Atheistforums.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpoSwe2buU

he takes it quite well

I have a tough time seeing how anyone can look forward to seeing others suffer at the hands of a loving god.. It just a bit contradictory..

The thing is, they're not Christians. Nobody is a Christian, because nobody can follow ALL the "rules" he purported passed along, they're contradictory at best, evil at worst.

Or reflective of reality ... contradictory at best, evil at worst.  Thus something of this world, not some ideal Platonic world (where a Hellenistic Jew would expect to get revelations, not from their ass).

There are only two commands that Christians are to follow. The rest of the law stems from those two commands. They can be kept.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 06:39:05 AM
There are only two commands that Christians are to follow. The rest of the law stems from those two commands. They can be kept.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Cafeteria Christians everywhere agree.

Without bothering to find out what you're talking about, of course.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 07, 2016, 06:51:59 AM
Cafeteria Christians everywhere agree.

Without bothering to find out what you're talking about, of course.

I don't know what a cafeteria Christian is, but it has been my experience that most self proclaimed Christians do not agree with me and are quite confused.

It's referred to as a stumbling block in scripture. It is saddening and nearly disheartening to witness such.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 06:39:05 AM
There are only two commands that Christians are to follow. The rest of the law stems from those two commands. They can be kept.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

What is proselytizing and what is love?  Paul's love is poetic.  So we should proselytize poetic love?  Isn't that what Saffo was doing centuries earlier?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 06:39:05 AM
There are only two commands that Christians are to follow. The rest of the law stems from those two commands. They can be kept.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Do you not find it incredibly ironic that the man who was given the Ten Commandments by God came down from the mountain, saw that the people made a statue, and said that someone needed to be killed? For breaking a law which the people hadn't received yet, God commanded that Moses break another one of his commandments and kill those responsible. Morality does not come from religion. Over the centuries it was secular thought that brought us into our 21st Century moral senses, which changed Christianity from embracing slavery to being against it, from treating women as lesser citizens to making them equal to men, and is currently changing it again to be for the rights of homosexual people.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 07, 2016, 01:48:18 PM
Do you not find it incredibly ironic that the man who was given the Ten Commandments by God came down from the mountain, saw that the people made a statue, and said that someone needed to be killed? For breaking a law which the people hadn't received yet, God commanded that Moses break another one of his commandments and kill those responsible. Morality does not come from religion. Over the centuries it was secular thought that brought us into our 21st Century moral senses, which changed Christianity from embracing slavery to being against it, from treating women as lesser citizens to making them equal to men, and is currently changing it again to be for the rights of homosexual people.

Morality comes from honest introspection and the selfless conscience, both endowed and formed and created by GOD.

I agree that some religions have gone and lead others astray. I agree that there is error which is both spoken of and spoken against in the same book, even the same testament...showing that man, though having capacities for morality, too have capacities for greed and wrong.

Different times call for different things,  yet I am not condoning slaver, even in the OT. Most cases, even in the OT are speaking metaphorically in relation to the believer and GOD.

The Christ plainly ended the decree of acceptance of slaver and bonds what so ever with those same two commands, yet most truly are willfully ignorant to the fact.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 02:05:12 PM
Morality comes from honest introspection and the selfless conscience, both endowed and formed and created by GOD.

Then why is it that secular morality has to come in and fix religious morality? You want to see how Christians would act if they followed Biblical morality? Look at Islamic countries and see how they do things. It wouldn't be much different. If morality were truly from God, would the books he chooses to communicate with us exclusively by be a little more moral and a little less barbaric?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 02:05:12 PMI agree that some religions have gone and lead others astray. I agree that there is error which is both spoken of and spoken against in the same book, even the same testament...showing that man, though having capacities for morality, too have capacities for greed and wrong.

Yes, religions do lead people astray, especially Christianity, which has been holding Western societies back intellectually and morally since for centuries.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 02:05:12 PMDifferent times call for different things,  yet I am not condoning slaver, even in the OT. Most cases, even in the OT are speaking metaphorically in relation to the believer and GOD.

Was the Bible being metaphorical when it said that other nations would either be forced into labor if they give up peacefully, or their women and children taken as spoils if they fight back?

Deuteronomy 20:10-15: - "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."

Notice that this is how they were to treat cities that were "at a distance," in other words, "far away." Why attack a city that isn't neighboring yours and is not a threat? To take advantage of your superior strength, of course. So these people who the Israelites attacked unprovoked were given a choice: either they all become slaves or their women and children are made slaves. Not to mention the half dozen times God willfully turned his own people to their enemies, allowing them to become enslaved when he wasn't happy with them.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 02:05:12 PMThe Christ plainly ended the decree of acceptance of slaver and bonds what so ever with those same two commands, yet most truly are willfully ignorant to the fact.

Haha! No. The two "greatest commandments" made no mention of slavery. The New Testament even refers to believers as God's slaves. That is how accepting of slavery the New Testament God was.

Romans 6:15-23: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obeyâ€"whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

But what else would you call a group of people who give hours of their time to the church and its functions every week, and hand over 10% or more of their hard-earned money?

The ban of slavery had nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, those for slavery were the ones applying the Bible. When slavery was made illegal, it was because of the moral compass that people had, despite their religion telling them otherwise.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 06:58:12 AM
I don't know what a cafeteria Christian is, but it has been my experience that most self proclaimed Christians do not agree with me and are quite confused.

It's referred to as a stumbling block in scripture. It is saddening and nearly disheartening to witness such.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Yes you do--you are a living example of what he was talking about.  You, like all other theists take a little from here, a little from there and a bit of this and a bit of that.  And that is what they believe--for today.  But there there is always another setting in the cafeteria, so it does not matter.  Hypocrite is the only constant.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 07, 2016, 02:46:01 PM
Then why is it that secular morality has to come in and fix religious morality? You want to see how Christians would act if they followed Biblical morality? Look at Islamic countries and see how they do things. It wouldn't be much different. If morality were truly from God, would the books he chooses to communicate with us exclusively by be a little more moral and a little less barbaric?

Yes, religions do lead people astray, especially Christianity, which has been holding Western societies back intellectually and morally since for centuries.

Was the Bible being metaphorical when it said that other nations would either be forced into labor if they give up peacefully, or their women and children taken as spoils if they fight back?

Deuteronomy 20:10-15: - "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."

Notice that this is how they were to treat cities that were "at a distance," in other words, "far away." Why attack a city that isn't neighboring yours and is not a threat? To take advantage of your superior strength, of course. So these people who the Israelites attacked unprovoked were given a choice: either they all become slaves or their women and children are made slaves. Not to mention the half dozen times God willfully turned his own people to their enemies, allowing them to become enslaved when he wasn't happy with them.

Haha! No. The two "greatest commandments" made no mention of slavery. The New Testament even refers to believers as God's slaves. That is how accepting of slavery the New Testament God was.

Romans 6:15-23: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obeyâ€"whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

But what else would you call a group of people who give hours of their time to the church and its functions every week, and hand over 10% or more of their hard-earned money?

The ban of slavery had nothing to do with the Bible. In fact, those for slavery were the ones applying the Bible. When slavery was made illegal, it was because of the moral compass that people had, despite their religion telling them otherwise.

I'm not interested in your pre-made rebuttals.

The Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself, and expounded further by saying to treat your enemy as your friend.

You cannot own a human life and to love them as yourself.

That's all.  It's that simple.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 03:57:49 PM
I'm not interested in your pre-made rebuttals.

The Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself, and expounded further by saying to treat your enemy as your friend.

You cannot own a human life and to love them as yourself.

That's all.  It's that simple.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Alas, people have much self hate ... and mutual hate.  So it is hard to follow those commandments.  Also which "love"?  In original Greek it is ... eros, philos or agape.  Of course it is agape, love of the common good.  But what is that?  Early Christians were law breakers, violators of Roman law ... is that for the common good?  They will claim a higher legalistic calling ... but anyone can claim that.  Except when Paul is talking out of both sides of his mouth ... regarding the Emperor being appointed by G-d, and thus must be obeyed.

Quote from: Baruch on October 07, 2016, 06:05:22 PM
Alas, people have much self hate ... and mutual hate.  So it is hard to follow those commandments.  Also which "love"?  In original Greek it is ... eros, philos or agape.  Of course it is agape, love of the common good.  But what is that?  Early Christians were law breakers, violators of Roman law ... is that for the common good?  They will claim a higher legalistic calling ... but anyone can claim that.  Except when Paul is talking out of both sides of his mouth ... regarding the Emperor being appointed by G-d, and thus must be obeyed.

Assumption from ignorance, thankfully.

Loving GOD, which is to say; being devout to what can be known of GOD within our life effectually negates self loathing tendencies. I am speaking from personal experience.


humbly,
peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 07, 2016, 03:29:53 PM
Yes you do--you are a living example of what he was talking about.  You, like all other theists take a little from here, a little from there and a bit of this and a bit of that.  And that is what they believe--for today.  But there there is always another setting in the cafeteria, so it does not matter.  Hypocrite is the only constant.

Not all are hypocrites, but it seems very many are, not excluding any in particular.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 03:57:49 PM
I'm not interested in your pre-made rebuttals.

The Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself, and expounded further by saying to treat your enemy as your friend.

You cannot own a human life and to love them as yourself.

That's all.  It's that simple.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

You're shamelessly dodging and grasping at straws. If anyone has a premade response here, it's you. You cannot deny that Jesus never said a word against slavery. You cannot deny that the New Testament uses slavery as a comparison to a believer's relationship to God. You know full well that your example is weak. A slave is neither a neighbor or an enemy. A slave is property. Cherrypick all you want; you're not fulling anyone but yourself.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 07:13:59 PM
Assumption from ignorance, thankfully.

Loving GOD, which is to say; being devout to what can be known of GOD within our life effectually negates self loathing tendencies. I am speaking from personal experience.


humbly,
peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I am glad, at least in your case, you are happy.  Attributing at least that part of your experience to G-d is gratitude enough.  I would wish everyone happy, whether they attribute it to G-d or not.  That is my prejudice.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 08, 2016, 02:03:31 AM
You're shamelessly dodging and grasping at straws. If anyone has a premade response here, it's you. You cannot deny that Jesus never said a word against slavery. You cannot deny that the New Testament uses slavery as a comparison to a believer's relationship to God. You know full well that your example is weak. A slave is neither a neighbor or an enemy. A slave is property. Cherrypick all you want; you're not fulling anyone but yourself.

Wow.  The commands of the Christ pertain to the world as a whole. He also taught utter equity. He didn't say love all but your slaves. And the comparison to stewardship and following GOD in faith was a description that people could easily grasp at the time given that servitude was the norm.

Nice try,  but your nonexistent point is moot.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2016, 03:48:34 AM
I am glad, at least in your case, you are happy.  Attributing at least that part of your experience to G-d is gratitude enough.  I would wish everyone happy, whether they attribute it to G-d or not.  That is my prejudice.

I wish I could thumbs up. Oh wait...

ðŸ'

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2016, 03:48:34 AM
I am glad, at least in your case, you are happy.  Attributing at least that part of your experience to G-d is gratitude enough.  I would wish everyone happy, whether they attribute it to G-d or not.  That is my prejudice.

No friend,  I am not happy. I am plagued by shame due to knowing misdirection. Yet it is a means to an end,  and I will abide by what I know to be true eventually.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 08, 2016, 06:51:58 AM
No friend,  I am not happy. I am plagued by shame due to knowing misdirection. Yet it is a means to an end,  and I will abide by what I know to be true eventually.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

May you overcome your guilt (with G-d of course) and embrace shamelessness ... like Paul.  He would have worn a scary clown costume if necessary, for his Jesus.  People in general and Americans in particular, are unconscious of their own servitude.  And if they are, they seek to escape it (which is impossible).

Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2016, 09:36:36 AM
May you overcome your guilt (with G-d of course) and embrace shamelessness ... like Paul.  He would have worn a scary clown costume if necessary, for his Jesus.  People in general and Americans in particular, are unconscious of their own servitude.  And if they are, they seek to escape it (which is impossible).

Thank you for your kind words.

Might all come to peace through acknowledgment, and acceptance of what is right, with patience and perseverance, by the will of GOD and for the sake of creation.

Peace sincerely and humbly

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 08, 2016, 09:47:36 AM
Thank you for your kind words.

Might all come to peace through acknowledgment, and acceptance of what is right, with patience and perseverance, by the will of GOD and for the sake of creation.

Peace sincerely and humbly

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Right ... Good Thought, Good Words, Good Deeds ... brought to you by the Persian Empire, and the Messiah Cyrus (look it up).

Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2016, 09:51:29 AM
Right ... Good Thought, Good Words, Good Deeds ... brought to you by the Persian Empire, and the Messiah Cyrus (look it up).

I need not look up a thing friend and study the Zend Avesta quite regularly.

Peace friend.

Might all relinquish pride and fear that an opening and void might be filled with that righteous holy substance.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 10:49:58 PM
Not all are hypocrites, but it seems very many are, not excluding any in particular.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Yeah, there are some that actually believe (well, whatever it is they believe, for no two believers believe the same) what they gather from the Bible.  The problem is that there is no 'bible' but hundreds of versions of it.  And no two read it the same way.  It is literally possible to construct anything you want.  The versions of christanity are so varied that it really renders all of those beliefs meaningless.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 08, 2016, 11:50:43 AM
Yeah, there are some that actually believe (well, whatever it is they believe, for no two believers believe the same) what they gather from the Bible.  The problem is that there is no 'bible' but hundreds of versions of it.  And no two read it the same way.  It is literally possible to construct anything you want.  The versions of christanity are so varied that it really renders all of those beliefs meaningless.

On the contrary; an objective view of what is right is easily found and constant with negation of self from equation. The selfless conscience is objective.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 08, 2016, 06:48:11 AM
Wow.  The commands of the Christ pertain to the world as a whole. He also taught utter equity. He didn't say love all but your slaves. And the comparison to stewardship and following GOD in faith was a description that people could easily grasp at the time given that servitude was the norm.

Nice try,  but your nonexistent point is moot.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Oh, he DIDN'T say that? I guess you got me there. I guess when you base your theology on what Jesus' didn't say, you've got yourself some unbreakable logic.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 08, 2016, 12:16:54 PM
Oh, he DIDN'T say that? I guess you got me there. I guess when you base your theology on what Jesus' didn't say, you've got yourself some unbreakable logic.

So words must be spoken in a completely literal sense for you to even grasp them?

I think your playing willfully ignorant for your own motives which most likely don't benefit any, but that's just my opinion.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 03:57:49 PM
...
The Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself, and expounded further by saying to treat your enemy as your friend.
...
That's all.  It's that simple.
...

So, these are the two, and only two, rules referenced in your OP.

This is further evidence that you are a Cafeteria Christianâ,,¢.

It has been clear, that Popsthebuilder has been coming from a non-standard religious POV for some time now.  He might call himself a Christian, but I would call him a Seeker, who is open to NT POV ... but not limited to that.

So it would be clear, that he isn't going to accept all the Biblical laws, not even all the Rabbinic laws as part of his religion ... nor did Constantine for that matter.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 08, 2016, 12:14:51 PM
On the contrary; an objective view of what is right is easily found and constant with negation of self from equation. The selfless conscience is objective.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

:)))  Objective view?? :)))  That is not possible--well, it is if one is prepared to embrace factual data.  Then one cannot come away with any other conclusion than that Jesus is a fiction.  And that the Synoptics are fiction.  Objective view................:))))  good one.  I love it.

Quote from: sdelsolray on October 08, 2016, 02:34:31 PM
So, these are the two, and only two, rules referenced in your OP.

This is further evidence that you are a Cafeteria Christianâ,,¢.

No....all righteousness and law is fulfilled with the compliance of those two commands.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Paul's paen to love may be a work of fiction, just as great quotations from Shakespeare ... but are you un-moved?

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 08, 2016, 07:14:56 PM
:)))  Objective view?? :)))  That is not possible--well, it is if one is prepared to embrace factual data.  Then one cannot come away with any other conclusion than that Jesus is a fiction.  And that the Synoptics are fiction.  Objective view................:))))  good one.  I love it.

