The difference is that conservative is not going to add fuel to fire by proposing to steal back from the 1% which always is an increase in public debt stealing from yourself (because the 1% will always control the government so they just give us the debt we want and pocket the profits from our social activism). The leftists are in a self-destruction mode.
The conservative is willing to go pull himself up by his own bootstraps and make due with what he can achieve.
We do have some objectivity. Compare Eastern Europe and other Communist societies to the USA during the 1800s and early 1900s. As my Belgium friend said, "at that time, everything you touched turned to gold in the USA because you could do what you want".
The leftists will burn everything to the ground. The conservatives will abort such a megadeath.
Can anyone make a counter argument?
Conservatism at least in our modern iteration also steals. It steals via command and control of the mechanisms of governance. We see this everywhere here are just a few examples. 1) Enforcement of laws limiting workers from working for a competitor. This has gone to such an extreme that Jimmy Johns sandwich recently blocked workers under threat of legal sanction to quit and work for subway. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5978180They backed off only after getting sued. But this is the trend for most employers today. 2) Development loans and tax breaks given to favored industries 3) It's support of a debt based monetary system that impoverishes those without connections to the flow of new money and destroys the ability to save independently of government control. 4) Use of the threat of government violence and force in support of corporations collecting private debts. Yes "Conservativism" has a better understanding of economic fundamentals and supports a strong police that can suppress dissent with force as needed. So perhaps it creates a more sustainable temporary order but this order is prone to violent revolution aka the French and Russian revolutions. Now you can argue that somehow conservativism is something other than what I have described upthread or that the movement has been corrupted somehow. The fact remains that it is what a movement does rather than what it says that defines its character. As far as I can tell the modern "conservative" movement is just another form of collectivism that would prefer a different predator win the fight. I believe the actual solution lies elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
It has been my experience that making something into a personal attack lowers the overall level discourse.
My earlier quote iamnotback were not intended to be seen as such an attack but see how it may have come across that way. To the extent that it was viewed as personal I apologize.
I regards to the recent back and forth between practicaldreamer and iamnotback I would also advise backing away from the personal as your fundamental disagreement is actually quite an interesting one and worthy of discussion on its merits.
Practicaldreamer argued that the current economic system is economically and morally untenable as seen by the massive concentrations of (undeserved) wealth and that it must change.
Iamnotback argues that the solution Practicaldreamer proposes leftist redistribution is also economically and morally untenable due to the economic flaws inherent in collectivism.
This is actually a very worthy topic of discussion and I would urge the two of you against making it personal.
To resolve the impasse it helps to understand that the status quo both in terms of our overall economic system of fiat currency as well as in the tremendous amount of economic activity that is centrally managed via government spending is also a leftist or collectivists system.
Thus much of the back and forth regarding the deserving nature of the capitalist who created the billion dollar industry and the deserving nature of the man who has little and contributes less is irrelevant for both are functioning and succeeding in a system that is inherently collectivists/Leftist.
In such an environment this argument is essential is a debate over the amount of spoils predator should receive. Such a debate has no solution because both parties are essentially at a fundamental level the same.
|
|
|
|
This is inaccurate. The reality is that all current and historic societies embrace collectivism. Thus as time progresses we increasing lionize and reward all sorts of human leaches. This collective error eventually weakens and destroys human societies.
The Jews when strictly following the the guidance in the Old Testament/Torah sit outside the collectivism and are thus not destroyed by it. In doing so the Jews create a stable evolutionary structure which is why they are still here and have a nation despite multiple historic events that should have shattered them as a people.
The Old Testament is, in part, a history of the Hebrew nation. These people were not Jews, in general, until starting at the times shortly before the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls - around 400 B.C. The Old Testament history shows that the Hebrew people seldom followed the laws of the O.T. for very long. Often they were the greatest breaker of the O.T. laws, more than the other nations of the world. The reason the Hebrew nation still exists in and under the current Jewish nation, is that God has always had mercy on them. The Jews are made up of groups of people who infiltrated the Hebrew nation and led them astray from the laws of God. In part, the Jews are from lines of ancient Babylonians. The Talmud is from the Babylonian captivity, is NOT the law of God, and should be kept on a lower level, away from the Torah and the Tanakh. The term "Christian" covers two broad groups of people. There are those who are Christians for political (informal political) reasons. Then there are those who are Christians because they believe in the salvation of God... Jesus salvation. All people die. Only those who believe in Jesus salvation are assured of good things, good outcomes. These people even gain much good from God here, in this life. Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament. The Hebrew people, at the prompting of the Jews, rejected the Messiah when they rejected Jesus. It is only through God's remembrance of His promise to Abraham that the Jewish/Hebrew nation exists at all physically. A time will come, and is coming now, when the Hebrew people will formally turn to God, almost en masse. When that happens, Jesus will return at their call.  BADecker I have three comments: 1) The status of the Messiah or the Talmud could be debated I suppose on theological grounds from an Islamic or Jewish perspective but I have the neither the knowledge, desire, nor the qualifications to do so. 2) As you mentioned the Hebrew nation often broke with the laws of the O.T. If one chooses to view the Talmud as another such breach there is no actual need to hypothesize some sinister infiltration. The Hebrew nation has show itself perfectly capable of leading itself astray on multiple occasions. 3) If we operate from the premise that your most recent post is absolute truth that does not invalidate my prior arguments which as far as I can tell are not falsified by what you just wrote. |
|
|
|
Why Loma Linda residents live longer than the rest of us: They treat the body like a templehttp://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-blue-zone-loma-linda-20150711-story.html22,000 residents of Loma Linda, where as many as a third of the people are Seventh-day Adventists. Their faith instructs them to treat their bodies as temples: little or no meat or fish, no smoking or alcohol, plenty of exercise and a sense of purpose.
Spend a little time in Loma Linda, and what distinguishes it from, say, the adjacent city of San Bernardino becomes apparent...
