BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
 |
March 03, 2017, 11:29:34 PM |
|
Has been rebutted but you do not recognise it. Therefore, to use your exact same logic..... Your links are not proof. Give me proof. The reality of the situation is that you are blinded by any other reality than what you believe and when it is rebutted, you simply say it isn't rebutted. Well the same principal will now apply and I will call it the "BADecker principle". Your links are not proof so give me proof. Still waiting for you to show the rebuttal, rather than flimsy words that suggest that there is rebuttal.  BADecker principle rule number 1: If a point of discussion does not meet criteria of one's own belief, then ignore it and claim it is wrong. Therefore, your proof is wrong, so please give me more proof. Besides, it is up to you to prove your god, not me to disprove. But when you say it is real, I will ask for proof. Ha, ha, HA, Ha, ha. You can't rebut the proof. Ha, ha, HA, Ha, ha.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
stats
|
|
March 05, 2017, 07:44:06 AM |
|
Has been rebutted but you do not recognise it. Therefore, to use your exact same logic..... Your links are not proof. Give me proof. The reality of the situation is that you are blinded by any other reality than what you believe and when it is rebutted, you simply say it isn't rebutted. Well the same principal will now apply and I will call it the "BADecker principle". Your links are not proof so give me proof. Still waiting for you to show the rebuttal, rather than flimsy words that suggest that there is rebuttal. BADecker principle rule number 1: If a point of discussion does not meet criteria of one's own belief, then ignore it and claim it is wrong. Therefore, your proof is wrong, so please give me more proof. Besides, it is up to you to prove your god, not me to disprove. But when you say it is real, I will ask for proof. Ha, ha, HA, Ha, ha. You can't rebut the proof. Ha, ha, HA, Ha, ha. Ha, ha, HA, Ha, ha. You can't provide any proof. Ha, ha, HA, Ha, ha. |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
March 05, 2017, 08:34:13 AM
Last edit: March 09, 2017, 02:13:49 AM by CoinCube |
|
On Individualismhttp://www.scifiwright.com/2017/02/dialog-on-beauty/#more-17898By: John C. Wright Like anything else individualism is good and fine when properly subordinated to greater goods; but when it seeks to overturn the throne and monarchy of God, and usurp for itself the position of being the greatest good, like every uppity servant, it turns tyrannical. Like every idol, the moment it is worshiped as above God, it becomes a demon, no matter how good, truthful, and reasonable it once was in its proper sphere.
Individualism when expanded beyond all bounds and beyond all logic turns into subjectivism, polylogism, antinomianism and nihilism. It cuts off the individual from the cosmos.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that Leftism is a religion, a cult, which takes the individual as paramount and denies God, denies the divine.
The individual being free from all restraint, including all self restraint, is one of the dogmas of these credo. The individual is paramount. Thou art God.
But if the individual is paramount, than the individual, he alone, says what is beautiful and ugly. Summer stars, wintery mountains, racing stallions, stooping falcons, the ocean at midnight are, with a wave of his all powerful hand, defined as ugly.
Garbage, marred corpses, excrement in tin cans, empty rooms, toilet lids are all, with a second wave, defined as art.
Any objective definition of beauty would offend the Leftist self-worshipper at the core of his black little heart, because that definition would rob him of this godlike power. So the Leftist (if he be true to his false principles) can be expected to deny that there is any objective beauty.
(Not that all of them are true, or any of them. Consistency is not their strong suit.)
Now, if a man calls beautiful only what is really beautiful, there is no glory in that. Anyone can command the sea to rise when the tide is low. Only a god can lower the level of the ocean at low tide, however. So the power can only be used to call trash art, never to call art art. This is subjectivism.
The same argument as applies to beauty applies to virtue, and then to reason, and then to truth.
The godlike power to worship oneself is only used to call evil good and good evil; to dismiss reason as prejudice, and to dismiss truth as person opinion or cultural conditioning.
Denying vice and virtue is called antinomianism. Reducing reason to cultural, racial or personal opinion is called polylogism. Dismissing truth is nihilism.
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
March 23, 2017, 09:05:58 PM |
|
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 yearshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America
It is said to be China's biggest church and on Easter Sunday thousands of worshippers will flock to this Asian mega-temple to pledge their allegiance – not to the Communist Party, but to the Cross.
The 5,000-capacity Liushi church, which boasts more than twice as many seats as Westminster Abbey and a 206ft crucifix that can be seen for miles around, opened last year with one theologian declaring it a "miracle that such a small town was able to build such a grand church".
The £8 million building is also one of the most visible symbols of Communist China's breakneck conversion as it evolves into one of the largest Christian congregations on earth.
"It is a wonderful thing to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It gives us great confidence," beamed Jin Hongxin, a 40-year-old visitor who was admiring the golden cross above Liushi's altar in the lead up to Holy Week.
"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.
Officially, the People's Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.
Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.
Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world's number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.
"By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon," said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.
"It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change."
China's Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre's Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.
By 2030, China's total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.
"Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this," Prof Yang said. "It's ironic – they didn't. They actually failed completely."
Like many Chinese churches, the church in the town of Liushi, 200 miles south of Shanghai in Zhejiang province, has had a turbulent history.
It was founded in 1886 after William Edward Soothill, a Yorkshire-born missionary and future Oxford University professor, began evangelising local communities.
