Health and Religion

[CoinCube]

If you fail to see the harm that is being done, then I cannot help you.  Your rejection of science is hilarious.  

But then again, you believe some infinite entity created this universe and is transforming the world through us, LOL.

You are stuck in the past, like the rest of the religious freaks.  Yes, you are a freak, IMHO.

You need a team of professionals to help you.  I'm afraid one psychiatrist will not do.

Not only do I not see the harm I actually think your beliefs threaten far more harm. Super Freaky!

Should I be institutionalized against my will? Freaks are dangerous after all especially ones that are so deranged that they they require not a single psychiatrist but an entire team of professionals to help them.

There should be plenty of people available to do the institutionalizing. After all if we are going to be putting video cameras into the home of every religious person to make sure they are not talking about God and abusing children and/or encouraging children report their parents to their school teaches and principle and denounce their parents if they hear the forbidden word God there is going to be lots and lots of "child abuse" to deal with.

We are going to need a new branch of the police to deal with all this work. I like the name Thinkpol for this new group. It has a nice ring to it. What do you think?

One question before I go:  "Do you think the Bible was inspired (or written) by your infinite entity?"

 
At a minimum I think it was written by people who were inspired by God or the ideal of God. Beyond that I am not certain I try to keep an open mind.

[Astargath]

~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!

I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.

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?

Look around in nature. You don't find handguns anywhere. But you find the materials to make handguns in many places. God didn't make handguns. Mankind did.

Same with cancer. The form of cancer that God made wasn't bad, but it was good. Mankind messed his whole life up, and set in place methods for the good that God made to become evil. Cancer is good, but mankind turned it into evil. On top of that, 100% of cancers could be healed using the things of nature and life style changes. But people don't want to know this. They continue to go on their way.

I worked with an atheist who got brain cancer. I told him about natural cures. He liked the idea of the doctor and poisoning himself with chemo. So, that's what he did, and he died from it, not from the cancer. So, it was he, himself that did it... not God.

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.

Mildly ironic that you call the proof for God an example of proof for evolution. You hadn't looked at evolution theory? Twisting the proof for God into something that could cause evolution, would make evolution theory millions (trillions?) of times more complex than people could imagine it.

Come on. Evolution people are having a hard enough time twisting evolution theory into something that matches reality,  without making it millions (trillions?) of times more difficult for them. Show a little compassion!

Yeah, I'm sure a baby uses his freedom to give himself cancer or be born with some bad disease, what the fuck are you even talking about lmao.

I'm sure that you have never been forced into anything that some other, evil person forced you into. What are you even talking about lmao?

Let me say it again so your tiny brain can understand it. You said:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

I said: it's impossible for a baby or newborn to use his freedom to make himself unhealthy, there is no way for a newborn to give himself down's syndrome or to be born without an arm on purpose. Your argument is retarded. God doesn't make us healthy.

Notice that you quoted and even bolded the part that says "we use." The word "we" means us, collectively. Look it up in the dictionary to confirm it to yourself. I wasn't talking like a baby did it to himself.

However, we don't understand enough about the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer. Or do you know it for a fact somehow.

So we collectively give diseases to babies? ''the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer.'' what the fuck are you even talking about dude, why do you keep making shit up. The bible says nothing about our spirit doing things that we are not aware of and why would a baby give himself cancer. Your delusion is amazing.

Badecker arguing on how a baby gives himself cancer, you are batshit crazy mate.

Thanks for the explanation of your great Bible knowledge. In your quote of my posting, you forgot the part "we don't understand." So, why do you bring the Bible into it? Everything that you posted has nothing to do with the fact that we don't know that babies aren't responsible for their own health to some extent, via aspects of the soul and spirit that we don't know about.

Maybe babies are responsible for their own health to some extent, via their soul and spirit. We don't know. Or do you know? Show us how you know one way or the other if you know. If you don't know, but suggest that I am "batshit crazy" for suggesting that we don't know, you are simply badmouthing me. Are you trolling? Or are you simply envious that I can provide explanations for things that I say, and you can't or won't for the things that you say?

