Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2019, 03:36:05 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 [107] 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Health and Religion  (Read 191615 times)
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 04, 2018, 07:54:38 PM
 #2121

You might find my recent post in the Health and Religion thread interesting. I was asked why I believed in God. This was my answer.

Why Do I Believe In God?

.  
I am a Chinese and I am an atheist.
 I have to say that from the perspective of mysticism,
I can NOT understand some of the points.

Please forgive my disrespect.

Let me break down his points in more readable form.

CoinCube believes that because there are truths and infinities in Mathematics that cannot be proven there must be an external infinite entity that exists but cannot be proven to exist.

He also claims that such truth (about existence of such infinite entity aka God) predicates all our system of logic and is required for that system to work truthfully.

He also claims that this infinite entity interacts with the physical world, is the source of the moral code that we should follow.  

He claims that any other moral code that is not dictated by predicated on this external supernatural infinite entity is doomed to fail and leads to atrocities and disintegration of societies (or utter tyranny).


More or less.

The underlined statement skips 8 steps from opening permise to final conclusion but anyone who wants to read those steps can follow my link above. I also corrected a few minor areas of your summary.

Also when talking about infinity it is useful to differentiate the potential infinite from the actual infinite. Mathematics as it advances is inching us ever closer to the realization that the actual infinite exists.



Potential Infinity vs. Actual Infinity

http://www.numbersleuth.org/trends/potential-vs-actual-infinity/

Quote from: Ryan
What is infinity and does it even exist? In our everyday experience, we find only finite things. A basket of eggs contains only a fixed number of eggs and no more. Our bodies are composed of particles (molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, etc.). But whatever particles describe our make up, we find only a finite number. It may be billions or trillions or more, but it still doesn’t get close to infinity. Even the known universe is finite – it’s only so many light-years in diameter and contains only so many elementary particles.

How, then, does one even get close to infinity? People have long realized that there’s no biggest number because it’s always possible to add 1 to any number and get still a bigger number. So numbers themselves, taken collectively, are infinite. Any given number is finite, but the mere fact that numbers go on forever – that’s infinite.

But what sort of infinite is this? The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384– 322 BC) proposed that there are two types of infinity, a potential and an actual infinity. In a potential infinity, one can keep adding or subdividing without end, but one never actually reaches infinity. In a sense, a potential infinity is an endless process that at any point along the way is finite. By contrast, in an actual infinity, the infinite is viewed as a completed totality. Aristotle rejected actual infinity, claiming that only potential infinity exists.

So what, you say? For all practical purposes, we get on quite well with quite a bit less than even a potential infinity. Take the world’s most powerful supercomputer, Japan’s K Computer, which runs at 10 petaflops, using 705,024 SPARC64 processing cores. There are absolute limits to what this machine can do in terms of storage, retrieval, and processing. It’s safe to say that 10^100 (i.e., the number 1 followed by 100 zeros, aka “google”) sets an absolute limit on the amount of processing steps this machine will ever do, on the length of the longest number it can compute, and on the amount of bytes available to the machine’s memory.

And yet, the infinite is not so readily cast aside for practical reasons. Modern mathematics is done almost entirely in terms of sets (recall the “New Math”). Set theory treats just about anything as a set (the only things that are not sets are things too big to be sets – more on that in another post). Now numbers are sets. For instance, 0 is the empty set (it contains zero items). The number 1 is also a set (it is the set that contains zero, and thus is a set with one item).
But all the numbers taken collectively (0, 1, 2, etc.) also form a set, known to mathematicians as the natural numbers and represented as {0,1,2,3,…}. Ah, but what’s that ellipsis, those three dots (i.e., …), doing there? Doesn’t that tell us that the natural numbers are really just a potential infinity? Mathematicians don’t treat the natural numbers as a potential infinity but as an actual infinity – a completed totality that includes all numbers 0, 1, 2, etc.

But what do mathematicians know anyway? Perhaps treating the natural numbers as an actual infinity is just a convenient way to think about numbers and do calculations. If people’s concerns about infinity were left simply at the level of mathematics and its scientific applications, the debate over potential and actual infinities would be moot. But it turns out that this debate spills over into other areas, notably theology. If God is real, is he an actual infinite or is he just a potential infinite? Most religious believers see God also as unchanging, so if God is real and infinite, he must be an actual infinity.

Now it’s interesting that Georg Cantor, who invented set theory over 100 years ago, did so in part for theological reasons, seeing the infinite sets he came up with as a reflection of the infinity of God. Others, however, not believing that God exists or thinking that the very concept of an actual infinity is incoherent, reject the actual infinity and thus view Cantor’s so-called actual infinities as simply a device for describing much more mundane and finite processes. Yet it is a device that every working mathematician uses. As the great mathematician David Hilbert put it, “No one will drive us from the paradise which Cantor created for us.”

The debate over potential and actual infinities has been ongoing for centuries, and this short post won’t resolve it. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that Cantor’s work on set theory has showed that the concept of an infinite set makes mathematical sense and avoids contradiction. Certain paradoxes, such as that infinite sets can be put in one-to-one correspondence with proper subsets (e.g., there are as many even numbers as natural numbers: 0à0, 1à2, 2à4, 3à6, etc.), may fly in the face of common intuitions, but science confronts us with lots of things that are counterintuitive.

In any case, modern mathematics, especially in its wholesale incorporation of set theory, has given the single biggest boost to the view that the actual infinite exists. Not that this proves the actual infinite exists – the nature of existence itself (a field philosophers refer to as “ontology” – the study of being) is itself up for grabs. But the mere fact that treating mathematical entities as actual infinities has yielded incredibly fruitful mathematical insights (Cantor’s paradise) gives the actual infinite breathing room that it never had in the past.
—–
References:

Joseph Dauben, Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).
Michael Hallett, Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).