But by the late 1950s, as the region was engulfed by Mao's violent anti-Christian campaigns, it was forced to close.
Liushi remained shut throughout the decade of the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966, as places of worship were destroyed across the country.
Since it reopened in 1978 its congregation has gone from strength to strength as part of China's officially sanctioned Christian church – along with thousands of others that have accepted Communist Party oversight in return for being allowed to worship.
Today it has 2,600 regular churchgoers and holds up to 70 baptisms each year, according to Shi Xiaoli, its 27-year-old preacher. The parish's revival reached a crescendo last year with the opening of its new 1,500ft mega-church, reputedly the biggest in mainland China.
"Our old church was small and hard to find," said Ms Shi. "There wasn't room in the old building for all the followers, especially at Christmas and at Easter. The new one is big and eye-catching."
The Liushi church is not alone. From Yunnan province in China's balmy southwest to Liaoning in its industrial northeast, congregations are booming and more Chinese are thought to attend Sunday services each week than do Christians across the whole of Europe.
A recent study found that online searches for the words "Christian Congregation" and "Jesus" far outnumbered those for "The Communist Party" and "Xi Jinping", China's president.
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
March 23, 2017, 09:20:35 PM |
|
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
...
Wrong model. Outdated. So you have plenty of useless noise (i.e. not leaders but followers), industrial (or agrarian) age Chinese jumping from the groupthink Communism wok into the groupthink religion deep fry: ... As explained above, the mathematical topological space of information is exponential vast, such that having the right answer is exponentially more valuable than having an unbounded quantity of random noise: The end of democracy
...as a horny if virgin teenager you might have entertained delusions of "totally destroying cunt" once you get your true self or whatever. With any luck you did get to see that no - try as you might, cunt will be still there when you're done, and done you will be. In between these two fundamental distractions, the life of the peasant flows in a very strict servitude to the problem of scale : his work proceeds linearily, for that lovely but ultimately brief interval before fatigue kicks in ; meanwhile the land proceeds by the square. Taking one step delineates an area a quarter as large as taking two steps does. Due to this squares problem, it makes relatively little difference that Joe tires after a hundred and Moe after a hundred nine, and so it is throughout : the extra nine isn't likely to figure much in Suzy's estimation of either of them (and so the natural harem can be flattened into a very contrived "traditional marriage"), nor does the extra drop drunk make any visible difference in the barrel, and so politics proceed on a fundamental basis of equality and equanimity : have ye enough drink and then have ye enough words. And then go home.
On the other hand, bravery is exactly opposite of this. Giving a man ten coins instead of one does not make that man a hundred times as likely to stand fast ; nor even ten times, and perhaps not even as much as the one. A single, bravest knight pays more than the whole sum of his inferiors together, because of exactly inverse geometric rules involved in warfare - which is fundamentally why jousting competitions were a big deal, but speedfarming competitions never interested anyone.
This settles feudalism : on one hand each peasant's exactly fungible with each other peasant, whereas one single faithful knight's not to be traded for the whole world. As a direct result of this situation in the field, the political forms are absolutist monarchy, and the religion is monotheistic and so on.
But time goes on, and lo! The industrial revolution is upon us.
On one hand working, as opposed to farming, is still a deeply equalizing experience, but the drivers have now slightly changed. It's no longer the silent ground, stalking the lone worm, waiting for him to tire of his toil, biding its time to sneak up behind him and swallow him whole. Instead the machine now awaits a moment's inattention to chomp down just a part, while hunger and disease dance a merry jig in the corners. The reward for performance has also changed slightly - it's not quite but almost linear, a worker twice as skilled is just about twice as valuable.
On the other hand being a merchant is much less demanding than being a knight. Addition and multiplication can be learned, and so can the whole trade. It does require a lively mind and a ready capacity for attention in the knaveii, but then again these are much more common than bravery and valor are - demanding virtues most expensive and difficult to train.
This settles "modernity", or however you wish to call it, the last half millenium or so, give or take : on one hand the proletariat is slightly less fungible than the peasants were ; on the other hand merchants are slightly more fungible than the knights were. As a necessary result societal mores do allign closer to the values of the peasant, and further away from the values of the knight. More equality, less meritocracy, more "humanity", less "cruelty", more "respect", less "honor", socialism (however you would double-speak it, nazism, communism, democracy, all the same) follows necessarily.
It is important to note here that this is to no degree "revolutionary", in no sense novel, and by no measure anyone's merit. Water finding a new level should you incline the bucket does not result in identifying rando H2O molecules to credit with "having led the wave" or "discovered the new level". For one thing, they didn't discover anything, they were, like their obscure equals, randomly distributed within a spray. Some section thereof was later cemented by events, but to pretend relationship between this happenstance and the happenstancers is ridiculous. I understand you're desperate to make a name for yourself because you imagine that you may thus escape military service - please understand this makes no differenceiii.
But lo! Changes are afoot!
Industry is quite obviously well overiv and in that process the world has changed quite substantially.
On one hand, the social media [l]user no longer has any value or utility, and with that certainly no power whatsoever. Incapable to survive on his own, let alone produce any sort of surplus, he is fungible to a degree flesh and blood peasants of yore never were : barely a row in a database somewhere, much closer to the stuff of daydreams than actual reality.