Back at the time of Darwin, there were several people who were talking about evolution, like Darwin. Yet, most people in general understood that life came about and progressed through creation. Now you want to suggest that I am "batshit crazy" because I say that we don't know how much the soul and spirit play in the formation of a baby? Scientific people are trying to find out all kinds of science about how the soul and spirit play into the lives of people, and what the soul and spirit really are. Darwin's "batshit crazy" stuff is okay for you. But I am "batshit crazy" when I say that we don't know about something. Sounds like you are a "batshit politician" of some sort.

What a nice argument, we don't know therefore you are wrong, astargath. Amazing argument there buddy, then god might not exist because we don't know enough about other dimensions or things outside the universe or even if it's possible to exist ''outside the universe'' check mate. I win.

All you are posting is something that has nothing to do with what you or I said previously.

The point is, that science being in its infancy, and by direct expression of many of its adherents, is essentially a religion. Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do as well as how they express their feelings about things, and since it is outside the arena of scientific expertise at this time, religion rules. This means that any method we use to affect our health is a religious method.

''Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do'' Rofl, yeah, every scientist says that mate, we all know souls and spirits are real, give me a break, you have 0 evidence for this, stop making shit up.

The fact that every scientist is alive as the sentient being that he is, proves that he has a soul and spirit. What the soul and spirit are made up of is the thing that has not been proven.

Take a simple automobile for example. A car exists. You can see it. You can handle it one way or another. But you would have to dismantle it and scientifically examine each part to scientifically determine what it was made of. Stating that the car doesn't exist because you haven't dismantled and examined it, shows that you would be in extreme scientific denial.

Or take a black hole. We know that something exists that we have dubbed a black hole. Yet we haven't handled or examined even one of them in any way other than to examine electromagnetic radiation disturbances in the BH area. We don't know that our scientific theories about a BH are correct.

In the same way, souls and spirits exist, even though we can't scientifically do much in the way of scientifically handling them, yet. Come on out of your denial.

''The fact that every scientist is alive as the sentient being that he is, proves that he has a soul and spirit.'' I don't possibly see how that's proof for soul's existence. There is 0 evidence, scientific or unscientific of the existence of a soul or the spirit. You keep making shit up, again, as usual. Come out of your denial dude, in the same way, the flying spaghetti exists, even tho we have 0 scientific evidence for it, everyone being alive is proof that the flying spaghetti made us, it's obvious, duh.

[CoinCube]

...apologetic talk, blah, blah....

Wow you are scary af_newbie.

I have noticed you prefer to shy away from the logical consequences of your own beliefs always attempting to change the subject to that of slavery or gay people.

Why did God inspire them to support (place restrictions on) slavery...

Here we go again. I provided a possible answer to this question earlier.

Here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1566146.msg17342890#msg17342890

and again here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1584676.msg15925386#msg15925386

[BADecker]

~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!

I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.

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?

Look around in nature. You don't find handguns anywhere. But you find the materials to make handguns in many places. God didn't make handguns. Mankind did.

Same with cancer. The form of cancer that God made wasn't bad, but it was good. Mankind messed his whole life up, and set in place methods for the good that God made to become evil. Cancer is good, but mankind turned it into evil. On top of that, 100% of cancers could be healed using the things of nature and life style changes. But people don't want to know this. They continue to go on their way.

I worked with an atheist who got brain cancer. I told him about natural cures. He liked the idea of the doctor and poisoning himself with chemo. So, that's what he did, and he died from it, not from the cancer. So, it was he, himself that did it... not God.

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.

Mildly ironic that you call the proof for God an example of proof for evolution. You hadn't looked at evolution theory? Twisting the proof for God into something that could cause evolution, would make evolution theory millions (trillions?) of times more complex than people could imagine it.