On a residential street, tables piled with grapefruit and oranges for sale — on the honor system — sit outside houses. Sixteen-year-old Claire Fontoura says there are few overweight students at her Adventist high school. The cafeteria at Loma Linda University is vegetarian. Students attend chapel every Wednesday to, as the chaplain put it one recent morning, "stop stressing about tests, stop texting ... put away our to-do lists." And the campus fitness center, and its programs on diet and exercise, are open to the community.
Studies have shown that Seventh-day Adventists, who have a broad range of ethnic backgrounds, live as much as a decade longer than the rest of us, which led to Loma Linda being identified as one of five longevity spots, called Blue Zones, on the planet and the only one in the United States.
"I don't think we're so bold as to say that the only way to have this eight- to 10-year advantage is to be an Adventist," said Fontoura, vice president/chief wholeness officer at Loma Linda University Health. "We do view it as the core. But how people get there is up to them."
|
|
|
|
Jews have always lived off the wealth of whomever they can. It just happens to be Christians this time. Jewish leaches. This is inaccurate. The reality is that all current and historic societies embrace collectivism. Thus as time progresses we increasing lionize and reward all sorts of human leaches. This collective error eventually weakens and destroys human societies. The Jews when strictly following the the guidance in the Old Testament/Torah sit outside the collectivism and are thus not destroyed by it. In doing so the Jews create a stable evolutionary structure which is why they are still here and have a nation despite multiple historic events that should have shattered them as a people. Although I disagree with some of his language iamnotback laid out the basic argument correctly upthread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17222888#msg17222888In theory Christians should have similarly good outcomes if they also strictly follow their religious traditions. |
|
|
|
If you dedicate your life to some false idea... No big deal, natural selection will take care of it.
On this point at least af_newbie we agree. In that spirit I would advise you to read the demographic information provided in the OP. |
|
|
|
I have to disagree here qwik2learn I have watched and waited as you have taken Truth and turned it into lies. I have watched as those of the evil adversary have labeled themselves as MY CHOSEN PEOPLE and called themselves "Jews" The text appears to argue that the Jews are followers of Satan "the evil adversary". Lets entirely ignore for a moment the moral problem of calling an entire people agents of Satan and focus only on the logical fallacies of this claim. The Phoenix Journal #25 (as noted up-thread) claims that the Jewish oral law (The Talmud) is a blasphemous text. It reaches this conclusion 1) because Christianity is criticized in the Talmud and 2) from the inference that modern Jews are the ideological descendants of Pharisees and thus the same people who called for the death Jesus. The exact wording used by the Journal is "the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered". From this criticism comes the claim that Jews are agents of "the evil adversary". This simply does not hold up under logical scrutiny. The charges of Phoenix Journal do not apply to all of Judaism. Specifically, Karaite Judaism follows neither the the oral traditions nor is it a descendant of Pharisaism. The Karaite Jews may even be descendants of the Sadducees the major political opponents of the Pharisees and the Jewish elite during the time of Jesus. Thus according to the Christian worldview the worst a Karatie Jew could be accused of is operating under an incomplete truth. For those Jews who do believe in the Talmud it would be surprising if this book lacked criticism of Christianity. If you are an orthodox Jew the Talmud is divinely inspired wisdom. From this perspective Christianity leads people away from Judiasm and should be challenged on theological grounds. If you are not a rabbinic Jew the Talmud is simply a collection Jewish rabbi philosophy. No one disputes these rabbis were human and it is part of human nature to critique a competing faith. Finally I was bothered by the omissions in the Phoenix Journal. The Phoenix Journal provides of list of 18 of "THE HIGHEST COMMAND OF THE LAW OF THE CREATION" Here it provides 18 "commands" listing the majority of the 10 commandments and adding a bunch of new ones. However, despite all of the additions it entirely skips over the 9th commandment. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" [Exod 20: 16] https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/do-not-bear-false-witnessIronically the skipped commandment appears to be the very one the Journal is guilty of violating. Thus after review I believe the listed source Phoenix Journal is not the result of heavenly intervention but the work of man. Specifically the work of someone who does not like Jews very much. This is not to say the Jews as a people have not committed horrible crimes. They like all peoples have participated in great evils but I would argue that these evils can mostly be attributed to the Jewish Left. Specifically to large number of Jews who abandoned their faith for Leftism which can be looked at as a competing religion. For an honest critique of the Jewish Left the best sources are Jews themselves. Left-Wing Jews Are Embarrassing Judaism http://www.dennisprager.com/left-wing-jews-are-embarrassing-judaism/...
So, I say this with only sadness: Many American Jews on the left, including rabbis and lay leaders, are embarrassing Jews and Judaism. I say this to ring an alarm in Jewish life and to tell non-Jewish America that these people represent leftism, not Judaism. Furthermore, I am talking only about leftist Jews, not liberal Jews. Unfortunately, however, liberalism has become synonymous with leftism both within and outside Judaism.
This past week, the embarrassing behavior of left-wing Jews reached a new level.
...
How are we to understand this?
Here’s one explanation: When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx — the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis — and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.
Prager who is Jewish argues that Jews who abandon their faith are particularly susceptible to embrace the extreme left. Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat goes farther. Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYSv_YQOVoHitler claims in his book, that the Jews are communists. They created the Russian Revolution where they killed 30 million Russians all the intelligent ones in a cruel and horrific way... the next in line is Germany. They founded the Communist and Socialistic parties. If we don't defeat them now they will eliminate us, and they will slaughter another 20 million...
And he is right the Russian revolution was facilitated by the Jews. The Russian army was built by Trotsky who was an incredible genius a (Jewish) anti-Semite like no other. He created the Jewish division of the communist party who's members informed on their fathers, mothers, brothers and sons whomever owned a Siddur (Jewish prayer book) or even a Hebrew learning book... He destroyed everything.
In the first Communist Government out of 13 members, six were Jews. Who founded the KGB? Jews. So everything is clearly written. (Hitler) didn't hate the Jews because they had payot (Jewish sidecurls). He didn't hate them for observing Mitzvoth, (He hated them) because they were communists and he writes it clearly.