What factual data are you assuming I reject?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on October 08, 2016, 05:30:22 PM
It has been clear, that Popsthebuilder has been coming from a non-standard religious POV for some time now.  He might call himself a Christian, but I would call him a Seeker, who is open to NT POV ... but not limited to that.

So it would be clear, that he isn't going to accept all the Biblical laws, not even all the Rabbinic laws as part of his religion ... nor did Constantine for that matter.

You are correct in your assertion.

I am most definitely not an orthodox Christian and am in most cases shunned by them.

I see much error, hypocrisy, and greed within much organized religion.

But even this is spoken of repeatedly in the bible and other core religious scripture.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 08, 2016, 09:15:50 PM
What factual data are you assuming I reject?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Mike - It is a fact (maybe) that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.  It is true that there was no prince Hamlet.  But "to be or not to be" is still the question.  The historicity of Hamlet isn't relevant, one's response to the soliloquy of a great fictional character, is.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 08, 2016, 09:15:50 PM
What factual data are you assuming I reject?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

All of it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 08, 2016, 10:50:44 PM
All of it.

A grand assumption indeed.

Perhaps you could simply ask if I believe a thing to be true as opposed to making yourself out to be an ass by assuming such things. Completely your call though.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/36875271.jpg)

I used to be high on Christ too, Pop's, but I came down.

I can still relate to your devotion to the Golden rule, though. I have a similar code of conduct, but I don't elevate it to Holy Commandment.

I also agree with Baruch, that there is value in fiction. But I feel there is a lot of danger in believing fiction to be the Word of God.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 06:58:12 AM
I don't know what a cafeteria Christian is, but it has been my experience that most self proclaimed Christians do not agree with me and are quite confused.

Go through a cafeteria. Do you take everything or do you pick and chose what you will accept for dinner? Clear now?

And why are THEY confused? Why not admit nobody is ever on the same page with regard to religion. You each have your own.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2016, 07:26:11 AM
A grand assumption indeed.

Perhaps you could simply ask if I believe a thing to be true as opposed to making yourself out to be an ass by assuming such things. Completely your call though.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Oh, woe is me, the ass that I am.   Anyway, you said that you follow two of Jesus' commands.  I would think you would not suggest you live by the commands of a fiction.  And it is fairly obvious what you believe by what you say.  So, my statement to you is that you must believe Jesus to have been an actual character.  But there is no evidence to suggest that that is so.  Jesus actually is a fiction and you are telling us you live by the commands of a fiction. 

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 09, 2016, 12:26:41 PM
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/36875271.jpg)

I used to be high on Christ too, Pop's, but I came down.

I can still relate to your devotion to the Golden rule, though. I have a similar code of conduct, but I don't elevate it to Holy Commandment.

I also agree with Baruch, that there is value in fiction. But I feel there is a lot of danger in believing fiction to be the Word of God.

Words can be used in all sorts of ways.

What is holy is what is different and what is different from the greedy of the masses interpretation general? Something similar to the golden rule? Indeed

Yet though this stems from the conscience it in no way is not of GOD and life and the very will of GOD for IT's creation or formation.

There is a higher calling for life as a whole then to simply be consumed by personal want.

Life as a whole would advance and benefit from actually adhering to the things that can be known through the selfless conscience.

These writings you reference can be, and are a reminder for those few who can actually understand, relate, and act according to that holy will.  That spiritual existence that is the life of us all yet so many are blinded to by pride greed fear and manipulation of self through societal means and norms which are mandated by those greedy souls in high places.

Sorry,  probably sounds like some rant.

It has been my experience that those who identify as atheists or closet deists are actually more receptive to the truth that can be known from within.

Anyway....peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 09, 2016, 01:21:37 PM
Go through a cafeteria. Do you take everything or do you pick and chose what you will accept for dinner? Clear now?

And why are THEY confused? Why not admit nobody is ever on the same page with regard to religion. You each have your own.

And here are you implying that I cherry pick?

I personally can go through the core religious texts and see the truth and relation in all of them... so far. There are some people that have similar views to mine.

I do not deny that there are many needless divisions among the "faithful".
Nor do I deny that this only hurts their credibility. They, however, are mostly oblivious to their own error and it's effects. And I don't think I am without error by any means, but it is error of a different sort, and not stemming from a doctrinal error per say, but rather, personal error or procrastination or denial pertaining to personal truths.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 09, 2016, 01:21:47 PM
Oh, woe is me, the ass that I am.   Anyway, you said that you follow two of Jesus' commands.  I would think you would not suggest you live by the commands of a fiction.  And it is fairly obvious what you believe by what you say.  So, my statement to you is that you must believe Jesus to have been an actual character.  But there is no evidence to suggest that that is so.  Jesus actually is a fiction and you are telling us you live by the commands of a fiction.

Still assuming things I suppose.

Do you assume my faith is from indoctrination by man?

Do you assume I have been a believer since early childhood due to upbringing?

I thought I had made it clear that I am not considered to be an orthodox Christian so what else would you like to assume instead of simply asking?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2016, 01:28:35 PM

There is a higher calling for life as a whole then to simply be consumed by personal want.



It has been my experience that those who identify as atheists or closet deists are actually more receptive to the truth that can be known from within.


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I could not have disagree more.  There is no 'higher calling' in anything or in any way.  Rest assured I am an atheist; the end of a life long journey.

BTW, pops, I used to attach the word 'Namaste' to my writings--which was explained to me to mean 'the christ in me greets the christ in you'.  I notice you are fond of 'peace'.  I would still consider using namaste, except I would have to change the meaning to something like, 'my humanity salutes your humanity'.  That would be an accurate way for me to do it, but nobody but me would understand what it means, and most would think I was a theist of some sort; so I stopped using it.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2016, 01:40:11 PM
Still assuming things I suppose.

Do you assume my faith is from indoctrination by man?

Do you assume I have been a believer since early childhood due to upbringing?

I thought I had made it clear that I am not considered to be an orthodox Christian so what else would you like to assume instead of simply asking?

Peace

I am assuming you are a believer; I have no idea how you got to that.  Don't care about your childhood or why you are a believer.  But a believer you are.  Therefore, you must have a christian belief of some sort.  And that must include Jesus since he is the 'christ' that is refereed to in the label christian.  That is all I am assuming.  Do you not believe in god; in the divinity of Jesus???  Of course you do.  How did you arrive at that; did you not say from the bible?  Well, the bible is a work of fiction by largely unknown authors at  unknown times.  God is a fiction and since Jesus is only known by the bible, Jesus is a fiction, as well.  So, your belief stems from a fiction.  It is just that simple.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2016, 01:36:58 PM
And here are you implying that I cherry pick? 

Don't blow air up my skirt, I know you don't follow every precept put forward as having been promoted by Jesus. Nobody could do that.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 09, 2016, 01:41:31 PM
I could not have disagree more.  There is no 'higher calling' in anything or in any way.  Rest assured I am an atheist; the end of a life long journey.

BTW, pops, I used to attach the word 'Namaste' to my writings--which was explained to me to mean 'the christ in me greets the christ in you'.  I notice you are fond of 'peace'.  I would still consider using namaste, except I would have to change the meaning to something like, 'my humanity salutes your humanity'.  That would be an accurate way for me to do it, but nobody but me would understand what it means, and most would think I was a theist of some sort; so I stopped using it.

I respect your opinion and thank for your mutual respect.

I don't think that you think that the purpose of life is to amass personal belongings though. 

And my statement stands that the atheist in general is more capable of letting go of preconceptions.

I wish I could thumbs up...but I can't.

What was it? Nastame?

Peace friend.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Nemaste ... but he isn't Hindu.

Having a higher calling is good ... but if too rigorously held, it makes you a saint or a monster.  Is there any higher calling than being of assistance and compassionate toward people and the rest of life?  What I am implying is ... ideological higher calling ... smells funny ... maybe a dead thing.

Quote from: Baruch on October 09, 2016, 05:12:36 PM
Nemaste ... but he isn't Hindu.

Having a higher calling is good ... but if too rigorously held, it makes you a saint or a monster.  Is there any higher calling than being of assistance and compassionate toward people and the rest of life?  What I am implying is ... ideological higher calling ... smells funny ... maybe a dead thing.

Being of assistance and compassionate toward people the rest of your (my) life is not a higher calling.  It is just being human.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 09, 2016, 05:32:45 PM
Being of assistance and compassionate toward people the rest of your (my) life is not a higher calling.  It is just being human.

You have an idealistic view of "human".  To be of assistance and compassionate ... for me, is to be trans-human.  For me, human equals killer ape.

Quote from: MeI used to be high on Christ too, Pop's, but I came down.

I can still relate to your devotion to the Golden rule, though. I have a similar code of conduct, but I don't elevate it to Holy Commandment.

I also agree with Baruch, that there is value in fiction. But I feel there is a lot of danger in believing fiction to be the Word of God.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 09, 2016, 01:28:35 PM
Words can be used in all sorts of ways.

Uhhh...Yep!

Quote from: popsthebuilderWhat is holy is what is different and what is different from the greedy of the masses interpretation general? Something similar to the golden rule? Indeed

"Golden Rule"
Solomon Zorn

I still believe the golden rule,
To do as you'd have done to you,
Is just a precept I can use,
Along whatever path I choose.

A human wisdom, proving true,
That works from any point of view.
A simple code you won't refute,
Until they make it absolute.

For some exceptions may apply,
Like when a person has to die,
Because with murderous intent,
He preys upon an innocent.

Conversely,  when a small offense,
Has earned some kind of recompense:
Don't punish people to excess,
Or you may find, to your distress,

That you've committed some small crime,
And suddenly your doing time,
Although it should have been a fine,
The golden rule helps draw the line.

So if you want to change the world,
Teach the little boys and girls,
When it comes to our behavior,
Golden rule will be our savior.

Quote from: popsthebuilderYet though this stems from the conscience it in no way is not of GOD and life and the very will of GOD for IT's creation or formation.

Sez you.

Quote from: popsthebuilderThere is a higher calling for life as a whole then to simply be consumed by personal want.

Life as a whole would advance and benefit from actually adhering to the things that can be known through the selfless conscience.

Selflessness and selfishness have to balance. Living by the golden rule is not a higher calling, it's just a wiser one.

Quote from: popsthebuilderThese writings you reference can be, and are a reminder for those few who can actually understand, relate, and act according to that holy will.

You're one of the few, eh? You must be special. The rest are what? Gentiles? Sinners?

Quote from: popsthebuilderThat spiritual existence that is the life of us all yet so many are blinded to by pride greed fear and manipulation of self through societal means and norms which are mandated by those greedy souls in high places.

Sorry,  probably sounds like some rant.

Uhhh...Yep!

Quote from: popsthebuilderIt has been my experience that those who identify as atheists or closet deists are actually more receptive to the truth that can be known from within.

Anyway....peace

More in touch with their consciences, perhaps, but receptive to "inner truth," I doubt.

I used to be a very unconventional Christian, once. Till other Christians got me into the church, and they taught me the proper way to believe.

Since developing Schizophrenia, and having to deal with audio anomalies(such as disembodied voices), I have become acutely aware of self delusion. I see it in myself, and I can spot it in others. I was deep in it once, as you are now, but we find our way through life either way.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 09, 2016, 10:48:46 PM
Uhhh...Yep!

"Golden Rule"
Solomon Zorn

I still believe the golden rule,
To do as you'd have done to you,
Is just a precept I can use,
Along whatever path I choose.

A human wisdom, proving true,
That works from any point of view.
A simple code you won't refute,
Until they make it absolute.

For some exceptions may apply,
Like when a person has to die,
Because with murderous intent,
He preys upon an innocent.

Conversely,  when a small offense,
Has earned some kind of recompense:
Don't punish people to excess,
Or you may find, to your distress,

That you've committed some small crime,
And suddenly your doing time,
Although it should have been a fine,
The golden rule helps draw the line.

So if you want to change the world,
Teach the little boys and girls,
When it comes to our behavior,
Golden rule will be our savior.
Sez you.
Selflessness and selfishness have to balance. Living by the golden rule is not a higher calling, it's just a wiser one.
You're one of the few, eh? You must be special. The rest are what? Gentiles? Sinners?
Uhhh...Yep!
More in touch with their consciences, perhaps, but receptive to "inner truth," I doubt.

I used to be a very unconventional Christian, once. Till other Christians got me into the church, and they taught me the proper way to believe.

Since developing Schizophrenia, and having to deal with audio anomalies(such as disembodied voices), I have become acutely aware of self delusion. I see it in myself, and I can spot it in others. I was deep in it once, as you are now, but we find our way through life either way.

Sir,  I never said I was special,  or without sin.

Please don't call me delusional friend.

Auditory anomalies can be caused by all sorts of things.

Kinda liked the poem though.


Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2016, 06:56:32 AM
Sir,  I never said I was special,  or without sin.

You implied that you are one of the few who can "understand, relate and act according to that Holy Will." That makes you special. Don't try to act humble about it now, brother.

And I never suggested that you thought yourself "without sin." I only asked, what term you use to refer to those who cannot "understand, relate and act according to that Holy Will."

Quote from: popsthebuilderPlease don't call me delusional friend.

We're all delusional, brother. Just some of us more obviously than others.

Quote from: popsthebuilderAuditory anomalies can be caused by all sorts of things.

Sub-sensory vibrations that resonate on the brain, and are interpreted as sound waves - hows that for a delusion. Or maybe they're ghosts...

Quote from: popsthebuilderKinda liked the poem though.

Thanks. There are many more where that came from, as well as some proverbs, on my website: http://www.solomonzorn.com/

Solomon Zorn - you might not think you are special, and ones medical/mental condition may bother ... but your inner self can sing ;-)

Popsthebuilder - you might not think you are special, but you ride the wave, not just plow thru it as if it wasn't there ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2016, 08:04:33 AM
Solomon Zorn - you might not think you are special, and ones medical/mental condition may bother ... but your inner self can sing ;-)

Popsthebuilder - you might not think you are special, but you ride the wave, not just plow thru it as if it wasn't there ;-)

Such edification here...on this sight.... Profound. What a pleasant surprise.

ah how that hope is not lost and truth reiterated and undeniable.

With all humility and sincerity, I wish you both the very best of all things by the will of God for the sake of creation/ existence.

I am nearly speechless....

Peace



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 08, 2016, 01:42:21 PM
So words must be spoken in a completely literal sense for you to even grasp them?

I think your playing willfully ignorant for your own motives which most likely don't benefit any, but that's just my opinion.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

If you want to claim to know Jesus' position on things, yes, you do need an actual quote. You cannot just fill in the blanks of what wasn't said with whatever is convenient for you. I, on the other hand, have quoted the Bible for you, and those quotes went completely ignored. That tells me a lot about your honesty in approaching these issues from a Biblical standpoint.

Ah ... but the Bible sucks.  You use it to "hang them from their own petard".  I would never use the Bible to justify anything, it is just an old book.  You might as well use The Count of Monte Christo as your guide to life.

To commentators in general ... the argument "embrace 100% of the Bible or none of it" is a piss poor argument.  Not even rabbis say that.  I expect better.

Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2016, 10:16:49 AM
Ah ... but the Bible sucks.  You use it to "hang them from their own petard".  I would never use the Bible to justify anything, it is just an old book.  You might as well use The Count of Monte Christo as your guide to life.

To commentators in general ... the argument "embrace 100% of the Bible or none of it" is a piss poor argument.  Not even rabbis say that.  I expect better.

If it is a flawed book, then it is not the Word of God, and is not something to base your morals on. And boy is it flawed. Why choose the Bible over any other work of fiction as the basis for your beliefs or morals?

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 10, 2016, 10:00:25 AM
If you want to claim to know Jesus' position on things, yes, you do need an actual quote. You cannot just fill in the blanks of what wasn't said with whatever is convenient for you. I, on the other hand, have quoted the Bible for you, and those quotes went completely ignored. That tells me a lot about your honesty in approaching these issues from a Biblical standpoint.

