This argument is what atheists use for God.
Atheists believe that God is not worthy of worship
Yes they do usually with illogical emotionally laden arguments that typically fall into one of three categories. 1) Nature is cruel thus I decry God.
2) Humans are cruel thus I decry God.
3) I enjoy (insert vice here) and God forbids it thus I decry God.The arguments are flawed, but to fully appreciate this you must first answer the question of what makes something worthy of worship. Then you can apply that assessment to God. Ultimately each individual needs to decide for themselves. I found the following book an interesting read. It addresses the common arguments above and others and does so with a very logical approach and structure. https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Bible-Exodus-Dennis-Prager/dp/1621577724Where the FUCK did you get this from? I cannot believe what I am reading. People don't believe in your God (or ANY OTHER GODS) because there is not a shred of evidence of your God's existence.
You not only make shit up in your own delusion, but you don't even understand why others see you as delusional and don't believe what you believe. In the end, there will always be intellectually strong people and an intellectually weak who will need this extra supernatural help to get them through their day. It actually has nothing to do with evidence, science, logic or any of that sort. It is a psychological defect that leads people into this delusion. Some are affected more, some are affected less. That is why we see such a spectrum of various religions, denominations, and interpretations of the scriptures. It is a disease of the mind. Religion is a virus that spreads from grandparents to parents to children. Ps. You like Hasidic Jews, maybe you should join them? Ask your wife if she would join. LOL Watch this on Netflix. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPn5oQNutIPPS. You can end this right now, ask your God to post here or on youtube. Let's go! |
|
|
|
1. Again, why don't you worship Zeus?
Because Zeus is not worthy of worship. I am not going to even ask how did you determine that. Too tired to deconstruct your delusion in full glory. Are you sure Zeus is not worthy? I have a book that says otherwise. Now you know how I feel about YOUR God. The same way you feel about Zeus. |
|
|
|
Hellfish deleted my comment to his thread. The comment is repeated here. All right, Hellfish. Can you or can you not support your post's facts? *** beginning of deleted comment*** Quote from: Flying Hellfish on December 11, 2018, 12:51:59 AM
.....
The Russian connections are just starting to come out now. The Americans beloved NRA is a nothing but a Russian hack organization now and the clock is ticking for the pussy grabber!Seems reasonable to think Steven Siegal, now a Russian citizen, would have been one of those contributors. Here's a bit of detail on the matter. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/382691-nra-accepted-donations-from-20-russian-linked-contributorsThe National Rifle Association (NRA) disclosed in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) this week that it received contributions from 23 individuals with links to Russia since 2015. The letter, dated Tuesday and made public on Wednesday, stated that the gun rights group received just over $2,500 from those individuals, and that most of the money was from "routine payments," like membership fees. Some of the payments may have come from Americans living in Russia, the NRA noted. Wait.... The actual facts seem very different than your click bait starter?Huh ***end of deleted comment*** No contributions from companies, organizations, churches etc, only personal contributions should be allowed, $1000 limit on personal contributions, one contribution per person, you can only contribute to one party, including your own candidacy. If any politician spends more than he received in contributions, his candidacy is invalidated. Problem solved. Next. |
|
|
|
I just thought I would post a thread here as I have an interest in Bitcoin and seasteading. For those that have never heard of it, seasteading is taking the concept of homesteading to the ocean. If your floating home is 12 nautical miles away from a nation's shore, you are not subject to most of the nation's laws outside of mineral rights, oil, and a few other things. 200 nautical miles from any nation and there is are no national laws. The idea pushed by the Seasteading Institute is that if we set up several of these seastead communities, we can experiment with new forms of government which can rise or fall based upon how good the new government works. With current governments there is not much competition. With thousands of seasteads competing for residents that can pick up and move to a new seastead, there will be innovation in government. A sound idea also pushed and generally accepted is that the first seasteads will likely be protected by a host nation initially so that we can work through the engineering constraints first before moving further and further out to sea. The Seasteading Institute has partnered with French Polynesia to begin building the world's first seastead in the protected waters of one of their larger islands. The hope is that they will begin building a large structure some time in 2019. Cost estimates for the initial structure have been somewhere in the $30-$50 million range, with each person needing about $500k to $1 million to live there. My own plan, which is a slight deviation from their plan, is to start small and modularly (not likely a real word). I would also like to start in a protected waterway initially. But I recognize that most people cannot afford such a high price, and their system does not leave much room for picking up your home and floating to a new seastead if you want to. My goal is to follow the tiny house trend initially and build a small modular floating structure that I can keep under $20k for the base price (plus cost of solar panels, water maker, composting toilet, etc.). Basically enough living