Come on. Evolution people are having a hard enough time twisting evolution theory into something that matches reality,  without making it millions (trillions?) of times more difficult for them. Show a little compassion!

Yeah, I'm sure a baby uses his freedom to give himself cancer or be born with some bad disease, what the fuck are you even talking about lmao.

I'm sure that you have never been forced into anything that some other, evil person forced you into. What are you even talking about lmao?

Let me say it again so your tiny brain can understand it. You said:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

I said: it's impossible for a baby or newborn to use his freedom to make himself unhealthy, there is no way for a newborn to give himself down's syndrome or to be born without an arm on purpose. Your argument is retarded. God doesn't make us healthy.

Notice that you quoted and even bolded the part that says "we use." The word "we" means us, collectively. Look it up in the dictionary to confirm it to yourself. I wasn't talking like a baby did it to himself.

However, we don't understand enough about the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer. Or do you know it for a fact somehow.

So we collectively give diseases to babies? ''the workings of nature and the soul and the spirit to state for a fact that the baby absolutely didn't take part in giving himself his own cancer.'' what the fuck are you even talking about dude, why do you keep making shit up. The bible says nothing about our spirit doing things that we are not aware of and why would a baby give himself cancer. Your delusion is amazing.

Badecker arguing on how a baby gives himself cancer, you are batshit crazy mate.

Thanks for the explanation of your great Bible knowledge. In your quote of my posting, you forgot the part "we don't understand." So, why do you bring the Bible into it? Everything that you posted has nothing to do with the fact that we don't know that babies aren't responsible for their own health to some extent, via aspects of the soul and spirit that we don't know about.

Maybe babies are responsible for their own health to some extent, via their soul and spirit. We don't know. Or do you know? Show us how you know one way or the other if you know. If you don't know, but suggest that I am "batshit crazy" for suggesting that we don't know, you are simply badmouthing me. Are you trolling? Or are you simply envious that I can provide explanations for things that I say, and you can't or won't for the things that you say?

Back at the time of Darwin, there were several people who were talking about evolution, like Darwin. Yet, most people in general understood that life came about and progressed through creation. Now you want to suggest that I am "batshit crazy" because I say that we don't know how much the soul and spirit play in the formation of a baby? Scientific people are trying to find out all kinds of science about how the soul and spirit play into the lives of people, and what the soul and spirit really are. Darwin's "batshit crazy" stuff is okay for you. But I am "batshit crazy" when I say that we don't know about something. Sounds like you are a "batshit politician" of some sort.

What a nice argument, we don't know therefore you are wrong, astargath. Amazing argument there buddy, then god might not exist because we don't know enough about other dimensions or things outside the universe or even if it's possible to exist ''outside the universe'' check mate. I win.

All you are posting is something that has nothing to do with what you or I said previously.

The point is, that science being in its infancy, and by direct expression of many of its adherents, is essentially a religion. Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do as well as how they express their feelings about things, and since it is outside the arena of scientific expertise at this time, religion rules. This means that any method we use to affect our health is a religious method.

''Since soul and spirit exist by simple observation of the various kinds of activities that people do'' Rofl, yeah, every scientist says that mate, we all know souls and spirits are real, give me a break, you have 0 evidence for this, stop making shit up.

The fact that every scientist is alive as the sentient being that he is, proves that he has a soul and spirit. What the soul and spirit are made up of is the thing that has not been proven.

Take a simple automobile for example. A car exists. You can see it. You can handle it one way or another. But you would have to dismantle it and scientifically examine each part to scientifically determine what it was made of. Stating that the car doesn't exist because you haven't dismantled and examined it, shows that you would be in extreme scientific denial.

Or take a black hole. We know that something exists that we have dubbed a black hole. Yet we haven't handled or examined even one of them in any way other than to examine electromagnetic radiation disturbances in the BH area. We don't know that our scientific theories about a BH are correct.