What?  I'm sorry.  Really.  I must have overlooked them. Unintentionally I assure you.

Please, if you would, refer to the post number so I can read your previous post that you are speaking of.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Well that is how freethinking rolls.  I don't accept authority.  I would never tie myself to any book ... but if you do tie yourself to a book (fully as per Fahrenheit 451 or partially as some rhetorically despise) you can be any book you want to be ... even "Goodnight Moon".  I wouldn't want to take anything from experience, including reading experience, that makes me worse instead of better, but that is also my free choice.

Word of G-d?  Of course not .. that is ancient silliness.  Ancient people considered words in general, and written words in particular, to be magical.  But then again, since any human, including myself, am a demigod (see ancient views of this, not unlike X-men) ... my words are words of a demigod ;-)  My powers are pretty common, not like Hollywood of course.  If any of that is inspired, is a matter of opinion.

On the other hand, I am not pro-moral, pro-ethics, pro-law ... those are all ... anti-freedom.  My sense of what I want to do or not do, is subjective and mercurial ... living, not like dead words in a law book.  So clearly I am not rabbinic ... those are puritanical and legalist (as Paul points out).  I want to be better, but as I define it ... and my choice is some balance between common good and selfish good.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 10, 2016, 10:36:17 AM
If it is a flawed book, then it is not the Word of God, and is not something to base your morals on. And boy is it flawed. Why choose the Bible over any other work of fiction as the basis for your beliefs or morals?

You shouldn't base your morals off of any book.

The law of Moses was manipulated somewhere down the line. It is the literal interpretation that Jesus himself spoke against repeatedly. Even within the OT it is noted repeatedly that the Jew had gone astray.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2016, 08:49:21 AM
You shouldn't base your morals off of any book.

The law of Moses was manipulated somewhere down the line. It is the literal interpretation that Jesus himself spoke against repeatedly.
Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Really?  I missed that.  Where did Jesus say that?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2016, 08:49:21 AM
You shouldn't base your morals off of any book.

The law of Moses was manipulated somewhere down the line. It is the literal interpretation that Jesus himself spoke against repeatedly. Even within the OT it is noted repeatedly that the Jew had gone astray.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Repeating the anti-Semitism that is in both the OT and the NT.  Individual Jews may have gone astray ... but I seen no reason to brand a whole people for anything.  Jews and Gentiles are both mortal.  Supposedly, we are to believe, that the broken prophetic tradition was restored by Ezra, and that the one true Torah was regenerated during his time as leader in Jerusalem, both written and oral.  And rabbinic Judaism wants us to believe that oral Torah was regenerated generation by generation down to the early 3rd century CE under the rabbis.  And I think that would be a fine Jewish thing to believe ... down to the 7th century CE ... when Muhammad upset the apple cart.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2016, 12:52:56 PM
Really?  I missed that.  Where did Jesus say that?

Look into any conversation he had with the Pharisees in scripture.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2016, 01:34:12 PM
Look into any conversation he had with the Pharisees in scripture.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Jesus implied that the Pharisees didn't go far enough, they only met the letter of the Torah, not the spirit.

Matt 23:1-5 "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men."

Fullfill - don't mean abolish, it means executing perfectly ... words and deeds aligned.

Quote from: Baruch on October 11, 2016, 01:46:20 PM
Jesus implied that the Pharisees didn't go far enough, they only met the letter of the Torah, not the spirit.

Matt 23:1-5 "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men."

Fullfill - don't mean abolish, it means executing perfectly ... words and deeds aligned.

The verse you mention is against hypocrisy.

I don't have the time right now to go through and find what I am speaking about, but I will try later. If I recall correctly; in cases where Jesus is speaking to a Pharisee, and even when he is speaking to the disciples; he rebukes them for their literal interpretation and as you said; lack of spiritual guidance, thinking of things in a wholly material sense.

I will look into it earlier,  but it may take some time.  I am not wholly familiar with the Bible and must actually read and find what I am talking about.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I don't really care if someone is Christian, Moslem, Jew, Hindu or whatever,  They are all damn nuts...

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2016, 02:54:35 PM
I don't really care if someone is Christian, Moslem, Jew, Hindu or whatever,  They are all damn nuts...

All of those teach the same thing. Which is mercy and helping those in need.

What is crazy about that?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

No, those are people helping people.  That is the basis of ALL religious texts.  They merely codify what people had already figured out on their own to survive in larger groups.  The "nuts" part is the deity they back-create to explain that we should continue to do the positive things we had already figured out.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2016, 06:05:50 PM
All of those teach the same thing. Which is mercy and helping those in need.

What is crazy about that?

That's not the crazy part. There are plenty of crazy parts. You ignore all the bullshit, apparently, and just accept what agrees with what you want to believe. Pragmatic, but not very Christian.

I'm kind of with you Solomon.  If there was a deity, wouldn't it just of write "I'M HERE  in firey letters in the sky.?   Otherwise, it seems like cruel torture

Seriously How would there be a stupid cruel deity?

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2016, 06:10:55 PM
No, those are people helping people.  That is the basis of ALL religious texts.  They merely codify what people had already figured out on their own to survive in larger groups.  The "nuts" part is the deity they back-create to explain that we should continue to do the positive things we had already figured out.

They have been figured out do to what?

I'll give you a hint; it doesn't have anything to do with a book or multiple books and writings, but these writings are indeed a sort of tool for remembrance.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 11, 2016, 06:18:06 PM
That's not the crazy part. There are plenty of crazy parts. You ignore all the bullshit, apparently, and just accept what agrees with what you want to believe. Pragmatic, but not very Christian.

I do not cherry pick from any writing sir,  and though I do claim to be a Christian, I also claim to be simply faithful unto GOD, or at least try to be. What I'm trying to say is that I am not your stereotypical Christian. Though I am a firm believer in the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of the Christ, I actually went from atheist to faithful and didn't read anything about the Christ for about four years. Really I didn't start reading core scriptures of any religion until maybe a year and a half- two years ago. I actually waited to read the bible because I presumed it was rife with error and misdirection. And though there are small parts that seem to go against what I know to be right, specifically in the OT, the book as a whole is indeed inspired by GOD, however you want to take that.

The selfless conscience is objective morality within the grasp of all singular free agents. It is holy as in different. It is potentially in each and every one of us. It seems to be their naturally, yet difficult for many to grasp, due to deceit on an inner most level. Regardless,  what I am getting at is that even if this right way,  this narrow path has even evolved into our being; it is still the creation and will of GOD, for our sake.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2016, 01:34:12 PM
Look into any conversation he had with the Pharisees in scripture.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Pops, give me a verse or two sampling what you (or he) is referring to.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 11, 2016, 07:05:45 PM...Really I didn't start reading core scriptures of any religion until maybe a year and a half- two years ago.

I started in 1983.

Quote from: popsthebuilderI actually waited to read the bible because I presumed it was rife with error and misdirection.

Depends on your definition of “rife with error.” They're not on every page, but there are plenty.

Quote from: popsthebuilderAnd though there are small parts that seem to go against what I know to be right, specifically in the OT, the book as a whole is indeed inspired by GOD, however you want to take that.

The devil is in the details. If there is demonstrable error at all in the book, it should not be believed overall, because any other part might be error as well. Including the parts about the nature, or will of God.

Quote from: popsthebuilderThe selfless conscience is objective morality within the grasp of all singular free agents.

Selflessness, as an absolute, is absurd. How would you feed yourself? The need for balance with selfishness is self evident.

Quote from: popsthebuilderIt is holy as in different.

That's an unusual  definition of Holy. I wouldn't try to superimpose that meaning onto what you read. You will most likely misunderstand.

Quote from: popsthebuilderIt is potentially in each and every one of us. It seems to be their naturally, yet difficult for many to grasp, due to deceit on an inner most level.

Selflessness is “potentially” in most of us, but there's no “inner deceit.” The self, naturally, comes first. Any attempt to subvert the selfish nature absolutely, will be rejected by the conscience. There is a balance. I will concede that the selfless side usually requires more effort, and therefore more focus and encouragement, for some,  but ambition and competitive drive â€" the selfish side of our nature â€" are responsible for a great deal of human progress as well.

Quote from: popsthebuilder...what I am getting at is that even if this right way,  this narrow path has even evolved into our being; it is still the creation and will of GOD, for our sake.

Sez you.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2016, 06:28:18 PM
I'm kind of with you Solomon.  If there was a deity, wouldn't it just of write "I'M HERE  in firey letters in the sky.?   Otherwise, it seems like cruel torture

Seriously How would there be a stupid cruel deity?

You don't know me yet ... but FYI ... I am a theist who believes in Cruelty (the god) not cruelty (something I do).  Not something I want, just something inescapably empirical for me.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 11, 2016, 07:23:12 PM
Pops, give me a verse or two sampling what you (or he) is referring to.

I've looked and found many cases of him speaking directly against hypocrisy, but so far haven't found any cases where it is expressly spoken that literal interpretation is wrong, thiugh itt is hinted at. I will continue tomorrow, but am falling asleep tonight.

Sorry

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 11, 2016, 08:17:21 PM
I started in 1983.
Depends on your definition of “rife with error.” They're not on every page, but there are plenty.

The devil is in the details. If there is demonstrable error at all in the book, it should not be believed overall, because any other part might be error as well. Including the parts about the nature, or will of God.

Selflessness, as an absolute, is absurd. How would you feed yourself? The need for balance with selfishness is self evident.
That's an unusual  definition of Holy. I wouldn't try to superimpose that meaning onto what you read. You will most likely misunderstand.

Selflessness is “potentially” in most of us, but there's no “inner deceit.” The self, naturally, comes first. Any attempt to subvert the selfish nature absolutely, will be rejected by the conscience. There is a balance. I will concede that the selfless side usually requires more effort, and therefore more focus and encouragement, for some,  but ambition and competitive drive â€" the selfish side of our nature â€" are responsible for a great deal of human progress as well.

Sez you.

I don't generally superimpose it. 

As far as selfishness being needed.... No.

One can eat to sustain life and still be selfless. Or one can consume all within their grasp and still want more.

We naturally sustain ourselves without greed or selfishness.

Removing reward or consequences from a moral equation makes the equation objective.  This is oversimplifying it but still.  You get the point.

Don't confuse greed with need.

I'm glad you have been reading scripture for so long. I would have been 2 at that time. So,  I take it, you don't read the bible any longer. What about other religious texts?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilderAs far as selfishness being needed.... No. 

One can eat to sustain life and still be selfless. Or one can consume all within their grasp and still want more. 

We naturally sustain ourselves without greed or selfishness...Don't confuse greed with need.

I think defining terms is called for here. When I say, “selfishness,” I am referring to a focus on satisfying your own needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, becomes greed. “Selflessness,” on the other hand, would be focusing on satisfying another's needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, makes you a servile doormat, willing to martyr yourself for the smallest cause.

In Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, King Solomon said:

Quote16 Do not be overrighteous,
    neither be overwiseâ€"
    why destroy yourself?
17 Do not be overwicked,
    and do not be a foolâ€"
    why die before your time?
18 It is good to grasp the one
    and not let go of the other.
    Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

Avoid extremes. Good advice. Balance is the goal.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 12, 2016, 06:44:16 AM
I think defining terms is called for here. When I say, “selfishness,” I am referring to a focus on satisfying your own needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, becomes greed. “Selflessness,” on the other hand, would be focusing on satisfying another's needs or wants, which taken to an extreme, makes you a servile doormat, willing to martyr yourself for the smallest cause.

In Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, King Solomon said:
Avoid extremes. Good advice. Balance is the goal.

To me balance isn't the utter goal. One can live life trying to make the smallest wake possible, but how is that done?
It is done by knowing of potential yet not acting on it. This to me is chaos and not the ultimate goal. Do I mean it is right to martyr yourself for the sake of a fly?  No.
Does it mean to do what you know is right in all available scenarios regardless of reward or consequences....yes. I respect Solomon, he was surly wise,  but to attempt to make the smallest effect possible is to negate righteous action based on what one knows to be right in favor of self preservation and comfort. To me this is just wrong. But I am not Buddhist either. I believe utter harmony is the way,  but the harmony I speak of isn't a subjective thing, but something that can be achieved by all for all. We all have wants and needs,  but I'd we can set these aside and focus on what is right in all cases, then our own sustenance will be provided.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilderTo me balance isn't the utter goal. One can live life trying to make the smallest wake possible, but how is that done? 
It is done by knowing of potential yet not acting on it. This to me is chaos and not the ultimate goal.

Balance is the goal, in almost everything in life. And in the case of moral decisions, it is not “making the smallest wake possible,” but recognizing your own value, as well as the value of others.

QuoteDo I mean it is right to martyr yourself for the sake of a fly?  No. 

Yet that is exactly where unbalanced selflessness will lead, when taken as an absolute.

QuoteDoes it mean to do what you know is right in all available scenarios regardless of reward or consequences....yes.

What is “right,” must take everything into account, including reward or consequences.

QuoteI respect Solomon, he was surly wise,  but to attempt to make the smallest effect possible is to negate righteous action based on what one knows to be right in favor of self preservation and comfort. To me this is just wrong.

Again, it's not a matter of making the smallest effect possible. It's a matter of balancing your own well being with that of others. You assume that self-preservation and comfort can't be “right” as well, but those considerations can be just as important, in making a decision.

QuoteBut I am not Buddhist either. I believe utter harmony is the way,  but the harmony I speak of isn't a subjective thing, but something that can be achieved by all for all. We all have wants and needs,  but I'd we can set these aside and focus on what is right in all cases, then our own sustenance will be provided.

You see things in black and white. Your utopia is a world of self-denial. Almost as bad as a world of greed. Human beings aren't ants, that live for the greater good of the group. We are individuals, with complex natures, and selfishness is part of our survival. Selflessness is good, but it doesn't stand alone as the perfect goal for human behavior. What is “right,” in many cases, is to help yourself.

Harmony comes from balance.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 12, 2016, 01:27:09 PM
Balance is the goal, in almost everything in life. And in the case of moral decisions, it is not “making the smallest wake possible,” but recognizing your own value, as well as the value of others.
Yet that is exactly where unbalanced selflessness will lead, when taken as an absolute.
What is “right,” must take everything into account, including reward or consequences.
Again, it's not a matter of making the smallest effect possible. It's a matter of balancing your own well being with that of others. You assume that self-preservation and comfort can't be “right” as well, but those considerations can be just as important, in making a decision.
You see things in black and white. Your utopia is a world of self-denial. Almost as bad as a world of greed. Human beings aren't ants, that live for the greater good of the group. We are individuals, with complex natures, and selfishness is part of our survival. Selflessness is good, but it doesn't stand alone as the perfect goal for human behavior. What is “right,” in many cases, is to help yourself.

Harmony comes from balance.

I really think we're splitting hairs at this point.

You cannot be wholly and utterly selfless and survive.

So we agree to some level.

Yes harmony and balance are similar.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

If and when one can place self worth equal or lesser than that of any other individual, then a near objective morality can be achieved.

The variables are removed if all are equal. As such the solution will always be representative of the best possible scenario for all involved without bias.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Striving for humility and not putting off the conscience are a start. Recognizing self deceit is too a start. But seemingly very difficult for the greedy or proud.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Work only kindly towards your enemy.

Things like that right?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilderI really think we're splitting hairs at this point. 

You cannot be wholly and utterly selfless and survive. 

So we agree to some level.

To me, it's not splitting hairs. It's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself. Exercising good judgment.

Absolute selflessness is unequivocal cooperation, at best, and doormat servitude at worst. That's the problem with Holy Law. It never has sufficient nuance to be the perfect solution. It's better to say that the golden rule is a code of conduct. But life is competition, as well as cooperation.  And competition is selfishness, made into an effective catalyst for growth.

Quote from: popsthebuilderIf and when one can place self worth equal or lesser than that of any other individual, then a near objective morality can be achieved.

The variables are removed if all are equal. As such the solution will always be representative of the best possible scenario for all involved without bias.