On the other hand, being a content producerv is incredibly difficult and incredibly rare. Not only can it not be trained, not even to the modest degree bravery and valor could be trained into the knight, but it exhibits a very active antieconomy of scale! To illustrate this concept - admitting for a second that the nameless ability in question is one and measurable by a scalar - it is the case that a group of ten producers each worth 10 units of productive worth will output LESS than a group of three producers each worth 12 units of productive worth. Yes, 3 * 12 = 36 is more, much more actually, than 10 * 10, because in this field multiplication is a very different beast than the quaint operand you're used to from your merchant class. As counterintuitive as all this may soundvi, it is nevertheless the sad state of affairs : give me three decisive men and I can overturn a world that millions of derps can't otherwise keep functioning.
And so, to keep it short and sweet : I will by my own hand abolish democracy, and through no sort of "civil war". The simple workings of economical attrition will suffice. By the blessing of the trite yet incontrovertible fact that you - all of you - can not keep up with usvii, a precious few of us, your world will come undone. All we have to do is reject most of you, systematically, and keep working. Delusions as to how anyone could in any manner oppose thisviii, or that the evolution in question is anything but nude, rude and unavoidable historical necessity may taste sweet, but other than that taste produce no further fruit. You will go where the level goes and that's all there is to it.
Note that I take no merit in any of this. Figuring out which way the wind blows does not make one a "wind magician" or anything of the sort. I understand you're used to hearing a different melody from your traditional shamans and whatever elses, but really, wouldn't you say it's time you grew up already ?
Interesting that the above essay is essentially the same as my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay (which predates his by a few years) in that it is pointing out how knowledge or leadership is non-fungible and how it becomes the post-industrial age economy. ... |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
March 23, 2017, 10:31:30 PM
Last edit: March 23, 2017, 11:14:33 PM by CoinCube |
|
China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
...
Wrong model. Outdated. So you have plenty of useless noise (i.e. not leaders but followers), industrial (or agrarian) age Chinese jumping from the groupthink Communism wok into the groupthink religion deep fry: As you know I disagree. I see little point in rehashing old arguments. However, for readers who are interested the following links highlight some of the logic that leads me to conclude that iamnotback is incorrect on this issue. Religion and ProgressThe Nature of FreedomThe Beginning of WisdomFar from being outdated what we are seeing here is China building itself a stable foundation. The future will be decentralized, free, and religious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback
|
|
March 24, 2017, 12:23:14 AM |
|
The future will be decentralized, free, and religious.
I don't understand how someone can be (even partially) mind-controlled by a belief which is not falsifiable, and simultaneously claim they are free and are not centrally controlled to some extent. As I see it, they are conditioned to being dependent on control due to their history with Communism, thus as their society is opening up more to the world, and they have more freedom of choice, they choose to improve Communism by replacing it with slightly less destructive form of top-down control. I guess you can call that an improvement, but it seems to be not in pace with the rapid devolution of top-down structure that is coming in the knowledge age where clarify of mind and forming correct knowledge will critical to one's performance. Christianity is fracturing/splintering as JAD recently lamented and Armstrong also noted. Myself trying to become a Christian from 2006 - 2010 was "peak religion" for the world, because I was one of the staunchest defenders of the impossibility of absolutes in morals in my youth. So when I capitulated (lost my mind), that had to have been the peak. It should be all downhill from here... I don't wish on anyone that delusion that gripped me. I look at the photo and I want to see very nice people and wish them the best. But then I remember what a horrible thing mind control and zealotry is. Finally I think I have the fortitude to resist, because my heart really wants to love "the good" but now I realize that emotion wasn't rational and was manipulating my mind. |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
March 24, 2017, 01:54:45 AM |
|
The future will be decentralized, free, and religious.
I don't understand how someone can be (even partially) mind-controlled by a belief which is not falsifiable, and simultaneously claim they are free and are not centrally controlled to some extent. ... My answer to this can be found in the links immediately above especially the second and third link. For an alternative perspective miscreanity also provided a nice argument essentially along similar lines. What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.
This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins. Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible. The following two (relatively) short videos may be of interest regarding previous discussion: The moral argument for GodWhy Does God Allow Evil?God religion is not voluntary. It is a mind control and social coercion...
If it isn't voluntary, how is it that you can choose your own or even to dismiss it? |
|
|
|
Cherry Girl
Member
Offline
Activity: 102
Merit: 10
|
|
March 24, 2017, 04:51:03 AM |
|
Has been rebutted but you do not recognise it. Therefore, to use your exact same logic..... Your links are not proof. Give me proof. The reality of the situation is that you are blinded by any other reality than what you believe and when it is rebutted, you simply say it isn't rebutted. Well the same principal will now apply and I will call it the "BADecker principle". Your links are not proof so give me proof. Still waiting for you to show the rebuttal, rather than flimsy words that suggest that there is rebuttal. BADecker principle rule number 1: If a point of discussion does not meet criteria of one's own belief, then ignore it and claim it is wrong. Therefore, your proof is wrong, so please give me more proof. Besides, it is up to you to prove your god, not me to disprove. But when you say it is real, I will ask for proof. Really, in order to believe in something, you need some kind of proof. For example, I just believe and this faith gives me and what kind of confidence and belief in a better life in the future. Therefore, what proof of the existence of God is needed, if it is not material. |
|
|
|
|
CoinCube (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
|
|
March 24, 2017, 12:28:02 PM
Last edit: March 24, 2017, 12:40:05 PM by CoinCube |
|
Can Christianity save China?http://theweek.com/articles/635668/christianity-save-china
The growth of Christianity in China has been astonishing. At this point, it's no longer a question of if China will become a Christian nation, but when. The ramifications of this religious shift are massive, and will shake China's culture and economy to their cores.
