Health and Religion

[Astargath]

It doesn't matter if it's not a calendar, you can calculate approximately what the age of the earth is, it's called young earth creationism and it's wrong proved by science, so again you can disprove the god from the bible.

''I am religious and I do not believe the earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago'' Then you are wrong.

You are clearly being desperate to try to defend your beliefs, just like most religious people, you keep coming up with silly excuses.

There are also tons of contradictions, mistakes and just plain retarded laws in the bible:

You argued that belief in God is not logical. I showed you that belief is not only logical it's also unfalsifiable.

You ignored my arguments and changed the topic to biblical creation in seven days and the creation of man from dust.

I thus showed you how these biblical passages can be reconciled with modern science.

You again ignored my arguments and changed the topic to young earth creationism.

When I honestly tell you that I do not believe in young earth creationism you accuse me of desperation and silly excuses.

Are you certain it is not you who are desperately to trying to defend your beliefs?

I am simply sharing with you what I genuinely believe. As I have shown these beliefs are entirely logical and not falsifiable.

You reject my assumptions and my truth. Ok that is your right. Now the onus is on you to build yourself an alternative.

Atheism is the easy part. It is very easy to try and tear something down. Five high school teenagers with a backhoe and sledgehammers could demolish my house. When I ask them to build me a new one I am unlikely to be satisfied with the result.

I wish you well.

I expected you to ignore my last comment, it's ok, look, you are religious because you need to, that's ok but don't try to justify your beliefs with science, it doesn't work. Just admit that you believe in god based on faith not science. The god from the bible can be proved to be false by proving the bible is a pile of shit, which it is.

God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false but god from the bible is. The thread is called health and religion, religion gods can be proved wrong with logic and science.

I don't even mind ''god'' as a concept creator of the universe but religions are just absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant and anyone who still believes in them does not have enough critical thinking.

[1714106451]

1714106451

[1714106451]

1714106451

[BADecker]

No is not and you know is not. ''consistent with what we know about God.'' First of all, there is no ''what we know about god'' God is made up, people made up god thousands of years ago so it doesn't follow that it's logical belief. People didn't come up with god following logic, they just invented him like all the other gods because they didn't know better. So don't bullshit me.

After all the things that Coincube, myself, many others, and nature itself have shown you, you continue to profess your fictional idea that God doesn't exist. Your fiction will never come true, because you can't out-believe God so that God doesn't exist because of your faith. The greatest thing you will prove doing is ousting God from your life. When that happens, you will have nothing to hold you alive any longer.

No one is talking to you, you never accept evidence that's against your beliefs. I showed you plenty and you can't even argue against it.

The standard science that obliterates 100% of your evidence is this. Everything that you use as evidence, can be applied to other things in other ways, as evidence for things that oppose everything that you say. On top of that, there are the things that are evidence for the fact that God and God-religion exist and are the reality that cannot be refuted.

[CoinCube]

I expected you to ignore my last comment, it's ok, look, you are religious because you need to, that's ok but don't try to justify your beliefs with science, it doesn't work. Just admit that you believe in god based on faith not science. The god from the bible can be proved to be false by proving the bible is a pile of shit, which it is.

God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false but god from the bible is. The thread is called health and religion, religion gods can be proved wrong with logic and science.

I don't even mind ''god'' as a concept creator of the universe but religions are just absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant and anyone who still believes in them does not have enough critical thinking.

I do not believe in God because I need to Astargath. I believe in God because it is the most rational and logical choice.

You appear to be triggered by this assertion but you should not be. You describe religion as "absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant" so if it gives you satisfaction you can simply categorize me in your worldview as among the most "ignorant" and continue on happy your tranquility undisturbed.

The five different atheist blogs you linked. appear to be a laundry list of every Biblical passage some atheist somewhere has found objectionable. If you are truly interested in going through these versus I am willing to do so but you will have to limit yourself to one verse at a time and clearly write out your objections to each. You should know, however, that I am not priest, rabbi, or imam so I do not claim to be any sort of expertise on spiritual matters.

When I quickly glanced through the 5 blogs. Many of the complaints seemed to center around the harsh punishments (often death) prescribed in the Old Testament for various crimes.

One could respond to these broadly by referencing John 8:7 "7Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone" Christians can draw upon higher authority and conclude that although certain sins deserve extremely harsh punishments Jesus has taught a better way to deal with them.

If we limit ourselves to the Torah/Old Testament we can address these along the lines Rabbi Shurpin does below.

Why Are Torah/Biblical Punishments So Harsh?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1269629/jewish/Why-Are-Torah-Punishments-So-Harsh.htm

Question:

I know there is an infinite, loving G‑d. It's just that I can't get my head around a few things in the Torah, like death penalties for gays, wizards, and people who curse their parents. Even if these people have erred, couldn't they just be asked to stop or be punished with exile? That's why it's hard to believe that a G‑d who can make a billion galaxies and stars would want us to kill over different beliefs.

Response:

Before answering your question, it's worthwhile to note just how difficult it actually is to impose the death penalty in Jewish law.

First of all, circumstantial evidence won't cut it. You need two impeccable witnesses who had observed the person transgressing an act punishable by death. Next, these two witnesses had to have warned the person of the capital punishment he could receive for doing the prohibited act, even if he already knew. Finally, the person must have committed the transgression immediately after the warning. Any hesitation and the death penalty is off. The same applies to other forms of punishment.

To meet all of these conditions and incur the death penalty seems more like committing suicide then simply transgressing.

Nevertheless, the questions remains: As long as you are not hurting anyone else, sinning is your own private business. Why should you receive any sort of punishment? To get to the bottom of this, let's fly to the moon.

On December 24, 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 made history as the first astronauts to go into orbit around both sides of the moon and beam back pictures of the lunar landscape. The next day, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, discussed a lesson to be learned from the event.1

Central Command trains the astronauts how to eat, sleep, dress, and behave in all areas of their life while on board. Deviations, they are told, can mean the waste of billions of dollars. Hearing that such large sums of government money are at stake, the astronauts take every detail of their instructions very seriously.

Moreover, astronaut compliance has nothing to do with how much, if at all, they understand the benefits of the instructions, or the damage caused by not complying. Only the experts on the ground, who spent years researching the issues, know all the specific details. Therefore, the astronauts follow orders without question, even if they don't know the entire reasoning behind everything, because they understand that there are dire consequences for themselves and their team members.

Neither does an astronaut say, "Look, I'm only one of three—which makes me the minority. So if I don't do everything correctly, it's not going to make such a difference." Rather, he knows that any one miscalculation on his part endangers not only himself, but the other two astronauts as well.

Like a flight manual, the Torah guides and instructs us for a safe mission through life. In it, G‑d warns us of the 365 don'ts (the negative commandments) that can derail us and jeopardize our life mission. We don't always know why certain actions are more damaging and dangerous than others, and therefore carry a more severe punishment. But Mission Control does. So we listen.

Moreover, our decisions impact not only ourselves, but our friends, family, community, and the entire world. Actually, the entire idea can be found in a Midrash, composed long before anyone dreamed of space travel:

Moses exclaimed, "One person sins, and You are angry at the entire community?"2

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai taught a parable for this, of people sitting in a boat. One of them took a drill and began drilling underneath his seat.

"What are you doing?" demanded his friends.

"What concern is it of yours?" he responded. "Am I not drilling under my own seat?"