Sometimes your worth is greater than the other. Like if he's trying to take your life. You have seconds to decide your moral response. Kill or be killed. How much will the doormat lay down for his absolute selflessness? Your personal value skyrockets as his plummets.

Or maybe he's trying to take your job. Are you supposed to give it up because he has 4 kids to your 3?

Morality in life, is never objective. Not even “near-objective.” It's full of human drama, and weirdness. It requires good judgment, but rarely gives you a lot of time to make an informed or well thought out answer. You just try to apply the golden rule, as circumstances allow.

Quote from: popsthebuilderRecognizing self deceit is too a start. But seemingly very difficult for the greedy or proud. 

So which are you then? Greedy or proud? :wink2:

Quote from: popsthebuilderLove thy neighbor as thyself.
Work only kindly towards your enemy.

Things like that right?

Things like that. Right.

But again,  it's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself.

People who follow natural law, follow the law of nature ... they run in a pack and eat smaller animals.  Anything else, they are shedding crocodile tears.

By the way Pops, you were saying that Jesus was against the literal interpretation of the scripture. How do you reconcile that statement with this passage?

Matthew 5:18
     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 12, 2016, 09:14:59 PM
By the way Pops, you were saying that Jesus was against the literal interpretation of the scripture. How do you reconcile that statement with this passage?

Matthew 5:18
     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Solomon, I was moving toward this verse, but waiting for Pops to come up with a verse or two where he is against the literal interpretation.  But Pops seems to be so vague that I would probably have to wait forever for him to directly address the issue.  He is a master at the duck and ignore such requests.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 12, 2016, 08:12:48 PM
To me, it's not splitting hairs. It's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself. Exercising good judgment.

Absolute selflessness is unequivocal cooperation, at best, and doormat servitude at worst. That's the problem with Holy Law. It never has sufficient nuance to be the perfect solution. It's better to say that the golden rule is a code of conduct. But life is competition, as well as cooperation.  And competition is selfishness, made into an effective catalyst for growth.


Sometimes your worth is greater than the other. Like if he's trying to take your life. You have seconds to decide your moral response. Kill or be killed. How much will the doormat lay down for his absolute selflessness? Your personal value skyrockets as his plummets.

Or maybe he's trying to take your job. Are you supposed to give it up because he has 4 kids to your 3?

Morality in life, is never objective. Not even “near-objective.” It's full of human drama, and weirdness. It requires good judgment, but rarely gives you a lot of time to make an informed or well thought out answer. You just try to apply the golden rule, as circumstances allow.


So which are you then? Greedy or proud? :wink2:


Things like that. Right.

But again,  it's the whole nature of being human: to know when to elevate another, and when to elevate yourself.

I agree with what you are saying.

Though as you say; what I speak of; negation of self from moral equations is more or ideology. At this time and with the way most are being selfless can put you at a disadvantage, but that isn't the point I was trying to make or refute. Think of it more as a way for all humanity to peaceably advance and thrive together as a whole.
Basically what I'm talking about would only really work for the benefit of all if all actually abided by it.  But that isn't to say that the greedy or prideful cannot slowly learning and eventually change by witnessing altruism. If someone is angry with you and you unlike kind get angry in retaliation then no good will come from it. If one is angry at you and you exude compassion, sincerity and humility towards them, negating want or pride, then chances are that person will be receptive to this, just like they would be receptive to your anger. The difference is that one causes negative effects while the other at least had the potential to cause positive effects, not just immediately for the ones involved, but for witnesses and others that said individual may interact with later.

That's just one example, and probably not a very good one.

Selflessness as a virtue is good. Does it allow for one to be used by others.... It can. But that wouldn't even enter the mind of someone actually striving to be selfless.

You did make a valid point about self defense. But I personally would draw the line at the defence of others. Namely women and children. I understand that my case is an exception.

You might be surprised what things are given for sustenance to those who don't seek it.

Not saying I don't work, I must eat to live. Just that somehow, giving without want of even recognition leads to one's own needs being met.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 12, 2016, 09:21:00 PM
Solomon, I was moving toward this verse, but waiting for Pops to come up with a verse or two where he is against the literal interpretation.  But Pops seems to be so vague that I would probably have to wait forever for him to directly address the issue.  He is a master at the duck and ignore such requests.

:bigsorry:
Sorry, Brother. I had actually wondered why you hadn't mentioned it. I assumed you were unaware of it. He will try some unorthodox defense for it, there can be little doubt, but I think it's a troubling passage for anyone who wants Christ, without Christianity.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 12, 2016, 09:26:19 PM
I agree with what you are saying.

Though as you say; what I speak of; negation of self from moral equations is more or ideology. At this time and with the way most are being selfless can put you at a disadvantage, but that isn't the point I was trying to make or refute. Think of it more as a way for all humanity to peaceably advance and thrive together as a whole.
Basically what I'm talking about would only really work for the benefit of all if all actually abided by it.  But that isn't to say that the greedy or prideful cannot slowly learning and eventually change by witnessing altruism. If someone is angry with you and you unlike kind get angry in retaliation then no good will come from it. If one is angry at you and you exude compassion, sincerity and humility towards them, negating want or pride, then chances are that person will be receptive to this, just like they would be receptive to your anger. The difference is that one causes negative effects while the other at least had the potential to cause positive effects, not just immediately for the ones involved, but for witnesses and others that said individual may interact with later.

That's just one example, and probably not a very good one.

Selflessness as a virtue is good. Does it allow for one to be used by others.... It can. But that wouldn't even enter the mind of someone actually striving to be selfless.

You did make a valid point about self defense. But I personally would draw the line at the defence of others. Namely women and children. I understand that my case is an exception.

You might be surprised what things are given for sustenance to those who don't seek it.

Not saying I don't work, I must eat to live. Just that somehow, giving without want of even recognition leads to one's own needs being met.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Don't misunderstand me either, Brother, I agree with you on the need for brotherly love, I only think that Holy Absolutes are insufficient to bring it about. And that if you did have your altruistic Utopia, it might not be that much different than an altruistic Dystopia.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 12, 2016, 09:14:59 PM
By the way Pops, you were saying that Jesus was against the literal interpretation of the scripture. How do you reconcile that statement with this passage?

Matthew 5:18
     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I reconcile it with great ease.

Matthew: 5. 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Bible Offline

The law is written on the heart of the true believer. That would be the conscience.... The Holy Spirit.

To not follow the law written on the heart is to not be faithful to GOD.

All of the law is upheld with the holding to and adhering to the conscience and the Two commands of the Christ.
This too was stated specifically by the Christ.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Me on October 12, 2016, 09:45:17 PM...He will try some unorthodox defense for it, there can be little doubt...

Behold the prophetic powers of The Uneducated Hick! :hush:

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 12, 2016, 10:20:44 PM
I reconcile it with great ease.

Matthew: 5. 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Bible Offline

The law is written on the heart of the true believer. That would be the conscience.... The Holy Spirit.

To not follow the law written on the heart is to not be faithful to GOD.

All of the law is upheld with the holding to and adhering to the conscience and the Two commands of the Christ.
This too was stated specifically by the Christ.

I don't buy that. Read the context. He is speaking of the Old Testament. Law would have been understood to mean that.

Here's a link.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=KJV

Solomon and Pops ... I gave you both likes, because you are both right, but still not quite saying the same things.

Mike ... your point about literalism is what turns the question.  I don't think Pops is literal, he is way too Indian.  I will speak of psyching a fictional character ...

Jesus would be thinking of Jewish law, but not literally, since Jesus wasn't a literalist.  He was both Jewish and not-Jewish, a Bu-Jew, a pacifist.  The point about selfless action ... is really about karma ... an Indian concept.  There were Indians in the ME back then, so some non-Indians would have learned about karma.  And the non-canonical Jesus who was connected with Kashmir ... would have known a lot about Indian culture.

If you know the Gita ... what would Krishna say to Jesus?  He would have advised devotion to the Father.  He would have also said, fulfill who you are (a Jew) while having not attachment to the results.  A Pharisee with a twist, perfect but with irony.  So translating ... doing something in the Holy Spirit accumulates no sin, no matter what it is.  But this isn't a blank check, it means you are free to be a devotee of the Father (in whatever social caste you are in ... in Jesus case, a minister to untouchables ... how Indian is that.  Kurukshetra was also an apocalypse, same as what Jesus anticipated.  This is why Gandhi resonated with the NT Jesus ... he saw India in it ... the Gita was his favorite scripture.

Seeing Jesus as a Christian, or a European ... and out of the time context (both local and regional as far as India) and you misinterpret him.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 12, 2016, 09:45:17 PM
:bigsorry:
Sorry, Brother. I had actually wondered why you hadn't mentioned it. I assumed you were unaware of it. He will try some unorthodox defense for it, there can be little doubt, but I think it's a troubling passage for anyone who wants Christ, without Christianity.

Hey, not a problem, Solomon.  I'm glad you brought it up.  For some reason he does not like to talk with me much.  He will often duck out in the middle or a conversation.  He has Trump's habit of not answering the question, but also changing the subject, while ducking the real question.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2016, 11:04:26 AM
What?  I'm sorry.  Really.  I must have overlooked them. Unintentionally I assure you.

Please, if you would, refer to the post number so I can read your previous post that you are speaking of.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I'll just copy/paste the verses for you.

Deuteronomy 20:10-15: - "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."

God commands his people to give far away cities an ultimatum: Become slaves willingly or have your men killed in an unprovoked attack, and your women and children taken as plunder.

Romans 6:15-23: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obeyâ€"whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

"I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

For a God who supposedly has high moral standards and hates slavery, he sure does enjoy comparing his people to slaves.

And here are some new passages to go with other previous points that I made:

Deuteronomy 28:68: "The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you."

Leviticus 25:46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

Psalm 123:2: "As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a female slave look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, till he shows us his mercy."

Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2016, 06:20:08 AM

Seeing Jesus as a Christian, or a European ... and out of the time context (both local and regional as far as India) and you misinterpret him.

Baruch, because Jesus is a fiction one cannot 'misinterpret' him.  One constructs what you want him to mean according to your own likes and dislikes.  So, when one says that this is morality according to Jesus, they are wrong, it is morality to them.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2016, 05:27:56 PM
Baruch, because Jesus is a fiction one cannot 'misinterpret' him.  One constructs what you want him to mean according to your own likes and dislikes.  So, when one says that this is morality according to Jesus, they are wrong, it is morality to them.

I realize that you consider literary criticism as impossible.  It isn't sufficient objective.  But then neither is history, biography ... a lot of other stuff.  Some of us don't make a shibboleth out of objectivity, though when I was young I did make a stumbling stone out of Ayn Rand.

Quote from: Baruch on October 13, 2016, 08:43:11 PM
I realize that you consider literary criticism as impossible.  It isn't sufficient objective.  But then neither is history, biography ... a lot of other stuff.  Some of us don't make a shibboleth out of objectivity, though when I was young I did make a stumbling stone out of Ayn Rand.

Actually, I don't think literary criticism is impossible.  In fact, I enjoy it--both high and low.  Have a few books about it and there are some excellent web sites that has some great material.  But, my point that Jesus is a fiction and therefore it cannot be determined if what he is supposed to have said is accurate or not. 

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 07, 2016, 06:17:16 AM
The thing is, they're not Christians. Nobody is a Christian, because nobody can follow ALL the "rules" he purported passed along, they're contradictory at best, evil at worst.

I'm sorry, but, in your world view, how can you possibly call anything evil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:53:31 AM
I'm sorry, but, in your world view, how can you possibly call anything evil?

Oh for fuck's sake! Not another "atheists can't have morals, because all morals come from God" spewing dipshit.  :wall:

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:53:31 AM
I'm sorry, but, in your world view, how can you possibly call anything evil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Humans have empathy. It's a natural behavior that social creatures like us evolved to have because it helps us to work together for a common good. That empathy is where morality comes from, not religion. In fact, secular morality is constantly morphing religious "morality" to be more socially acceptable, but the religious don't even notice it happening. If Christians were still applying Biblical principles to their lives, slavery would still be legal, women wouldn't be allowed to vote or hold public office, and the wage gap would still actually exist.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 13, 2016, 09:10:49 PM
Actually, I don't think literary criticism is impossible.  In fact, I enjoy it--both high and low.  Have a few books about it and there are some excellent web sites that has some great material.  But, my point that Jesus is a fiction and therefore it cannot be determined if what he is supposed to have said is accurate or not.

Of course ... no more than we can determine what MacBeth said ... and at least he is historical.  That is why literary criticism is useful, and why that is exactly what exegesis of scripture amounts to ... though I am not saying ... anyone needs any scripture at all.  My right hand is sufficient.

Quote from: Baruch on October 14, 2016, 06:19:44 AM
Of course ... no more than we can determine what MacBeth said ... and at least he is historical.  That is why literary criticism is useful, and why that is exactly what exegesis of scripture amounts to ... though I am not saying ... anyone needs any scripture at all.  My right hand is sufficient.

Yeah, I use my right hand a lot, too.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on October 14, 2016, 01:06:33 AM
Oh for fuck's sake! Not another "atheists can't have morals, because all morals come from God" spewing dipshit.  :wall:

Hm... nice to meet you too! So, can you tell me how you can call anything good or evil? Or can you just give me your preference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 01:36:25 AM
Humans have empathy. It's a natural behavior that social creatures like us evolved to have because it helps us to work together for a common good. That empathy is where morality comes from, not religion. In fact, secular morality is constantly morphing religious "morality" to be more socially acceptable, but the religious don't even notice it happening. If Christians were still applying Biblical principles to their lives, slavery would still be legal, women wouldn't be allowed to vote or hold public office, and the wage gap would still actually exist.

Ok so with that version of morality, can you tell me something that is absolutely evil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:32:07 AM
Ok so with that version of morality, can you tell me something that is absolutely evil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not Blackleaf, but, let me think..............absolutely evil............hmmmmm...............yeah--christians. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 11:50:41 AM
I am not Blackleaf, but, let me think..............absolutely evil............hmmmmm...............yeah--christians.

Funny. Let me ask you this way, is eating babies wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:32:07 AM
Ok so with that version of morality, can you tell me something that is absolutely evil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are no moral absolutes, but the closest thing I can think of is this: An almighty creator creates imperfect people, punishes them and their offspring for being imperfect, and creates only one escape from eternal torture: Stroking his ego while he hides himself well enough that people doubt he even exists.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 11:58:43 AM
There are no moral absolutes, but the closest thing I can think of is this: An almighty creator creates imperfect people, punishes them and their offspring for being imperfect, and creates only one escape from eternal torture: Stroking his ego while he hides himself well enough that people doubt he even exists.

Say what you want but the Lord of Glory will not be mocked.

So if there are no moral absolutes than what you just stated about God being evil, is not actually evil. You just hate him, just like the Bible says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 11:58:36 AM
Funny. Let me ask you this way, is eating babies wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not on this site! :)))

Okay, I'll bite.  You are referring to human babies, I suppose.  Yeah, in my eyes, that is wrong.  All cannibalism (human kind) is wrong.  I suppose you are trying to get to the why it is wrong?  It is wrong not because some ancient text may say it is wrong, but we have come to that conclusion as a society (but I don't this this is a universal, though)  that killing or eating or mistreating babies is wrong.  Why?  Because it is harmful to our species. 

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:00:23 PM
Say what you want but the Lord of Glory will not be mocked.

So if there are no moral absolutes than what you just stated about God being evil, is not actually evil. You just hate him, just like the Bible says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll not speak for Blackleaf (he is very capable of doing that), but I will mock the shit out of your fucking, cruel, stupid, inept god.  I will mock him in the valley, I will mock him from on high, I will mock him here, I will mock him there, I will mock him everywhere!!!!  Fuck your god!!!  Okay, since according to you I cannot do that, how is it that I just did?????

And yes, as much as I can hate a fiction, I hate your god, for he is about the only thing I can think of that is absolutely evil. 

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:00:23 PM
Say what you want but the Lord of Glory will not be mocked.

He just was.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:00:23 PMSo if there are no moral absolutes than what you just stated about God being evil, is not actually evil. You just hate him, just like the Bible says.

