Health and Religion

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your world view is based on foolishness, because it leaves out the eye witness reports of the Bible. It also leaves out the reports of proof for the existence of God as shown by nature. Since your world view is false, you want children to learn a false religion, even though you call it lack of religion. You simply have a religion of non-religion, and that is what you want to have children learn.

You still are not getting it.  That book means nothing to me.  I have read many other, much better books.

That book is based on eye witness reports, something that is more important than evidence. You accept other eye witnesses, and you accept the fanciful ideals of others, why won't you accept Bible eye witness reports?

Be that as it may, this topic, Health and Religion, shows how a God religion gives better health than a non-God religion. The better health lies in the fact that people know how limited they are. If they didn't know this, they wouldn't go to the doctor?

What can a doctor do for people with cancer? The truth has come out, that more people who are treated with medical cancer treatments die from the treatment than from the cancer. Knowing this makes placebo-like effects not work so well.

On the other hand, knowing that God helps when one prays to Him, is beneficial in two ways:
1. The placebo-like effect has a greater chance of working;
2. God helps people who ask Him for help.

God-religion is far greater for health than non-God religions... religions like atheism.

[BADecker]

...

That book is based on eye witness reports, something that is more important than evidence. You accept other eye witnesses, and you accept the fanciful ideals of others, why won't you accept Bible eye witness reports?

Be that as it may, this topic, Health and Religion, shows how a God religion gives better health than a non-God religion. The better health lies in the fact that people know how limited they are. If they didn't know this, they wouldn't go to the doctor?

What can a doctor do for people with cancer? The truth has come out, that more people who are treated with medical cancer treatments die from the treatment than from the cancer. Knowing this makes placebo-like effects not work so well.

On the other hand, knowing that God helps when one prays to Him, is beneficial in two ways:
1. The placebo-like effect has a greater chance of working;
2. God helps people who ask Him for help.

God-religion is far greater for health than non-God religions... religions like atheism.

Why do religious people go to hospitals?  Shouldn't they just pray and stay at home?  What is the point of going to hospitals?

Ah, Why do religious people eat food? Maybe to stay healthy like their religion wants them to.

Shouldn't they simply stay home and pray? They don't have enough faith in God to fill their bellies with food without eating.

Hospitals? Good question. While hospitals help a lot, and while they strengthen placebo-like actions, the drugs involved with them have gotten out of hand. People should be very cautious when going to a hospital.

For example. A friend of mine went to the hospital for a simple hernia operation. Success! After he got home, his wife found him dead, bleeding from the nose and mouth. Turns out he had had several operations for various things recently. It takes a couple of years for older folks (he was 74) to expel all the drugs from their systems. Hospital people forgot to take into account that he still had a lot of blood thinner in his system from the prior operations.

Too bad he wasn't that religious of a guy.

BTW, you forgot a third option:

3. God does not help people who ask Him for help (many who prayed die from cancer)

You missed the fact that your #3 is included in #1.

Besides, you don't know that the souls of dead people might be living. Science hasn't gotten far enough along to know one way or the other.

It seems that all people die, be it from cancer, or from something else. Once science gets to the point that it can track the soul, we might know scientifically if they are alive or not.

Where in the Bible does God talk about cancer, its cures, and more importantly why did God put cancer into his "design"?

Cancer is healed in all people on a regular basis. It's just that some cancer in a weakened, unhealthy body, might destroy it. Especially if drugs are used to poison the cancer. 'Cause they poison the patient instead. Consider trophoblast http://newspringpress.com/troph.html and http://www.medicinacomplementar.com.br/biblioteca/pdfs/Cancer/ca-2336.pdf. This means that all the healings in the Bible are cancer healings at the same time they might be healing for something else.

So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.

PS.  If you were in a courtroom and a witness claimed that he saw a witch flying on a broom stick above Manhattan, and no traffic cameras recorded it, would you believe him?  That is why I do not believe Bible 'eye witnesses', God included.  Talking snakes?  Please, don't waste my time.