WEEKLY BONUS Unlimited Faucet&Fastest Dice PLINKO DICE CRASH ROULETTE PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 04, 2018, 08:10:52 PM
 #2122

...
Of course we stray from our moral standards sometimes. 
...
Many people live by my moral standard and do not require external source such as 'God'.
...
sometimes we have to bend our rules in order to survive
...
I am saying that we have evolved enough to make that determination ourselves
...

I think this position of yours in particular is hopelessly naive.

I also think it represents a fundamental misjudgment of human nature utterly misjudging our capacity for evil and attributing to our species a wisdom we do not possess.

Jordan Peterson - Your Capacity For Evil
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cAD0DEcJE

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 04, 2018, 09:29:12 PM
Last edit: May 04, 2018, 09:41:13 PM by CoinCube
 #2123

I thought you said that this supernatural infinite entity (aka God) transforms the physical world.  Never mind, tomato, tomato.

God transforms the world by rectifying it through us as we contemplate him. Our actions, essence, and potential change.

I have a question about your worldview.

You agree that humans are capable of great evil describing us as collectively evil.

You also agree that a belief in God helps us establish and follow a moral standard the very thing that makes us less evil.

I agree that external God (supernatural cop) helps you establish your moral standard.
.

Yet you argue against a belief in God.

You state that humans are mostly stupid

Every population you look at, you'll have 1% really smart ones, 5% that are capable to doing creative/design work, 30-40% can do repetitive, manual work, the rest is not suitable for work or any intellectual activities, this cohort needs constant training, and fails at what they do.

Yet believe these same stupid humans are capable of abstractly developing and following their own moral codes modifying them on the fly in the face of temptation.

...
I am saying that we have evolved enough to make that determination (when to follow or breach our moral standards) ourselves
...

Your views appear incoherent to me. Please clarify where I am misunderstanding your position.

morufu2016
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 05, 2018, 12:49:09 AM
 #2124

It is good to have religion and good health.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
May 05, 2018, 03:47:55 AM
 #2125

I thought you said that this supernatural infinite entity (aka God) transforms the physical world.  Never mind, tomato, tomato.

God transforms the world by rectifying it through us as we contemplate him. Our actions, essence, and potential change.

I have a question about your worldview.

You agree that humans are capable of great evil describing us as collectively evil.

You also agree that a belief in God helps us establish and follow a moral standard the very thing that makes us less evil.

I agree that external God (supernatural cop) helps you establish your moral standard.
.

Yet you argue against a belief in God.

You state that humans are mostly stupid

Every population you look at, you'll have 1% really smart ones, 5% that are capable to doing creative/design work, 30-40% can do repetitive, manual work, the rest is not suitable for work or any intellectual activities, this cohort needs constant training, and fails at what they do.

Yet believe these same stupid humans are capable of abstractly developing and following their own moral codes modifying them on the fly in the face of temptation.

...
I am saying that we have evolved enough to make that determination (when to follow or breach our moral standards) ourselves
...

Your views appear incoherent to me. Please clarify where I am misunderstanding your position.

I not sure why it is hard for you to understand.

I don't think any supernatural entities exists or influence our actions. There is no evidence for it.

Most humans are dumb as rocks. That is a fact.

I never said the same stupid humans are capable of developing moral standard, the top 5% smart ones develops it then teaches the masses.  How do you think the religion myths were developed?

I do understand why some people need to create the God concept to help them define what is right or wrong, this very concept helps them deal with issues in their lives as they come up.  It is sort of an imaginary father figure that is always 'there' for them.

Strong intellects do not need to resort to such brain exercise, they see the world as is, they can interact with the world effectively without such imaginary help.




The causing of nature to come into being is the greatest supernatural happening that we know of. So the Being that caused it to happen is much more supernatural.

Cool

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 05, 2018, 04:33:40 AM
 #2126


I not sure why it is hard for you to understand.

I don't think any supernatural entities exists or influence our actions. There is no evidence for it.

Most humans are dumb as rocks. That is a fact.

I never said the same stupid humans are capable of developing moral standard, the top 5% smart ones develops it then teaches the masses.  How do you think the religion myths were developed?

I do understand why some people need to create the God concept to help them define what is right or wrong, this very concept helps them deal with issues in their lives as they come up.  It is sort of an imaginary father figure that is always 'there' for them.

Strong intellects do not need to resort to such brain exercise, they see the world as is, they can interact with the world effectively without such imaginary help.


I see so you and you fellow "strong intellects" are going to develop the perfect moral standard free of all references to the devine and minister to the great unwashed masses who will absorb your wisdom with rapture as you lead us all to human moral perfection and utopia huh?

Good luck with that.


CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 05, 2018, 07:07:20 PM
Last edit: May 05, 2018, 09:03:02 PM by CoinCube
 #2127


I just wanted to understand why you believe what you believe.


Fair enough in the course of the friendly jabs we both throw back and forth to keep the debate fun you should know that you have my respect for reading and evaluating the views of others.

The end goal is always to reach consensus or in our case where consensus is not attainable a solid understanding of the position of ones opponent.

Ultimately, my view is that your moral framework is untrue because it is insufficient. I believe it fails when actually applied to the world both in the vast majority of individuals and for society as a whole. I made this case for why it fails in my Argument for God upthread and our following conversation.

You disagree. You feel that your moral framework is true and sufficient capable of accurately mapping to reality and sustaining humanity. You also feel that the framework I use to support my worldview is arbitrary, unnecessary and ultimately imaginary.

This is a basic disagreement about the nature of reality.

Below are a couple of queries I recommend holding in mind going forward as you observe reality. It is my opinion that they will help you to either solidify your current worldview or reject it as false.

1) Does your worldview keep you on track in the face of temptation? When the opportunities arise to accomplish your desires at the cost of minor or major breaches of your code is your code functional? Does it keep you in line?

2) Does your worldview propagate and keep others on track? Are you able to share it with your children and with your neighbors. Do they in turn adopt it and live by it or dismiss it as your eccentric and individual ideas?