I'm sure you think you're being smart, but your arguments are nothing new, and are easily refuted. If you're wondering why people won't take you seriously, that's why.

There is no absolute morality. This is why conversation and careful contemplation are necessary. There are some things which are a clear black and white, but there are many shades of gray in between. The Christian God is midnight black, and more evil in my eyes than any human could ever be.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 12:10:52 PM
He just was.

I'm sure you think you're being smart, but your arguments are nothing new, and are easily refuted. If you're wondering why people won't take you seriously, that's why.

There is no absolute morality. This is why conversation and careful contemplation are necessary. There are some things which are a clear black and white, but there are many shades of gray in between. The Christian God is midnight black, and more evil in my eyes than any human could ever be.

You can't call anything evil... you haven't demonstrated that you have a reason to at all.

You can only give me your preference! If a man rapes and kills an innocent woman, why is that wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 12:06:39 PM
I'll not speak for Blackleaf (he is very capable of doing that), but I will mock the shit out of your fucking, cruel, stupid, inept god.  I will mock him in the valley, I will mock him from on high, I will mock him here, I will mock him there, I will mock him everywhere!!!!  Fuck your god!!!  Okay, since according to you I cannot do that, how is it that I just did?????

And yes, as much as I can hate a fiction, I hate your god, for he is about the only thing I can think of that is absolutely evil.

You have no basis to call anything absolute nor evil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:15:02 PM
You can't call anything evil... you haven't demonstrated that you have a reason to at all.

You can only give me your preference! If a man rapes and kills an innocent woman, why is that wrong?

Obviously, it's because Sky Daddy said so. If Sky Daddy said that rape and murder were a good things, then we'd have no basis to contradict him, right?

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 12:18:03 PM
Obviously, it's because Sky Daddy said so. If Sky Daddy said that rape and murder were a good things, then we'd have no basis to contradict him, right?

Again you have failed to give an actual reason that you can call something evil. Why is anything evil???

Morality isn't some arbitraty law, it's a reflection of Gods character.

It's not wrong to commit adultery because it hurts other people and destroys families (which it does) adultery is wrong because God is completely faithful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 12:02:36 PM
Not on this site! :)))

Okay, I'll bite.  You are referring to human babies, I suppose.  Yeah, in my eyes, that is wrong.  All cannibalism (human kind) is wrong.  I suppose you are trying to get to the why it is wrong?  It is wrong not because some ancient text may say it is wrong, but we have come to that conclusion as a society (but I don't this this is a universal, though)  that killing or eating or mistreating babies is wrong.  Why?  Because it is harmful to our species.

So what about someone who doesn't care about harming our species and actually says that the greatest good is harming humans? Can you tell them that they are wrong? Nope. Who made that the measurement rod, you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:16:30 PM
You have no basis to call anything absolute nor evil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, I have more basis than you.  I use my reasoning and thinking skills to figure it out.  This is not rocket science.  You, on the other had, seem to say you cannot know what is right or wrong until you consult some old book (of which are hundreds of different editions, all different, one from the other); you are a robot following what some minister tells you to do.  It has been explained to you already how morals are developed and what they are developed for; but you refuse to understand that.  That is a common trait among your kind--willful ignorance. 

And I will continue to mock your god until the day I die.  That is all your god is good for--to mock.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:23:03 PM
So what about someone who doesn't care about harming our species and actually says that the greatest good is harming humans? Can you tell them that they are wrong? Nope. Who made that the measurement rod, you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can and do tell those people that their actions are wrong.  We have a set of laws for that.  Laws our society has developed and used to deal with criminal behavior.  Who made the measuring rod?  We did--our society.  So far, I have not made any of those measuring rods.  But I have fought to change some of them.  That is what our society does--created morals and then write laws to reflect those morals.  Since morals are not etched in stone and is always in flux, our laws are always changing.  Our laws strive for fairness--which is quite different from you inept and cruel god.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:21:17 PM
Again you have failed to give an actual reason that you can call something evil. Why is anything evil???

Morality isn't some arbitraty law, it's a reflection of Gods character.

God's character? God gets jealous, he killed an entire planet's worth of people, animals, and plants, he tortures countless people in Hell, and the way he shows his "love" to his people is by selling them into slavery when they displease him. God contradicts many of his own laws, but he's allowed to because he's God. I'd sooner take a moral code based on Hitler's character.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:21:17 PMIt's not wrong to commit adultery because it hurts other people and destroys families (which it does) adultery is wrong because God is completely faithful.

So if your God didn't exist to tell you murder was wrong, you'd think it was perfectly fine?

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 12:25:10 PM
Actually, I have more basis than you.  I use my reasoning and thinking skills to figure it out.  This is not rocket science.  You, on the other had, seem to say you cannot know what is right or wrong until you consult some old book (of which are hundreds of different editions, all different, one from the other); you are a robot following what some minister tells you to do.  It has been explained to you already how morals are developed and what they are developed for; but you refuse to understand that.  That is a common trait among your kind--willful ignorance. 

And I will continue to mock your god until the day I die.  That is all your god is good for--to mock.

How do you know that your reasoning and thinking skills are valid ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 12:31:04 PM
God's character? God gets jealous, he killed an entire planet's worth of people, animals, and plants, he tortures countless people in Hell, and the way he shows his "love" to his people is by selling them into slavery when they displease him. God contradicts many of his own laws, but he's allowed to because he's God. I'd sooner take a moral code based on Hitler's character.

So if your God didn't exist to tell you murder was wrong, you'd think it was perfectly fine?

If God didn't exist we wouldn't be here (:

Without God you have no reason to call anything evil or good, beautiful or ugly.

Oh so you believe in contradictions... are laws of logic absolute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 14, 2016, 12:29:10 PM
We can and do tell those people that their actions are wrong.  We have a set of laws for that.  Laws our society has developed and used to deal with criminal behavior.  Who made the measuring rod?  We did--our society.  So far, I have not made any of those measuring rods.  But I have fought to change some of them.  That is what our society does--created morals and then write laws to reflect those morals.  Since morals are not etched in stone and is always in flux, our laws are always changing.  Our laws strive for fairness--which is quite different from you inept and cruel god.

Ok so when a society creates rules those rules determine what is good and what is evil....

So how was Hitler wrong for making rules that allows the murder of innocent people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Theist speaking up .... The Book Of Job is the best book in the Bible (some good stuff did get left out).  And in the Book Of Job, we get the only clear example of the Devil ... and the Devil works for G-d.  That much is true metaphorically.  G-d is the Devil ... and he is lying ... except when he is speaking the truth, but ape men can't tell the difference.  And that is why Faith aka Trust is in vain.  I like Paul, but he was smoking some good ganja.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:23:03 PM
So what about someone who doesn't care about harming our species and actually says that the greatest good is harming humans? Can you tell them that they are wrong? Nope. Who made that the measurement rod, you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is absolutely necessary to harm humans, even kill them.  The problem is knowing who to harm, who to kill.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:55:43 PM
If God didn't exist we wouldn't be here (:

Without God you have no reason to call anything evil or good, beautiful or ugly.

Oh so you believe in contradictions... are laws of logic absolute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People and G-d are in dialectical tension, they effect each other.  So G-d isn't absolute, because we are not absolute.  The Bible isn't about G-d kicking human ass because he can ... it is about a dialog between G-d and people, their developing relationship.  Except it didn't end 2000 years ago, our relationship continues to develop, like AA, one day at a time, one person at a time.

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:57:03 PM

Ok so when a society creates rules those rules determine what is good and what is evil....

So how was Hitler wrong for making rules that allows the murder of innocent people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He wasn't wrong, and I am Jewish.  Just because I disapprove of what he did, doesn't make him wrong.  What is wrong and what is right, can only be determined at the Last Judgement (metaphor for end of time) ... this is why in Catholicism, you can't separate the wheat from the tares.  They did get that part right.  Judge no one, not even Hitler.  Though I have my strong suspicions that Hitler was evil.  What if you get to Heaven, and G-d arbitrarily chooses to exonerate Hitler of his sins?  You are going to make a bigger hole in the floor than Rumplestiltskin!

Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 12:55:43 PM
If God didn't exist we wouldn't be here (:

Without God you have no reason to call anything evil or good, beautiful or ugly.

Oh so you believe in contradictions... are laws of logic absolute?

Oh, no you don't. You come here and ask us obnoxious hypothetical questions. Now you're going to answer mine and stop evading.

If God told you to rape an infant, would you do it? If so, then you should be admitted. If not, then you clearly get your morals from something other than God.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 14, 2016, 09:44:28 PM
Oh, no you don't. You come here and ask us obnoxious hypothetical questions. Now you're going to answer mine and stop evading.

If God told you to rape an infant, would you do it? If so, then you should be admitted. If not, then you clearly get your morals from something other than God.

You don't answer my questions, you evade them because you don't actually have an answer...

God will not go against his own character. Morality is defined by what God says. It's defined by who He is.

Adultery is not wrong because it destroys families, it's wrong because Hod is completely faithful.

Stealing isn't wrong because it hurts other people, stealing is wrong because God isn't a thief.

So it's impossible for God to say that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, demonstrate the existence of any deity.  One would be sufficient. 

Quote from: Cavebear on October 15, 2016, 07:47:37 AM
OK, demonstrate the existence of any deity.  One would be sufficient.

Ha!  Gotya there!  The Tooth Fairy.  She leaves money for a tooth.  (Well, used to anyway)  There you go--total proof!

Quote from: Cavebear on October 15, 2016, 07:47:37 AM
OK, demonstrate the existence of any deity.  One would be sufficient.

Good thing.

The conscience

All observable existence is perfectly defined mathematically

Life in an otherwise seemingly lifeless observable Universe.

Sheer power nearly beyond comprehension in the form of potential (stars, black holes)

The observation of the laws that bind existence, yet the inability to establish the start or cause of these laws.

Quantum mechanics attests that all is literally the same substance but ever varying wavelengths or vibrations, meaning, very basically, that anything is possible(miracles)

The very will of life as a whole, to live.

As they say; there are signs everywhere if they could but see.

Not proof though.... Not by any materialistic standard.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quantum mechanics allows impossibilities ... but does limit them to improbability.  This is why QM remains controversial, unless you are measuring hydrogen spectra etc.  People have a tendency, even in physics, to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Miracles aren't improbabilities, they are certainties ... but people refuse to realize they have been taken for a semantic ride for millennia.  This definition of miracle, was invented by atheists, to fight theists.  I don't have to accept their word definitions, their New Speak.  Like in Alice In Wonderland, words I use mean exactly what I want them to mean ... though that might not be your usage.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 15, 2016, 01:34:07 PM
Good thing.

The conscience

All observable existence is perfectly defined mathematically

Life in an otherwise seemingly lifeless observable Universe.

Sheer power nearly beyond comprehension in the form of potential (stars, black holes)

The observation of the laws that bind existence, yet the inability to establish the start or cause of these laws.

Quantum mechanics attests that all is literally the same substance but ever varying wavelengths or vibrations, meaning, very basically, that anything is possible(miracles)

The very will of life as a whole, to live.

As they say; there are signs everywhere if they could but see.

Not proof though.... Not by any materialistic standard.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I see that.  And I wonder about all of that.  The sheer awesomeness of it!  That leads to a deep appreciation of the life I had/have.  I am grateful.
But, unlike you, Pops, this all leads me to KNOW there is not a god--not ever, not possible.  If you had eyes that could see, and a brain that could think, you would realize all that awesomeness proves god is only a fiction of us humans.  You so desperately want to 'know' about all of this awesomeness that you invent god to fill in the gaps of your knowledge.  That's okay, for on a personal basis it leads to humility usually. But when you and your type organize, then you become dangerous and destructive.  I hope that one day, as a species we will grow up enough to root out and discard that type of destruction.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2016, 04:09:01 PM
I see that.  And I wonder about all of that.  The sheer awesomeness of it!  That leads to a deep appreciation of the life I had/have.  I am grateful.
But, unlike you, Pops, this all leads me to KNOW there is not a god--not ever, not possible.  If you had eyes that could see, and a brain that could think, you would realize all that awesomeness proves god is only a fiction of us humans.  You so desperately want to 'know' about all of this awesomeness that you invent god to fill in the gaps of your knowledge.  That's okay, for on a personal basis it leads to humility usually. But when you and your type organize, then you become dangerous and destructive.  I hope that one day, as a species we will grow up enough to root out and discard that type of destruction.

Please don't conflate faith in a higher power and creative force with danger.

One is powerful and benevolent, and long suffering, the other is,  well not a product of the first as much as they think they are in their vanity.

Might all the world come together peaceably for the advancement and profitable existence for all,  without bias, preconception or false sense of pride.

I know what you mean sir,  but please understand that that isn't what I'm about. Even if I was to organize with like minded individuals.

Anyway

Peace

Still can't thumbs up but I can try.

ðŸ'
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 15, 2016, 05:12:46 PM
Pops--Please don't conflate faith in a higher power and creative force with danger.
Me--I don't know what you mean.

Pops--One is powerful and benevolent, and long suffering, the other is,  well not a product of the first as much as they think they are in their vanity.
Me--still don't get you.

Pops--Might all the world come together peaceably for the advancement and profitable existence for all,  without bias, preconception or false sense of pride.
Me--Of course.  What sane person doesn't want this???? A perfect world would be great.  But organized religion keeps that from happening.

Pops--I know what you mean sir,  but please understand that that isn't what I'm about.
Me--What are you about--still have a hard time figuring it out.  Your thoughts seem to mostly vapor in that they just seem to be so very vague.




ðŸ'
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2016, 07:05:44 PM

I was trying to say that the misdirection of much of organized religion has been wrong and against those things that you and I say we agree on in the past, and to some level still is. But that isn't to say that this isn't slowly changing,  or that the way to change it is to nullify organized religion.

That thing; peaceable advancement relative to our potential and unity as a whole will never be achieved by attempting to stay divided, or by trying to dismantle the organization of the faithful.

I don't mean to be so vague.

If you want specifics then please ask.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 15, 2016, 07:22:30 PM

That thing; peaceable advancement relative to our potential and unity as a whole will never be achieved by attempting to stay divided, or by trying to dismantle the organization of the faithful.


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I see you point.  But I suggest that with organized religion true peace cannot be achieved.  A united and peaceful world will have to be after organized religion is a thing of the past.  So, I will not live to see anything close to that.

A supernova is awesome, but nothing compared to a human child.

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 15, 2016, 09:39:03 AM
Ha!  Gotya there!  The Tooth Fairy.  She leaves money for a tooth.  (Well, used to anyway)  There you go--total proof!

Big Smile!  ;)

He never addressed the loving Christians.

As I recall, The Tooth Fairy gave coins to theists and atheists alike.  One true neutral fairy...

Quote from: Cavebear on October 26, 2016, 10:07:07 AM
As I recall, The Tooth Fairy gave coins to theists and atheists alike.  One true neutral fairy...

See!  The gays are undermining our vital juices ...

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 15, 2016, 01:34:07 PM
Good thing.

The conscience

All observable existence is perfectly defined mathematically

Life in an otherwise seemingly lifeless observable Universe.

Sheer power nearly beyond comprehension in the form of potential (stars, black holes)

The observation of the laws that bind existence, yet the inability to establish the start or cause of these laws.

Quantum mechanics attests that all is literally the same substance but ever varying wavelengths or vibrations, meaning, very basically, that anything is possible(miracles)

The very will of life as a whole, to live.

As they say; there are signs everywhere if they could but see.

Not proof though.... Not by any materialistic standard.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Good thing you said "Not proof..." I was going to congratulate you on proving bonobos have their own god(s).

Seriously, nothing you said requires a god.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2016, 07:48:36 AM
Good thing you said "Not proof..." I was going to congratulate you on proving bonobos have their own god(s).

Seriously, nothing you said requires a god.

Didn't say it required GOD.

Perhaps you could attempt to explain my examples naturally...which too, by the way is of GOD, but still....what does each require and how do you explain them away?

