Atheistforums.com

The Lobby => Introductions => Topic started by: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PM

Title: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PM
Assalamualaikum and salutations to all.  I am a freethinking theist and truth-seeker.  Raised by fundamentalist sola-scriptura Protestant Christian parents in an interdenominational environment, I studied the Bible deeply until it led me to the inevitable conclusion that there was more to reality than the simplistic formulas hypnotically chanted from the pulpits; and, at the age of 20, finding no other recourse, I embarked on a spontaneous, self-directed search for ultimate truth, within myself and amongst the religions of the world, following nothing but my gut instincts and individual rational process. 

My departure from Christianity began with the Bhagavad Gita.  From there I progressed through Buddhism and Jewish mysticism.  Although many things resonated with me and still do among these traditions, the culmination of my quest was my discovery of Islam--the prince of religions, in 2010. 

Upon my testimony of la ilaha illa'allah, Muhammadar-rasoulullah, I achieved a state of mental clarity and stability, initiating the resolution of deeply troubling questions and the establishment of sustained inner peace, and a previously unknown radiating outflow of pure undiluted joy.

Having arrived on the straight path to eternal bliss, and having properly organized nearly all the previously distended affairs of my life, I am now in the phase of branching out, seeking to share what is within, enhance my knowledge through broad interaction, and plant the seeds of felicity among my fellow men.  Joining this forum is a part of that continuing objective in which I hope to enjoy with all the journey of mutual discovery through the Socratic method established so long ago in our civilization.

With that in mind it is self-evident that a discourse among a wide variety of cultures and predispositions is most advantageous to the cultivation of authentic knowledge and it is to this noble end that I invite you, my fellow travelers in Earth life, to join me.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SoldierofFortune on June 16, 2019, 09:31:17 PM
Besides it's true that Christianity is more ridiculous than Islam, It isn't the answer.

I think you are doing what is called in Islamic terminology ''takiyye''... It means roughly ''hypocricy'' or ''engaging in deception''...

You have never been a Christion, right?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 16, 2019, 10:14:31 PM
I am a freethinking theist and truth-seeker.
No, you're a hardcore Muslim. You literally opened your post with the cultish greeting only your ilk use.

You use a lot of flowery language in your post. That alone is a red flag indicating you came here with the intent to proselytize, not engage in honest discussion.

The fact that you are happy with your religion is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober man.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 16, 2019, 10:16:03 PM
Copywrite violation!  You are the freethinking theist? ... no I am the freethinking theist ... and on it goes at the celestial court ;-)

Welcome also.

BTW I am pro-Muslim, because I am pro-everyone.  Even pro-Atheist.  Your path thru theology is remarkably similar to mine.  Speaking of Hinduism ... are you my reincarnation or are you mine?  ;-))
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 10:35:30 PM
Besides it's true that Christianity is more ridiculous than Islam, It isn't the answer.

I think you are doing what is called in Islamic terminology ''takiyye''... It means roughly ''hypocricy'' or ''engaging in deception''...

You have never been a Christion, right?
I had little choice growing up but to practice Christianity.  It always felt like something forced upon me rather than chosen.  I loved the Bible however and the more I learned the more it was apparent that Christian dogma was deviant in certain ways from the teachings of Christ and the Bible in general. 

As for taqqiyya, it is permitted to use deception, when one's life is threatened, to escape danger.  Besides that, dishonesty is forbidden in Islam.  However as you can see I am freely sharing my opinions as is everyone else--one of the blessings of a democratic system.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 10:41:21 PM
No, you're a hardcore Muslim. You literally opened your post with the cultish greeting only your ilk use.

You use a lot of flowery language in your post. That alone is a red flag indicating you came here with the intent to proselytize, not engage in honest discussion.

The fact that you are happy with your religion is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober man.
Yes I am 100% Muslim and also a freethinking theist.  And yes, I am happy with my religion. My flag is not only red, but red white and blue.  God bless America.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 16, 2019, 10:58:46 PM
I had little choice growing up but to practice Christianity.  It always felt like something forced upon me rather than chosen.  I loved the Bible however and the more I learned the more it was apparent that Christian dogma was deviant in certain ways from the teachings of Christ and the Bible in general. 

As for taqqiyya, it is permitted to use deception, when one's life is threatened, to escape danger.  Besides that, dishonesty is forbidden in Islam.  However as you can see I am freely sharing my opinions as is everyone else--one of the blessings of a democratic system.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Correct.  But don't expect a lack of prejudice from anyone, not even me.  I was not raised to be religious.  Became so as an adult.  Many here are ex-religious and were raised as religious.  That is a whole other process compared to coming to religion as an adult.

Christianity has a quite complicated theology, it has taken me decades to partly understand it as an adult.  If one enters Christianity as a child, then as a rebellious teen/young adult, one is likely to jettison this along with much else.  To really appreciated Christianity (or any other vast cultural system) one has to be extensively trained in it.  Islam is quite a bit simpler as a theology.  And makes universal claims that Judaism does not.  Oh the other hand, Hinduism in general, and Buddhism in particular, are much more mind-conscious.  Again, Buddhism can be universal in a way that Hinduism cannot.  Though ethnic Buddhism is quite common, just a ethnic Islam is (the general claim of superiority by Arabs for example).

About myself ... originally I was secular but interested in the metaphysical.  I got into Buddhism in HS.  Then became an atheist for the next decade.  I fell in love with, and married a Christian.  In that context, I merged with her in non-physical ways ;-)  I had to continue to develop, just as she continued to develop.  That was while we were married for almost 20 years.  I found a human god, thru a human.  My humanity had developed from what I once was, I was less a geek and more like the majority.  While still married, I drifted into Jewish Christianity.  It seemed more "rooted" to me.  After the end of my marriage, I resumed my interaction with a wider humanity.  And my "comparative religion" POV strongly developed.  I would consider myself to be post-religion in ways others consider themselves post-modern.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 11:28:03 PM
Correct.  But don't expect a lack of prejudice from anyone, not even me.  I was not raised to be religious.  Became so as an adult.  Many here are ex-religious and were raised as religious.  That is a whole other process compared to coming to religion as an adult.

Christianity has a quite complicated theology, it has taken me decades to partly understand it as an adult.  If one enters Christianity as a child, then as a rebellious teen/young adult, one is likely to jettison this along with much else.  To really appreciated Christianity (or any other vast cultural system) one has to be extensively trained in it.  Islam is quite a bit simpler as a theology.  And makes universal claims that Judaism does not.  Oh the other hand, Hinduism in general, and Buddhism in particular, are much more mind-conscious.  Again, Buddhism can be universal in a way that Hinduism cannot.  Though ethnic Buddhism is quite common, just a ethnic Islam is (the general claim of superiority by Arabs for example).

About myself ... originally I was secular but interested in the metaphysical.  I got into Buddhism in HS.  Then became an atheist for the next decade.  I fell in love with, and married a Christian.  In that context, I merged with her in non-physical ways ;-)  I had to continue to develop, just as she continued to develop.  That was while we were married for almost 20 years.  I found a human god, thru a human.  My humanity had developed from what I once was, I was less a geek and more like the majority.  While still married, I drifted into Jewish Christianity.  It seemed more "rooted" to me.  After the end of my marriage, I resumed my interaction with a wider humanity.  And my "comparative religion" POV strongly developed.  I would consider myself to be post-religion in ways others consider themselves post-modern.
A pleasure meeting you and indeed we seem to have many similarities in philosophical orientation.  Perhaps we are in the same soul family.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:56:59 PM
Yes I am 100% Muslim and also a freethinking theist.
In that case, I'm a theistic atheist about to buy a half box of round square donuts with an odd yet also even amount of Quatloos.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 12:28:21 AM
In that case, I'm a theistic atheist about to buy a half box of round square donuts with an odd yet also even amount of Quatloos.

So, part of the Dischordian religion then.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on June 17, 2019, 12:31:48 AM
Welcome
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 01:27:54 AM
Welcome. I'm a semirecent Christian to atheist deconvert. I abhor religions, especially Christianity and Islam. You may find that a few people here don't like Muslims. I personally have little trouble separating the religion from the person, so I don't have a problem with you yet. Don't think that means I won't call you on your bullshit, though. I call it as I see it.

I agree with Hijiri's assessment. You can't be both Muslim and a freethinker. You might have come to Islam by your own accord, and you may think you have logical reasons for doing so. But by subscribing to a religion, that means you submitted your mental faculties to the authority figures and community of that religion. You didn't break free of Christianity. You just traded one authority for another. You were so close to figuring it out, but I guess for some people, it is easier to change their interpretation of God than to dump him entirely.

Now Baruch, he is what I'd describe as a freethinking theist. He's weird, and it's almost impossible to figure out what he really thinks, but he makes up his own mind. He doesn't subscribe to some holy text or religious leader. He doesn't even belong to any specific religion, and I've seen him arguing multiple times that God is an asshole. I think that makes him a misotheist? I dunno. But my point is that everything he believes, he came up with by himself.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 02:52:58 AM
Welcome. I'm a semirecent Christian to atheist deconvert. I abhor religions, especially Christianity and Islam. You may find that a few people here don't like Muslims. I personally have little trouble separating the religion from the person, so I don't have a problem with you yet. Don't think that means I won't call you on your bullshit, though. I call it as I see it.

I agree with Hijiri's assessment. You can't be both Muslim and a freethinker. You might have come to Islam by your own accord, and you may think you have logical reasons for doing so. But by subscribing to a religion, that means you submitted your mental faculties to the authority figures and community of that religion. You didn't break free of Christianity. You just traded one authority for another. You were so close to figuring it out, but I guess for some people, it is easier to change their interpretation of God than to dump him entirely.

Now Baruch, he is what I'd describe as a freethinking theist. He's weird, and it's almost impossible to figure out what he really thinks, but he makes up his own mind. He doesn't subscribe to some holy text or religious leader. He doesn't even belong to any specific religion, and I've seen him arguing multiple times that God is an asshole. I think that makes him a misotheist? I dunno. But my point is that everything he believes, he came up with by himself.
I find that I am free through submitting my mental and physical faculties to the originator, the fashioner and designer of such faculties.  Some think that in order to be free you must have absolute license, or that freedom is like a blank check to do whatever you please that someone hands you.  However my definition of freedom is that it is a state of being in which one is in conformity to one's reason for existence, which necessarily involves limits, which limits do not cut out goodness but rather cultivate more goodness by the avoidance of harmful excesses to which all are prone...  Furthermore it is not something merely inherited; each generation, each individual, possesses the right to freedom but cannot come into that right or enjoy without constant effort. This is in accord with our essential natures.  Freedom always requires struggle--something in Islam called "jihad".

However I can understand why, not believing in the existence of a Creator, my position would appear as nonsense to you.  Or, assuming that the Allah of Islam stays inside the box constructed around Him by Christians, you would mistakenly imagine Him to be a petty tyrant who allows no intellectual endeavor, or who cannot tolerate creativity.  What I find however is that Islam was more effective in liberating my consciousness then a mere negation of Christianity and religion itself, because it replaced a false idea of God with that which befits His transcendent majesty. He is more, not less, of all those values I hold dear including freedom, dignity and intelligence.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 04:07:16 AM
What about the box that Muslims put Allah in?  The daughters of Allah for example ...

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

G-d has no gender and is all genders.  In many ways, as we understand birth today, a creator doesn't lean male, but female.  The role of Virgin Mary is something Christianity has over Islam and Judaism.  But only if one admits that Judaism and Christianity also arose out of polytheism.

And monotheism has to be taken with irony, since all monotheism is derivative of polytheism ... it begs the question.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 04:09:04 AM
Welcome. I'm a semirecent Christian to atheist deconvert. I abhor religions, especially Christianity and Islam. You may find that a few people here don't like Muslims. I personally have little trouble separating the religion from the person, so I don't have a problem with you yet. Don't think that means I won't call you on your bullshit, though. I call it as I see it.

I agree with Hijiri's assessment. You can't be both Muslim and a freethinker. You might have come to Islam by your own accord, and you may think you have logical reasons for doing so. But by subscribing to a religion, that means you submitted your mental faculties to the authority figures and community of that religion. You didn't break free of Christianity. You just traded one authority for another. You were so close to figuring it out, but I guess for some people, it is easier to change their interpretation of God than to dump him entirely.

Now Baruch, he is what I'd describe as a freethinking theist. He's weird, and it's almost impossible to figure out what he really thinks, but he makes up his own mind. He doesn't subscribe to some holy text or religious leader. He doesn't even belong to any specific religion, and I've seen him arguing multiple times that God is an asshole. I think that makes him a misotheist? I dunno. But my point is that everything he believes, he came up with by himself.

When I say I am a mystic, with alternative access to these ideas that don't rely on conventional means ... I mean it.  Everyone is unique.  I am just more unique than average.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on June 17, 2019, 07:59:24 AM
When I say I am a mystic, with alternative access to these ideas that don't rely on conventional means ... I mean it.  Everyone is unique.  I am just more unique than average.

Claiming yourself to be more unique than other is actually quite average and mundane. ;)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 09:58:52 AM
What about the box that Muslims put Allah in?  The daughters of Allah for example ...

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

G-d has no gender and is all genders.  In many ways, as we understand birth today, a creator doesn't lean male, but female.  The role of Virgin Mary is something Christianity has over Islam and Judaism.  But only if one admits that Judaism and Christianity also arose out of polytheism.

And monotheism has to be taken with irony, since all monotheism is derivative of polytheism ... it begs the question.
Allah doesn't fit in that box either.  In fact, doesn't your tradition state somewhere that the moment you can conceive of what G-d is, that is inherently an idol?  This is consistent with the Islamic understanding.  I would agree with you that Allah has no gender, and most Muslims, if they logically examined their tradition, would also agree that the masculine pronoun is used for convenience only, since we have no personal pronoun in our language that is not gender-specific.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on June 17, 2019, 10:05:18 AM
Lol, it'd be swell if Allah's followers went around saying stuff like: Allah, Xe wants you convert and follow Xis/Xer teachings!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 10:12:59 AM
What about the box that Muslims put Allah in?  The daughters of Allah for example ...

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

G-d has no gender and is all genders.  In many ways, as we understand birth today, a creator doesn't lean male, but female.  The role of Virgin Mary is something Christianity has over Islam and Judaism.  But only if one admits that Judaism and Christianity also arose out of polytheism.

And monotheism has to be taken with irony, since all monotheism is derivative of polytheism ... it begs the question.
Monotheism may be derivative of polytheism in terms of the evolution of human understanding about God, I will give you that; however the most correct statement of Allah is that He is fundamentally characterized by singularity, one-ness & unity, or what we call "tawheed". 

Surah Al-Ikhlas, Verse 1:
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ

"Say: Allah, the One!"

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 12:43:14 PM
I find that I am free through submitting my mental and physical faculties to the originator, the fashioner and designer of such faculties.  Some think that in order to be free you must have absolute license, or that freedom is like a blank check to do whatever you please that someone hands you.  However my definition of freedom is that it is a state of being in which one is in conformity to one's reason for existence, which necessarily involves limits, which limits do not cut out goodness but rather cultivate more goodness by the avoidance of harmful excesses to which all are prone...  Furthermore it is not something merely inherited; each generation, each individual, possesses the right to freedom but cannot come into that right or enjoy without constant effort. This is in accord with our essential natures.  Freedom always requires struggle--something in Islam called "jihad".

Yes, I am aware of the lengths Christians and Muslims take to reverse the definition of words like "freedom," "love," and "mercy." It doesn't change the fact that you've allowed other people to tell you what to think, and that makes you the opposite of a freethinker.

However I can understand why, not believing in the existence of a Creator, my position would appear as nonsense to you.  Or, assuming that the Allah of Islam stays inside the box constructed around Him by Christians, you would mistakenly imagine Him to be a petty tyrant who allows no intellectual endeavor, or who cannot tolerate creativity.  What I find however is that Islam was more effective in liberating my consciousness then a mere negation of Christianity and religion itself, because it replaced a false idea of God with that which befits His transcendent majesty. He is more, not less, of all those values I hold dear including freedom, dignity and intelligence.

Oh, trust me. I don't think Islam is ridiculous because of how Christians frame God, or because of some residual Christian bias. Islam is ridiculous by its own merits. Your god isn't a petty tyrant? What texts are you reading? When Allah is telling people to cut off the hands and feet of people who don't believe in him, that's a clear cut case of god being a tyrant. But let's ignore those examples, because God describes himself as being loving, so he clearly does those clearly evil things out of love.

Your god tolerates creativity? Muhammad was upset when he found pillows with pictures on them in his house, and he's your most important prophet. Any depictions of living things in art was considered evil by him. You know how much art depicts living things? Quite a lot of it. How much more intolerant of creativity can you get?

Your god is for intelligence? What is the punishment for leaving Islam? We both know the answer. You can't claim your god is for intellectual thinking when coming to conclusions that are contrary to your religion is punishable by death.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 12:53:50 PM
Christianity and Islam are totally different, you guys! Really!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 01:39:23 PM
In that case, I'm a theistic atheist about to buy a half box of round square donuts with an odd yet also even amount of Quatloos.
Brother, can you spare a Quatloo?


:-P
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 01:48:23 PM
The role of Virgin Mary is something Christianity has over Islam and Judaism.

Only because the Virgin Mary was practically forced on the RCC due to the popularity of the godess meme that they couldn't seem to get rid of. The hierarchy of the RCC had no desire at all for a goddess figure, but had to accept one, on their own terms.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 01:54:44 PM
Yes, I am aware of the lengths Christians and Muslims take to reverse the definition of words like "freedom," "love," and "mercy." It doesn't change the fact that you've allowed other people to tell you what to think, and that makes you the opposite of a freethinker.

Indeed, a person's "belief" in any God is based solely on the trust they have in those who told them that the God exists, and that they should believe in it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on June 17, 2019, 02:04:26 PM
I am overwhelmed with a sense of complacency......welcome...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on June 17, 2019, 02:57:38 PM
I had little choice growing up but to practice Christianity.  It always felt like something forced upon me rather than chosen.  I loved the Bible however and the more I learned the more it was apparent that Christian dogma was deviant in certain ways from the teachings of Christ and the Bible in general. 

As for taqqiyya, it is permitted to use deception, when one's life is threatened, to escape danger.  Besides that, dishonesty is forbidden in Islam.  However as you can see I am freely sharing my opinions as is everyone else--one of the blessings of a democratic system.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Welcome.
Hate to break this to you, but there is no Truth.  Allah and your scriptures are fictions.  But in this democratic system you are free to believe any and all fantasies you wish.  You see, Bugs Bunny and Paul Bunyan are as real as your god. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 03:43:30 PM
Yes I am 100% Muslim and also a freethinking theist.
This is a contradiction in terms.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Minimalist on June 17, 2019, 03:44:45 PM
Quote
Raised by fundamentalist sola-scriptura Protestant Christian parents in an interdenominational environment,


Ouch, you poor guy.  Well, welcome aboard. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:44:55 PM
Yes, I am aware of the lengths Christians and Muslims take to reverse the definition of words like "freedom," "love," and "mercy." It doesn't change the fact that you've allowed other people to tell you what to think, and that makes you the opposite of a freethinker.

Oh, trust me. I don't think Islam is ridiculous because of how Christians frame God, or because of some residual Christian bias. Islam is ridiculous by its own merits. Your god isn't a petty tyrant? What texts are you reading? When Allah is telling people to cut off the hands and feet of people who don't believe in him, that's a clear cut case of god being a tyrant. But let's ignore those examples, because God describes himself as being loving, so he clearly does those clearly evil things out of love.

Your god tolerates creativity? Muhammad was upset when he found pillows with pictures on them in his house, and he's your most important prophet. Any depictions of living things in art was considered evil by him. You know how much art depicts living things? Quite a lot of it. How much more intolerant of creativity can you get?

Your god is for intelligence? What is the punishment for leaving Islam? We both know the answer. You can't claim your god is for intellectual thinking when coming to conclusions that are contrary to your religion is punishable by death.
Nearly everything you said about Islam is based on a superficial caricature of the religion, courtesy of the anti-Muslim propaganda rampant in the media.  If I can convey an accurate sense of the meaning and purpose of this religion, then I will have afforded you the freedom to have a more informed opinion about it than otherwise possible.  However if your goal is simply to use my religion as a bashing board for your prejudices then have at it.  My mind is mine to use as I wish.  If I choose to adopt the principles of Islam then I have not abdicated my free will or intelligence any more than a soldier abdicates his right to freedom by enlisting himself in the army--despite the fact that certain actions will thereupon become punishable by death for him that previously were not-- for example, disobeying a direct order from an officer in time of battle.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:49:26 PM
This is a contradiction in terms.
Incorrect, and this is an invalid argument:

"You use a lot of flowery language in your post. That alone is a red flag indicating you came here with the intent to proselytize, not engage in honest discussion."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 03:51:51 PM
Incorrect, and this is an invalid argument:

"You use a lot of flowery language in your post. That alone is a red flag indicating you came here with the intent to proselytize, not engage in honest discussion."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I wasn’t making an argument. This is my position. At the rate you’re going, it’s unlikely to change.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 04:02:08 PM
Nearly everything you said about Islam is based on a superficial caricature of the religion, courtesy of the anti-Muslim propaganda rampant in the media.  If I can convey an accurate sense of the meaning and purpose of this religion, then I will have afforded you the freedom to have a more informed opinion about it than otherwise possible.  However if your goal is simply to use my religion as a bashing board for your prejudices then have at it.  My mind is mine to use as I wish.  If I choose to adopt the principles of Islam then I have not abdicated my free will or intelligence any more than a soldier abdicates his right to freedom by enlisting himself in the army--despite the fact that certain actions will thereupon become punishable by death for him that previously were not-- for example, disobeying a direct order from an officer in time of battle.

Your right to believe is not the thing we're disagreeing on. You can believe whatever you want, but if you make falsifiable claims, I'm going to show you how false they are. Of course, Christians have a habit of cherrypicking which parts of the Bible to pay attention to, and ignoring whatever parts are inconvenient to them. Muslims, however, have the convenient system where texts have varying levels of "authenticity." So Muslims basically have an all-you-can-eat hadith buffet, only partaking in the ones that suit them. So if I'm not "taking it out of context," I'm simply referencing a text you choose to dismiss. I'm not playing this game. Fact is, many Muslims believe that leaving the religion is punishable by death, and that the cutting off of hands and feet is a suitable punishment ordained by God. I have seen the texts where those things come from. If you disagree with those things, it is because you are a better person than your religion tells you to be.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 04:04:40 PM
I wasn’t making an argument. This is my position. At the rate you’re going, it’s unlikely to change.
I'm glad to know you have no argument against my position then.  In that case there is no need to change your mind since you adopt positions without arguments, which does not require the exercise of critical thinking. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 04:11:47 PM
Your right to believe is not the thing we're disagreeing on. You can believe whatever you want, but if you make falsifiable claims, I'm going to show you how false they are. Of course, Christians have a habit of cherrypicking which parts of the Bible to pay attention to, and ignoring whatever parts are inconvenient to them. Muslims, however, have the convenient system where texts have varying levels of "authenticity." So Muslims basically have an all-you-can-eat hadith buffet, only partaking in the ones that suit them. So if I'm not "taking it out of context," I'm simply referencing a text you choose to dismiss. I'm not playing this game. Fact is, many Muslims believe that leaving the religion is punishable by death, and that the cutting off of hands and feet is a suitable punishment ordained by God. I have seen the texts where those things come from. If you disagree with those things, it is because you are a better person than your religion tells you to be.
You have made a variety of inaccurate assertions about Islam without demonstrating that my assertion was false.  However one can not demonstrate the inaccuracy of the claims of someone if they are unwilling to examine the evidence one offers.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 04:33:19 PM
I'm glad to know you have no argument against my position then.  In that case there is no need to change your mind since you adopt positions without arguments, which does not require the exercise of critical thinking. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


You believe my disdain for you is born of a lack of critical thinking skills. You are mistaken.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on June 17, 2019, 06:02:00 PM
Old faithful.

Been a while Hijiri. :)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 06:22:02 PM
You believe my disdain for you is born of a pack of critical thinking skills. You are mistaken.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
That's a very well thought-out counter argument to the existence of the God, and the argument for God is likewise simple and logical:

Premise 1: God created humans primarily to be free will creatures.

Premise 2: God, being all-powerful, understood that direct perception of His reality annihilates the possibility of free will since it would be impossible to choose not to believe and obey Him

Premise 3: God therefore created a veil of illusion (the material world) to disguise His all-encompassing presence from humans.

Premise 4: In order to preserve free will it was likewise necessary to provide a means for humans to choose to believe in His existence freely if they should desire it, through convincing yet not overwhelming evidence, and signs or tokens.  The primary evidence being scriptures revealed by chosen volunteers as messengers, a k.a. prophets, and subtle clues in the natural creation. The messages of the prophets were then by and large written down to be spread far and wide.

Premise 5: God has never directly and fully manifested Himself to humanity at large, the exception being certain prophets and other holy individuals, by design.

Conclusion 1: Evidence for God exists in the scriptures sufficient to convince those already predisposed to believe in God, and thus earn His favor, but not compelling enough to prove it to skeptics, those predisposed to disbelieve.  Consequently, those who choose to may believe and experience the reality of God, while those who do not wish, may live in ignorance of His reality.  This concept exists in the Qur'an in Surah Khaf (18).

Conclusion 2: The belief in God is thus a voluntary act of will that does not negate individual freedom, nor short circuit rational thought.

Conclusion 3: I am not required to change your mind or anyone else's, only to make the evidence available in a clear logical fashion to the best of my ability, to provide all with the freedom of an informed choice.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 06:31:03 PM
I have a hard time believing that scriptures provide any evidence at all, for God or anything else. If God revealed himself to someone, then that someone has had a revelation, not me. I still must be convinced by that someone to believe, without myself having a revelation. Therefore persuasion is the means for that someone to alter my belief or disbelief in God, and scripture provides no persuasive argument or evidence that the person even truly had any such revelation from God.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 07:00:21 PM
I have a hard time believing that scriptures provide any evidence at all, for God or anything else. If God revealed himself to someone, then that someone has had a revelation, not me. I still must be convinced by that someone to believe, without myself having a revelation. Therefore persuasion is the means for that someone to alter my belief or disbelief in God, and scripture provides no persuasive argument or evidence that the person even truly had any such revelation from God.
I assume you have read the scriptures-- because surely it would be illogical to reject evidence without first examining it, would it not?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 07:05:08 PM
I've read the Bible 3 times, and studied it, but not the Quran, since it can only be truly read in the original language, and I don't speak or read it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 07:15:31 PM
I've read the Bible 3 times, and studied it, but not the Quran, since it can only be truly read in the original language, and I don't speak or read it.
The Bible cannot be read in the original original language either.  I experienced the Qur'an in English translation providing much stronger evidence than the Bible, and since you've already read the Bible, you might as well try reading the Qur'an. If you wish you can do so here:

http://www.allahsquran.com/free/

Or here:

https://quran.com/

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 07:22:26 PM
OK, but that doesn't answer my point about whether a revelation to a person other than me counts as a revelation to me. The scriptures are merely things people have written, and do not constitute any kind of evidence that they indeed had any sort of revelation from God.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 07:47:06 PM
Old faithful.

Been a while Hijiri. :)
Well of course I'm going to use that essay whenever this subject comes up. I've yet to encounter anyone who could actually debunk it. Observe.

That's a very well thought-out counter argument to the existence of the God, and the argument for God is likewise simple and logical:

Premise 1: God created humans primarily to be free will creatures.

Premise 2: God, being all-powerful, understood that direct perception of His reality annihilates the possibility of free will since it would be impossible to choose not to believe and obey Him

Premise 3: God therefore created a veil of illusion (the material world) to disguise His all-encompassing presence from humans.