But if many people saw many witches, you might at least question your belief a little. That's why the Bible is as big as it is, with as many witnesses and writers as there are. To give you an opportunity to question your false beliefs, so that you might have the chance to be saved.

[BADecker]

...

So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.

What are the benefits of cancer?  How can your life be enhanced by cancer?  Career in drug testing?  What did your God smoke when he put cancer into his 'design'?  Must be some good stuff.

PS.  If you were in a courtroom and a witness claimed that he saw a witch flying on a broomstick above Manhattan, and no traffic cameras recorded it, would you believe him?  That is why I do not believe Bible 'eye witnesses', God included.  Talking snakes?  Please, don't waste my time.

But if many people saw many witches, you might at least question your belief a little. That's why the Bible is as big as it is, with as many witnesses and writers as there are. To give you an opportunity to question your false beliefs, so that you might have the chance to be saved.

Simple yes or no would do.  I am guessing you would believe such a guy.

You didn't look at the major benefit of cancer? You didn't look at what trophoblast does in the human system? When the embryo comes out of the fallopian tube into the uterus, it has to find a way to attach to the uterine wall. Part of the embryo becomes cancerous, and eats into the uterus. Then, at just the right time, the pancreas of the new fetus becomes active, and controls the cancer, turning it into the placenta.

In other words, without cancer, there wouldn't be any mammalian life on earth, and maybe no life at all.

The answer about cancer I just gave you is very simple. Yet it is way more complex than something as simple as "yes" or "no." Forget your simple y or n answer. Look at the answer that I gave, and realize that the universe is complex beyond belief. That's why Jesus did the difficult work for us, because we couldn't do it for ourselves because of the complexity involved. Because of Jesus, the only thing we need to do is believe.

[JesusCryptos]

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.

You mean, like Stephen Hawking?
The point is that people with a high intellect usually have more interesting things to do than to spend the days doing sports.

[CoinCube]

...
don't preach this BS to children.
That would constitute a child abuse.
...

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

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

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

You should teach your children what is true based on an objective evidence. Teaching them that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat or that there are talking snakes and winged horses is wrong. No matter the flavor of the supernatural myth you follow.

Yes you should teach your children truth but people disagree on what is true. People also disagree on what constitutes objective evidence. In the face of that disagreement a totalitarian fundamentalist turns to state violence and power to force conformity to his beliefs.

You are attempting to define people who disagree with your worldview as criminals. That is extraordinarily dangerous.

Believing in the literal existence of winged horses is a wild idea. However, as crazy as the idea of winged horses sounds it is much less crazy then the idea that people who teach their children their traditional religious beliefs are criminals.

Your idea is Orwellian. If you define religion as child abuse it logically follows that the state should intervene in the families of some 3.6 billion people and force parents to not share their beliefs with their children. If they refuse you rip the children from their parents and homes of course. That's what we do with people who repeatedly abuse children.

Your idea is so crazy so nightmarish that it makes believing in flying horses look totally sane.

Fundamentalist always justify their crimes as advancing the greater good.

[Astargath]

...

So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.

What are the benefits of cancer?  How can your life be enhanced by cancer?  Career in drug testing?  What did your God smoke when he put cancer into his 'design'?  Must be some good stuff.

PS.  If you were in a courtroom and a witness claimed that he saw a witch flying on a broomstick above Manhattan, and no traffic cameras recorded it, would you believe him?  That is why I do not believe Bible 'eye witnesses', God included.  Talking snakes?  Please, don't waste my time.

But if many people saw many witches, you might at least question your belief a little. That's why the Bible is as big as it is, with as many witnesses and writers as there are. To give you an opportunity to question your false beliefs, so that you might have the chance to be saved.

Simple yes or no would do.  I am guessing you would believe such a guy.

