Bitcoin Forum
May 22, 2019, 02:14:51 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
1  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 23, 2013, 06:28:07 AM
The belief that the universe was empty, then it wasn't, then splat you have a god who then goes on to create the entire Universe.
God is the eternal self-existing one, there was never a time when God was not present.

People are naturally charitable. It's in our DNA, since we are a social species that tends to live in packs. Wolves are charitable to members of their pack as well. So, with non-profits, some people start them because they are charitable, and some people start them because they are charitable, and use Christianity as an excuse for why they feel that way.

Interesting, do you have source for charitable DNA? And what do you see as the primary advantage of charity, doesn't that conflict with Social Darwinianism?

Further, Christians are more likely to be charitable, as charitable-ness is a command in Christianity, I reject that people are simply using Christianity as an excuse to be charitable.

Athiests might be charitable, if they want to loose the extra money, or time, but experience speaks that unless you have an over abundance of either you are unlikely to be charitable. Humans are inherently greedy (which I doubt you would dis-agree with, even from a purely atheistic world-view).
2  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 23, 2013, 03:46:46 AM
I'm not seeing the logical connection between athiesm and charity, and I certainly don't know if you could derive charity in an entirely athiestic worldview. Now, certainly there are athiestic charities, however I don't know if there is a connection directly between athiesm and charity. And certainly no driving force of it, I guess you could arbitrarily decide if it was good to donate to charities?

have atheists done anything for the good of man?
does athiesm lead logically to charity

Apologies in advance if you don't like my tone, given this media is far from my first choice. I would prefer to leave you to your way of being and encourage you to focus on growing the good in the world.
Comparatively you almost sound pro-thiest  Cheesy

I also knew someone who was beaten for his belief in God, although this was in a public school.

It takes all types of people to make a society. Looking at a simply breakdown like Myer Briggs Colours you see the general population divides up, and about 3% in general are more logically minded and they tend to think along the lines of reason and logic. It is through this lens you can begin to see that God is not a personal god, but actually a metaphor for the fundamental laws of physics. And why call him god anyway it is a delusion. (These are the inventors - problem solvers) typically called athletes
That's not a logically valid statement.

So dumbed down if you want a world run by non profits - get rid of the green and replaced with gold, oh and those tools you use (the wheel, metallurgy, the plow, the printing press, the internet, ) well there source is from the marginalized innovators.

Community work and altruistic contributions to society from the innovators abound today - you just need to know where to look - Bitcoin and other OSS is testimony to that.
I don't think anyone wants a world ruled by non-profits?

Further, bitcoin and OSS are all nice I use both (Currently running Ubuntu exclusively, with all OSS tools), however the goal of OSS as I understand it (feel free to reference material that says otherwise) is that many people together can create something better than commercial software, not that someone in need would benefit, indeed Linux has only rencently even become user friendly, it used to be a bunch of hackers attempting to create awesome software, usability left off to the side.

Bitcoin, as far as I know was not created for charitable means.

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
This is the type of thing I am speaking of, athiest use language like this all the time. Word twisting fairly rude, this is basically an ad-hominem attack more than anything else.

The belief that the universe was empty, then it wasn't, then splat you have the entire Universe. Your ancestors are monkeys, and black people are racially inferior because they are more monkey like. Objective morality doesn't exist, so Hitler was A-OK as long as he thought he was doing good and didn't think the Jews were human. And really even if they were, we're all just molecules in motion. What if a pile of molecules stop moving, who cares?
3  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 22, 2013, 04:21:21 AM
I think what you perceive as intolerant and hateful is actually you being judgmental. I prefer to think of athiests as rational and kind loving people who have an alternate sense of community, and who react negatively to being judged by irrational standards.

I am being judgemental (I don't hold judging to be inherently wrong, I make judgements every day, "that car is fast", "Bitcoins are a good investment"), and based on my perception of this thread, as I originally said you get a very hateful athiesm:
Judging by this thread, athiests are the most intolerant, hateful, and irreverent types
That is, if you only had this thread as a representation for athiesm that would be a logical deduction.

I have not seen where I or others, really, have judged athiests by irrational standards on this thread. In fact the only judgement I've made wasn't really a judgement just a criticism of how athiests are behaving in particular this thread.