Since 1979, Protestant Christianity has been growing in China at a compound annual growth rate of more than 10 percent. There were 3 million Christians in China in 1980, compared to 58 million in 2010, according to Fenggyang Yang, director of the Center of Religion and Chinese Society at Purdue University. By 2025, that number could swell to 250 to 300 million.
Surprised? That makes sense. The Chinese Communist Party has done all it can to downplay this phenomenon and keep a tight media lid on it. Meanwhile, Western media outlets are so taken with the idea that religion is an irrelevant (and declining) facet of modern life that they don't pay attention to its growth in most places outside calcified Western Europe.
But this shift is happening, and it is astonishing, especially considering that China is officially an atheist country. From Chairman Mao's accession to power until his death, China officially banned all religion, the only country in history besides Albania to do so. Then, in 1979, in keeping with its liberalization program, China cautiously allowed a few places of worship to open. But the government's policy is still that religious expression must obey the party. Religion that is not officially sanctioned is still oppressed.
While it might seem surprising that Christianity could grow in the face of such repression, it is repression that prompted the growth of Christianity in the first place. In the third century, the church father Tertullian famously boasted that "the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church."
To better understand what's going on in China, let's look back at the Roman Empire. There, both government and society had values that were at odds with Christianity. The religion was so foreign, the reaction was an incoherent mix of savage oppression, benign neglect, and attempts at cooptation.
Still, Christians eventually became the dominant group in the Roman Empire by compounding with a respectable yearly growth rate. But there was more to it than that. Christians were often over-represented among the intelligentsia, which gave them a strong cultural cachet, even as their innovative welfare work made them attractive to the poor. (Bone fragments show Christians were healthier and lived longer than pagans, almost certainly thanks to the church's welfare system.) And of course, the church's heroic work was great PR. After a plague, while most people fled to the countryside, Christians rushed in to help the people, like they did in China in the wake of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.
Under Xi Jinping, the Chinese government has stepped up its oppression of Christianity. As the Chinese writer and dissident Yu Jie writes in the magazine
An internal government document obtained by The New York Times in May 2014 shows that the church demolitions are part of a larger campaign to curb Christianity's influence on the public. According to the nine-page provincial policy statement, the Xi administration wants to put an end to "excessive" religious sites and "overly popular" religious activities, but it names one religion in particular, Christianity, and one symbol, the cross.
If history is any guide, this will only increase the popularity of Christianity. As Yu writes: "One of the phrases I have heard most often among [Chinese Christians] is: 'The greater the persecution, the greater the revival.'" Indeed, during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, when oppression was at its fiercest, Christianity actually grew in China.
Interestingly, Protestant Christianity is growing much faster in China than Catholic Christianity, almost certainly because the Roman Catholic Church has practiced a doctrine of appeasement to the Chinese government. Given that Protestantism is a do-it-yourself religion, where anyone is empowered to decide doctrine based on their interpretation of the Bible, we could see the emergence of new and seemingly strange versions of Christianity, acculturated to China, and perhaps mixed in with Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism.
Today, China is pursuing a nationalistic foreign policy, combined with a domestic policy focused almost exclusively on economic growth and productivity. This comes at the expense of families, social welfare, and the environment. To say that these are not exactly Christian values is an understatement. It is not hard to understand why the Chinese leadership is not a fan of Christianity.
But Christianity could be China's only chance to survive. Because of its one-child policy, and sex-selective abortion and infanticide, China is a fast-aging country with a massive gender imbalance. If you add to that the tensions wrought by breakneck crony capitalism and consumerism and inequality and pollution, the country is a powder keg. Most Westerners see China as a strong rival, but China's actual leaders see the country as always teetering on the brink of collapse, which is why their grip on power is so white-knuckled. More deeply, decades of Communism have stripped China of so much of its cultural heritage and left its society and culture aimless.
Christianity's enormous cultural and spiritual heritage, its emphasis on the rule of law, and its traditional focus on fertility are just what China may need to manage the next few decades without collapsing into civil war, revolution, or something equally terrible.
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
March 24, 2017, 04:12:01 PM |
|
Has been rebutted but you do not recognise it. Therefore, to use your exact same logic..... Your links are not proof. Give me proof. The reality of the situation is that you are blinded by any other reality than what you believe and when it is rebutted, you simply say it isn't rebutted. Well the same principal will now apply and I will call it the "BADecker principle". Your links are not proof so give me proof. Still waiting for you to show the rebuttal, rather than flimsy words that suggest that there is rebuttal. BADecker principle rule number 1: If a point of discussion does not meet criteria of one's own belief, then ignore it and claim it is wrong. Therefore, your proof is wrong, so please give me more proof. Besides, it is up to you to prove your god, not me to disprove. But when you say it is real, I will ask for proof. Really, in order to believe in something, you need some kind of proof. For example, I just believe and this faith gives me and what kind of confidence and belief in a better life in the future. Therefore, what proof of the existence of God is needed, if it is not material. Don't mind stats. He is simply an emotional character. I pulled the rug of his religion/cult out from under him, and because of this, despite what he believes and knows now, he is simply angry at me for disrupting his little, peaceful, head-in-the-sand, ostrich world. |
|
|
|
SameHow
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
March 24, 2017, 04:44:28 PM |
|
The future will be decentralized, free, and religious.