You didn't look at the major benefit of cancer? You didn't look at what trophoblast does in the human system? When the embryo comes out of the fallopian tube into the uterus, it has to find a way to attach to the uterine wall. Part of the embryo becomes cancerous, and eats into the uterus. Then, at just the right time, the pancreas of the new fetus becomes active, and controls the cancer, turning it into the placenta.

In other words, without cancer, there wouldn't be any mammalian life on earth, and maybe no life at all.

The answer about cancer I just gave you is very simple. Yet it is way more complex than something as simple as "yes" or "no." Forget your simple y or n answer. Look at the answer that I gave, and realize that the universe is complex beyond belief. That's why Jesus did the difficult work for us, because we couldn't do it for ourselves because of the complexity involved. Because of Jesus, the only thing we need to do is believe.

''Every sixth death in the world is due to cancer, making it the second leading cause of death (second only to cardiovascular diseases'' Whether ''cancer'' helps at first is meaningless if it's going to kill you later randomly. Not to mention the ton of flaws  in the human body.

[CoinCube]

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.

You mean, like Stephen Hawking?
The point is that people with a high intellect usually have more interesting things to do than to spend the days doing sports.

Stephen hawking suffered from ALS a horrible and progressive motor neuron disease.

Yes he was a high IQ individual one with a terrible disease. What exactly is your point?

If you want to challenge my statement here is a discussion on my data source from page 2 of this thread. To the best of my knowledge this data has only been confirmed with follow up research.

Let's start with your first claim

You are claiming that people with high IQ are also taller, healthier, and more athletic

Where the hell did you get that idea?

The original studies are old and to my knowledge not available online but a summary can be found here.

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

Terman found his answers in his longitudinal study on gifted children: Genetic Studies of Genius.[12] Initiated in 1921, the Genetic Studies of Genius was from the outset a long-term study of gifted children. Published in five volumes, Terman followed children with extremely high IQ in childhood throughout their lives. The fifth volume examined the children in a 35 year follow-up, and looked at the gifted group during mid-life.[13]

Genetic Studies of Genius revealed that gifted and genius children were in at least as good as average health and had normal personalities. Few of them demonstrated the previously-held negative stereotypes of gifted children. He found that gifted children did not fit the existing stereotypes often associated with them: they were not weak and sickly social misfits, but in fact were generally taller, in better health, better developed physically, and better adapted socially than other children. The children included in his studies were colloquially referred to as "Termites".[14] The gifted children thrived both socially and academically. In relationships, they were a less likely to divorce.[6]
Additionally, those in the gifted group were generally successful in their careers: Many received awards recognizing their achievements. Though many of the children (affectionately known as “Termites” [6]) reached exceptional heights in adulthood, not all did. Terman explored the causes of obvious talent not being realized, exploring personal obstacles, education, and lack of opportunity as causes.[9]

[CoinCube]

....
Your idea is Orwellian. If you define religion as child abuse it logically follows that the state should intervene in the families of some 3.6 billion people and force parents to not share their beliefs with their children. If they refuse you rip the children from their parents and homes of course. That's what we do with people who repeatedly abuse children.

Your idea is so crazy so nightmarish that it makes believing in flying horses look totally sane.

Fundamentalist always justify their crimes as advancing the greater good.

Not so if you want your children to succeed in the modern world.  Evidence is evidence.  Not sure what you can disagree there.

Or I should have said: "objective physical evidence".  If that better for you?

If your child will go around the MIT campus saying that Earth is 6000 years old, and snakes can talk, I am sure someone would pull your child from school to evaluate his/her mental status.

Ok well at least you are honest and upfront in your desire for tyranny.

Fortunately I live in a country founded by far wiser men then you.

Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I agree with you that anyone promoting traditional religious or even mainstream conservative views on a college campus these days is probably in for a chilly reception at best.