Now you understand why they don't teach this in schools because who writes the curriculum those same leftists. Of course they will not teach that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews because they are the forefathers of the Left and the forefathers of Marxism, Communism and Hellenism. But that's what he writes!
Earlier iamnotback provided us with an analysis of Leftism and argued that it should be considered a religion in its own right. Below is that argument mildly edited for language.
Leftism is the religion which promises the individual he/she can entirely free, protected, while protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected.
Sounds very noble right? Read on...
All religions exist to protect the society (and the family) against the defection of the individual. Traditional religions argue that subjugation of some of the "evil" whims of the individual (e.g. extra-martial affairs) is necessary to maximize the success of the society, e.g. children who grow up without their fathers usually do statistically much worse in life in various metrics, including health.
Whereas, in leftism the "evil" is not "protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected". But what does this really mean? It is double-speak. It really means to steal from production so as to enable people to abandon their moral responsibilities so that the society can be utterly destroyed by hedonism and other ramifications of offering everyone "state-supported freedom" (which is a guaranteed megadeath hell in the future).
But don't dare tell the leftist, atheists that their idealism is corrupt, bankrupt, and disingenuous. They will gut you with a knife if you dare challenge the veracity of their beloved social justice.
"Entirely free" means you can do what ever you want and there are no NATURAL LAW ramifications (the State will always support your right to do what ever you want), as long as you support the State's right to protect and economically provide for everyone's right to do what ever they want. In other words, a "free for all" of political correctness and stealing.
But NATURAL LAW in inviolable. No State can protect every individual from the NATURAL LAW. And if you tell people they can be entirely free (including economic freedom for everyone and every whim), then you have lied.
In short, leftism is a Tragedy of the Commons. Thus is a false religion. It lies. It is Satan's religion.
Thus it is important not confuse the Jews with Leftists who happen to be former Jews. However, if current trends continue this may be a moot point as it is possible that Leftism is also toxic on an individual level. American Jewish Fertility by Religious Current| Religious Sect | Average No. of Children per Woman | | Ultra-Orthodox | 6.72 | | Modern Orthodox | 3.39 | | Conservative | 1.74 | | Reform | 1.36 | | Secular | 1.29 |
As Jews move further away from their historic religious tradition their fertility plummets. Secular Jews have a shockingly low fertility of 1.29 among the lowest in the world. I will close out my arguments with what I believe to be the most important consideration when when discussing religious differences between Jews and Christians. It would certainly be incorrect to say that the suspicions of the two religions of one another are a thing of the past. What can be said is that, in an age of greater religious tolerance, there has been a growing realization that the two have enough in common to enable them to work in harmony for human betterment.
|
|
|
|
Do you believe in God? -- I believe. Why do you believe this? - I believe ordinary people, I must believe something, otherwise I can not sustenance, and then fall into the abyss, never stop, go on.
Probably you don't so much believe in God as you to move forward you need to have someone you managed. After all, if you get to the end, then you forward is not God, and preachers. And they are people just like you. Nihilism in my opinion is the abyss. http://www.arasite.org/WL3/nietnihil.html#_ftn1It (nihilism) is the continued destruction of all meaning and signification. It is the belief that nothing really matters any more, because nothing really has any meaning. We have no system of beliefs or values which could orientate us. The old systems of belief, like religion and morality, still exist, but at best we only follow them half-heartedly, and at worst, think that they have no meaning whatsoever. They exist only the edges of our lives and consciousnesses. But it isn’t just the world that doesn’t have any meaning anymore. We ourselves don’t have any meaning to ourselves. Why should we choice one course of action over the other? What does it really matter anymore, since no-one’s individual life really has any significance in the grand scheme of things...
Nothing is worth much anymore, everything comes down to the same thing, everything is equalized. Everything is the same and equivalent: the true and the false, the good and the bad. Everything is outdated, used up, old dilapidated, dying: an undefined agony of meaning, an unending twilight: not a definite annihilation of significations, but their indefinite collapse.
|
|
|
|
Do you believe in God? -- I believe. Why do you believe this? - I believe ordinary people, I must believe something, otherwise I can not sustenance, and then fall into the abyss, never stop, go on.