Premise 4: In order to preserve free will it was likewise necessary to provide a means for humans to choose to believe in His existence freely if they should desire it, through convincing yet not overwhelming evidence, and signs or tokens.  The primary evidence being scriptures revealed by chosen volunteers as messengers, a k.a. prophets, and subtle clues in the natural creation. The messages of the prophets were then by and large written down to be spread far and wide.

Premise 5: God has never directly and fully manifested Himself to humanity at large, the exception being certain prophets and other holy individuals, by design.

Conclusion 1: Evidence for God exists in the scriptures sufficient to convince those already predisposed to believe in God, and thus earn His favor, but not compelling enough to prove it to skeptics, those predisposed to disbelieve.  Consequently, those who choose to may believe and experience the reality of God, while those who do not wish, may live in ignorance of His reality.  This concept exists in the Qur'an in Surah Khaf (18).

Conclusion 2: The belief in God is thus a voluntary act of will that does not negate individual freedom, nor short circuit rational thought.

Conclusion 3: I am not required to change your mind or anyone else's, only to make the evidence available in a clear logical fashion to the best of my ability, to provide all with the freedom of an informed choice.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Your premises are flawed. They assert God's existence without attempting to prove he exists. You mention scripture, but these are texts written by human authors, and God's existence would still need to be independently proven in order to say that these authors were writing on his behalf. Your conclusions are invalid since they follow from flawed premises, and your argument needs a complete rework.

On the subject of scripture, I have only this to say:

Any text written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so valuable that no right-minded individual would be able to deny the correctness of its statements. These texts would not be open to interpretation, as any interpretation would only serve to detract from the meaning of the original material. There is no text on Earth that meets this description, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that no scripture claiming to be the word of a supreme being is indeed such.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:38:18 PM
I've read the Bible 3 times, and studied it, but not the Quran, since it can only be truly read in the original language, and I don't speak or read it.

Lazy bum.  I do read the Quran, a little, in the original language.  Get to work, or you get to muck out the camel stall.

I also read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  The Chinese scriptures in ... wait for it ... Chinese.  Hinduism in Sanskrit.  I am studying Pali now (language in same family as Sanskrit and Hindi) ... can we "pali" around later?  Early Buddhist writings are in Pali.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:39:32 PM
Claiming yourself to be more unique than other is actually quite average and mundane. ;)

Yes, we are all mundanes.  Or are you from Planet X (Duck Dodgers cartoon)?

And I am alluding to Animal Farm.  Animal Farm is true, in that we can't all be pigs.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on June 17, 2019, 09:42:12 PM
As Hijiri has so aptly pointed out. If a god does not have the ability to convince all.....it is not a god.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:43:12 PM
Allah doesn't fit in that box either.  In fact, doesn't your tradition state somewhere that the moment you can conceive of what G-d is, that is inherently an idol?  This is consistent with the Islamic understanding.  I would agree with you that Allah has no gender, and most Muslims, if they logically examined their tradition, would also agree that the masculine pronoun is used for convenience only, since we have no personal pronoun in our language that is not gender-specific.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Yes, but what is Islam now, isn't what it was 1300 years ago ... in that you can't cross-examine that without a time machine.  Not trying to be argumentative, but I had to cast a little dust in your eyes, since it is so plentiful in Arabia.  Have you examined Bahais ... they are even more universal than Islam?  Just asking.

Yes, in current interpretation, by Muslim scholars, I think Allah is quite transcendent.  Judaism agrees.  Both Judaism (as per rabbis) and Islam are gnostic, in the sense that they can't have G-d touching matter, or an incarnate god scratching his ass.  Pagan religion, Hinduism etc don't have this puritanical POV.  There were metaphysical reasons, idealisms, that force Allah/G-d conveniently into the nether-realms.  Can't have the true celestial Quran interfering with the very non-celestial Caliph.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:43:40 PM
As Hijiri has so aptly pointed out. If a god does not have the ability to convince all.....it is not a god.

Haha ... monkeys aren't worth convincing.  We only care for bananas.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:45:17 PM
Monotheism may be derivative of polytheism in terms of the evolution of human understanding about God, I will give you that; however the most correct statement of Allah is that He is fundamentally characterized by singularity, one-ness & unity, or what we call "tawheed". 

Surah Al-Ikhlas, Verse 1:
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ

"Say: Allah, the One!"

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

That is an idealism.  I disagree, a real idealism is that ... G-d is all and none of the above.  That is what creation means.  Otherwise G-d can only create a very ideal realm.  This is a gnostic metaphysical problem, I speak of elsewhere in this chain (this page).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:48:13 PM
Only because the Virgin Mary was practically forced on the RCC due to the popularity of the godess meme that they couldn't seem to get rid of. The hierarchy of the RCC had no desire at all for a goddess figure, but had to accept one, on their own terms.

Do you hate women too?  G-d is rather feminine in my experience.  Bitchy in fact.

RCC etc had to accept a goddess figure, otherwise the burlesque foisted on the pagans by Constantine wouldn't have taken hold.  It surprises me that our polytheistic ancestors ever accepted such a ridiculous idea as monotheism.  I will take Thoth for instance, the Ibis headed Egyptian god of writing, any day ;-)

The Muslims are quite correct that the religion of the rabbis, and that of Constantine (the bloodthirsty) didn't come from G-d.  Impolite to mention where Islam came from  ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:49:55 PM
Indeed, a person's "belief" in any God is based solely on the trust they have in those who told them that the God exists, and that they should believe in it.

For most people.  But most people are at most, only "woke" to their own level of ignorance.  I was truly characterized earlier in this string (Blackleaf on page one).  There are mystics out there.  We recognize each other.  But no need to evangelize.  What if everyone in town became a milkman, and they all knocked twice ... what would the naughty housewives do?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:50:46 PM
Welcome.
Hate to break this to you, but there is no Truth.  Allah and your scriptures are fictions.  But in this democratic system you are free to believe any and all fantasies you wish.  You see, Bugs Bunny and Paul Bunyan are as real as your god.

Where was the Tasmanian Devil (cartoon) when we needed strong leadership in the 2016 election?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:55:57 PM
I'm glad to know you have no argument against my position then.  In that case there is no need to change your mind since you adopt positions without arguments, which does not require the exercise of critical thinking. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Critical thinking is rude, we will have none of that here ;-))
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:57:32 PM
You believe my disdain for you is born of a lack of critical thinking skills. You are mistaken.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Q_as_God.jpg)
An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

But do you know that you know?  Didn't think so.  That would be philosophy, and we have none of those posting here.

Argument is so dry, like a hot summers day in the Hejaz (ow, hot, hot).  Share your hearts, not your minds.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on June 17, 2019, 09:57:59 PM
Haha ... monkeys aren't worth convincing.  We only care for bananas.
and yet your god wrote a book for monkey eh?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:58:59 PM
I have a hard time believing that scriptures provide any evidence at all, for God or anything else. If God revealed himself to someone, then that someone has had a revelation, not me. I still must be convinced by that someone to believe, without myself having a revelation. Therefore persuasion is the means for that someone to alter my belief or disbelief in God, and scripture provides no persuasive argument or evidence that the person even truly had any such revelation from God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz

My favorite take on scripture.  It's a grocery list (not a recipe book).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 10:02:34 PM
The Bible cannot be read in the original original language either.  I experienced the Qur'an in English translation providing much stronger evidence than the Bible, and since you've already read the Bible, you might as well try reading the Qur'an. If you wish you can do so here:

http://www.allahsquran.com/free/

Or here:

https://quran.com/

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Typo ... "can't be read properly except in the original languages also" ... fixed it for you.  Knew a fundie Christian once, who insisted that the English of the King James Bible is the original language, not Hebrew etc.  He was arguing this with an Israeli!!  Gentile minds ...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 10:04:14 PM
OK, but that doesn't answer my point about whether a revelation to a person other than me counts as a revelation to me. The scriptures are merely things people have written, and do not constitute any kind of evidence that they indeed had any sort of revelation from God.

But all things are revelation, not just scripture.  My hard turd this morning is revelatory that I don't get enough roughage.  I thank G-d for that direct communication, and I don't have to wait for a Pope to tell me what to do.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 10:10:16 PM
and yet your god wrote a book for monkey eh?

Don't insult Hanuman (Hindu god/king of the monkeys) or he might put his "banana" where the sun doesn't shine ;-))

Now I have to do and do puja, before the Burmese stone rubbings illustrating the Ramayana (story that includes Hanuman as best 2nd to King Rama ... rama ding dong).

Thanks to all for the great posts here.  This spice has flowed.  The Spacing Guild won't have to put you in a pain cell.  I am Muad Dib.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 11:08:32 PM
OK, but that doesn't answer my point about whether a revelation to a person other than me counts as a revelation to me. The scriptures are merely things people have written, and do not constitute any kind of evidence that they indeed had any sort of revelation from God.
A revelation to one is a revelation to all.  Would you insist that the Wright brothers personally informed you of their invention before you believed that man could fly?  No, you'd have to read about it in the "paper".  Likewise, you read about divine revelations in the scriptures.  To get to talk to the Wright brothers you'd have to be another inventor or a government official.  But everyday Joes?  Read about it.  Maybe if you're extra devout you'll have a visit from a prophet in your dreams.  Otherwise, I can't help you there, sorry.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 11:49:57 PM
A revelation to one is a revelation to all.  Would you insist that the Wright brothers personally informed you of their invention before you believed that man could fly?  No, you'd have to read about it in the "paper".  Likewise, you read about divine revelations in the scriptures.  To get to talk to the Wright brothers you'd have to be another inventor or a government official.  But everyday Joes?  Read about it.  Maybe if you're extra devout you'll have a visit from a prophet in your dreams.  Otherwise, I can't help you there, sorry.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You are assuming objectivity (universality).  In comparison, we see that is similar and what is different between two things.  To only look at one aspect is typically narrow minded.  There are as many revelations as instants in a human experience times the number of humans.  That is the sum total of human revelation.  Care to write that all down?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 12:27:09 AM
Well of course I'm going to use that essay whenever this subject comes up. I've yet to encounter anyone who could actually debunk it. Observe.
Your premises are flawed. They assert God's existence without attempting to prove he exists. You mention scripture, but these are texts written by human authors, and God's existence would still need to be independently proven in order to say that these authors were writing on his behalf. Your conclusions are invalid since they follow from flawed premises, and your argument needs a complete rework.

On the subject of scripture, I have only this to say:

Any text written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so valuable that no right-minded individual would be able to deny the correctness of its statements. These texts would not be open to interpretation, as any interpretation would only serve to detract from the meaning of the original material. There is no text on Earth that meets this description, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that no scripture claiming to be the word of a supreme being is indeed such.
According to premise 3 the universe is constructed in such a way that belief in God can't be forced upon anyone.  Therefore it would be self-contradictory for me to argue for the existence of God. It can only be a premise, which is either accepted or rejected.   Indeed if you examine my argument you will see that I am not attempting to prove the existence of God, only that belief in God does not violate free thought.  Your conclusion in bold is rejected since it would violate free will, as explained in premise 3.  Therefore the God that you think must exist if any would not allow for free will.  Since we do have free will it is impossible that such a God exists.  The more rational assumption is that if a God exists, it would be a God who allows free will.  Finally, your assertion that my premises are flawed because they assume the existence of God is unsupported.  The only way you could establish that I have flawed premises is by proving God does not exist, and you cannot do that--you can only prove that it is possible to not believe in a God, which I already affirmed in premise 3.  The fact that you do not believe does not in itself prove anything other than that your choice demonstrates the validity of premise 3.  The very nature of the scriptures is such that those who wish to believe will have ample supporting evidence while those who don't wish to believe will be free to do so.  You assume that any God would and must negate free will but this premise is not supported by any scriptures.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on June 18, 2019, 12:47:01 AM
Yes, we are all mundanes.  Or are you from Planet X (Duck Dodgers cartoon)?

I don't claim to be special, or more unique than you. Or anyone else.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:31:31 AM
Typo ... "can't be read properly except in the original languages also" ... fixed it for you.  Knew a fundie Christian once, who insisted that the English of the King James Bible is the original language, not Hebrew etc.  He was arguing this with an Israeli!!  Gentile minds ...
The oldest manuscripts available are in Greek, which is not the original language of the Old Testament, nor the language spoken by Christ or the disciples (Aramaic).  The current Hebrew version of the O.T. is a translation of the Greek Septuagint.  There is an Aramaic N.T., but this is a translation of the earlier Greek.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:31:36 AM
I don't claim to be special, or more unique than you. Or anyone else.

Your choice.  Embrace your mediocrity and homogeneity.  We are all identical clone sterile female drones now.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 04:00:09 AM
The oldest manuscripts available are in Greek, which is not the original language of the Old Testament, nor the language spoken by Christ or the disciples (Aramaic).  The current Hebrew version of the O.T. is a translation of the Greek Septuagint.  There is an Aramaic N.T., but this is a translation of the earlier Greek.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Almost correct.  The Muslim scholarship on the Jewish OT and Christian NT is prejudiced by age old apologetics.  I am willing to concede that the Bible is man-made ... as are all other writings, new or old.  The original intent of the writers is unknown ... it could be saintly or diabolical.

The oldest canonical manuscripts of the OT are in Hebrew, with short sections in Aramaic.  AKA Semitic languages.  The oldest canonical manuscripts of the NT are in Greek.  This is not counting non-canonical writings like the Gospel of Barabbas, Gospel of Thomas etc.  The Septuagint was an early translation of Hebrew/Aramaic books of the OT (done in Alexandria), which is useful for scholarly comparisons.  Early translations of the Greek NT to Aramaic in particular, as well as other evangelical languages is also useful.  Aramaic translations are useful in studying Hebrew words whose definition has become unclear (Targums and Peshitta).

Islamic criticism of Christianity is frequently based on the Gospel of Barnabas ... which is non-canonical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

Aside from mentions of Isa in the Quran of course.

The existence of anyone like the Moses or Jesus described in the Bible is indeterminate.  The Bible is best treated as an inspired fable.  That Muslim criticism is correct.  The conventional religious interpretation of miracle stories is false.  Everything that happens is natural/supernatural.  Not just Jonah swallowed by a whale ;-)  I strongly differ from both atheist and theist definitions of miracle or deity.  I see all this thru the lenses of psychology and anthropology.  The "Truth" of particular cultural shibboleths is irrelevant to me.  On scripture ... fact is, good fictional stories are more inspired than insipid oracles by drugged out prophets.  One should never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The fictional Moses would have spoken both Canaanite and Middle Egyptian.  Hebrew didn't exist until the reign of King David (as shown by detailed etymology of words in the Bible).  The adoption of Aramaic by Assyria and later by Persia, greatly popularized it, impacting the final additions to the OT.  The fictional Jesus would have spoken both Aramaic and Hebrew.  The fact that the original NT (denied by the Aramaic Church of course in their claims for the Peshitta) is in Greek, is a tell.  The NT is a selection of original and edited works by Hellenistic Jews living primarily in Alexandria and Antioch (with additions from Hellenizers in Damascus and Jerusalem).

The original OT of the Christian Church, was the Septuagint.  The OT in Hebrew/Aramaic wasn't fully canonized until 200 CE.  The NT in Greek wasn't fully canonized until 400 CE.  Before and after canonization, much apocryphal writing occurred in both Jewish and Christian communities.  It is problematic if canonization is even important in evaluating these early faith communities.  Apocrypha commonly circulated in the synagogues and churches.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:29:23 AM
Almost correct.  The Muslim scholarship on the Jewish OT and Christian NT is prejudiced by age old apologetics.  I am willing to concede that the Bible is man-made ... as are all other writings, new or old.  The original intent of the writers is unknown ... it could be saintly or diabolical.

The oldest canonical manuscripts of the OT are in Hebrew, with short sections in Aramaic.  AKA Semitic languages.  The oldest canonical manuscripts of the NT are in Greek.  This is not counting non-canonical writings like the Gospel of Barabbas, Gospel of Thomas etc.  The Septuagint was an early translation of Hebrew/Aramaic books of the OT (done in Alexandria), which is useful for scholarly comparisons.  Early translations of the Greek NT to Aramaic in particular, as well as other evangelical languages is also useful.  Aramaic translations are useful in studying Hebrew words whose definition has become unclear (Targums and Peshitta).

Islamic criticism of Christianity is frequently based on the Gospel of Barnabas ... which is non-canonical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

Aside from mentions of Isa in the Quran of course.

The existence of anyone like the Moses or Jesus described in the Bible is indeterminate.  The Bible is best treated as an inspired fable.  That Muslim criticism is correct.  The conventional religious interpretation of miracle stories is false.  Everything that happens is natural/supernatural.  Not just Jonah swallowed by a whale ;-)  I strongly differ from both atheist and theist definitions of miracle or deity.  I see all this thru the lenses of psychology and anthropology.  The "Truth" of particular cultural shibboleths is irrelevant to me.  On scripture ... fact is, good fictional stories are more inspired than insipid oracles by drugged out prophets.  One should never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The fictional Moses would have spoken both Canaanite and Middle Egyptian.  Hebrew didn't exist until the reign of King David (as shown by detailed etymology of words in the Bible).  The adoption of Aramaic by Assyria and later by Persia, greatly popularized it, impacting the final additions to the OT.  The fictional Jesus would have spoken both Aramaic and Hebrew.  The fact that the original NT (denied by the Aramaic Church of course in their claims for the Peshitta) is in Greek, is a tell.  The NT is a selection of original and edited works by Hellenistic Jews living primarily in Alexandria and Antioch (with additions from Hellenizers in Damascus and Jerusalem).

The original OT of the Christian Church, was the Septuagint.  The OT in Hebrew/Aramaic wasn't fully canonized until 200 CE.  The NT in Greek wasn't fully canonized until 400 CE.  Before and after canonization, much apocryphal writing occurred in both Jewish and Christian communities.  It is problematic if canonization is even important in evaluating these early faith communities.  Apocrypha commonly circulated in the synagogues and churches.
Yes your attitude is particularly Jewish.  There is some relevancy to using mythology to get across a moral truth, and I do agree that reality favors the creative approach... This approach doesn't sit well with the scientific mentality of this age, as I'm sure you would agree.  Lol... You do add spice to the conversation no doubt.

Regarding texts I beg to differ.  The Hebrew/Aramaic OT (Masoretic Text) is 9th and 10th century, about 1000 years later than the earliest Septuagint manuscripts.  The original text (Urtext) from which both are derived, is not available. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 08:13:07 AM
Yes your attitude is particularly Jewish.  There is some relevancy to using mythology to get across a moral truth, and I do agree that reality favors the creative approach... This approach doesn't sit well with the scientific mentality of this age, as I'm sure you would agree.  Lol... You do add spice to the conversation no doubt.

Regarding texts I beg to differ.  The Hebrew/Aramaic OT (Masoretic Text) is 9th and 10th century, about 1000 years later than the earliest Septuagint manuscripts.  The original text (Urtext) from which both are derived, is not available. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

All urtext's are unavailable.  Including Muhammad's Quran written with his Arab BIC.  Though the earliest copy of the canonical Quran wasn't too far off from the date of origination ... 24-60 years later (Uthman) to (Abd al-Malik).  Better than the NT which is closer to 150 years to earliest complete manuscripts.  As mentioned, it took about 1000 years for the pieces of the OT to come together (Exodus to Daniel).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran ... current complete copy of canonical version is 9th century CE.  Earliest surviving quote is Dome of the Rock 692 CE.

Great Scroll of Isaiah ... 125 BCE

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Though like I said, rabbis were still debating the official list/text until 200 CE.  Linguistic evidence puts bits and pieces of the OT (Tanakh) back to 1200 BCE

Are you sure you aren't just a conventional Muslim apologist?  There are cracks showing in your argument, that demonstrate closed mindedness to some existing evidence.  Polemnical Method = earliest possible date for fragment or legendary composition for Islam (Christians do the same), latest possible date for surviving complete Tanakh (Leningrad Codex 1008 CE).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 08:42:51 AM
According to premise 3 the universe is constructed in such a way that belief in God can't be forced upon anyone.  Therefore it would be self-contradictory for me to argue for the existence of God. It can only be a premise, which is either accepted or rejected.   Indeed if you examine my argument you will see that I am not attempting to prove the existence of God, only that belief in God does not violate free thought.  Your conclusion in bold is rejected since it would violate free will, as explained in premise 3.  Therefore the God that you think must exist if any would not allow for free will.  Since we do have free will it is impossible that such a God exists.  The more rational assumption is that if a God exists, it would be a God who allows free will.  Finally, your assertion that my premises are flawed because they assume the existence of God is unsupported.  The only way you could establish that I have flawed premises is by proving God does not exist, and you cannot do that--you can only prove that it is possible to not believe in a God, which I already affirmed in premise 3.  The fact that you do not believe does not in itself prove anything other than that your choice demonstrates the validity of premise 3.  The very nature of the scriptures is such that those who wish to believe will have ample supporting evidence while those who don't wish to believe will be free to do so.  You assume that any God would and must negate free will but this premise is not supported by any scriptures.
The only thing this "proves" is that if a god exists, it is not in contact with us, which does not contradict any point I have made. You have still not demonstrated that one does exist, though, only laid out parameters that a hypothetical god abides by.

Except your parameters contradict themselves, because they rely on scriptures you believe were handed down by God, and said scriptures contain instructions on how to live your life which, by definition, is a violation of free will. So you are, in fact, asserting the existence of an interventionist god rather than the hands-off one that you keep insisting about, and I have already deconstructed this idea.

A truly hands-off god wouldn't contradict any of my posts, because I do not consider such a being to be a god (refer back to my post about knowing that gods do not exist). However, it's also clear that such a being is not actually in contact with us, so arguing about its existence is pointless unless and until proof surfaces.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 12:07:53 PM
You have made a variety of inaccurate assertions about Islam without demonstrating that my assertion was false.  However one can not demonstrate the inaccuracy of the claims of someone if they are unwilling to examine the evidence one offers.

Fine. If you're just going to ignore what I have to say, perhaps you'll listen to someone who grew up Muslim, and knows its texts and interpretations inside out. If you are really on a quest for truth, and aren't a brainwashed sheep, then I suggest giving The Masked Arab a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 12:44:16 PM
All urtext's are unavailable.  Including Muhammad's Quran written with his Arab BIC.  Though the earliest copy of the canonical Quran wasn't too far off from the date of origination ... 24-60 years later (Uthman) to (Abd al-Malik).  Better than the NT which is closer to 150 years to earliest complete manuscripts.  As mentioned, it took about 1000 years for the pieces of the OT to come together (Exodus to Daniel).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran ... current complete copy of canonical version is 9th century CE.  Earliest surviving quote is Dome of the Rock 692 CE.

Great Scroll of Isaiah ... 125 BCE

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Though like I said, rabbis were still debating the official list/text until 200 CE.  Linguistic evidence puts bits and pieces of the OT (Tanakh) back to 1200 BCE

Are you sure you aren't just a conventional Muslim apologist?  There are cracks showing in your argument, that demonstrate closed mindedness to some existing evidence.  Polemnical Method = earliest possible date for fragment or legendary composition for Islam (Christians do the same), latest possible date for surviving complete Tanakh (Leningrad Codex 1008 CE).
I don't see myself falling into any particular category, except pragmatist.  I believe, I practice, and argue based on that which achieves a useful and beneficial function.  Islam is extremely pragmatic, and this is one of the reasons it suits me well, I find. Truth is an ideal to strive for yet we cannot expect to really know or understand anything absolutely, living in a world of illusion; all knowledge is approximate.  The best use of time is to constantly strive for beneficial knowledge and to do the maximum good for all, beginning with self and radiating outwards.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 01:13:10 PM
Lazy bum.  I do read the Quran, a little, in the original language.  Get to work, or you get to muck out the camel stall.

Can I divert a river, the way Hercules did?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 01:17:37 PM
What if everyone in town became a milkman, and they all knocked twice ... what would the naughty housewives do?

Drink a lot of milk? Or become cat ladies?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:34:52 PM

Except your parameters contradict themselves, because they rely on scriptures you believe were handed down by God, and said scriptures contain instructions on how to live your life which, by definition, is a violation of free will. So you are, in fact, asserting the existence of an interventionist god rather than the hands-off one that you keep insisting about, and I have already deconstructed this idea.


So then, every time a car manufacturer sends an operators' manual with a new vehicle, they are violating free will?  And the signs on the highway telling which road goes where--that violates free will?  From what I understand, you think anytime instructions are given, this is interventionist and violates free will?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:43:09 PM
Fine. If you're just going to ignore what I have to say, perhaps you'll listen to someone who grew up Muslim, and knows its texts and interpretations inside out. If you are really on a quest for truth, and aren't a brainwashed sheep, then I suggest giving The Masked Arab a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA
Thanks but I'm not interested in pursuing this line of research.  I've seen a variety of Islamophobic pieces and they are inevitably two-dimensional and use silly logic.  I have studied a wide variety of authentic sources on Islam, and am able to see through these ploys.  If you want to learn about it from an American Sheik I recommend Hamza Yusuf:

Hamza Yusuf: The Science of the Shariah https://muslimcentral.com/hamza-yusuf-science-shariah/

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 01:48:22 PM
Thanks but I'm not interested in pursuing this line of research.  I've seen a variety of Islamophobic pieces and they are inevitably two-dimensional and use silly logic.  I have studied a wide variety of authentic sources on Islam, and am able to see through these ploys.  If you want to learn about it from an American Sheik I recommend Hamza Yusuf:

Hamza Yusuf: The Science of the Shariah https://muslimcentral.com/hamza-yusuf-science-shariah/

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

As I thought. Brainwashed zombie.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 01:49:01 PM
So then, every time a car manufacturer sends an operators' manual with a new vehicle, they are violating free will?  And the signs on the highway telling which road goes where--that violates free will?  From what I understand, you think anytime instructions are given, this is interventionist and violates free will?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
False equivalency. The car manufacturer did not create me, they created the car: which, you will note, does not have free will as it was specifically built to be controlled by someone else.

You are claiming that the creator of the universe (whose existence you still have not proven) created life with free will, but then issued instructions to that life to live a certain way, which is a contradiction.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 01:54:19 PM
So then, every time a car manufacturer sends an operators' manual with a new vehicle, they are violating free will?  And the signs on the highway telling which road goes where--that violates free will?  From what I understand, you think anytime instructions are given, this is interventionist and violates free will?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

It has yet to be demonstrated that "free will" even exists, much less that a God must abide by it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 01:57:22 PM
The Masked Arab is, as his name implies, Arabic. He grew up Muslim. He quotes his sources, and is very fair in his interpretations, quoting notable authority figures (who still believe in the texts). You can watch his videos in English or Arabic. Additionally, he makes it clear that what he says does not apply to the beliefs or behaviors of all Muslims. That you would label him "Islamophobic" speaks volumes about you.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:59:20 PM
False equivalency. The car manufacturer did not create me, they created the car: which, you will note, does not have free will as it was specifically built to be controlled by someone else.

You are claiming that the creator of the universe (whose existence you still have not proven) created life with free will, but then issued instructions to that life to live a certain way, which is a contradiction.
However the highway signs do give instructions to free will creatures--then you must think that the DOT violates your free will when the sign tells you which way to go.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:04:02 PM
The Masked Arab is, as his name implies, Arabic. He grew up Muslim. He quotes his sources, and is very fair in his interpretations, quoting notable authority figures (who still believe in the texts). You can watch his videos in English or Arabic. Additionally, he makes it clear that what he says does not apply to the beliefs or behaviors of all Muslims. That you would label him "Islamophobic" speaks volumes about you.
I have also seen material by former Muslims and Arabs and likewise am familiar with the general types of reasons they have.  There's nothing worth my time there.  However if you personally have a particular argument on one particular concern about Islam then I'm open to discussion, if you agree to tackle one at a time. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:07:23 PM
It has yet to be demonstrated that "free will" even exists, much less that a God must abide by it.
It's a topic I've debated, but fortunately Hijiri accepts it as a premise.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 02:08:21 PM
I have also seen material by former Muslims and Arabs and likewise am familiar with the general types of reasons they have.  There's nothing worth my time there.  However if you personally have a particular argument on one particular concern about Islam then I'm open to discussion, if you agree to tackle one at a time. 