Report: 39% of Top Liberal Arts Colleges Have No Republican Professors
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/07/report-39-of-top-liberal-arts-colleges-have-no-republican-professors/

Christian group at Oxford University banned from fair out of fear it would 'alienate' students
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/11/christian-group-at-oxford-university-banned-from-fair-out-fear-it-would-alienate-students.html

[Astargath]

....
Your idea is Orwellian. If you define religion as child abuse it logically follows that the state should intervene in the families of some 3.6 billion people and force parents to not share their beliefs with their children. If they refuse you rip the children from their parents and homes of course. That's what we do with people who repeatedly abuse children.

Your idea is so crazy so nightmarish that it makes believing in flying horses look totally sane.

Fundamentalist always justify their crimes as advancing the greater good.

Not so if you want your children to succeed in the modern world.  Evidence is evidence.  Not sure what you can disagree there.

Or I should have said: "objective physical evidence".  If that better for you?

If your child will go around the MIT campus saying that Earth is 6000 years old, and snakes can talk, I am sure someone would pull your child from school to evaluate his/her mental status.

Ok well at least you are honest and upfront in your desire for tyranny.

Fortunately I live in a country founded by far wiser men then you.

Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I agree with you that anyone promoting traditional religious or even mainstream conservative views on a college campus these days is probably in for a chilly reception at best.

Report: 39% of Top Liberal Arts Colleges Have No Republican Professors
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/07/report-39-of-top-liberal-arts-colleges-have-no-republican-professors/

Christian group at Oxford University banned from fair out of fear it would 'alienate' students
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/11/christian-group-at-oxford-university-banned-from-fair-out-fear-it-would-alienate-students.html

So I'm guessing slavery is all kosher in your book?  Most of the founding fathers either owned or supported slavery.

On the other note, there is a fine line between talking to yourself and praying.  Both are mental disorders, IMHO.

I would not want to live in a country where my president goes to war after God told him to do so.  You need to have a mechanism to prevent such a thing.  Individuals with mental issues should not be near the nuclear codes.

As for the SJWs running the higher education, yes, you've got a big problem.  What is happening in America is sad; same thing is happening in Canada and Europe.  Liberals are shutting down all discussions, any views remotely conservative and being equated with racism, sexism etc.  I think all this identity politics is the root cause of the problem.  When facts are not being used to argue your position you end up with a dogma that is not supported by anything but who screams the loudest.

Not just higher education has been hijacked, the same thing is happening in high-schools.  Very sad.  It does not bode well for the future.

I think this whole thread comes down to ''do we really need religion or religious books to have morals'' and then answer is pretty simple, we don't. We only need reason and logic and to be able to debate freely about it. That's why we are here, religion morals are outdated, that's why we know slavery is wrong, not because it's in the bible written. We know witches aren't real or demonic possessions aren't really demonic at all. If we lived exactly by the bible morals or any other religious book, society would be radically different. For a book that's claimed to be divinely inspired and the absolute moral, it's not that great. What about homosexuals? What about working on the sabbath and getting killed for it? We are not doing that, are we?

[CoinCube]

So I'm guessing slavery is all kosher in your book?  Most of the founding fathers either owned or supported slavery.

For someone who claims to dislike the liberal SJW movement you sure sound a lot like them. Your statement about the founding fathers is misleading and no I do not approve of slavery.

The founding fathers were great men but they were still men and living in a society they inherited. That society was full of men and evil. As a group their actions were consistent with a desire to restrict slavery to keep it from spreading with the long term goal of eliminating it. This was well highlighted by Abraham Lincoln who finishing the job of cutting out the cancer.

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/06/137647715/weekly-standard-founding-fathers-opposed-slavery

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, but referred only to "persons held to service." "Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution," said Lincoln, "just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time." The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.

I would not want to live in a country where my president goes to war after God told him to do so.  You need to have a mechanism to prevent such a thing.  Individuals with mental issues should not be near the nuclear codes.

Agreed that is why the US constitution invests the power to declare war not in the presidency but in congress. Another smart move by the founding fathers.