I don't understand how someone can be (even partially) mind-controlled by a belief which is not falsifiable, and simultaneously claim they are free and are not centrally controlled to some extent. ... My answer to this can be found in the links immediately above especially the second and third link. For an alternative perspective miscreanity also provided a nice argument essentially along similar lines. What is actually the worst possible outcome is to have one strategy, religion, or culture adopted by everyone.
This is the point I disagree with. I think we both agree that the optimal way to increase degrees of freedom for individuals is to allow and enable instead of controlling. A universal strategy is an essential foundation that enables freedom. Without that, we have the situation that is developing now with varying viewpoints where some sets are progressing toward destruction and others are being dragged into declining entropy. Competition can take place when there is room for growth but on a globally saturated scale, nobody wins. Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible. The following two (relatively) short videos may be of interest regarding previous discussion: The moral argument for GodWhy Does God Allow Evil?God religion is not voluntary. It is a mind control and social coercion...
If it isn't voluntary, how is it that you can choose your own or even to dismiss it? This issue should be approached correctly, so as not to confuse normal religions and even communities with fanatics. Such people are everywhere and in every religion, even Catholics or Orthodox or even Muslims. Only on a person depends on how much he is influenced by others. |
|
|
|
|
|
stats
|
|
March 25, 2017, 02:53:01 AM |
|
Has been rebutted but you do not recognise it. Therefore, to use your exact same logic..... Your links are not proof. Give me proof. The reality of the situation is that you are blinded by any other reality than what you believe and when it is rebutted, you simply say it isn't rebutted. Well the same principal will now apply and I will call it the "BADecker principle". Your links are not proof so give me proof. Still waiting for you to show the rebuttal, rather than flimsy words that suggest that there is rebuttal. BADecker principle rule number 1: If a point of discussion does not meet criteria of one's own belief, then ignore it and claim it is wrong. Therefore, your proof is wrong, so please give me more proof. Besides, it is up to you to prove your god, not me to disprove. But when you say it is real, I will ask for proof. Really, in order to believe in something, you need some kind of proof. For example, I just believe and this faith gives me and what kind of confidence and belief in a better life in the future. Therefore, what proof of the existence of God is needed, if it is not material. Don't mind stats. He is simply an emotional character. I pulled the rug of his religion/cult out from under him, and because of this, despite what he believes and knows now, he is simply angry at me for disrupting his little, peaceful, head-in-the-sand, ostrich world. Sorry BADecker, you have never done that. You are sad that you are a single person trying to convert the world to your ideology. You claim your god is real yet provide no proof. It's funny that the majority of religious people say they have no proof yet they can internalize and believe. I don't question that. That is a personal choice. But you claim you have the proof and all I do is ask you to share it. You fail yet again! |
|
|
|
|
|
TooQik
|
|
March 25, 2017, 03:40:28 AM |
|
Really, in order to believe in something, you need some kind of proof. For example, I just believe and this faith gives me and what kind of confidence and belief in a better life in the future. Therefore, what proof of the existence of God is needed, if it is not material.
Actually, you don't need any kind of proof to believe in something, you simply need a source of information you trust. |
|
|
|
|
|
sourris01
|
|
March 25, 2017, 04:45:20 AM |
|
Really, in order to believe in something, you need some kind of proof. For example, I just believe and this faith gives me and what kind of confidence and belief in a better life in the future. Therefore, what proof of the existence of God is needed, if it is not material.
Actually, you don't need any kind of proof to believe in something, you simply need a source of information you trust. If we take the Bible as a source of information, then this book can not be authoritative for everyone, because people also wrote it. But this is only relevant for those who seek or doubt. And for those who believe, this book is of great value. |
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
March 25, 2017, 02:41:21 PM |
|
Sorry BADecker, you have never done that. You are sad that you are a single person trying to convert the world to your ideology. You claim your god is real yet provide no proof.
It's funny that the majority of religious people say they have no proof yet they can internalize and believe. I don't question that. That is a personal choice.
But you claim you have the proof and all I do is ask you to share it.
You fail yet again!