I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be a kind, loving, tolerant athiest, merely that such athiests are not common (at least from my experience).
4  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 21, 2013, 04:16:23 AM
Also I would disagree that Christianity leads to hypocrisy,  I suppose you might say that by having perfection as a standard, all Christians are inherently hypocrites. However that would not be hypocrisy, hypocrisy is hiding behind the bible and using to your end instead of God's, holding to parts of the bible you like, and ignoring the rest. I'm sorry that you have had bad experiences with Christians, however that does not excuse your stereotyping. I have heard people say all black people are bad just based on their experience with a few black people, you seem to be using the same strain of logic.

Judging by this thread, athiests are the most intolerant, hateful, and irreverent types of people to have ever walked the face of the earth, however I do not generally judge based on a vocal minority.

It's actually funny, 90% of arguments against Christianity are just basic theological questions.

So, if you have a lot of "why" questions, may I recommend Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, or Google for that matter.

Having read comments of the religious nuts here, one starts to wonder when will they disappear for good?
The death of Christianity has been forecasted since it's inception.
5  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 20, 2013, 03:03:53 AM
Sorry for the long absence, but now my miner is fully functional Cheesy (I am currently making the argument for tithing in bitcoins as well  Wink)

However I see there was no counter-argument to my previous points, so oh well.

step-father was a very religious, bible-thumping, violent alcoholic, who made hating religious people easy.
I think being a violent alcoholic would kind of make him not a Christian, although am I understand you correctly that:
1. You met a someone who claimed to be Christian
2. This person was bad
All Christians are bad

I'm actually curious about this point, I'm not really making an argument.

Also, Rassah, you mentioned that you felt offended because God forgives people without consideration of the victim of the crime, this is because in committing a crime someone has offended 3 entities:
1. A Holy and just God
2. The victim
3. The law
One may have forgiveness from you and God, and yet still rightfully go to jail, and people may still ask for forgiveness from God, with the realization that the they have not been given forgiveness from the victim.
6  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 03, 2013, 08:09:59 PM
however the changes are normally so small and un-noticeable that they are easily identified.

Can you rephrase that please?

Ah, sorry:

however the changes are normally so small and un-notable that they are easily corrected.

Finding them is trivial, just run diff on the manuscripts.
7  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 01, 2013, 11:12:02 PM
Also, as to China becoming increasingly Christian, I doubt it is a materialistic Christianity. Many Chinese believers are being tortured and put into jail for their beliefs by the Athiestic Chinese government.
8  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 01, 2013, 11:08:31 PM
You're not even listening to what I'm posting, I'm not saying he was a "bad" Christian, I'm saying he did not even believe in Christianity at all.

Evidence shows he was Christian whether you think he was "true" or not. He was a member of the Catholic church until his death, and neither of us will ever know if asked for forgiveness before death, which is all that's required to get right back into heaven's queue.

I agree there's plenty of cause for debate over his personal views on religion and I understand why religious folks would shun such a member of their camp. Perhaps you simply shouldn't have brought him up in the first place?
Ok, here are the points you make:
1. He was a member of a church
2. He could have asked for forgiveness before he died

As to 1, belonging to a church does not make you Christian, and as to 2 while he certainly could have asked for forgiveness before he died, he would have only been Christian for the remainder of his life, when, ironically he would have then committed suicide.

I shun him as a member of my "camp" for a very obvious reason, he was not Christian, and only attempted to look Christian out in public to gain acceptance. When you look at quotes from his personal life, it becomes quite clear that he was no Christian.

Actually, it was you who brought up Hitler being Christian. So, perhaps you should not have brought it up in the first place.
9  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: June 01, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
I am seriously considering quitting this debate now, you have posited no evidence at all for your arguments, go on look for it, none! I'm also considering whether or not you are trolling me.

The only thing you posted _with evidence_ was a firm belief in empathy, and the neurological support for it, the link you posted to wikipedia only stated that there might be a link!

Sorry, we covered that. Your equivocation on "causing death" doesn't help you. It is translated as both and is the same commandment.

ARE YOU SERIOUS! This is literally in the link you posted:

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".

According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] even if the killing is accidental.[3] The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[4][5]

The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h.[6][7]

Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is h-r-g, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8. When Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he uses the same verb.

"Pretty much" what the difference is, is that I am providing evidence for my arguments. You are simply reiterated unsubstantiated opinions. The bible is proof of nothing.
Show where you have given evidence, and I have not.
The most frustrating thing is your comment at the end

The bible is proof of nothing
I haven't used the bible as proof for something, despite the fact it is proof.