Dangerously congress has started to neglect it's duties in recent years and allowed the executive branch to engage in combat operations aka war without its approval. That is unconstitutional but a manifestation of corruption in the US government and the failure of the legislature to fulfill its duties.

As for the SJWs running the higher education, yes, you've got a big problem.  What is happening in America is sad; same thing is happening in Canada and Europe.  Liberals are shutting down all discussions, any views remotely conservative and being equated with racism, sexism etc.  I think all this identity politics is the root cause of the problem...

The protest you highlight are just another manifestation of the human desire to use violence and power to force conformity to ones beliefs. Having proclaimed their the "truths" of microaggression, hate speech, racism, etcetera as a highest moral cause it is not at all surprising that attempts are then made to capture the mechanism of governance be it university administration or city governance and use violence or even better state sanctioned violence to eliminate the their ideological opposition.

Its not really all that different then your own desires to brand your ideological opponents as criminals and use the might of the state against them. Different truth same fundamental motivation.

[Astargath]

So I'm guessing slavery is all kosher in your book?  Most of the founding fathers either owned or supported slavery.

For someone who claims to dislike the liberal SJW movement you sure sound a lot like them. Your statement about the founding fathers is misleading and no I do not approve of slavery.

The founding fathers were great men but they were still men and living in a society they inherited. That society was full of men and evil. As a group their actions were consistent with a desire to restrict slavery to keep it from spreading with the long term goal of eliminating it. This was well highlighted by Abraham Lincoln who finishing the job of cutting out the cancer.

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/06/137647715/weekly-standard-founding-fathers-opposed-slavery

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, but referred only to "persons held to service." "Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution," said Lincoln, "just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time." The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.

I would not want to live in a country where my president goes to war after God told him to do so.  You need to have a mechanism to prevent such a thing.  Individuals with mental issues should not be near the nuclear codes.

Agreed that is why the US constitution invests the power to declare war not in the presidency but in congress. Another smart move by the founding fathers.

Dangerously congress has started to neglect it's duties in recent years and allowed the executive branch to engage in combat operations aka war without its approval. That is unconstitutional but a manifestation of corruption in the US government and the failure of the legislature to fulfill its duties.

As for the SJWs running the higher education, yes, you've got a big problem.  What is happening in America is sad; same thing is happening in Canada and Europe.  Liberals are shutting down all discussions, any views remotely conservative and being equated with racism, sexism etc.  I think all this identity politics is the root cause of the problem...

The protest you highlight are just another manifestation of the human desire to use violence and power to force conformity to ones beliefs. Having proclaimed their the "truths" of microaggression, hate speech, racism, etcetera as a highest moral cause it is not at all surprising that attempts are then made to capture the mechanism of governance be it university administration or city governance and use violence or even better state sanctioned violence to eliminate the their ideological opposition.

Its not really all that different then your own desires to brand your own ideological opponents as criminals and use the might of the state against them. Different truth same fundamental motivation.

''and no I do not approve of slavery. '' There you go, you don't need the bible for that, the bible never says slavery is bad and in fact seems to support it yet you know slavery is wrong. The bible is meaningless and not divinely inspired.

[CoinCube]

...
We only need reason and logic and to be able to debate freely about it. That's why we are here...

A false assertion.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

See this excellent essay on this topic by John C. Wright.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/

I think this whole thread comes down to ''do we really need religion or religious books to have morals'' and then answer is pretty simple, we don't.

Also untrue. We lack any form of viable replacement. Without religion all that exists are arbitrary beliefs. Subjective choices not grounded in objective reality. This was highlighted well by an earlier poster.

While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.

A good atheist — that is, a consistent atheist — recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him “good” in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.

[Astargath]

...
We only need reason and logic and to be able to debate freely about it. That's why we are here...

A false assertion.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

See this excellent essay on this topic by John C. Wright.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/

I think this whole thread comes down to ''do we really need religion or religious books to have morals'' and then answer is pretty simple, we don't.