In then end we all implement our beliefs in our lives. We are tested against the framework of reality and reality provides feedback. Often it is in the process of living the implementation that we find our best opportunities to discover truth.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 06, 2018, 07:18:55 AM
Last edit: May 06, 2018, 10:49:35 AM by CoinCube
 #2128


Re 2) That is where my (and I suspect any other) moral standard faces challenges. Like I said before most people  are stupid and don't think before they act.  That is why in most civilized countries we have secular legal frameworks to deal with those who break the law. However the law is vague on many moral actions or does not cover them at all so it is a problem.  The issue is that the law is legislated by the most popular idiots not the most intelligent elements of our societies. But that is how our democracies are structured.  If I had my way I would introduce some sort of stringent licensing requirements for politicians so that we can elect the most intelligent, morally capable people to run the government. You need to have a way to filter out the psychopaths.

The failure with this solution is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. High IQ while generally a good thing does not make one morally capable. Without moral capability all high IQ does is enable you to cause more damage and defection.

High IQ Psychopaths
https://www.iq-brain.com/blog/high-iq-psychopaths/
Quote
A recent study by an undergraduate student at the University of Huddersfield has posited that up to 3% of people in senior management positions may be High IQ psychopaths. The study suggested that people who display Factor One psychopathic tendencies  and higher IQs were much more likely to be able to fake their emotional responses in tests giving them free reign to climb the corporate ladder and access senior management positions.
...
higher IQ psychopaths are smart enough to know and recognize what they are, and are able to tone down the responses.

As a superior alternative I would suggest the establishment of voluntary institutions throughout society focused generally on the importance of moral behavior. These could be costly in terms of membership perhaps requiring time consuming weekly meetings and monetary donations as a demonstration of commitment.

Individuals with psychopathic tendencies would have difficulty consistently participating in costly membership rituals dedicated to a premise they find pointless. Consequently they would be less likely to participate in them especially on a sustained basis over multiple years.

High IQ people drawn from these institutions on average would be more morally capable then equally high IQ people drawn from society at large due to this self selection effect. Society would learn via trial and error that better results are obtained from selecting qualified leaders with long histories of membership in one of these institutions.

I guess I don't have the 'religious' gene in me.

If my analysis in the opening post of this thread is correct this is not ideal when looked at from a purely Darwinian perspective.

Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 634


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 11:47:27 AM
 #2129


Re 2) That is where my (and I suspect any other) moral standard faces challenges. Like I said before most people  are stupid and don't think before they act.  That is why in most civilized countries we have secular legal frameworks to deal with those who break the law. However the law is vague on many moral actions or does not cover them at all so it is a problem.  The issue is that the law is legislated by the most popular idiots not the most intelligent elements of our societies. But that is how our democracies are structured.  If I had my way I would introduce some sort of stringent licensing requirements for politicians so that we can elect the most intelligent, morally capable people to run the government. You need to have a way to filter out the psychopaths.

The failure with this solution is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. High IQ while generally a good thing does not make one morally capable. Without moral capability all high IQ does is enable you to cause more damage and defection.

High IQ Psychopaths
https://www.iq-brain.com/blog/high-iq-psychopaths/
Quote
A recent study by an undergraduate student at the University of Huddersfield has posited that up to 3% of people in senior management positions may be High IQ psychopaths. The study suggested that people who display Factor One psychopathic tendencies  and higher IQs were much more likely to be able to fake their emotional responses in tests giving them free reign to climb the corporate ladder and access senior management positions.
...
higher IQ psychopaths are smart enough to know and recognize what they are, and are able to tone down the responses.

As a superior alternative I would suggest the establishment of voluntary institutions throughout society focused generally on the importance of moral behavior. These could be costly in terms of membership perhaps requiring time consuming weekly meetings and monetary donations as a demonstration of commitment.

Individuals with psychopathic tendencies would have difficulty consistently participating in costly membership rituals dedicated to a premise they find pointless. Consequently they would be less likely to participate in them especially on a sustained basis over multiple years.

High IQ people drawn from these institutions on average would be more morally capable then equally high IQ people drawn from society at large due to this self selection effect. Society would learn via trial and error that better results are obtained from selecting qualified leaders with long histories of membership in one of these institutions.

I guess I don't have the 'religious' gene in me.

If my analysis in the opening post of this thread is correct this is not ideal when looked at from a purely Darwinian perspective.

I know that most high iq types are psychopaths.  That is why I said "most morally capable".

Psychologists developed tests that can detect if a person is a psychopath.  From what we know most CEO's and politicians are psychopaths.  They manage to hide their psychopathic tendencies and become very successful.

It is a problem that needs to be solved regardless if we believe in the supernatural or not.

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 08:37:26 PM
 #2130


Re 2) That is where my (and I suspect any other) moral standard faces challenges. Like I said before most people  are stupid and don't think before they act.  That is why in most civilized countries we have secular legal frameworks to deal with those who break the law. However the law is vague on many moral actions or does not cover them at all so it is a problem.  The issue is that the law is legislated by the most popular idiots not the most intelligent elements of our societies. But that is how our democracies are structured.  If I had my way I would introduce some sort of stringent licensing requirements for politicians so that we can elect the most intelligent, morally capable people to run the government. You need to have a way to filter out the psychopaths.

The failure with this solution is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. High IQ while generally a good thing does not make one morally capable. Without moral capability all high IQ does is enable you to cause more damage and defection.

High IQ Psychopaths
https://www.iq-brain.com/blog/high-iq-psychopaths/
Quote
A recent study by an undergraduate student at the University of Huddersfield has posited that up to 3% of people in senior management positions may be High IQ psychopaths. The study suggested that people who display Factor One psychopathic tendencies  and higher IQs were much more likely to be able to fake their emotional responses in tests giving them free reign to climb the corporate ladder and access senior management positions.
...
higher IQ psychopaths are smart enough to know and recognize what they are, and are able to tone down the responses.

As a superior alternative I would suggest the establishment of voluntary institutions throughout society focused generally on the importance of moral behavior. These could be costly in terms of membership perhaps requiring time consuming weekly meetings and monetary donations as a demonstration of commitment.