It's really funny though, you just posted something without making an actual argument, you just stated what you believe.

They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail.
So the strongest group decides?


When then?

Simply typing a few words after my comments is not support of your argument.
Neither is it for me, then neither is it for you.

The choice of papyrus was insignificant? OK, I think we're done here. You're either being disingenuous or have no concept of how the bible came to exist in its current form. If you aren't aware, google "bible papyrus scraps" or some such and learn that the bible is really just ancient Mad Libs with scraps of faded paper. The debate over translations and missing parts have done nothing but splinter the overall faith. If 42,000 denominations arguing over who is "right" isn't significant problems then you would have no concept of what is significant.

The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how this works, but here goes: When a book is first created, many copies are made, then as these copies wear out due to the nature of the material, new copies are made. Sometimes, small errors may enter if the scribe is not particularly diligent, however the changes are normally so small and un-noticeable that they are easily identified.

It does condone a specific form of slavery, namely the payment of debts. The idea was if you could not conceivably pay a debt you owed someone you would work in order to cover part of it.

Religion at its finest: "the bible doesn't condone slavery, it simply condones slavery"
I don't need any argument here because you are arguing for my point. Thank you!
I'm saying you're using slavery as a buzz word, the modern conception of slavery, that is man-stealing, was forbidden by death.

However, in the payment of debts, slavery was allowed, it's not that complicated really. This form of slavery is not immoral, and even your empathetical system should have no problem with it. This sytem is much better than simply putting the debtor to death.

I think it is plainly spelled out in the bible passages I have already posted, among others. The central thrust is to give everything you have away and "give no thought to the morrow" while following Jesus' teachings. Here's more bible teachings greed is causing you to ignore:
All the verses you quote are warning not to serve wealth, not to make wealth your master, and not to make wealth your treasure. The protestant work ethic naturally leads to wealth, but if that is your goal in life, only your wealth you have missed the boat.

There is no excuse for forcing a woman to marry her rapist. None.
Well, actually there is.

In biblical times if you were no longer a virgin, in fact raped, you basically had no chance of getting married. This is to assure that the woman doesn't just fall off the face of the earth. This does not force women to live with the rapist, only for the rapist to provide for her, this happening was common. By marrying the woman she has all the protections of a married woman.
10  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Re: Do I need a CPU Heatsink/Fan on: June 01, 2013, 05:34:17 PM
Ah, thank you, sorry for the stupid question.

This is my first custom build, and my CPU did not come with a heatsink, which is why I ask.
11  Other / CPU/GPU Bitcoin mining hardware / Do I need a CPU Heatsink/Fan on: June 01, 2013, 01:10:32 AM
Will I need a heatsink and/or fan for my mining rig? There will be no CPU mining. It is an open case rig, with a box fan. I plan on running some form of linux, probably Lubuntu or Xubuntu.

My initial reaction is no, but what does BitcoinTalk think?
12  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 31, 2013, 11:38:45 PM
I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too:

"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

Now there we have the No True Scotsman. No Christian ever thinks any other Christian is "true" if they've given Christianity bad press. Ridiculous. You've no doubt sinned at some point but you think you're still Christian. So, what if Hitler asked for forgiveness for all his sins in the manner you deem most "correct"?

Hitler was raised Catholic. In his book <i>Mein Kampf</i> and in public speeches he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity. He called the purge of Jews "positive Christianity." While there is debate over his actual private feelings about the faith, he was a publicly practicing Christian. There exists no known evidence that Hitler was an atheist or agnostic. Again: evidence he was Christian; no evidence he was otherwise.

Hitler said: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The Reichskonkordat was a treaty signed on 20 July 1933 between the Holy See (Catholic Church) and Nazi Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, giving moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime soon after Hitler had acquired dictatorial powers, and placing constraints on Catholic critics of the regime, leading to a muted response by the Church to Nazi policies. Yes, the Catholic Church colluded with Nazis.

You're not even listening to what I'm posting, I'm not saying he was a "bad" Christian, I'm saying he did not even believe in Christianity at all.

"Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself. -- Hitler

Hitler allied himself with the church earlier on because he did not think he could defeat it. I highly doubt Hitler was even a Theist

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death... The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble." -- Hitler

But I'm sure there is

"When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians.... the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry... and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier. The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul.... Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely." -- Hitler

great controversy over the issue as to whether or not Hitler was Christian.