Try to exercise and meditate. Find a hobby. You are very weak as a person if you need to believe in nonsense to go on. Religion is for weak minded. Exercise and meditation are good. As is finding a hobby. All humans are weak minded atheists included. Most of us do not understand what we believe in. For example most "atheists" do not know that their belief in secular atheism leads inevitably to nihilism if they are rational and honest with themselves. Why Secular Atheism Leads to Nihilismhttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2015/02/nihilism-is-logical-philsophical.htmlSecular atheism, when lived out with intellectual honestly, leads to nihilism. Why is this? Because there is ultimately no objective basis for purposeful meaning in life for the secular atheist. Inventing meaning is neither rational nor logical. For example, a sign that states “Dead End” would offer an incoherent and false meaning if placed alongside a continuous superhighway. A sign, or anything in life that conveys meaning, only has valid and coherent meaning when it is linked to a corresponding reality in some type of logical manner. Many atheists are confused on this point. Richard Dawkins. for example, has claimed that an “adult” view of life is to subjectively “make” meaning in your life, in whatever manner you may wish to do this. In reality, this is a childish and superficial approach to a deep subject. Children, not adults, are fond of creating make-believe worlds. The following is a quote of Richard Dawkins from the God Delusion: “The truly adult view [...] is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it. And we can make it very wonderful indeed.” Unlike Dawkins' make-believe meaning in life, Christian debaters, such as William Lane Craig, have demonstrated that a rational and logical worldview is possible only when it is based on logically framed precepts arranged in a logical syntax, and not merely based on pretentious whims. Why Richard Dawkins' View of Meaning is Absurd... 1. Valid and coherent meaning in life must be somehow verifiable with objective logical principles. 2. Any proposed meaning that is not verifiable with objective logical principles is irrational and ultimately absurd. 3. Richard Dawkins offers that we should subjectively “make”meaning in life. 4. Therefore, Richard Dawkins' concept of meaning in life is irrational and absurd. Richard Dawkins' concept of meaning in life seems to consist of an existential secular Spaghetti Monster dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. You can call invented and make-believe meaning in life “adult” or “wonderful” or even “very wonderful” - but it's still seems to be absurd to live life based upon make-believe meaning. What do you personally believe about the concept of meaning? A. Meaning is an objective facet of life. B. Meaning is arbitrary according to your whims. C. Neither A nor B. D. Both A and B. An atheist writer posted an article at Dawkins' website, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, which outlines a view of meaning that seems to be a bit more objective than Dawkins' own view of meaning. The post is titled, "Why identify as atheist and not nihilist?" and the author states, "If logical, rational thinking is used then I fail to see how nihilism cannot be the conclusion." and, furthermore, "If you don't believe in a creator or divine plan and you understand how our minds and emotions have evolved as chemical signals and electrical pulses then where do you fit the meaning in to this? I enjoy being alive and live as hedonistic lifestyle as possible yet I am under no illusion that this has any meaning outside of my own mind." It's not surprising that Dawkins' own website offers views that contradict and oppose his own views on meaning. The New Atheists have not offered anything in the way of valid logical arguments to support their position. Secular Atheists Have no Logical Basis to Affirm Purposeful Meaning in LifeWilliam Lane Craig posted an article at his website entitled, The Absurdity of Life without God, postulating, "Why on atheism life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, and why this view is unlivable." "The fundamental problem with this solution, however, is that it is impossible to live consistently and happily within such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy; if one lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God." Rational Secular Atheists Admit that their Atheism Leads to Nihilism A self-confessed atheist, Adam, who is quoted at Craig's website, declares that he has come to hate his secular atheism due to its ultimate and undeniable nihilistic philosophical connection. "This theme came to my attention when I saw an atheist post a long comment for William Lane Craig to address. Adam, the atheist, described why, "There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist." He wrote to Craig, "After reading your paper on the absurdity of life without God, I soon realized that I had to become a nihilist." and he continued, "Let me mention here that I was a huge fan of the New Atheists, but I always sensed something was askew with them. Something seemed off about them because whenever they were talking about meaning, value, or purpose, they answered in such ways that only a person ignorant of the objections in your paper could respond. In short (too late), your paper never left my mind, even years after I wrote a "response" to it. I knew, deep down, that not only did I not, but could not answer your objections to atheism. What you say the atheistic worldview entails is true. There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist." John Piippo's blog outlines an argument William Lane Craig presented on this subject: 1) If theism is true, then we have a solid basis for morality. 2) If theism is false, then we do not have a solid basis for morality. 3) If 2 is true, then atheism does not lead to humanism, but to nihilism. Dr. Craig states, "If theism is false, you've got to ask yourself, Why wouldn't nihilism be true? What proof do you have that nihilism is not the correct remaining alternative?" and, "Thus, if atheism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It doesn't matter what you do - for there is no right and wrong; good and evil does not exist." The typical reply by atheists is that, "Atheism does not lead to anything, it's just a lack of belief in God." But this is a glib answer that sidesteps the fact that atheism, when taken as a precept for life, is lived out in a very definite context. Any belief lived out in a context has implications. If you believe that atheism does not lead to nihilism in a philosophical context, I would be curious to see your reasoning in a comment of this post. I've found some sample atheist websites that deny (or avoid) this fact in their simplistic and / or vague summaries: ... The question of the meaning and purpose of life is logically an urgent one because it informs all the other decisions in life. This can be outlined in a logical deductive argument, which leads to another argument that supports the logical necessity of God's existence: Arguments for God from Metalogical Necessities |
|
|
|
Why Secular Atheism Leads to Nihilismhttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2015/02/nihilism-is-logical-philsophical.htmlSecular atheism, when lived out with intellectual honestly, leads to nihilism. Why is this? Because there is ultimately no objective basis for purposeful meaning in life for the secular atheist. Inventing meaning is neither rational nor logical. For example, a sign that states “Dead End” would offer an incoherent and false meaning if placed alongside a continuous superhighway. A sign, or anything in life that conveys meaning, only has valid and coherent meaning when it is linked to a corresponding reality in some type of logical manner. Many atheists are confused on this point. Richard Dawkins. for example, has claimed that an “adult” view of life is to subjectively “make” meaning in your life, in whatever manner you may wish to do this. In reality, this is a childish and superficial approach to a deep subject. Children, not adults, are fond of creating make-believe worlds. The following is a quote of Richard Dawkins from the God Delusion: “The truly adult view [...] is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it. And we can make it very wonderful indeed.” Unlike Dawkins' make-believe meaning in life, Christian debaters, such as William Lane Craig, have demonstrated that a rational and logical worldview is possible only when it is based on logically framed precepts arranged in a logical syntax, and not merely based on pretentious whims. Why Richard Dawkins' View of Meaning is Absurd... 1. Valid and coherent meaning in life must be somehow verifiable with objective logical principles. 2. Any proposed meaning that is not verifiable with objective logical principles is irrational and ultimately absurd. 