Individuals with psychopathic tendencies would have difficulty consistently participating in costly membership rituals dedicated to a premise they find pointless. Consequently they would be less likely to participate in them especially on a sustained basis over multiple years.

High IQ people drawn from these institutions on average would be more morally capable then equally high IQ people drawn from society at large due to this self selection effect. Society would learn via trial and error that better results are obtained from selecting qualified leaders with long histories of membership in one of these institutions.

I guess I don't have the 'religious' gene in me.

If my analysis in the opening post of this thread is correct this is not ideal when looked at from a purely Darwinian perspective.

I know that most high iq types are psychopaths.  That is why I said "most morally capable".

Psychologists developed tests that can detect if a person is a psychopath.  From what we know most CEO's and politicians are psychopaths.  They manage to hide their psychopathic tendencies and become very successful.

It is a problem that needs to be solved regardless if we believe in the supernatural or not.

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.


Science is in its infancy. So far, the more we find out scientifically, the more we are shown that science has a lot farther to go than ever.

Religion jumps to the major points of life. It bypasses science, and is far more important than science because of this. Someday science will catch up to religion a little... maybe.

Cool

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 634


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 08:44:14 PM
 #2131


Re 2) That is where my (and I suspect any other) moral standard faces challenges. Like I said before most people  are stupid and don't think before they act.  That is why in most civilized countries we have secular legal frameworks to deal with those who break the law. However the law is vague on many moral actions or does not cover them at all so it is a problem.  The issue is that the law is legislated by the most popular idiots not the most intelligent elements of our societies. But that is how our democracies are structured.  If I had my way I would introduce some sort of stringent licensing requirements for politicians so that we can elect the most intelligent, morally capable people to run the government. You need to have a way to filter out the psychopaths.

The failure with this solution is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. High IQ while generally a good thing does not make one morally capable. Without moral capability all high IQ does is enable you to cause more damage and defection.

High IQ Psychopaths
https://www.iq-brain.com/blog/high-iq-psychopaths/
Quote
A recent study by an undergraduate student at the University of Huddersfield has posited that up to 3% of people in senior management positions may be High IQ psychopaths. The study suggested that people who display Factor One psychopathic tendencies  and higher IQs were much more likely to be able to fake their emotional responses in tests giving them free reign to climb the corporate ladder and access senior management positions.
...
higher IQ psychopaths are smart enough to know and recognize what they are, and are able to tone down the responses.

As a superior alternative I would suggest the establishment of voluntary institutions throughout society focused generally on the importance of moral behavior. These could be costly in terms of membership perhaps requiring time consuming weekly meetings and monetary donations as a demonstration of commitment.

Individuals with psychopathic tendencies would have difficulty consistently participating in costly membership rituals dedicated to a premise they find pointless. Consequently they would be less likely to participate in them especially on a sustained basis over multiple years.

High IQ people drawn from these institutions on average would be more morally capable then equally high IQ people drawn from society at large due to this self selection effect. Society would learn via trial and error that better results are obtained from selecting qualified leaders with long histories of membership in one of these institutions.

I guess I don't have the 'religious' gene in me.

If my analysis in the opening post of this thread is correct this is not ideal when looked at from a purely Darwinian perspective.

I know that most high iq types are psychopaths.  That is why I said "most morally capable".

Psychologists developed tests that can detect if a person is a psychopath.  From what we know most CEO's and politicians are psychopaths.  They manage to hide their psychopathic tendencies and become very successful.

It is a problem that needs to be solved regardless if we believe in the supernatural or not.

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.


Science is in its infancy. So far, the more we find out scientifically, the more we are shown that science has a lot farther to go than ever.

Religion jumps to the major points of life. It bypasses science, and is far more important than science because of this. Someday science will catch up to religion a little... maybe.

Cool

Yet we don't find anything new thanks to religion.

And that's why you have thousands of different religions with different gods and meanings. They bypass science and jump to conclusions without evidence. This is the big difference between religion and science. The theory of evolution or gravity are the accepted theories, scientists don't believe in thousands of theories for the same concept. They accept the best one. You can't say the same for religious people, otherwise they would all believe in the same religion and that's clearly not the case.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 10:07:02 PM
 #2132

...

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.


Science is in its infancy. So far, the more we find out scientifically, the more we are shown that science has a lot farther to go than ever.

Religion jumps to the major points of life. It bypasses science, and is far more important than science because of this. Someday science will catch up to religion a little... maybe.

Cool

I could not believe CoinCube posted this, then I saw your name, LOL.

Religion jumps to conclusions without any proof, mostly hand waving and sourcing scripture as proof of their claims.
Didn't you ever read Proverbs in the Bible? If you had, you would find that it is full of practical advise. Most of the other book have practical advice, as well.

Science, however, is full of ideas that many people think have been proven, like big bang for example, and black hole theory. Science is the thing making claims without proof.



BTW, thanks to science you are able to type your outrageous posts on this very forum.  
Thanks to non-scientists, the foundations of science were laid, so science had a place to begin. Consider the simple wheel, for example. And the printing press. Both of which were made by engineers, not scientists, and without which science would never have amounted to anything at all.



If it was up to religion, you would be chiseling them out on stone tablets.
Without the popular religions, there would be no order in society, and scientists would be non-existent... or at best, would be chiseling out of stone.



Not sure why you are so against science.  Maybe because science exposes how ridiculous some of the Christian scripture claims are?
Not sure why you are so against looking at science from a practical point of view. You treat science as though it were God... or the most important religion of all.


Man created from dirt, woman created from a rib bone, flat Earth supported by pillars, global flood 4000 years ago, 6000 year old Earth, talking snakes, human race created by two people in one big incest etc., etc., the list is too long to keep posting it here.
When you have the writings of the witnesses, who heard it directly from God, why don't you revise things like your stupid 13.5 billion years to match the facts?