I don't think so. You revealed your hand. You're not here on a pursuit of knowledge and enlightenment, you're here to share your beliefs. You're about as open minded as a Fox News host, maybe less.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 02:13:00 PM
The term "God" hasn't even been defined, so none of us really knows what we're talking about when we say that God does or does not exist. If God is love, then if we believe in love then we believe in God. But if God is an omni-max deity then we can be sure that such a thing certainly does not exist, because too many of it's attributes are mutually contradictory.

But until we define the word we're just talking past each other.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:18:05 PM


I don't think so. You revealed your hand. You're not here on a pursuit of knowledge and enlightenment, you're here to share your beliefs. You're about as open minded as a Fox News host, maybe less.

Then you misunderstood me.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:19:41 PM
The term "God" hasn't even been defined, so none of us really knows what we're talking about when we say that God does or does not exist. If God is love, then if we believe in love then we believe in God. But if God is an omni-max deity then we can be sure that such a thing certainly does not exist, because too many of it's attributes are mutually contradictory.

But until we define the word we're just talking past each other.
Excellent point.  For instance Hijiri's God is not the God I believe in.  This is why arguing over God's existence is rather pointless among other things. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 02:22:44 PM
Excellent point.  For instance Hijiri's God is not the God I believe in.  This is why arguing over God's existence is rather pointless among other things. 

According to Charles Bradlaugh, "The atheist does not say," There is no God", but he says, "I know not what you mean by God"; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation."

God is a word that has no referent.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 02:35:55 PM
According to Charles Bradlaugh, "The atheist does not say," There is no God", but he says, "I know not what you mean by God"; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation."

God is a word that has no referent.

That is the Logical Positivist view (lots of metaphysical words have no meaning).  It is hard to know where to draw the line on abstractions.  We can probably agree that car/automobile has a referent.  But does love have a referent?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 02:39:05 PM
False equivalency. The car manufacturer did not create me, they created the car: which, you will note, does not have free will as it was specifically built to be controlled by someone else.

You are claiming that the creator of the universe (whose existence you still have not proven) created life with free will, but then issued instructions to that life to live a certain way, which is a contradiction.

Part of the conundrum of the idea of free will.  Can there be free will, if there isn't complete freedom from physical law?  Even QM doesn't get you out of that problem, since it deterministically says eg: that there are three possibilities ... A=25%, B=50% and C=25%.  The determinism is just one step farther back in the background.

As far as we know, any instructions to life is thru the DNA plus the natural law mediated history of the organism.  We don't have post-facto control of our genetics/embryology.  And we can't choose to "fall up".  We can vary the rate at which we fall down (hang glider).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 02:41:51 PM
That is the Logical Positivist view (lots of metaphysical words have no meaning).  It is hard to know where to draw the line on abstractions.  We can probably agree that car/automobile has a referent.  But does love have a referent?


I don't know, you'd have to define it first. What does love mean? Is it a physiological condition of certain primates? Then it has a referent. Is it an abstraction that has no physical counterpart? Then maybe is has no referent. But even an abstraction can have a referent, if it can be rigorously defined, e.g., "triangle" can be rigorously defined, and so does have referents. But the word "God"? There are as many definitions for that word as there are believers, and can mean almost anything at all. A word that can mean anything at all actually means nothing at all.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
According to Charles Bradlaugh, "The atheist does not say," There is no God", but he says, "I know not what you mean by God"; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation."

God is a word that has no referent.
It has many referents.  It comes from a Jewish contraption G-D which they used to substitute in place of the name of JHVH since they believed His name was too sacred to pronounce.  JHVH in turn was the name given Moses at the burning bush when he asked who was calling him.  It roughly means "He comes" or "He is becoming".  This in turn was an indirect reference to the true name of God, EHYH ("I AM that I AM" or "I AM the Existing") This same being claimed to be the El Shaddai formerly known by Abraham.  El Shaddai meaning "God of the Mountains." El is a contraction of the Sumerian word "Ilu" denoting "lofty one" and is the root of "Elohim" (plural gods) and "Allah" ("the God").  Baruch is partially correct that in terms of human understanding, monotheism is evolved from polytheism. 

However I would add that the Hebrews received and preserved a monotheistic tradition passed on through generations from father to son stretching back to Adam (AS).  In other words, the concept of a single universal transcendent absolute Creator Being has been with us humans since the dawn of civilization, couched as it has been, in a polytheistic context.

The pharoah Akhenaten is an interesting character in this regard; some propose that he and Moses are one and the same person.

https://grahamhancock.com/moses-akhenaten-same-person-osman/


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:04:24 PM

I don't know, you'd have to define it first. What does love mean? Is it a physiological condition of certain primates? Then it has a referent. Is it an abstraction that has no physical counterpart? Then maybe is has no referent. But even an abstraction can have a referent, if it can be rigorously defined, e.g., "triangle" can be rigorously defined, and so does have referents. But the word "God"? There are as many definitions for that word as there are believers, and can mean almost anything at all. A word that can mean anything at all actually means nothing at all.

Definitions ... well, that is philosophy/theology for you.  And since we can see this as a game, and see present and future possible moves, and as actors in nature, we play to win, even if cheating is necessary ...

Sorry, even triangle can't be easily defined.  It was naively defined by Euclid, but non-Euclidean geometry (spherical geometry for instance) gives a broader definition than plane geometry.  Fortunately in math, as the mathematician broadens and refines his abstract definitions, complete chaos is avoided.  But as the abstraction goes up, usability goes down.  Plane geometry is simply more useable than spherical geometry.  Plane geometry is useful for building a house.  Spherical geometry only becomes useful when you do long distance navigation (because the Earth is nearly a sphere).

It is OK to dispute definitions.  That is both useful for brainstorming, and for rhetorical combat.  In math, the peer community of mathematicians is constituted to come to an agreement.  The general public, less so.

Can I define G-d in a way that makes cogent sense to me?  I can, but it took nearly 60 years go get there (both rationally and empirically).  I was unable to accept earlier definitions of G-d (say St Anselm's Proof of God) for the same reason you might not be able to accept my definition.  It is based on my personal experience.  And even if we share some experiences, it is difficult for an organism to change its spots.

So shall we only work with agreed to terms and reason and evidence?  That doesn't leave any space for personal experience.  Subjectivity is ruled out at the start.  It is all science and no art.  Is life worth living without individuality, without art?  I am not ... Locutus of Borg.

Absolute_Agent ... this is what is specifically avoided by atheists, the historical definitions of things are suspect.  Unless one can derive something from the here and now, the evidence is ruled out.  In traditional scholarship of course, the whole history and variance of definitions is meat and potatoes.  Exegesis of scripture depends on it.  This is for example, a typical breakdown.  In tradition, "science" simply means "knowledge".  It could mean the particular exegesis of a certain verse by a certain scholar.  In modernity, "science" only means the current results produced by the current scientific method (which is tweaked over time as well).  By definition, modern science is objective, in a way that tradition is not.

In my case, I am happy to work with either definition (epistemically liberal).  I am not confused or scandalized, that in English, a given word can have more than one meaning ... I simply need to keep clear which meaning I am currently using.  I even feel free to tweak the definition of words in English, as necessary, to convey my own meaning ... in the same way a modern scientist might use the results of science to further tweak the method by which science occurs.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:28:56 PM
However the highway signs do give instructions to free will creatures--then you must think that the DOT violates your free will when the sign tells you which way to go.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


They're not operant on the mind; you can choose to ignore a road sign. They're more like information we act on.

I fail to see your point other than a pathetic attempt at gaslighting.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:31:24 PM
They're not operant on the mind; you can choose to ignore a road sign. They're more like information we act on.

I fail to see your point other than a pathetic attempt at gaslighting.

Gaslighting?  To make someone think they are crazy?  Unnecessary, since all people are insane.  Whether they think they are or not.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:33:03 PM
Gaslighting?  To make someone think they are crazy?  Unnecessary, since all people are insane.  Whether they think they are or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:34:45 PM
They're not operant on the mind; you can choose to ignore a road sign. They're more like information we act on.

I fail to see your point other than a pathetic attempt at gaslighting.
One can also choose to ignore the scriptures. Choosing to follow the scriptures doesn't violate my free will anymore than following a road sign violates my free will.

Qur'an Surah Al-Kahf (18), Verse 29:

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَارًا أَحَاطَ بِهِمْ سُرَادِقُهَا وَإِن يَسْتَغِيثُوا يُغَاثُوا بِمَاءٍ كَالْمُهْلِ يَشْوِي الْوُجُوهَ بِئْسَ الشَّرَابُ وَسَاءَتْ مُرْتَفَقًا

"Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!"

(English - Pickthal)

via iQuran

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting


Quote
gas·light
/ˈɡaslīt/
 Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: gaslighting
manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
"in the first episode, Karen Valentine is being gaslighted by her husband"
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:37:56 PM
One can also choose to ignore the scriptures. Choosing to follow the scriptures doesn't violate my free will anymore than following a road sign violates my free will.

Qur'an Surah Al-Kahf (18), Verse 29:

وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَارًا أَحَاطَ بِهِمْ سُرَادِقُهَا وَإِن يَسْتَغِيثُوا يُغَاثُوا بِمَاءٍ كَالْمُهْلِ يَشْوِي الْوُجُوهَ بِئْسَ الشَّرَابُ وَسَاءَتْ مُرْتَفَقًا

"Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!"

(English - Pickthal)

via iQuran

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Exactly St Paul's opinion, from 600 years earlier.  Let sinners continue sinning (example of mercy, in the hope that they will stop, before at death it is impossible even for G-d to forgive).  Forgiveness only happens for the living in Christianity.  Some modern theologians are universalists however (everyone is forgiven in eternity, just not in temporal life).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:39:34 PM
One can also choose to ignore the scriptures. Choosing to follow the scriptures doesn't violate my free will anymore than following a road sign violates my free will.
So what? It's just a book.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:40:47 PM
Exactly St Paul's opinion, from 600 years earlier.  Let sinners continue sinning (example of mercy, in the hope that they will stop, before at death it is impossible even for G-d to forgive).  Forgiveness only happens for the living in Christianity.  Some modern theologians are universalists however (everyone is forgiven in eternity, just not in temporal life).
Yes-- but in Islam Allah can and does forgive many sins even after death, even after consignation to hellfire; He is abundantly merciful, Ar-Rahman.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 03:43:36 PM
Exactly St Paul's opinion, from 600 years earlier.  Let sinners continue sinning (example of mercy, in the hope that they will stop, before at death it is impossible even for G-d to forgive).  Forgiveness only happens for the living in Christianity.  Some modern theologians are universalists however (everyone is forgiven in eternity, just not in temporal life).

Martin Luther on sin:
"God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."

I guess if we don't sin then Jesus's "sacrifice" was unneeded.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:44:05 PM
So what? It's just a book.

That is what the Nazis said as they burned them.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:44:24 PM
So what? It's just a book.
So it refutes the claim that God sending us instructions is a violation of our free will.  They are provided for our benefit, but God is not forcing anyone to follow them.  Ergo, being a freethinking Muslim is not a contradiction of terms, as mistakenly asserted above.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:45:11 PM
Martin Luther on sin
"God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."

As a promoter of Protestant revolution, and anti-Semitism, Luther had much sin to atone for.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:46:30 PM
So it refutes the claim that God sending us instructions is a violation of our free will.  They are provided for our benefit, but God is not forcing anyone to follow them.  Ergo, being a freethinking Muslim is not a contradiction of terms, as mistakenly asserted above.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Taqdir??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Islam
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 03:47:43 PM
However the highway signs do give instructions to free will creatures--then you must think that the DOT violates your free will when the sign tells you which way to go.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
The DOT didn’t create me either, they merely run the roadways. They do indeed limit my free will by issuing instructions, but this is not a contradiction since the DOT has never claimed to give me free reign over the roads.

You are focusing on the wrong part of my argument. I never claimed that free will was sacrosanct, I said your argument (that God gave us free will while also issuing instructions to us) was contradictory. Also, you still have not established that God is, in fact, something other than a fictional character.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:50:12 PM
Taqdir??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Islam
Qadr (Divine destiny) is a complicated subject but it is understood to operate in harmony with free will.  Jewish Kabbalah actually I find does an effective job of explaining the interplay between destiny and self-determination.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 03:52:46 PM
Part of the conundrum of the idea of free will.  Can there be free will, if there isn't complete freedom from physical law?  Even QM doesn't get you out of that problem, since it deterministically says eg: that there are three possibilities ... A=25%, B=50% and C=25%.  The determinism is just one step farther back in the background.

As far as we know, any instructions to life is thru the DNA plus the natural law mediated history of the organism.  We don't have post-facto control of our genetics/embryology.  And we can't choose to "fall up".  We can vary the rate at which we fall down (hang glider).
Oh don’t worry Baruch, I’m well aware of this. I just wasn’t ready to introduce it into my argument yet. Have patience, ol’ Hijiri is still winding up for the imperial smackdown. [emoji6]
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on June 18, 2019, 03:54:22 PM
living in a world of illusion;


the world is not an illusion simply because one says it is without any type of evidence.

You are not living in a world of illusion...it is spelled d.e.l.u.s.i.o.n
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:55:09 PM



You are focusing on the wrong part of my argument. I never claimed that free will was sacrosanct, I said your argument (that God gave us free will while also issuing instructions to us) was contradictory. Also, you still have not established that God is, in fact, something other than a fictional character.

And I don't intend to, since that would violate your free will...  I never said the free will granted us was absolute either.  For instance we cannot jump over Mount Everest no matter how much we might choose to.  Free will exists within a context of limits and boundaries, and it can be overridden.  Yet freedom of conscience is sacred above all other aspects of free will.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:57:24 PM
the world is not an illusion simply because one says it is without any type of evidence.

You are not living in a world of illusion...it is spelled d.e.l.u.s.i.o.n
Yes, all are self-deluded to one degree or another.  It's human nature.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:58:20 PM
That is what the Nazis said as they burned them.
It means you should use your own brain to evaluate the contents of a book, you know, use analysis and judgement about its contents.

Besides, the Nazis didn't burn any old book - they burned Communist books, or "subversive" books, amongst others that challenged Nazi ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings)

So it refutes the claim that God sending us instructions is a violation of our free will.
What are you even on about? You've blindly accepted a 1400 year old book as sanctified truth, without analysing it. You. Have. No. Free. Will. if you accept it uncritically, in the first place.

Besides, I don't believe in free will. I think we have agency, but that's another discussion altogether.
  They are provided for our benefit, but God is not forcing anyone to follow them.  Ergo, being a freethinking Muslim is not a contradiction of terms, as mistakenly asserted above.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Asserted where? You know what, I don't care.

What I do care about are claims about the world that also align with reality. The other stuff is just entertainment.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:01:27 PM
It means you should use your own brain to evaluate the contents of a book, you know, use analysis and judgement about its contents.

Besides, the Nazis didn't burn any old book - they burned Communist books, or "subversive" books, amongst others that challenged Nazi ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings)
What are you even on about? You've blindly accepted a 1400 year old book as sanctified truth, without analysing it. You. Have. No. Free. Will. if you accept it uncritically, in the first place.

Besides, I don't believe in free will. I think we have agency, but that's another discussion altogether.Asserted where? You know what, I don't care.

What I do care about are claims about the world that also align with reality. The other stuff is just entertainment.
Funny you've assumed that I never analyzed the Qur'an; perhaps what you meant is that you've never analyzed it. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 04:05:44 PM
Funny you've assumed that I never analyzed the Qur'an; perhaps what you meant is that you've never analyzed it. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


I never claimed I had, and I have no reason to either, because I have no intention or justified reason to read it.

I'd much rather read a philosophy book or a physics book than the some political book by a goat herder.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:11:45 PM
I never claimed I had, and I have no reason to either, because I have no intention or justified reason to read it.

I'd much rather read a philosophy book or a physics book than the some political book by a goat herder.
Exactly.  Going on about something you haven't the foggiest clue about.  Next time try reading a book before you submit a critical evaluation, it can really help your case.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 04:17:36 PM
Exactly.  Going on about something you haven't the foggiest clue about.  Next time try reading a book before you submit a critical evaluation, it can really help your case.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


*Yawn*

Critical evaluation on what, exactly? I only write on stuff I have knowledge on. Free will is one such subject, and you're talking about your ass, because you have not even offered a clear definition on free will - and I don't expect to get one from you.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:22:26 PM
the world is not an illusion simply because one says it is without any type of evidence.

Authorities on the subject suggest "reality" is in fact an illusion:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/physicists-suspect-reality-illusion/amp

Ironically enough, Shakyamuni Buddha had discovered this 2500+ years prior. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:23:58 PM
*Yawn*

Critical evaluation on what, exactly? I only write on stuff I have knowledge on. Free will is one such subject, and you're talking about your ass, because you have not even offered a clear definition on free will - and I don't expect to get one from you.
Free will and agency bring up the same definition.  So if you claim a difference, elucidate me then.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 05:01:09 PM
Free will and agency bring up the same definition.  So if you claim a difference, elucidate me then.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


*whoosh*

There isn't any clear definition - that's the point. I don't think there is any free will, remember?

It's because it simply isn't parsimonious with what we know of how our brains work, and how everything follows a causality chain, because everything is ordered, "following" simple physical rules of nature like Newton's gravity, or thermodynamics. These mechanical rules offers no place for free will to exist in.

Agency is simply a better word what we really have, I also call it volition, but it's basically the same thing: The apparatus in our heads making decisions.

Also, I don't think anything is truly random, the closest we get to randomness is unpredictable behavior, like radioactive decay in unstable atoms, simply because of unknown variables/laws or just inability to calculate the behavior of objects (like throwing dice). Even if there was randomness - how would that square with free will? If it was random, it would mean decision-making apparatus would ultimately also be random, and worse yet, we wouldn't be able to get regularity to be able to ascertain the nature of reality because of this randomness in nature, because for nature to be random also means the laws of nature would allow for randomness - this is an important tautology, I think, that necessarily means nature follows an ordered pattern that we call physical laws.

I think what we have is an illusion of free will, ala Sam Harris' definition. We simply, for good reason, have no direct access to the workings for a lot of the inner workings of our brains because our experience of self is phenomenological, IMO. You no more have a will over your own thoughts than the sensation of hunger or the dilation of your iris when entering a dark room. Just as a thought experiment: What will your next thought be? Do you even choose? No. You make decisions, sure, of the choice of what time the alarm on a clock should be set at, or what flavor of ice cream to buy, or whatever decision.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 05:28:34 PM

And I don't intend to, since that would violate your free will...  I never said the free will granted us was absolute either.  For instance we cannot jump over Mount Everest no matter how much we might choose to.  Free will exists within a context of limits and boundaries, and it can be overridden.  Yet freedom of conscience is sacred above all other aspects of free will.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Yes, “free will” is indeed restricted by physics. I have never stated otherwise; indeed I would argue that it doesn’t exist at all, but that is a discussion for another time. We are talking about your worldview right now, not mine.

Unfortunately you have exposed yet another contradiction in your argument. You said earlier that you believe there is sufficient evidence for God’s existence, yet now state that you will not present it. So you now put forth an argument which is contingent on the presence of a God whose existence you not only haven’t proven, but now actively refuse to prove. Since you either cannot or will not back up your position, I am forced to conclude that your position is worthless; but as I said near the beginning of this thread, I already knew this, because I already knew that you had nothing to present. We have come full circle, and it should now be clear to you why I hold your beliefs in total disdain.

You now have three choices. Choice number one: you continue making your futile arguments which I may or may not respond to for the purpose of my own entertainment. Choice number two: you concede the argument, and we move on. Choice number three: you actually make an attempt to prove that your god exists, and we make actual progress in this discussion.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 05:30:40 PM
*whoosh*

There isn't any clear definition - that's the point. I don't think there is any free will, remember?

It's because it simply isn't parsimonious with what we know of how our brains work, and how everything follows a causality chain, because everything is ordered, "following" simple physical rules of nature like Newton's gravity, or thermodynamics. These mechanical rules offers no place for free will to exist in.

Agency is simply a better word what we really have, I also call it volition, but it's basically the same thing: The apparatus in our heads making decisions.

Also, I don't think anything is truly random, the closest we get to randomness is unpredictable behavior, like radioactive decay in unstable atoms, simply because of unknown variables/laws or just inability to calculate the behavior of objects (like throwing dice). Even if there was randomness - how would that square with free will? If it was random, it would mean decision-making apparatus would ultimately also be random, and worse yet, we wouldn't be able to get regularity to be able to ascertain the nature of reality because of this randomness in nature, because for nature to be random also means the laws of nature would allow for randomness - this is an important tautology, I think, that necessarily means nature follows an ordered pattern that we call physical laws.

I think what we have is an illusion of free will, ala Sam Harris' definition. We simply, for good reason, have no direct access to the workings for a lot of the inner workings of our brains because our experience of self is phenomenological, IMO. You no more have a will over your own thoughts than the sensation of hunger or the dilation of your iris when entering a dark room. Just as a thought experiment: What will your next thought be? Do you even choose? No. You make decisions, sure, of the choice of what time the alarm on a clock should be set at, or what flavor of ice cream to buy, or whatever decision.
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 05:37:57 PM
Qadr (Divine destiny) is a complicated subject but it is understood to operate in harmony with free will.  Jewish Kabbalah actually I find does an effective job of explaining the interplay between destiny and self-determination.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Do tell?  Please share what you know of Jewish Kabbah.  I am all peyos.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PM

Unfortunately you have exposed yet another contradiction in your argument. You said earlier that you believe there is sufficient evidence for God’s existence, yet now state that you will not present it. So you now put forth an argument which is contingent on the presence of a God whose existence you not only haven’t proven, but now actively refuse to prove. Since you either cannot or will not back up your position, I am forced to conclude that your position is worthless; but as I said near the beginning of this thread, I already knew this, because I already knew that you had nothing to present. We have come full circle, and it should now be clear to you why I hold your beliefs in total disdain.

You now have three choices. Choice number one: you continue making your futile arguments which I may or may not respond to for the purpose of my own entertainment. Choice number two: you concede the argument, and we move on. Choice number three: you actually make an attempt to prove that your god exists, and we make actual progress in this discussion.

The contradiction is a figment of your imagination.  I did present evidence--the scriptures, which you rejected, as was your choice.  Henceforth, to argue further would violate your freedom to choose, enshrined in the scriptures themselves--which I clearly demonstrated.

Now, if and only if you seek further evidence, from the scriptures, I can provide such without violating your choice.  The choice, you see is not mine, but yours.  As for a logical argument for God's existence, I never initiated such nor would I, and there is therefore nothing for me to concede.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:19:55 PM
Do tell?  Please share what you know of Jewish Kabbah.  I am all peyos.
Rabbi Laitman discusses destiny vs free will in Attaining Worlds Beyond:

Check out this book on Goodreads: Attaining the Worlds Beyond: A Guide to Spiritual Discovery http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/89385.Attaining_the_Worlds_Beyond

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 06:37:49 PM
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


you've pretty much thrown in the towel then.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 07:21:35 PM
The contradiction is a figment of your imagination.
The only figment of anyone's imagination in this thread is your god.

I did present evidence--the scriptures, which you rejected, as was your choice.
I rejected your scriptures as evidence because they are not evidence. They pre-suppose the existence of your god as their basis of validity, which is a fallacy of circular logic. "God exists because he wrote this document that says he exists."

Henceforth, to argue further would violate your freedom to choose, enshrined in the scriptures themselves--which I clearly demonstrated.
The only thing you've demonstrated is a willingness to base your entire worldview on a fallacy.

Now, if and only if you seek further evidence, from the scriptures, I can provide such without violating your choice.
The scriptures are not evidence. I have been very clear as to why. Like all apologists, you are intentionally obtuse about this subject. You know that what you're saying is preposterous, and you're hoping to exhaust me into accepting it anyway. Unfortunately for you, this is an internet forum and I can take breaks.

The choice, you see is not mine, but yours.
There is no choice. I, being of sound mind and body, am incapable of accepting bullshit as proper evidence. The choice to build a proper case is yours. I have made my position quite clear and backed it up where necessary. It's your turn.

As for a logical argument for God's existence, I never initiated such nor would I, and there is therefore nothing for me to concede.
I am well aware that you never promised to provide proof, but you are still obligated to provide it in order for any of your arguments to be logically sound, much less convincing.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 09:10:03 PM
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

What standard definition? You haven't picked one yet. Are you under the impression that dictionaries define words? All they do is list commonly used definitions, often contradictory of one another. To know which definition one is using requires the use of context and  sometimes clarification. These guys have been trying to get you to pick a definition for "god" and "free will" so that the conversation doesn't devolve into a pointless argument over semantics, yet you've refused to cooperate.

Given how often religious nuts like to redefine words in self-serving ways, you should be well aware of all this.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 09:49:31 PM
Rabbi Laitman discusses destiny vs free will in Attaining Worlds Beyond:

Check out this book on Goodreads: Attaining the Worlds Beyond: A Guide to Spiritual Discovery http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/89385.Attaining_the_Worlds_Beyond

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Will check it out.  As a Kabbalist myself (Jewish mystic) I will also evaluate (relative to masters I already acknowledge).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 09:53:47 PM
It means you should use your own brain to evaluate the contents of a book, you know, use analysis and judgement about its contents.

Besides, the Nazis didn't burn any old book - they burned Communist books, or "subversive" books, amongst others that challenged Nazi ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings)
What are you even on about? You've blindly accepted a 1400 year old book as sanctified truth, without analysing it. You. Have. No. Free. Will. if you accept it uncritically, in the first place.

Besides, I don't believe in free will. I think we have agency, but that's another discussion altogether.Asserted where? You know what, I don't care.

What I do care about are claims about the world that also align with reality. The other stuff is just entertainment.

They burned Einstein's theory of relativity, because it was Jewish physics.  Are you sure you want to go there?

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

so you support destruction of freedom of speech, expression, publication ... based on political ideology?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 09:54:51 PM
Seems like circular logic and I disagree with many of the premises, such that we cannot control thought.  Causality is in fact an illusion and you can throw physics in the garbage bin. It's been basically proven a useless model.

You  did not make any clear distinction between free will and agency, so I will stick with the standard definitions, thank you very much.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Cause/effect is cave man physics.  Aristotelian.  Is is rather obsolete.  But on a metaphysical level, it is still used in Eastern religion (karma etc).

Some things won't happen unless preconditions are met ... this is a precondition that is logical (not time dependent) or which is time dependent.  But that is not the level at which modern physical analysis operates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPUL8Zcb2P0

What is happening is transfer of momentum/energy.  And it takes a short time to transfer from the first ball to the last ball.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 10:04:04 PM
What standard definition? You haven't picked one yet. Are you under the impression that dictionaries define words? All they do is list commonly used definitions, often contradictory of one another. To know which definition one is using requires the use of context and  sometimes clarification. These guys have been trying to get you to pick a definition for "god" and "free will" so that the conversation doesn't devolve into a pointless argument over semantics, yet you've refused to cooperate.

Given how often religious nuts like to redefine words in self-serving ways, you should be well aware of all this.
Unless otherwise noted I always use the dictionary definition of words.  Since you have requested a personalized definition, though:

Free Will = the ability and /or right of self-determination, self-efficacy, and the right to choose one's destiny, beliefs, behaviors and attitudes, to be who you choose to be, to be with who you choose, and all other freedom of choice not otherwise denoted.

God: the incomprehensible, the immanent, transcendent eternal absolute sovereign of all worlds and realities, the Sublime, the Self-existent, the Abundantly Merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, Originator; Prime Source (An inexhaustive definition for that Infinite Being which is inherently undefinable and greater than all).