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 27, 2016, 07:48:36 AM
Good thing you said "Not proof..." I was going to congratulate you on proving bonobos have their own god(s).

Seriously, nothing you said requires a god.

I don't know what bonobos are, or is...whichever.

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Okay- lets have a look at this list of alleged mysteries.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 15, 2016, 01:34:07 PM

The conscience

The product of evolution. Humans are social animals- highly intelligent ones with a penchant for violence. The conscience has evolved because it confers an adaptive advantage on groups of humans who have it. Humans with a conscience are more likely to co-operate, and have much better social cohesion.

QuoteAll observable existence is perfectly defined mathematically

And if it weren't then the Universe would be too chaotic to support life, and we wouldn't be here to observe it. So the fact that the Universe is regular/ordered doesn't prove anything.

QuoteLife in an otherwise seemingly lifeless observable Universe.

Life is perfectly explicable in terms of natural physical laws. No need for God.

QuoteSheer power nearly beyond comprehension in the form of potential (stars, black holes)

Ditto.

QuoteThe observation of the laws that bind existence, yet the inability to establish the start or cause of these laws.

At last- an actual mystery! Thing is...God doesn't help at all with this one. If you try to explain existence by postulating a God, you then have a new problem: where does God come from? And if you say that God is eternal...well, you might as well say that the Universe is eternal (which may be the case). God adds nothing to the explanatio, except for some unnecessary complications.

QuoteQuantum mechanics attests that all is literally the same substance but ever varying wavelengths or vibrations, meaning, very basically, that anything is possible(miracles)

No. QM doesn't get you miracles.

QuoteThe very will of life as a whole, to live.

Evolution again. Living things that didn't act to maintain their existence would go extinct pretty quickly.

Incidentally, bonobos are pygmy chimpanzees. Their main claim to fame is that they're a sex-crazed bunch of apes. By comparison, humans are very libinally restrained.

Quote from: Duncle on October 27, 2016, 10:18:48 AM
Okay- lets have a look at this list of alleged mysteries.
The product of evolution. Humans are social animals- highly intelligent ones with a penchant for violence. The conscience has evolved because it confers an adaptive advantage on groups of humans who have it. Humans with a conscience are more likely to co-operate, and have much better social cohesion.
And if it weren't then the Universe would be too chaotic to support life, and we wouldn't be here to observe it. So the fact that the Universe is regular/ordered doesn't prove anything.
Life is perfectly explicable in terms of natural physical laws. No need for God.
Ditto.
At last- an actual mystery! Thing is...God doesn't help at all with this one. If you try to explain existence by postulating a God, you then have a new problem: where does God come from? And if you say that God is eternal...well, you might as well say that the Universe is eternal (which may be the case). God adds nothing to the explanatio, except for some unnecessary complications.
No. QM doesn't get you miracles.
Evolution again. Living things that didn't act to maintain their existence would go extinct pretty quickly.

Incidentally, bonobos are pygmy chimpanzees. Their main claim to fame is that they're a sex-crazed bunch of apes. By comparison, humans are very libinally restrained.

I'm sorry, but saying nature is the cause of the things I listed is a given. Nature and evolution and existence as a whole are the product of GOD. It isn't complicating anything. You failed to explain away any of it whatsoever.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 27, 2016, 12:03:03 PM
I'm sorry, but saying nature is the cause of the things I listed is a given. Nature and evolution and existence as a whole are the product of GOD. It isn't complicating anything. You failed to explain away any of it whatsoever.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

no no no

you see WE don't need to explain anything. You are the one making a claim ie "it came from god" There is no proof that this is the case. No observable evidence that a god or gods exist and the universe came from it. You are the one who failed to explain YOUR position.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 27, 2016, 12:03:03 PM
I'm sorry, but saying nature is the cause of the things I listed is a given. Nature and evolution and existence as a whole are the product of GOD. It isn't complicating anything. You failed to explain away any of it whatsoever.

Goddidit you guys.  Can't refute that.

You know what's more useful than an extraneous, unfalsifiable claim with zero explanatory power?  That extra screw that comes in IKEA boxes.

*leans against a bookshelf*
*it wobbles precariously*

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 27, 2016, 12:03:03 PM
I'm sorry, but saying nature is the cause of the things I listed is a given. Nature and evolution and existence as a whole are the product of GOD. It isn't complicating anything. You failed to explain away any of it whatsoever.

God explains nothing, though. The naturalistic explanations work just fine without any deity. In fact, they work better with no deity because there is no God to explain.

You might as well say Nature and evolution and existence as a whole are the product of PIZZA. Pizza doesn't explain anything either, but at least its good to eat.

Quote from: Duncle on October 28, 2016, 05:07:16 AM
God explains nothing, though. The naturalistic explanations work just fine without any deity. In fact, they work better with no deity because there is no God to explain.

You might as well say Nature and evolution and existence as a whole are the product of PIZZA. Pizza doesn't explain anything either, but at least its good to eat.

All I'm saying is that you can't be like " oh nature and evolution explain all existence thoroughly and exactly without GOD", because they are of GOD. You can't claim to know that nature or evolution are the cause and not the effects. We can observe some binding laws on nature, and describe them, but to assume that nature just imposed these laws on itself is a little silly. Basically you would have to posit that nature or existence is a product solely of itself. This is naive and irresponsible to me. Indeed life does have the intrinsic will to thrive, continue, to live, to say that will to live is the product of evolution though true to some extent, still explains nothing. Basically; either you think everything is and always has been utterly self sufficient, or you believe in GOD to some extent.

It's okay to be agnostic or deistic until one actually contemplates these things without preconceptions, bias, or selfish motives. Deists aren't dumb. They surmise that a higher power and or supreme intelect/ creator could have indeed formed existence in some fashion, winding the clock, if you will. But then they assume that this same life giving creative force/ energy/ spirit cares not for it's own formation or creation. I personally don't know why they make this leap of faith in claiming GOD doesn't care or intercede on his formations behalf. They say GOD can't possibly care about us on this little grain of sand amidst a whole sea shore of sand. But that isn't a logical or justifiable claim. That singular grain of sand is the only one on the whole observable shore that is teeming with life. This alone shows significance and relevance in contrast with the rest of observable existence which has know signs of advanced life.

Why would GOD create or form all  existence, including observable life on one planet just to not care about it?

I make things, build things, form and create things. I am nearly infinity more powerful and intelligent than the things I build. I still care about them  though and they aren't even alive. It isn't my will for those creations to be destroyed, nor am I wholly indifferent about the extent of their existence or their purposes.

Nature and evolution are products of the origin of life and existence. To say life and existence are and always have been self subsisting is, again, naive, in my personal humble opinion.

Peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Life and existence are G-d ... and G-d is self subsisting.  Don't separate creation from Creator ... unless you are an anti-reality Gnostic ... as I suspect Christians actually are (Manichee in disguise).  Hate my cat, hate me ... hate creation, hate Creator.  All that Devil is another god stuff has Christians all turned around.

Quote from: Baruch on October 28, 2016, 06:47:28 AM
Life and existence are G-d ... and G-d is self subsisting.  Don't separate creation from Creator ... unless you are an anti-reality Gnostic ... as I suspect Christians actually are (Manichee in disguise).  Hate my cat, hate me ... hate creation, hate Creator.  All that Devil is another god stuff has Christians all turned around.

Hate nothing but that  knowing, blatant, misdirection within oneself.

Fear no thing but the repercussions of one's own knowing actions which are against the selfless conscience.

satan, iblis, baal, whatever is nothing but what we greedily allow it to be within our own lives. It has no power but what is freely and knowingly given it by us.

Peace

Hope you're well, by the way

Yes, life and existence are of GOD, but separation and humility must be constant precepts of any of the faithful as to not become eschewed from what is right and deluded by greed or dreams of attainment of anything but what one knows to be right within their own life.
Without separation there is no humility. Without humility there can only be tyranny.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Zoroastrianism had a profound effect on all three Abrahamic faiths.  Do you realize you are Persian at heart?

Quote from: Baruch on October 28, 2016, 07:10:54 AM
Zoroastrianism had a profound effect on all three Abrahamic faiths.  Do you realize you are Persian at heart?

I realize that I, myself strive to do what I know is right regardless of reward or lack there of. I attempt to be faithful to the spirit of life and GOD. I take no offence from being called Persian though, or a follower of the Zoroastrian doctrines, or those of the Jew, Baha'i, Islam, Christian, or any other school of thought that recognizes that true harmony and peace come about through action, not negation or dereliction of what one knows to be right and true. With knowledge rests potential. Indifference to said potential, regardless of knowledge, is chaos. A thing I wish not to dwell in any longer.

I take it you are well, and am glad for such, and too, your words.

Peace friend.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Well as I've already stated there is no evidence that a god exists. You have given no good reasons to believe that there is one. Only your self deluded opinion of what humility is.

Atheists are not as you describe at all. We also believe in doing good for the sake of doing good believe it or not. And we are no more selfish than any Christians I can think of. Actually I'd say atheists have better morals than christians for we do not discriminate against homosexuals.

You have a severe misconception about atheism and what it is. That's all thanks to your bible which got it wrong by the way. Atheists are not automatically evil as the bible says. Why not take some time to know us before you decide to judge us? We are just humans the same as christians. We just don't believe in a god for many very good reasons.

To a believer who already believes, your arguments sound good. But understand this, your reasons are crap and your logic, reasoning and critical thinking is very poor in comparison. To us it sounds superstitious and barbaric. God is an unnatural concept created by humans just like fairies and unicorns. If you would just understand that you'd realize why your arguments suck.

All human conceptions (culture) are unnatural, not just religion.  But that poses a problem for naturalists.

Quote from: Baruch on October 28, 2016, 12:28:00 PM
All human conceptions (culture) are unnatural, not just religion.  But that poses a problem for naturalists.

You bring up an interesting point but I disagree there are some things humans do that are natural. Although it's hard to decide what exactly qualifies as natural for a human, but humans do come from nature so natural is actually a paradox.

Quote from: doorknob on October 28, 2016, 03:10:27 PM
You bring up an interesting point but I disagree there are some things humans do that are natural. Although it's hard to decide what exactly qualifies as natural for a human, but humans do come from nature so natural is actually a paradox.

Rationalists deny the existence of paradox, just as leprechauns deny the existence of unicorns.  Your point is worth many PhD theses in philosophy.

doorknob,

I haven't really giving my opinion on a definition of humility actually.

Please quote where I described atheists (which I was for over 20 years, easy) as not doing good for the sake of it, or not having a moral compass, or not having a conscience. I most definitely didn't say that atheists in general were more selfish than theists in general. Then you throw in homosexually for good measure? This is beginning to feel like a political debate. Please have the decency to either back your claims about pretend assumptions you claim I hold to, anywhere on the internet, or please stop making said assumptions or stereotyping me, or whatever it is you call yourself doing.

Again you assume too much( any is too much if you were curious). I was an actual athirst for over 20 years. I have a firm grasp of on what it is to not believe in a god. More blind assertions premade for someone else evidently.

Woe....hold on....did you really just say that my misconception of atheism is based on my reading of the bible? Firstly; the bible was not the cause of my faith and was even not the first or second core religious writing I read....about a year ago....there goes that misconception. By the way; the bible doesn't so much speak about the heathen so much as the hypocrite when it refers to the nonbeliever or equivalent. Your actually making me smile...genuinely. I can't take you seriously. Is this really scripted on your part? I know people are coached on how to debate an orthodox Christian, but that mold isn't nearly the right shape or size to contain what I speak of. Not once have I ousted an atheist as evil or less moral or less giving than any other person. These false, wild, distinctions you are making are, well, not based on evidence, but your own presupposition...you know; that thing your attempting to accuse me of? I had no clue atheists were humans too. Learn something new every day.

Wow you are still shitting out of your mouth...let me know if and when you can at very least be sincere to some level.

Sorry, not too humble there, I suppose. Seemed needed though.

Don't be an f'n hypocrite, all while attempting to insult me and perhaps we can enjoy leveled conversation. Oh wait; we are...you decide the playing field.

Peace friend, with sincerity...every word.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 28, 2016, 11:12:26 PM
doorknob,

I haven't really giving my opinion on a definition of humility actually.

Please quote where I described atheists (which I was for over 20 years, easy) as not doing good for the sake of it, or not having a moral compass, or not having a conscience. I most definitely didn't say that atheists in general were more selfish than theists in general. Then you throw in homosexually for good measure? This is beginning to feel like a political debate. Please have the decency to either back your claims about pretend assumptions you claim I hold to, anywhere on the internet, or please stop making said assumptions or stereotyping me, or whatever it is you call yourself doing.

Again you assume too much( any is too much if you were curious). I was an actual athirst for over 20 years. I have a firm grasp of on what it is to not believe in a god. More blind assertions premade for someone else evidently.

Woe....hold on....did you really just say that my misconception of atheism is based on my reading of the bible? Firstly; the bible was not the cause of my faith and was even not the first or second core religious writing I read....about a year ago....there goes that misconception. By the way; the bible doesn't so much speak about the heathen so much as the hypocrite when it refers to the nonbeliever or equivalent. Your actually making me smile...genuinely. I can't take you seriously. Is this really scripted on your part? I know people are coached on how to debate an orthodox Christian, but that mold isn't nearly the right shape or size to contain what I speak of. Not once have I ousted an atheist as evil or less moral or less giving than any other person. These false, wild, distinctions you are making are, well, not based on evidence, but your own presupposition...you know; that thing your attempting to accuse me of? I had no clue atheists were humans too. Learn something new every day.

Wow you are still shitting out of your mouth...let me know if and when you can at very least be sincere to some level.

Sorry, not too humble there, I suppose. Seemed needed though.

Don't be an f'n hypocrite, all while attempting to insult me and perhaps we can enjoy leveled conversation. Oh wait; we are...you decide the playing field.

Peace friend, with sincerity...every word.

I find this funny coming from someone who hasn't given any support for his assertions. And no, being an ex-atheist does not mean that you know how the rest of us think. This is especially made evident when you equate our lack of faith to your faith. We do not need to prove you wrong. We are not the ones making assumptions. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.

Being an ex-anything does not mean you have some special understanding of what you were.    If anything, it means a lack of it.  Since I was never actually a theist I am AMAZINGLY PURE in this regard!  ;)  (koff, koff)

Puritans burn heretics using Puritan brand vegetable oil ... or are branded as heretics!

Yes, true believers exist in both theist and non-theist groups (let's call it ideology).  Not all theists fit the cookie cutter, nor to all atheists fit the anti-cookie cutter.  Except those that do, that are repeating scripted thinking over and over (like most people).  Most people never think at all, they are simply tape recorders on playback.

Popsthebuilder ... as you probably realize, I believe that you are thinking for yourself, that you have wide experience of life and of different cultures (patterns of thinking).

Cavebear ... proud of being a one string banjo?  Don't forget the washboard percussion section.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 07, 2016, 07:13:59 PM
Assumption from ignorance, thankfully.

Loving GOD, which is to say; being devout to what can be known of GOD within our life effectually negates self loathing tendencies. I am speaking from personal experience.


humbly,
peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

That doesn't seem to make any sense.  What about a deity "negates self loathing tendencies"?

Self loathing tendency ... is a Jewish trait.  Comparing self against some perfect paradigm.  Gentiles don't have that problem, they are happy in their sins ;-)

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 29, 2016, 12:07:44 AM
I find this funny coming from someone who hasn't given any support for his assertions. And no, being an ex-atheist does not mean that you know how the rest of us think. This is especially made evident when you equate our lack of faith to your faith. We do not need to prove you wrong. We are not the ones making assumptions. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.

I didn't say I knew how you all think. Everyone is an individual.

I gave a brief list that, to the unbiased mind, is not evidence of GOD, but does lend credence to the possibility of GOD.

I have noticed one similarity between you. A majority of you seem to think that believing GOD doesn't exist isn't a belief. But it is, and even more so; one based on faith. Whats worse is the fact that it isn't supported by anything whatsoever except for preconceptions.

We are both making claims. I've offered up some sort of support for mine though.