"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." -- Hitler
And I suppose I must concede to your point that there is no evidence that

"Science cannot lie... It's Christianity that's the liar" -- Hitler
Hitler was an athiest.

'Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobillization by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.' -- Hitler
Ah well, I can only speculate from his actions that he was not Christian.

It's not like Hitler would ever use Christianity as tool to gain acceptance either, that is too far fetched.
13  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 31, 2013, 11:24:55 PM
Ah, the ever-faithful and often used christian fallback.
"You don't understand the bible" or "You're using the wrong translation". It covers a whole lot of delusion for you without you needing to fire nary a brain cell.

Atheists understand your bible and your god delusion. It is why we are atheists, and why we need to constantly inform christians of the passages in their own book of rules.

"Atheists: Teaching Christians The Bible, Since 325AD"
More like atheists constantly twisting and contorting the bible to attempt to make themselves seem logical.
14  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 31, 2013, 11:01:11 PM
There is a difference because murder is a relative moral. I am still awaiting your absolute moral.
The difference is between the separation of the words kill and murder.

You don't provide any evidence or argument but simply state a position.
Which is pretty much what you were doing, or perhaps I don't see your actual argument.
From what I read, which may not be what you intended, as you seem to think you made a point:
1. The word moral is a weapon
2. I think God is bad, despite believing all morals other than mine are bad
3. Atheists can have morals without religion

None of these are actually making any points, just stating what you believe.

They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail.
So the strongest group decides?

I didn't think you'd give up this easily.
I didn't.

Well, I suppose I should be happy you even tried to argue your point, thin as it is. Why would the choice of writing material be any more a human choice than the words written? The argument sounds pretty arbitrary. You'd be better off just saying "faith has no need of logic" and leave it there.
... what?
I completely answered your point, and you say it's thin without even criticizing my actual point?

This type of response from you is getting kind of boring, there's nothing to argue against. The most coherent point you made was choice of writing material, everything else being really ... pointless.

Because the bible is the inspired ward of God? The choice of papyrus as writing material was logical, and quite insignificant.

Well, I must say I wasn't expecting you to condone child abuse. One would think I'd know better by now. At least your values can serve as a warning to others to steer a wide course around religion.
I'm not condoning child abuse.

The bible does not condone the modern conception of slavery, and in fact condemns it. If you had read my post at all you would have noticed this.

It does condone a specific form of slavery, namely the payment of debts. The idea was if you could not conceivably pay a debt you owed someone you would work in order to cover part of it.
15  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 31, 2013, 05:40:13 AM
Ok, just typed up a post, and lost it Sad

Here goes again:

I have no doubt that Hitler wanted to seem Christian, but actions speak louder than words. But, in case that's not enough, here's some words too:

"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools.

Moral relativism:
The uncle wishes to continue the rest of his (2 year) life in pain, while making everyone miserable at the same time. Is it morally wrong to kill him, and on what basis?

Religion was invented to justify and legitimize child abuse.
Child abuse does not need religion to continue, the bible certainly does not legitimize child abuse in any way.
16  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 31, 2013, 02:19:34 AM

So you've chosen #2, that your god is evil. And yet you still follow him. Nice.
No, I've selected an option you did not state, that did not fit into your initial argument. You athiests are very skilled at manipulation of words. Nice.

Well now you're just descending into fundamentalist pamphlet talk. If his laws are what make morality and he doesn't follow them, then he is immoral. You're just gonna state "god is good" while all evidence points to the contrary? This is just about checkmate it seems.
All evidence does not point to the contrary, the point is there are things that God can do that we can't, similar to how the Government has the ability to sentence people to death.

I'm confused. You're describing relative morality, where sometimes murder is OK. I'm looking for your examples of absolute morality.
Now you're just being ridiculous, of course there is a separation between murdering someone, and sentencing someone to death because they have murdered.

The whole use of the word moral is a religious shell game. People use it as a weapon; those with morals know what is right and those without do not. Of course that is complete horseshit.

Your god, if he did exist, would be the most capriciously violent and vengeful being in the universe yet somehow he's great to worship because "might makes right" for you, whether the lich you worship is actually "evil" or not. It doesn't matter if he's a vile bastard to you, and that is twisted. Along your line of reasoning, if inside your mythology Satan had cast God out of Heaven you'd follow Satan just as gladly, as long as people sang songs calling Satan's torture of others "love".