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 10:18:03 PM
The only figment of anyone's imagination in this thread is your god.
I rejected your scriptures as evidence because they are not evidence. They pre-suppose the existence of your god as their basis of validity, which is a fallacy of circular logic. "God exists because he wrote this document that says he exists."
The only thing you've demonstrated is a willingness to base your entire worldview on a fallacy.
The scriptures are not evidence. I have been very clear as to why. Like all apologists, you are intentionally obtuse about this subject. You know that what you're saying is preposterous, and you're hoping to exhaust me into accepting it anyway. Unfortunately for you, this is an internet forum and I can take breaks.
There is no choice. I, being of sound mind and body, am incapable of accepting bullshit as proper evidence. The choice to build a proper case is yours. I have made my position quite clear and backed it up where necessary. It's your turn.
I am well aware that you never promised to provide proof, but you are still obligated to provide it in order for any of your arguments to be logically sound, much less convincing.
"Obligated?" That's a pretty strong word. Maybe I missed that in the forum rules... Seems like you think I'm desperate for you or others to adopt my beliefs.  This in itself is a fallacy.  The scriptures are sufficient evidence for those whose hearts desire belief, but skeptics will always find a way to disparage them.  If Allah wished He could compell all to belief but He has made things as they are.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 10:55:12 PM
Unless otherwise noted I always use the dictionary definition of words.  Since you have requested a personalized definition, though:

Free Will = the ability and /or right of self-determination, self-efficacy, and the right to choose one's destiny, beliefs, behaviors and attitudes, to be who you choose to be, to be with who you choose, and all other freedom of choice not otherwise denoted.

God: the incomprehensible transcendent eternal absolute sovereign of all worlds and realities, the Sublime, the Self-existent, the Abundantly Merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, Originator; Prime Source (An inexhaustive definition for that Infinite Being which is inherently undefinable and greater than all).

There is no single dictionary definition. Dictionary.com, for example, has two different definitions:

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision

2. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Notice one of these definitions are more broad than the other. The first definition is using it in the sense of having the ability to make a choice without pressure. If someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Give me your wallet," your free will is taken away in that situation.

In the second definition, free will is a much more specific thing. It describes a person's ability to make decisions independently from physical or divine cause. In the previously mentioned scenario, a man putting a gun to your head would not be taking away your free will. You still have it. You're just choosing to use it to comply.

This is why deciding on a specific definition is important. These two definitions are not describing the same idea. The definition you gave was not very clear. It sounds like the first definition, but I have a feeling you mean to be using the second.

As for your definition of God, it's not very helpful either. You basically defined him as being indefinable. So let me try to help by narrowing things down. Which of the following traits do you believe your god to have?

1. Omniscience - Knowing literally everything there is to know.

2. Omnipotence - Having the power to do anything. And I'll add the addendum that limits this to what is logically possible, so we don't have to worry about whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

3. Omnipresence - Being everywhere.

4. Being outside of time - Living in every moment at once, rather than from moment to moment like us.

5. Benevolence - Wanting to do no harm, and to do good by others.

6. Jealousy - Wanting attention, and being upset when others get it instead.

7. Patience - Tolerating others, withholding anger, when most would not.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 11:24:47 PM
There is no single dictionary definition. Dictionary.com, for example, has two different definitions:

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision

2. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Notice one of these definitions are more broad than the other. The first definition is using it in the sense of having the ability to make a choice without pressure. If someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Give me your wallet," your free will is taken away in that situation.

In the second definition, free will is a much more specific thing. It describes a person's ability to make decisions independently from physical or divine cause. In the previously mentioned scenario, a man putting a gun to your head would not be taking away your free will. You still have it. You're just choosing to use it to comply.

This is why deciding on a specific definition is important. These two definitions are not describing the same idea. The definition you gave was not very clear. It sounds like the first definition, but I have a feeling you mean to be using the second.

As for your definition of God, it's not very helpful either. You basically defined him as being indefinable. So let me try to help by narrowing things down. Which of the following traits do you believe your god to have?

1. Omniscience - Knowing literally everything there is to know.

2. Omnipotence - Having the power to do anything. And I'll add the addendum that limits this to what is logically possible, so we don't have to worry about whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.

3. Omnipresence - Being everywhere.

4. Being outside of time - Living in every moment at once, rather than from moment to moment like us.

5. Benevolence - Wanting to do no harm, and to do good by others.

6. Jealousy - Wanting attention, and being upset when others get it instead.

7. Patience - Tolerating others, withholding anger, when most would not.
Definitions are fluid things, always in motion, like life.  When something stops changing, it dies, including language.  This is why I avoid them until it becomes unavoidable.  Like schroedinger's cat, not defining things allows one to layer multiple simultaneous layers of meaning into one's communication, focusing on that which is pertinent the moment it naturally presents itself.

All the attributes mentioned except 6, I would ascribe to God, with the caveat that the list is not comprehensive, as a defining characteristic of God is to be outside all human comprehension.  This follows logically as He is the Creator of comprehension itself.  This is part of His attribute of transcendence.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 12:35:25 AM
The Jewish scripture does describe G-d as jealous!  But all writing, all scripture, is a dead thing, compared to the living idea.  This is why in the book Fahrenheit 451, people fight censorship, by memorizing the book, they become the book.  A religion starts to die, as soon as it is put to paper.  The living experience of the religion, that is the living thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMBu6RUMJg0

What are words?  Semaphores that allow two sentient beings to communicate.  If I have been fishing, and you have been fishing, then even though we didn't go fishing together, we can share our fishing stories.  If either of us hasn't gone fishing, then the dictionary definition is weak soup.  Yes, actual thoughts are living things, because they come from living beings.  Words are tools of expression, they aren't the things themselves.  The word "fish" isn't alive, it doesn't stink dead in the sun shine.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 01:18:43 AM
The Jewish scripture does describe G-d as jealous!  But all writing, all scripture, is a dead thing, compared to the living idea.  This is why in the book Fahrenheit 451, people fight censorship, by memorizing the book, they become the book.  A religion starts to die, as soon as it is put to paper.  The living experience of the religion, that is the living thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMBu6RUMJg0

What are words?  Semaphores that allow two sentient beings to communicate.  If I have been fishing, and you have been fishing, then even though we didn't go fishing together, we can share our fishing stories.  If either of us hasn't gone fishing, then the dictionary definition is weak soup.  Yes, actual thoughts are living things, because they come from living beings.  Words are tools of expression, they aren't the things themselves.  The word "fish" isn't alive, it doesn't stink dead in the sun shine.
Yes, but today G-d has no other gods to be jealous of since all the others have been destroyed, thanks to Islam.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 03:55:58 AM
Bad news ... Michael Laitman isn't an ordained rabbi.  He does run the largest cult group in Israel ... it takes more than a good beard ;-(

https://www.en.applebaum.org.il/what-is-bnei-baruch/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI39LlyYf14gIViMVkCh0mGAIbEAAYASAAEgJcG_D_BwE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Laitman

I have a book by this guy ... an actual ordained rabbi ...

https://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/1068/jewish/Laibl-Wolf.htm

Lots of videos on YouTube.

There have been some great rabbis in my time, but most of them have passed on.  Historically, I like Rabbi Nachman of Breslov who lived 200 years ago.  Here is ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K2x5YXw9GI

Abraham Joshua Heschel was the real deal.

Left you a gift in the Islam section of this web site.  there is a lot of truth in Islam ;-)  Particularly Sufis.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 05:00:34 AM
Bad news ... Michael Laitman isn't an ordained rabbi.  He does run the largest cult group in Israel ... it takes more than a good beard ;-(

https://www.en.applebaum.org.il/what-is-bnei-baruch/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI39LlyYf14gIViMVkCh0mGAIbEAAYASAAEgJcG_D_BwE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Laitman

I have a book by this guy ... an actual ordained rabbi ...

https://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/1068/jewish/Laibl-Wolf.htm

Lots of videos on YouTube.

There have been some great rabbis in my time, but most of them have passed on.  Historically, I like Rabbi Nachman of Breslov who lived 200 years ago.  Here is ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K2x5YXw9GI

Abraham Joshua Heschel was the real deal.

Left you a gift in the Islam section of this web site.  there is a lot of truth in Islam ;-)  Particularly Sufis.
Rav. Yeshua was also a "cult" leader; more often than not the vehicle of truth is an outcast from the establishment.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 05:53:48 AM
Rav. Yeshua was also a "cult" leader; more often than not the vehicle of truth is an outcast from the establishment.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

True.  If you don't consider "cult" to be pejorative.  AJH was one of the most reasonable yet religious rabbis of the 20th century.  Not every outsider is a bringer of light, Lenin for example.

Another real deal ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z_1dING_uI

There is just one major thing I have against Islam ... the hatred they have for the human voice, hatred of music.  Music is only allowed in Islam because they can't kill it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on June 19, 2019, 09:48:29 AM


God: the incomprehensible, the immanent, transcendent eternal absolute sovereign of all worlds and realities, the Sublime, the Self-existent, the Abundantly Merciful, omnipotent, omniscient, Originator; Prime Source (An inexhaustive definition for that Infinite Being which is inherently undefinable and greater than all).

That is a very slippery definition of a god.  I see no evidence who-so-ever of that type of being or force to exist.  But I do see evidence to the opposite.  For example--you say god is 'Abundantly Merciful'.  Let's look at nature.  I don't see mercy reflected there.  I'm sure your god has a provision against killing, yet he created humans so that they had to kill to live; they have no choice.  Plants live thru the process of photosynthesis and therefore gather all their energy from the sun.  All animals have to either kill plants or other animals to gather energy to live.  Spiders kill and eat flies alive; lions kill and eat gazelles--I see much pain and suffering in that process.  How can a merciful god or entity produce such a system when it could have designed it in any way it chose to?  I count that as evidence against there being such a thing. 

Your god does not exist and was proposed by people who knew how to exploit your type of god (or any god for that matter).  Your scriptures (and all others) are a man made fiction as is your god.   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 10:46:21 AM
And I don't intend to [present evidence], since that would violate your free will...
I did present evidence--the scriptures, which you rejected, as was your choice.
So, you both refuse to present evidence for the existence of God, and then then say you did present evidence for the existence of God, which is the scriptures. Sorry, chum, that's a contradiction. You either don't want to violate our free wills, or you do and have actively tried to violate our free wills. You either don't want to present evidence, or you do and have done so.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 10:55:59 AM
Definitions are fluid things, always in motion, like life.  When something stops changing, it dies, including language.  This is why I avoid them until it becomes unavoidable.  Like schroedinger's cat, not defining things allows one to layer multiple simultaneous layers of meaning into one's communication, focusing on that which is pertinent the moment it naturally presents itself.

All the attributes mentioned except 6, I would ascribe to God, with the caveat that the list is not comprehensive, as a defining characteristic of God is to be outside all human comprehension.  This follows logically as He is the Creator of comprehension itself.  This is part of His attribute of transcendence.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how Christians tend to describe God too. Some of them know that the Bible clearly states that God is jealous, and try to redefine the word so it doesn't seem as bad, but most won't outright admit that the Old Testament God was very easily offended by his polytheistic Hebrew followers when they'd worship other gods in addition to him.

I think you forgot to pick a definition for free will.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:54:21 AM
So, you both refuse to present evidence for the existence of God, and then then say you did present evidence for the existence of God, which is the scriptures. Sorry, chum, that's a contradiction. You either don't want to violate our free wills, or you do and have actively tried to violate our free wills. You either don't want to present evidence, or you do and have done so.
No what I referred to is "I don't intend to [make an argument for the existence of God]".  I presented evidence for God but it was part of a different argument, over free will, in which the existence of God was a premise, not a conclusion.  As previously stated the existence of God, in my communication, is always a premise, never an argument.  An argument implies compulsion, thus, to argue for God's existence would violate the free will of someone who had not accepted it as a premise.  As a premise though, it can be either accepted or rejected freely.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:58:38 AM
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly how Christians tend to describe God too. Some of them know that the Bible clearly states that God is jealous, and try to redefine the word so it doesn't seem as bad, but most won't outright admit that the Old Testament God was very easily offended by his polytheistic Hebrew followers when they'd worship other gods in addition to him.

I think you forgot to pick a definition for free will.
God has no reason to be jealous since all false gods have been destroyed.  I didn't forget to pick a definition for free will.  I gave you my definition, and what you suggested as two definitions is merely the difference between free will, and the doctrine of free will, an unnecessary distinction.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:03:22 PM


How can a merciful god or entity produce such a system when it could have designed it in any way it chose to?

Did you want an answer to this question or was it merely rhetorical?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:07:56 PM
True.  If you don't consider "cult" to be pejorative.  AJH was one of the most reasonable yet religious rabbis of the 20th century.  Not every outsider is a bringer of light, Lenin for example.

Another real deal ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z_1dING_uI

There is just one major thing I have against Islam ... the hatred they have for the human voice, hatred of music.  Music is only allowed in Islam because they can't kill it.
When one delves into sincere Islamic worship the love for Allah is so intense that music becomes an unwanted distraction.  Furthermore it promotes much corruption.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 19, 2019, 12:27:13 PM

Did you want an answer to this question or was it merely rhetorical?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



It was a question, and since you can't answer, CHECKMATE.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:30:40 PM


and since you can't answer.
This is an incorrect assertion.  Do you still desire an answer?



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 19, 2019, 01:18:48 PM
This is an incorrect assertion.  Do you still desire an answer?



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



You don't have an answer, otherwise you would have given it a long time ago. You're just a troll looking for attention. I guess your mother did not give you enough attention. Pity.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 01:25:10 PM
You don't have an answer, otherwise you would have given it a long time ago. You're just a troll looking for attention. I guess your mother did not give you enough attention. Pity.
If you insist on making unfounded assumptions then I see no possibility for any productive discussion, and I can only conclude that you are not actually looking for an answer to that question.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 01:51:07 PM
So, God (Allah) is omniscient? I've heard this before, from people who also believe that God (Allah) is absolutely free, and can do anything he wants to do because of his omnipotence.

But, if God (Allah) is omniscient, then he must have known, from eternity past, everything he would ever do and everything he would not ever do. Having that knowledge means he can never do anything he's always known he would not ever do, and he can never not do anything that he's always know he would do. He can never make a choice, because his entire existence and all of his actions have been foreseen by his omniscience from eternity past.

So God (Allah) cannot be free, absolutely or otherwise.

So a God that is both omniscient and free is a contradiction and so cannot exist.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 01:53:04 PM
God has no reason to be jealous since all false gods have been destroyed. 


I don't believe in any of those other Gods, either, any more than you do. I just go one step further and jettison belief in that final God as well.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 01:57:20 PM
So, God (Allah) is omniscient? I've heard this before, from people who also believe that God (Allah) is absolutely free, and can do anything he wants to do because of his omnipotence.

But, if God (Allah) is omniscient, then he must have known, from eternity past, everything he would ever do and everything he would not ever do. Having that knowledge means he can never do anything he's always known he would not ever do, and he can never not do anything that he's always know he would do. He can never make a choice, because his entire existence and all of his actions have been foreseen by his omniscience from eternity past.

So God (Allah) cannot be free, absolutely or otherwise.

So a God that is both omniscient and free is a contradiction and so cannot exist.

This logical conundrum is easily explained.  Allah, being omnipotent, is capable of self-limitation, and self-obligation.   For instance He limits the expression of retribution in favor of mercy. Omniscience does not negate freedom of choice any more than knowing you like ice cream and will choose the pistachio flavor when you get the the shop undermines your freedom to do so.

As you can see the whole paradox exists due to faulty premises alone.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 02:02:43 PM
Your God is nothing but a word game, designed to make you feel better about yourself. How can you not feel great, given that the most powerful entity in the universe loves you and cares greatly about your well being? Look how important you are!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 02:06:20 PM
No what I referred to is "I don't intend to [make an argument for the existence of God]".  I presented evidence for God but it was part of a different argument, over free will, in which the existence of God was a premise, not a conclusion.  As previously stated the existence of God, in my communication, is always a premise, never an argument.
Okay, but you're not going to get anywhere presenting it as a premise. We don't share it. You're not going to make any headway unless you build your arguments off things we agree with. There is no reason to accept the conclusion of a logical argument with a disputed premise.

Quote
An argument implies compulsion, thus, to argue for God's existence would violate the free will of someone who had not accepted it as a premise.  As a premise though, it can be either accepted or rejected freely.
This bogus, "I don't wanna violate your free will" argument is the most bullshit argument I've ever heard of and it won't fly. It doesn't work for why God won't show us himself, and it won't work for why you won't present your best argument either. It is clear that nothing you have in that head of yours destroyed your free will, so what makes you think that it can destroy ours?

Seriously, don't be worried about our pweschous widdle fwee weww. Lay it on us, best you got.

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/x300/55307480/whats-the-matter-colonel-sandurz-chicken.jpg)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 02:18:41 PM
When one delves into sincere Islamic worship the love for Allah is so intense that music becomes an unwanted distraction.  Furthermore it promotes much corruption.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Very Muslim of you.  Some Christians and some Jews also oppose singing etc as part of worship.  They have similar puritanical feelings.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 02:22:27 PM
Okay, but you're not going to get anywhere presenting it as a premise. We don't share it. You're not going to make any headway unless you build your arguments off things we agree with. There is no reason to accept the conclusion of a logical argument with a disputed premise.
This bogus, "I don't wanna violate your free will" argument is the most bullshit argument I've ever heard of and it won't fly. It doesn't work for why God won't show us himself, and it won't work for why you won't present your best argument either. It is clear that nothing you have in that head of yours destroyed your free will, so what makes you think that it can destroy ours?

Seriously, don't be worried about our pweschous widdle fwee weww. Lay it on us, best you got.

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/x300/55307480/whats-the-matter-colonel-sandurz-chicken.jpg)
I don't need or want to "get anywhere." I am aware that the existence of God cannot be proven, by design, and nor does it need to be.  Likewise it cannot be disproven.  It is not necessary to conclude a premise as true in order to evaluate the validity of an argument. The reason my beliefs don't violate my free will is because l choose them without any compulsion.  If you or anyone wanted to you could examine the scriptures and choose the same.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 02:24:41 PM
Your God is nothing but a word game, designed to make you feel better about yourself. How can you not feel great, given that the most powerful entity in the universe loves you and cares greatly about your well being? Look how important you are!
You're welcome to your opinion, but this is not the case. God is very real and I am a personal witness of this.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on June 19, 2019, 02:31:19 PM

Did you want an answer to this question or was it merely rhetorical?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Answer if you wish.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SoldierofFortune on June 19, 2019, 02:38:03 PM
Because Allah couldn't explain himself clearly and sufficiently in Quran, so this duty is his believers.
If the existence of Allah were clear enough, so any thinking man could easily believe that he exists.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: Ernestine L. Rose, in A Defense of Atheism, 1878
If belief in God were natural, there would be no need to teach it. Children would possess it as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the heathen as much as the missionary. We don't have to teach the general elements of human nature - the five senses, seeing hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so would religion be if it were natural, but it is not. On the contrary, it is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. Even as it is, they are great skeptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon by which religion has ever been propagated, namely, fear - fear of the lash of public opinion here, and of a jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No; there is no religion in human nature, nor human nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the result of education, while atheism is natural, and, were the human mind not perverted and bewildered by the mysteries and follies of superstition, would be universal.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: Peter William Atkins
Religion closes off the central questions of existence by attempting to dissuade us from further enquiry by asserting that we cannot ever hope to comprehend. We are, religion asserts, simply too puny. Through fear of being shown to be vacuous, religion denies the awesome power of human comprehension. It seeks to thwart, by encouraging awe in things unseen, the disclosure of the emptiness of faith. Religion, in contrast to science, deploys the repugnant view that the world is too big for our understanding. Science, in contrast to religion, opens up the great questions of being to rational discussion, to discussion with the prospect of resolution and elucidation. Science, above all, respects the power of the human intellect. Science is the apotheosis of the intellect and the consummation of the Rennaissance. Science respects more deeply the potential of humanity than religion ever can.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on June 19, 2019, 03:13:43 PM
You're welcome to your opinion, but this is not the case. God is very real and I am a personal witness of this.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I'm sure god is very real to you.  But that proves nothing to anybody in the world--except you.  Your personal belief is not proof of anything (other than you have beliefs) to anybody but you.  And that is your right--to believe as you wish.  Well, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me. 

One of the interesting observations I've made is that even among those who believe in the same god, no two believers hold the same beliefs as to what god does and does not do, of what god is and is not.  I would imagine your beliefs fall in line with that.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 03:15:24 PM


I'm sure god is very real to you.  But that proves nothing to anybody in the world--except you.  Your personal belief is not proof of anything (other than you have beliefs) to anybody but you.  And that is your right--to believe as you wish.  Well, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me. 

One of the interesting observations I've made is that even among those who believe in the same god, no two believers hold the same beliefs as to what god does and does not do, of what god is and is not.  I would imagine your beliefs fall in line with that.

Correct.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 03:26:26 PM
It is clear that nothing you have in that head of yours destroyed your free will,

Thank you for that as it refutes an earlier contention by Hijiri and Sal1981 that my being a freethinking Muslim theist was a contradiction of terms.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 03:35:58 PM
That is a very slippery definition of a god.  I see no evidence who-so-ever of that type of being or force to exist.  But I do see evidence to the opposite.  For example--you say god is 'Abundantly Merciful'.  Let's look at nature.  I don't see mercy reflected there.  I'm sure your god has a provision against killing, yet he created humans so that they had to kill to live; they have no choice.  Plants live thru the process of photosynthesis and therefore gather all their energy from the sun.  All animals have to either kill plants or other animals to gather energy to live.  Spiders kill and eat flies alive; lions kill and eat gazelles--I see much pain and suffering in that process.  How can a merciful god or entity produce such a system when it could have designed it in any way it chose to?  I count that as evidence against there being such a thing. 

Your god does not exist and was proposed by people who knew how to exploit your type of god (or any god for that matter).  Your scriptures (and all others) are a man made fiction as is your god.
If you look you will see many signs of Allah's mercy.  The rain, the love of a mother, the comfort of your bed... Why pain?  Pain is a mercy as it keeps you alive.  Without pain the body would disintegrate through lack of attention.  It's not fun, but it has a merciful outcome.  Why animals kill and people hurt one another?  Free will.  Its better to live in freedom with the possibility of experiencing the negative choices of other free will creatures against you then to live trapped in a perfect world without the freedom of choice.  This is a mercy.   In order to mitigate the harmful actions of free will creatures against others, Allah gave us additional mercy in the form of laws and commandments--to the effect of love one another and do good to others, etc.  We can choose now to follow a course where these bad things don't happen, we have the necessary tools and information.  This is mercy upon mercy.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 03:43:07 PM
Quote from: Sir David Attenborough
I don't know [why we're here]. People sometimes say to me, 'Why don't you admit that the humming bird, the butterfly, the Bird of Paradise are proof of the wonderful things produced by Creation?' And I always say, well, when you say that, you've also got to think of a little boy sitting on a river bank, like here, in West Africa, that's got a little worm, a living organism, in his eye and boring through the eyeball and is slowly turning him blind. The Creator God that you believe in, presumably, also made that little worm. Now I personally find that difficult to accommodate...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Draconic Aiur on June 19, 2019, 03:53:44 PM
Thank you for that as it refutes an earlier contention by Hijiri and Sal1981 that my being a freethinking Muslim theist was a contradiction of terms.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Since when do the the words 'freethinking' and 'Muslim' go together?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on June 19, 2019, 04:06:42 PM
Does seem rather an oxymoron, huh?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:10:30 PM
When one delves into sincere Islamic worship the love for Allah is so intense that music becomes an unwanted distraction.  Furthermore it promotes much corruption.

Again...your religion is pro-creativity? I guess in the same way it's for intellectual free thinking. Which is not at all.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 04:21:57 PM
Again...your religion is pro-creativity? I guess in the same way it's for intellectual free thinking. Which is not at all.
There are many ways to express creativity other than music.  In fact music hinders creativity by entraining the brain into a low-level trance state.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:26:25 PM
There are many ways to express creativity other than music.  In fact music hinders creativity by entraining the brain into a semi-trance state.

A semi-trance state? You mean like prayer? Funny, when I was Christian, music was what made me feel close to God. Your arbitrary rules won't even let you enjoy it. What a pitiable existence where you're not even allowed one of life's most basic of pleasures.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 04:29:22 PM
Since when do the the words 'freethinking' and 'Muslim' go together?
There is more freedom of thought in Islam than any other religion, or philosophical or scientific system of thought. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 04:33:17 PM
A semi-trance state? You mean like prayer? Funny, when I was Christian, music was what made me feel close to God. Your arbitrary rules won't even let you enjoy it. What a pitiable existence where you're not even allowed one of life's most basic of pleasures.
Prayer and meditation can lead to high-level trance states in which the entire intellectual spectrum of activity is engaged, without artificial external constraints.  Music produces a very low-level trance that primarily engages the lower animal impulses, while drowning out more refined intellectual activity.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:56:50 PM
There is more freedom of thought in Islam than any other religion, or philosophical or scientific system of thought. 

That's not saying much. Also, I highly doubt that Islam promotes more freedom of thought than the Eastern religions, such as Buddhism. Don't think I didn't notice how you bragged about how Muslims murdered Pagans to the point of their religions nearly going extinct. Freedom of thought. Give me a break.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on June 19, 2019, 06:19:33 PM

Correct.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Thank you.  It is interesting to know that your beliefs are different than any other believer and that you realize that.  How astute of you.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 07:56:14 PM
There are many ways to express creativity other than music.  In fact music hinders creativity by entraining the brain into a low-level trance state.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Which Sufi sheik taught you that?  You are aware that Salafists consider Sufism, even orthodox Sufism to be ... bid'ah (heresy).  Punishable by death.  Most famous in our time being the fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 07:57:29 PM
A semi-trance state? You mean like prayer? Funny, when I was Christian, music was what made me feel close to God. Your arbitrary rules won't even let you enjoy it. What a pitiable existence where you're not even allowed one of life's most basic of pleasures.

IMHO ... Islamic rejection of melodic music ... is because of its association with disreputable people (theater, musicians, courtesans).  Pre-Muhammad Arabic literature was heroic and romantic verse, most of which was destroyed on the advent of Islam ... for tribal and puritanical reasons.  I assume they had a folk music too, undoubtably also suppressed.

Of course there are many examples today, of folk Muslim music, but like the use of qat in Yemen etc. this is haram (illegal).  But this was due to the cultures that were pre-Muslim, which resisted complete assimilation.  An example of this is female circumcision, an African custom, that orthodox Islam has been unable to suppress.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 08:02:48 PM
Because Allah couldn't explain himself clearly and sufficiently in Quran, so this duty is his believers.
If the existence of Allah were clear enough, so any thinking man could easily believe that he exists.

It is miraculously clear to native Arabic speakers (particularly from Arabia) ... the unique poetic diction of the Quran being "miraculous".  Non-native Arabic speaker or non-Arabic speakers have to take their word for it ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 10:10:32 PM
It is not necessary to conclude a premise as true in order to evaluate the validity of an argument.
Validity is not the end-all, be-all of an argument. An argument with validity but without soundness is an interesting exercise, but doesn't actually show anything of consequence.

Quote
The reason my beliefs don't violate my free will is because l choose them without any compulsion.
Don't be obtuse. What lead you to make that choice and not the contrary? Did you flip a coin?

Quote
If you or anyone wanted to you could examine the scriptures and choose the same.
I've had my fill of examining scriptures, thanks. If you're not brought up to believe them, they are stories and nothing more.