Peace

Quote from: Baruch on October 29, 2016, 08:11:37 AM
Puritans burn heretics using Puritan brand vegetable oil ... or are branded as heretics!

Yes, true believers exist in both theist and non-theist groups (let's call it ideology).  Not all theists fit the cookie cutter, nor to all atheists fit the anti-cookie cutter.  Except those that do, that are repeating scripted thinking over and over (like most people).  Most people never think at all, they are simply tape recorders on playback.

Popsthebuilder ... as you probably realize, I believe that you are thinking for yourself, that you have wide experience of life and of different cultures (patterns of thinking).

Cavebear ... proud of being a one string banjo?  Don't forget the washboard percussion section.

I have noticed...and though it is apparent from some of your posts that you take the teachings of the Christ as wholly metaphorical or even made up; you do seem quite capable of extracting knowledge of some kind from those teachings.

Not trying to ramble....just attempting to say that I appreciate both your stance and your knowledged opinion.

Peace friend

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:07:34 AM
I have noticed...and though it is apparent from some of your posts that you take the teachings of the Christ as wholly metaphorical or even made up; you do seem quite capable of extracting knowledge of some kind from those teachings.

Not trying to ramble....just attempting to say that I appreciate both your stance and your knowledged opinion.

Peace friend

People love their iron hard ideology.  That way they never have to consider that they might be wrong.  Personality and society are a house of cards though.  If you push either too hard, they collapse.  And I don't want to collapse anyone, no matter how jury rigged they are.

Like what happened in the early 600s ... the Byzantines and Sassanids thought they would be top dog forever ... and then along came Muhammad, nobody expected him ... and people's entire society and individual destiny were changed.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 08:21:49 AM
That doesn't seem to make any sense.  What about a deity "negates self loathing tendencies"?

Being sincere and devout to what one knows is right at all junctions negates self loathing. If one not only knows of what is right in their own life, but strives to act accordingly, then this does indeed, if slowly, remove that hate that permeates ones sense of self while in knowing misdirection.

Hope that helped to explain. If not, feel free to ask for further clarification, and I will attempt it.

Peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:07:34 AM
I have noticed...and though it is apparent from some of your posts that you take the teachings of the Christ as wholly metaphorical or even made up; you do seem quite capable of extracting knowledge of some kind from those teachings.

Not trying to ramble....just attempting to say that I appreciate both your stance and your knowledged opinion.

Peace friend

I don't require anyone to be historical ... since history is only propaganda.  But the texts from-of-old exist ... and they act as a corrective to the present group think.  Of course a text is interpreted, even by literalists.  Reading is a part of my human experience, as much as anything else.  But I find it marvelous, even if only one-directional, that by reading old writings, you can hear the thoughts of people long dead, who lived in a world that was both very different and very similar to ours.

I greatly appreciate the NT ... as a Jewish Hellenistic anthology ... a community that was almost entirely destroyed in the 2nd century along with the Jewish Palestinian society.  But my reading is much broader than the Bible ... and I base my axioms on lived life, not my tenuous interpretation of ghosts, holy or not.  I would speak more on this, but this isn't the web site for it.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:12:28 AM
Being sincere and devout to what one knows is right at all junctions negates self loathing. If one not only knows of what is right in their own life, but strives to act accordingly, then this does indeed, if slowly, remove that hate that permeates ones sense of self while in knowing misdirection.

Hope that helped to explain. If not, feel free to ask for further clarification, and I will attempt it.

Peace

To know "self loathing" or "pride" requires that we have experienced them ourselves.  This is why so many people say "such and such" is only words.  This is why White people who have always been at the top of the food chain (not all Whites) have no understanding of African-Americans.

Messianic Judaism (not Christianity) was an attempt by Hellenistic Jews to escape this self-loathing, was exemplified by Paul's latitudinarianism.  Paul tried to be neutral, but the Zealots overshot into pride.  Some Hellenistic Jews avoided circumcision, so they could better associate with the Greco-Romans (at the gymnasium where men exercised in the nude).  And some, in self loathing, actually had a prepuce artificially and surgically re-attached as a disguise.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:12:28 AM
Being sincere and devout to what one knows is right at all junctions negates self loathing. If one not only knows of what is right in their own life, but strives to act accordingly, then this does indeed, if slowly, remove that hate that permeates ones sense of self while in knowing misdirection.

Hope that helped to explain. If not, feel free to ask for further clarification, and I will attempt it.

Peace

So, a belief in magical thinking somehow gives you a sense of reality in this world that you want to be free from eventually. 

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 09:21:32 AM
So, a belief in magical thinking somehow gives you a sense of reality in this world that you want to be free from eventually.

I'm sorry, but that made no sense to me. Could you reword it?

Peace

Through religious beliefs, you are engaging in superstitious thoughts and unfounded beliefs.  Religions are based on magical thinking about powers that do not exist.  Is that clearer?

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:03:19 AM
I didn't say I knew how you all think. Everyone is an individual.

Yes, you do have a habit of saying a lot without saying anything at all.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:03:19 AMI gave a brief list that, to the unbiased mind, is not evidence of GOD, but does lend credence to the possibility of GOD.

How does it lend credence to the possibility of GOD? You're not reading between the lines, you writing between them. One could do the same thing you're doing to claim that the universe leaves open the possibility that everything is just a computer simulation. There's no reason to consider your explanation any more credible than any other we can make up.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:03:19 AMI have noticed one similarity between you. A majority of you seem to think that believing GOD doesn't exist isn't a belief. But it is, and even more so; one based on faith. Whats worse is the fact that it isn't supported by anything whatsoever except for preconceptions.

If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to learn the difference between belief and non-belief. Belief is a claim. Non-belief is not. You claim to know that God exists. We do not make a claim that God doesn't exist. If I make the claim that tyrannosaurus rex used to dance to disco music, can I say that you have a belief that they DIDN'T do that? No. That would be stupid. It would be on me to prove that my claim is correct or at least plausible, just as it is your responsibility as a theist to prove that God is real or plausible.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 09:03:19 AMWe are both making claims. I've offered up some sort of support for mine though.

Peace

Let me quote something you said two paragraphs earlier, "I gave a brief list that, to the unbiased mind, is not evidence of GOD, but does lend credence to the possibility of GOD." Now you're doing the old switcheroo and saying that your list is evidence. You walk between the lines of saying two opposite things so that when someone calls you out on something, you can say, "I didn't say that." I don't know if you've ever done scientific research of any kind, but I have. Support = evidence. Not that someone needs a background in research to understand that, but since you don't seem to understand that, I spelled it out for you.

All you have done was make a claim and then turn around and use your claim as evidence for itself.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 09:32:24 AM
Through religious beliefs, you are engaging in superstitious thoughts and unfounded beliefs.  Religions are based on magical thinking about powers that do not exist.  Is that clearer?

Yes that makes it very clear that you too are conflating things to fit into molds, yet actually have very little idea of what it is you are talking about.

Peace

Excellent overall reply Blackleaf.  I hope someday to be an algae like you!  ;)

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 29, 2016, 09:56:40 AM
Yes, you do have a habit of saying a lot without saying anything at all.

How does it lend credence to the possibility of GOD? You're not reading between the lines, you writing between them. One could do the same thing you're doing to claim that the universe leaves open the possibility that everything is just a computer simulation. There's no reason to consider your explanation any more credible than any other we can make up.

If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to learn the difference between belief and non-belief. Belief is a claim. Non-belief is not. You claim to know that God exists. We do not make a claim that God doesn't exist. If I make the claim that tyrannosaurus rex used to dance to disco music, can I say that you have a belief that they DIDN'T do that? No. That would be stupid. It would be on me to prove that my claim is correct or at least plausible, just as it is your responsibility as a theist to prove that God is real or plausible.

Let me quote something you said two paragraphs earlier, "I gave a brief list that, to the unbiased mind, is not evidence of GOD, but does lend credence to the possibility of GOD." Now you're doing the old switcheroo and saying that your list is evidence. You walk between the lines of saying two opposite things so that when someone calls you out on something, you can say, "I didn't say that." I don't know if you've ever done scientific research of any kind, but I have. Support = evidence. Not that someone needs a background in research to understand that, but since you don't seem to understand that, I spelled it out for you.

All you have done was make a claim and then turn around and use your claim as evidence for itself.

How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

So the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

Don't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 10:05:12 AM
Yes that makes it very clear that you too are conflating things to fit into molds, yet actually have very little idea of what it is you are talking about.

Peace

Newspeak is strong with these people.  Basically putting fingers in ears and saying "nya nya nya .. na nya na!".  The deaf are hard of hearing.  If they have no numinous experience, or ideologically deny its existence ... then they can't hear of it.  It is phenomena only for them.  And pride prevents them from being agnostic ... to admitting they are just another blind man feeling up that happy elephant.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 10:10:38 AM
How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

So the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

Don't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

The belief is the claim.  The non-belief is a demand you prove your claim. 

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 10:10:38 AM
How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

So the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

Don't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

It is fundamental in rhetoric, to not accept the other person's evidence.  Since our evidence is subjective ... they need to merely reject subjectivity ... and they win.  Also they as G-d experts ;-) get to decide what G-d is, and how G-d manifests ... so they can carefully rule out any empirical evidence as well.  But I am not harmed by it.  But I agree with them on this, the usual promoting of religion is weak and feeble.  What is called Literalism ... simply falls right into their trap ... anyone outside of Lourdes would dismiss the apparition of the Virgin Mary at once ... you can set up cameras there, but Mary is too shy to appear as a recordable ectoplasm.  How religious people think G-d works, is as false as non-religious people think.  Though some people, subjectively can see the strings on the puppet ... or they are delusional.  I don't think there is any difference between being delusional and cynical.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 10:20:26 AM
The belief is the claim.  The non-belief is a demand you prove your claim.

Making demands is rude ... but without rudeness, there would be no Internet ;-)  Try suggesting rather than demanding.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 10:10:38 AM
How is non belief not a claim.

It is a claim in opposition to a claim of believe. They are both claims. I'm sorry you can't grasp that because it would cause your whole defence to fall around you, but that's all you've got.

Good job making blanket retort to my position without addressing any of my points, but I noticed and won't let you off that easy. How does it feel being a Non-Dinosaur-Disco believer? Do you have any evidence for your CLAIM that dinosaurs did not dance to disco music? If so, I'd love to see it.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 10:10:38 AMSo the support I've given for my claim is actually evidence...got it.

Still waiting on the support for your claim.

Peace

And I'm still waiting on you to support your claim. As of yet, you have failed to do so. This is your so-called "suppport."

A: The universe is A.

B. It's possible that God is the universe.

C. Therefor, B.

That's not support, you idiot.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 10:10:38 AMDon't waste my time with childish word games. If you cant take your own position serious enough to defend it then, you're right, it isn't a position to be taken and can be thrown out as worthless with no supporting evidence.

Peace

If you're too incompetent to debate like an intelligent person, then do not waste my time. Don't blame me if you're incapable of actually defending the bullshit claims you make.

I agree.  Its like this.  Someone says I have a wombat on my head.  Its up to them to prove I do.  I don't have to say a darn thing about.  Its their claim to prove.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 10:59:15 AM
I agree.  Its like this.  Someone says I have a wombat on my head.  Its up to them to prove I do.  I don't have to say a darn thing about.  Its their claim to prove.

If you have a wolverine, not a wombat on your head, then it is your problem, not mine ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 10:20:26 AM
The belief is the claim.  The non-belief is a demand you prove your claim.

They are both positive claims.

I claim that the existence of GOD is true.

You claim that the absence of GOD is true.

The only position one can justifiably have due to lack of experience of GOD is that of agnosticism. Most "atheists" are eager to admit when they do not know a thing. If you don't know then that is agnostic. If you claim GOD doesn't exist then you have a burden of proof if you expect others to believe you, just like I would if I expected people to believe me that GOD does exist, based only on my word.

I don't claim any should believe my personal position though. I just advise any who are genuinely curious, to honestly and sincerely seek for themselves.

I can and do often go into detail about how one can begin to be honest with themselves, and I can back that positive claim, but it still takes one actually doing the work for themselves instead of just taking my word for it.

So in both cases my claims aren't asking that any take anything for granted, but find out for themselves.

Your claim seams to be that GOD doesn't exist and we should just take you on your word though you have shown yourself to be shifty and one-sided.

Peace

Remember, Vulcans only believe that they are logical ... they have no proof of that ... otherwise the rabbit could pull itself out of the hat.  This is why no one here is serious about a re-read of GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach) ... otherwise they might end up like Norman the android from Classic Star Trek (Mud's Planet).

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 12:52:19 PM

They are both positive claims.

I claim that the existence of GOD is true.

You claim that the absence of GOD is true.

The only position one can justifiably have due to lack of experience of GOD is that of agnosticism. Most "atheists" are eager to admit when they do not know a thing. If you don't know then that is agnostic. If you claim GOD doesn't exist then you have a burden of proof if you expect others to believe you, just like I would if I expected people to believe me that GOD does exist, based only on my word.

I don't claim any should believe my personal position though. I just advise any who are genuinely curious, to honestly and sincerely seek for themselves.

I can and do often go into detail about how one can begin to be honest with themselves, and I can back that positive claim, but it still takes one actually doing the work for themselves instead of just taking my word for it.

So in both cases my claims aren't asking that any take anything for granted, but find out for themselves.

Your claim seams to be that GOD doesn't exist and we should just take you on your word though you have shown yourself to be shifty and one-sided.

Peace

No we did not make a claim we don't believe in god. Huge difference than claiming there is no god. And no one has to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that alien elephants don't exist. Any one claiming that alien elephants exist has to prove it. You are making a claim. You didn't back it up so now I don't believe your claim.

Btw I started out as a catholic. It took me years of studying and critical thinking to finally get to where I am. It's not like I just woke up one day and said "hey I don't believe in god anymore!" I have done a lot of thinking about this subject so it is not a matter of seeking god or having an "open mind". My mind was so open it was on the ground when I was a christian. Now I see clearly and think clearly. I can see Christianity for the evil that it is.

Quote from: doorknob on October 30, 2016, 12:19:22 AM
No we did not make a claim we don't believe in god. Huge difference than claiming there is no god. And no one has to prove a negative. I don't have to prove that alien elephants don't exist. Any one claiming that alien elephants exist has to prove it. You are making a claim. You didn't back it up so now I don't believe your claim.

Btw I started out as a catholic. It took me years of studying and critical thinking to finally get to where I am. It's not like I just woke up one day and said "hey I don't believe in god anymore!" I have done a lot of thinking about this subject so it is not a matter of seeking god or having an "open mind". My mind was so open it was on the ground when I was a christian. Now I see clearly and think clearly. I can see Christianity for the evil that it is.

I can understand what you are saying given it was traditional Catholicism.

The religions and traditions of man do not, as a necessity, correlate to the truth of GOD that man can know.

To put it differently;
I was invited to a Catholic service once and went once...only.

The misdirection under the guise of apostolic tradition is one of the root causes of the majority of atrocities and deceit of the entire world for so long, and is most definitely the most powerful means of turning innocent faith in a benevolent creative force into such unrecognizable twisted nonsense that it leads the logical to the only logic conclusion, which sadly, is that of atheism. The Catholic Church will seems to be attempting to change; knowing of it's past deceit and error. I can't say if they will change for the better or if they will be regarded as worthless in the end. But theirs surely isn't the foundation from which any should build on their own faith in GOD.

I partly understand your animosity now. There isn't anything wrong with honest skepticism. It's when it becomes are prerequisite for all critical thinking that it does more harm than good. The same can be said of your negative experience; learn from it, don't dwell on it, allowing it to skew your perspective in regards to the possibility of GOD.


Peace 

my experience wasn't negative. It wasn't till after i became an atheist that I realized all the problems religion causes, especially the Abrahamic religions.

putting that aside I do not believe there is a god. There is no evidence let alone not enough evidence to believe in one. And I can't really think if a good reason to believe in one either. God is an abstract concept that humans invented. Nothing more.

Now when I read a bible it looks like a child wrote it, or some one with a very childish understanding of the world. The lessons (if you could even call them that) seem empty and hollow to me now. Nothing profound in that book.