In the same way, souls and spirits exist, even though we can't scientifically do much in the way of scientifically handling them, yet. Come on out of your denial.

''The fact that every scientist is alive as the sentient being that he is, proves that he has a soul and spirit.'' I don't possibly see how that's proof for soul's existence. There is 0 evidence, scientific or unscientific of the existence of a soul or the spirit. You keep making shit up, again, as usual. Come out of your denial dude, in the same way, the flying spaghetti exists, even tho we have 0 scientific evidence for it, everyone being alive is proof that the flying spaghetti made us, it's obvious, duh.

It is very possible that you don't exist as a human being. Perhaps you absolutely don't have a soul. I mean, maybe you are an AI that has been developed enough to post in the forum.

soul
[sohl]

noun
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:
arguing the immortality of the soul.

3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person:
He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.

4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.

5. a human being; person.

6. high-mindedness; noble warmth of feeling, spirit or courage, etc.

7. the animating principle; the essential element or part of something.

8. the inspirer or moving spirit of some action, movement, etc.

9. the embodiment of some quality:
He was the very soul of tact.

10. (initial capital letter) Christian Science. God; the divine source of all identity and individuality.

11. shared ethnic awareness and pride among black people, especially black Americans.

12. deeply felt emotion, as conveyed or expressed by a performer or artist.

13. soul music.

adjective
14. of, characteristic of, or for black Americans or their culture:
soul newspapers.

No soul, eh? LOL!

[Astargath]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

[BADecker]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

[oceansilver.2010]

Keeping faith at a moderate level, religion can bring benefits such as lowering blood pressure, boosting the immune system and prolonging the life span.

[CoinCube]

I told you, the secular legal frameworks will keep people in check.  No need to coerce them with religion.  

As for the morals, I have showed you that my moral standard is superior to what is presented in the scriptures.
Know when the harm is done, and know the consequences of your actions.

You think that we in the West will turn into Soviet Russia if we abandon our belief in the supernatural beings.  That is just childish.

You are being childish says the guy who wants to abolish the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of religion must go of course if we are going to make it illegal for parents to share their religious beliefs with their children.

My moral standard is superior says the guy who insists his ideological opponents are not only without legitimacy but so crazy and dangerous that should be institutionalized so a team of "medical professionals" can teach them to think in the approved manner.

The secular legal frameworks will keep people in check says the guy who is proposing a road to government tyranny and dystopia so blatantly that it sounds like the prequel to Orwell's 1984.

Honestly I don't really know what to say.
I am baffled that you cannot seem to see the darkness in your dreams of secular utopia.

In my Argument for God I made the case that rejection of God starts a gradual but progressive slide towards totalitarianism.

You are a data point supporting my claim. Thank you for providing a real life example of how one can embrace tyranny after rejecting God.
 

[Astargath]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol.

''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence.

[BADecker]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol.

''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence.

Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right?

[Astargath]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol.

''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence.

Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right?

You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument.

[BADecker]

I told you, the secular legal frameworks will keep people in check.  No need to coerce them with religion.  

As for the morals, I have showed you that my moral standard is superior to what is presented in the scriptures.
Know when the harm is done, and know the consequences of your actions.

You think that we in the West will turn into Soviet Russia if we abandon our belief in the supernatural beings.  That is just childish.

You are being childish says the guy who wants to abolish the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of religion must go of course if we are going to make it illegal for parents to share their religious beliefs with their children.

My moral standard is superior says the guy who insists his ideological opponents are not only without legitimacy but so crazy and dangerous that should be institutionalized so a team of "medical professionals" can teach them to think in the approved manner.

The secular legal frameworks will keep people in check says the guy who is proposing a road to government tyranny and dystopia so blatantly that it sounds like the prequel to Orwell's 1984.

Honestly I don't really know what to say.
I am baffled that you cannot seem to see the darkness in your dreams of secular utopia.