3. Richard Dawkins offers that we should subjectively “make”meaning in life. 4. Therefore, Richard Dawkins' concept of meaning in life is irrational and absurd. Richard Dawkins' concept of meaning in life seems to consist of an existential secular Spaghetti Monster dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. You can call invented and make-believe meaning in life “adult” or “wonderful” or even “very wonderful” - but it's still seems to be absurd to live life based upon make-believe meaning. What do you personally believe about the concept of meaning? A. Meaning is an objective facet of life. B. Meaning is arbitrary according to your whims. C. Neither A nor B. D. Both A and B. An atheist writer posted an article at Dawkins' website, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, which outlines a view of meaning that seems to be a bit more objective than Dawkins' own view of meaning. The post is titled, "Why identify as atheist and not nihilist?" and the author states, "If logical, rational thinking is used then I fail to see how nihilism cannot be the conclusion." and, furthermore, "If you don't believe in a creator or divine plan and you understand how our minds and emotions have evolved as chemical signals and electrical pulses then where do you fit the meaning in to this? I enjoy being alive and live as hedonistic lifestyle as possible yet I am under no illusion that this has any meaning outside of my own mind." It's not surprising that Dawkins' own website offers views that contradict and oppose his own views on meaning. The New Atheists have not offered anything in the way of valid logical arguments to support their position. Secular Atheists Have no Logical Basis to Affirm Purposeful Meaning in LifeWilliam Lane Craig posted an article at his website entitled, The Absurdity of Life without God, postulating, "Why on atheism life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose, and why this view is unlivable." "The fundamental problem with this solution, however, is that it is impossible to live consistently and happily within such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy; if one lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer has explained this point well. Modern man, says Schaeffer, resides in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God; here life is absurd, as we have seen. In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live happily in such an absurd world; therefore, he continually makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has no right to, since he does not believe in God." Rational Secular Atheists Admit that their Atheism Leads to Nihilism A self-confessed atheist, Adam, who is quoted at Craig's website, declares that he has come to hate his secular atheism due to its ultimate and undeniable nihilistic philosophical connection. "This theme came to my attention when I saw an atheist post a long comment for William Lane Craig to address. Adam, the atheist, described why, "There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist." He wrote to Craig, "After reading your paper on the absurdity of life without God, I soon realized that I had to become a nihilist." and he continued, "Let me mention here that I was a huge fan of the New Atheists, but I always sensed something was askew with them. Something seemed off about them because whenever they were talking about meaning, value, or purpose, they answered in such ways that only a person ignorant of the objections in your paper could respond. In short (too late), your paper never left my mind, even years after I wrote a "response" to it. I knew, deep down, that not only did I not, but could not answer your objections to atheism. What you say the atheistic worldview entails is true. There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist." John Piippo's blog outlines an argument William Lane Craig presented on this subject: 1) If theism is true, then we have a solid basis for morality. 2) If theism is false, then we do not have a solid basis for morality. 3) If 2 is true, then atheism does not lead to humanism, but to nihilism. Dr. Craig states, "If theism is false, you've got to ask yourself, Why wouldn't nihilism be true? What proof do you have that nihilism is not the correct remaining alternative?" and, "Thus, if atheism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It doesn't matter what you do - for there is no right and wrong; good and evil does not exist." The typical reply by atheists is that, "Atheism does not lead to anything, it's just a lack of belief in God." But this is a glib answer that sidesteps the fact that atheism, when taken as a precept for life, is lived out in a very definite context. Any belief lived out in a context has implications. If you believe that atheism does not lead to nihilism in a philosophical context, I would be curious to see your reasoning in a comment of this post. I've found some sample atheist websites that deny (or avoid) this fact in their simplistic and / or vague summaries: ... The question of the meaning and purpose of life is logically an urgent one because it informs all the other decisions in life. This can be outlined in a logical deductive argument, which leads to another argument that supports the logical necessity of God's existence: Arguments for God from Metalogical Necessities
|
|
|
|
Children's hospital adopts military-style discipline to enforce hand hygiene compliancehttp://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20161203/MAGAZINE/312039999After seeing a spike in hospital-acquired infections, leaders at Nationwide Children's Hospital decided they needed to take drastic action.
The 604-bed pediatric hospital in Columbus, Ohio, had excellent hand hygiene, according to self-reported surveys. But when leaders installed observers to covertly monitor handwashing and hand sanitization habits, compliance was less than 60%.
...
Dirty hands are linked with healthcare-acquired infections, which are both deadly and costly. In 2011, nearly 722,000 such infections occurred in hospitals, and about 75,000 patients with those infections died.
...
the average healthcare provider cleans his or her hands less than half the number of times they ought to, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
...
To effectively draw its staff's attention to hand hygiene, Nationwide Children's ultimately decided on a stand-down, an intervention borrowed from the military. In the 15-minute drill, which took place twice—once in the morning and once in the evening—on a single day in spring 2010, everyone and everything except essential patient care ground to a halt.
...
And if they, as units and as individuals, did not meet 90% compliance rates or were caught failing to comply, they would have to meet with the chief medical officer or chief nursing officer, or their designates, to explain why.
...
“We didn't know how effective that would be,” Davis said. “It turns out it's pretty embarrassing to be called to the principal's office to explain why you're not doing your job.”
Within a month of the stand-down, compliance rates hit 90%, and they've stayed that way for six years. Davis and his colleagues published the results of their intervention in the Journal of Patient Safety. Davis said separately that healthcare-acquired infection rates had dropped significantly in several categories, including surgical site infections and central line infections.
NHS hospitals that outsource cleaning linked with higher rates of MRSAhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-nhs-hospitals-outsource-linked-higher.htmlhospitals that employ private cleaners are associated with a higher incidence of MRSA, a 'superbug' that causes life-threatening infection and has previously been linked with a lack of cleanliness.
The superbug is becoming increasingly difficult to treat. As from 2005, trusts have been required to regularly report incidents of MRSA, which has enabled researchers to produce empirical evidence for the first time that compares the rates of infection in hospitals that outsource cleaning with those using in-house cleaners. They calculate that, on average, the incidence of MRSA infection between 2005 and 2009 was 2.28 in every 100,000 bed days in trusts that outsourced their cleaning, compared with 1.46 bed days in trusts that used in-house cleaners –.a difference of almost 50 per cent. However, the research also highlights that trusts which used outsourced cleaners did save money.
|
|
|
|
Oh really, CoinCube? Does the Bible ever say that circumcision has health benefits?No. The Bible never makes such a claim. Jewish authorities hesitate to circumcise a baby if two previous sons had died from circumcision. Even today, circumcisions lead to haemorrhages, infections and sometimes even death. There is NO "proven" link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks. Jesus contrasted circumcision (cutting off foreskins) with his own healing, which made a man 'whole and complete.' Jesus' conclusion, not to judge by appearances, also hit the mark, for his critics rejected those who were not circumcised. http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/It was not done for health or sanitary reasons, but to appease what they perceived to be an angry, bloodthirsty god.