Thank you for that as it refutes an earlier contention by Hijiri and Sal1981 that my being a freethinking Muslim theist was a contradiction of terms.
Eh, hate to tell you this, but having free will and being freethinking are not synonymous. My comment doesn't refute Hijiri or Sal in the slightest.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:10:21 PM
That's not saying much. Also, I highly doubt that Islam promotes more freedom of thought than the Eastern religions, such as Buddhism. Don't think I didn't notice how you bragged about how Muslims murdered Pagans to the point of their religions nearly going extinct. Freedom of thought. Give me a break.
Muhammad offered a peaceful coexistence with the polytheists but they declined and instead declared total war on Islam.  Some of his closest relatives were on the opposite battle lines and he pleaded with them to just go home but they were so mad with hatred for the Muslims that the only option was to completely annihilate polytheism in Arabia.  The polytheists were always given the option to lay down their weapons and surrender to Islamic rule and enjoy protection.  However time and again they violated their treaties such that they had to be forced out of Mecca.

I practiced the Eastern religions and my statement was made with full awareness of what they offer.  As to your opinion, you're welcome to it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:24:19 PM


Eh, hate to tell you this, but having free will and being freethinking are not synonymous. My comment doesn't refute Hijiri or Sal in the slightest.

So then you would agree that one could have a free mind while being locked up in a dungeon?  And likewise you would agree that one could be mentally hypnotized but still make free choices?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 12:54:05 AM
Muhammad offered a peaceful coexistence with the polytheists but they declined and instead declared total war on Islam.  Some of his closest relatives were on the opposite battle lines and he pleaded with them to just go home but they were so mad with hatred for the Muslims that the only option was to completely annihilate polytheism in Arabia.  The polytheists were always given the option to lay down their weapons and surrender to Islamic rule and enjoy protection.  However time and again they violated their treaties such that they had to be forced out of Mecca.  Try studying Islamic history from authentic sources instead of Fox News, you could learn something.

I practiced the Eastern religions and my statement was made with full awareness of what they offer.  As to your opinion, you're welcome to it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

From the POV of the Quraysh ... Muhammad was a provocateur, a seditionist, a revolutionary.  Almost any society, faced with that, would recognize the need for suppression.  Not saying the Quraysh were right, but after the first few Caliphs, their people, pardoned by a victorious Muhammad, became the Ummayad dynasty.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 01:37:37 AM
From the POV of the Quraysh ... Muhammad was a provocateur, a seditionist, a revolutionary.  Almost any society, faced with that, would recognize the need for suppression.  Not saying the Quraysh were right, but after the first few Caliphs, their people, pardoned by a victorious Muhammad, became the Ummayad dynasty.
These were false labels.  Muhammad (SAW) was of the most genial and peaceable character with the people of Mecca, even his most bitter opponents-- a model citizen. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 03:24:16 AM
Validity is not the end-all, be-all of an argument. An argument with validity but without soundness is an interesting exercise, but doesn't actually show anything of consequence.

I never claimed it was the end all be all.  But it does have social, economic and educational value in relating to others one disagrees with.  I can look at an atheist's arguments such as yourself and realize, I don't agree with Hakurei's assumptions or conclusions, but I understand her process of thinking, and I can tell she's a reasonable intelligent primate.  Conclusion: safe to do business with (if we were in face to face interaction), or, this is someone I can learn from.  I might not gain anything from the argument itself but it could tell me a lot about who is presenting the argument.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 03:41:04 AM
These were false labels.  Muhammad (SAW) was of the most genial and peaceable character with the people of Mecca, even his most bitter opponents-- a model citizen. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You misread me.  That is the tradition ... that Muhammad had the highest ethics.  But the Quraysh as Meccan merchants ... probably were not.  Which is the point, if wealth and power are involved, and Muhammad had the potential to disrupt that ... then they were justified (unethically) at trying to stop him and his followers.  Just as the current Saudi Crown Prince is justified in eliminating any perceived opposition.

Any utopian Muslim community was compromised, after the death of Caliph Abu Bakr, if not before.  Because of people being sinners.  I don't think any idealistic Jewish or Christian community would have lasted longer.  Human corruption is a very strong force.  With the material success of Caliph Umar ... corruption went exponential.  The Umayyads and Abbasids were unable to recapture the early ideal, but moved on, under first Syrian and then Persian influence.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 03:59:34 AM
You misread me.  That is the tradition ... that Muhammad had the highest ethics.  But the Quraysh as Meccan merchants ... probably were not.  Which is the point, if wealth and power are involved, and Muhammad had the potential to disrupt that ... then they were justified (unethically) at trying to stop him and his followers.  Just as the current Saudi Crown Prince is justified in eliminating any perceived opposition.

Any utopian Muslim community was compromised, after the death of Caliph Abu Bakr, if not before.  Because of people being sinners.  I don't think any idealistic Jewish or Christian community would have lasted longer.  Human corruption is a very strong force.  With the material success of Caliph Umar ... corruption went exponential.  The Umayyads and Abbasids were unable to recapture the early ideal, but moved on, under first Syrian and then Persian influence.
I'm glad you are well acquainted with Islamic history and I can't disagree with your assessments; except I don't like the word "justified" to describe what the Quraysh did to Muhammad (SAW), even with the qualification.  It was entirely unjust and even unnecessary as the Islamic Empire that sprung up in their place far surpassed their previous little idol-racket in wealth and prestige. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 20, 2019, 06:11:53 AM
If you insist on making unfounded assumptions then I see no possibility for any productive discussion, and I can only conclude that you are not actually looking for an answer to that question.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Typical answer for a troll.

Here's Mike Cl's question again:"How can a merciful god or entity produce such a system when it could have designed it in any way it chose to? "



Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 07:57:14 AM
I'm glad you are well acquainted with Islamic history and I can't disagree with your assessments; except I don't like the word "justified" to describe what the Quraysh did to Muhammad (SAW), even with the qualification.  It was entirely unjust and even unnecessary as the Islamic Empire that sprung up in their place far surpassed their previous little idol-racket in wealth and prestige. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

1. We can assume that idealism that says we return good for good and good for bad

2. Or we can assume that realism that says we return good for our allies and bad for our enemies
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 20, 2019, 09:42:00 AM
These were false labels.  Muhammad (SAW) was of the most genial and peaceable character with the people of Mecca, even his most bitter opponents-- a model citizen. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Wow. That is hilariously wrong. The Muhammed you believe in is totally opposite from the one of history, or even the one described in your holy texts. The real Muhammed was a murderer, a plunderer, and a child rapist as well as the leader of a violent cult.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Blackleaf on June 20, 2019, 09:54:11 AM
Muhammad offered a peaceful coexistence with the polytheists but they declined and instead declared total war on Islam.  Some of his closest relatives were on the opposite battle lines and he pleaded with them to just go home but they were so mad with hatred for the Muslims that the only option was to completely annihilate polytheism in Arabia.  The polytheists were always given the option to lay down their weapons and surrender to Islamic rule and enjoy protection.  However time and again they violated their treaties such that they had to be forced out of Mecca.

I practiced the Eastern religions and my statement was made with full awareness of what they offer.  As to your opinion, you're welcome to it.

"Protection." Yeah, sure. Like the "protection" the mafia gave to those under their thumb, as long as they pay up. Only this "protection," the jizya deal of pay up or die, was only ever offered to Christians and Jews. The polytheists were just murdered outright. You can try to twist history to suit your liking, but it's not getting past us.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 02:11:31 PM
Wow. That is hilariously wrong. The Muhammed you believe in is totally opposite from the one of history, or even the one described in your holy texts. The real Muhammed was a murderer, a plunderer, and a child rapist as well as the leader of a violent cult.


Poppycock.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 02:18:05 PM
1. We can assume that idealism that says we return good for good and good for bad

2. Or we can assume that realism that says we return good for our allies and bad for our enemies
The Islamic approach is to do good to all including enemies, understanding that good also means stopping oppression.

{Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or is oppressed.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allah, we help the oppressed, but how do we help an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “By seizing his hand.”}

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2011/03/14/support-wrongdoers-stop-them/

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 03:12:04 PM


Typical answer for a troll.

Here's Mike Cl's question again:"How can a merciful god or entity produce such a system when it could have designed it in any way it chose to? "

Here's his answer:

If you look you will see many signs of Allah's mercy.  The rain, the love of a mother, the comfort of your bed... Why pain?  Pain is a mercy as it keeps you alive.  Without pain the body would disintegrate through lack of attention.  It's not fun, but it has a merciful outcome.  Why animals kill and people hurt one another?  Free will.  Its better to live in freedom with the possibility of experiencing the negative choices of other free will creatures against you then to live trapped in a perfect world without the freedom of choice.  This is a mercy.   In order to mitigate the harmful actions of free will creatures against others, Allah gave us additional mercy in the form of laws and commandments--to the effect of love one another and do good to others, etc.  We can choose now to follow a course where these bad things don't happen, we have the necessary tools and information.  This is mercy upon mercy.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk




Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 03:48:41 PM
"Protection." Yeah, sure. Like the "protection" the mafia gave to those under their thumb, as long as they pay up. Only this "protection," the jizya deal of pay up or die, was only ever offered to Christians and Jews. The polytheists were just murdered outright. You can try to twist history to suit your liking, but it's not getting past us.

Textbook frothing-at-the-mouth Islamophobic rant.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on June 20, 2019, 08:19:36 PM
"poppycock"......LOL  what a twit.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on June 21, 2019, 02:02:08 PM

Here's his answer:

If you look you will see many signs of Allah's mercy.  The rain, the love of a mother, the comfort of your bed... Why pain?  Pain is a mercy as it keeps you alive.  Without pain the body would disintegrate through lack of attention.  It's not fun, but it has a merciful outcome.  Why animals kill and people hurt one another?  Free will.  Its better to live in freedom with the possibility of experiencing the negative choices of other free will creatures against you then to live trapped in a perfect world without the freedom of choice.  This is a mercy.   In order to mitigate the harmful actions of free will creatures against others, Allah gave us additional mercy in the form of laws and commandments--to the effect of love one another and do good to others, etc.  We can choose now to follow a course where these bad things don't happen, we have the necessary tools and information.  This is mercy upon mercy.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk




First: Are you Arik's personal agent?


Second: that reply does not answer the initial question. It seems to be answering to the question: "show me where the mercy is?" Mike Cl's question is totally different.


As Arik's agent, you failed to read the question properly, and double-failed in not noticing the failed answer.


As a troll you get an "F".
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 11:04:17 AM

First: Are you Arik's personal agent?


First tell me, are you Mike CI's personal agent?


Second: that reply does not answer the initial question. It seems to be answering to the question: "show me where the mercy is?" Mike Cl's question is totally different.

On the contrary, Mike CI's question is all about mercy, since this is a primary attribute of God, by which His reality can be known.  If it is otherwise, let him speak for himself, unless of course you are a mind reader or claim to be his agent.



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 01:03:07 PM
First tell me, are you Mike CI's personal agent?

On the contrary, Mike CI's question is all about mercy, since this is a primary attribute of God, by which His reality can be known.  If it is otherwise, let him speak for himself, unless of course you are a mind reader or claim to be his agent.



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Yes, I am Mike Cl's personal agent.  Always have been. 

I have had many people tell me that one of the major attributes of god is mercy.  I would say--first, demonstrate for me that god (any god) exists.  And then, we can discuss if any god displays mercy.  I have not seen a demonstration by anybody that any god exists so I'd have to say that all gods are fiction. 

I look around the world, especially at nature, and I don't see evidence of any trace of 'mercy' from a creator being.  Nature on this planet is not merciful--it is based on killing and eating something before it can kill and eat you.  Nature is based on death--and pain and suffering.  Our first two needs, oxygen(or something for breath) and water are supplied by the environment and does not require us to be violent to get them.  Food is also supplied by our environment, and your creator god showed he/it knew how to plan for life without destruction--he created plants that need only sunlight to gather it's needed energy.  Animals, however, must kill to gather our energy needs.  In fact, humans must kill to live.  I must eat something that was alive (plant or animal) for me to survive.  If I refuse to eat, I still kill--myself.  So, your creator god, in all his wisdom and mercy, created death and destruction as my only way to survive.  That is not my idea of mercy.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on July 27, 2019, 01:16:59 PM
The God of the Bible is certainly not "merciful," given the many horrible things that it was credited with, and threats of the horrible things it'd do in the future, like Jeremiah 25:33

Jeremiah 25:33 King James Version (KJV)
Quote
33 And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.


Not what I'd call "full of mercy."
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
Yes, I am Mike Cl's personal agent.  Always have been. 

I have had many people tell me that one of the major attributes of god is mercy.  I would say--first, demonstrate for me that god (any god) exists.  And then, we can discuss if any god displays mercy.  I have not seen a demonstration by anybody that any god exists so I'd have to say that all gods are fiction. 

I look around the world, especially at nature, and I don't see evidence of any trace of 'mercy' from a creator being.  Nature on this planet is not merciful--it is based on killing and eating something before it can kill and eat you.  Nature is based on death--and pain and suffering.  Our first two needs, oxygen(or something for breath) and water are supplied by the environment and does not require us to be violent to get them.  Food is also supplied by our environment, and your creator god showed he/it knew how to plan for life without destruction--he created plants that need only sunlight to gather it's needed energy.  Animals, however, must kill to gather our energy needs.  In fact, humans must kill to live.  I must eat something that was alive (plant or animal) for me to survive.  If I refuse to eat, I still kill--myself.  So, your creator god, in all his wisdom and mercy, created death and destruction as my only way to survive.  That is not my idea of mercy.

I don't dispute that life is characterized by suffering & death.  Life is also characterized by birth and growth, happiness and pleasure.  Where do you think these came from--random accidents?  What I do find perplexing is how the existence of suffering is assumed to cancel out the existence of comfort and pleasure, or negate the possibility of mercy.  You assume that plants must suffer when they are cooked and eaten--but how do you know?  Does your asparagus cry and scream when you are placing it in your mouth?  As for animals, it is not necessary to kill and eat them in order to survive, we've only been conditioned to eat this way.  It's actually much more efficient and healthy to be vegetarian.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 01:38:23 PM
The God of the Bible is certainly not "merciful," given the many horrible things that it was credited with, and threats of the horrible things it'd do in the future, like Jeremiah 25:33

Jeremiah 25:33 King James Version (KJV)

Not what I'd call "full of mercy."
Death can be merciful at times, especially if it is the death of an oppressor.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on July 27, 2019, 04:36:09 PM
The God of the Bible is certainly not "merciful," given the many horrible things that it was credited with, and threats of the horrible things it'd do in the future, like Jeremiah 25:33

Jeremiah 25:33 King James Version (KJV)

Not what I'd call "full of mercy."

The apologetics ... G-d should exterminate the human race.  Any day G-d doesn't exterminate the human race, is a day of grace, an opportunity to repent.  You can't repent after dying.

Not my theology.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on July 27, 2019, 04:38:18 PM
I don't dispute that life is characterized by suffering & death.  Life is also characterized by birth and growth, happiness and pleasure.  Where do you think these came from--random accidents?  What I do find perplexing is how the existence of suffering is assumed to cancel out the existence of comfort and pleasure, or negate the possibility of mercy.  You assume that plants must suffer when they are cooked and eaten--but how do you know?  Does your asparagus cry and scream when you are placing it in your mouth?  As for animals, it is not necessary to kill and eat them in order to survive, we've only been conditioned to eat this way.  It's actually much more efficient and healthy to be vegetarian.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Materialists say ... some atoms are happier than others.

Kirelian photography shows that even plants blanched at the news that Trump was elected ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 06:47:55 PM
I don't dispute that life is characterized by suffering & death.  Life is also characterized by birth and growth, happiness and pleasure.  Where do you think these came from--random accidents?  What I do find perplexing is how the existence of suffering is assumed to cancel out the existence of comfort and pleasure, or negate the possibility of mercy.  You assume that plants must suffer when they are cooked and eaten--but how do you know?  Does your asparagus cry and scream when you are placing it in your mouth?  As for animals, it is not necessary to kill and eat them in order to survive, we've only been conditioned to eat this way.  It's actually much more efficient and healthy to be vegetarian.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
And I just demonstrated that plants live.  And in order for you, or I, to live, we MUST kill.  No choice.  You can down play what a plant does and does not feel; and exactly what you said, how do you know?  I do know that plants died before I ate them.  and we do know that plants DO feel at some level and make choices about what direction to grow in and communicate on a certain level.  If plants can live on sun power, why not animals?????  Was you creative hero too uncaring or too stupid to make it happen???
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 08:24:49 AM
And I just demonstrated that plants live.  And in order for you, or I, to live, we MUST kill.  No choice.  You can down play what a plant does and does not feel; and exactly what you said, how do you know?  I do know that plants died before I ate them.  and we do know that plants DO feel at some level and make choices about what direction to grow in and communicate on a certain level.  If plants can live on sun power, why not animals?????  Was you creative hero too uncaring or too stupid to make it happen???
I think plants were specifically designed by our Creator as food.  Animals and people were not meant to serve as food for each other.  It is possible to harvest fruits without killing the entire plant--as in the case of tomatoes and apples and so forth.  The pruning effect that animals and humans have in consuming part of the plant actually has a beneficial outcome by producing increased growth.  As a plant I should think this was a good deal.  Furthermore all evidence is that plant life does not possess a central nervous system that would enable it to experience pain.  This is by design.  Additionally, plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen--the exact reverse process of mammals-- a very symbiotic arrangement.  It seems to me that our Creator exercises great wisdom and care in all His works.

This is only one side of the story though.  I find that pain doesn't nullify mercy.  In some cases it actually enhances pleasure in moderate amounts.  For instance the pain experienced eating hot peppers produces a mild euphoria while intensifying the taste of food.   Haven't you ever wanted to "spice things up"?  The possibility of pain and danger adds a certain thrill to life you couldn't get in a cushy bland world.  Why else would people go to the theaters for the sole purpose of being scared?  For suspense?  Because when you are never challenged things get very boring.  This is part of the wisdom of creation that for me, proves it's not some random accident but was designed by an infinitely benevolent intelligence--or as we believers call it, God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on July 28, 2019, 09:28:00 AM
I think plants were specifically designed by our Creator as food.  Animals and people were not meant to serve as food for each other.
and you know this----how????  Never mind; you are like a puff of wind--no substance and no knowledge.  You are just not worth the effort, for you don't put forth any effort.  Like
Airk, you are just hot air.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 10:30:13 AM
and you know this----how????  Never mind; you are like a puff of wind--no substance and no knowledge.  You are just not worth the effort, for you don't put forth any effort.  Like
Airk, you are just hot air.
I know it through intelligent contemplation of the scriptures and the natural world around us (Genesis 1:29).  How do you know vegetables suffer when you eat them?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on July 28, 2019, 10:33:21 AM
This forum repeatedly demonstrates that human are descended, not ascended, from primates ;-)

Typically "progressive" means upper-middle class white male Northern California college educated "colonial superiority".  The Ganja-man's burden.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on July 28, 2019, 05:06:52 PM
I know it through intelligent contemplation of the scriptures

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

now there's an oxymoron if ever....LOL
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on July 28, 2019, 06:27:27 PM
and you know this----how????  Never mind; you are like a puff of wind--no substance and no knowledge.  You are just not worth the effort, for you don't put forth any effort.  Like
Airk, you are just hot air.

No wonder the planet's getting so much hotter, what with all this hot air blowing around! :-P
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on July 29, 2019, 08:44:53 AM
No wonder the planet's getting so much hotter, what with all this hot air blowing around! :-P
Don't underestimate hot air--it powers air balloons and other things. [emoji28]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 07:12:35 AM
Death can be merciful at times, especially if it is the death of an oppressor.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Death can indeed be merciful.  If you are being tortured to the point where death is the only escape.  And theists (and horrific secular dictators) do that so well and often.  But it takes the really theistic to accept that and sleep at night.  "Kill them all and let God sort them out"

Oppressors (when they are, and not just someone people don't like) deserve death.  But painlessly, just to rid the world of them.  The deliberate application of pain is never justified.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 08:24:56 AM
Death can indeed be merciful.  If you are being tortured to the point where death is the only escape.  And theists (and horrific secular dictators) do that so well and often.  But it takes the really theistic to accept that and sleep at night.  "Kill them all and let God sort them out"

Oppressors (when they are, and not just someone people don't like) deserve death.  But painlessly, just to rid the world of them.  The deliberate application of pain is never justified.

I agree with you except that theism or the lack of it is not an indicator of capacity for remorse.  Take Stalin for example and Hitler--do you see any signs of remorse in their lives?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 08:36:48 AM
I agree with you except that theism or the lack of it is not an indicator of capacity for remorse.  Take Stalin for example and Hitler--do you see any signs of remorse in their lives?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Well, I meant that secular dictators like Stalin and Mao could do it ideologically without being worried much about it.  But it takes fervent theists to actually enjoy it.  Stalin may have enjoyed putting enemies to death (not approving in any way), but theists have historically been positively gleeful and reverent about it.  And after severe torture, of course.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 09:09:22 AM
Well, I meant that secular dictators like Stalin and Mao could do it ideologically without being worried much about it.  But it takes fervent theists to actually enjoy it.  Stalin may have enjoyed putting enemies to death (not approving in any way), but theists have historically been positively gleeful and reverent about it.  And after severe torture, of course.
There is a danger in having theistic beliefs of developing false feelings of superiority.  But this is present in any "ism", you choose, whether it's racism or scientism. It's not so much the nature of what is believed, as the dynamic that develops when a group identifies itself as separate and distinct from common people.  Healthy groups have permeable boundaries.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 09:27:25 AM
There is a danger in having theistic beliefs of developing false feelings of superiority.  But this is present in any "ism", you choose, whether it's racism or scientism. It's not so much the nature of what is believed, as the dynamic that develops when a group identifies itself as separate and distinct from common people.  Healthy groups have permeable boundaries.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Oh I love it when theists refer to "scientism" as if it was a belief structure like their's.  Look, I allow a certain degree of personal validity to the concept of "faith".  I accept that some people allow a "trust" in an idea to guide their lives.  I think they are completely irrational for doing so, but I understand it. 

But don't try to make science a "belief system".  That just cracks me up...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:00:27 AM
Oh I love it when theists refer to "scientism" as if it was a belief structure like their's.  Look, I allow a certain degree of personal validity to the concept of "faith".  I accept that some people allow a "trust" in an idea to guide their lives.  I think they are completely irrational for doing so, but I understand it. 

But don't try to make science a "belief system".  That just cracks me up...
Laugh all you like, but scientism IS a belief structure.  The only difference your substitute for God is the human brain and sense organs.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 10:13:53 AM
Laugh all you like, but scientism IS a belief structure.  The only difference your substitute for God is the human brain and sense organs. [emoji28]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

AND...  Here we go. 

OK, science is based on peer-reviewed and checkable facts.  Found any verifiable and checkable evidence of god lately? 

Science is based on accumulated observations and is adjusted to new information as it is discovered.  Seen many changes in your bible lately?  I won't bother to point out errors in religious texts.  That gets nowhere.

I'll leave you with a quote I found on forbes.com.  "The fundamental question is neither what the object of humanity's faith will be nor how far it will extend, but rather how far you're willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether you'll have the courage to change your conclusions to follow where the evidence guides. That is what separates science from anything faith-based, and why any faith-based belief system will never be considered scientific".

Back to you...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:59:48 AM
AND...  Here we go. 

OK, science is based on peer-reviewed and checkable facts.  Found any verifiable and checkable evidence of god lately? 

Science is based on accumulated observations and is adjusted to new information as it is discovered.  Seen many changes in your bible lately?  I won't bother to point out errors in religious texts.  That gets nowhere.

I'll leave you with a quote I found on forbes.com.  "The fundamental question is neither what the object of humanity's faith will be nor how far it will extend, but rather how far you're willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether you'll have the courage to change your conclusions to follow where the evidence guides. That is what separates science from anything faith-based, and why any faith-based belief system will never be considered scientific".

Back to you...
Religion is also a kind of science.  Theology has developed organically over time.  The difference is we are concerned not with the material world but the world internal to the self. There is much evidence for God, but it is most importantly internal to the self.  Our methodology for developing knowledge is different as well.  In science, you first observe, then form ideas and hypotheses about those observations.  Over time those hypotheses grow into theories and laws that accumulate into knowledge.  In religion the process is reversed.  We first receive revelatory transcendant knowledge from within; then we believe it; then we develop applications and interpretations of that knowledge for our current time-space continuum.  Over time, that faith bears fruit as observations manifest in the external material world confirming our beliefs. I consider both methods as valid.  There is a peer review process in religion as well, but it is quite naturally, mostly intuitive.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:23:07 AM
There is much evidence for God,

Over time those hypotheses grow into theories and laws that accumulate into knowledge.  In religion the process is reversed. 

Deleted some portion of original post for brevity...

1.  Please list the evidence for a deity of any kind.
2,  I am impressed that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory and laws; most people don't.  But saying that religion reverses the process suggests a logical failure.

Consider this...  No one is born with religious beliefs.  Like racism, "it has to be carefully taught" (apologies to 'South Pacific').  It is therefore human-made.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:29:25 AM
Deleted some portion of original post for brevity...

1.  Please list the evidence for a deity of any kind.
2,  I am impressed that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory and laws; most people don't.  But saying that religion reverses the process suggests a logical failure.

Consider this...  No one is born with religious beliefs.  Like racism, "it has to be carefully taught" (apologies to 'South Pacific').  It is therefore human-made.

That is partially an ascetic conceit.  A scientist may think he is discovering something that is "already there".  Michelangelo felt the same way about sculpture.  He was freeing the statue that was already in the stone.  And no person is born with scientific beliefs either.  Otherwise the ancient Egyptians would have built nuclear reactors.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:46:09 AM
That is partially an ascetic conceit.  A scientist may think he is discovering something that is "already there".  Michelangelo felt the same way about sculpture.  He was freeing the statue that was already in the stone.  And no person is born with scientific beliefs either.  Otherwise the ancient Egyptians would have built nuclear reactors.

You are in error, of course.  Children seek knowledge automatically.  They taste, touch, feel everything.  They reach for that mobile above the crib.  They collect information (turkey good; broccoli bad - or vice versa).  We spend our childhoods learning verifiable facts.  We discuss them with each other. 

But it takes adults to teach religion.  And it isn't easily accepted.  Deities are like a parent that is unmanageable.  We fight the idea.  Then they take you to Sunday school where the nice lady talks softly (this is not from personal experience) and tells you about the best Daddy-In-The-Sky.  And Mommy nods her head in church and Daddy nods his head.  And if they nod their heads, you should too, because it MUST be true if they say so.

Science comes naturally to children.  Religion does not and has to be carefully taught.

Heil!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:52:54 AM
You are in error, of course.  Children seek knowledge automatically.  They taste, touch, feel everything.  They reach for that mobile above the crib.  They collect information (turkey good; broccoli bad - or vice versa).  We spend our childhoods learning verifiable facts.  We discuss them with each other. 

But it takes adults to teach religion.  And it isn't easily accepted.  Deities are like a parent that is unmanageable.  We fight the idea.  Then they take you to Sunday school where the nice lady talks softly (this is not from personal experience) and tells you about the best Daddy-In-The-Sky.  And Mommy nods her head in church and Daddy nods his head.  And if they nod their heads, you should too, because it MUST be true if they say so.

Science comes naturally to children.  Religion does not and has to be carefully taught.

Heil!

I respectfully disagree with your child psychology.  Child development is very complicated and poorly understood.  You are making claims based on ideology, not experience.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 12:29:27 PM
Deleted some portion of original post for brevity...

1.  Please list the evidence for a deity of any kind.
2,  I am impressed that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory and laws; most people don't.  But saying that religion reverses the process suggests a logical failure.

Consider this...  No one is born with religious beliefs.  Like racism, "it has to be carefully taught" (apologies to 'South Pacific').  It is therefore human-made.
It would suggest a logical failure if you accept the underlying assumption of material causality.  I do not.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 12:43:33 PM
I respectfully disagree with your child psychology.  Child development is very complicated and poorly understood.  You are making claims based on ideology, not experience.

Well, actually, I was a child myself once, so there is some experience. 