If I were you, I would drop the nonsense, and if you want to believe in the supernatural, do so, just don't tell me that God sent himself to sacrifice himself for the sins of people he created and designed the moral code for.  Instead of just forgiving the sins, without all the theatrics.
Obviously you don't understand the reasoning behind it, so just believe it like all the rest of the believers who will receive eternal life. Or don't you want eternal life?



Put the Bible away, and ask yourself: "Would I believe in a supernatural God if the scripture did not exist and why would I believe in such a claim?"  What proofs do you have besides the scripture?
Without the Bible, the simple proof is the machine nature of the universe. Intelligent designers design the machines that people make. The machine of the universe has been made by Someone Who is far greater than mankind. The word "God" barely fits Him He is so extremely intelligent and powerful.

Many people look for aliens who are more intelligent and smarter than people. But you disdain the greatest Alien of all, One Who is able to build universes. Why are you trying to remain in a backward state? Step up to truth.



What does your God look like, do you talk to him, does he talk back to you?

The Bible is God's Word. Read it any time you want to hear him talking to you.

If you won't change and become a believer in Jesus salvation, you will never find out what God looks like. He isn't going to share His goodness with someone who says he wants to see, yet won't accept what he is shown.

Cool

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 06, 2018, 10:25:50 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2018, 02:40:23 AM by CoinCube
 #2133

...
Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.

The best way to challenge a system of belief is to show that it fails on its own terms when applied to reality.

Often it is only after that failure is manifest that those who have accepted that worldview are willing to revisit the assumptions it is predicated upon.

My own path towards a faith in God started with the realization that I should reject atheist utilitarianism on utilitarian grounds. That was the necessary first step.

The more developed Argument for God came later.

@CoinCube - does it bother you that you're simply making Religion a utilitarian necessity? "If you follow a religion, you'll be happier. healthier, etc". It doesn't matter if there's a god or not, right, as long as you're better off in a religion?

And then that the reverse is also true -- that if you're unhappier and unhealthier in a religion, you'd be better off not being in a religion?

Imagine for a moment that this is not an abstract philosophical question but a walk down a twisting and branching alleyway. First there is a single way with no choice but soon we come across a fork and from the single path we find two. To the right there is carefully laid cobblestone engraved with the words of theism. To the left there is newly pressed brick and a crisp printed sign labeled atheism.

As we walk down these paths we find the walls of our alleyway glowing with living and undulating writings. These are runic words and assumptions indeed the core of each choice. As we accept them they detach themselves from alley walls gently merging with and setting over us forming a fine film over our skin, eyes and ears. Their function is that of a filter interpreting and cataloging the world around us.

If we choose the brick road we soon come across a second fork. Here we see a dark and shadowy opening into nihilism and a large and particularly well worn path into hedonism. Small branches into esoteric philosophies can also be found. The road of hedonism leads to a smaller opening into ethical hedonism and finally a tiny path into utilitarianism. Here the road ends and we find ourselves facing a brick wall covered with the words and beliefs of the choice we have made. This is were my own journey took me the blind alley where I spent 15 years thinking I had arrived at end of the road.

Does rejecting atheism on purely utilitarian grounds bother me? On the contrary it is the purest, cleanest, and most liberating rejection of atheism, ethical hedonism and utilitarianism that I can possibly imagine. It is the final realization that the complex writings on the brick wall translate into a single sentence. "Wrong way turn around!"

The arguments in this thread should not be thought of as strong theist arguments. Indeed a true and strong believer will likely find them all a little off and a little odd like a TV whose tuning is sort of correct but just a bit wrong throwing static into the picture. They would correctly argue that it is through faith not through happiness that creates a true belief in God.

The words of faith, however, cannot reach those far along the brick road. They are blocked or interpreted as nonsensical by the filter of assumptions those on this road have adopted. To grasp these deeper arguments one must first turn around travel back to the original fork in the road. Only then as the assumptions of atheism peel away is possible to hear and truly consider the deeper arguments of faith.

The arguments herein will not prove convincing to all atheist as the filter each atheist had adopted is different. My sense of self preservation kept me far away from the shadowy road of nihilism but there are branches there that teach that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. That life is insignificant without purpose and that even continued existence is meaningless. For those that have fully accepted this belief it is possible that even utilitarian arguments of health and happiness will be filtered out as nonsensical.

My argument is that atheism is false. As for what is true I cannot help you for I have only taken a few steps down the cobblestone road and do not yet know where it will take me.

Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 634


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 11:23:10 PM
 #2134

...

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.


Science is in its infancy. So far, the more we find out scientifically, the more we are shown that science has a lot farther to go than ever.

Religion jumps to the major points of life. It bypasses science, and is far more important than science because of this. Someday science will catch up to religion a little... maybe.

Cool

I could not believe CoinCube posted this, then I saw your name, LOL.

Religion jumps to conclusions without any proof, mostly hand waving and sourcing scripture as proof of their claims.
Didn't you ever read Proverbs in the Bible? If you had, you would find that it is full of practical advise. Most of the other book have practical advice, as well.

Science, however, is full of ideas that many people think have been proven, like big bang for example, and black hole theory. Science is the thing making claims without proof.



BTW, thanks to science you are able to type your outrageous posts on this very forum.  
Thanks to non-scientists, the foundations of science were laid, so science had a place to begin. Consider the simple wheel, for example. And the printing press. Both of which were made by engineers, not scientists, and without which science would never have amounted to anything at all.



If it was up to religion, you would be chiseling them out on stone tablets.
Without the popular religions, there would be no order in society, and scientists would be non-existent... or at best, would be chiseling out of stone.



Not sure why you are so against science.  Maybe because science exposes how ridiculous some of the Christian scripture claims are?
Not sure why you are so against looking at science from a practical point of view. You treat science as though it were God... or the most important religion of all.


Man created from dirt, woman created from a rib bone, flat Earth supported by pillars, global flood 4000 years ago, 6000 year old Earth, talking snakes, human race created by two people in one big incest etc., etc., the list is too long to keep posting it here.
When you have the writings of the witnesses, who heard it directly from God, why don't you revise things like your stupid 13.5 billion years to match the facts?