In my Argument for God I made the case that rejection of God starts a gradual but progressive slide towards totalitarianism.

You are a data point supporting my claim. Thank you for providing a real life example of how one can embrace tyranny after rejecting God.
 

You live in a carefully constructed bubble.  Why can't you answer questions about the Bible?  Too close to the foundation of your bubble?

Your 'claims 1-8' are laughable.  I answered them all.

Religion is all about coercion.  Coming from the guy who values freedom that is kind of ironic, LOL.

Talk about bubbles...

The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.

The math of big bang doesn't include anything that was known to have happened. But the Bible does.

Evolution is not known to have happened - no evidence - But the Bible explains how life happened.

Abiogenesis is not known to have happened. It is all just theory without proof. The Bible shows taht there wasn't any abiogenesis.

You live in a carefully constructed bubble. It exists like a religion for you, because you only have evidence that can be applied to many things other than the way you have presented it in your bubble. But you don't have any proof.

Bible people at least have the eye witness accounts from the Bible.

You want to believe that your scientists are telling the truth when they build up stories that have no evidence know for a fact to fit their stories. You simply pick and choose to believe no evidence, and absolutely no proof, and a bunch of people who are eye witnesses to no evidence and absolutely no proof. You live in a carefully constructed bubble.

The Bible tells how things happened. And here they are, just like the Bible says.

Your scientists tell you how things happened, but they are the guys who are supposed to have proof before they tell you something that you are supposed to believe as proof. But all their theories are theories because they have been changed many times, and so that they can be changed many more times. Not only do you live in a bubble, you live in an ever-changing bubble. What was known to exist in your bubble, may easily be changed to be just the opposite any day of the week.

[BADecker]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol.

''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence.

Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right?

You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument.

Yet the soul and spirit that are part of the belief are the exact things that you use to believe that they are not in existence. Come on. Use your head, man.

[Astargath]

I told you, the secular legal frameworks will keep people in check.  No need to coerce them with religion.  

As for the morals, I have showed you that my moral standard is superior to what is presented in the scriptures.
Know when the harm is done, and know the consequences of your actions.

You think that we in the West will turn into Soviet Russia if we abandon our belief in the supernatural beings.  That is just childish.

You are being childish says the guy who wants to abolish the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of religion must go of course if we are going to make it illegal for parents to share their religious beliefs with their children.

My moral standard is superior says the guy who insists his ideological opponents are not only without legitimacy but so crazy and dangerous that should be institutionalized so a team of "medical professionals" can teach them to think in the approved manner.

The secular legal frameworks will keep people in check says the guy who is proposing a road to government tyranny and dystopia so blatantly that it sounds like the prequel to Orwell's 1984.

Honestly I don't really know what to say.
I am baffled that you cannot seem to see the darkness in your dreams of secular utopia.

In my Argument for God I made the case that rejection of God starts a gradual but progressive slide towards totalitarianism.

You are a data point supporting my claim. Thank you for providing a real life example of how one can embrace tyranny after rejecting God.
 

You live in a carefully constructed bubble.  Why can't you answer questions about the Bible?  Too close to the foundation of your bubble?

Your 'claims 1-8' are laughable.  I answered them all.

Religion is all about coercion.  Coming from the guy who values freedom that is kind of ironic, LOL.

Talk about bubbles...

The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.

The math of big bang doesn't include anything that was known to have happened. But the Bible does.

Evolution is not known to have happened - no evidence - But the Bible explains how life happened.

Abiogenesis is not known to have happened. It is all just theory without proof. The Bible shows taht there wasn't any abiogenesis.

You live in a carefully constructed bubble. It exists like a religion for you, because you only have evidence that can be applied to many things other than the way you have presented it in your bubble. But you don't have any proof.

Bible people at least have the eye witness accounts from the Bible.