Also untrue. We lack any form of viable replacement. Without religion all that exists are arbitrary beliefs. Subjective choices not grounded in objective reality. This was highlighted well by an earlier poster.

While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.

A good atheist — that is, a consistent atheist — recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him “good” in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.

That's only when you define religions as everything, my definition of religions is different, I'm obviously talking about christianity mostly but all the others too. We do not need the bible to understand morality.

[BADecker]

...

So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.

What are the benefits of cancer?  How can your life be enhanced by cancer?  Career in drug testing?  What did your God smoke when he put cancer into his 'design'?  Must be some good stuff.

PS.  If you were in a courtroom and a witness claimed that he saw a witch flying on a broomstick above Manhattan, and no traffic cameras recorded it, would you believe him?  That is why I do not believe Bible 'eye witnesses', God included.  Talking snakes?  Please, don't waste my time.

But if many people saw many witches, you might at least question your belief a little. That's why the Bible is as big as it is, with as many witnesses and writers as there are. To give you an opportunity to question your false beliefs, so that you might have the chance to be saved.

Simple yes or no would do.  I am guessing you would believe such a guy.

You didn't look at the major benefit of cancer? You didn't look at what trophoblast does in the human system? When the embryo comes out of the fallopian tube into the uterus, it has to find a way to attach to the uterine wall. Part of the embryo becomes cancerous, and eats into the uterus. Then, at just the right time, the pancreas of the new fetus becomes active, and controls the cancer, turning it into the placenta.

In other words, without cancer, there wouldn't be any mammalian life on earth, and maybe no life at all.

The answer about cancer I just gave you is very simple. Yet it is way more complex than something as simple as "yes" or "no." Forget your simple y or n answer. Look at the answer that I gave, and realize that the universe is complex beyond belief. That's why Jesus did the difficult work for us, because we couldn't do it for ourselves because of the complexity involved. Because of Jesus, the only thing we need to do is believe.

''Every sixth death in the world is due to cancer, making it the second leading cause of death (second only to cardiovascular diseases'' Whether ''cancer'' helps at first is meaningless if it's going to kill you later randomly. Not to mention the ton of flaws  in the human body.

God gave mankind the freedom to do all kinds of things. The fact that mankind decided to use their freedom to corrupt God's creation for them, doesn't have anything to do with God.

In fact, God has gone about saving people through Jesus salvation. Such still doesn't force any people back into perfection. Many of them still corrupt God's creation, and ignore God's salvation.

Part of your personal desire for flaws is that you would deny God rather than see His salvation for yourself. You are doing it, not God.

[BADecker]

....
Your idea is Orwellian. If you define religion as child abuse it logically follows that the state should intervene in the families of some 3.6 billion people and force parents to not share their beliefs with their children. If they refuse you rip the children from their parents and homes of course. That's what we do with people who repeatedly abuse children.

Your idea is so crazy so nightmarish that it makes believing in flying horses look totally sane.

Fundamentalist always justify their crimes as advancing the greater good.

Not so if you want your children to succeed in the modern world.  Evidence is evidence.  Not sure what you can disagree there.

Or I should have said: "objective physical evidence".  If that better for you?

If your child will go around the MIT campus saying that Earth is 6000 years old, and snakes can talk, I am sure someone would pull your child from school to evaluate his/her mental status.

Ok well at least you are honest and upfront in your desire for tyranny.

Fortunately I live in a country founded by far wiser men then you.

Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I agree with you that anyone promoting traditional religious or even mainstream conservative views on a college campus these days is probably in for a chilly reception at best.

Report: 39% of Top Liberal Arts Colleges Have No Republican Professors
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/07/report-39-of-top-liberal-arts-colleges-have-no-republican-professors/

Christian group at Oxford University banned from fair out of fear it would 'alienate' students
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/11/christian-group-at-oxford-university-banned-from-fair-out-fear-it-would-alienate-students.html

So I'm guessing slavery is all kosher in your book?  Most of the founding fathers either owned or supported slavery.