space as a small boat, but unlike a boat you can attach these units together for more and more living space as can be afforded. The rise in the bitcoin price has accelerated my plans and at a certain price point I will likely quit my job and pursue this full time. I am not here looking for funding, investment or even a hand out. I have been working on my design for several years now. I have created computer models of it and will focus next on finding the most structurally sound design as possible while keeping it economical. My initial plan will be to move to a low cost country, likely in Asia (Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.), maybe French Polynesia (more expensive), and work on building my prototype. I will then move it to the ocean and test in a protected waterway, living in the smallest unit to learn and improve the design. I will be doing this no matter what. I will share my journey with those that are interested and I hope that once I have something proven, people will want to join my journey and become pioneers in this new industry. A good forum where seasteading is discussed in grave detail can be found here: https://discuss.seasteading.org/Do not presume to think that I have not considered some obvious thing about living on the ocean or building a seastead or some knee jerk reaction such as waves or pirates. If you go to the seasteading forum you will see that there have been discussions on there back as far as 2008 (when I first got involved) and there is discussion (mostly arguments) about just about every minute detail that may come up. Mostly discussions about things that do not need to be considered until we are 200 nm from any nation. What are your thoughts on seasteading? Is it something you would consider doing at some point in your life? What do you like/not like about the concept? Here is a high level overview of my design that I put together a few years ago. I have since improved upon that initial design but the concept is still similar. https://discuss.seasteading.org/t/my-viva-vivas-seastead-design/921/2I think the main benefit would be that you would be able to structure your society differently. For example, you could establish scientific hubs that would not be regulated and can speed up technological progress. Genetic, stem research, human cloning, nanotechnology, AI etc. come to mind. The issue I see is, how do you get funding to get this off the ground. I guess if you can convince enough smart and rich people to join, it might work. Then again, when your 'country' becomes successful and develops something worth fighting for, I am sure the US will find a reason to invade you, if not, Russia will find a reason to 'protect' Russian citizens in your enclave to invade your country and run a 'referendum' to join Russia. Interesting idea, but you have a lot of competition with trillion dollar armies. |
|
|
|
So what you are saying is human beings need Bronze Age God-given moral rules to have maintain a 'properly' free and functioning society. Anything else will fail in your personal assessment?
Yes this is my position. Would this work with any God, or only with your God?
I am unaware of any other organizing framework that appears capable of sustaining the necessary cooperation over time without collapsing into tyranny. Certainly if our goal is only maintaining order there are lots of dystopian options available. Absolute tyranny is good at order. So I am guessing Saudi Arabia picked the wrong God, even though it is Judeo-Christian God 2.0. How about Osiris, Zeus, Ra? Would they work?
...
Why are you rejecting all these other Gods? Why?
Provide proof that these other Gods are false Gods...
If you understand the a priori of God you understand that God is infinite. Thus it logically follows that the God of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and any other branches of monotheism are the same God. Infinite by definition means all encompassing. The differences between these religions represent different understandings of the optimal human relationship with regards to God not different Gods. The three faiths by and large all acknowledge this. Similarly if an infinite God exists it follows logically that any possible polytheistic entity must either not exist or exist as a dependent of God a creation of God if you will. This again is simple logical deduction derived from the first axiom that an infinite God exists. As for Saudi Arabia that is a sad state of affairs. The Quran has numerous verses that emphasize belief in the one universal God who judges people according to their behavior. The Quran also states explicitly that in matters of faith there shall be no coercion. Sadly we know that other interpretations and xenophobic elements often predominant. Borrowing the words of Dennis Prager: "Muslims need what most Christians and Jews have experienced - separation of church and state; interaction with other faiths and with modernity; and reform. Islam needs to compete with secularism, not outlaw it, and to allow competing ideologies within Islam. In religion, as in politics, when there is no competition, there is corruption and intolerance." You are full of it and you don't even know it.
It's no surprise you feel this way. I have accepted a first axiom that you have rejected. I believe in an infinite creator and you do not. You therefore feel that I am "full of it" and I in turn feel you are blind. 1. Again, why don't you worship Zeus? 2. Saudi Arabia is a very good example of what the Judeo-Christian state would look like. Have you seen what Hasidic Jewish communities look like? 3. Just because your carefully constructed delusion provides you with some psychological comfort, it does not mean it is the right thing to do. Illicit drugs or alcohol have the same effect yet we warn people not to use them as they are addictive and cause long-term harm, just like your delusion, BTW. |
|
|
|
Democratic rule does not prevent tyranny it is not exempt from injustice and immorally. Review the history of Athens if you want to understand this better.