You want to believe that your scientists are telling the truth when they build up stories that have no evidence know for a fact to fit their stories. You simply pick and choose to believe no evidence, and absolutely no proof, and a bunch of people who are eye witnesses to no evidence and absolutely no proof. You live in a carefully constructed bubble.

The Bible tells how things happened. And here they are, just like the Bible says.

Your scientists tell you how things happened, but they are the guys who are supposed to have proof before they tell you something that you are supposed to believe as proof. But all their theories are theories because they have been changed many times, and so that they can be changed many more times. Not only do you live in a bubble, you live in an ever-changing bubble. What was known to exist in your bubble, may easily be changed to be just the opposite any day of the week.

''The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.'' Well, define ''answers'', you mean claims. I can find a ton of books who answer questions about creation of the universe and life, plenty of gods and supernatural beings are said to be creators of it. I can find books talking about advanced aliens creating us too. Unfortunately just because a book says something, doesn't mean it's true, specially when there is no evidence for it.

God creating the universe is not known to have happened - no evidence

[Astargath]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol.

''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence.

Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right?

You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument.

Yet the soul and spirit that are part of the belief are the exact things that you use to believe that they are not in existence. Come on. Use your head, man.

That makes no sense, you lost. Deal with it like a man.

[BADecker]

I told you, the secular legal frameworks will keep people in check.  No need to coerce them with religion.  

As for the morals, I have showed you that my moral standard is superior to what is presented in the scriptures.
Know when the harm is done, and know the consequences of your actions.

You think that we in the West will turn into Soviet Russia if we abandon our belief in the supernatural beings.  That is just childish.

You are being childish says the guy who wants to abolish the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of religion must go of course if we are going to make it illegal for parents to share their religious beliefs with their children.

My moral standard is superior says the guy who insists his ideological opponents are not only without legitimacy but so crazy and dangerous that should be institutionalized so a team of "medical professionals" can teach them to think in the approved manner.

The secular legal frameworks will keep people in check says the guy who is proposing a road to government tyranny and dystopia so blatantly that it sounds like the prequel to Orwell's 1984.

Honestly I don't really know what to say.
I am baffled that you cannot seem to see the darkness in your dreams of secular utopia.

In my Argument for God I made the case that rejection of God starts a gradual but progressive slide towards totalitarianism.

You are a data point supporting my claim. Thank you for providing a real life example of how one can embrace tyranny after rejecting God.
 

You live in a carefully constructed bubble.  Why can't you answer questions about the Bible?  Too close to the foundation of your bubble?

Your 'claims 1-8' are laughable.  I answered them all.

Religion is all about coercion.  Coming from the guy who values freedom that is kind of ironic, LOL.

Talk about bubbles...

The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.

The math of big bang doesn't include anything that was known to have happened. But the Bible does.

Evolution is not known to have happened - no evidence - But the Bible explains how life happened.

Abiogenesis is not known to have happened. It is all just theory without proof. The Bible shows taht there wasn't any abiogenesis.

You live in a carefully constructed bubble. It exists like a religion for you, because you only have evidence that can be applied to many things other than the way you have presented it in your bubble. But you don't have any proof.

Bible people at least have the eye witness accounts from the Bible.

You want to believe that your scientists are telling the truth when they build up stories that have no evidence know for a fact to fit their stories. You simply pick and choose to believe no evidence, and absolutely no proof, and a bunch of people who are eye witnesses to no evidence and absolutely no proof. You live in a carefully constructed bubble.

The Bible tells how things happened. And here they are, just like the Bible says.

Your scientists tell you how things happened, but they are the guys who are supposed to have proof before they tell you something that you are supposed to believe as proof. But all their theories are theories because they have been changed many times, and so that they can be changed many more times. Not only do you live in a bubble, you live in an ever-changing bubble. What was known to exist in your bubble, may easily be changed to be just the opposite any day of the week.