They said to him: "Yes, but the waters will come up and drown the entire boat."3

The Mishnah states, "Why was the human being created alone? ... To teach you that every person must say: For me the world was created."4 This world, as well as all of the spiritual realms leading to it, was created for each and every person individually. As Maimonides teaches, "A person should always view himself and the entire world as if it is exactly balanced. If he does one mitzvah, he is meritorious, for he has weighed himself and the entire world to the side of merit, and he has caused for himself and for all, salvation and redemption."5

Taking all this into account, let's look back at our situation: We're talking about a very stable, Torah-directed society—evidenced by the fact that there is a Bet Din that has the power to enforce Jewish law. We are talking about a community where people know the difference between right and wrong and only very rarely does someone step out of those boundaries. One person comes along and decides to do something totally outrageous, despite a warning from two witnesses and right in front of them, knowing exactly what he is doing and what will happen to him for doing it. Basically, drilling a hole in a watertight boat for every and any sin to enter.

Truthfully, I doubt that such cases occurred too often. Rabbi Akiva was of the opinion that a court that issues a death sentence once in 70 years is a murderous court. But the message is there: Don't imagine you're an island to yourself. Think twice before sinning. The entire world depends on you.

[Astargath]

I expected you to ignore my last comment, it's ok, look, you are religious because you need to, that's ok but don't try to justify your beliefs with science, it doesn't work. Just admit that you believe in god based on faith not science. The god from the bible can be proved to be false by proving the bible is a pile of shit, which it is.

God as a concept is obviously not possible to be proved false but god from the bible is. The thread is called health and religion, religion gods can be proved wrong with logic and science.

I don't even mind ''god'' as a concept creator of the universe but religions are just absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant and anyone who still believes in them does not have enough critical thinking.

I do not believe in God because I need to Astargath. I believe in God because it is the most rational and logical choice.

You appear to be triggered by this assertion but you should not be. You describe religion as "absolutely bullshit, trash, immoral, stupid and ignorant" so if it gives you satisfaction you can simply categorize me in your worldview as among the most "ignorant" and continue on happy your tranquility undisturbed.

The five different atheist blogs you linked. appear to be a laundry list of every Biblical passage some atheist somewhere has found objectionable. If you are truly interested in going through these versus I am willing to do so but you will have to limit yourself to one verse at a time and clearly write out your objections to each. You should know, however, that I am not priest, rabbi, or imam so I do not claim to be any sort of expertise on spiritual matters.

When I quickly glanced through the 5 blogs. Many of the complaints seemed to center around the harsh punishments (often death) prescribed in the Old Testament for various crimes.

One could respond to these broadly by referencing John 8:7 "7Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone" Christians can draw upon higher authority and conclude that although certain sins deserve extremely harsh punishments Jesus has taught a better way to deal with them.

If we limit ourselves to the Torah/Old Testament we can address these along the lines Rabbi Shurpin does below.

Why Are Torah/Biblical Punishments So Harsh?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1269629/jewish/Why-Are-Torah-Punishments-So-Harsh.htm

Question:

I know there is an infinite, loving G‑d. It's just that I can't get my head around a few things in the Torah, like death penalties for gays, wizards, and people who curse their parents. Even if these people have erred, couldn't they just be asked to stop or be punished with exile? That's why it's hard to believe that a G‑d who can make a billion galaxies and stars would want us to kill over different beliefs.

Response:

Before answering your question, it's worthwhile to note just how difficult it actually is to impose the death penalty in Jewish law.

First of all, circumstantial evidence won't cut it. You need two impeccable witnesses who had observed the person transgressing an act punishable by death. Next, these two witnesses had to have warned the person of the capital punishment he could receive for doing the prohibited act, even if he already knew. Finally, the person must have committed the transgression immediately after the warning. Any hesitation and the death penalty is off. The same applies to other forms of punishment.

To meet all of these conditions and incur the death penalty seems more like committing suicide then simply transgressing.

Nevertheless, the questions remains: As long as you are not hurting anyone else, sinning is your own private business. Why should you receive any sort of punishment? To get to the bottom of this, let's fly to the moon.

On December 24, 1968, the crew of Apollo 8 made history as the first astronauts to go into orbit around both sides of the moon and beam back pictures of the lunar landscape. The next day, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, discussed a lesson to be learned from the event.1

Central Command trains the astronauts how to eat, sleep, dress, and behave in all areas of their life while on board. Deviations, they are told, can mean the waste of billions of dollars. Hearing that such large sums of government money are at stake, the astronauts take every detail of their instructions very seriously.

Moreover, astronaut compliance has nothing to do with how much, if at all, they understand the benefits of the instructions, or the damage caused by not complying. Only the experts on the ground, who spent years researching the issues, know all the specific details. Therefore, the astronauts follow orders without question, even if they don't know the entire reasoning behind everything, because they understand that there are dire consequences for themselves and their team members.

Neither does an astronaut say, "Look, I'm only one of three—which makes me the minority. So if I don't do everything correctly, it's not going to make such a difference." Rather, he knows that any one miscalculation on his part endangers not only himself, but the other two astronauts as well.

Like a flight manual, the Torah guides and instructs us for a safe mission through life. In it, G‑d warns us of the 365 don'ts (the negative commandments) that can derail us and jeopardize our life mission. We don't always know why certain actions are more damaging and dangerous than others, and therefore carry a more severe punishment. But Mission Control does. So we listen.

Moreover, our decisions impact not only ourselves, but our friends, family, community, and the entire world. Actually, the entire idea can be found in a Midrash, composed long before anyone dreamed of space travel:

Moses exclaimed, "One person sins, and You are angry at the entire community?"2

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai taught a parable for this, of people sitting in a boat. One of them took a drill and began drilling underneath his seat.

"What are you doing?" demanded his friends.

"What concern is it of yours?" he responded. "Am I not drilling under my own seat?"

They said to him: "Yes, but the waters will come up and drown the entire boat."3

The Mishnah states, "Why was the human being created alone? ... To teach you that every person must say: For me the world was created."4 This world, as well as all of the spiritual realms leading to it, was created for each and every person individually. As Maimonides teaches, "A person should always view himself and the entire world as if it is exactly balanced. If he does one mitzvah, he is meritorious, for he has weighed himself and the entire world to the side of merit, and he has caused for himself and for all, salvation and redemption."5

Taking all this into account, let's look back at our situation: We're talking about a very stable, Torah-directed society—evidenced by the fact that there is a Bet Din that has the power to enforce Jewish law. We are talking about a community where people know the difference between right and wrong and only very rarely does someone step out of those boundaries. One person comes along and decides to do something totally outrageous, despite a warning from two witnesses and right in front of them, knowing exactly what he is doing and what will happen to him for doing it. Basically, drilling a hole in a watertight boat for every and any sin to enter.

Truthfully, I doubt that such cases occurred too often. Rabbi Akiva was of the opinion that a court that issues a death sentence once in 70 years is a murderous court. But the message is there: Don't imagine you're an island to yourself. Think twice before sinning. The entire world depends on you.

It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.

[CoinCube]

It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.

As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps. There will ALWAYS be more things that are true than you can ever prove.

https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

This does not mean we should reject science. Far from it we should embrace science and the multitude of questions it can answer while acknowledging its inherent limitations. If you trace any scientific fact back far enough, you will find a series of basic assumptions that the "fact" ultimately rests upon. These assumptions are inferred to be true but cannot be proven.

Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.  What it amounts to in an argument that we cannot infer any knowledge when all knowledge ultimately traces back to inferred knowledge. You are indirectly arguing that we can never believe in or know anything.

This is essentially a very roundabout argument for epistemological nihilism.

Nihilism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrinethat suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

Upthread I highlighted Bruce Charlton's writings on why nihilism is a very bad choice. If you are interested I recommend reading them.

See: Metaphysical Attitudes

Atheist often grossly over simplify this question and pretend the question is only about whether God exists or not and nothing else.

This is very much the wrong way to look at it. Ultimately this is a question of whether one can build a coherent worldview from first principles and apply that to the world and ones life and then live by it.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that this task is beyond ones ability. Most people even many religious people do this.

