someone or something’. Some technologies have been used to kill people or control them; others increase our freedom of expression and reach. A gun is good to me if it defends me against deadly aggression, but bad if used in a school shooting. I never argued that technology can provide a morality or that I had faith in it, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at there. In a world of limited resources, we may find that we cannot sustain current population levels at a high standard of material living forever – and this is the sort of problem technology causes. Producing electricity from coal generates particulate emissions and damages the land (e.g. strip mining) – so there are often negative consequences to technologies. We’ve eliminated many of our forests and species. I disagree completely about carving a figurine; nobody I know expects moral answers from scientific inquiries, and I know many physical and chemical researchers, as well as ‘technologists’ such as myself (Engineer).
As for ‘ill read’, I don’t ever consider myself completely educated on any subject.#1- a circle and a disk are two separate things. They are even diffentiated. #2- “like” a tent and a tent are two separate things. #3-and water is not stored in the sky? (clouds, moisture, etc) Alot of your critism both above and prior are due to the bible being written in a language that does not parrellel much of the western (mostly german) philosophy that dictated much of the western world. You are looking at the bible and saying that because it is not written in a way a machinist would understand it then it is primarly false. This is an important point, as a philosophy is dictating what you deem as “wrongs”. I am guessing you are a machinist of some form or another and because of this you see the world in a certain way. Am I wrong? I am not degrading machinists or those of technical trades though.
This is probably a good point to discuss. I’m an engineer, not a machinist, so yeah, I’m overly analytic. Biblical cosmology clearly indicates a geocentric cosmology; the 11 ‘theologian’ qualifiers in Galileo’s trial and the Doctor of the Church were unanimous on that one. The firmament or raqia is a solid structure; the windows in the firmament opened causing the flood. Of course, all that is non-sensical. That’s why Calvin came up with the ‘doctrine of accommodation’, basically, saying god is unknowable and attributing all this to language issues. PI=3. Same deal. If the Bible is divinely inspired you have a lot of errors and contradictions you have to explain away. Ex-Mormons call it the ‘shelf’; when the ‘shelf’ of contradictions accumulates and finally falls over, they quit the cult.
Are you disagreeing with scripture because it is the cultural norm? Is your faith in technology and man’s will because of the cultural norm? What about the evidence to the contrary? Because you are stuck in an odd position, because if all scripture was not divinely inspire (written by man alone) you are acknowledging the source of your problems (people) as the solution to them all.
1: No, the cultural norm in North America is to believe in Christianity. 2: As discussed previously, I don’t have ‘faith’ in technology and man’s will. See definition of faith above. 3: No, I never argued Man was infallible…
FrankOne wrote:
My point is, when one MONOTHEISTIC religion dominates, it typically bans all others.
Really?….. You know, historically speaking, you are wrong. But you would also have to criticize athiest governments also where is that criticism? I could say the same about agnostic governments, but those don’t exist because a leader cannot be clueless about everything.Am I wrong? How were non-Christians treated in Europe? Were there pogroms against the Jews for centuries under Christendom? Witches? Heretics? Schismatics? Spanish and Portugese inquisitions are just made up? Crusades too? Don’t get me wrong; Muslims behaved similarly when and where THEIR monotheistic religion dominated. There have been few atheistic governments; typically they banned competing religions for the same reason Catholics didn’t want schismatics; they were a threat to their power. I find religious totalitarianism objectionable just as I find secular totalitarianism objectionable. I don’t know what an ‘agnostic’ government is – maybe you mean anything that ISN’T a theocratic State? In any event, secular governments allow individuals to practice their faith or lack thereof largely without intervention. Monotheistic Theocracies typically do NOT historically.
FrankOne wrote:
It is not permissible for a religion’s doctrine to ever be WRONG about anything.