Okay, at least for a start of the proof. Cause and effect is scientifically understood all over the world. Newton's 3rd Law upholds it. Cause and effect is like a person playing pool (billiards). The pool player hits a ball which hits another ball which hits another ball, etc., which finally knocks a specified ball into a designated pocket. We know from experience that there is great difficulty in tapping a cue ball in such a way so that it will cause a string of balls - through cause and effect - to finally knock a specified ball into a designated pocket. There has to be a lot of intelligent planning and skilful control, in the mind and body of the pool shark who does this. Everything that we see in the universe operates by cause and effect. We have found nothing that does not operate by cause and effect. Rather than a simple handful of cause and effect actions as in the pool game, there are countless trillions upon trillions of cause and effect actions in the universe. Rather than simple specified pool intelligence that measures and calculates only a handful of movements to a designated end, the cause and effect movements of the universe create intelligent ends, over all the cause and effect actions of the universe. The only thing we see in the universe that causes intelligent cause and effect actions is, greater intelligence. Consider all the machines that are made by mankind, and all the simple machines that animals use. The greater the intelligence of the animal or the man, the greater is the cause and effect action that is produced. This hasn't been shown to work any other way, anywhere on earth or in the observations we make regarding the rest of the universe. Since the only time that we understand the "causer" of complex cause and effect activity is when it is connected to intelligence, and we have no evidence of anything not intelligent behind a string of intelligent cause and effect actions, we can conclude that there is a Great Intelligence behind the cause and effect actions that make up the universe. Even though this isn't quite proof of God, alone, it is almost proof of God. Now, about proof. Suppose you live in a wood frame house. Imagine that you are sitting in your home office and responding in the forum, here. Look up at one of the walls in your office. You see the surface of the wall, right. But if there aren't any holes in the wall, you don't see the studs that hold the wall up, right? Because of this, you have no real proof that the studs are there. Even if you saw the house being built, even if you saw the workers put up the studs that would become your office walls, you have no proof that there is anything beyond the paint or the wallpaper that exists now, do you? For all you know, the studs might have disappeared since you saw the workers put them up. In fact, you have no real proof that up until the exact instant of the present, you were even sitting in your office working on the computer, typing into the forum, right. If you are going to get that nuts with the idea of proof, forget your whole life. You might as well not exist. However, if you are the kind of person who accepts standard scientific proof that makes science laws, then the above explanation of the almost-proof of the existence of God is entirely credible. It is greater than scientific theory, even though it isn't quite enough for proof as it is expressed. The rest of the proof is expressed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Wake up, stats. All you have is hot air. And it is turning colder with every breath you take. If it weren't for the fact that political science exists, you wouldn't have any science at all behind the things you say. Note that I don't write the above for you. Experience shows that you will barely be able to read an comprehend much of it. Rather, I have written it so that other people will have a clearer understanding that God exists, and that everything including our health and religion depends on Him through cause and effect. |
|
|
|
|
stats
|
|
March 25, 2017, 03:05:04 PM |
|
Sorry BADecker, you have never done that. You are sad that you are a single person trying to convert the world to your ideology. You claim your god is real yet provide no proof.
It's funny that the majority of religious people say they have no proof yet they can internalize and believe. I don't question that. That is a personal choice.
But you claim you have the proof and all I do is ask you to share it.
You fail yet again!
Okay, at least for a start of the proof. Cause and effect is scientifically understood all over the world. Newton's 3rd Law upholds it. Cause and effect is like a person playing pool (billiards). The pool player hits a ball which hits another ball which hits another ball, etc., which finally knocks a specified ball into a designated pocket. We know from experience that there is great difficulty in tapping a cue ball in such a way so that it will cause a string of balls - through cause and effect - to finally knock a specified ball into a designated pocket. There has to be a lot of intelligent planning and skilful control, in the mind and body of the pool shark who does this. Everything that we see in the universe operates by cause and effect. We have found nothing that does not operate by cause and effect. Rather than a simple handful of cause and effect actions as in the pool game, there are countless trillions upon trillions of cause and effect actions in the universe. Rather than simple specified pool intelligence that measures and calculates only a handful of movements to a designated end, the cause and effect movements of the universe create intelligent ends, over all the cause and effect actions of the universe. The only thing we see in the universe that causes intelligent cause and effect actions is, greater intelligence. Consider all the machines that are made by mankind, and all the simple machines that animals use. The greater the intelligence of the animal or the man, the greater is the cause and effect action that is produced. This hasn't been shown to work any other way, anywhere on earth or in the observations we make regarding the rest of the universe. Since the only time that we understand the "causer" of complex cause and effect activity is when it is connected to intelligence, and we have no evidence of anything not intelligent behind a string of intelligent cause and effect actions, we can conclude that there is a Great Intelligence behind the cause and effect actions that make up the universe. Even though this isn't quite proof of God, alone, it is almost proof of God. Now, about proof. Suppose you live in a wood frame house. Imagine that you are sitting in your home office and responding in the forum, here. Look up at one of the walls in your office. You see the surface of the wall, right. But if there aren't any holes in the wall, you don't see the studs that hold the wall up, right? Because of this, you have no real proof that the studs are there. Even if you saw the house being built, even if you saw the workers put up the studs that would become your office walls, you have no proof that there is anything beyond the paint or the wallpaper that exists now, do you? For all you know, the studs might have disappeared since you saw the workers put them up. In fact, you have no real proof that up until the exact instant of the present, you were even sitting in your office working on the computer, typing into the forum, right. If you are going to get that nuts with the idea of proof, forget your whole life. You might as well not exist. However, if you are the kind of person who accepts standard scientific proof that makes science laws, then the above explanation of the almost-proof of the existence of God is entirely credible. It is greater than scientific theory, even though it isn't quite enough for proof as it is expressed. The rest of the proof is expressed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Wake up, stats. All you have is hot air. And it is turning colder with every breath you take. If it weren't for the fact that political science exists, you wouldn't have any science at all behind the things you say. Note that I don't write the above for you. Experience shows that you will barely be able to read an comprehend much of it. Rather, I have written it so that other people will have a clearer understanding that God exists, and that everything including our health and religion depends on Him through cause and effect. What you have written, is correct, to a point. Then you use your own assumptions to create your idealism of a god. Cause and effect: Using your exact same theory places something else as creating your god, and then something else creating that..... this is your perpetual argument. You are once again correct when you state: "Even though this isn't quite proof of God" but you then fail with your next statement of "almost proof of god". Sorry, but cause and effect cannot just stop. It has to continue. That is the problem of your theory about cause and effect being proof. You stop it when it suits your ideals. You need to continue using the exact same theoretical knowledge and that means that the never ending loop consists. Your links do nothing apart from show everyone how desperate you are to try and justify a god. If you claim to be an intelligent person then surely you must understand that your argument lacks merit. So now your proof does not hold up...... try again. |
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
March 25, 2017, 03:36:59 PM |
|
Sorry BADecker, you have never done that. You are sad that you are a single person trying to convert the world to your ideology. You claim your god is real yet provide no proof.