Even far from it! There is no way to prevent tyranny in a group of different individuals in my experience. Whatever the group and its members, whatever the system, there will always a time where a large majority will say "we do this" ignoring de facto a minority who will get imposed something they don't want. Democracy is a beautiful word but hiding a complex submissive/dominant reality. People are uprising when you say that democracy isn't perfect and isn't morally good, that it's just an organization system that has its flaws... I would say that democracy is a bit better over complete dictatorship but there must be even better forms of organization keeping more freedom directly in the hands of the people. At the end the day the character of the government is dependent on the character of the people. If a population is greedy, lustful, envious, and slothful they will favor leaders and support causes that pander to these vices. Quality of life and governance in general will worsen and the best a systems of checks and balances can do is slow the decay. Similarly if a population is prudent, just, courageous, and charitable then they will elect leaders and support causes promote these virtues. The real challenge of improving governance over the long term is how do we improve the moral character and virtue of human beings? This is no small task. Indeed it is the most important aspect of progress. Technological advancement is secondary. There is where the Atheist go wrong. Their solutions here always fail. They sometimes go totally nuts and assume humans are some kind of perfect creature if only the environment was adjusted. Thus leads them to crazy ideas like communism which if you read the actual ideology might work ok for a population of perfect selfless sinless angels but predictably collapses into contradiction, horror, and tyranny when applied to actual human beings. Or they go the other way and embrace total relativism. They deny the existence of good and evil altogether everything is just preference. There is no value in anything. Anything socially accepted is "good" anything not is "bad". This leads to a willful self-annihilation as I noted a few posts back. It also lead many atheist leaders to favor drastic population reductions as a way of maintaining control. They grow fearful of an unruly population and their dependence on an unsustainable debt bubble to keep that population happy thus they start to desire the extermination of said population. This is a time honored strategy of tyrants and well documented. It is even described in the Bible as widespread at the time of Moses birth. The answer to the challenge of good governance is that every generation must prioritize the moral improvement of each individual citizen. This is the necessary prerequisite to ensure future generations will be better off then current generations. God is necessary to this process for without God we are lost in a sea of moral relativism. Without God we can't even define objective good and evil let alone moral improvement. How Do We Make Society Better?So what you are saying is human beings need Bronze Age God-given moral rules to have a 'properly' functioning society. Anything else will fail in your personal assessment? Would this work with any God, or only with your God? So I am guessing Saudi Arabia picked the wrong God, even though it is Judeo-Christian God 2.0. How about Osiris, Zeus, Ra? Would they work? You are full of it and you don't even know it. Why are you rejecting all these other Gods? Why? Provide proof that these other Gods are false Gods, and you'll have a proof why your God is a false God. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, religious organizations don't know the answers in a logical way. Their faith is logical (because we all live by faith; nobody can see an instant into the future), but they don't use it to logically find out the answers. And they take it out on people who use logic. The closer we get to micro machines, the more we find out that operations in the universe (and especially life) are super micro machines in the extreme. We use them as such. We are applying DNA to computers to make them "think" better. We are using DNA natural machines with man made machines: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/synthetic-biology-building-machines-from-dna/ and https://www.cell.com/chem/pdf/S2451-9294(16)30111-5.pdf and many more if you search for them. The question we seem to be ignoring is, who or what made these natural machines and the machine of nature? Evolution and Big Bang are nice ideas, but they are sadly lacking in real life application. The thing we see in machines is, machine makers. So, who or what made the machines of nature and the universe? Forget the word "God." Forget, also, the silly notion that stuff simply springs into being all by itself. We don't have any example of real spontaneity happening anywhere. Rather, look at science and see the machines, and then apply this kind of thinking to the idea of machine making. Who or what made the machines of the universe. Whoever or whatever made the machines of nature had super-great ability. If you ignore the machine maker(s) of nature, or that there could be any such thing(s), you are turning away from science and what science is discovering and using... that nature is made up of machines, and is collectively a gigantic machine. In addition, you are turning away from the kind of logic that made you question the nuns.  