If you want me to defend every religion I am not. I am defending Catholicism, so it would be better if you focus your efforts on that. With that being said, you are correct. Which is why I will bring up this example article:I don’t expect someone who is an atheist relative to all religions but one, to defend the others that contradict theirs. Has there been ‘developing doctrine’ in the Catholic Church? Of course, Pope John Paul II said slavery is ‘intrinsically evil’, but it sure wasn’t for almost 2000 years before that. But I think we’ve beaten that horse to death. The Church did a mega-flip-flop on Usury. Before Vatican II’s ‘Declaration on Religious Freedom’ to appeal to modern sensibilities, the position was ‘error has no rights’. Obviously there was no ‘Declaration’ in effect during the Inquisitions.
I’ve already stated science can and DOES change. Relativity supplanted classical mechanics. As for whether Pluto is a planet, as discussed in this link, something like that is merely a human definition; a mass above which a body constitutes a planet is defined. Redefining it, doesn’t change the underlying laws of physics any more than if a planet is renamed.FrankOne wrote:
My point there was that none of these religions are more believable than any of the others, and that a World Religion now, was a ‘cult’ or ‘sect’ some time in the past when it had fewer followers.
And then you are stuck only believing what your eyes can see, so if your eyes trick you reality must not be real. Getting back to the prior point about “experiences” and “genetics” making you bias: Well if that is the case then certain genes are more superior than others. You claimed there was a religious gene, but religion is wrong, so the gene must be wrong. However we are a biproduct of evolution. You do understand your understanding of the world (philosoph) makes no sense at all right? (assuming I look at it threw your perspective argument). So how can you say someone else makes no sense (when sense (reason) is what determines truth according to you) when you make no sense yourself? I get it, you will say we will eventually learn something new, but there is no evidence that we will stop learning, because there is no evidence that we can observe everything. So you are stuck on a premise of faith, however faith is irrational according to you. And we can only come to truth through reason. Do you understand my point? I say this objectively, criticize religion (Christianity specifically) all you want, but it comes off as “hate” (which may be a strong word) because your beliefs make even less sense. Its almost as if you have none of your own.Certainly, my eyes may trick me – I’ve already discussed that. Religion may have an evolutionary advantage – there are theories on that – that it improved cooperation. I don’t view a ‘gene’ as ‘wrong’ as a gene isn’t a conscious actor. Superior genes? Well, one may make me more athletic, another may improve my mental acuity, several others may cause me to have Downs Syndrome or a heart defect. I’m not sure what you are saying doesn’t make sense here. And you did not address my question of why genes COULD impact religiosity if we have an externalized soul making moral choices with free will? I definitely have beliefs based upon my values. As I’ve indicated before, though, morality depends on one’s subjective experiences and genetics. Reason isn’t going to determine which morality is ‘best’. You can come to truth through reason about the physical world, but not about morality since it depends on subjective values. If my genetics and experiences cause me to be or become a sociopath, I doubt I can reason my way out of it or you can reason me out of it.
And history is suppose to be thrown out the window? The world is what people observed/lived in. Also to get back to a point (I don’t know if I mentioned, but should have) what proof exactly? LINKS
Biblical scholars generally agree the flood myth was taken from earlier Mesopotamian accounts. Why do those accounts not include the monotheistic God? Why does one story in Genesis say two of each animal, male and female were loaded up on the Ark and another part say 7 pairs of the ‘clean’ animals? Since some animals are asexual, that doesn’t make sense either. These are some of the hundreds of internal or self-referential contradictions within the holy Bible. Scholars explain these by the flood myth being an amalgamation of two earlier narratives. Think about it. If saline SEA water flooded the earth for a year, how would plant life survive? Even after hurricanes you have land that is no longer arable. As stated previously, the majority of scientists do not believe a worldwide flood occurred. Apologists will… apologize. Or, to put it another way, I can give you several links to the flat earth society.
And what prophecy is not observed? How can a prophecy be a prophecy and not be observed? God is omniscient remember? He sees what we see and knows what we see and what we don’t.