However, when one makes the choice to sit on the metaphysical sidelines one is accepting the position of a lemming in society. Lemmings let external forces make the big choices for them. These external forces may be the media or a political party or even a religious authority that is blindly followed. Other lemmings refuse all outside influences and choose to be entirely ruled by their base genetic code their animal passions and desires.

Belief in God is the keystone of a rational and sustainable worldview that elevates and sustains mankind. This worldview is largely responsible for the progress we have made so far.

See Religion and Progress

I choose not to be a lemming and believe this is the most rational and logical choice.

[yoseph]

I think  atheism is not a poison as long as they not insulting other religion.  They have their right to choose become atheism for them all of the things that happen in universe can be answer by science, so as long as they not harm anybody or it negatively influences someone else I do not see why we have something against them.

Atheist are the most insulting people I have ever encountered just because they don't believe in any religionq, they think that they can insult others as well and most particularly they intend to insult Christians the most.

[Astargath]

It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.

As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps. There will ALWAYS be more things that are true than you can ever prove.

https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

This does not mean we should reject science. Far from it we should embrace science and the multitude of questions it can answer while acknowledging its inherent limitations. If you trace any scientific fact back far enough, you will find a series of basic assumptions that the "fact" ultimately rests upon. These assumptions are inferred to be true but cannot be proven.

Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.  What it amounts to in an argument that we cannot infer any knowledge when all knowledge ultimately traces back to inferred knowledge. You are indirectly arguing that we can never believe in or know anything.

This is essentially a very roundabout argument for epistemological nihilism.

Nihilism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrinethat suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

Upthread I highlighted Bruce Charlton's writings on why nihilism is a very bad choice. If you are interested I recommend reading them.

See: Metaphysical Attitudes

Atheist often grossly over simplify this question and pretend the question is only about whether God exists or not and nothing else.

This is very much the wrong way to look at it. Ultimately this is a question of whether one can build a coherent worldview from first principles and apply that to the world and ones life and then live by it.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that this task is beyond ones ability. Most people even many religious people do this.

However, when one makes the choice to sit on the metaphysical sidelines one is accepting the position of a lemming in society. Lemmings let external forces make the big choices for them. These external forces may be the media or a political party or even a religious authority that is blindly followed. Other lemmings refuse all outside influences and choose to be entirely ruled by their base genetic code their animal passions and desires.

Belief in God is the keystone of a rational and sustainable worldview that elevates and sustains mankind. This worldview is largely responsible for the progress we have made so far.

See Religion and Progress

I choose not to be a lemming and believe this is the most rational and logical choice.

That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about. ''As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps'' Ok, so what? It's still not logical or rational to just believe in things only because science will never be able to prove or disprove them, how does that help you?

''Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.'' No it's fucking not. You won't simply believe that drinking acid is good for you, would you? You would die if you simply believed it, you can't go around believing in things just because they might be true and we can't prove them. That's stupid. Even then, why chose the christian god and not any of the other thousands or any of the other hundreds of possible explanations for the universe? How is belief in the christian god the most logical and rational choice?

[CoinCube]

That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about. ''As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps'' Ok, so what? It's still not logical or rational to just believe in things only because science will never be able to prove or disprove them, how does that help you?

''Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.'' No it's fucking not. You won't simply believe that drinking acid is good for you, would you? You would die if you simply believed it, you can't go around believing in things just because they might be true and we can't prove them. That's stupid. Even then, why chose the christian god and not any of the other thousands or any of the other hundreds of possible explanations for the universe? How is belief in the christian god the most logical and rational choice?

You clearly did not understand what I wrote so this is probably as far as this conversation can go. These are complicated concepts and difficult to grasp.

I recommend the following book which I believe would lead to an understanding of what I am talking about.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1851687327/ref=mp_s_a_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510450080&sr=8-1-spell&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=beginners+guide+to+epistomology

Best Wishes

[Astargath]

That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about. ''As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps'' Ok, so what? It's still not logical or rational to just believe in things only because science will never be able to prove or disprove them, how does that help you?

''Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.'' No it's fucking not. You won't simply believe that drinking acid is good for you, would you? You would die if you simply believed it, you can't go around believing in things just because they might be true and we can't prove them. That's stupid. Even then, why chose the christian god and not any of the other thousands or any of the other hundreds of possible explanations for the universe? How is belief in the christian god the most logical and rational choice?

You clearly did not understand what I wrote so this is probably as far as this conversation can go. These are complicated concepts and difficult to grasp.

I recommend the following book which I believe would lead to an understanding of what I am talking about.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1851687327/ref=mp_s_a_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510450080&sr=8-1-spell&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=beginners+guide+to+epistomology

Best Wishes

Look, I know you read a lot of bullshit books with a lot of bullshit words to justify your belief but the argument is simple, there is no logical argument to justify belief in your specific god instead of others.

[Tharushan]

Religion affects the way in which people present symptoms to the doctor and the types of treatment they will accept. Because some religions place restrictions on certain behaviours, religious beliefs may also influence a person's risk of illness in the first place. Spirituality also appears to confer health benefits, either though intrapsychic feelings of meaning and purpose, or through the social support that membership in a group brings.

[NightCloudz07]

Religion and IQ

High IQ is usually regarded by those that possess it as an unmitigated good. Those gifted with superior intellect are not only smarter, they are statistically more likely to be taller, healthier, and more athletic than average. In his 1920 study on high IQ children Lewis Terman noted that despite these advantages high IQ is not always beneficial. He found that the very brightest often grew up maladjusted in some way suffering from anxiety, depression, personality disorder, or nervous breakdowns.

In Mensa Magazine Bruce G Charlton posited three fundamental disadvantages of high IQ .

Charlton’s triad:
1)   Socialism
2)   Atheism
3)   Reduced Fertility

Charlton argued that IQ is associated with a tendency to embrace socialism, a rejection of religious teachings, and ultimately a declining fertility. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate Charlton’s triad in the context of religion and health. Specifically we will look closely at the potential health effects of atheism.

Religion Health and Wellbeing

Is the lack of religion bad for your health? In a large survey of over 600,000 people Frank Newport and colleagues showed that the very religious not only report higher levels of overall wellbeing they are also more likely to have healthy eating and exercise habits.



Every religion reported superior wellbeing to that of atheist but the largest differences were found in the Mormons and the Jews. These are minority religions each comprising about 1.7% of the US population. Examining these two groups will help us better understand the impact of religion on human health.

Mormon Demographics

Demographically Mormons differ greatly from society at large. Nearly two thirds of Mormons 66% are married compared with just over half 48% of the general population. Mormons have large families with a fertility rate of 3.4 children per woman double that of atheists.



Mormons may also have some immunity the detrimental effect IQ on fertility. In the general population increasing income (highly correlated with IQ) is associated with both declining fertility and declining religious commitment. In Mormons the reverse is true. Mormon fertility is positively correlated with income and Mormons with higher levels of formal education tend to be more religiously committed.

On multiple religious measures Mormons stand out for having exceptionally high levels of religious commitment. More than nine-in-ten Mormons report a belief in God and that the Bible is the word of God. Mormons are also very observant in their religious practices with more than eight-in-ten praying daily. Mormons strongly support a strict interpretation of their faith and the preservation of traditional beliefs and practices.

Are these demographic differences actually due to the Mormon religion? How can we be confident these are not just population level differences that happen to correlate with religion? To better answer lets take a look at Jewish demographics.

Jewish Demographics

Unlike Mormons who are a young religion and can be looked at as a single group Judaism is one of the oldest religions and has splintered into many subgroups. There are many different branches of Judaism each with unique features. These branches can mostly be grouped into 5 major categories. From most conservative to most liberal these are Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Secular Jews.