I am an engineer, I would never design nature the way it is. No engineer would. - No engineer is smart enough to even begin to seriously think about how to design something like nature.Nature is more like a wild, self-evolving energy monster, that eats everything in its path, releasing matter and energy that forms other monsters. There is absolutely no design in it. Energy conversion, that is about it. - All of nature operates through the laws of physics, by cause and effect. Therre is no evolution beyond the change that C&E provides.There is an appearance of design to an untrained eye because one looks through a very small time window without understanding what came before and why. Thanks to Biology we have a pretty good handle on how life evolved over time. - Microscopic C&E is a rather large window. Adaptation, like-begets-like and simple change fit life way better and easier than evolution does.We are on an energy yo-yo cycle that started with the Big Bang and will most likely end with the Big Crunch, and the cycle will repeat itself with a different set of physical constants. The process will repeat itself until a new, stable universe will be formed with physical constants suitable to sustain observers. - Big Band and Big Crunch are fun science fiction. Neither takes into account more than a particle of the reality that exists.Nature is cruel, unforgiving, but pretty cool in its own way. - Like when a doctor doesn't have any control over broken bones mending, and skin growing back together, but nature does it?There are a lot of unknowns in nature. Science uncovers and solves them one by one. - And there are so many that a thousand years won't give modern science enough time to solve more than a smattering of them.So don't jump to the "magician did it" answer when you don't know what the unknown is, never mind how it came about. - But that's essentially what some scientists do when they believe Big Bang and Evolution are real without any proof for them.And for fuck's sake stop the "Judeo-Christain ideology is the answer to everything" BS. If we stuck following it, we would still be hungry and wet in some caves, wiping our asses with leaves, waiting for the Sun to come up. - Thank Goodness for the Judeo-Christian ideology. It's the only thing that keeps you from being "hungry and wet in some" cave, "wiping" your ass "with leaves, waiting for the Sun to come up." Christianity is based on Judaism, and together they are the way to eternal life.Religion does not solve anything, it just takes away your money and your time. It makes you emotionally dependent on it and blinds you so that you cannot see the world the way it really is.As always, you leave me speechless. The education system has failed you. |
|
|
|
I was born into a Catholic family. That was not my choice. I did not choose God to later reject him.
I ignored stories about God the same way other kids ignored stories about Santa Claus.
Then my critical thinking skills did the rest when I turned about 12. I started asking questions for which I got a wholesome beating from a holy nun. Nasty, old, big nosed bitch she was. It became a routine, I asked a question, class laughed, I got a beating, back to drawing Jesus feeding the hungry and raising some schmucks from dead.
I rejected God the same you reject Santa Claus. The same reason: fictional character.
BTW, why did you reject Santa Claus? Please do tell.
Unfortunately, religious organizations don't know the answers in a logical way. Their faith is logical (because we all live by faith; nobody can see an instant into the future), but they don't use it to logically find out the answers. And they take it out on people who use logic. The closer we get to micro machines, the more we find out that operations in the universe (and especially life) are super micro machines in the extreme. We use them as such. We are applying DNA to computers to make them "think" better. We are using DNA natural machines with man made machines: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/synthetic-biology-building-machines-from-dna/ and https://www.cell.com/chem/pdf/S2451-9294(16)30111-5.pdf and many more if you search for them. The question we seem to be ignoring is, who or what made these natural machines and the machine of nature? Evolution and Big Bang are nice ideas, but they are sadly lacking in real life application. The thing we see in machines is, machine makers. So, who or what made the machines of nature and the universe? Forget the word "God." Forget, also, the silly notion that stuff simply springs into being all by itself. We don't have any example of real spontaneity happening anywhere. Rather, look at science and see the machines, and then apply this kind of thinking to the idea of machine making. Who or what made the machines of the universe. Whoever or whatever made the machines of nature had super-great ability. If you ignore the machine maker(s) of nature, or that there could be any such thing(s), you are turning away from science and what science is discovering and using... that nature is made up of machines, and is collectively a gigantic machine. In addition, you are turning away from the kind of logic that made you question the nuns. I am an engineer, I would never design nature the way it is. No engineer would. Nature is more like a wild, self-evolving energy monster, that eats everything in its path, releasing matter and energy that forms other monsters. There is absolutely no design in it. Energy conversion, that is about it. There is an appearance of design to an untrained eye because one looks through a very small time window without understanding what came before and why. Thanks to Biology we have a pretty good handle on how life evolved over time. We are on an energy yo-yo cycle that started with the Big Bang and will most likely end with the Big Crunch, and the cycle will repeat itself with a different set of physical constants. The process will repeat itself until a new, stable universe will be formed with physical constants suitable to sustain observers. Nature is cruel, unforgiving, but pretty cool in its own way. There are a lot of unknowns in nature. Science uncovers and solves them one by one. So don't jump to the "magician did it" answer when you don't know what the unknown is, never mind how it came about. And for fuck's sake stop the "Judeo-Christain ideology is the answer to everything" BS. If we stuck following it, we would still be hungry and wet in some caves, wiping our asses with leaves, waiting for the Sun to come up. Religion does not solve anything, it just takes away your money and your time. It makes you emotionally dependent on it and blinds you so that you cannot see the world the way it really is. |
|
|
|
Dictatorial regimes don't follow moral codes. Are you new here on Earth? Your Bible did not save Christians or Jews who were killed in Auschwitz, nor it prevented Christians from killing other Christians or Jews.