''The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.'' Well, define ''answers'', you mean claims. I can find a ton of books who answer questions about creation of the universe and life, plenty of gods and supernatural beings are said to be creators of it. I can find books talking about advanced aliens creating us too. Unfortunately just because a book says something, doesn't mean it's true, specially when there is no evidence for it.

God creating the universe is not known to have happened - no evidence

Thank you for admitting that science doesn't have the answers, and that believers in science are part of their own bubble.

The Bible has a miraculous format of existence that I have pointed out to you several times in the past. The Bible is divinely inspired. The other books don't have this.

[BADecker]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol.

''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence.

Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right?

You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument.

Yet the soul and spirit that are part of the belief are the exact things that you use to believe that they are not in existence. Come on. Use your head, man.

That makes no sense, you lost. Deal with it like a man.

Actually, it is you who make no sense. You accept the dictionary definition that tells yo something, and in the same breath deny the thing that it tells you, all at the same time that you are using the thing that it tells you. Keep it up. At that rate, you will deny yourself right out of existence.

[Astargath]

So which definition do you want to use? Certainly if it's ''5. a human being; person.'' There is no point in differentiating a baby from his soul since the soul is a human being. How about ''the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.'' Is that the definition you are using? Please tell me which one is the correct one that you are using, otherwise this conversation will lead to nowhere.

You first claim:

''I disagree. God didn't make us unhealthy. In fact, He made us so extremely healthy that He gave us freedom. Freedom, like in free will. Then we used our freedom in free will to make ourselves unhealthy.''

My rebuttal was that a baby can't physically give himself cancer.

Your rebuttal to that, I guess, was that you were talking about ''we''

Then I said, we, don't want a baby to have any diseases but even if we did, we still don't have the ability to induce some genetically diseases into a baby, it's impossible right now.

Then you said some crazy shit about how do I know that the baby's soul or spirit isn't the one doing it.

You have to prove the existence of a soul or a spirit first and you didn't.

Why do I have to prove something that is self evident? Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.

The only thing I might have to come close to proving (should I happen to be interest in proving it), is whether or not you are a human being. Maybe you are truthful if you say that you have no soul. Maybe you are not a human being. LOL.

So basically you have no evidence for any of this and you are just making shit up as usual, is there something not self-evident for you? Evolution is self-evident and you don't believe in it lol.

''Since there are human beings, there are souls, by the definition.'' Not really ''2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:'' That's far from self-evident and claiming we have such thing is stupid without evidence.

Thank you for acknowledging the definition, and thereby acknowledging the fact of the soul even though you attempt to contradict yourself simultaneously. Good English language practice for you, right?

You quote something that says ''believed to survive death'' you know what believed means? It doesn't say, it's a fact. You have to prove the soul as in that definition exists and you haven't, the only thing you can do is keep yelling it's self-evident. It's clearly not self-evident and there is absolutely no evidence that we have a soul that survives death. Unless you have evidence, you lost the argument.

Yet the soul and spirit that are part of the belief are the exact things that you use to believe that they are not in existence. Come on. Use your head, man.

That makes no sense, you lost. Deal with it like a man.

Actually, it is you who make no sense. You accept the dictionary definition that tells yo something, and in the same breath deny the thing that it tells you, all at the same time that you are using the thing that it tells you. Keep it up. At that rate, you will deny yourself right out of existence.

A dictionary defines unicorns and minotaurs too, it doesn't mean they are real, are you dumb or are you trolling. You have to prove the existence of the soul, remember? You haven't done that yet.

[Astargath]

I told you, the secular legal frameworks will keep people in check.  No need to coerce them with religion.  

As for the morals, I have showed you that my moral standard is superior to what is presented in the scriptures.
Know when the harm is done, and know the consequences of your actions.

You think that we in the West will turn into Soviet Russia if we abandon our belief in the supernatural beings.  That is just childish.

You are being childish says the guy who wants to abolish the first amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of religion must go of course if we are going to make it illegal for parents to share their religious beliefs with their children.