"But wait, there's more".  I was 16 when my youngest sister was born.  And being the Good Big Brother that I was, I helped raise her (being adored is addictive).  I watched her learn.  I watched her explore her new world.  I was there when she discovered bees sting (and removed the stinger).  So I know.  But any actual parent knows that even more than I.  I was just a temp.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:23:31 PM
Well, actually, I was a child myself once, so there is some experience. 

"But wait, there's more".  I was 16 when my youngest sister was born.  And being the Good Big Brother that I was, I helped raise her (being adored is addictive).  I watched her learn.  I watched her explore her new world.  I was there when she discovered bees sting (and removed the stinger).  So I know.  But any actual parent knows that even more than I.  I was just a temp.

Not to denigrate your experience.  But how you interpret the reality of helping to raise your kid sister as a teen ... is dependent on your ideology.  It isn't pure empiricism, but interpreted empiricism.  Yes, children automatically learn, but in nature, it is how to be cavemen/cavewomen.  Nothing in our biological background prepares us to the 18th century Parisien philosophes.  For Rousseau of course, that huge contribution of parental culture is corruption.  But at least he didn't claim it didn't exist.  This is why the same newborn can be taken anywhere, raised to local standards, and produce an adult from any 200+ cultures.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:54:53 PM
I won't bother to point out errors in religious texts.  That gets nowhere.

It may not get us anywhere, but it sure can be fun with literal Bible-believers who believe it has no errors or contradictions at all. It's entertaining to watch their verbal gymnastics trying to stuff two opposing verses or passages into one logical construct.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:59:45 PM
Religion is also a kind of science.  Theology has developed organically over time.  The difference is we are concerned not with the material world but the world internal to the self. There is much evidence for God, but it is most importantly internal to the self.  Our methodology for developing knowledge is different as well.  In science, you first observe, then form ideas and hypotheses about those observations.  Over time those hypotheses grow into theories and laws that accumulate into knowledge.  In religion the process is reversed.  We first receive revelatory transcendant knowledge from within; then we believe it; then we develop applications and interpretations of that knowledge for our current time-space continuum.  Over time, that faith bears fruit as observations manifest in the external material world confirming our beliefs. I consider both methods as valid.  There is a peer review process in religion as well, but it is quite naturally, mostly intuitive.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


OK, so what "fruits" has religion ever produced? How has religion ever made human life better? Or is it just the hope that religion might be true that gives comfort to people? Other than that, I don't know to what "fruits" you're referring.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:07:41 PM
Deleted some portion of original post for brevity...

1.  Please list the evidence for a deity of any kind.
2,  I am impressed that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory and laws; most people don't.  But saying that religion reverses the process suggests a logical failure.

Consider this...  No one is born with religious beliefs.  Like racism, "it has to be carefully taught" (apologies to 'South Pacific').  It is therefore human-made.

I like the way Hitchens put it:

Quote
However, a moment in history has arrived when even a pigmy such as myself can claim to know more - through no merit of his own - and to see that the final ripping of the whole disguise is overdue. Between them, the sciences of textual criticism, archeology, physics, and molecular biology have shown religious mythology to be false and man made and have also succeeded in evolving better and more enlightened explanations.

Oh, and this Heinlein is good, too:

Quote
The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H. Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:13:02 PM
You are in error, of course.  Children seek knowledge automatically.  They taste, touch, feel everything.  They reach for that mobile above the crib.  They collect information (turkey good; broccoli bad - or vice versa).  We spend our childhoods learning verifiable facts.  We discuss them with each other. 

But it takes adults to teach religion.  And it isn't easily accepted.  Deities are like a parent that is unmanageable.  We fight the idea.  Then they take you to Sunday school where the nice lady talks softly (this is not from personal experience) and tells you about the best Daddy-In-The-Sky.  And Mommy nods her head in church and Daddy nods his head.  And if they nod their heads, you should too, because it MUST be true if they say so.

Science comes naturally to children.  Religion does not and has to be carefully taught.

Heil!

Quote from: Ernestine L. Rose, in [i
A Defense of Atheism[/i], 1878]
If belief in God were natural, there would be no need to teach it. Children would possess it as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the heathen as much as the missionary. We don't have to teach the general elements of human nature - the five senses, seeing hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so would religion be if it were natural, but it is not. On the contrary, it is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. Even as it is, they are great skeptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon by which religion has ever been propagated, namely, fear - fear of the lash of public opinion here, and of a jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No; there is no religion in human nature, nor human nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the result of education, while atheism is natural, and, were the human mind not perverted and bewildered by the mysteries and follies of superstition, would be universal.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:13:43 PM
It may not get us anywhere, but it sure can be fun with literal Bible-believers who believe it has no errors or contradictions at all. It's entertaining to watch their verbal gymnastics trying to stuff two opposing verses or passages into one logical construct.

Oh sure, fun to ruin their day.  And I do sometimes.  But sometimes I think "Oh crap, Another One" and I get tired of the same junk.  Granted, this one is a bit better than average...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:20:50 PM
Not to denigrate your experience.  But how you interpret the reality of helping to raise your kid sister as a teen ... is dependent on your ideology.  It isn't pure empiricism, but interpreted empiricism.  Yes, children automatically learn, but in nature, it is how to be cavemen/cavewomen.  Nothing in our biological background prepares us to the 18th century Parisien philosophes.  For Rousseau of course, that huge contribution of parental culture is corruption.  But at least he didn't claim it didn't exist.  This is why the same newborn can be taken anywhere, raised to local standards, and produce an adult from any 200+ cultures.

Children are learning in a scientific manner (think, test, connect, integrate).  I think the difference between a child and Parisian is more a matter of degree of complexity.  The Parisian philosophist (that's deliberate, I hate philosophy) is still using original childhood skills.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:22:33 PM
Oh sure, fun to ruin their day.  And I do sometimes.  But sometimes I think "Oh crap, Another One" and I get tired of the same junk.

Yeah, like (just as an example) when they try to claim that hell is just "separation from God" and not really a cosmic barbeque, I like to show them Psalm 139:7-8, which says we can never be separated from God, not even in hell:

Quote from: Psalm 139:7-8 (KJV)
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.


Quote
Granted, this one is a bit better than average...

Yeah, at least he writes well enough that we don't have to translate his posts into English!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:28:37 PM
OK, so what "fruits" has religion ever produced? How has religion ever made human life better? Or is it just the hope that religion might be true that gives comfort to people? Other than that, I don't know to what "fruits" you're referring.

I often avoid this out of consideration for my theistic friends (yes I have some) because they really can't tolerate the thought of being truly dead.  I'll admit it gives me trouble sometimes.  How can the world continue without me in it, they ask themselves.  Wasn't it Edwrd G Robinson who asked himsef (as a character) "Can this be the end of Rico"?

Yes it can.  My parents are dead.  Flat stone cremated dead.  They ceased to exist.  And I'm not getting younger.  It is a hard road to plow.  I sometimes feel like I'm in a book I won't know the end of.  And it's HARD! 

So when I tell theists that their whole belief structure is false and they won't wake up after death to some heavenly paradise, I feel "guilty" somehow.  But there isn't anything else...

Downer award for the year, right?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:32:49 PM
Yeah, like (just as an example) when they try to claim that hell is just "separation from God" and not really a cosmic barbeque, I like to show them Psalm 139:7-8, which says we can never be separated from God, not even in hell:
Yeah, that's a favorite.  Even theist friends who are trying to comfort me (meaning well) say "but hell is just really distance from God".    Sometimes, I say, "the further the better".  But we know better.  Death is like the swatted housefly.  END OF LINE!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:38:55 PM
I often avoid this out of consideration for my theistic friends (yes I have some) because they really can't tolerate the thought of being truly dead.  I'll admit it gives me trouble sometimes.  How can the world continue without me in it, they ask themselves.  Wasn't it Edwrd G Robinson who asked himsef (as a character) "Can this be the end of Rico"?

Yes it can.  My parents are dead.  Flat stone cremated dead.  They ceased to exist.  And I'm not getting younger.  It is a hard road to plow.  I sometimes feel like I'm in a book I won't know the end of.  And it's HARD! 

So when I tell theists that their whole belief structure is false and they won't wake up after death to some heavenly paradise, I feel "guilty" somehow.  But there isn't anything else...

Downer award for the year, right?

Well, I don't talk about religion much at all out here in meat-space. But if someone wants to convert me to their way of believing (which doesn't happen very often these days), I won't hold back for the sake of their feelings. Especially when they use the same false arguments and emotional bait they always do use. And on line, here at the forum, it's them coming to us, for whatever reason, so I don't hold back here, either. I do try to keep my arguments academic, though, and not let it descend into personal attack.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:52:56 PM
Well, I don't talk about religion much at all out here in meat-space. But if someone wants to convert me to their way of believing (which doesn't happen very often these days), I won't hold back for the sake of their feelings. Especially when they use the same false arguments and emotional bait they always do use. And on line, here at the forum, it's them coming to us, for whatever reason, so I don't hold back here, either. I do try to keep my arguments academic, though, and not let it descend into personal attack.

Good point.  I don't really want to burst my friends' balloons, so I avoid it a bit in (as you say) "meat time".  They aren't deep-thinkers and sometimes all I want to do is share a pizza.  I save it for places like here where everyone who comes is prepared for some challenging questions.

With a bit of irony, I say bless this site, LOL!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:56:07 PM
like here where everyone who comes is prepared for some challenging questions.

Yeah, ideally, but many come quite unprepared for even unchallenging questions.  LOL
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 04:53:09 PM
Yeah, ideally, but many come quite unprepared for even unchallenging questions.  LOL

That's what the bonus labels are for.  You get to something like "jellyfish" and you've been around long enough to survive, and be attacked.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 01, 2019, 06:31:08 PM
I don't dispute that life is characterized by suffering & death.  Life is also characterized by birth and growth, happiness and pleasure.  Where do you think these came from--random accidents?  What I do find perplexing is how the existence of suffering is assumed to cancel out the existence of comfort and pleasure, or negate the possibility of mercy.  You assume that plants must suffer when they are cooked and eaten--but how do you know?  Does your asparagus cry and scream when you are placing it in your mouth?  As for animals, it is not necessary to kill and eat them in order to survive, we've only been conditioned to eat this way.  It's actually much more efficient and healthy to be vegetarian.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I was going to ignore this post of yours, but I've changed my mind.  You do seem to be a little more thoughtful than most theists that visit here.  So, here goes.
1.  I did not claim (or think) that life is only pain and suffering.  Birth and growth and happiness and pleasure is also a major component of life.  Where does that come from??  From living in a society.  Whatever society/culture we are raised in provides us with the guidelines for what each of those mean and how to avoid/cultivate them.  Then we put own own personal touches on them.

2.  I don't assume that plants feel pain when being cooked or eaten.  You put that assumption into my mouth.  Plants are dead when eaten for the most part.  Yes, cows can eat living grass, but for the most part, humans eat what plants produce; and when we eat them they are dead.  But without living plants all animals would die.  So, as an animal, humans must kill plants to live.  I don't claim they suffer--but they might.  Some experiments suggest plants are more aware of their environment than we had thought.  Some give off chemical signals to neighbors that there is danger nearby.  Some suggest plants do better if a certain type of music is played and not as well when other types are played. 

3.  As for asparagus, I do not let that stuff get anywhere near my mouth!  It may not scream if eaten, but I would probably scream if I had to eat it. 

4.  As for it not being necessary for humans to have meat to survive, that is still up in the air.  It is true, though, that humans have always been omnivorous--we (as a group) would eat almost anything that did not crawl out of our mouths first.  My niece is a vegan and seems to be doing quite well with that.  I have cut down my meat consumption as I've aged and find I don't miss it all that much anymore. I am leaning more and more toward what you say--vegetarians are generally healthier. 

5.  God created mercy and pain and suffering I think you ducked for the most part.  In nature there are two systems that do not require living things to kill to survive.  One is photosynthesis--which requires the sun, of course.  The other exists where sunlight can't get to--the ocean floor.  There volcanic vents provide the heat and minerals need to sustain life.  both systems provide for a way for the living to gather their energy from non-living sources.  This is not so for humans.  We HAVE to gather energy from living sources--or sources that once were alive.  We must kill to live.  There is no choice--vegetarians still  must eat things that were once alive.  Whether those plants suffer is beside the point--they still must be killed.  I understand this to be a bit of proof against the idea of any gods.  Animals eating animals is a built in system of pain and suffering.  Why would a merciful god create such a system when he could use any system he wanted?  So, since god created nature as it is now, he must have done so on purpose.  I don't find any mercy there.

6.  Where do birth defects fit into mercy?  Or babies born with diseases and parasites?  Or punishing people for not following god's rules when he did not make it plain what those rules are?  There is not one religious scripture that is clear, or universal, or written in all languages, or one that does not conflict with itself.  How is that possible if there is one god?  What religion a person follows is very heavily predicated upon geography--not that that one religion is more viable than another.  Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?  If the bible, for example, were found in all places on Earth and all dated to the same time frame, that would be a powerful sign that the bible is what it's followers say it is, the work and word of god.  I would then do my damnedest to learn what it said and then obey!  But it comes from only one place on Earth.  That makes it clear to me that religion is regional, not universal.  That would be odd for a creator god--or it seems so to me.   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 02:58:26 AM
Children are learning in a scientific manner (think, test, connect, integrate).  I think the difference between a child and Parisian is more a matter of degree of complexity.  The Parisian philosophist (that's deliberate, I hate philosophy) is still using original childhood skills.

Not all thinking is scientific.  Atheists say, everything is natural (this is rhetoric).  It is similar to make the claim that all thinking is scientific. Scientific thinking is a particular kind of thinking that has to be taught.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:55:17 AM
OK, so what "fruits" has religion ever produced? How has religion ever made human life better? Or is it just the hope that religion might be true that gives comfort to people? Other than that, I don't know to what "fruits" you're referring.
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion.  The scientific method was invented by a Muslim.  Religious people have made contributions to science all throughout history.  Astronomy was derived from religious beliefs that events on Earth corresponded to events in the heavens, which in turn was derived from the belief that God dwelled in heaven from whence decrees concerning our lives in Earth were issued.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:06:39 AM
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion. 
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



More accurately, civilization used religion to keep the hordes of humans in line. Those who were in power knew very well how gullible people are, and used religious beliefs to make sure their subjects to be obedient to their masters. That was true in the past, and it is still true today, thanks to useful idiots like you.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:33:51 AM
I was going to ignore this post of yours, but I've changed my mind.  You do seem to be a little more thoughtful than most theists that visit here.  So, here goes.
1.  I did not claim (or think) that life is only pain and suffering.  Birth and growth and happiness and pleasure is also a major component of life.  Where does that come from??  From living in a society.  Whatever society/culture we are raised in provides us with the guidelines for what each of those mean and how to avoid/cultivate them.  Then we put own own personal touches on them.

2.  I don't assume that plants feel pain when being cooked or eaten.  You put that assumption into my mouth.  Plants are dead when eaten for the most part.  Yes, cows can eat living grass, but for the most part, humans eat what plants produce; and when we eat them they are dead.  But without living plants all animals would die.  So, as an animal, humans must kill plants to live.  I don't claim they suffer--but they might.  Some experiments suggest plants are more aware of their environment than we had thought.  Some give off chemical signals to neighbors that there is danger nearby.  Some suggest plants do better if a certain type of music is played and not as well when other types are played. 

3.  As for asparagus, I do not let that stuff get anywhere near my mouth!  It may not scream if eaten, but I would probably scream if I had to eat it. 

4.  As for it not being necessary for humans to have meat to survive, that is still up in the air.  It is true, though, that humans have always been omnivorous--we (as a group) would eat almost anything that did not crawl out of our mouths first.  My niece is a vegan and seems to be doing quite well with that.  I have cut down my meat consumption as I've aged and find I don't miss it all that much anymore. I am leaning more and more toward what you say--vegetarians are generally healthier. 

5.  God created mercy and pain and suffering I think you ducked for the most part.  In nature there are two systems that do not require living things to kill to survive.  One is photosynthesis--which requires the sun, of course.  The other exists where sunlight can't get to--the ocean floor.  There volcanic vents provide the heat and minerals need to sustain life.  both systems provide for a way for the living to gather their energy from non-living sources.  This is not so for humans.  We HAVE to gather energy from living sources--or sources that once were alive.  We must kill to live.  There is no choice--vegetarians still  must eat things that were once alive.  Whether those plants suffer is beside the point--they still must be killed.  I understand this to be a bit of proof against the idea of any gods.  Animals eating animals is a built in system of pain and suffering.  Why would a merciful god create such a system when he could use any system he wanted?  So, since god created nature as it is now, he must have done so on purpose.  I don't find any mercy there.

6.  Where do birth defects fit into mercy?  Or babies born with diseases and parasites?  Or punishing people for not following god's rules when he did not make it plain what those rules are?  There is not one religious scripture that is clear, or universal, or written in all languages, or one that does not conflict with itself.  How is that possible if there is one god?  What religion a person follows is very heavily predicated upon geography--not that that one religion is more viable than another.  Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?  If the bible, for example, were found in all places on Earth and all dated to the same time frame, that would be a powerful sign that the bible is what it's followers say it is, the work and word of god.  I would then do my damnedest to learn what it said and then obey!  But it comes from only one place on Earth.  That makes it clear to me that religion is regional, not universal.  That would be odd for a creator god--or it seems so to me.
If plants don't suffer, then what's all the fuss about?  Wouldn't this be yet another sign of mercy?  Apparently you've never read or even heard about the world's religions. [emoji848](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190802/0a508c254fd6409939db1def181bb977.jpg)

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:44:06 AM
More accurately, civilization used religion to keep the hordes of humans in line. Those who were in power knew very well how gullible people are, and used religious beliefs to make sure their subjects to be obedient to their masters. That was true in the past, and it is still true today, thanks to useful idiots like you.
Isn't keeping idiots from doing stupid things the general idea of civilization?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:55:20 AM
Isn't keeping idiots from doing stupid things the general idea of civilization?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


They really got you, isn't it? The prime objective of those in power is to consolidate their powers, second objective is to increase it whenever the opportunity rises up. And they've convinced you to believe that you are stopping idiots from doing stupid things, while they are patting themselves on the shoulders when they see idiots like you doing their bid.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:45:51 AM
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion.  The scientific method was invented by a Muslim.  Religious people have made contributions to science all throughout history.  Astronomy was derived from religious beliefs that events on Earth corresponded to events in the heavens, which in turn was derived from the belief that God dwelled in heaven from whence decrees concerning our lives in Earth were issued.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Al-Khwarismi  he's our man, if he can't compute, nobody can ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:46:37 AM
More accurately, civilization used religion to keep the hordes of humans in line. Those who were in power knew very well how gullible people are, and used religious beliefs to make sure their subjects to be obedient to their masters. That was true in the past, and it is still true today, thanks to useful idiots like you.

I prefer to use an AK-47 to keep the hordes in line.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 11:47:33 AM
Isn't keeping idiots from doing stupid things the general idea of civilization?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Liberalism is based on doing stupid things and getting affirmation rather than punishment ... or did Putin say that?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:48:40 AM
If plants don't suffer, then what's all the fuss about?  Wouldn't this be yet another sign of mercy?  Apparently you've never read or even heard about the world's religions. [emoji848](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190802/0a508c254fd6409939db1def181bb977.jpg)

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
You keep insisting that plants and plants suffering is what I am referring to when I mention 'pain and suffering'.  You have yet to address the pain and suffering with animals.  All of the 'scriptures' I'm aware of states it is not good to kill.  Killing a plant is killing a life.  It is simply a matter of magnitude. Yet, life is life................ So, even in the most basic of moral teachings 'don't kill', that teaching has to be explained by a religious leader in order to be understood--that, to me, is more than ironic.    And what leads you to think I am unaware of the worlds religions or scriptures?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 01:39:52 PM
They really got you, isn't it? The prime objective of those in power is to consolidate their powers, second objective is to increase it whenever the opportunity rises up. And they've convinced you to believe that you are stopping idiots from doing stupid things, while they are patting themselves on the shoulders when they see idiots like you doing their bid.
Ok, so you're a Marxist? I know of  certain atheist regimes that accomplish the consolidation of power very effectively without the use of theism.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 01:53:28 PM
You keep insisting that plants and plants suffering is what I am referring to when I mention 'pain and suffering'.  You have yet to address the pain and suffering with animals.  All of the 'scriptures' I'm aware of states it is not good to kill.  Killing a plant is killing a life.  It is simply a matter of magnitude. Yet, life is life................ So, even in the most basic of moral teachings 'don't kill', that teaching has to be explained by a religious leader in order to be understood--that, to me, is more than ironic.    And what leads you to think I am unaware of the worlds religions or scriptures?
Well you kind of lumped it all together when it's a number of different issues.  I like to address one thing at a time. God has never approved of killing, but in the context of scripture this is referring to things with a soul--people and animals.  But people became so savage in their rebellion that a concession was made in which animals could be killed for food.  Blood lust was so ingrained he couldn't take them off it cold turkey.  So in His wisdom he allowed animal flesh to wean the worst of them off the greater evil of cannibalism.  Kind of like nicotine gum.  In today's age we have become advanced and sophisticated enough to return to a vegetarian life style, and it's cool that you are leaning in that direction too, especially considering the amount of animal cruelty that is going on.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 02:02:11 PM
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion.  The scientific method was invented by a Muslim.  Religious people have made contributions to science all throughout history.  Astronomy was derived from religious beliefs that events on Earth corresponded to events in the heavens, which in turn was derived from the belief that God dwelled in heaven from whence decrees concerning our lives in Earth were issued.

I think you're simply ascribing to religion whatever progress has been made without religion, as such, having anything to do with any of it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 02:51:26 PM
Ok, so you're a Marxist? I know of  certain atheist regimes that accomplish the consolidation of power very effectively without the use of theism.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Nothing in my post says I'm a Marxist - I despise both people on the Left and on the Right. But that you misinterpreted my post as being Marxist is significant. It means you see things from the far Right POV, and at bottom, you are a fascist. Now live up to that, a religious nut who is a fascist to boot. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 02:52:38 PM
Well you kind of lumped it all together when it's a number of different issues.  I like to address one thing at a time. God has never approved of killing, but in the context of scripture this is referring to things with a soul--people and animals.  But people became so savage in their rebellion that a concession was made in which animals could be killed for food.  Blood lust was so ingrained he couldn't take them off it cold turkey.  So in His wisdom he allowed animal flesh to wean the worst of them off the greater evil of cannibalism.  Kind of like nicotine gum.  In today's age we have become advanced and sophisticated enough to return to a vegetarian life style, and it's cool that you are leaning in that direction too, especially considering the amount of animal cruelty that is going on.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Interesting.  Where did you get the info about what god is thinking.  God never approved of killing????  Read the OT; god is killing all the time.  He has no problem snuffing out an entire culture; man, woman and child.  Which I find extremely strange considering he is the creator of it all!  He seems to be very inept at creating creatures that he approves of.  And he created a system that makes a lion have to kill antelopes to live; and kill in a merciless manner.  If, as you say, bloodlust was ingrained, it was because god created the system that way.  He is to blame and nobody else.  I don't remember a time when cannibalism was widely accepted in human societies; and if the species were weaned off it--as you say--then it was that as a society it was put down; the human species itself figured out that cannibalism was counter productive for a human society/species to existing.  According to the OT, God created a flawed human from the very beginning.  And even later he had to use a flood to wipe out all people and creatures to get a fresh start at it.  And he screwed that up, as well.  Your creater god  is simply inept--and he takes it out on his creation, not himself.  For heaven's sake, he could not even get heaven right.  He created the devil and fallen angels.  Can't be more inept than that.   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 03:49:06 PM


  And what leads you to think I am unaware of the worlds religions or scriptures?
This:

"Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?"



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 03:52:26 PM
Nothing in my post says I'm a Marxist - I despise both people on the Left and on the Right. But that you misinterpreted my post as being Marxist is significant. It means you see things from the far Right POV, and at bottom, you are a fascist. Now live up to that, a religious nut who is a fascist to boot.
You are the one who sounds like a fascist, which is characterized by setting everything in Black and White stereotypes.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 04:02:04 PM
You are the one who sounds like a fascist, which is characterized by setting everything in Black and White stereotypes.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



You have a reading problem. My post was about how people in power use religion to keep the ordinary common people under their hold. This is true in both fascist and communist countries. But you didn't see it that way, and now you can only respond with insults. You're a waste of time.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 04:20:33 PM
This:

"Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?"



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Let me be more clear.  The bible was found in one place.  It was not found in Brazil, Spain, Jordan, Russia, etc.--at the time of the first bible.  And the bible did not just plop to the earth complete; it took a long process to get from those early writings to the various bibles that are extent in the world now.  And there is more than one version of the bible now--and that seems a bit odd to be the word of god. 

The Quran was found in only one place in the beginning.  The Hindu scriptures in a different place; the Buddhist scriptures the same; Zoroaster scriptures; and the same for all other scriptures.  Or, in other words, There was not one scripture found in more than one place.  All are a refection of the fact that all religions started as regional and spread only slowly.  Why would a god not be able to issue one set of instructions that could be read and understood in all places on the world and understood without the help of a set of priests of some type?  It is as though each culture created its own god and word of god. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 04:29:47 PM
Interesting.  Where did you get the info about what god is thinking.  God never approved of killing????  Read the OT; god is killing all the time.  He has no problem snuffing out an entire culture; man, woman and child.  Which I find extremely strange considering he is the creator of it all!  He seems to be very inept at creating creatures that he approves of.  And he created a system that makes a lion have to kill antelopes to live; and kill in a merciless manner.  If, as you say, bloodlust was ingrained, it was because god created the system that way.  He is to blame and nobody else.  I don't remember a time when cannibalism was widely accepted in human societies; and if the species were weaned off it--as you say--then it was that as a society it was put down; the human species itself figured out that cannibalism was counter productive for a human society/species to existing.  According to the OT, God created a flawed human from the very beginning.  And even later he had to use a flood to wipe out all people and creatures to get a fresh start at it.  And he screwed that up, as well.  Your creater god  is simply inept--and he takes it out on his creation, not himself.  For heaven's sake, he could not even get heaven right.  He created the devil and fallen angels.  Can't be more inept than that.
God created nothing fallen. The agency that he gave free will beings as a gift allows them to choose destruction, or to choose goodness.  If you want to go live in a world where everyone's forced to be good, be my guest.  True freedom includes the ability to abuse that freedom.  Have you ever tried to raise lions on veggie burgers?  If not then you don't know that they are required to kill zebras to survive.  You only assume.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 04:31:58 PM
You have a reading problem. My post was about how people in power use religion to keep the ordinary common people under their hold. This is true in both fascist and communist countries. But you didn't see it that way, and now you can only respond with insults. You're a waste of time.
Well you have a myopic view of history. Power has been abused by all sorts, religious or otherwise. Are you an Anarchist?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 04:49:31 PM
Let me be more clear.  The bible was found in one place.  It was not found in Brazil, Spain, Jordan, Russia, etc.--at the time of the first bible.  And the bible did not just plop to the earth complete; it took a long process to get from those early writings to the various bibles that are extent in the world now.  And there is more than one version of the bible now--and that seems a bit odd to be the word of god. 

The Quran was found in only one place in the beginning.  The Hindu scriptures in a different place; the Buddhist scriptures the same; Zoroaster scriptures; and the same for all other scriptures.  Or, in other words, There was not one scripture found in more than one place.  All are a refection of the fact that all religions started as regional and spread only slowly.  Why would a god not be able to issue one set of instructions that could be read and understood in all places on the world and understood without the help of a set of priests of some type?  It is as though each culture created its own god and word of god.
Ok.  For one thing many of these religions spread very rapidly, within the life time of their founding personalities, or within the same generation.  Secondly: God had to start somewhere didn't He?  Thirdly, most of them came intact with instructions, and a system of official representatives, priests, Apostles, Boddhisatvas, what have you-- personally trained by the founder to establish the teachings and spread them rapidly.  Lastly, each was tailored to the particular culture of origin to be organic to that culture, insuring maximum retention and longevity. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 05:14:44 PM
Well you have a myopic view of history.