Every society follows some kind of moral code. Sometimes that code can be as simple as the strongest rule and the weak are slaves. Usually it's more complex. Democratic rule does not prevent tyranny it is not exempt from injustice and immorally. Review the history of Athens if you want to understand this better. Tyranny of the majority was one of the greatest concerns of the US founding fathers. It the reasons they took such great effort to limit the power of direct democracy. Everything from the selection of Senators by state representatives, the selection of the president via the Electoral College, and the limits of voting to land owners were all attempts to lower the risk of a tyrannical mob rule. Your stated standard is "you are automatically a good person if you are following the moral code that your society accepts." This is a very problematic code that highlights the profound detachment from reality your philosophy and atheism leads into. I noticed you did not really refute my examples above. Via your standard any horror if accepted by a society becomes "good" and the perpetrators of said horror are "good people". With this standard you are lost in a morass of relativism a natural consequence of rejecting the divine.
You think the Bible will save you from a dictatorship? You are confusing your delusional religious beliefs with political systems.
...
Judeo-Christian ideology is no different than other inhumane ideologies. Nazism and Communism included.
You lack an understanding of the pivotal role of the Judeo-Christian tradition in facilitating coordination and driving progress over time. I discussed this topic in some depth here: Religion and Progress I did not reject God. There is nothing to reject. Why can't you get this through your head is beyond me?
You were raised religious and brought up to accept and worship God. You and later rejected both that tradition and God. We have real issues of dispute we should not waste our time on word games. I came from a highly religious family, went through Catholic school system, both primary and secondary, I was an altar boy
...
What I saw, was corruption, abuse on pretty much every level imaginable.
I was born into a Catholic family. That was not my choice. I did not choose God to later reject him. I ignored stories about God the same way other kids ignored stories about Santa Claus. Then my critical thinking skills did the rest when I turned about 12. I started asking questions for which I got a wholesome beating from a holy nun. Nasty, old, big nosed bitch she was. It became a routine, I asked a question, class laughed, I got a beating, back to drawing Jesus feeding the hungry and raising some schmucks from dead. I rejected God the same you reject Santa Claus. The same reason: fictional character. BTW, why did you reject Santa Claus? Please do tell. |
|
|
|
You are a good person if you follow the moral code that your society accepts.
You don't need a Bronze Age boogeyman.
Let's see so according to your logic: The Soviet Gestapo who forceably resettled presents to collective farms in 1932 leading to the starvation of 8 million were swell folks because they were following the Soviet code. The Nazi's guards who starved and gassed millions were great guys too because Hitler was elected and widely admired and supported by the German People. According to you these folks were paragons of virtue following the moral code their societies accepted at the time. Similarly if you can get a majority to support your desired re-education camps and book burnings that will be great too. I think I understand you better now. Here is a short video that describes your fundamental problem. You have rejected God, and without God one can no longer properly define good and evil. Can You Be Good Without Godhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vUDictatorial regimes don't follow moral codes. Are you new here on Earth? Your Bible did not save Christians or Jews who were killed in Auschwitz, nor it prevented Christians from killing other Christians or Jews. Are you sure you thought your examples through? I am all for progress, for what is best for all people and society as a whole. That includes gays, lesbians, women, unlike your Bronze Age God. You think the Bible will save you from a dictatorship? You are confusing your delusional religious beliefs with political systems. You can have a secular, democratic system with check and balances to prevent the sort of brutal regimes you are thinking about. Trust me, you don't want to go down the route of a moral system driving a political system based on a Bronze Age scripture. You'll be killing gays and adulterers sooner rather than later. Judeo-Christian ideology is no different than other inhumane ideologies. Nazism and Communism included. Any political system lead by people who believe in supernatural magic is a recipe for disaster. Delusional people should not be near the nuclear codes. I did not reject God. There is nothing to reject. Why can't you get this through your head is beyond me? |
|
|
|
You should use objective observations to make your reality, not some philosophical ramblings. Empirical results from quantum mechanics are objective observations. The fact that you choose to dismiss the logical implications of the those observations highlights your bias. ... You really don't know me. Who says I dismiss the results of quantum mechanics? You are full of yourself, IMHO. You jump to whatever supernatural conclusions you need to validate your delusion. As for humans being bad, well, most of us are. We use our moral standard established by the societies we live in. Good people innately know the moral rules and help establish the rules.