I already cited a couple… Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it would never be built again (strange how it’s populated), Egypt would become a barren wasteland… Since Nebuchadnezzar is dead he can’t destroy Tyre… Not as embarrassing as the religions that set an End Time Day & keep having to postpone it, but STILL…
So yes in one respect only Catholics are saved, in another anyone can be saved, and in another non catholics are not saved. There is no “contradiction”. If I am not clear enough in this point, you will have to say so.
To clarify this point as it relates to comments you made elsewhere in this thread about salvation of those ‘ignorant’ of the Roman Catholic Church. Evidence of salvation only through the Church? That was THE doctrine pre-Vatican II. Taught to the Catholic Americans in the Baltimore Catechism, later replaced by the CCC post-Vatican II. The doctrine is called ‘EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS’. Look it up. Admittedly, it’s softened up considerably since Vatican II. A typical quote from Pope Boniface represents the views for the last 6-700 years or so – and is echoed by many other Popes and ‘theologians’.
‘We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’
I recognize the Church did Ye Old Flip Flop on this one as it hasn’t been politically correct to say everyone else is a schismatic (other denominations) and is going to hell anymore. You know, ‘no one survives outside the Ark’, and all that. I can cite the dozens of Popes relating this belief, but just look it up… All those former Popes were just speaking metaphorically for the last 6-700+ years I suppose. And so, when they ‘metaphorically’ executed people in their ‘metaphorical’ inquisition for Heresy, how do you explain that? Division had to be squashed. Anything else and the Church would lose temporal power – which it did with the schism of the Eastern Church AND the advent of Protestantism. And the result was increased human freedom and transparency.. and even MORE criticism of the Mother Church…FrankOne wrote:
Morality is not the realm of concrete truths; you’re mixing up the physical world and the moral landscape.
Yes it is, as if morality is only subjective and I say it is not then by default I would be lying and therefore immoral. There are certain “non-changing” aspects of morality which are unavoidable. Saying morality is subjective does not save you from this, as you would be lying by making a concrete moral statement.Only if lying is immoral in my morality system. Seriously, a secular or philosophical morality can be defined by starting out with principles (values) and then deriving a system from it. This will not be an ‘objective morality’ any more than a morality based on picking & choosing from the Bible is objective (remember slavery?).
What if I live alone in a cave or on a spaceship? What ‘morals’ apply to me then? What absolute morals apply to God? To aliens or beings unlike us? Must they also have the same objective morality?Stupid Bulls~~~
You are smarter than me remember? You should have a better response than this.
I never argued that technology can provide a morality or that I had faith in it, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at there.
Technology is not the solution to all problems. Even if we spend more effort developing it, we still need to put forth equal effort in trying to understand when/how/where/etc. to use it.
I disagree completely about carving a figurine; nobody I know expects moral answers from scientific inquiries, and I know many physical and chemical researchers, as well as ‘technologists’ such as myself (Engineer).
This is where the argument “branches” off because people such as Sam Harris do. However, because you do not expect science to determine morality where/how exactly do you expect it to be observed/defined?
Biblical cosmology clearly indicates a geocentric cosmology; the 11 ‘theologian’ qualifiers in Galileo’s trial and the Doctor of the Church were unanimous on that one.
The language is so abstract that it speaks of the universe in “forms” more than anything. Getting back to the Galileo trial, a geocentric universe was a common belief both religious and secular and because the church had an acting version of secular government at the time (as did most faiths) the secular portion had authority to denounce him for “lack of evidence”. It is the “lack of” that was important. He we not allowed to preach it due to lack of. Aristotelian metaphysics (technically pre Socratic) had a huge effect on the “scientific” communities during the middle ages (and one can argue still today) it was the basic understanding of the universe for the Greeks in antiquity. The Gallileo controversy was about espousing theory as fact (and it was theory because he lacked evidence) when he was warned not too.