Meanwhile you deem atheists amoral because you believe they don't follow any of the "moral laws" in your book of rules. Again, horseshit. We don't need a book to tell us not to kill people, not to steal from others, etc.
Morals are not created by those using the moral system (first point), God is still good(second point), and empathy is not a valid source of morality(third point). I suppose I could take three paragraphs to say what I just said, but that would be a waste of space.

I was trying to avoid Godwin's law however you've opened the can of worms, not me. Your argument concerning the "danger" of relative moralism with regard to Hitler falls flat. The point of relative morals is NOT "whatever each individual finds right is A-OK", it is that while we each individually need to determine right from wrong in our own loves (personal morals), these will continually be evaluated and adjusted against family (clan) morals, social, government and worldwide morals. And all of these morals continue to evolve worldwide as the various groups employ empathy to hopefully understand one another, groups and cultures.
Intentional invocation of Godwin's Law was intentional.
So multiple people get together and decide what is moral? Like the German government?

The rest of your argument is "the ten commandments are bad, your morals are bad". The ten commandments are good, a 10th grade could not create a better 10 commandments, and moral relativism = utilitarianism, both are evil, an 10th grader could make a better ideology than moral relativism.

The Code of Hammurabi, which came well before the bible, was carved into stone to preserve it longer. You'd think a god would know that, eh? I love that people claim prophecy and omnipotence for this god and the dude can't even stop his "revelation" for a second to say, "oh yeah, before I forget, papyrus might not be a good idea to record this. Try stone."
The choice of writing material is a human one,. God shows a clear preference for stone in the creation of the ten commandments. The amount of effort put forth by the Jews in their preservation of the Torah is quite incredible, stone sounds fun, until you realize the practical limitations of it. You need a good source of well hewn stone, you need enough stone to write the Torah, and finally you need more effort to record in stone than papyrus.

The law of God was meant to be used by the people, and stone is not very practical.

There's just no way around it -- anyone who thinks 2 consenting adults pile driving the Hershey highway does not requires death is quite simply a big juicy turd of a human. It's a completely irrational belief, has zero a lot to do with right or wrong, and is miles away from anything worthy of such a punishment. But what more can we expect from athiests the most immoral book on the planet?

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
This is not being simply naughty, this is flat out rebellion by the child. And do not assume young child either, glutton and drunkard are listed as well.

Furthermore this passage is more a protection to the child, in that the child must be taken to the elders of the city to determine whether of not the child's rebellion deserve death, I would imagine this was not a common occurrence. This is not a commandment to stone all rebellious children. Due to the patriarchal system, this stops the parents from simply stoning the child.

I can't imagine this being common at all, as most parents love their children enough not to stone them :/

Slavery in the context of the bible is very widely misunderstood. First, when you say slavery, everyone get's the image of the enslavement of the Africans, however man-stealing in the bible is clearly punishable by death. I imagine this would have been a counter-cultural thing to say.

Exodus 20:16: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Slavery was allowable in the bible, such as in the repayment of debts or captives in war. However all slaves were granted freedom in the year of jubilee, every 49 or 50 years (at regular intervals of time, if a slave was captured 10 years from the year of jubilee, they were granted freedom 10 years later). Furthermore, all hebrew slave were to be let free 7 years after their enslavement.

Doesn't this basically translate people (also you!) only act moral because they fear punishment.
If you follow the law based only on fear, you've missed the point.

A human being is able to imagine the consequences of it's actions for another being, morals are the decision that no being should experience consequences that I deem unpleasant, compared to the actual value of this experience (work for example is unpleasant for many, yet necessary).
There are people born without empathy, and there are those that are born with a lesser sense of empathy.

However I am invoking Godwin's Law, in the case that a bunch of people get together and decide that the earth would be a better place by wiping out the Jews (because they thought the Jews were destroying Germany) what right would you have to tell them they're wrong?

Also, second argument, an argument against utilitarianism:
Suppose you have an uncle who owns a business, and has many workers for him. Your uncle has developed a terrible disease which causes him much pain, yet he continues along with his job, instead of listening to doctors. Because of his condition he is very miserable, and so makes all his workers miserable as well. You know that once your uncle dies you will inherit a large fortune, as well as the company, so you could improve the workers' lives.