On the other note, there is a fine line between talking to yourself and praying.  Both are mental disorders, IMHO.

I would not want to live in a country where my president goes to war after God told him to do so.  You need to have a mechanism to prevent such a thing.  Individuals with mental issues should not be near the nuclear codes.

As for the SJWs running the higher education, yes, you've got a big problem.  What is happening in America is sad; same thing is happening in Canada and Europe.  Liberals are shutting down all discussions, any views remotely conservative and being equated with racism, sexism etc.  I think all this identity politics is the root cause of the problem.  When facts are not being used to argue your position you end up with a dogma that is not supported by anything but who screams the loudest.

Not just higher education has been hijacked, the same thing is happening in high-schools.  Very sad.  It does not bode well for the future.

I think this whole thread comes down to ''do we really need religion or religious books to have morals'' and then answer is pretty simple, we don't. We only need reason and logic and to be able to debate freely about it. That's why we are here, religion morals are outdated, that's why we know slavery is wrong, not because it's in the bible written. We know witches aren't real or demonic possessions aren't really demonic at all. If we lived exactly by the bible morals or any other religious book, society would be radically different. For a book that's claimed to be divinely inspired and the absolute moral, it's not that great. What about homosexuals? What about working on the sabbath and getting killed for it? We are not doing that, are we?

If you were starving to death, you might sell yourself into voluntary slavery just to get some food so you wouldn't die.

Consider the IRS. Voluntary compliance. Just another way of saying voluntary limited slavery.

[BADecker]

...
We only need reason and logic and to be able to debate freely about it. That's why we are here...

A false assertion.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

See this excellent essay on this topic by John C. Wright.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/

I think this whole thread comes down to ''do we really need religion or religious books to have morals'' and then answer is pretty simple, we don't.

Also untrue. We lack any form of viable replacement. Without religion all that exists are arbitrary beliefs. Subjective choices not grounded in objective reality. This was highlighted well by an earlier poster.

While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.

A good atheist — that is, a consistent atheist — recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him “good” in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.

That's only when you define religions as everything, my definition of religions is different, I'm obviously talking about christianity mostly but all the others too. We do not need the bible to understand morality.

What's the matter? The dictionary doesn't work for you? Creating your own language?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

[CoinCube]

CoinCube, just google about the founding fathers and their support of slavery
...

I am familiar with the founding fathers views on slavery. Below is an article on Thomas Jefferson's views . He was from the south and a plantation owner. He inherited many slaves and bought more. He also was consistently and publicly opposed to the institution and advocated for its gradual abolition. He felt that if it was not abolished it would lead to a civil war. He was also broke and his slaves represented much of the little wealth he possessed. He was in so much debt that most of his possessions including his slaves had to be sold to pay his debts when he died and he passed little on to his children.

Sometimes we have the vision to perceive evil and the wisdom to speak out against it but not the will to overcome its temptations.

Thomas Jefferson's Attitudes Toward Slavery
https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jeffersons-attitudes-toward-slavery

BTW, I do not have desire to brand anyone criminal specifically based on their particular religion.  I object to teaching nonsense to children.

You have the right to believe in nonsense, just don't force your children to believe in it.   ...

You have no desire brand anyone as criminal based on their religion unless they happen to  share their religious beliefs with their children then they are criminals and child abusers?

Sounds like tyranny to me.

"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" - George Orwell, Animal Farm

...
You think I support SJWs?  Christians and SJWs are the same type of animal in my book.  Inventing their own reality and claim it FOR others.
...

I find it ironic that you are blind to the fact that your criticisms also describe you.

Christians at least by and large do not seek to impose their beliefs on others using violence or by making it a crime to share a non Christian worldview with ones children.

[Flying Hellfish]

~snip~
So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.