It's funny that the majority of religious people say they have no proof yet they can internalize and believe. I don't question that. That is a personal choice.
But you claim you have the proof and all I do is ask you to share it.
You fail yet again!
Okay, at least for a start of the proof. Cause and effect is scientifically understood all over the world. Newton's 3rd Law upholds it. Cause and effect is like a person playing pool (billiards). The pool player hits a ball which hits another ball which hits another ball, etc., which finally knocks a specified ball into a designated pocket. We know from experience that there is great difficulty in tapping a cue ball in such a way so that it will cause a string of balls - through cause and effect - to finally knock a specified ball into a designated pocket. There has to be a lot of intelligent planning and skilful control, in the mind and body of the pool shark who does this. Everything that we see in the universe operates by cause and effect. We have found nothing that does not operate by cause and effect. Rather than a simple handful of cause and effect actions as in the pool game, there are countless trillions upon trillions of cause and effect actions in the universe. Rather than simple specified pool intelligence that measures and calculates only a handful of movements to a designated end, the cause and effect movements of the universe create intelligent ends, over all the cause and effect actions of the universe. The only thing we see in the universe that causes intelligent cause and effect actions is, greater intelligence. Consider all the machines that are made by mankind, and all the simple machines that animals use. The greater the intelligence of the animal or the man, the greater is the cause and effect action that is produced. This hasn't been shown to work any other way, anywhere on earth or in the observations we make regarding the rest of the universe. Since the only time that we understand the "causer" of complex cause and effect activity is when it is connected to intelligence, and we have no evidence of anything not intelligent behind a string of intelligent cause and effect actions, we can conclude that there is a Great Intelligence behind the cause and effect actions that make up the universe. Even though this isn't quite proof of God, alone, it is almost proof of God. Now, about proof. Suppose you live in a wood frame house. Imagine that you are sitting in your home office and responding in the forum, here. Look up at one of the walls in your office. You see the surface of the wall, right. But if there aren't any holes in the wall, you don't see the studs that hold the wall up, right? Because of this, you have no real proof that the studs are there. Even if you saw the house being built, even if you saw the workers put up the studs that would become your office walls, you have no proof that there is anything beyond the paint or the wallpaper that exists now, do you? For all you know, the studs might have disappeared since you saw the workers put them up. In fact, you have no real proof that up until the exact instant of the present, you were even sitting in your office working on the computer, typing into the forum, right. If you are going to get that nuts with the idea of proof, forget your whole life. You might as well not exist. However, if you are the kind of person who accepts standard scientific proof that makes science laws, then the above explanation of the almost-proof of the existence of God is entirely credible. It is greater than scientific theory, even though it isn't quite enough for proof as it is expressed. The rest of the proof is expressed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Wake up, stats. All you have is hot air. And it is turning colder with every breath you take. If it weren't for the fact that political science exists, you wouldn't have any science at all behind the things you say. Note that I don't write the above for you. Experience shows that you will barely be able to read an comprehend much of it. Rather, I have written it so that other people will have a clearer understanding that God exists, and that everything including our health and religion depends on Him through cause and effect. What you have written, is correct, to a point. Then you use your own assumptions to create your idealism of a god. Cause and effect: Using your exact same theory places something else as creating your god, and then something else creating that..... this is your perpetual argument. You are once again correct when you state: "Even though this isn't quite proof of God" but you then fail with your next statement of "almost proof of god". Sorry, but cause and effect cannot just stop. It has to continue. That is the problem of your theory about cause and effect being proof. You stop it when it suits your ideals. You need to continue using the exact same theoretical knowledge and that means that the never ending loop consists. Your links do nothing apart from show everyone how desperate you are to try and justify a god. If you claim to be an intelligent person then surely you must understand that your argument lacks merit. So now your proof does not hold up...... try again. We are talking about a God that is so great that He can cause and effect the whole operation of the universe over periods of thousands of years. What can anyone know about Him, personally, if He doesn't reveal it? By the definition of the word/term "God," He fits the "thing" that cause-and-effected the universe into existence. Nothing that we see suggests that He has to have a cause. Why not? Because to make something, you have to be outside of it... especially before it exists. This means that the laws of the universe which we operate by don't necessarily fit Him, since He was before the universe, and therefore outside of it. There is no proof at all that God has to have had a cause. We all die. God has promise me and all those who accept Him, the right to have salvation from death. If I am in the least way desperate to show God, it is for your benefit, so that you can be saved for eternal life, as well. You say you don't want to be saved? Your choice. But you won't like it. |
|
|
|
|
stats
|
|
March 25, 2017, 03:50:46 PM
Last edit: March 27, 2017, 07:47:53 AM by stats |
|
Sorry BADecker, you have never done that. You are sad that you are a single person trying to convert the world to your ideology. You claim your god is real yet provide no proof.