Orthodox Jews believe their sacred scriptures the Torah is the word of God and should be studied and followed. Their customs and behavior is guided by observance of halakhah (Jewish Law). Conservative Jews acknowledge that Jewish writings come from God, but believe that the Law should adapt, absorbing aspects of the predominant culture while remaining true to Judaism's values. Reform Judaism does not hold that the Torah was written by God. The movement accepts the critical theory of Biblical authorship: that the Bible was written by separate sources and redacted together. Reform Jews do not believe in observance of commandments as such, but they retain much of the values and ethics of Judaism. Secular Jews do not affiliate with any major religious group they may or may not believe in God. A more detailed description of these difference can be read here.

When people think of the Jews they often think of famous figures like Allen Greenspan or presidential candidate Bernie Sanders both secular Jews. Secular Jews are often liberal, democratic voters. Orthodox Jews on the other hand tend to be socially conservative, and are more likely to be republican voters.

The Jews as a group are incredibly smart. They consistently rank highest in the world on IQ studies significantly higher than even Asians who are their nearest competitors. If Charlton’s triad of IQ disadvantages is correct then the Jews should be particularly susceptible. Is this the case?

American Jewish Fertility by Religious Current

Religious Sect	Average No. of Children per Woman
Ultra-Orthodox	6.72
Modern Orthodox	3.39
Conservative	1.74
Reform	1.36
Secular	1.29

As Jews leave orthodoxy it appears their fertility plummets. The Ultra-Orthodox are a group who are similar to the Amish in that they have partially separated themselves from the outside world choosing to live in isolated communities. They have a fertility rate of 6.72 which is similar to Amish fertility rates . Modern Orthodox Jews strictly adhere to their faith but simultaneously advocate engaging with the outside world especially higher education. The Modern Orthodox fertility rate 3.39 is nearly identical to that of Mormons. The Modern Orthodox have a similar philosophy to that of Mormons in that they advocate engaging with the outside world as much as possible while maintaining strict adherence to their religious code. As Jews move away from their historic religious tradition their fertility plummets. Secular Jews have a shockingly low fertility of 1.29 among the lowest in the world. For the Jews it appears the detrimental effects of high IQ are very real and that traditional religion offers some protection.

Toxicity of the Modern World

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley envisioned a future where the masses were rendered infertile and controlled with pleasure and drugs. Is that the world we live in now? Anyone over that age of 25 may not realize how far traditional courtship and dating has been undermined by modernity. The tinder generation is being conditioned to swipe right on their onscreen app and meet up later for random sexual gratification. This phenomena has been described by Vanity Fair as nothing less than a dating apocalypse.

In Colorado long acting implantable contraceptives which a render women infertile for up to 10 years and require a doctor’s visit to remove have been implanted in 26% of young women age 15-24 as of 2013.

In 2015 an advisory body to the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicaid examine how often doctors are using “most effective” or “moderately effective” contraception. Only contraception deemed “highly effective” or “moderately effective” (Long acting implantable or long acting injections) would be included in the proposed measurement. Doctor’s with a low percentage of young patients using such contraception would presumably be rated as giving lower quality care.

We appear to be living in a “Utopia” of declining fitness and capability. An age of existential exhaustion manifested by an ageing, hedonistic society characterized by declining marriage, and near zero children.

Sin is the Situation

Sin is the situation where how we feel is ultimate human reality, and how we feel is known to be contingent and means nothing.
Sin is to embrace this nothingness as reality, to propagandize that nothingness is reality, to denigrate anything which saves us from nothingness.
*
And that is the reason we need to be ‘saved’.
And this is the reason why we cannot save ourselves.
We need to be saved from nothingness, and from those who brainwash us into a belief in nothingness, and from ourselves who propagate that reality is nothingness.
*
Sin is to embrace nothingness

Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for ‘entertainment’. A devout life is not so much about a flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will. A devout life enables one to build these habits and most importantly successfully pass them on to our children.

Whatever sense we make of this world, whatever value we place upon our lives and relationships, whatever meaning we ultimately give to our joys and agonies, must necessarily be a gesture of faith. Whether we consider the whole a product of impersonal cosmic forces, a malevolent deity, or a benevolent god, depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously to conclude from that evidence… If we decide to leave the questions unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer that too is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril.

What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

In the end you must make a choice:

Wallow in the degradation of modernity

Or

Celebrate purity of the human spirit

Your choice is one that echoes through time influencing not only your life but the lives of your children and grandchildren as well.
Choose Wisely


See Religion and Progress for more.



Edit: It is clear that a few posters were angered by the original title of this post. As the goal of this post is not to attack or denigrate but to inform and share knowledge I have selected a new and less inflammatory title.

the health is the condition of being well or free from disease the overall condition of someone's body or mind and the religion is the beliefs in a god or in a group of gods an organized system of beliefs,ceremonies, and rules used to worship god

[CoinCube]

Look, I know you read a lot of bullshit books with a lot of bullshit words to justify your belief but the argument is simple, there is no logical argument to justify belief in your specific god instead of others.

The irony of course is that I just provided such an argument but those are just "bullshit words from bullshit books" right? It's much easier to simply repeat your "answer" over and over again. Your argument after all is simple.

[Astargath]

Look, I know you read a lot of bullshit books with a lot of bullshit words to justify your belief but the argument is simple, there is no logical argument to justify belief in your specific god instead of others.

The irony of course is that I just provided such an argument but those are just "bullshit words from bullshit books" right? It's much easier to simply repeat your "answer" over and over again. Your argument after all is simple.

No, you haven't. You are always talking about ''god'' but you never specify which god or why the christian god is better than the other gods. Your argument simply says it's logical and rational to believe in ''god'' but which god and why the christian god?

[CoinCube]

No, you haven't. You are always talking about ''god'' but you never specify which god or why the christian god is better than the other gods. Your argument simply says it's logical and rational to believe in ''god'' but which god and why the christian god?

First I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

I next highlighted how religious thought specifically monotheism conceptualises God and how this conceptualisation is consistent with what we can mathematically deduce.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24187846#msg24187846

I also demonstrated how traditional Biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24374030#msg24374030

I reviewed the limitations of reason in understanding infinity and the fact that our understanding of God must necessarily be a massive oversimplification. God can never truly be grasped through our mind as our mind is time-bound.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24330562#msg24330562

Finally I noted the importance of truly drilling down to the foundations of ones metaphysical assumptions and how failure to do so was ceding control of ones actions, beliefs and thoughts to external forces.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24418501#msg24418501


If you had understood my arguments above you would realise that I already answered your questions. A single God is a logical necessity resulting from the proprieties of the indivisible and the infinite.

What then can we say about the words of the Christian Priest versus the words of the Jewish Rabbi and the Islamic Imam?

They must logically be attempting to describe the same infinite God.

The Priest, Rabbi, and Imam are all human, imperfect, and finite so their truth and ours must necessarily be incomplete at best a pale reflection of the reality of God.

[BADecker]

It is not the most rational choice. If you want the most rational choice or logical choice you wouldn't believe in anything until it was proved, that would be the most logical choice. I acknowledge the possibility of a ''god-like'' being that created the universe, however, believing in such thing without enough evidence would make me a moron, not a logical person. I cannot believe in any of that, I don't know what truly started the universe and I don't know what truly happens when you die, science suggests that nothing happens but it could be wrong, many things could be wrong. Again if you are truly searching for the most logical or rational choice you wouldn't believe in a random god, this is again just an excuse to try to justify your beliefs.

As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps. There will ALWAYS be more things that are true than you can ever prove.

https://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

This does not mean we should reject science. Far from it we should embrace science and the multitude of questions it can answer while acknowledging its inherent limitations. If you trace any scientific fact back far enough, you will find a series of basic assumptions that the "fact" ultimately rests upon. These assumptions are inferred to be true but cannot be proven.

Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.  What it amounts to in an argument that we cannot infer any knowledge when all knowledge ultimately traces back to inferred knowledge. You are indirectly arguing that we can never believe in or know anything.

This is essentially a very roundabout argument for epistemological nihilism.

Nihilism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɪlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɪlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrinethat suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.

Upthread I highlighted Bruce Charlton's writings on why nihilism is a very bad choice. If you are interested I recommend reading them.

See: Metaphysical Attitudes

Atheist often grossly over simplify this question and pretend the question is only about whether God exists or not and nothing else.

This is very much the wrong way to look at it. Ultimately this is a question of whether one can build a coherent worldview from first principles and apply that to the world and ones life and then live by it.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that this task is beyond ones ability. Most people even many religious people do this.

However, when one makes the choice to sit on the metaphysical sidelines one is accepting the position of a lemming in society. Lemmings let external forces make the big choices for them. These external forces may be the media or a political party or even a religious authority that is blindly followed. Other lemmings refuse all outside influences and choose to be entirely ruled by their base genetic code their animal passions and desires.

Belief in God is the keystone of a rational and sustainable worldview that elevates and sustains mankind. This worldview is largely responsible for the progress we have made so far.

See Religion and Progress

I choose not to be a lemming and believe this is the most rational and logical choice.

That was some next level bullshit my friend, what the fuck are you even talking about. ''As I highlighted upthread it is impossible to prove everything. Science will never be able to fill its own gaps'' Ok, so what? It's still not logical or rational to just believe in things only because science will never be able to prove or disprove them, how does that help you?

''Your argument that we should "not believe in anything until it is proved" is therefore an incoherent one.'' No it's fucking not. You won't simply believe that drinking acid is good for you, would you? You would die if you simply believed it, you can't go around believing in things just because they might be true and we can't prove them. That's stupid. Even then, why chose the christian god and not any of the other thousands or any of the other hundreds of possible explanations for the universe? How is belief in the christian god the most logical and rational choice?

But look at what you are throwing away by not accepting these things that are of extremely greater evidence than anything you suggest.

Isaiah 65:20

New International Version
"Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

New Living Translation
"No longer will babies die when only a few days old. No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life. No longer will people be considered old at one hundred! Only the cursed will die that young!

English Standard Version
No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

New American Standard Bible
"No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.

King James Bible
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In her, a nursing infant will no longer live only a few days, or an old man not live out his days. Indeed, the youth will die at a hundred years, and the one who misses a hundred years will be cursed.

International Standard Version
"And there will no longer be in it a young boy who lives only a few days, or an old person who does not live out his days; for one who dies at a hundred years will be thought a mere youth, and one who falls short of a hundred years will be considered accursed.

NET Bible
Never again will one of her infants live just a few days or an old man die before his time. Indeed, no one will die before the age of a hundred, anyone who fails to reach the age of a hundred will be considered cursed.

New Heart English Bible
"There shall be no more there an infant of days, nor an old man who has not filled his days; for the child shall die one hundred years old, and the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
There will no longer be an infant who lives for only a few days or an old man who doesn't live a long life. Whoever lives to be a hundred years old will be thought of as young. Whoever dies before he is a hundred years old will be cursed as a sinner.

JPS Tanakh 1917
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man, That hath not filled his days; For the youngest shall die a hundred years old, And the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

New American Standard 1977
“No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
            Or an old man who does not live out his days;
            For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
            And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
            Shall be thought accursed.

Jubilee Bible 2000
There shall no longer be there an infant of days, nor an old man that has not filled his days, for the child shall die one hundred years old; and he who sins at one hundred years of age shall be accursed.

King James 2000 Bible
There shall be no more there an infant of days, nor an old man that has not fulfilled his days: for the child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

American King James Version
There shall be no more there an infant of days, nor an old man that has not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

American Standard Version
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

Douay-Rheims Bible
There shall no more be an infant of days there, nor an old man that shall not fill up his days: for the child shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

Darby Bible Translation
There shall be no more thenceforth an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not completed his days; for the youth shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

English Revised Version
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old, and the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Webster's Bible Translation
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die a hundred years old: but the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.

World English Bible
"There shall be no more there an infant of days, nor an old man who has not filled his days; for the child shall die one hundred years old, and the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

Young's Literal Translation
There is not thence any more a suckling of days, And an aged man who doth not complete his days, For the youth a hundred years old dieth, And the sinner, a hundred years old, is lightly esteemed.

And, also, the commentaries of many who have studied the meaning of Isaiah 65:20:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(20) There shall be no more thence . . .—The prophet sees in the restored city not so much an eternal and a deathless life as the return of the traditional longevity of the prediluvian and patriarchal age (Genesis 5, 11), Life will not be prematurely cut off, as it had been, by pestilence and war. (Comp. Zechariah 8:4.) He who dies at the age of a hundred will be thought of as dying young; even the sinner, dying before his time as the penalty of his guilt, shall live out the measure of a century. The noticeable fact is that sin is thought of as not altogether extinct—as still appearing, though under altered conditions, even in the restored Jerusalem.

Benson Commentary
Isaiah 65:20. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, &c. — There shall he no untimely or premature deaths, either of infants and children, who do not grow up to man’s estate, or of old men, who do not live out the full term of life. For the child shall die, &c. — This should rather be translated, For he that dies a hundred years old shall die a child: and the sinner that dies a hundred years old shall be (that is, shall be deemed) accursed, or cut off by the justice of God for his crime. Thus “the prophet describes this renovation of the world as a paradisiacal state, and such as the patriarchs enjoyed before the flood, when men commonly lived nearly a thousand years. So he that died at a hundred years of age would have been looked upon as dying in the age of childhood, and be judged to have been cut off in the beginning of his years, as a punishment for some great sins he had committed.” — Lowth. It is justly observed here by Mr. Scott, that “the event alone can certainly determine whether this is meant literally or figuratively; but it is evident that the universal prevalence of real Christianity would so terminate wars, murders, contentions, idleness, intemperance, and licentiousness, as greatly to lengthen out the general term of man’s life. Many diseases which now destroy thousands and tens of thousands in the prime of life, and communicate distempers to succeeding generations, would, in that case, scarcely be heard of any more; and thus the human constitution would soon be much mended, and children would generally come into the world more vigorous and healthy than they can do while vice so greatly prevails. What God may further intend in this matter we cannot determine.” Vitringa’s view of the passage seems to have been, that “there shall be no violent or punitive death in this holy city, but that all the inhabitants being holy, all shall die full of days and happy, and shall have, as it were, a foretaste, pledge, and earnest of life eternal, in their long and happy life below.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
65:17-25 In the grace and comfort believers have in and from Christ, we are to look for this new heaven and new earth. The former confusions, sins and miseries of the human race, shall be no more remembered or renewed. The approaching happy state of the church is described under a variety of images. He shall be thought to die in his youth, and for his sins, who only lives to the age of a hundred years. The event alone can determine what is meant; but it is plain that Christianity, if universal, would so do away violence and evil, as greatly to lengthen life. In those happy days, all God's people shall enjoy the fruit of their labours. Nor will children then be the trouble of their parents, or suffer trouble themselves. The evil dispositions of sinners shall be completely moritified; all shall live in harmony. Thus the church on earth shall be full of happiness, like heaven. This prophecy assures the servants of Christ, that the time approaches, wherein they shall be blessed with the undisturbed enjoyment of all that is needful for their happiness. As workers together with God, let us attend his ordinances, and obey his commands.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
There shall be no more thence - The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, read this, 'There shall not be there.' The change requires the omission of a single letter in the present Hebrew text, and the sense seems to demand it. The design of the prophet here is, to describe the times of happiness and prosperity which would succeed the calamities under which the nation had been suffering. This he does by a great variety of images, all denoting substantially the same thing. In Isaiah 65:17, the change is represented to be as great as if a new heaven and a new earth should be created; in this verse the image is, that the inhabitants would reach a great age, and that the comparatively happy times of the patriarchs would be restored; in Isaiah 65:21, the image is taken from the perfect security in their plans of labor, and the fact that they would enjoy the fruit of their toil; in Isaiah 65:25, the image employed is that taken from the change in the nature of the animal creation. All these are poetic images designed as illustrations of the general truth, and, like other poetic images, they are not to be taken literally.