Are you done with your insults? Coming from someone who has a reading problem, that's rich. You can't read a post without jumping to extreme conclusions. The myopic person is you.
 
Quote
Power has been abused by all sorts, religious or otherwise. Are you an Anarchist?


Again jumping to extreme conclusion. Why don't you address the post squarely on as opposed to stupid questions. Marxist, fascist and now anarchist?!? WTF. It should be clear to you that by now I'm an atheist, political labels aren't at play when a post addresses the abuses and misuses of power and its flagrant use of religion to keep people in their place. And useful idiots like you, myopic as you are, are enablers of those corrupted people in power. Shame on you.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:29:08 PM

Are you done with your insults? Coming from someone who has a reading problem, that's rich. You can't read a post without jumping to extreme conclusions. The myopic person is you.
 

Again jumping to extreme conclusion. Why don't you address the post squarely on as opposed to stupid questions. Marxist, fascist and now anarchist?!? WTF. It should be clear to you that by now I'm an atheist, political labels aren't at play when a post addresses the abuses and misuses of power and its flagrant use of religion to keep people in their place. And useful idiots like you, myopic as you are, are enablers of those corrupted people in power. Shame on you.
Atheism isn't a political party last time I checked, and your original comment addressed politics, which has little to do with religion.  Are you afraid of being labeled?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 05:32:10 PM
There have been many times and places where religion and politics were so intimately intertwined that there was no practical difference between them. Not so much any more, because secular governments got tired of the violence religions insisted on using, and put a stop to it, for the most part.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:47:18 PM
There have been many times and places where religion and politics were so intimately intertwined that there was no practical difference between them. Not so much any more, because secular governments got tired of the violence religions insisted on using, and put a stop to it, for the most part.
The concept of secularism was created by Christians who realized that Christianity was never meant to be a political affair and was therefore incapable of governing effectively. 

Before secularism, the idea of multiple religions existing in one nation was incomprehensible.  Naturally then they did get mixed up.  But the point of religion has never been about "keeping control of the masses" as @josephpalazzo asserts.  This is just another urban legend. Where it has been used this way, it was an abuse of design.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 05:57:58 PM
Atheism isn't a political party last time I checked, and your original comment addressed politics, which has little to do with religion.  Are you afraid of being labeled?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Labels like insults are cheap. My original post deals with people in power using religion for their own ends. There is politics in that statement, no doubt, but the main focus of that post is on the uses of religion, which you are unable or unwilling to address. That someone like you is a tool for those in power, and hence you are in denial.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 06:01:16 PM
The concept of secularism was created by Christians who realized that Christianity was never meant to be a political affair and was therefore incapable of governing effectively. 

You remind me of Ensign Chekov, who always said "we Russians invented that" about everything good.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 06:44:33 PM
God created nothing fallen. The agency that he gave free will beings as a gift allows them to choose destruction, or to choose goodness.  If you want to go live in a world where everyone's forced to be good, be my guest.  True freedom includes the ability to abuse that freedom.  Have you ever tried to raise lions on veggie burgers?  If not then you don't know that they are required to kill zebras to survive.  You only assume.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Don't know what you mean by 'fallen'.  but if the Devil does exist then god (in your view) must have created it.  If not, then your god is not the only creator god creating things.  So, if your god is the only god, then he must have created everything--or it would not exist.  What do you mean by free will? 

And has anyone ever found a lion feasting on roots?  Biologically, the lion must eat meat or die. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 06:51:51 PM
Yeah, how can they have any pudding if they don't eat their meat!?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:19:04 PM
There have been many times and places where religion and politics were so intimately intertwined that there was no practical difference between them. Not so much any more, because secular governments got tired of the violence religions insisted on using, and put a stop to it, for the most part.

Mostly anglophone, not from other cultures.  And because civil war between Catholicism and Anglicanism was the reality.  Absolute victory of one over the other was impossible.  Similarly the division between Scotland and England was over Presbyterianism, in Ireland over Catholicism, in N Ireland over Presbyterianism and in England it was Congregationalism vs Anglicanism.  Wales is divided from England because it is more Congregationalist.

This secular compromise is part of British politics more than European politics.  It is hard for other Europeans to understand, and incomprehensible for non-Europeans.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:20:52 PM
I think you're simply ascribing to religion whatever progress has been made without religion, as such, having anything to do with any of it.

All progress is by atheists ... eh Ensign Chekhov?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:21:47 PM
Nothing in my post says I'm a Marxist - I despise both people on the Left and on the Right. But that you misinterpreted my post as being Marxist is significant. It means you see things from the far Right POV, and at bottom, you are a fascist. Now live up to that, a religious nut who is a fascist to boot.

Both are socialist, totalitarian.  Both are anti-American.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:22:51 PM
This:

"Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?"



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Not true.  Much comes from the Middle East, but also S Asia and E Asia.  With indigenous religion found ... everywhere.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 08:25:37 PM
The concept of secularism was created by Christians who realized that Christianity was never meant to be a political affair and was therefore incapable of governing effectively. 

Before secularism, the idea of multiple religions existing in one nation was incomprehensible.  Naturally then they did get mixed up.  But the point of religion has never been about "keeping control of the masses" as [member=13740]josephpalazzo[/member] asserts.  This is just another urban legend. Where it has been used this way, it was an abuse of design.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

More specifically, Englishmen, and American-English colonials.  Other people have never been that practical or tolerant.  They are addicted to jihad and crusade of all types.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 09:26:19 PM
Ok.  For one thing many of these religions spread very rapidly, within the life time of their founding personalities, or within the same generation.  Secondly: God had to start somewhere didn't He?  Thirdly, most of them came intact with instructions, and a system of official representatives, priests, Apostles, Boddhisatvas, what have you-- personally trained by the founder to establish the teachings and spread them rapidly.  Lastly, each was tailored to the particular culture of origin to be organic to that culture, insuring maximum retention and longevity. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
God had to start somewhere?  :))  How about at the beginning.  He created the entire universe, for heaven sake.  When he created Earth and created humans, surely he knew they would spread and speak different languages.  I find it impossible to think he would not have known how to speak and write those languages; to not include a comprehensive, understandable, consistent instruction guide for his creation is cruel at best and inept at worst.  Well, the bible did not come with intact instructions nor a system of official representatives;  the bible was assembled over a long, long time with much blood spilled over what the bible consisted of and how to interpret it.  The battle in Christendom is still raging.  There really is no 'The Bible' today and there never was. 

You say, 'Lastly, each was tailored to the particular culture of origin to be organic to that culture, ....'.  Naturally.  Since each culture invented their own concept of who and what god(s) were and how god operated.  After all, the concept of god is a purely human construct and used in each culture as a way of crowd control.  naturally.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 09:35:24 PM
Part of the 70 prophets for 70 tribes mythology.  It made sense 2000 years ago.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:29:33 PM
Labels like insults are cheap. My original post deals with people in power using religion for their own ends. There is politics in that statement, no doubt, but the main focus of that post is on the uses of religion, which you are unable or unwilling to address. That someone like you is a tool for those in power, and hence you are in denial.
I'm not a tool, first of all, and secondly I don't support any abuse of religion for power.  It has nothing to do with the purpose of religion.  Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this Earth;" I don't pretend that abuse never happens but that doesn't mean all religious people are supporting the use of religion for power, or "tools" of those who do.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:33:00 PM
Don't know what you mean by 'fallen'.  but if the Devil does exist then god (in your view) must have created it.  If not, then your god is not the only creator god creating things.  So, if your god is the only god, then he must have created everything--or it would not exist.  What do you mean by free will? 

And has anyone ever found a lion feasting on roots?  Biologically, the lion must eat meat or die.
To clarify, God created nothing in a fallen state.  To fall was an exercise of choice by the devil and thus he, not God is responsible for being fallen.  There's nothing complicated about free will--it just means you have the ability to make choices.  You're not a robot.  If God had made us all  robots then you could blame humanity's folly on Him, but He didn't.  We are responsible for ourselves.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:43:54 PM
And has anyone ever found a lion feasting on roots?  Biologically, the lion must eat meat or die.
Again you assume (so much).  According to Genesis 1:30 God created all humans and animals to be vegetarian.  It was the fall of man which precipitated the savage conditions on Earth.  Again, free will.

"Two lions have been known to be vegetarian. Perhaps the most famous is “Little Tyke,” who died many years ago. The large cat was raised on a farm but refused to eat meat throughout the duration of her life.2 Her vegetarian diet showed that cats, though carnivorous in the wild, can easily be sustained on diets that are vegetarian."

Source:

https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/what-animals-eat/unexpectedly-vegetarian-animals-what-does-it-mean/


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:44:56 PM
  It has nothing to do with the purpose of religion.  Jesus said "my kingdom is not if this Earth;"
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Two things:
1--Just what is the purpose of religion and how do you know?

2--Jesus is a fiction (he never existed) and can be made to say anything. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:02:56 AM
Two things:
1--Just what is the purpose of religion and how do you know?

2--Jesus is a fiction (he never existed) and can be made to say anything.
Everything I know about religion comes from contemplating the scriptures.  The purpose is the harmonization of the biological organism (the human body) with the indwelling soul and with its Creator. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:15:02 AM


2--Jesus is a fiction (he never existed) and can be made to say anything.
Here is the full reference:

"Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36

Establishing political power is not the purpose of religion. People who use it for that are misusing it. 


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 12:50:13 AM
Establishing political power is not the purpose of religion. People who use it for that are misusing it.
Amazing.  We actually agree about something.  Religion ought not to be about political power.

But it is.

It is and that's why the world is the way that it is now.  It's why we both have religion highly ingrained in us from a very young age.  It's a lot of ideas went unspoken for years, sometimes centuries.  It's why other ideas were spread far and wide, to the willing and unwilling alike.  It's why a lot of people spent their whole lives not quite themselves.

I often wonder what would've happened had religion never really been completely organized, had religion remained idle speculation and shamanistic ritual, never passing into written law or the corridors of power.  What would be different?  What would be the same?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 08:09:27 AM
This:
"Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?"
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

as yes another one who claims that of the thousands of religions humanity has invented- his is the correct one because it is the one his parents taught him. ho-hum...another twit.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:05:07 AM
Amazing.  We actually agree about something.  Religion ought not to be about political power.

But it is.

It is and that's why the world is the way that it is now.  It's why we both have religion highly ingrained in us from a very young age.  It's a lot of ideas went unspoken for years, sometimes centuries.  It's why other ideas were spread far and wide, to the willing and unwilling alike.  It's why a lot of people spent their whole lives not quite themselves.

I often wonder what would've happened had religion never really been completely organized, had religion remained idle speculation and shamanistic ritual, never passing into written law or the corridors of power.  What would be different?  What would be the same?

If you don't like political power, ban political parties, ban Youtube, ban Google, ban Twitter ..
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 09:14:58 AM
This:
"Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?"
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
but to your point anyway....if you have ever bothered to read a book about human history you will not find a single religion has EVER spread without the use of a spear, sword or gun. So the idea that any religion spread because it was a just one is flat out bullshit and "absolute" proof of your ignorance.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 03, 2019, 09:18:04 AM
  But the point of religion has never been about "keeping control of the masses" as [member=13740]josephpalazzo[/member] asserts.  This is just another urban legend.



An urban legend??? What about those imams who recruit young Muslims and promise them 72 virgins if they martyr themselves in the name of Allah and
send them to murder innocent people. Those imams are using religion for their own political ends. Urban legend my ass... The Saudi Royals are using religion throughout their kingdom to keep their citizens under tight control. Legend my ass...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 09:43:38 AM
Here is the full reference:

"Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." John 18:36

Establishing political power is not the purpose of religion. People who use it for that are misusing it. 


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
A full quote is still a quote from fiction by a fictional character.  And I see the use of religion on any stage is misusing it.  Another problem I see with using any religion as a norm for anything, is that no two people in any religion believe the exact same thing.  When I was a member (and president of the board) of my church, I was amazed when I realized that no two people in that church (including the minister) believed the exact same things. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:10:55 AM
I often wonder what would've happened had religion never really been completely organized, had religion remained idle speculation and shamanistic ritual, never passing into written law or the corridors of power.  What would be different?  What would be the same?
Let me help you with that:

1.  Remove 10 Commandments.  Result: Murder is legal, including human sacrifice and cannibalism.  Theft is legal, property law is abolished.  The most ruthless and bloodthirsty rule by default.  Marriage abolished, meaning women are left to deal with offspring on their own, many of which do not survive.  Society collapses as there is no civil order, and thus no commerce or industry is possible.  We return to a hunter-gatherer society of small roaming tribal groups, each with its own gods and constantly battling over resources and perpetual grievances. Perjury is legal meaning the courts become irrelevant and you must personally fight to resolve any infringement of your rights, or hope your family will do so.  Eventually it's simply question of which tribe can exterminate the others before they get exterminated--you know, "survival of the fittest." There's a little snapshot for you of what the world looks like without organized religion. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:17:11 AM
but to your point anyway....if you have ever bothered to read a book about human history you will not find a single religion has EVER spread without the use of a spear, sword or gun. So the idea that any religion spread because it was a just one is flat out bullshit and "absolute" proof of your ignorance.
That's a wild distortion.  There has never been a period of history where any culture has not had to take up the sword for mere survival--religion or no religion.   The sword does not pertain to religion--rather it pertains to the nature of life on Earth.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:33:24 AM

An urban legend??? What about those imams who recruit young Muslims and promise them 72 virgins if they martyr themselves in the name of Allah and
send them to murder innocent people. Those imams are using religion for their own political ends. Urban legend my ass... The Saudi Royals are using religion throughout their kingdom to keep their citizens under tight control. Legend my ass...
That's geo-politics.  The fact that politicians frequently use religion doesn't equate to religion being about politics.  A simple logical error in your thought process, catalyzed by your confirmation bias. 

For instance, suppose you said, "all apples are red.". Some might agree with you, and some might not.  But you believe all apples are red.  Then you see me holding a red pear, and exclaim, "Why AA, you have an apple in your hand!". And then we get into an argument.  I say, yes, most apples are red, and most pears are not, but this red pear is still a pear despite all the green ones, and the many red apples.   But you've never seen a green apple nor a red pear and thus in your mind, it cannot be other than an apple.  To get me to agree that my pear is an apple you then say I am stupid, and advocating fake apples and pears.  Yet I'm still holding a pear.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 10:39:46 AM
Let me help you with that:

1.  Remove 10 Commandments.  Result: .............................. 
From what I can tell, your Hellish description describes much of the world now living under religious rule.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:40:19 AM
A full quote is still a quote from fiction by a fictional character.  And I see the use of religion on any stage is misusing it.  Another problem I see with using any religion as a norm for anything, is that no two people in any religion believe the exact same thing.  When I was a member (and president of the board) of my church, I was amazed when I realized that no two people in that church (including the minister) believed the exact same things.
What a convincing argument that all the scriptures must be fiction... [emoji848]. Everyone in your church disagreed about the interpretation; and you said so to boot.  Jaw-dropping. Welp, I might as well sell off my copies of the Bible; Mike CI said it was all fiction!

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 03, 2019, 10:50:01 AM
That's geo-politics.  The fact that politicians frequently use religion doesn't equate to religion being about politics.  A simple logical error in your thought process, catalyzed by your confirmation bias. 

Again you have a reading problem. I've never said that religion is about politics. What I said is that religion is used as a tool by those who are in power. And people like you are useful idiots in spreading a religion which turns the targeted people as prime zombies for those who are in power.

Quote
For instance, suppose you said, "all apples are red.". Some might agree with you, and some might not.  But you believe all apples are red.  Then you see me holding a red pear, and exclaim, "Why AA, you have an apple in your hand!". And then we get into an argument.  I say, yes, most apples are red, and most pears are not, but this red pear is still a pear despite all the green ones, and the many red apples.   But you've never seen a green apple nor a red pear and thus in your mind, it cannot be other than an apple.  To get me to agree that my pear is an apple you then say I am stupid, and advocating fake apples and pears.  Yet I'm still holding a pear.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



You've mixed up my post with someone else's. I've never brought the subject of red apples. Try again.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 10:58:54 AM
What a convincing argument that all the scriptures must be fiction... [emoji848]. Everyone in your church disagreed about the interpretation; and you said so to boot.  Jaw-dropping. Welp, I might as well sell off my copies of the Bible; Mike CI said it was all fiction!

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
You keep putting words into my mouth--as a theist I do expect that type of thing from you.  I did NOT say, all disagreed with any interpretation of anything.  I said they all believed different things and that not any two people agreed completely one every point.

Which bible, btw, would you want to discard?  There are so many out there that saying you'd toss out a bible gives us no clue as to which one it is.  A 'fiction' is something created by people that is not based on facts or historical data; they made it up.  That describes any bible you wish to read.  I do say the bible is fiction--but I do so after much study of the history of the bible.  Clearly it is a work of fiction by committee and not one person; and compiled over a great length of time.  What leads you to believe the bible is not fiction? 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 11:06:17 AM
From what I can tell, your Hellish description describes much of the world now living under religious rule.
Are you living in a bunker somewhere in upstate New York?  We're under secular rule.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 11:22:39 AM
Let me help you with that:

1.  Remove 10 Commandments.  Result: Murder is legal, including human sacrifice and cannibalism.  Theft is legal, property law is abolished.  The most ruthless and bloodthirsty rule by default.  Marriage abolished, meaning women are left to deal with offspring on their own, many of which do not survive.  Society collapses as there is no civil order, and thus no commerce or industry is possible.  We return to a hunter-gatherer society of small roaming tribal groups, each with its own gods and constantly battling over resources and perpetual grievances. Perjury is legal meaning the courts become irrelevant and you must personally fight to resolve any infringement of your rights, or hope your family will do so.  Eventually it's simply question of which tribe can exterminate the others before they get exterminated--you know, "survival of the fittest." There's a little snapshot for you of what the world looks like without organized religion. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Atheists don't think evil exists.  Just voting for the wrong political party ;-)  They also think that by their giant alien brains, they can deduce natural law (without closet reference to residual religious culture).  They support evolution but deny the predatory nature of humans.  Or better yet, say that predation is natural and should not be prohibited.  They of course despise the ancestors, from whom such scriptures derive.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 11:24:26 AM
From what I can tell, your Hellish description describes much of the world now living under religious rule.

Most people are religious.  There is no sign that it will ever go away, anymore than art will go away (that one happens to dislike).  You can always propose humanitarian genocide ;-)  Perhaps nuclear attack on Iran?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 11:26:20 AM
That's a wild distortion.  There has never been a period of history where any culture has not had to take up the sword for mere survival--religion or no religion.   The sword does not pertain to religion--rather it pertains to the nature of life on Earth.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

All atheists are pacifists, like Gandhi ... uh ... Gandhi was Hindu.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 11:27:51 AM
Are you living in a bunker somewhere in upstate New York?  We're under secular rule.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

For atheists, the mere existence of one religious person is ... reeee.  Well, that is paranoia, not atheism.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 11:29:57 AM
What a convincing argument that all the scriptures must be fiction... [emoji848]. Everyone in your church disagreed about the interpretation; and you said so to boot.  Jaw-dropping. Welp, I might as well sell off my copies of the Bible; Mike CI said it was all fiction!

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

All scripture is fiction, is man made.  Inspired?  That is the question.  For libertines, any writing that doesn't say ... go and do whatever you feel like ... is Nazis.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 11:32:20 AM
Are you living in a bunker somewhere in upstate New York?  We're under secular rule.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Updates NY has Hasidic Jews.  W Pennsylvania has Amish.  Miniature Irans.  Utah has Mormons.  They are the only ones in the US not under secular rule.  People here however are totalitarian for their particular political party.  Secular isn't enough, you have to be the right flavor of secular.  And the POV now is ... if we don't crush our opponents, we will be crushed.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 11:49:02 AM
What leads you to believe the bible is not fiction?
The content.  I always judge content first.  Fiction denotes falsehood.  You can't know something is false simply because the evidence doesn't add up.  You can only know for certain is that it hasn't been proved true.  This is the only logical position in your case, going strictly by scientific standards.  In my case, the content is more important than the mode in which it was transmitted.  If it produces good results, then it is true enough.  If not, then I start digging.  And that's what I have done.  That's how I prove it to myself, because this is the standard that matters most to me.  I'm not overly interested in scientific methods unless they're playing a supporting role for a larger objective.  This is because I don't consider science as being capable of ever arriving at ultimate reality! [emoji16]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 12:01:26 PM
Are you living in a bunker somewhere in upstate New York?  We're under secular rule.
Yes, and that secular rule is what gives you your precious right to religious freedom.  Well... as long as you don't impinge on the freedom of others.  We no longer throw a guy in a lake with a rock tied around his neck to see if he is free of sin.  Nor do we burn women at the stake, another religious practice that delighted the righteous.  Religion was the cause of that.  Reason was the cure.  Skeptics reasoned that this was unfounded nonsense.  Religion is behind much of the world's atrocities, both historically and today.  Reason brought it to a more enlightened society, well hardly completely enlightened, as evidenced by people like yourself.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 12:17:21 PM
Yes, and that secular rule is what gives you your precious right to religious freedom.  Well... as long as you don't impinge on the freedom of others.  We no longer throw a guy in a lake with a rock tied around his neck to see if he is free of sin.  Nor do we burn women at the stake, another religious practice that delighted the righteous.  Religion was the cause of that.  Reason was the cure.  Skeptics reasoned that this was unfounded nonsense.  Religion is behind much of the world's atrocities, both historically and today.  Reason brought it to a more enlightened society, well hardly completely enlightened, as evidenced by people like yourself.

No, you support the Saudis murdering in Yemen and the ISIS in Syria.

When the Papacy was a crime ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCkE1RXQ8kg

Pope Alexander was the guy who decided in 1498 that half the world belonged to Spain and the other half to Portugal.  Inadvertently creating Brazil.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:44:34 PM


Which bible, btw, would you want to discard?  There are so many out there that saying you'd toss out a bible gives us no clue as to which one it is.
I was being facetious of course.  I consider the NRSV to be most accurate, although no translation can be relied upon as authoritative.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 12:57:29 PM
I was being facetious of course.  I consider the NRSV to be most accurate, although no translation can be relied upon as authoritative.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You don't read Hebrew and Greek??  Scandalous.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 12:58:41 PM
Let me help you with that:

1.  Remove 10 Commandments.  Result: Murder is legal, including human sacrifice and cannibalism.  Theft is legal, property law is abolished.  The most ruthless and bloodthirsty rule by default.  Marriage abolished, meaning women are left to deal with offspring on their own, many of which do not survive.  Society collapses as there is no civil order, and thus no commerce or industry is possible.  We return to a hunter-gatherer society of small roaming tribal groups, each with its own gods and constantly battling over resources and perpetual grievances. Perjury is legal meaning the courts become irrelevant and you must personally fight to resolve any infringement of your rights, or hope your family will do so.  Eventually it's simply question of which tribe can exterminate the others before they get exterminated--you know, "survival of the fittest." There's a little snapshot for you of what the world looks like without organized religion. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
My oh my--savages we would be if not for the 10 Commandments!!  Thank god for god!!!  But..........in all the 10 commandments I've read it says not to kill--doesn't mention murder.  I've read some pundits who said that the word 'kill' in this instance means murder, yet it still says kill in the bibles I've read.  So, if you put your trust in the bible, then simply killing anything is against god's directive and you violate it daily.  The 10 Commandments are all that stands between us and a collapsed society?  Really?  You do realize that our legal system is based on English common law and precedent, right?  And more directly on our constitution which to my knowledge does not mention the 10 commandments nor god.  What does perjury have to do with the bible??  It is not even used anymore for swearing in. 

You may strive to follow the 10 commandments, but I'm not sure you know what they are.  Do you know where to find them in your bible?  Here--i'll help.  There are three sets located at Exodus 20 and another at Exodus 34, and a third at Deut. 5.  This is what the list at Ex. 34 looks like:
34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

God said to Moses,
Make two stone tablets like the ones that you broke.
I'll write the same words that were on the originals. [1]

34:2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

34:3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.

Present yourself to me tomorrow morning on the top of Mount Sinai.

But keep all other people and animals away from the mountain.

34:4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

So Moses cut two stone tablets that were like the first ones.

Then, early the next morning, he carried them up mount Sinai. [2]

34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

When Moses got to the top of the mountain, God descended in a cloud and stood there with him [3], while making a little speech.

34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

He began by introducing himself to Moses, saying:

I am the Lord, the Lord God, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

I am merciful and forgiving, although I punish children for what their fathers did, even for what their great-great grandfathers did a hundred years before they were born. [4]

34:8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

34:9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O LORD, let my LORD, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

Moses bowed down so low that his head touched the ground, and said,

Please go with us, for we are a stiffnecked people.
Forgive our sins and take us for your inheritance.

34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

God said to Moses,

I'll make a covenant with you.
I'll do marvels and a terrible thing like no one has ever seen before.

34:11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

You will obey the commands that I give you today.

And I'll drive out all the people who live on the land where you're going. [5]

34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

Make sure that you don't make any covenants with them.

34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

Destroy all their altars, images, and groves.

34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

And don't worship any other god. [6]

Because my name is "Jealous" [7] and I am a jealous God.

34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

So don't make any covenants with them, don't go whoring after their gods [8], and don't eat any sacrifices to them.

34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Don't take their daughters for your sons, because their daughters go a whoring after their gods and they'll make your sons go a whoring after their gods. [9]

34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

Don't make any molten gods.

34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

Keep the feast of unleaven bread.

34:19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

The first male offspring of every womb belongs to me.

34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

But your first male ass you shall redeem with a lamb.

If you fail to redeem him, you must break his neck.

You must redeem all your sons. [10]

No one shall appear before me empty.

34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

Don't work on the seventh day. [11]
`
34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

Observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits, and of ingathering.
34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

Three times a year all your men must appear before me.   [12]
34:24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

I'll cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders.
No one will want your land. [13]

34:25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

Don't offer the blood of my sacrifices with leaven.

And don't leave any leftovers from your passover sacrifice until morning.

34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Bring your first fruits to my house.

Don't boil a kid in its mother's milk.

34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

God said to Moses,
Write these words; they are my covenant with you and Israel. [14]

34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The first part of this passage clearly demonstrates your god's mercy (yes, I mean lack of it!).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 12:59:43 PM
G-d isn't like Gandhi.  Not even Gandhi was like Gandhi.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:08:37 PM
Yes, and that secular rule is what gives you your precious right to religious freedom.  Well... as long as you don't impinge on the freedom of others.  We no longer throw a guy in a lake with a rock tied around his neck to see if he is free of sin.  Nor do we burn women at the stake, another religious practice that delighted the righteous.  Religion was the cause of that.  Reason was the cure.  Skeptics reasoned that this was unfounded nonsense.  Religion is behind much of the world's atrocities, both historically and today.  Reason brought it to a more enlightened society, well hardly completely enlightened, as evidenced by people like yourself.
Some tragic examples of extremism to be sure, and I am a proponent of religious freedom.  No doubt you're not bothered at all that satanists (atheists) are abusing that same religious freedom to sacrifice children alive.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/brazilian-police-release-details-of-grisly-child-sacrifice

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:16:48 PM
My oh my--savages we would be if not for the 10 Commandments!!  Thank god for god!!!  But..........in all the 10 commandments I've read it says not to kill--doesn't mention murder.  I've read some pundits who said that the word 'kill' in this instance means murder, yet it still says kill in the bibles I've read.  So, if you put your trust in the bible, then simply killing anything is against god's directive and you violate it daily.  The 10 Commandments are all that stands between us and a collapsed society?  Really?  You do realize that our legal system is based on English common law and precedent, right?  And more directly on our constitution which to my knowledge does not mention the 10 commandments nor god.  What does perjury have to do with the bible??  It is not even used anymore for swearing in. 