It's funny that the majority of religious people say they have no proof yet they can internalize and believe. I don't question that. That is a personal choice.
But you claim you have the proof and all I do is ask you to share it.
You fail yet again!
Okay, at least for a start of the proof. Cause and effect is scientifically understood all over the world. Newton's 3rd Law upholds it. Cause and effect is like a person playing pool (billiards). The pool player hits a ball which hits another ball which hits another ball, etc., which finally knocks a specified ball into a designated pocket. We know from experience that there is great difficulty in tapping a cue ball in such a way so that it will cause a string of balls - through cause and effect - to finally knock a specified ball into a designated pocket. There has to be a lot of intelligent planning and skilful control, in the mind and body of the pool shark who does this. Everything that we see in the universe operates by cause and effect. We have found nothing that does not operate by cause and effect. Rather than a simple handful of cause and effect actions as in the pool game, there are countless trillions upon trillions of cause and effect actions in the universe. Rather than simple specified pool intelligence that measures and calculates only a handful of movements to a designated end, the cause and effect movements of the universe create intelligent ends, over all the cause and effect actions of the universe. The only thing we see in the universe that causes intelligent cause and effect actions is, greater intelligence. Consider all the machines that are made by mankind, and all the simple machines that animals use. The greater the intelligence of the animal or the man, the greater is the cause and effect action that is produced. This hasn't been shown to work any other way, anywhere on earth or in the observations we make regarding the rest of the universe. Since the only time that we understand the "causer" of complex cause and effect activity is when it is connected to intelligence, and we have no evidence of anything not intelligent behind a string of intelligent cause and effect actions, we can conclude that there is a Great Intelligence behind the cause and effect actions that make up the universe. Even though this isn't quite proof of God, alone, it is almost proof of God. Now, about proof. Suppose you live in a wood frame house. Imagine that you are sitting in your home office and responding in the forum, here. Look up at one of the walls in your office. You see the surface of the wall, right. But if there aren't any holes in the wall, you don't see the studs that hold the wall up, right? Because of this, you have no real proof that the studs are there. Even if you saw the house being built, even if you saw the workers put up the studs that would become your office walls, you have no proof that there is anything beyond the paint or the wallpaper that exists now, do you? For all you know, the studs might have disappeared since you saw the workers put them up. In fact, you have no real proof that up until the exact instant of the present, you were even sitting in your office working on the computer, typing into the forum, right. If you are going to get that nuts with the idea of proof, forget your whole life. You might as well not exist. However, if you are the kind of person who accepts standard scientific proof that makes science laws, then the above explanation of the almost-proof of the existence of God is entirely credible. It is greater than scientific theory, even though it isn't quite enough for proof as it is expressed. The rest of the proof is expressed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. Wake up, stats. All you have is hot air. And it is turning colder with every breath you take. If it weren't for the fact that political science exists, you wouldn't have any science at all behind the things you say. Note that I don't write the above for you. Experience shows that you will barely be able to read an comprehend much of it. Rather, I have written it so that other people will have a clearer understanding that God exists, and that everything including our health and religion depends on Him through cause and effect. What you have written, is correct, to a point. Then you use your own assumptions to create your idealism of a god. Cause and effect: Using your exact same theory places something else as creating your god, and then something else creating that..... this is your perpetual argument. You are once again correct when you state: "Even though this isn't quite proof of God" but you then fail with your next statement of "almost proof of god". Sorry, but cause and effect cannot just stop. It has to continue. That is the problem of your theory about cause and effect being proof. You stop it when it suits your ideals. You need to continue using the exact same theoretical knowledge and that means that the never ending loop consists. Your links do nothing apart from show everyone how desperate you are to try and justify a god. If you claim to be an intelligent person then surely you must understand that your argument lacks merit. So now your proof does not hold up...... try again. We are talking about a God that is so great that He can cause and effect the whole operation of the universe over periods of thousands of years. What can anyone know about Him, personally, if He doesn't reveal it? By the definition of the word/term "God," He fits the "thing" that cause-and-effected the universe into existence. Nothing that we see suggests that He has to have a cause. Why not? Because to make something, you have to be outside of it... especially before it exists. This means that the laws of the universe which we operate by don't necessarily fit Him, since He was before the universe, and therefore outside of it. There is no proof at all that God has to have had a cause. We all die. God has promise me and all those who accept Him, the right to have salvation from death. If I am in the least way desperate to show God, it is for your benefit, so that you can be saved for eternal life, as well. You say you don't want to be saved? Your choice. But you won't like it. So where is your proof of a god that can cause and effect the whole operation of the universe? Once again you have not followed through with all of the evidence or thesis. You haven't proven anything but made a simple assumption to meet your need. You only need to admit that you have no proof, and you only feel that your god is real. Once you do that, you will begin to understand that religion does not have proof, but relies on the faith of it's followers. |
|
|
|
|
|