If I were you, I would drop the nonsense, and if you want to believe in the supernatural, do so, just don't tell me that God sent himself to sacrifice himself for the sins of people he created and designed the moral code for.  Instead of just forgiving the sins, without all the theatrics.
Obviously you don't understand the reasoning behind it, so just believe it like all the rest of the believers who will receive eternal life. Or don't you want eternal life?



Put the Bible away, and ask yourself: "Would I believe in a supernatural God if the scripture did not exist and why would I believe in such a claim?"  What proofs do you have besides the scripture?
Without the Bible, the simple proof is the machine nature of the universe. Intelligent designers design the machines that people make. The machine of the universe has been made by Someone Who is far greater than mankind. The word "God" barely fits Him He is so extremely intelligent and powerful.

Many people look for aliens who are more intelligent and smarter than people. But you disdain the greatest Alien of all, One Who is able to build universes. Why are you trying to remain in a backward state? Step up to truth.



What does your God look like, do you talk to him, does he talk back to you?

The Bible is God's Word. Read it any time you want to hear him talking to you.

If you won't change and become a believer in Jesus salvation, you will never find out what God looks like. He isn't going to share His goodness with someone who says he wants to see, yet won't accept what he is shown.

Cool

You not hearing me.  I do not believe in any Gods, your Jesus included.  Nor I believe in angels, ghosts, hell, demons, or any other imaginary characters from your Christian fairy tale. Your God does not scare me at all because I know he is not real, your threats of not being 'saved' fall on deaf ears.  I'm just pointing out the obvious nonsense in your Christian ideology.

You asked me if I don't want eternal life?  Of course, I want that!  It would be boring as hell, but sure, nobody wants to die.

Just because you and I want something it does not mean that it will happen, especially something like eternal life.  It is physically impossible, at least not in the carbon/water form.  Maybe when the technology gets to the point when your brain can be uploaded to silicon, you can live forever.  Not in just in one form, but in multiple forms at the same time.  Although this might cause some mental issues (schizophrenia, multiple personality disorders etc).  How would you know which robot is really you?

Why did your God decide to pass his message to humanity though 40+ authors over the course of 2500 years?  It seems a very ineffective way to get your message across, especially for someone to 'designed' ever expanding universe.  Does this not bother you at all?



Why does the bible not translate itself to different languages immediately when you read it? That would be cool and certainly possible if god wanted to but nah, better leave an old book like plenty others as proof for his existence and punish everyone who doesn't believe in it with eternal torture because, logic. Indoctrination is truly amazing.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 11:49:38 PM
 #2135

...

And that's exactly why religions are useless, this is all based on science and research. We don't need religion for any of this, religion does nothing, it's outdated. Coincube uses a lot of science and philosophy in his arguments, it's funny that he doesn't realize none of that is in the bible.


Science is in its infancy. So far, the more we find out scientifically, the more we are shown that science has a lot farther to go than ever.

Religion jumps to the major points of life. It bypasses science, and is far more important than science because of this. Someday science will catch up to religion a little... maybe.

Cool

I could not believe CoinCube posted this, then I saw your name, LOL.

Religion jumps to conclusions without any proof, mostly hand waving and sourcing scripture as proof of their claims.
Didn't you ever read Proverbs in the Bible? If you had, you would find that it is full of practical advise. Most of the other book have practical advice, as well.

Science, however, is full of ideas that many people think have been proven, like big bang for example, and black hole theory. Science is the thing making claims without proof.



BTW, thanks to science you are able to type your outrageous posts on this very forum.  
Thanks to non-scientists, the foundations of science were laid, so science had a place to begin. Consider the simple wheel, for example. And the printing press. Both of which were made by engineers, not scientists, and without which science would never have amounted to anything at all.



If it was up to religion, you would be chiseling them out on stone tablets.
Without the popular religions, there would be no order in society, and scientists would be non-existent... or at best, would be chiseling out of stone.



Not sure why you are so against science.  Maybe because science exposes how ridiculous some of the Christian scripture claims are?
Not sure why you are so against looking at science from a practical point of view. You treat science as though it were God... or the most important religion of all.


Man created from dirt, woman created from a rib bone, flat Earth supported by pillars, global flood 4000 years ago, 6000 year old Earth, talking snakes, human race created by two people in one big incest etc., etc., the list is too long to keep posting it here.
When you have the writings of the witnesses, who heard it directly from God, why don't you revise things like your stupid 13.5 billion years to match the facts?



If I were you, I would drop the nonsense, and if you want to believe in the supernatural, do so, just don't tell me that God sent himself to sacrifice himself for the sins of people he created and designed the moral code for.  Instead of just forgiving the sins, without all the theatrics.
Obviously you don't understand the reasoning behind it, so just believe it like all the rest of the believers who will receive eternal life. Or don't you want eternal life?



Put the Bible away, and ask yourself: "Would I believe in a supernatural God if the scripture did not exist and why would I believe in such a claim?"  What proofs do you have besides the scripture?
Without the Bible, the simple proof is the machine nature of the universe. Intelligent designers design the machines that people make. The machine of the universe has been made by Someone Who is far greater than mankind. The word "God" barely fits Him He is so extremely intelligent and powerful.

Many people look for aliens who are more intelligent and smarter than people. But you disdain the greatest Alien of all, One Who is able to build universes. Why are you trying to remain in a backward state? Step up to truth.



What does your God look like, do you talk to him, does he talk back to you?

The Bible is God's Word. Read it any time you want to hear him talking to you.

If you won't change and become a believer in Jesus salvation, you will never find out what God looks like. He isn't going to share His goodness with someone who says he wants to see, yet won't accept what he is shown.