Here is a further response of Ratzinger in defending churches actions against Gallileo:
“In 1990, in a defense of the church’s actions toward Galileo, Cardinal Ratzinger references Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch in order to demonstrate that the Theory of Relativity has proven heliocentrism wrong. Here is an excerpt:
According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: ‘From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”http://ask.metafilter.com/89958/Is-heliocentrism-wrong
Am I arguing for a geocentric universe? No, however a heliocentric universe has its problems too and to rush to judgement
on either a heliocentric or geocentric universe is foolhardy without first acknowledging a underlying faith on either side.
The fundamental differences of the geocentric verse heliocentric system is the point of measurements. With the
heliocentric system the sun is defined as the constant from which all measurements stem from. With the Geocentric
system the earth is definde as the constant from which all measurements stem from. So the argument of Geocentricism vs.
Heliocentricism is based more upon a philosophical premise rather than strict objective evidence.So one cannot state strict objective evidence as fact without first acknowledging the abstract thoughts which formed it.
To further my point, in quantum physics it is being determined that the act of observation itself is enough to determine
whether a light particle takes a particle or wave form. If this is the case for the microscopic, then what about the
macroscopic?But to branch off on a similar but related subject, the heliocentric theory has its issues also.
-The speeds of the earth’s orbit.
-The concave theory.
-The issue of the “rotating stars” around the earth present in Geocentric theory can still permit an equal gravitational force as the heliocentric model. So under the geocentric theory this is still possible according to Mach, Thirring, and Einstein (not that they supported geocentrism, just rather acknowledged a possibility)
-1885 Foucalts pendulum, meant to prove a heliocentric earth, was disproven by a 1954 and 1959 experiment by Maurice Allais showing that the pendulum changed by 13.5 degrees during a solar eclipse lasting 2+ hours proving that the pendulum was moved by something other than the rotation of the earth.
-Michelson and Morley did an experiment in 1887 where they set up set up ” a device which split up light: one beam in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, and one at right angles. The two light beams then recombined and hit a photographic plate. The difference is speed of the two beams would create an interference pattern. They expected to measure a speed of 30 km/s as that was the speed of the Earth’s supposed rotation, but instead registered a variable difference of between 1 and 10 km/s each time the experiment was repeated. They called this a “null” result. This proves that the Earth is not rotating and at the same time proved the existence of the either.” http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/
-http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2008/05/was-copernicus-wrong.html
John Doe wrote: Are you disagreeing with scripture because it is the cultural norm? Is your faith in technology and man’s will because of the cultural norm? What about the evidence to the contrary? Because you are stuck in an odd position, because if all scripture was not divinely inspire (written by man alone) you are acknowledging the source of your problems (people) as the solution to them all. 1: No, the cultural norm in North America is to believe in Christianity. 2: As discussed previously, I don’t have ‘faith’ in technology and man’s will. See definition of faith above. 3: No, I never argued Man was infallible…
1) Christianity
is not the cultural norm anymore. To scrutinize Christianity is however. So the point you made is more a matter of
self projection than fact.
2) You have hope without evidence that man and technology will solve the worlds problems, and what evidence you do give (if I were to apply your own standards to you) is
subjectively interpretted to fit your understanding of the universe.
3) You state that man cannot make infallible statements, yet to claim this would be an infallible statement by a man.In any event, secular governments allow individuals to practice their faith or lack thereof largely without intervention.
Not always, communist governments are strictly secular and they do not permit this. Capitalist governments do not
outright ban a faith but promote heresies and contradictions in it to further consumer culture. In regards to theocratic
societies, a tax is usually put into place. To summarize your problem, your issue is less about a faith but more
to totalitarian governments, however you cannot make this criticism as your morality is fundamentally subjective (according
to you all morality is subjective including your own) so in one respect they are doing the right thing and in another
you are stating subjective wrongs.Of course, Pope John Paul II said slavery is ‘intrinsically evil’, but it sure wasn’t for almost 2000 years before that. But I think we’ve beaten that horse to death. The Church did a mega-flip-flop on Usury. Before Vatican II’s ‘Declaration on Religious Freedom’ to appeal to modern sensibilities, the position was ‘error has no rights’.