The most logical choice you decide, is to attempt to kill your uncle, after all, you empathize with his pain. If you were in such pain, a terminal illness at that, wouldn't you want an easy way out? Not only would you be improving your uncle's life, but all the workers', and as well as your's as per the inheritance.

The above would be completely moral by your view.
17  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 29, 2013, 01:53:51 AM
You can't be serious... your god wants to kill every single one of us eventually. As for "intervening" Rassah paraphrased earlier:
"Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely." - Sam Harris
Or perhaps it fits in a plan that you do not see.

First, love your avatar!    Cheesy
Statler & Waldorf are indeed awesome Smiley

Please list them all. Be sure not to list any your god has broken, otherwise it isn't absolute.
The ten commandments are the foundation of biblical law and morals, God is not bound by his laws. However, God is also a good God, thus all the laws he created are generally followed by him.

e.g. Thou shalt not murder, athiests will contend that God has "murdered" people, however there is a separation between rightfully sentencing people to death, and a person deciding they want to kill somone.

Your god is the most immoral being in the universe. Of course you want to place him somehow above the law, otherwise that troublesome cognitive dissonance starts buzzing away.
Considering all athiests are amoral, I am surprised at the many times they call God immoral. It's quite obvious God would be above the law, God did not create the law for himself, but rather for the human race.

I criticize him based on my rational, evolved, relative morals.
Go on then, Hitler thought he was saving the human race by removing the scourge of Judaism.

and just lay down some laws, preferably not on papyrus since only someone of "ungodly intellect" would think that might last through the generations.
If you make one copy of anything, I suspect it would not last very long at all. The torah was however beautifully preserved, each scribe would copy from one book to the other one letter at a time, then they would count the letters, and if they were not the same count as the original, they would start over again. Your ratgher simplistic view of the preservation of the torah is very common.

Ironically the answer to the first is in the link you posted.
The creation and fall account indicate that death is a bad thing - not part of God's perfect will. So any (moral) means to sustain life is good. While death is inevitable, I think life is always better than death. I also think God gave us our minds to be creative in the pursuit and sustaining of life. So while the end of life is always in God's hands, I see no Biblical reason to think that we cannot intervene to continue life. If we are given the skills and the creative power to do so, there is no reason why we shouldn't use them.

There's this bad idea that says that by doing nothing we are showing our faith and dependence on God. But that is simply not true. While God is certainly free to intervene and work miracles, we are not called to sit around expecting Him to make His will happen. We are created in His image, with skills, with a mind, and a command to work (even before the curse of the fall). So whatever He has revealed to us so far, even if its just enough to get us through the day, act on it! We are given a privilege and responsibility to see His will carried on earth.

To deny medical treatment because "God told me not to" is very dangerous and should not be practiced by Christians.

I would like to hear the arguments in favor of "natural healing" that are so compelling that you conclude "there's no clear cut answer". That's not as much a challenge as an expression of my incredulity that such an argument exists.

It's parental negligence. Second degree murder is the appropriate charge. And I would be willing to hear arguments where churches that teach that nonsense have their tax-exempt status pulled and leaders that push those ideas on the parishioners face prosecution for child endangerment. Heck, prosecute them under the assisted suicide laws in states where those apply.

Commanding death of gays among many other arbitrary groups:
Such is the moral law, but it certainly not to be executed by random people. Vigilante justice is not biblical, I imagine that the apostles would have ran into homosexuality as they were going through Rome and Greece, I don't think their answer was to kill them.

Stoning naughty kids (Deuteronomy 21:18):
The bible does not condone stoning "naughty kids".

I will finish the others soon, brb.
18  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 28, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
That was exactly my point. You pick and choose how things hafte be interpreted. This constantly changes (basically less and less should be taken literally) and if there is no way it can be "interpreted" OK, it's wronly translated. But stragley of the ~100 (made up number) english translation there is no right one.
I do not pick and choose, if there its not literal then it's, and it's generally pretty obvious when the intent is literal.

Just wow.

But talking about "the truth ever makes everyone happy".

Would I be happy if there where an after live?

Would I be happy if good people get rewarded after death and bad punished?

Of course! But just that this would make me happy dosn't make it the truth.

You people have been complaining about the God of the bible for the entire thread. Don't give me this "oh it sure would be nice if ..." just after you get through raging about the bible.