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 29, 2016, 12:52:19 PMThey are both positive claims.

I claim that the existence of GOD is true.

You claim that the absence of GOD is true.

I claim that dinosaurs danced to disco music.

You claim that dinosaurs did not dance to disco music.

Obviously, this is a silly example. I use examples like these to highlight how broken your logic is. Now, if you think that my example is somehow not equal to your own, and therefor not a fair comparison, please enlighten me. How is this any different than what you're doing?

Ok let me clarify something.

I claim that dinosaurs danced to disco music and have no evidence to prove that they did.

You DON"T BELIEVE dinosaur danced to disco music because there is no evidence to suggest they did. No further need for proof on this end.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 30, 2016, 01:03:22 AM
I claim that dinosaurs danced to disco music.

You claim that dinosaurs did not dance to disco music.

Obviously, this is a silly example. I use examples like these to highlight how broken your logic is. Now, if you think that my example is somehow not equal to your own, and therefor not a fair comparison, please enlighten me. How is this any different than what you're doing?

You can claim anything you want. But if I want to know the truth of it I would do unbiased study on my own. I wouldn't take your word for it even if you said you experienced it in person, given the fact that I haven't heard of or seen such.

They are the same.

Good thing I don't go around telling people to believe there is a GOD just because I say so huh.


Your example is different from mine because I don't make a claim that GOD exists and all should believe me based on my words. Do you see the difference? I wouldn't ever want or expect anyone to simply take my word on anything unless they actually knew me to be both trustworthy and truthful. That goes for the claim for the existence of GOD to a group of people that have never actually met me.

Peace

For me, nobody can be trusted, even if you are a childhood friend.  Ape people are untrustworthy.  I also know that even my own experience is untrustworthy ... so for me, I consider trust and truth to be meaningless.  These are social and rhetorical assertions, not epistemological status of statements.  Most people here are epistemologists ... they play with sentences, and the relationship between sentences, but not deeper.

What is communication?  If you have gone fishing and I have gone fishing ... then we can talk in a reasonable way about fishing.  What happens in speech/writing is we are sending semaphores triggered by your memory, to act as triggers for my memory.  Unless we fished together, these are two different memories.  The content of "fishing" isn't in the semaphores.  Epistemological mutual abuse over the content of the comm channel, is a distraction.  These people don't know what they are saying, if they speak of something they have no experience of.  Now a former theist, who is now an atheist, they might be able to speak of it, maybe even better than someone who has always been a theist, because they have broader experience.

So if we talk about fishing and we have both fished, I can tell semantically, not logically, that you know what you are talking about and vice versa.  That is the test .. not if I can trust you.  If I haven't ever gone fishing, and you talk about yourself going fishing ... yes, I can trust you ... but I have no basis for that trust (other than social and rhetorical assertion).

So let me say something, that you probably don't have direct experience of (or maybe you do).  I know a friend, we studied Hebrew together.  He has gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage twice.  I made a good will offering both times to help defray his costs (my mitzvoth).  The last time he went, a minor Biblical miracle happened (he said) while he was in the square next to the Western Wall (Temple platform).  I wasn't there.  He told me about it after he got back.  Two years after he got back, I received an interpretation of that supposed event in my mind, out of nowhere, while discussing religion with someone else (a Jewish non-believer).  Nobody accepts my interpretation (I didn't expect they would) nor would I expect my friend to accept it, even though he was there.  So as per the prior outline about communication, what is going on?  I trust that something happened to my friend, even though he has mental problems, and that on the face of it, he is describing a factual sequence of events (including what his interpretation is).  His interpretation (a minor miracle) is his.  My interpretation is different, it isn't his.  So I can't prove any of this.  It is possible, if a TV camera had been rolling, that it would record the event in Jerusalem ... it isn't something physically impossible (as demanded by both atheists and Pharisees).  But his interpretation and my interpretation, only exist in our heads.  To a certain extent, but only because we are both theists, I can understand his interpretation.  That is what successful communication is (and doesn't often happen here between theist and atheist, but does between atheist and atheist).  I don't think he can understand my interpretation (I haven't shared it) because of his modesty.

But it is a free world ... if people want to lay out propositions like Aristotle and argue about the rigorousness of the deduction, or the plausibility of the axioms ... then they are just being Euclid as well.  And these same people will claim that they are completely independent of ancient Greek culture (or at least of ancient philosophers and mathematicians) because they think diachronically, not synchronically.  This is also a part of their individualism, otherwise they would join the group think and be Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics.  But one can be bohemian either way, as theist or non-theist.  People here and I have something in common, it isn't theism, it is bohemianism.

Quote from: doorknob on October 30, 2016, 01:01:18 AM
my experience wasn't negative. It wasn't till after i became an atheist that I realized all the problems religion causes, especially the Abrahamic religions.

putting that aside I do not believe there is a god. There is no evidence let alone not enough evidence to believe in one. And I can't really think if a good reason to believe in one either. God is an abstract concept that humans invented. Nothing more.

Now when I read a bible it looks like a child wrote it, or some one with a very childish understanding of the world. The lessons (if you could even call them that) seem empty and hollow to me now. Nothing profound in that book.

The only way I can make any sense of the bible is how a bunch of primitive people shifting from nomadic foragers listed the rules they had learned to keep peace among themselves.  Don't covet, don't murder, don't steal from neighbors. The deity stuff was just an attempt at enforcement.  And maybe to give everyone a day off work as a sort of afterthought.  ;)

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 04:20:18 AM
The only way I can make any sense of the bible is how a bunch of primitive people shifting from nomadic foragers listed the rules they had learned to keep peace among themselves.  Don't covet, don't murder, don't steal from neighbors. The deity stuff was just an attempt at enforcement.  And maybe to give everyone a day off work as a sort of afterthought.  ;)

Yeah a free day off worshiping god doesn't sound much fun.

Quote from: doorknob on October 31, 2016, 05:25:41 PM
Yeah a free day off worshiping god doesn't sound much fun.

So, you prefer working 7 days a week, for your slave masters?  This is why Jews are always persecuted, by the slave masters.  And why it is an abomination for a Jew to keep slaves.

"God is an abstract concept that humans invented. Nothing more."  Electrons are an abstract concept that humans invented.  Nothing more.  Thinking they already existed, and people discover them, is Platonism.  Take that Thales ... and those numbers, us innumerate people refuse to believe in those either.  Pythagorean harmonies are just tyranny by musicians who have a better ear for music than I do.

Can't we have a day off with out god?

I want to become a pagan they love to celebrate and have oodles of holidays. Any thing to get drunk and have a party. That sounds more like my type of worship any way.

Quote from: Baruch on October 30, 2016, 08:47:30 AM
For me, nobody can be trusted, even if you are a childhood friend.  Ape people are untrustworthy.  I also know that even my own experience is untrustworthy ... so for me, I consider trust and truth to be meaningless.  These are social and rhetorical assertions, not epistemological status of statements.  Most people here are epistemologists ... they play with sentences, and the relationship between sentences, but not deeper.

What is communication?  If you have gone fishing and I have gone fishing ... then we can talk in a reasonable way about fishing.  What happens in speech/writing is we are sending semaphores triggered by your memory, to act as triggers for my memory.  Unless we fished together, these are two different memories.  The content of "fishing" isn't in the semaphores.  Epistemological mutual abuse over the content of the comm channel, is a distraction.  These people don't know what they are saying, if they speak of something they have no experience of.  Now a former theist, who is now an atheist, they might be able to speak of it, maybe even better than someone who has always been a theist, because they have broader experience.

So if we talk about fishing and we have both fished, I can tell semantically, not logically, that you know what you are talking about and vice versa.  That is the test .. not if I can trust you.  If I haven't ever gone fishing, and you talk about yourself going fishing ... yes, I can trust you ... but I have no basis for that trust (other than social and rhetorical assertion).

So let me say something, that you probably don't have direct experience of (or maybe you do).  I know a friend, we studied Hebrew together.  He has gone to Jerusalem on pilgrimage twice.  I made a good will offering both times to help defray his costs (my mitzvoth).  The last time he went, a minor Biblical miracle happened (he said) while he was in the square next to the Western Wall (Temple platform).  I wasn't there.  He told me about it after he got back.  Two years after he got back, I received an interpretation of that supposed event in my mind, out of nowhere, while discussing religion with someone else (a Jewish non-believer).  Nobody accepts my interpretation (I didn't expect they would) nor would I expect my friend to accept it, even though he was there.  So as per the prior outline about communication, what is going on?  I trust that something happened to my friend, even though he has mental problems, and that on the face of it, he is describing a factual sequence of events (including what his interpretation is).  His interpretation (a minor miracle) is his.  My interpretation is different, it isn't his.  So I can't prove any of this.  It is possible, if a TV camera had been rolling, that it would record the event in Jerusalem ... it isn't something physically impossible (as demanded by both atheists and Pharisees).  But his interpretation and my interpretation, only exist in our heads.  To a certain extent, but only because we are both theists, I can understand his interpretation.  That is what successful communication is (and doesn't often happen here between theist and atheist, but does between atheist and atheist).  I don't think he can understand my interpretation (I haven't shared it) because of his modesty.

But it is a free world ... if people want to lay out propositions like Aristotle and argue about the rigorousness of the deduction, or the plausibility of the axioms ... then they are just being Euclid as well.  And these same people will claim that they are completely independent of ancient Greek culture (or at least of ancient philosophers and mathematicians) because they think diachronically, not synchronically.  This is also a part of their individualism, otherwise they would join the group think and be Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics.  But one can be bohemian either way, as theist or non-theist.  People here and I have something in common, it isn't theism, it is bohemianism.

I've had a discussion on the AF.org forum about the nature of concepts and if they are real. Like, if the number zero was more or less real than a positive integer ala mathematics.

I'm an epistemologist in the classical sense and I think the best way to understand the world is in those terms; where the main epistemological tool is reductionism (take something apart, understand its constituent parts and try and reassemble it again). For such a meta-Meta as trying to reduce "concept" into constituent parts you invariably come down to semantics and finally to material<->mind .... stuff. For me, at least, there is no real distinction between making a concept, and the reductionist way of what a "concept" in a brain is. They're just placeholder noises (in this case black pixels on a screen) of us making abstractions of This Experience (to lend a solipsistic term) or whatever you want to call the stuff we think is outside of our sensory organs.

Since we can through scientific tools such as a fMRI scanner see a thought arise in a brain, it's very clear to me that this is part-and-parcel of the Real. So much so, that we can disrupt consciousness directly with an electrode or take drugs to alter it. The drugs are real as far as we can tell, and we have a good understanding how specific drugs alter our specific Experience. But try and explain this to a solipsist, and you'll get the ol' tried "but you can't explain concepts as part of reality" or "abstractions are 'special'". Yeah right. I can reduce abstractions to real physical phenomena and an idea and concepts as existing part-and-parcel of the physical brain. It's just that it isn't what it seems.

There's a small electric and chemical storm in my brain through the neurons and synapses in my brain to produce this sentence, the problem for a solipsist is the unintuitive distinction from the inner workings of a brain to the result of language in the form of coherent (I hope) arrangement of pixels on a screen.

I have Theory of Mind(s). It's an incomplete and rather simplistic theory, but it works - and that's what matters to me.

Quote from: doorknob on October 31, 2016, 10:03:59 PM
Can't we have a day off with out god?

I want to become a pagan they love to celebrate and have oodles of holidays. Any thing to get drunk and have a party. That sounds more like my type of worship any way.

Slavery is a universal human condition .. Lincoln not withstanding.  So no, you can't have the day off.  Get back to work!  Yes, pagans had holidays ... on average every 8 days .. no way to synch with the 7 day cycle of the monotheists (except once every 56 days).  These were also gifts from gods.  Seculars see no reason to ever take time off, unless of course they are independently wealthy, then like their fellow plutocrats, if a plutocrat moves their fat ass, has work been accomplished?

Quote from: Sal1981 on November 01, 2016, 06:33:47 AM
I've had a discussion on the AF.org forum about the nature of concepts and if they are real. Like, if the number zero was more or less real than a positive integer ala mathematics.

I'm an epistemologist in the classical sense and I think the best way to understand the world is in those terms; where the main epistemological tool is reductionism (take something apart, understand its constituent parts and try and reassemble it again). For such a meta-Meta as trying to reduce "concept" into constituent parts you invariably come down to semantics and finally to material<->mind .... stuff. For me, at least, there is no real distinction between making a concept, and the reductionist way of what a "concept" in a brain is. They're just placeholder noises (in this case black pixels on a screen) of us making abstractions of This Experience (to lend a solipsistic term) or whatever you want to call the stuff we think is outside of our sensory organs.

Since we can through scientific tools such as a fMRI scanner see a thought arise in a brain, it's very clear to me that this is part-and-parcel of the Real. So much so, that we can disrupt consciousness directly with an electrode or take drugs to alter it. The drugs are real as far as we can tell, and we have a good understanding how specific drugs alter our specific Experience. But try and explain this to a solipsist, and you'll get the ol' tried "but you can't explain concepts as part of reality" or "abstractions are 'special'". Yeah right. I can reduce abstractions to real physical phenomena and an idea and concepts as existing part-and-parcel of the physical brain. It's just that it isn't what it seems.

There's a small electric and chemical storm in my brain through the neurons and synapses in my brain to produce this sentence, the problem for a solipsist is the unintuitive distinction from the inner workings of a brain to the result of language in the form of coherent (I hope) arrangement of pixels on a screen.

I have Theory of Mind(s). It's an incomplete and rather simplistic theory, but it works - and that's what matters to me.

Metaphysician says ... yet another reductio ad absurdum by the epistemologists ;-)

Quote from: doorknob on October 31, 2016, 05:25:41 PM
Yeah a free day off worshiping god doesn't sound much fun.

It wasn't ... in Puritan New England, you sat at church for the whole day on Sunday.  Today, sermons only last 15 minutes, if you are lucky ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 01, 2016, 07:26:13 AM
Metaphysician says ... yet another reductio ad absurdum by the epistemologists ;-)

Fallacy fallacy.

Quote from: Sal1981 on November 01, 2016, 02:49:49 PM
Fallacy fallacy.

Double negatives are not allowed in English, but are allowed in other languages, for extra negative emphasis, or an ironic way to affirm.

Quote from: Baruch on November 01, 2016, 06:30:10 PM
Double negatives are not allowed in English, but are allowed in other languages, for extra negative emphasis, or an ironic way to affirm.

I don't make the rules.

Quote from: Sal1981 on November 01, 2016, 06:59:51 PM
I don't make the rules.

A slave you are ... I choose to make my own rules.  There is nothing strong about your weak and flaccid reductionism, that doesn't even work in quantum mechanics.

Quote from: Baruch on November 01, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
A slave you are ... I choose to make my own rules.  There is nothing strong about your weak and flaccid reductionism, that doesn't even work in quantum mechanics.

Lol, another Fallacy fallacy. And to pretend to speak about the elegant mathematics of an otherwise unelegant practice of probability.

Quote from: Sal1981 on November 01, 2016, 06:59:51 PM
I don't make the rules.

We all never absolutely not don't not make the rules.  But when we really not don't not agree with how we don't think, in the opposite, it doesn't really not, matter.  Not really is doesn't.

Determinism is for lazy masochists ... when you do something wrong, just say Newton made me do it!

You think determinism absolves the notion of responsibility? How dualistic.

Quote from: Sal1981 on November 03, 2016, 05:55:50 PM
You think determinism absolves the notion of responsibility? How dualistic.

Determinism makes Stepford voters of us all.  It is incompatible with free will.  As a free thinker, it would be wrong of me to not protest.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:30:59 AM
We all never absolutely not don't not make the rules.  But when we really not don't not agree with how we don't think, in the opposite, it doesn't really not, matter.  Not really is doesn't.

That's easy for you to say!

Quote from: Unbeliever on November 04, 2016, 06:11:53 PM
That's easy for you to say!

Actually, I had to really work at that...  Give me some credit!