An infant of days - A child; a sucking child. So the Hebrew word, עול ‛ûl, denotes. The Septuagint renders it, 'Nor shall there be there anymore an untimely birth (ἄωρoς aōros) and an old man who has not filled up his time.' The idea is not that there should be no infant in those future times - which would be an idea so absurd that a prophet would not use it even in poetic fiction - but that there will not be an infant who shall not fill up his days, or who will be short-lived. All shall live long, and all shall be blessed with health, and continual vigor and youth.

Nor an old man that hath not filled his days - They shall enjoy the blessings of great longevity, and that not a longevity that shall be broken and feeble, but which shall be vigorous and happy. In further illustration of this sentiment, we may remark,

1. That there is no reason to suppose that it will be literally fulfilled even in the millenium. If it is to be regarded as literally to be fulfilled, then for the same reason we are to suppose that in that time the nature of the lion will be literally changed, and that he will eat straw like the ox, and that the nature of the wolf and the lamb will be so far changed that they shall lie down together Isaiah 65:25. But there is no reason to suppose this; nor is there any good reason to suppose that literally no infant or child will die in those times, or that no old man will be infirm, or that all will live to the same great age.

2. The promise of long life is regarded in the Bible as a blessing, and is an image, everywhere, of prosperity and happiness. Thus the patriarchs were regarded as having been highly-favored people, because God lengthened out their days; and throughout the Scriptures it is represented as a proof of the favor of God, that a man is permitted to live long, and to see a numerous posterity (see Genesis 45:10; Psalm 21:4; Psalm 23:6; Psalm 128:6 (Hebrew); Psalm 91:16; Proverbs 3:2-14; Proverbs 17:6.

3. No one can doubt that the prevalence of the gospel everywhere would greatly lengthen out the life of man. Let anyone reflect on the great number that are now cut off in childhood in pagan lands by their parents, all of whom would have been spared had their parents been Christians; on the numbers of children who are destroyed in early life by the effects of the intemperance of their parents, most of whom would have survived if their parents had been virtuous; on the numbers of young men now cut down by vice, who would have continued to live if they had been under the influence of the gospel; on the immense hosts cut off, and most of them in middle life, by war, who would have lived to a good old age if the gospel had prevailed and put a period to wars; on the million who are annually cut down by intemperance and lust, and other raging passions, by murder and piracy, or who are punished by death for crime; on the million destroyed by pestilential disease sent by offended heaven on guilty nations; and let him reflect that these sources of death will be dried up by the prevalence of pure virtue and religion, and he will see that a great change may yet take place literally in the life of man.

4. A similar image is used by the classic writers to denote a golden age, or an age of great prosperity and happiness. Thus the Sybil, in the Sybilline Oracles, B. vii., speaking of the future age, says, Στήσει δὲ τò γένoς, ὡς πάρoς ἦν σoι Stēsei de to genos, hōs paros ēn soi - 'A race shall be restored as it was in the ancient times.' So Hesiod, describing the silver age, introduces a boy as having reached the age of an hundred years, and yet but a child:

A̓λλ ̓ ἑκατóν μὲν παῖς ἔτεα παρὰ μητέρι κεδνρ,

E̓τρέφετ ἀτάλλων υέγα νήπιoς ὦ ἔνι oἴκῳ.

All' hekaton men tais etea para mēteri kednr,

Etrephet atallōn mega nēpios ō eni oikō.

For the child shall die an hundred years old - That is, he that is an hundred years old when he dies, shall still be a child or a youth. This is nearly the same sentiment which is expressed by Hesiod, as quoted above. The prophet has evidently in his eye the longevity of the patriarchs, when an individual of an hundred years of age was comparatively young - the proportion between that and the usual period of life then being about the same as that between the age of ten and the usual period of life now. We are not, I apprehend, to suppose that this is to be taken literally, but it is figurative language, designed to describe the comparatively happy state referred to by the prophet, as if human life should be lengthened out to the age of the patriarchs, and as if he who is now regarded as an old man, should then be regarded as in the vigor of his days. At the same time it is true, that the influence of temperance, industry, and soberness of life, such as would exist if the rules of the gospel were obeyed, would carry forward the vigor of youth far into advancing years, and mitigate most of the evils now incident to the decline of life.

The few imperfect experiments which have been made of the effect of entire temperance and of elevated virtue; of subduing the passions by the influence of the gospel, and of prudent means for prolonging health and life, such as the gospel will prompt a man to use, who has any just view of the value of life, show what may yet be done in happier times. It is an obvious reflection here, that if such effects are to be anticipated from the prevalence of true religion and of temperance, then he is the best friend of man who endeavors most sedulously to bring others under the influence of the gospel, and to extend the principles of temperance and virtue. The gospel of Christ would do more to prolong human life than all other causes combined; and when that prevails everywhere, putting a period, as it must, to infanticide, and war, and intemperance, and murder, and piracy, and suicide, and duelling, and raging and consuming passions, then it is impossible for the most vivid imagination to conceive the effect which shall be produced on the health and long life, as well as on the happiness of mankind.

But the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed - The sense of this appears to be, 'not all who reach to a great age shall be judged to be the friends and favorites of God. Though a sinner shall reach that advanced period of life, yet he shall be cursed of God and shall be cut down in his sins. He shall be held to be a sinner and shall die, and shall be regarded as accursed.' Other interpretations of this expression may be seen in Poole and in Vitringa. The above seems to me to be the true exposition.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
20. The longevity of men in the first age of the world shall be enjoyed again.

thence—from that time forward.

infant of days—that is, an infant who shall only complete a few days; short-lived.

filled … days—None shall die without attaining a full old age.

child … die … hundred years—that is, "he that dieth an hundred years old shall die a mere child" [Lowth].

sinner … hundred … be accursed—"The sinner that dieth at an hundred years shall be deemed accursed," that is, his death at so early an age, which in those days the hundredth year will be regarded, just as if it were mere childhood, shall be deemed the effect of God's special visitation in wrath [Rosenmuller]. This passage proves that the better age to come on earth, though much superior to the present will not be a perfect state; sin and death shall have place in it (compare Re 20:7, , but much less frequently than now.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Whereas God hath made many promises of long life to the Jews, they should all be fulfilled to God’s people among them, so as there should be rare abortions among them, Exodus 23:26; few infants should be carried out to burial, nor but few that should not have filled up their years; those that were now children should die at a great age; yet none of these things should be of any advantage to wicked men, but if, any of them should live to be.a hundred years old, yet they should die accursed. This seemeth to be the plain sense. If any desire to read more opinions of these words, he may find enough in the English Annotations.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
There shall be no more thence an infant of days,.... That is, there shall no more be carried out from thence, from Jerusalem, or any other place where the church of God is, to the grave, in order to be interred, an infant that has lived but a few days, a very common thing now; but, in the latter day, such instances will be rare, or rather there will be none at all; every child born will live to the age of man, and not be cut off by any premature death, either by any natural disease, or by famine, or sword, or any other calamity, which will now have no place:

nor an old man that hath not filled his days; who, though he may in some sense, or in comparison of others, be said to be old, yet has not arrived to the full term of man's life, threescore years and ten, or more; for it seems, by what follows, as if the term of human life will be lengthened in the latter day, and reach in common to a hundred years; so that as long life is always reckoned a temporal happiness, among the rest that shall be enjoyed, this will be one in the latter day; and which is to be understood not of the Millennium state, in which there will be no death, Revelation 21:4, which yet will be in this, as the following words show; but of the state preceding that, even the spiritual reign of Christ:

for the child shall die an hundred years old; not that that shall be reckoned a child that shall die at a hundred years of age (h), the life of man being now, in these days of the Messiah, as long as they were before the flood, as the Jewish interpreters imagine; but the child that is now born, or he that is now a child, shall live to the age of a hundred years, and not die before: but lest this outward happiness should be trusted to, and a man should imagine that therefore he is in a happy state for eternity, being blessed with such a long life, it follows, "but" or

though the sinner, being an hundred years old; shall be accursed; for though this shall be common in this state to good men and bad men, to live a hundred years, yet their death will not be alike; the good man will be blessed, and enter into a happy state of joy and peace; but the wicked man, though he lives as long as the other in this world, shall be accursed at death, and to all eternity; see Ecclesiastes 8:12.

(h) Vid. Gloss. in T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2.
Geneva Study Bible
There shall be no more from there an infant of days, nor an old man that hath {z} not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being {a} an hundred years old shall be accursed.

(z) Meaning, in this wonderful restoration of the Church there would be no weakness of youth, nor infirmities of age, but all would be fresh and flourishing: and this is accomplished in the heavenly Jerusalem, when all sins will cease, and the tears will be wiped away.

(a) By which he shows that the infidels and unrepentant sinners have no part of this benediction.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
20. Amongst the blessings of the new people of God the chief shall be a miraculous extension of the term of human life. This is the dominant idea down to the end of Isaiah 65:22. The expression of the thought is unaccountably laboured and obscure.

an infant of days] must mean one who lives only a few days.

nor an old man … days] (cf. Genesis 25:8; Exodus 23:26; Job 5:26), i.e. none shall become prematurely old; each shall attain the allotted measure of life according to the standard which shall then be normal.

for the youth shall die an hundred years old &c.] These two cases must be regarded as hypothetical merely. Death at the age of 100 years (if such a thing took place) would be looked on as an untimely death in extreme youth, and as a special mark of the Divine anger on a career of wickedness (Job 15:32; Job 20:5). The possibility of a hardened sinner being actually found in the Messianic community cannot be seriously contemplated (see ch. Isaiah 60:21).

It is evident that the idea of immortal life is unknown to the writer. He looks forward to a restriction of the power of death, but not to its entire cessation. The same idea is probably implied in a prophecy of the early post-exilic period (Zechariah 8:4; see on ch. Isaiah 25:; and a conception precisely similar is characteristic of the first section of the Book of Enoch. see Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 26, 55, 98. Comp. En. Isaiah 5:9 : “And [the elect] will not be punished all the days of their life, nor will they die of plagues or visitations of wrath, but they will complete the full number of the days of their life, and their lives will grow old in peace, and the years of their joy will be many, in eternal happiness and peace all the days of their life.” Cf. also Isaiah 10:17 and Isaiah 25:4-5.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 20. - There shall be no more thence an infant of days; i.e. there shall not go from the new Jerusalem into the unseen world any infant of a few days old. On the contrary, even "the youth" shall reach a hundred; i.e. one who dies when he is a hundred shall be regarded as cut off in his youth. The general rule shall be, that old men shall "fill their days," or attain to patriarchal longevity. Even the sinner, who is under the curse of God, shall not be cut off till he is a hundred. What is most remarkable in the description is that death and sin are represented as still continuing. Death was spoken of as "swallowed up in victory" in one of the earlier descriptions of Messiah's kingdom (Isaiah 25:.
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
On the ground of the sin thus referred to again, the proclamation of punishment is renewed, and the different fates awaiting the servants of Jehovah and those by whom He is despised are here announced in five distinct theses and antitheses. "Therefore thus saith the Lord, Jehovah: Behold my servants will eat, but ye will hunger; behold my servants will drink, but ye will thirst; behold my servants will rejoice, but ye will be put to shame; behold my servants will exult for delight of heart, but ye will cry for anguish of heart, and ye will lament for brokenness of spirit. And ye will leave your name for a curse to my chosen ones, and the Lord, Jehovah, will slay thee; but His servants He will call by another name, to that whoever blesseth himself in the land will bless himself by the God of truthfulness, and whoever sweareth in the land will swear by the God of truthfulness, because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they have vanished from mine eyes." The name Adonai is connected with the name Jehovah for the purpose of affirming that the God of salvation and judgment has the power to carry His promises and threats into execution. Starving, confounded by the salvation they had rejected (תּבשׁוּ as in Isaiah 66:5), crying and wailing (תּילילוּ, fut. hiph. as in Isaiah 15:2, with a double preformative; Ges. 70, 2 Anm.) for sorrow of heart and crushing of spirit (shebher, rendered very well by the lxx συντριβή, as in Isaiah 61:1, συντετριμμένoυς ), the rebellious ones are left behind in the land of captivity, whilst the servants of Jehovah enjoy the richest blessings from God in the land of promise (Isaiah 62:8-9). The former, perishing in the land of captivity, leave their name to the latter as shebhū‛âh, i.e., to serve as a formula by which to swear, or rather to execrate or curse (Numbers 5:21), so that men will say, "Jehovah slay thee, as He slew them." This, at any rate, is the meaning of the threat; but the words וגו והמיתך cannot contain the actual formula, not even if we drop the Vav, as Knobel proposes, and change לבחירי into לבחיריו; for, in the first place, although in the doxologies a Hebrew was in the habit of saying "berūkh shemō" (bless his name) instead of yehı̄ shemō bârukh (his name be blessed), he never went so far as the Arab with his Allâh tabâr, but said rather יתברך. Still less could he make use of the perfect (indicative) in such sentences as "may he slay thee," instead of the future (voluntative) ימיתך, unless the perfect shared the optative force of the previous future by virtue of the consecutio temporum. And secondly, the indispensable כּהם or כּאלּה would be wanting (see Jeremiah 29:22, cf., Genesis 48:20). We may therefore assume, that the prophet has before his mind the words of this imprecatory formula, though he does not really express them, and that he deduces from it the continuation of the threat. And this explains his passing from the plural to the singular. Their name will become an execration; but Jehovah will call His servants by another name (cf., Isaiah 62:2), so that henceforth it will be the God of the faithfully fulfilled promise whose name men take into their mouth when they either desire a blessing or wish to give assurance of the truth (hithbâr be, to bless one's self with any one, or with the name of any one; Ewald, 133, Anm. 1). No other name of any god is now heard in the land, except this gloriously attested name; for the former troubles, which included the mixed condition of Israel in exile and the persecution of the worshippers of Jehovah by the despisers of Jehovah, are now forgotten, so that they no longer disturb the enjoyment of the present, and are eve hidden from the eyes of God, so that all thought of ever renewing them is utterly remote from His mind. This is the connection between Isaiah 65:16 and Isaiah 65:13-15. אשׁר does not mean eo quod here, as in Genesis 31:49 for example, but ita ut, as in Genesis 13:16. What follows is the result of the separation accomplished and the promise fulfilled. For the same reason God is called Elohē'âmēn, "the God of Amen," i.e., the God who turns what He promises into Yea and Amen (2 Corinthians 1:20). The epithet derived from the confirmatory Amen, which is thus applied to Jehovah, is similar to the expression in Revelation 3:14, where Jesus is called "the Amen, the faithful and true witness." The explanatory kı̄ (for) is emphatically repeated in וכי, as in Genesis 33:11 and 1 Samuel 19:4 (compare Job 38:20). The inhabitants of the land stand in a close and undisturbed relation to the God who has proved Himself to be true to His promises; for all the former evils that followed from the sin have entirely passed away.