...
The Old Testament/Torah makes no claim regarding circumcision and health. "Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised" [Gen 17:10] There is no doubt that there is real and immediate risk with any surgical procedure including so called "minor" procedures like circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) after reviewing the data on this topic including the data on risks reported that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This was in 2012 which was their most recent update on this issue. It is of course possible that they were wrong or the data they reviewed was flawed. What is also very interesting is the Biblical/Torah command to wait unti exactly 8 days after birth before circumcision. Newborn levels of clotting factors peak on the 8th day. Clotting Factors Peak 8 Days after Birthhttp://www.discovercreation.org/blog/2012/07/31/8th-day-circumcision/Another reason for the 8th day deals with blood clotting. Blood clotting is dependent on 3 factors: platelets, prothrombin, and vitamin K (which is responsible for prothrombin production and is produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract). Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life. … Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126).
It has been shown that it is on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K is present in adequate quantities for blood clotting.
On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present is above one-hundred percent of normal (the only day in the male’s life in which this will be normally be the case). Therefore, the 8th day is the perfect day to do the circumcision … when the Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.  |
|
|
|
Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Nothttp://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatricians-decide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-notThe American Academy of Pediatrics announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, concluding that the health benefits of the procedure clearly outweigh any risks.
"There is clear evidence that supports the health benefits of circumcision," said Susan Blank, who led the 14-member task force that formulated the new policy being published in the journal Pediatrics.
The statement, and accompanying technical report, marks the first revision of the organization's position since 1999, when the academy backed away from circumcision. At that time, the group, which represents about 60,000 pediatricians nationwide, concluded that there was no clear evidence for or against circumcising newborns. The group affirmed that position in 2005.
Since then, the popularity of circumcision in the United States has declined. Only about 56 percent of newborn males are circumcised.
The academy's task force spent seven years combing through the latest research, analyzing more than a thousand studies. Their conclusion?
For starters, Blank says, circumcision helps baby boys pretty much immediately.
"The health benefits of male circumcision include a drop in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent," she says.
But there's a much bigger reason to do it, Blank said. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases.
"It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus [HPV], herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers," she says.
It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.
"We've reviewed the data and, you know, we have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb, and the data are pretty convincing," she says.
Critics, however, were not convinced. They liken the procedure to female genital mutilation.
"We have no right as parents or as physicians or adults to strap them down and chop off a normal part of their body. To do that is a human rights violation and an ethical travesty," says Georgeanne Chapin of the anti-circumcision group Intact America.
Chapin and other critics argue that the scientific evidence is questionable. For one thing, the studies about HIV have only been done in Africa, where AIDS is much more common among heterosexuals.
"They're cherry-picking their evidence," she says. "They act as though there's this huge body of literature. It's all the same couple of studies that have been regurgitated and reprogrammed. Over the past 150 years, all kinds of medical benefits have been proposed as resulting from cutting off the foreskin, and they have all been disproven."
Critics also question the safety of the procedure, saying too many boys are damaged for life by botched circumcisions.
But many experts say the academy is making the right call. They dismiss any comparison to female genital mutilation as grossly misleading and say male circumcision is about as safe as any procedure could be.
Some think the academy's position is long overdue, and that the group should have gone even further and more forcefully recommended circumcision.
"I think that all healthy newborn babies should be circumcised," says Edgar Schoen, a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco. "I feel about newborn circumcision the way I do about immunization: It's a potent preventive health procedure that gives you a health advantage."
For its part, the pediatricians group hopes the new recommendations will encourage more parents to circumcise their sons — and more insurance plans to pay for it. As Shots reported last week, a lot of state Medicaid programs have stopped covering circumcision.
"Those families who choose circumcision should have access to circumcision. Cost should not be a barrier," Blank says.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been promising for years now to issue the government's first guidelines about circumcision. But the CDC keeps delaying it and still has not said when that will happen.
|
|
|
|
And you think they had this knowledge from God, right? The same God who told them how to properly beat slaves and how to treat gentiles?
You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
Holy books my ass.
I think there is enough to indicate that something interesting may be going on. Here is another example: The first thing Jews are required to do after they get up in the morning is to wash their hands. Washing the Hands http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/260663/jewish/The-Laws-Upon-Awakening-in-the-Morning.htm• One should not walk more then four cubits from his bed before washing his hands upon arising in the morning (Netilat Yadayim or Negel Vasser)3. Many have the custom not to touch their clothes or walk even the four cubits from their bed. To be able to do this, many prepare on the side of their beds water in a cup and basin prior to retiring at night. The Alter Rebbe writes that one who is G‑d fearing should follow the directives of the Zohar.
• Prior to washing one's hands in the morning one should not touch the following with his hands: His mouth, eyes, nose, ears or any other part of the body which has openings. Neither should one touch food or drink and clothing. Women in particular must be careful in regard to touching food prior to washing their hands, since they handle most of the food at home. Likewise, one must be very cautious not to dip his fingers inadvertently into the water he will be using for the washing of their hands, because by dipping the unwashed finger into the water he has made the water unclean and unfit for washing4.
Is God the source? Well that is one possibility but not the only one. Other possibilities are natural selection as other religious groups with less healthy habits may simply have gone extinct while the healthier Jews survived. I can also think of other speculative possibilities as well. Edit: Regarding Slavery in the Bible I addressed this topic elsewhere: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1584676.msg15925386#msg15925386 |
|
|
|
You guys are funny. Taking your dietary recommendations from bronze age book.
What is next? Are you going to perform some old fashioned blood letting on your kids when they will get a common cold?