You will have to go further into your example so I understand the context in which it is said in regards to “usury”.
In regards to the “slavery” I already discussed this. Slavery was never right to begin with but commands were given to
make something “good” out of something already deficient in human nature. Slavery is an aspect of a corrupt human nature.
The commands of “slavery” for the time either break down to having to understand what the hebrew or greek for slave was and/or
understanding what the rights of the “slaves” were. I never argued that slavery was right, rather that is was in the
nature of a corrupted humanity which cannot be avoided.In regards to the Declaration of Religious Freedom there was no shift read it yourself. Errors are not permitted in the
faith. You quote “error has no rights” but where is the full quote?I don’t view a ‘gene’ as ‘wrong’ as a gene isn’t a conscious actor. Superior genes? Well, one may make me more athletic, another may improve my mental acuity, several others may cause me to have Downs Syndrome or a heart defect. I’m not sure what you are saying doesn’t make sense here.
Certain behavior is determined by certain genes. Certain behavior is wrong. Certain genes are wrong. To even make this
statement, would be a result of my genes influencing my behavior in this manner. Also what exactly is meant by
“religiousity”. You also have the question of certain genes being activated, while others are not. What factor does
this exactly? Expierience? Because if that is the case much of that is determined by genetics so one is stuck in a logic loop.And you did not address my question of why genes COULD impact religiosity if we have an externalized soul making moral choices with free will?
What exactly do they mean by religiousity? Because both the secular and religious definitions are different. That is
the first obvious point. Second point goes to (assuming there are genes for religiousity, which has yet to be determined
by both definition of religion and the actual gene itself) the fact that genes can be “turned on or turned off” in many
respects, so there is definite room for free will in the expression of the genes. Also genes affect behavior but do not
determine it, as behavior can be overcome. Also genes influence some behavior which is fundamentally amoral (aggressiveness)
for example has its use but can also be misused.At the end of the day, if genetics determines everything, one would have to find the gene which influences one to become
a genetist. A self aware gene so to speak.I definitely have beliefs based upon my values. As I’ve indicated before, though, morality depends on one’s subjective experiences and genetics. Reason isn’t going to determine which morality is ‘best’. You can come to truth through reason about the physical world, but not about morality since it depends on subjective values. If my genetics and experiences cause me to be or become a sociopath, I doubt I can reason my way out of it or you can reason me out of it.
Certain values have certain consequences, morality is the way. A moral code is a moral code. A subjective experience
may determine what “moral code” one chooses or values but it is not the sole determining factor. Also no gene has been
identified which says certain people go to certain faiths, so in many respects morality is not dependentant on genetics.
Also one can be a sociopath and still moral, as sociopathy is less about morality and more about an emotional deficit in
one respect and emotional interpretation in another. So although genetics may determine “sociopathy” it can not be
fizzled down to determining morality. It may determine emotional states, however emotions and morality are too seperate
things.You say we can only reason about the physical world and not morality because it depends on subjective values however that
is false as if one values the same thing one cannot have several moralities steming from it. I covered this prior, and
you ignored it.One cannot value human life and have seperate moralities without reinterpreting the value of human life
and coming up with two seperate values. Take for example a Christian vs Athiest. They both value human life, however
have two seperate moral systems. Those moral systems, in many respects, redefine that variable “human life” where in
appearance the value may be the same but in all actuallity it is fundamentally different. Although the value of “human
life” may be the same in appearance its interpretation is different. One cannot say the value (human life) was the same, but rather
different and that a different outside set of values determined the first (human life). So although the athiest and
Christian may both value human life, human life is interpretted differently due to a seperate set of outside values.