My moral standard is superior says the guy who insists his ideological opponents are not only without legitimacy but so crazy and dangerous that should be institutionalized so a team of "medical professionals" can teach them to think in the approved manner.

The secular legal frameworks will keep people in check says the guy who is proposing a road to government tyranny and dystopia so blatantly that it sounds like the prequel to Orwell's 1984.

Honestly I don't really know what to say.
I am baffled that you cannot seem to see the darkness in your dreams of secular utopia.

In my Argument for God I made the case that rejection of God starts a gradual but progressive slide towards totalitarianism.

You are a data point supporting my claim. Thank you for providing a real life example of how one can embrace tyranny after rejecting God.
 

You live in a carefully constructed bubble.  Why can't you answer questions about the Bible?  Too close to the foundation of your bubble?

Your 'claims 1-8' are laughable.  I answered them all.

Religion is all about coercion.  Coming from the guy who values freedom that is kind of ironic, LOL.

Talk about bubbles...

The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.

The math of big bang doesn't include anything that was known to have happened. But the Bible does.

Evolution is not known to have happened - no evidence - But the Bible explains how life happened.

Abiogenesis is not known to have happened. It is all just theory without proof. The Bible shows taht there wasn't any abiogenesis.

You live in a carefully constructed bubble. It exists like a religion for you, because you only have evidence that can be applied to many things other than the way you have presented it in your bubble. But you don't have any proof.

Bible people at least have the eye witness accounts from the Bible.

You want to believe that your scientists are telling the truth when they build up stories that have no evidence know for a fact to fit their stories. You simply pick and choose to believe no evidence, and absolutely no proof, and a bunch of people who are eye witnesses to no evidence and absolutely no proof. You live in a carefully constructed bubble.

The Bible tells how things happened. And here they are, just like the Bible says.

Your scientists tell you how things happened, but they are the guys who are supposed to have proof before they tell you something that you are supposed to believe as proof. But all their theories are theories because they have been changed many times, and so that they can be changed many more times. Not only do you live in a bubble, you live in an ever-changing bubble. What was known to exist in your bubble, may easily be changed to be just the opposite any day of the week.

''The Bible answers the questions about creation of the universe and life. Your bubble doesn't have any answers to these things.'' Well, define ''answers'', you mean claims. I can find a ton of books who answer questions about creation of the universe and life, plenty of gods and supernatural beings are said to be creators of it. I can find books talking about advanced aliens creating us too. Unfortunately just because a book says something, doesn't mean it's true, specially when there is no evidence for it.

God creating the universe is not known to have happened - no evidence

Thank you for admitting that science doesn't have the answers, and that believers in science are part of their own bubble.

The Bible has a miraculous format of existence that I have pointed out to you several times in the past. The Bible is divinely inspired. The other books don't have this.

No it doesn't, you claim it does but there is no evidence that the bible is divinely inspired, otherwise the morals and teachings of the bible would be superior and they aren't as we already discussed here many times.

[CoinCube]

Why are you interpreting the Bible within the context of the times when the Bible was written?

If you admit that you need to interpret the Bible, then you admit that it is a Bronze Age literary work, not a 'word of God'.
Either it is a 'word of God' or it is not.  You cannot have it both ways.

The purpose of the Bible as I understand it is to be a functional and transformative document. It must therefore "work" be interpretable within the context of ancient times, for modern educated man, and for a future humanity vastly more sophisticated then we are.

The broad range of conditions reduces the way knowledge can be conceptualized in the book.

The knowledge within it must be both simplified and understandable within the context of the ancients while simultaneously possessing a depth that remains true as the conditions change and society progresses.

Your approach of picking out a sentence or two here or there and highlighting the difficulties in understanding them from the modern worldview is the wrong one.

If you (other people reading this) are serious in their desire to understand the text. I highly recommend the Jordan Peterson series of Biblical lectures.

Biblical Series I: Introduction to the Idea of God
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=f-wWBGo6a2w