Ahh and who gets to decide who the innately good people are? Who gets to decide who to sent to those re-education camps you want and what books need burning. You because of your innate goodness? You are a good person if you follow the moral code that your society accepts. You don't need a Bronze Age boogeyman. |
|
|
|
Materialism is false.
Philosophy can be great but far from a good ''science'' to find the ''truth''. That's your problem, you base most of your beliefs on philosophical arguments. The falseness of materialism is not just a philosophical argument it is the most logical interpretation of multiple and repeated scientific experiments. Modern science provides powerful evidence against the materialist worldview. This summary of recent scientific studies highlights this and is worth watching if you were not aware of this. Quantum Physics Debunks Materialismhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRMMaterialist cling to false notions of an independent physical reality. They do this because once you realizes that materialism is false a theistic view of world logically follows. You should use objective observations to make your reality, not some philosophical ramblings. As for materialism, you have heard of E=mc2, haven't you? So stop clinging to your 19th-century definition of materialism. The rest of the world moved on, it is time you do that as well. Actually, the Bible is the most printed, sold, and distributed book out there. Why have you moved on, away from the truth? You should work on your epistemology. Being popular does not make it true. You have no tools to discover what is true or false. You are like a blind and deaf newborn. That is your problem. Unfortunately for you, you don't even know why you are deluded. |
|
|
|
Materialism is false.
Philosophy can be great but far from a good ''science'' to find the ''truth''. That's your problem, you base most of your beliefs on philosophical arguments. The falseness of materialism is not just a philosophical argument it is the most logical interpretation of multiple and repeated scientific experiments. Modern science provides powerful evidence against the materialist worldview. This summary of recent scientific studies highlights this and is worth watching if you were not aware of this. Quantum Physics Debunks Materialismhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRMMaterialist cling to false notions of an independent physical reality. They do this because once you realizes that materialism is false a theistic view of world logically follows. You should use objective observations to make your reality, not some philosophical ramblings. As for materialism, you have heard of E=mc2, haven't you? So stop clinging to your 19th-century definition of materialism. The rest of the world moved on, it is time you do that as well. |
|
|
|
Why are to misdirecting the conversation? Who said anything about materialism? I said objective facts. It is not my problem that our reality is material.
I am simply highlighting your self-imposed miosis. You base your determination of objective facts on your materialism yet refuse to consider challenges to that materialist foundation. Your concerns about religious tyranny in a theocratic state are of course valid. Humans corrupt every institution we partake in and vesting ultimate state power in any centralized church run by man can lead to no outcome other then eventual corruption of said church and tyranny. The founders of the US understood this well which is why they both guaranteed religious freedom and prohibited an official state religion in the first amendment of the constitution.
Our morality should come from the humanity that is within us. We should burn ALL scriptures and move on as critical thinking human beings.
Religion is evil at its core.
You appear to have bought into the progressive delusion that humans are basically good and if we all just embrace our inner humanity we can all sing songs together in harmony. The reality is that humans are not inherently good. We are innately infused with great evil. That ultimately is part of the message of the Old Testament you so misunderstand. It tells us that all humans even the best of us are inherently flawed and capable of great evil. It also lays out a framework via which said evils can be mitigated and perhaps someday rectified. You are already on record as in favor of forcibly removing children from the homes of religious parents and placing them in re-education camps. Now you want book burnings too? You will make a good foot soldier when the next tyranny rises its head.
The year is 2018. Earth is not flat, it is billions of years old, nobody created the universe or life on Earth that we know of, life evolved and continues to evolve. Anyone who denies these facts is delusional or simply ignorant.
You sound like one of the scientists who loudly proclaimed space was full of Luminiferous Aether or the confident proponent of Phrenology standing tall with his tape measure. The reality is that your firm foundation of facts are not nearly as certain as you proclaim. 1. Earth is not flat.The entire universe including the Earth might be flat. Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universehttps://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html2. Earth is billions of years old.Time itself may be an illusion and the age of the earth depends on your frame of reference. TIME is an ILLUSIONhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VYZQxMowBsw3. Nobody created the universe or life on Earth.This is your religion and your conclusion has not been proven by science nor does it have anything to do with science. The difference between you and I is the way we view reality. To me, the reality is based on objective observations confirmed by carbon and silicon-based observers. In my world, fictional characters do not exist or exhibit any influence or power. The unknown remains unknown and is not part of my reality. I don't lose sleep over the unknowns. In your world, the reality consists of what is observable and the unknown which you make it known and part of your physical reality. In your world, fictional characters are alive and well, the supermen exhibit their might, influence every action and thought you make. Pregnant virgins remain virgins, the dead can become alive again, winged horses exist and can fly to space, and people are alive after they die. In your world there are no unknowns, everything has an answer, the whole world is coherent and understood by you.