So in one respect one can acknowledge thier values (human life for example) but in another respect a seperate set of values
determines the first and this is where a faith comes in.However this is where you state everything is subjective, but
this is faulty as you claim subjectivism is determined by a value.You are stuck in a logic loop as values are subjective but one is subject to values. So in many respects you are saying
we are subject to subjectivism. If this were true then a concrete truth is made. However to accept this concrete truth
would be in many aspects immoral as we then would not be following the moral law of subjectivism and instead acknowledge
moral constants.Biblical scholars generally agree the flood myth was taken from earlier Mesopotamian accounts.
Mesopotamia is just one. There are multiple flood accounts from all over the world. Several hundred if I am correct.
Some of them are among the native americans, others with the asians (if I remember correctly). The epic of Gilgamesh, is
one example I provided, however that could not influence all accounts.Apologists will… apologize. Or, to put it another way, I can give you several links to the flat earth society.
And skeptics doubt, even when evidence is present before them. Also skeptics have ethical problems as their continual
doubt leads to a lack of courage, as they have no real value systems except skepticism. And to say they have value
systems without being skeptical of them, would means they are not skeptics.You also cannot claim one is injust without first having a value system to compare it too. You will say Christianity
is wrong because of “contradictions (which are either misintrepretations or things taken out of context) however you yourself are full of contradictions. You say contradictions are wrong
but most of your arguments contain them. At best you can attack Christianity (religion) simply because it is an offensive
meant to divert one from the fact you have no countersystem. Your questioning of Christianity has less to do with the truth
and more to do with putting up a smoke screen over your lack of ideology and moral code. You lump Catholicism in with a
bunch of seperate religions and point to the falsities in some religions as evidence of all religions being false, and
by default Catholicism being false. Don’t think I have not literally tolerated your logic this whole time. You
wanted answers and I gave them. If you are not satifisfied, then fundamentally it leaves the argument on an emotional
basis at your end. Many of the quotes either are taken out of context or come from the perspective of one who is
arguing against something he knows little of.Take for example the “flood firmament argument you made”. According to you you claimed the flood as false because there
was not enough rain in the sky. Then you pointed to part of a verse. A part. I gave the verse back where it shows that
the water came from undersea vents. You ignored it. Why? Because it did not fit to your understanding of what you wanted
Christianity to be. You say people are only Christians due to trying to fit it, yet you yourself admit to working with a
peer group that is primarily athiest or agnostic. If anything your philosophy is about “fitting in.”If you can prove against the physical laws of the bible, then by default you do not have to acknowledge the moral code.
If you take verses out of context, in regards to the moral code, then by default you do not have to acknowledge the moral
code as you will see this as evidence of contradictions. If you state morality is subjective, you can do what you
want without having to admit to accountability.What I have a tough time understanding with your argument is how can you point to “contradictions” in others when your
philosophy itself is full of them? You talk about justice, but remember that is subjective too remember? After all if
all values are subjective and justice is a value, then by default justice is subjective. So you cannot claim something
is unjust without first saying that your values are right and the others are wrong. But that would mean that certain values
are not subjective, yet you say they are. You do understand your moral philosophy makes no sense.“Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
I already cited a couple… Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it would never be built again (strange how it’s populated), Egypt would become a barren wasteland… Since Nebuchadnezzar is dead he can’t destroy Tyre… Not as embarrassing as the religions that set an End Time Day & keep having to postpone it, but STILL…
First, as you know, don’t lump all religions into one category and then say because some are false all are false. Don’t
think I don’t recognize your logic. This isn’t skepticism this is bias opinion. In regards to Tyre, that was a major
trading port. It was immensely wealthy. Once it was destroyed, it was never built again as it never achieved its previous
levels of wealth again. Although the name may still exist, the Tyre of old never rose up to its former glory and in many
respects was never rebuilt.To clarify this point as it relates to comments you made elsewhere in this thread about salvation of those ‘ignorant’ of the Roman Catholic Church. Evidence of salvation only through the Church? That was THE doctrine pre-Vatican II. Taught to the Catholic Americans in the Baltimore Catechism, later replaced by the CCC post-Vatican II. The doctrine is called ‘EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS’. Look it up. Admittedly, it’s softened up considerably since Vatican II. A typical quote from Pope Boniface represents the views for the last 6-700 years or so – and is echoed by many other Popes and ‘theologians’. ‘We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’ I recognize the Church did Ye Old Flip Flop on this one as it hasn’t been politically correct to say everyone else is a schismatic (other denominations) and is going to hell anymore. You know, ‘no one survives outside the Ark’, and all that. I can cite the dozens of Popes relating this belief, but just look it up… All those former Popes were just speaking metaphorically for the last 6-700+ years I suppose. And so, when they ‘metaphorically’ executed people in their ‘metaphorical’ inquisition for Heresy, how do you explain that? Division had to be squashed. Anything else and the Church would lose temporal power – which it did with the schism of the Eastern Church AND the advent of Protestantism. And the result was increased human freedom and transparency.. and even MORE criticism of the Mother Church…
I never said one could be saved outside the church, they can’t. I said that all the saved are in the Church.