Bronze age Jews knew very little so stop this nonsense.
Yes the Bronze age Jews should have known very little. That is the point and why it is quite interesting that their holy scriptures contain so many rules. Rules that indicate an unusually high understanding of hygiene. There is a book that has been published on this topic. The Healthy Jew: The Symbiosis of Judaism and Modern Medicine https://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Jew-Symbiosis-Judaism-Medicine/dp/0521877180The Healthy Jew traces the culturally revealing story of how Moses, the rabbis, and other Jewish thinkers came to be understood as medical authorities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Such a radically different interpretation, by scholars and popular writers alike, resulted in new, widespread views on the salubrious effects of, for example, circumcision, Jewish sexual purity laws, and kosher foods. The Healthy Jew explores this interpretative tradition in the light of a number of broader debates over 'civilization' and 'culture,' |
|
|
|
Much of the Old Testament, Deuteronomy in particular, struck me as a survival guide for a society. Numerous points of instruction were prudent forms of disease management and prevention considering the conditions of the time. I consider the change this way: with the practices ingrained in their cultural mindset and the people expanded in number, threats of eradication waned and the society as a whole matured to a point where it could be discerning with Jesus' guidance.
Are you sure? Read it again. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0Lets take a deeper look. Maimonides on the Torah's Dietary Laws https://www.mhcny.org/parasha/1026.pdfThis week's essay will focus on one brief passage in Maimonides' Guide to the
Perplexed (3:48), where he advances a particularly surprising theory to explain the rational
basis for the Torah's dietary laws: "I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is
unwholesome." Maimonides appears to base the entire system of the Torah's dietary code on
medical concerns, claiming that the foods prohibited for consumption are unhealthful. He
observes that "there is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is
doubted" among the professional healthcare community of his day, "except pork and fat."
I find this argument overall very interesting. Let's look at a few of these restriction. 1) Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten. Sounds strange right? How could that have anything to do with health. Oh wait!  That does not look very sanitary. Especially when one considers that the gentiles in the middle ages rarely bathed and underpants were not invented until the 13th centurary. 2) Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in accordance with Jewish law. These are all very strict and pretty much optimize the chance of having a health food source. Kosher poultry cannot show any signs of being pecked, sick or injured. The birds are killed with a slit to the neck, allowing the blood to drain out. They’re never plunged into hot water (a theoretical source of bacterial contamination), but are washed in cold water before being soaked, salted and washed again. Experts in the koshering process say the extensive use of salt helps kill bacteria. To be kosher, cows must be younger than 30 months. Dairy cows are never used. Kosher laws preclude using a stun gun or a bullet to the brain, which could scatter brain and nerve tissue (a source of mad cow disease). The animal must be hand-slaughtered by slitting its neck. Religious inspectors look for signs of broken bones, disease or scarred or punctured organs, which disqualify the animal. Downer cattle are never used, and about only 40% of healthy cattle qualify as kosher. Meat can be taken from only the forequarters; it is then soaked and salted to draw out the blood. All blood must be drained from meat and poultry or broiled out of it before it is eaten. 3) Pork is forbidden. We covered some of the reasons why pork may be unhealthy above reasons that humanity did not know or understand until the last 10 years! However, there are other reasons why pork or specifically pigs may be dangerous to humans. Pigs have a respiratory system that is very similar to our own close enough to ours to allow diseases to jump the species barrier causing pandemics. This is probably how the 1918 influenza pandamic got started which killed 50-100 million people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic#Hypotheses_about_sourceInvestigative work by a British team led by virologist John Oxford[19] of St Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London Hospital in 1999 identified the major troop staging and hospital camp in Étaples, France, as almost certainly being the center of the 1918 flu pandemic. A significant precursor virus, harbored in birds, mutated to pigs that were kept near the front.[20] |
|
|
|
Have you not considered how much more difficult it may be to formulate a stable set of values given the logical conclusion that there are no absolute truths. I consider it much more challenging than accepting some faith that some unfalsifiable God is absolute...
So to equate me with some philosophy that says humans have no value, is a fucking lie. What does your religion say about liars who bear false witness and false testimony?
I don't have a religion at the moment other then general Ethical Monotheism though I am considering several options. However, I did not equate your position to a philosophy that says humans have no value. There are several branches of nihilism one of these is epistemological nihilism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Epistemological_nihilismEpistemological nihilism
Epistemological nihilism is a form of skepticism in which all knowledge is accepted as being possibly untrue or as being unable to be confirmed true. This is very similar to your prior posit:
I am approaching ("seem to be coming to" which isn't entirely committed) committing myself to the impossibility of falsifying any total order of the universe and thus the impossibility of any objective measure of absolute Truth.
There doesn't seem to be any other choice if one is rational.
The link I gave to the debate on Nihilism earlier was a debate between myself and nihilnegativum who argued in favor of a metaphysical nihilism, that is a nihilism in ontology and epistemology. He argued that his position did not lead to moral nihilism though he did not provide much detail about that. Since his position appeared to be at least superficially similar to yours I simply thought you would find the debate interesting. Morals and values are a very difficult topic for people from different backgrounds to discuss. This is the reason for so much strife between ethnicities.
That is one reason I leaned towards not even wanting to think about it for most of life.
It is clear that instead of prodding to self-reflection I only managed to offend which was not my intent. I have stated my position on the matter and I will leave any last words or comments to you. |
|
|
|
Deuteronomy 14:8"The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."Processed meat 'early death' linkhttp://www.bbc.com/news/health-21682779Sausages, ham, bacon and other processed meats appear to increase the risk of dying young, a study of half a million people across Europe suggests.
It concluded diets high in processed meats were linked to cardiovascular disease, cancer and early deaths.
The researchers, writing in the journal BMC Medicine, said salt and chemicals used to preserve the meat may damage health.
...
It showed people who ate a lot of processed meat were also more likely to smoke, be obese and have other behaviours known to damage health.