Cool

You not hearing me.  I do not believe in any Gods, your Jesus included.  Nor I believe in angels, ghosts, hell, demons, or any other imaginary characters from your Christian fairy tale. Your God does not scare me at all because I know he is not real, your threats of not being 'saved' fall on deaf ears.  I'm just pointing out the obvious nonsense in your Christian ideology.
Why do you think I am not hearing you? We are different. I do not believe that God exists. I know He exists. I can't believe it now that I know it. You believe He exists, even though you are trying to convince yourself that He doesn't.

In order to not believe in something, you have to believe in something that negates the thing that you don't believe in. You can't just remain in a void regarding something that you do not believe in, especially when you vehemently talk about not believing it. So, what do you believe in that negates the idea of God in you? That thing is your religion. Why is it your religion? Because of the word believe. Belief is like faith. It is attached to religions. You can't believe the thing that you know. Either you know it, or you believe it because you don't know it for sure.



You asked me if I don't want eternal life?  Of course, I want that!  It would be boring as hell, but sure, nobody wants to die.
Why do you think it would be boring as hell? Haven't you been watching all the new inventions that science is bringing about? And they have only scratched the surface of what exists to learn about. Don't you have any imagination at all?



Just because you and I want something it does not mean that it will happen, especially something like eternal life.  It is physically impossible, at least not in the carbon/water form.  
But you don't know that it is impossible. How do I know that you don't know? Because life is impossible to exist as it is. The only reason we know that life exists, is that we are living it, and we see it all around us. It is impossible for us to make life. But even if we could a little, we are so behind what we see in the world around us, that life really is literally impossible for us. So why would you think that it is impossible to happen a second time, since it couldn't have happened the first time, but did?


Maybe when the technology gets to the point when your brain can be uploaded to silicon, you can live forever.  
But did you see that little word you used? Maybe! Maybe means maybe not, as well. And currently, the maybe not is so extremely much greater than the maybe, that it would be easier to teleport to Mars than do your silicon idea.


Not in just in one form, but in multiple forms at the same time.  Although this might cause some mental issues (schizophrenia, multiple personality disorders etc).  How would you know which robot is really you?
That's part of the big point. Science doesn't think along the lines that it takes to discover the spirit or soul. Some scientists are starting to examine the kinds of science that might apply. But they are so far behind, that thinking about applying the soul to silicon is super science fiction, superseded in greatness only by evolution science fiction.



Why did your God decide to pass his message to humanity though 40+ authors over the course of 2500 years?  It seems a very ineffective way to get your message across, especially for someone to 'designed' ever expanding universe.  Does this not bother you at all?


God talked to Adam and Eve face to face. But they didn't believe Him enough to keep from sinning. Then there were others He talked to with words from Heaven, like Cain. But Cain disobeyed, as well. And, of course, there is you, who won't even believe Him though He has given many writers to tell you. Just be glad that God is patient with you enough that He allows you to live, with the hope that you will obey Him from now on... rather than striking you down for not believing all His witnesses.

Cool

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
af_newbie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1263



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 11:26:36 AM
Last edit: May 07, 2018, 11:39:10 AM by af_newbie
Merited by Astargath (1)
 #2136

...

Why did your God decide to pass his message to humanity though 40+ authors over the course of 2500 years?  It seems a very ineffective way to get your message across, especially for someone to 'designed' ever expanding universe.  Does this not bother you at all?


God talked to Adam and Eve face to face. But they didn't believe Him enough to keep from sinning. Then there were others He talked to with words from Heaven, like Cain. But Cain disobeyed, as well. And, of course, there is you, who won't even believe Him though He has given many writers to tell you. Just be glad that God is patient with you enough that He allows you to live, with the hope that you will obey Him from now on... rather than striking you down for not believing all His witnesses.

Cool

So I guessing the answer is no.

How about this? You said that the Bible is true because it is a witness account of what happened.  And as such it is reliable.

My question is:  "Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.  When God talked to them in the Garden of Eden, who was the witness to write about it?  Some hunched Jew hiding in the bushes?"

Same goes for the Quran, "Who was the witness when Muhammad (a blind man) went from Mecca to Jerusalem, alone at night, and then flew to heaven, nobody saw it, yet someone wrote about it?  Who was the secret witness?"

The writers of these texts had a vivid imagination (talking snakes, winged horses), today, their work would put them in the same genre as Harry Potter books.

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1124


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 01:32:27 PM
 #2137

...

Why did your God decide to pass his message to humanity though 40+ authors over the course of 2500 years?  It seems a very ineffective way to get your message across, especially for someone to 'designed' ever expanding universe.  Does this not bother you at all?


God talked to Adam and Eve face to face. But they didn't believe Him enough to keep from sinning. Then there were others He talked to with words from Heaven, like Cain. But Cain disobeyed, as well. And, of course, there is you, who won't even believe Him though He has given many writers to tell you. Just be glad that God is patient with you enough that He allows you to live, with the hope that you will obey Him from now on... rather than striking you down for not believing all His witnesses.

Cool

So I guessing the answer is no.

How about this? You said that the Bible is true because it is a witness account of what happened.  And as such it is reliable.

My question is:  "Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.  When God talked to them in the Garden of Eden, who was the witness to write about it?  Some hunched Jew hiding in the bushes?"

Same goes for the Quran, "Who was the witness when Muhammad (a blind man) went from Mecca to Jerusalem, alone at night, and then flew to heaven, nobody saw it, yet someone wrote about it?  Who was the secret witness?"

The writers of these texts had a vivid imagination (talking snakes, winged horses), today, their work would put them in the same genre as Harry Potter books.



Straight out, Jesus is the witness. To understand, there needs to be a little explanation.

While the Bible never uses the term "Triune God," it shows us that God is One God made up of three Persons in a way that we can't understand clearly. The three Persons are the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, the HS is a spirit, so it is difficult for Him to directly express what He sees in human ways. In fact, this is why He uses Bible writers to express what God wants us to know.

The Father is God above all, and maintains all things through His great power. He doesn't come in human form. Rather, He expresses God through a voice in the air, or through thunder in nature, etc.

Jesus is a man as well as God. Because He is a man, He has flesh and blood just like people do. So, He can witness just like people do.