So cannot outside the church be save? Through conversion, yes. In regards to “ignorance” there are certain constant
truths evident in all cultures and moralities however the Catholic church is the fullest expression of these truths and
by default correct. If someone is ignorant of the Church, geniuinely speaking, yet still follows these certain truths
as dictated by their concious then in many respects they are already undergoing a conversion process and in some respects
maintain a Catholic (universal) identity that is awaiting a full conversion. So assuming there is no chance to fully
express their faith on earth, (no Catholic education/Church/etc.) by default they express some of it through
concious observance of these Catholic (universal) truths that are evident in all mankind. So in one respect they are
ignorant, as in not fully practicing the faith, in another they are still acknowledging what is not known to them as
revealed through a faith. In this acknowledgement of what is true they are partaking of Catholicism yet they may be
unaware. Even Jesus himself acknowledged that noone could be judged before his coming, because they did not know better,
yet because he came and the people were aware they could be deamed guilty of denying the truth.The Catholic faith is the sole bastion of truth, reason, and faith in a confused world. Its moral theology is sound.
Its theology is sound. The issue comes from the people not practicing the faith, but those are the times we live in.
Everyone goes thier own way.Only if lying is immoral in my morality system.
If lying was moral, then one can decieve even oneself as to the morality which which they follow making them by default
immoral as they could twist the original morality to something other than itself.This will not be an ‘objective morality’ any more than a morality based on picking & choosing from the Bible is objective (remember slavery?). What if I live alone in a cave or on a spaceship? What ‘morals’ apply to me then? What absolute morals apply to God? To aliens or beings unlike us? Must they also have the same objective morality?
In regards to the slavery, you still do not get it do you? Here read this as a summary and then come back with whatever
you do not “like”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
In regards to “morals applying to God” that is a multifaceted questioned as God cannot be subject to a morality otherwise
he would not be God as he would be subject to something superior to him. In another respect God as Jesus who was both
100% man and 100% God was subject to them (and followed them) as he was 100% man.
In regards to “Aliens” having a morality it would be deemed based on their established nature in the universe. As man has
his place and 10 commandments help manifest his full nature, so would the aliens have commandments that manifested their
full nature. As to whether they would be different would be evident on the aliens themselves. Without conversing with
Aliens, much of alien morality is theory.my mouse runs out of batteries trying to scroll through John Does bulls~~~.
When is this f~~~ing poser mgtow Crustian bitch going to be banned?
He’s not mgtow. Hes just a tweaker or some s~~~, admittedly living with his mom! He himself admits he doesnt have to conform to mgtow to be here. I mean do us all a favor and delete this f~~~ers presence. Delete this whole f~~~ing thread that he has filled with logical fallacies and retarded, endless circular logic.
- 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