You are throwing away great goodness for your life, and are replacing it with fables of science wished for.

[noelwenceslao03]

Well, religion and health of a person comes hand in hand. Religion is a practice in which your lifestyle compromises to that. If your religion dictates you to live a healthy lifestyle and at the same time encourages excellence in this world, then definitely your well-being would be significantly healthy.

[Astargath]

No, you haven't. You are always talking about ''god'' but you never specify which god or why the christian god is better than the other gods. Your argument simply says it's logical and rational to believe in ''god'' but which god and why the christian god?

First I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852

I next highlighted how religious thought specifically monotheism conceptualises God and how this conceptualisation is consistent with what we can mathematically deduce.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24187846#msg24187846

I also demonstrated how traditional Biblical writings on the timeline of creation and origins of mankind can in fact be reconciled with modern scientific thought.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24374030#msg24374030

I reviewed the limitations of reason in understanding infinity and the fact that our understanding of God must necessarily be a massive oversimplification. God can never truly be grasped through our mind as our mind is time-bound.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24330562#msg24330562

Finally I noted the importance of truly drilling down to the foundations of ones metaphysical assumptions and how failure to do so was ceding control of ones actions, beliefs and thoughts to external forces.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg24418501#msg24418501


If you had understood my arguments above you would realise that I already answered your questions. A single God is a logical necessity resulting from the proprieties of the indivisible and the infinite.

What then can we say about the words of the Christian Priest versus the words of the Jewish Rabbi and the Islamic Imam?

They must logically be attempting to describe the same infinite God.

The Priest, Rabbi, and Imam are all human, imperfect, and finite so their truth and ours must necessarily be incomplete at best a pale reflection of the reality of God.

Ok, let's start again.
''First I highlighted how we can mathematically deduce The Incompleteness of the universe and logically conclude that whatever is outside the universe must be boundless, immaterial, indivisible and an uncaused cause.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg23796852#msg23796852''

No, no and no. Simply wrong.

First of all you cannot even apply kurt godel theorem to the universe:
https://www.quora.com/Can-G%C3%B6dels-incompleteness-theorem-applied-to-the-universe-prove-the-existence-of-God

''Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy.

And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.''

This statement is simply wrong.

Appeals to the incompleteness theorems in other fields[edit]
Appeals and analogies are sometimes made to the incompleteness theorems in support of arguments that go beyond mathematics and logic. Several authors have commented negatively on such extensions and interpretations, including Torkel Franzén (2004); Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont (1999); and Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom (2006). Bricmont and Stangroom (2006, p. 10), for example, quote from Rebecca Goldstein's comments on the disparity between Gödel's avowed Platonism and the anti-realist uses to which his ideas are sometimes put. Sokal and Bricmont (1999, p. 187) criticize Régis Debray's invocation of the theorem in the context of sociology; Debray has defended this use as metaphorical (ibid.).

Everything said in your article is plain wrong.

[BADecker]

Jesus speaking:

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

28 Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

When Jesus died on the cross, all earthly sins were paid for. All sins were forgiven.

The first job of the Holy Spirit is to work faith in Jesus-salvation in the hearts of people so that they can believe and be saved. His subsequent jobs are to work living a good life in people.

To whatever extent people resist the working of faith by the Holy Spirit, that is what they will never be forgiven for.

Those who don't/can't resist the working of salvation faith in them by the Holy Spirit, will be saved, even though they resist the Spirit's teaching about living a good life to some extent. The extent to which they resist will never be forgiven them. The result will be less glory and praise and joy in Heaven for resisting the Holy Spirit in the living-a-good-life "minor" ways on earth. But they will be saved because they did not resist the Holy Spirit working salvation faith in their hearts. Their blasphemy of the Spirit was done in a way that did not negate their salvation, but only lessened their "status" or "position" in Heaven.

Those who resist the working of salvation in their hearts that the holy Spirit is attempting to do... those people will lose salvation forever, because they will never be forgiven for resisting the Holy Spirit, not because their earthly sins have not been paid for. The sins they did on earth have all been forgiven already by Jesus' work on the cross. They don't have any choice about that. It's their blaspheming against the Spirit by resisting Him that is not forgiven. And the extent that they blasphemed in their case is enough to keep them out of Heaven. It will never be changed. They will never be forgiven and saved. The sentence against them is forever.

[Astargath]

Jesus speaking:

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

28 Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

When Jesus died on the cross, all earthly sins were paid for. All sins were forgiven.

The first job of the Holy Spirit is to work faith in Jesus-salvation in the hearts of people so that they can believe and be saved. His subsequent jobs are to work living a good life in people.

To whatever extent people resist the working of faith by the Holy Spirit, that is what they will never be forgiven for.

Those who don't/can't resist the working of salvation faith in them by the Holy Spirit, will be saved, even though they resist the Spirit's teaching about living a good life to some extent. The extent to which they resist will never be forgiven them. The result will be less glory and praise and joy in Heaven for resisting the Holy Spirit in the living-a-good-life "minor" ways on earth. But they will be saved because they did not resist the Holy Spirit working salvation faith in their hearts. Their blasphemy of the Spirit was done in a way that did not negate their salvation, but only lessened their "status" or "position" in Heaven.

Those who resist the working of salvation in their hearts that the holy Spirit is attempting to do... those people will lose salvation forever, because they will never be forgiven for resisting the Holy Spirit, not because their earthly sins have not been paid for. The sins they did on earth have all been forgiven already by Jesus' work on the cross. They don't have any choice about that. It's their blaspheming against the Spirit by resisting Him that is not forgiven. And the extent that they blasphemed in their case is enough to keep them out of Heaven. It will never be changed. They will never be forgiven and saved. The sentence against them is forever.

Hmm, so you are saying I can rape and kill people my whole life as long as I don't resist the holy spirit?

[BADecker]

Jesus speaking:

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

28 Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

When Jesus died on the cross, all earthly sins were paid for. All sins were forgiven.

The first job of the Holy Spirit is to work faith in Jesus-salvation in the hearts of people so that they can believe and be saved. His subsequent jobs are to work living a good life in people.

To whatever extent people resist the working of faith by the Holy Spirit, that is what they will never be forgiven for.

Those who don't/can't resist the working of salvation faith in them by the Holy Spirit, will be saved, even though they resist the Spirit's teaching about living a good life to some extent. The extent to which they resist will never be forgiven them. The result will be less glory and praise and joy in Heaven for resisting the Holy Spirit in the living-a-good-life "minor" ways on earth. But they will be saved because they did not resist the Holy Spirit working salvation faith in their hearts. Their blasphemy of the Spirit was done in a way that did not negate their salvation, but only lessened their "status" or "position" in Heaven.

Those who resist the working of salvation in their hearts that the holy Spirit is attempting to do... those people will lose salvation forever, because they will never be forgiven for resisting the Holy Spirit, not because their earthly sins have not been paid for. The sins they did on earth have all been forgiven already by Jesus' work on the cross. They don't have any choice about that. It's their blaspheming against the Spirit by resisting Him that is not forgiven. And the extent that they blasphemed in their case is enough to keep them out of Heaven. It will never be changed. They will never be forgiven and saved. The sentence against them is forever.

Hmm, so you are saying I can rape and kill people my whole life as long as I don't resist the holy spirit?

I'm (probably) not the one who is going to stop you. But if you do it with enough vigor, your life will be short.



EDIT: Your life might be long in prison. You'll get a lot of it back, there.