Now, look at Genesis 3:8
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Does God walk? What part of God could walk? Certainly not the HS. He is a spirit, and spirits don't have bodies to walk with. Certainly not the Father. He is directing the affairs of the universe and beyond. It was Jesus, Who has a human body, so that He is able to walk.

But, but, but... you will say... Jesus wasn't born until 4,000 years later. How could He be walking at the Beginning?

There is a term found throughout the Old Testament. This term is "The Angel of the Lord." The Bible has expressed that this term is referring to Jesus, before He was born. Bible scholars have confirmed it. You can Internet search for it. After Jesus arose from the dead, His body was a glorified body, never able to die again. Also, the confines and limitations of space-time don't restrain this body. So, it can exist anywhere at any time.

The point? God is the witness to Adam and Eve. And He is witness in three Persons as well as God as a whole. And He has expressed what He has witnessed about people, through His prophets, throughout the Bible writings that He has authorized. And, He is expressing Himself to you, right now, through your reading of these words (not that I am Jesus or God). Wake up before it is too late for you.

Cool

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 634


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 02:18:14 PM
 #2138

...

Why did your God decide to pass his message to humanity though 40+ authors over the course of 2500 years?  It seems a very ineffective way to get your message across, especially for someone to 'designed' ever expanding universe.  Does this not bother you at all?


God talked to Adam and Eve face to face. But they didn't believe Him enough to keep from sinning. Then there were others He talked to with words from Heaven, like Cain. But Cain disobeyed, as well. And, of course, there is you, who won't even believe Him though He has given many writers to tell you. Just be glad that God is patient with you enough that He allows you to live, with the hope that you will obey Him from now on... rather than striking you down for not believing all His witnesses.

Cool

So I guessing the answer is no.

How about this? You said that the Bible is true because it is a witness account of what happened.  And as such it is reliable.

My question is:  "Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.  When God talked to them in the Garden of Eden, who was the witness to write about it?  Some hunched Jew hiding in the bushes?"

Same goes for the Quran, "Who was the witness when Muhammad (a blind man) went from Mecca to Jerusalem, alone at night, and then flew to heaven, nobody saw it, yet someone wrote about it?  Who was the secret witness?"

The writers of these texts had a vivid imagination (talking snakes, winged horses), today, their work would put them in the same genre as Harry Potter books.



Straight out, Jesus is the witness. To understand, there needs to be a little explanation.

While the Bible never uses the term "Triune God," it shows us that God is One God made up of three Persons in a way that we can't understand clearly. The three Persons are the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, the HS is a spirit, so it is difficult for Him to directly express what He sees in human ways. In fact, this is why He uses Bible writers to express what God wants us to know.

The Father is God above all, and maintains all things through His great power. He doesn't come in human form. Rather, He expresses God through a voice in the air, or through thunder in nature, etc.

Jesus is a man as well as God. Because He is a man, He has flesh and blood just like people do. So, He can witness just like people do.

Now, look at Genesis 3:8
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Does God walk? What part of God could walk? Certainly not the HS. He is a spirit, and spirits don't have bodies to walk with. Certainly not the Father. He is directing the affairs of the universe and beyond. It was Jesus, Who has a human body, so that He is able to walk.

But, but, but... you will say... Jesus wasn't born until 4,000 years later. How could He be walking at the Beginning?

There is a term found throughout the Old Testament. This term is "The Angel of the Lord." The Bible has expressed that this term is referring to Jesus, before He was born. Bible scholars have confirmed it. You can Internet search for it. After Jesus arose from the dead, His body was a glorified body, never able to die again. Also, the confines and limitations of space-time don't restrain this body. So, it can exist anywhere at any time.

The point? God is the witness to Adam and Eve. And He is witness in three Persons as well as God as a whole. And He has expressed what He has witnessed about people, through His prophets, throughout the Bible writings that He has authorized. And, He is expressing Himself to you, right now, through your reading of these words (not that I am Jesus or God). Wake up before it is too late for you.

Cool

Your imagination is truly amazing.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 06:51:27 PM
 #2139

...
Your dopamine levels must be really high.  It is ok though, just don't hurt anyone, and don't preach this BS to children.
That would constitute a child abuse.
...

BADeckers philosophy appears to be a traditional Christian view of the world. Maybe his understanding is correct or maybe it is lacking but by throwing the charge of child abuse around gratuitously you detract from the very real abuse that can and does occur to children.

Child abuse is a crime. It is a violation of parental responsibility so severe that society must step in and interject itself into the family dynamics by force if necessary by removing the children from their parents if necessary.

You seem to be saying that it is a crime for Christian or Jewish parents to teach their faith to their children. Yet you admit that you teach your own non theistic beliefs to your own children.

I teach my kids my life philosophy and they are like sponges.  They are my hope...

So your position is that your atheists ideology represents absolute truth and that differing beliefs especially Christian beliefs must be suppressed by state force if necessary "to save the children"?

Atheists fundamentalist totalitarianism has been tried. It has not worked out so well.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1037



View Profile
May 07, 2018, 07:36:42 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2018, 09:18:57 PM by CoinCube
 #2140

My world view is based on evidence, his is based on nonsense.  Teaching religious ideology to children, especially the nonsense from the Bible (talking snakes and 6000 year old Earth etc.) is child abuse, IMHO.

Regardless of the relative merits or lack thereof you seem to be taking the position that teaching ones children one's historical and traditional faith say Judiasm, Islam, or Christianity in itself constitutes child abuse.

Child abuse by definition is an action that should be suppressed by state force once identified. Thus your position appears to be that we need the state to intervene in the families of these 3.6 billion people and if the parents refuse to stop teaching their religious beliefs we need to remove the children from their homes and place them under state care. That is after all what we do in cases of child abuse.

In my Argument for God I highlighted my belief that without God society will inevitably fall into totalitarianism. You are not doing the best job of convincing me I am wrong.

Pages: « 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 [107] 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!