Your worldview is the basis for your delusion. You need this delusion to function in this world as it provides a psychological comfort for you. You cannot bare an idea that something is not known and you invent answers to feed your insecurities.You call me a materialist, I would say I am an objective observationalist. As for humans being bad, well, most of us are. We use our moral standard established by the societies we live in. Good people innately know the moral rules and help establish the rules for the rest of their societies to follow. Some of us are born without that moral compass and need guidance from our society or community. Some of us break those rules anyway and become outlaws. Adopting rules established for the Bronze Age societies is as bad as having no moral rules. The leaders who wrote those moral rules would not last a day in our society. They would be arrested and thrown in jail for life. Our morals evolve over time, what was considered moral few centuries ago is not moral any more. |
|
|
|
True, but sometimes you need to ban ideologies (communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, religion) that cause multi-generational societal harm.
Slavery is a bad idea. So is the Bible.
It does not matter how many times you raped, if you only raped once, you are a rapist.
I am sure the majority of Christians and people from several religious doctrines are against slavery and rape. Yes, most christians are sensible people but they have to ignore big chunks of story in the bible. The bible talks about slavery and rape, even allows it, the bible even allows murder. They have to come up with excuses because they know the bible is wrong so they say things like: ''Oh but that's the old testament'' ''it doesn't count'' You almost sound like you haven't heard about what American soldiers do around the world all the time. Or about all the court cases that promote all kinds of things. Or about all the laws in the States; like the ones in all the States that talk about marrying age for boys and girls: https://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html. And this stuff is going on today, in the USA. Not way back whenever, when the circumstances and customs of society were way different. You talk so silly. The general structure of the O.T. was for the best benefit of the people of that day. But they show what is best at the same time. You simply take it all out of context so that you don't have to understand. You can't receive the best benefit when you leave God out of the equation, or out of your life. ''You talk so silly. The general structure of the O.T. was for the best benefit of the people of that day'' Tell that to the slaves and people murdered for picking up sticks on the sabbath lol. I'm sure they would disagree with you. Actually, they wouldn't. Why? Because the O.T. teaching made life easier on them. Someone that is dead cannot have a better life, badecker, study some biology. People murdered definitely did not have an easier life, they had an easier death in any case. That's why the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill." The word "kill" really means "murder" in modern English. "Kill" is from the old English. So, why are you attempting to so act ignorant? If there was no Bible, you would not have to explain it and defend it. BTW, shouldn't that be your God's job? You know, to set up a website so that we can view his up-to-date instructions in modern languages. Sounds like someone in the Heavens' marketing department is sleeping behind the wheel. LOL. Or more likely explanation is that the Bronze Age schmucks described their ignorant life and some other schmucks in the 21st century read too much into it ROFL. |
|
|
|
To burn all the scriptures would be to limit our freedom to believe whatever we want and read whatever we want though. It would bring us back to the dark age when all the books that were incompatible with the popular paradigm were burnt.
True, but sometimes you need to ban ideologies (communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, religion) that cause multi-generational societal harm. Slavery is a bad idea. So is the Bible. It does not matter how many times you raped, if you only raped once, you are a rapist. |
|
|
|
BTW, what 'truth' are you talking about? The only truth I know is based on objective facts.