Like I said I completly took it out of context. But yet even in this artikle it's arguet again how it should be interpreted.

Or it is just what is written there: A ballad of blind rage.

It's you who is cherry picking.
Ok, there's a lot of things about christianity that's argued, happy? But a ballad of blind rage, it is definitely not. It's basically describing the defeat of some of Israel's enemies. For that matter the Canaanites were fairly cruel people, the psalmist was not likely feeling sorry for them in the day of their demise.

Forgive me, but it sounded as if you were being sarcastic :p
19  Other / Off-topic / Re: Religious beliefs on bitcoin on: May 28, 2013, 02:49:42 PM
If one is all powerful then one has the power of omniscience.
Perhaps, although there are important distinctions. That is to say, is it possible one could be omnipotent, and not omniscient? Perhaps, I don't really know.

We know your god by his works, and according to christians he leaves a wake of woe and destruction. He's painted as evil because he is. There are no absolute morals, if for no other reason than that he breaks every single one himself and by default cannot be absolute.
There are absolute morals. God does not break the moral law, although he is certainly not bound by it.

Don't bother going down the absolute moral values road hand in hand with William Lane Craig. He's an intelligent solipsist who continually has his testicles crushed holding that opinion in debates with Sam Harris and Shelly Kagan.
I have no reason to back down from my argument, and I refuse to take "well these other people lose in debates" as an argument.

Morality: Using empathy as a guide for human interaction. AKA, "treat others the way you want to be treated" and "put yourself in my shoes". It has nothing inherently to do with the bible.
Only empathy will lead to utilitarianism. If Hitler thought what he was doing to the Jews would improve the life of everyone on the earth, and save them from the evil destructive Jews, on what basis do you criticize him?

• deny emergency medical aid to a child
• kill gays, children who misbehave, anyone who works on a particular day of the week, entire groups and races of peoples, and many others for equally capricious reasons
• buy and sell humans as chattel, including one's own family members
None of these are biblically supportable, most are simply twisted to make the bible seem like ...
a hateful book about imaginary people.

Empathy cannot be the basis for moral law. Even the laws of the US are absolute, sure we have jails, so we can decide who

If God is perfect then why did she create such imperfect beings that she has to threaten death constantly to get them to do what she wants? Was God bored and needed something to play with? God would know ahead of time how you would react to any situation. There is no choice or free will when you know everything that will happen, and created it to happen that way. So effectively she damned me to hell because she made me imperfect. There is only one way to make any of this make sense. Men fabricated the bible like any other ghastly horror novel and there is no God. Period.
God does not have a gender, however when God is referenced it is normally "he". I understand you are simply doing this to irritate me, but I digress.

The world was not initially created an imperfect world, but rather as a perfect world, however when Adam sinned he brought death into the world.

I'm sorry for assuming you were libertarian, you sig and name made me think you were.

Thank you for clarifying the bible. I see you've accidentally written your own bible thar. Your bible is RIGHT, Of course.
Yeah, thats cool. Very nice bible you have.
A BIBLE still says...dat... ribaldly evil stuff...ttho. so.. um. Still a problem?
... I suppose I should turn to athiests for my interpretations of the bible? I think not.
I have not mis-represented the bible in any way, you're just upset because you crap-posted a list of arguments you found on the internet, and I answered them.

This pick and choose is something that really annoys me.
The Bible is the word of god, but only as long as what is written there is socially acceptable. As soon as it isn't anymore, it just is "took out of context", "translated wrong " or isn't meant to be took literally.

Either all of it is the word of God and has to be took literally or none of it. This picking and choosing which parts I like and choose to interpret as right is just hypocritical.
There are flaws in translations, specifically the KJV which is a bible that was translated over 400 years ago. There are parts not meant to be taken literally, much of the bible is not socially acceptable. However the truth never makes everyone happy.

Btw. my favorite Psalm, completely took out of context and probably wrong translated:

Quote from: Psalm 137:9
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock

Interestingly enough, even the huffpost has answered this recently:

It's not my fault athiests go through the bible cherry picking verses to make an argument.
20  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: ANUBIS - a CGMINER Web Frontend on: May 28, 2013, 01:49:20 PM
Not necessarily moving the entire project, just include it with BAMT. Then there would be more interest in it, like packaging Mate with Ubuntu would create more Mate devs.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!