However, the researchers said even after those risk factors were accounted for, processed meat still damaged health.
One in every 17 people followed in the study died. However, those eating more than 160g of processed meat a day - roughly two sausages and a slice of bacon - were 44% more likely to die over a typical follow-up time of 12.7 years than those eating about 20g.
...
"Something has been done to it to extend its shelf life, or to change its taste, or to make it more palatable in some way... and this could be a traditional process like curing or salting."
She said even good quality ham or sausages were still classed as processed meat, while homemade burgers using fresh meat were not. Processed meats do cause cancer - WHOhttp://www.bbc.com/news/health-34615621Processed meats - such as bacon, sausages and ham - do cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Its report said 50g of processed meat a day - less than two slices of bacon - increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18%.
Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces.
"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr Kurt Straif from the WHO said.
Processed meat 'could be bad for asthma'http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38370057The survey looked specifically at asthma symptoms - breathlessness, wheeze, chest tightness - and intake of cured meat: a single portion was two slices of ham, one sausage or two slices of salami.
Among the people with asthma, higher meat consumption was linked with a worsening of their lung symptoms.
People who said they consumed more than four portions a week - eight slices of ham or four sausages, for example - had the biggest deterioration of their asthma by the end of the study.
The experts stress that their work cannot prove diet is definitely to blame. There are lots of factors in a person's life that can make their asthma worse.
The researchers tried to eliminate the most obvious ones, controlling for things like obesity, and the link between processed meat and worsening asthma remained.
As an applied mathematician, you know that correlation does not prove causality. One correlation wouldn't mean the Bible is an effective dietary guide book for every climate, culture and situation. Also processed meat is not the same as pig. Processed meat is more unhealthy due to the nitrate chemicals added. Also meat in general is more unhealthy when it is overly cooked, stored for too long, etc.. Also after Noah's ark, the Bible permits us to eat pig. Generally I think having self-discipline and avoiding activities that religion typically disallows is probably more healthy especially for the offspring. But taking it down to the level of diet is a bit ridiculous. Except I would agree that many youth especially have horrendous diets these days, so if a strict religion could stop them from building bad habits that would be more healthy. I understand your point that correlation does not prove causality. That said I find this particular coloration quite interesting. Even today we do not really know for sure why pork appears to have such a significant health effect. One of the scientist involved said the following: Ursula Arens from the British Dietetic Association told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that putting fresh meat through a mincer did not make it processed meat. "Something has been done to it to extend its shelf life, or to change its taste, or to make it more palatable in some way... and this could be a traditional process like curing or salting." She said even good quality ham or sausages were still classed as processed meat, while homemade burgers using fresh meat were not. In regards to the Christian tradition allowing pork consumption I believe that comes not from the time of Noah but later from Acts in the New Testament. However, I have not looked into it extensively and their may be other sources. Why can Christians eat pork & shellfish, Muslims eat shellfish, but Jews cannot? https://www.quora.com/Why-can-Christians-eat-pork-shellfish-Muslims-eat-shellfish-but-Jews-cannotNo one mentioned Peter's revelation! So when Christ died, Peter was the senior apostle and most religions believe that he was therefore the President of the New Testament church. Catholics call him the first Pope; evangelicals may prefer Paul's zeal, but still defer to Peter in authority (as did Paul). So by definition Jesus "fulfilled" the Mosaic law, but there were still debates as to what that meant. To this day there are religions who throw out the whole Old Testament, and others who still keep a Saturday sabbath. Peter erred on the side of caution and until revelation was received otherwise insisted everyone stay kosher, and for a short time even mandated circumcision. Until... So Jesus ascended into Heaven in Acts 1. Shortly afterwards--nine chapters later--in Acts 10:11 ( http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/act...), Peter had a vision of a great feast prepared with both kosher and "unclean" food. God commanded him to eat it; Peter refused; God told him "what God has now cleansed thou shalt not call unclean." ( http://www.blueletterbible.org/B...). Most Christians believe that this experience proves that Kosher was one of the elements of the Mosaic law that was completed by the atonement of Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
I...seem to be...committing myself to... the impossibility of any objective measure of... Truth.
...
Thus I am... free to choose... values/ethics.. I feel...benefits me.
...
I am not going to wrap myself in a silly set of arbitrary rules
...
group... values... violate... my optimal degrees-of-freedom.
...
my value system... wasn't clearly conceptualized and articulated
...
my failures in life were due to not clearly defending my values
...
I ... suffered ... greatly in my life
I have reduced your argument to its core premises and conclusions. It is for you to decide if further reflection is warranted. That is bullshit that you gutted the context. For example when I stated that I am free to choose a set of values, it is in large part because there either wasn't a well defined value system in my family (upbringing) or it was a hodgepodge of values that wasn't working for my nuclear family. Thus why would I emulate/continue what wasn't working?... Afaics, you are moralizing and judging (probably because you observe that I have vacated the foundation of your value system of an absolute truth, therefor you must attack mine). Please read Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7. The words above are your own. My contribution was only to shorten them and invite you to consider the possibility that your stated conclusions follow naturally from your starting premises. I tried to abbreviate your arguments for clarity and it was not my intent to alter your meaning. However, when we abbreviate the writings of another there is always some danger that without context the meaning will change. You are correct that I disagree with your opening argument on absolute Truth. However, my opinion in this instance is entirely irrelevant. What matters in this particular case is your opinion. If you are interested in my opinion I shared it in a recent debate on the nature and consequences of nihilism. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg15883731#msg15883731Also there you will find counter arguments from the perspective of nihilism which are more in line with your starting posit that there is no absolute Truth. |
|
|
|
Religion in General is irrelevant to human health. Moreover it prevents and actually harmful to health. How many people were hoping for a prayer and as a result launched the disease and lost his life.
I recommend going through some of my prior posts in this thread. I have highlighted numerous studies that examine various aspects of the relationship between religion and human health. The data available clearly shows that religion is both highly relevant and highly beneficial to human health. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