So he didn't want us to be unhealthy but he made us unhealthy, so what happened did he fuck up somewhere along the line?  Ok I guess another contradiction from you and god is consistent!

If only god was so powerful and smart that he could have made a way for humans to pro-create without the need to involve cancer?

Mildly ironic that what you post as evidence of a creator is much stronger against one and strong evidence of evolution.  Also ironic and appreciated btw, that you continue to help illustrate the logical fallacies of an omnipotent creator.

[sarjilcse]

This is certainly one way of looking at the world. It's one of many conclusions one can reach about the universe especially if one chooses to adopt the assumptions of nihilism.

However, this is far from the only logical conclusion one can reach. There are reasons to think that the universe is far more complex then we currently envision indeed that for all our science our understanding remains infantile.

[Astargath]

....
Your idea is Orwellian. If you define religion as child abuse it logically follows that the state should intervene in the families of some 3.6 billion people and force parents to not share their beliefs with their children. If they refuse you rip the children from their parents and homes of course. That's what we do with people who repeatedly abuse children.

Your idea is so crazy so nightmarish that it makes believing in flying horses look totally sane.

Fundamentalist always justify their crimes as advancing the greater good.

Not so if you want your children to succeed in the modern world.  Evidence is evidence.  Not sure what you can disagree there.

Or I should have said: "objective physical evidence".  If that better for you?

If your child will go around the MIT campus saying that Earth is 6000 years old, and snakes can talk, I am sure someone would pull your child from school to evaluate his/her mental status.

Ok well at least you are honest and upfront in your desire for tyranny.

Fortunately I live in a country founded by far wiser men then you.

Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I agree with you that anyone promoting traditional religious or even mainstream conservative views on a college campus these days is probably in for a chilly reception at best.

Report: 39% of Top Liberal Arts Colleges Have No Republican Professors
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/07/report-39-of-top-liberal-arts-colleges-have-no-republican-professors/

Christian group at Oxford University banned from fair out of fear it would 'alienate' students
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/11/christian-group-at-oxford-university-banned-from-fair-out-fear-it-would-alienate-students.html

So I'm guessing slavery is all kosher in your book?  Most of the founding fathers either owned or supported slavery.

On the other note, there is a fine line between talking to yourself and praying.  Both are mental disorders, IMHO.

I would not want to live in a country where my president goes to war after God told him to do so.  You need to have a mechanism to prevent such a thing.  Individuals with mental issues should not be near the nuclear codes.

As for the SJWs running the higher education, yes, you've got a big problem.  What is happening in America is sad; same thing is happening in Canada and Europe.  Liberals are shutting down all discussions, any views remotely conservative and being equated with racism, sexism etc.  I think all this identity politics is the root cause of the problem.  When facts are not being used to argue your position you end up with a dogma that is not supported by anything but who screams the loudest.

Not just higher education has been hijacked, the same thing is happening in high-schools.  Very sad.  It does not bode well for the future.

I think this whole thread comes down to ''do we really need religion or religious books to have morals'' and then answer is pretty simple, we don't. We only need reason and logic and to be able to debate freely about it. That's why we are here, religion morals are outdated, that's why we know slavery is wrong, not because it's in the bible written. We know witches aren't real or demonic possessions aren't really demonic at all. If we lived exactly by the bible morals or any other religious book, society would be radically different. For a book that's claimed to be divinely inspired and the absolute moral, it's not that great. What about homosexuals? What about working on the sabbath and getting killed for it? We are not doing that, are we?

If you were starving to death, you might sell yourself into voluntary slavery just to get some food so you wouldn't die.

Consider the IRS. Voluntary compliance. Just another way of saying voluntary limited slavery.

If I was starving to death I would probably do a lot of bad things to save myself, that has nothing to do with the fact that the bible seems to endorse slavery and instead of clearly saying slavery is wrong it has retarded rules about how you can beat your slave and other crazy stuff. The bible is not divinely inspired.