Actually the only truth you know is materialism. The objective facts are in dispute. Materialists such as yourself are often herded into a form of rationalized self-annihilation that is deeply deeply tied to the corruption of modernity BADecker highlighted in his most recent post. Here is an article that discusses this downward spiral. The portion on willful self-annihilation is particularly relevant. Old Left-New Left... Modernity-Postmodernity - surface changes masking a constant deep motivation against Godhttp://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2018/12/old-left-new-left-modernity.html?m=1What is the 'truth' I am talking about? For the purposes of this immediate and specific conversation it is the following. Materialism is false.Why are to misdirecting the conversation? Who said anything about materialism? I said objective facts. It is not my problem that our reality is material. The issue was religion and its interference with the progressive thought, its coercive powers etc. Under the religious rule, we would not be able to have this conversation as I (and you depending on which religious rule we are talking about) would be hanged in the city square. Be careful what you wish for. Get off your Judeo-Christian horse. It is no different than a Muslim buraq. In my humble opinion af_newbie, I think that our belief in God is not important as our morality. An atheist who acts under the moral principles of the Golden Rule ie. following the guidance of love, compassion, etc. creates a better world than a God-believer who kills others and acts cruelly. In the 21st century, we should not be using 6th century CE or 6th century BCE scriptures to justify our morality. Our morality should come from the humanity that is within us. We should burn ALL scriptures and move on as critical thinking human beings. Religion is evil at its core. A con business that was set up to exploit the gullible. It does not matter which one, they are all the same. We don't live in the Bronze Age or in the 6th century. The year is 2018. Earth is not flat, it is billions of years old, nobody created the universe or life on Earth that we know of, life evolved and continues to evolve. Anyone who denies these facts is delusional or simply ignorant. |
|
|
|
BTW, what 'truth' are you talking about? The only truth I know is based on objective facts.
Actually the only truth you know is materialism. The objective facts are in dispute. Materialists such as yourself are often herded into a form of rationalized self-annihilation that is deeply deeply tied to the corruption of modernity BADecker highlighted in his most recent post. Here is an article that discusses this downward spiral. The portion on willful self-annihilation is particularly relevant. Old Left-New Left... Modernity-Postmodernity - surface changes masking a constant deep motivation against Godhttp://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2018/12/old-left-new-left-modernity.html?m=1What is the 'truth' I am talking about? For the purposes of this immediate and specific conversation it is the following. Materialism is false.Why are to misdirecting the conversation? Who said anything about materialism? I said objective facts. It is not my problem that our reality is material. The issue was religion and its interference with the progressive thought, its coercive powers etc. Under the religious rule, we would not be able to have this conversation as I (and you depending on which religious rule we are talking about) would be hanged in the city square. Be careful what you wish for. Get off your Judeo-Christian horse. It is no different than a Muslim buraq. |
|
|
|
I hope you are not suggesting we follow the Judo-Christian tradition. You know the one that keeps women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or the one that kills gays or atheists in the city squares.
No I advise following the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is the tradition that holds the following up as the ultimate rule, purpose and message of the Bible. Christianity: Matthew 7:12 "So everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Judaism: Hillel the Elder "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." See: Superrationality and the Infinite Now you can choose to reject that truth and get hung up over some esoteric detail of the brutal tribal realities of ages past. However, in doing so you reject the greatest force for freedom in history. You leave both yourself and your offspring vulnerable to future slavery in service to whatever technological or ideological tyranny comes along next. That is your choice to make. Why should anyone care what the Bible says? You do know that there are other more relevant books on morality, don't you? BTW, what 'truth' are you talking about? The only truth I know is based on objective facts. Bible is an example of Bronze Age literary work. Why should I even open this book? It is filled with vile, immoral passages that anyone with an ounce of moral integrity should burn it at once. This book is irrelevant in the 21st century. If you are a history buff you can intellectually masturbate to it, but it is not my cup of tea. PS. Just imagine what would happen to the Muslims or gays if hardcore evangelists, or the Westboro Baptist types would run the country. Human rights would go out of the window in the name of Jesus, LOL. |
|
|
|
I thought the religious regimes were/are the most tyrannical. Maybe you got this backward.
Secularism is what brought women's rights, gay rights, equality of races and genders etc. Which thought is more flexible, religious or secular?
Which system is more coercive? Secular or religious one? Think about it before you post again.
Hint: Secular does not necessarily mean communist, socialist or some other dictatorial system.
Freedom comes from moral self-control. There is no other way to achieve it. The West especially Europe has forgotten this which is why freedom is now in decline throughout the western world. If you look at our current secular society and don't see the stagnation increasing corruption and intellectual incoherence and yes declining freedom then you have closed your eyes to reality. This video from Prager University highlightes this point well. Freedom and Moral Self-ControlThere are all sorts of historical and tyrannical regimes founded in religion. From ancient Egypt which invested tyrannical powers in their god king Pharoh to modern day North Korea which proclaims divine proprieties in its leader Kim Jong-Un. What is common to all of these tyrannical regimes is their incompatibility with the Judo-Christian tradition. This is why every tyranny eventually turns its arrows or guns on Christians and Jews. They represent an existential threat to tyranny. Christians in case you didn't know are the most persecuted group in the world currently. Last year approximately 100,000 Christians were killed because of their beliefs. I hope you are not suggesting we follow the Judo-Christian tradition. You know the one that keeps women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or the one that kills gays or atheists in the city squares. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