You may strive to follow the 10 commandments, but I'm not sure you know what they are.  Do you know where to find them in your bible?  Here--i'll help.  There are three sets located at Exodus 20 and another at Exodus 34, and a third at Deut. 5.  This is what the list at Ex. 34 looks like:
34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

God said to Moses,
Make two stone tablets like the ones that you broke.
I'll write the same words that were on the originals. [1]

34:2 And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

34:3 And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.

Present yourself to me tomorrow morning on the top of Mount Sinai.

But keep all other people and animals away from the mountain.

34:4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

So Moses cut two stone tablets that were like the first ones.

Then, early the next morning, he carried them up mount Sinai. [2]

34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

When Moses got to the top of the mountain, God descended in a cloud and stood there with him [3], while making a little speech.

34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

He began by introducing himself to Moses, saying:

I am the Lord, the Lord God, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

I am merciful and forgiving, although I punish children for what their fathers did, even for what their great-great grandfathers did a hundred years before they were born. [4]

34:8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.

34:9 And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O LORD, let my LORD, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

Moses bowed down so low that his head touched the ground, and said,

Please go with us, for we are a stiffnecked people.
Forgive our sins and take us for your inheritance.

34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

God said to Moses,

I'll make a covenant with you.
I'll do marvels and a terrible thing like no one has ever seen before.

34:11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

You will obey the commands that I give you today.

And I'll drive out all the people who live on the land where you're going. [5]

34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

Make sure that you don't make any covenants with them.

34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

Destroy all their altars, images, and groves.

34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

And don't worship any other god. [6]

Because my name is "Jealous" [7] and I am a jealous God.

34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

So don't make any covenants with them, don't go whoring after their gods [8], and don't eat any sacrifices to them.

34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Don't take their daughters for your sons, because their daughters go a whoring after their gods and they'll make your sons go a whoring after their gods. [9]

34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

Don't make any molten gods.

34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

Keep the feast of unleaven bread.

34:19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

The first male offspring of every womb belongs to me.

34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

But your first male ass you shall redeem with a lamb.

If you fail to redeem him, you must break his neck.

You must redeem all your sons. [10]

No one shall appear before me empty.

34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

Don't work on the seventh day. [11]
`
34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

Observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits, and of ingathering.
34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

Three times a year all your men must appear before me.   [12]
34:24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

I'll cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders.
No one will want your land. [13]

34:25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

Don't offer the blood of my sacrifices with leaven.

And don't leave any leftovers from your passover sacrifice until morning.

34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Bring your first fruits to my house.

Don't boil a kid in its mother's milk.

34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

God said to Moses,
Write these words; they are my covenant with you and Israel. [14]

34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The first part of this passage clearly demonstrates your god's mercy (yes, I mean lack of it!).
An atheist quoting scripture... Poignant.  What you fail to mention is that the tribes ordered to be exterminated were worshippers of Moloch--child sacrificers.  Not only that they were violating territorial boundaries by settling in the land of Israel. Do you wish they were still around today?  Well, look no more.  Here's the logical conclusion of atheism:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/brazilian-police-release-details-of-grisly-child-sacrifice

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:18:45 PM
Again you assume (so much).  According to Genesis 1:30 God created all humans and animals to be vegetarian.  It was the fall of man which precipitated the savage conditions on Earth.

So, Eve ate some fruit and suddenly all the animals on Earth started eating each other? Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds to those of us who are outside your faith? Can you look at your faith from outside, as we do, and still not see why we don't believe it?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:21:07 PM
Everything I know about religion comes from contemplating the scriptures.

So it's the scriptures you have faith in, not the God they portray. Why do you believe the scriptures you've read are reliable avenues to Truth?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:24:49 PM
You don't read Hebrew and Greek??  Scandalous.
Touché.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:30:42 PM
Let me help you with that:

1.  Remove 10 Commandments.  Result: Murder is legal, including human sacrifice and cannibalism.  Theft is legal, property law is abolished.  The most ruthless and bloodthirsty rule by default.  Marriage abolished, meaning women are left to deal with offspring on their own, many of which do not survive.  Society collapses as there is no civil order, and thus no commerce or industry is possible.  We return to a hunter-gatherer society of small roaming tribal groups, each with its own gods and constantly battling over resources and perpetual grievances. Perjury is legal meaning the courts become irrelevant and you must personally fight to resolve any infringement of your rights, or hope your family will do so.  Eventually it's simply question of which tribe can exterminate the others before they get exterminated--you know, "survival of the fittest." There's a little snapshot for you of what the world looks like without organized religion. 


So you believe that without religion no human-made laws would be possible? Have you never heard of the Code of Hammurabi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)?

And that's just one outstanding example. Religion is not needed for humans to realize that laws and their enforcement are necessary.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:31:37 PM
So, Eve ate some fruit and suddenly all the animals on Earth started eating each other? Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds to those of us who are outside your faith? Can you look at your faith from outside, as we do, and still not see why we don't believe it?
I sympathize with your incredulity.  It was probably more of a gradual shift rather than sudden.  The fact remains though, if you believed Genesis 1:30, wouldn't you kill less animals?  And wouldn't it resolve Mike CI's dilemma if everyone did that, resulting in a happier, more peaceful world?  I'm a firm believer in the proof's in the pudding.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:33:49 PM
So it's the scriptures you have faith in, not the God they portray. Why do you believe the scriptures you've read are reliable avenues to Truth?

The content.  I always judge content first.  Fiction denotes falsehood.  You can't know something is false simply because the evidence doesn't add up.  You can only know for certain is that it hasn't been proved true.  This is the only logical position in your case, going strictly by scientific standards.  In my case, the content is more important than the mode in which it was transmitted.  If it produces good results, then it is true enough.  If not, then I start digging.  And that's what I have done.  That's how I prove it to myself, because this is the standard that matters most to me.  I'm not overly interested in scientific methods unless they're playing a supporting role for a larger objective.  This is because I don't consider science as being capable of ever arriving at ultimate reality! [emoji16]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

The scriptures are instructions sent by God.  Truth is not attained except through revelation.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:43:17 PM

So you believe that without religion no human-made laws would be possible? Have you never heard of the Code of Hammurabi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)?

And that's just one outstanding example. Religion is not needed for humans to realize that laws and their enforcement are necessary.
I don't see that humans could develop to the same level of advancement in jurisprudence through reason alone. Revelation is necessary for enlightened society.  Yet reason is not to be discarded, as it is a necessary tool in the proper application of revealed truth.  Both are meant to be used in conjunction.  Could man develop laws on his own?  Maybe, but nowhere near what he is capable of with divine assistance.  Wouldn't you know it...  Hammurabi received his code from the god Shamash.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:46:13 PM
Let me help you with that:

1.  Remove 10 Commandments.  Result: Murder is legal, including human sacrifice and cannibalism.  Theft is legal, property law is abolished.  The most ruthless and bloodthirsty rule by default.  Marriage abolished, meaning women are left to deal with offspring on their own, many of which do not survive.  Society collapses as there is no civil order, and thus no commerce or industry is possible.  We return to a hunter-gatherer society of small roaming tribal groups, each with its own gods and constantly battling over resources and perpetual grievances. Perjury is legal meaning the courts become irrelevant and you must personally fight to resolve any infringement of your rights, or hope your family will do so.  Eventually it's simply question of which tribe can exterminate the others before they get exterminated--you know, "survival of the fittest." There's a little snapshot for you of what the world looks like without organized religion. 


Which 10 Commandments? The ones at Exodus 20:1-17? Or the ones at Exodus 34:14-26?

Only the latter set are actually referred to "in scripture" as "the ten commandments" : Exodus 34:28
Quote
And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


 So I hope you've never seethed a kid in its mother's milk.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:48:15 PM
All scripture is fiction, is man made.  Inspired?  That is the question.  For libertines, any writing that doesn't say ... go and do whatever you feel like ... is Nazis.

Yeah, Alistair Crowley said, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Was he a "libertine"?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:54:32 PM
An atheist quoting scripture... Poignant.  What you fail to mention is that the tribes ordered to be exterminated were worshippers of Moloch--child sacrificers.  Not only that they were violating territorial boundaries by settling in the land of Israel. Do you wish they were still around today?  Well, look no more.  Here's the logical conclusion of atheism:
So, Jephthah didn't sacrifice his daughter to God?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:03:51 PM
The scriptures are instructions sent by God.  Truth is not attained except through revelation.

But God is not the author of confusion, according to 1Corinthians 14:33:
Quote
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

and yet the Bible is the single most confusing piece of literature ever written! That's why there are, according to the World Christian Encyclopedia, more than 30,000 different Christian denominations all claiming their religion is straight from the Bible.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:05:20 PM
I don't see that humans could develop to the same level of advancement in jurisprudence through reason alone.[/quote'


Oh, I get it, YOU don't see it, so obviously it could never be done. Riiiight.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:08:23 PM
Wouldn't you know it...  Hammurabi received his code from the god Shamash.

But, since the god Shamash did not exist, then those laws all came from human minds. Or did the god Shamash actually exist to give those laws to Hammurabi?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:11:25 PM
That's a wild distortion.  There has never been a period of history where any culture has not had to take up the sword for mere survival--religion or no religion.   The sword does not pertain to religion--rather it pertains to the nature of life on Earth.


Bullshit. You're a liar or an idiot. History is nothing but killing people over religion. I think you're both.


Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:12:55 PM
So, Jephthah didn't sacrifice his daughter to God?
A tragic example of human folly.  We don't see anywhere that God commanded Jepthah to do this, or that He was even consulted.  However we do have in the Bible commands to the Israelites not to cause your sons to pass through the fire (Lev. 7:21) clearly indicating God never approved of child sacrifice.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10937-moloch-molech

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:16:27 PM
But, since the god Shamash did not exist, then those laws all came from human minds. Or did the god Shamash actually exist to give those laws to Hammurabi?
Shamash was one of our ancient alien progenitor races, worshipped as gods out of ignorance. That's why I used a lowercase "g".

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:18:21 PM
Shamash was one of our ancient alien progenitor races, mistakenly worshipped as gods. That's why I used a lowercase "g".

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


LOLOLOL......jebus on a cracker....what a nut job.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:31:02 PM
An atheist quoting scripture... Poignant.  What you fail to mention is that the tribes ordered to be exterminated were worshippers of Moloch--child sacrificers.  Not only that they were violating territorial boundaries by settling in the land of Israel. Do you wish they were still around today?  Well, look no more.  Here's the logical conclusion of atheism:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/brazilian-police-release-details-of-grisly-child-sacrifice

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Once again, you skirt the issue and the questions.  You did not answer any of the questions I put to you.  Maybe you could do that--or maybe you don't really have any answers to give.  When a person is an atheist, does merely looking at a bible strike them blind?  I would venture to say that I have read a bible from cover to cover--I would suggest most of those who profess to be christian have not done that. 

As for your suggestion that satan worshipers kill children has been debunked long ago.  But gullible theists like yourself (theists who don't check out facts all that well or often) still believe they do.  And I would suggest the members of the Church of Satan would not call themselves atheists.  After all, your god created Satan--as well as the Moloch.  If they did sacrifice children then it was because they were created with that capacity--and if god were really that adamant about them changing, he could do that in a heartbeat.  But no, he would rather sate his own bloodlust through his 'chosen'--whom he created as well.   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:33:51 PM
The scriptures are instructions sent by God.  Truth is not attained except through revelation.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
That is very very handy for those doing the revealing!!!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:39:29 PM
Shamash was one of our ancient alien progenitor races, worshipped as gods out of ignorance. That's why I used a lowercase "g".

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
What???? :)))))))) You have been watching too much History channel!!!!!   Oh god...........!!!!  My side hurts from laughing.  Thanks, a good laugh is really good at times. :)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:43:53 PM
I don't see how we're supposed to believe someone who claims they've had a "revelation from God." How are we to know they're not lying or mistaken? Especially when their "revelation" is the polar opposite of "revelations" given by God to other people?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:48:08 PM
  I'm not overly interested in scientific methods unless they're playing a supporting role for a larger objective.  This is because I don't consider science as being capable of ever arriving at ultimate reality! [emoji16]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Apparently, you are not interested in any methods (especially scientific) unless it matches your own ideas.  You simply discard every piece of information that does not fit your own ideas of what is correct.  You only prove anything to yourself and you seem to care less about any body else and what they think.  It must be super easy to live in your world in which facts and reasons and reasoning don't matter--just what you believe.  Go for it--it's your life.  But don't mind my giggling and laughing in the background for the absurdity of your believing is really quite comedic.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:52:17 PM
I've read some pundits who said that the word 'kill' in this instance means murder, yet it still says kill in the bibles I've read.  So, if you put your trust in the bible, then simply killing anything is against god's directive and you violate it daily.
Even if I accept that it means kill in the broadest sense including plants--which I don't, then it is possible, as I mentioned, to harvest vegetables without killing the plant itself, as in the case of tomatoes, squash, nuts, and so forth.  Thus it would be POSSIBLE to fulfill the strictest sense of the commandment. 



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:56:39 PM
Even if I accept that it means kill in the broadest sense including plants--which I don't, then it is possible, as I mentioned, to harvest vegetables without killing the plant itself, as in the case of tomatoes, squash, nuts, and so forth.  Thus is would be POSSIBLE to fulfill the strictest sense of the commandment.

and thus is the pretzel that religionists are willing to bend to ignore the obvious words of the babble and to "re-construct" them to their liking. Reason 1 why so many abandon the bullshit when the bullshitters are so obviously bullshitting.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:57:24 PM
Even if I accept that it means kill in the broadest sense including plants--which I don't, then it is possible, as I mentioned, to harvest vegetables without killing the plant itself, as in the case of tomatoes, squash, nuts, and so forth.  Thus is would be POSSIBLE to fulfill the strictest sense of the commandment. 



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Even in that extreme example, I'd like to see a lion eating squash and nuts and tomatoes.  And if that commandment does say and mean 'kill' then he created a natural system that does not reflect that ideal.  In order to make any sense of what you are saying, you have to jump through hoop after hoop--and even then it makes no sense.  But you are amusing.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:59:08 PM
Once again, you skirt the issue and the questions.  You did not answer any of the questions I put to you.  Maybe you could do that--or maybe you don't really have any answers to give.  When a person is an atheist, does merely looking at a bible strike them blind?  I would venture to say that I have read a bible from cover to cover--I would suggest most of those who profess to be christian have not done that. 

As for your suggestion that satan worshipers kill children has been debunked long ago.  But gullible theists like yourself (theists who don't check out facts all that well or often) still believe they do.  And I would suggest the members of the Church of Satan would not call themselves atheists.  After all, your god created Satan--as well as the Moloch.  If they did sacrifice children then it was because they were created with that capacity--and if god were really that adamant about them changing, he could do that in a heartbeat.  But no, he would rather sate his own bloodlust through his 'chosen'--whom he created as well.
Satanists are atheists:

"DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions"

--quoted from the Satanic Temple FAQ's

(https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq)

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:00:10 PM
That is very very handy for those doing the revealing!!!
Are you kidding? Most if not all prophets were ostracized or murdered by their own people!

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:03:55 PM
Even in that extreme example, I'd like to see a lion eating squash and nuts and tomatoes.  And if that commandment does say and mean 'kill' then he created a natural system that does not reflect that ideal.  In order to make any sense of what you are saying, you have to jump through hoop after hoop--and even then it makes no sense.  But you are amusing.
Didn't you see the vegetarian lion link?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 03:05:12 PM
I was being facetious of course.  I consider the NRSV to be most accurate, although no translation can be relied upon as authoritative.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
So, you do acknowledge that even the NRSV is the 'most' accurate--therefore, there is no actual bible that is accurate.  That is my point.  Pretty sloppy of your god don't you think???  Oh----sorry, you don't think--don't you believe??
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:09:04 PM
So, you do acknowledge that even the NRSV is the 'most' accurate--therefore, there is no actual bible that is accurate.  That is my point.  Pretty sloppy of your god don't you think???  Oh----sorry, you don't think--don't you believe??
There is no 100% accurate Bible today, I affirm that.  But blaming it on God is foolishness. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 03:09:14 PM
and thus is the pretzel that religionists are willing to bend to ignore the obvious words of the babble and to "re-construct" them to their liking. Reason 1 why so many abandon the bullshit when the bullshitters are so obviously bullshitting.


Quote from: George Bernard Shaw
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it means what he says.


Quote from:  J.S. Bullion, Jr.
Armies of Bible scholars and theologians have for centuries found respected employment devising artful explanations of the Bible not really meaning what it says.


Verbal gymnastics in defense of faith could become an Olympic sport!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 03:12:18 PM
There is no 100% accurate Bible today, I affirm that.  But blaming it on God is foolishness. 

So, God isn't powerful enough to have kept his sacred message to humanity error-free and clear enough not to be open to interpretation?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:29:24 PM
So, God isn't powerful enough to have kept his sacred message to humanity error-free and clear enough not to be open to interpretation?
He could have no doubt.  But he chose to see how we would handle it on our own.  Despite the many inaccuracies this ancient book has survived and proliferated over 4,000 years. (The O.T.) / 2,000 for the N.T. Most books go out of print within a century.  That's evidence in itself, not to mention billions still read it religiously (pun not intended).  Have any of your hot shot scientists written anything that popular?   

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 03, 2019, 03:32:33 PM
He could have no doubt.  But he chose to see how we would handle it on our own.  Despite the many inaccuracies this ancient book has survived and proliferated over 4,000 years. (The O.T.) / 2,000 for the N.T. Most books go out of print within a century.  That's evidence in itself, not to mention billions still read it religiously (pun not intended).  Have any of your hot shot scientists written anything that popular?   

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


I didn't realize that truth was a dick-measuring contest.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 03:35:20 PM
He could have no doubt.  But he chose to see how we would handle it on our own.  Despite the many inaccuracies this ancient book has survived and proliferated over 4,000 years. (The O.T.) / 2,000 for the N.T. Most books go out of print within a century.  That's evidence in itself, not to mention billions still read it religiously (pun not intended).  Have any of your hot shot scientists written anything that popular?   


Well, obviously we can't know which works of science will still be around in 2000 years. The works of Homer are still around, though - were they written or inspired by God?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 03:47:09 PM
He could have no doubt.  But he chose to see how we would handle it on our own.  Despite the many inaccuracies this ancient book has survived and proliferated over 4,000 years. (The O.T.) / 2,000 for the N.T. Most books go out of print within a century.  That's evidence in itself, not to mention billions still read it religiously (pun not intended).  Have any of your hot shot scientists written anything that popular

Scientists don't normally go around killing those who refuse to believe. Christians and Muslims are quite fond of it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 03:59:16 PM
Scientists don't normally go around killing those who refuse to believe. Christians and Muslims are quite fond of it.


"But those aren't real Christians and Muslims!"
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 04:11:35 PM
There is no 100% accurate Bible today, I affirm that.  But blaming it on God is foolishness. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
then who do you blame it on????
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 04:13:45 PM
He could have no doubt.  But he chose to see how we would handle it on our own.  Despite the many inaccuracies this ancient book has survived and proliferated over 4,000 years. (The O.T.) / 2,000 for the N.T. Most books go out of print within a century.  That's evidence in itself, not to mention billions still read it religiously (pun not intended).  Have any of your hot shot scientists written anything that popular?   

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Ahhh--yeah.  Now I see.  It is really a god competition.  Which ever god is the most popular is the winner.  Yea, God!!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:20:33 PM
Ahhh--yeah.  Now I see.  It is really a god competition.  Which ever god is the most popular is the winner.  Yea, God!!

I read a novel called "American Gods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods), about "the old gods" who are hardly believed in anymore, and "the new gods" who have more believers, and so are stronger than the old gods. Not a bad read, for fantasy.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 04:34:47 PM
Some tragic examples of extremism to be sure, and I am a proponent of religious freedom.  No doubt you're not bothered at all that satanists (atheists) are abusing that same religious freedom to sacrifice children alive.
I know of no instance where God ever stopped a child murderer, be he Satanist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. Such crimes are punished by laws written by men.  Oh, God makes a big fuss about it, while at other times, he commands it.  But he fails to stop it in every case.  It's almost like he's not there.

Also, I'm thinking you actually know the difference between Satanist and atheist.  I've met many atheists, but I never met a Satanist.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 03, 2019, 04:53:16 PM
  No doubt you're not bothered at all that satanists (atheists) are abusing that same religious freedom to sacrifice children alive.

You cannot find a single piece of real evidence that suggests an "atheist" sacrificed a child in the name of atheism, I can find dozens where muslims butchered children for theirs.

I win..you lose.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 04:59:12 PM
I know of no instance where God ever stopped a child murderer, be he Satanist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. Such crimes are punished by laws written by men.  Oh, God makes a big fuss about it, while at other times, he commands it.  But he fails to stop it in every case.  It's almost like he's not there.

Also, I'm thinking you actually know the difference between Satanist and atheist.  I've met many atheists, but I never met a Satanist.

Not all atheists are satanists, but all satanists are atheists by definition.  Look it up.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 05:35:47 PM
I read a novel called "American Gods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods), about "the old gods" who are hardly believed in anymore, and "the new gods" who have more believers, and so are stronger than the old gods. Not a bad read, for fantasy.
Have to check that out--new to me.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 05:37:29 PM
Are you kidding? Most if not all prophets were ostracized or murdered by their own people!

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
As well they should be for they are spouting nonsense and fiction.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 05:39:10 PM
Satanists are atheists:

"DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?
No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions"

--quoted from the Satanic Temple FAQ's

(https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq)
Ah--I see.  I had not looked into it.  Maybe I should!





Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 05:55:54 PM
I didn't realize that truth was a dick-measuring contest.


For some people everything is a dick-measuring contest.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 06:54:11 PM
Not all atheists are satanists, but all satanists are atheists by definition.  Look it up.
But you are avoiding my main point. Can you address why God never does anything to stop the murder of children?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 06:59:49 PM
You cannot find a single piece of real evidence that suggests an "atheist" sacrificed a child in the name of atheism, I can find dozens where muslims butchered children for theirs.

I win..you lose.
Here's a single piece... Wow, so easy.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/brazilian-police-release-details-of-grisly-child-sacrifice

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 07:03:13 PM
But you are avoiding my main point. Can you address why God never does anything to stop the murder of children?
Yes of course.  Good question.  I'll ask Him.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 07:21:21 PM
Yes of course.  Good question.  I'll ask Him.
Nice deflection.  I'm not surprised because no one actually knows God.  He's just a concept to which people assign whatever qualities they want.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 07:25:18 PM
Lik
Nice deflection.  I'm not surprised because no one actually knows God.  He's just a concept to which people assign whatever qualities they want.

God is a Rorschach ink blot?


:-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 07:50:54 PM

Well, obviously we can't know which works of science will still be around in 2000 years. The works of Homer are still around, though - were they written or inspired by God?

Yes, inspired by Apollo.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 07:56:43 PM
So, Eve ate some fruit and suddenly all the animals on Earth started eating each other? Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds to those of us who are outside your faith? Can you look at your faith from outside, as we do, and still not see why we don't believe it?

A mystical story.  Not literal at all.  Non-mystics can't talk competently about it.  If you don't share experience, communication is impossible in any language.  The content of the communication isn't in the language, but in triggering similar experiences.  Most people here (even me) have experienced atheism internally.  This happened with me  20-30 years old.  I had weak religion before that, so it wasn't traumatic to drop it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 07:58:53 PM
A mystical story.  Not literal at all.

I know that, and you know that, but a billion Christians say we're wrong.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:12:18 PM
Touché.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

For Taoism I read Chinese.  For Hinduism I read Sanskrit.  For Islam I read Arabic.

With even a modicum of foreign language knowledge, you can compare the original with the translation, and it will become apparent what the agenda of the translator is.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:13:29 PM

So you believe that without religion no human-made laws would be possible? Have you never heard of the Code of Hammurabi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)?

And that's just one outstanding example. Religion is not needed for humans to realize that laws and their enforcement are necessary.

King Hammurabi wasn't secular.  Got Anu or Enki?  Secular law only came about 300 years ago or less.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 08:15:34 PM
Let me help you with that:

1.  Remove 10 Commandments.  Result: Murder is legal, including human sacrifice and cannibalism.  Theft is legal, property law is abolished.  The most ruthless and bloodthirsty rule by default.
If only there were some other law (or code) that prohibits murder and theft, especially one that predates the 10 commandments.  I can't quite think of one, but it's on the tip of my hammurabi.

Btw, if the only thing holding you back from raping and pillaging is some religious book, you might want to get your head checked.  Perhaps in a room that is properly barred and locked.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:16:12 PM

Which 10 Commandments? The ones at Exodus 20:1-17? Or the ones at Exodus 34:14-26?

Only the latter set are actually referred to "in scripture" as "the ten commandments" : Exodus 34:28

 So I hope you've never seethed a kid in its mother's milk.

Worse, in Lebanon they still eat sheep tartar.  Sheep and goats have parasites, like salmon do.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:16:58 PM
Yeah, Alistair Crowley said, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Was he a "libertine"?

Not only that, but MI6.

Yes, go and eat babies, if you support Molech?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:23:45 PM
So, Jephthah didn't sacrifice his daughter to God?

Nope.  If the Bible is fiction, why quote it?

Natural Law originally was an extension of religious theology (there were almost no pre-modern secular people).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Modern natural law, initially discussed at the beginning of the Enlightenment, first had legal force in 1776 and 1789 (American and French Revolutions).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:26:56 PM

Oh, I get it, YOU don't see it, so obviously it could never be done. Riiiight.

Humans are unreasonable.  So with reason alone or not, they can't develop anything.  Other than flaming sacks of shit.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:28:16 PM
But, since the god Shamash did not exist, then those laws all came from human minds. Or did the god Shamash actually exist to give those laws to Hammurabi?

If anything good ever happened, it must have been an atheist?  The point isn't, does Anu or Enki exist.  But what was King Hammurabi thinking?  He wasn't thinking like Voltaire.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:29:42 PM
Bullshit. You're a liar or an idiot. History is nothing but killing people over religion. I think you're both.

And a few atheists killing people ... until the 20th century, when there were substantially more atheists, who could kill.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:31:01 PM
Shamash was one of our ancient alien progenitor races, worshipped as gods out of ignorance. That's why I used a lowercase "g".

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

No ancient astronauts or Annunaki aliens.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 08:41:32 PM
A mystical story.  Not literal at all.  Non-mystics can't talk competently about it.  If you don't share experience, communication is impossible in any language.  The content of the communication isn't in the language, but in triggering similar experiences.  Most people here (even me) have experienced atheism internally.  This happened with me  20-30 years old.  I had weak religion before that, so it wasn't traumatic to drop it.
I see that as THE problem--people taking religion literally.  I do think non-mystics can talk about it.  Joseph Campbell did with his telling of the value and use of myths, rites of passage, and understanding life through myths and rites of passage.  The Aesop way of teaching is effective and that is much of what I see the Jesus of the bible is all about.  The Gospel of Thomas is an illustration of that.  But the literalists and fundamentalists make religion dangerous and counter-productive.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:41:52 PM
Once again, you skirt the issue and the questions.  You did not answer any of the questions I put to you.  Maybe you could do that--or maybe you don't really have any answers to give.  When a person is an atheist, does merely looking at a bible strike them blind?  I would venture to say that I have read a bible from cover to cover--I would suggest most of those who profess to be christian have not done that. 

As for your suggestion that satan worshipers kill children has been debunked long ago.  But gullible theists like yourself (theists who don't check out facts all that well or often) still believe they do.  And I would suggest the members of the Church of Satan would not call themselves atheists.  After all, your god created Satan--as well as the Moloch.  If they did sacrifice children then it was because they were created with that capacity--and if god were really that adamant about them changing, he could do that in a heartbeat.  But no, he would rather sate his own bloodlust through his 'chosen'--whom he created as well.

He is using a loose definition of satanism and atheism.  As polemics.  Clearly the LeVay church doesn't do much of anything.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:43:22 PM
I see that as THE problem--people taking religion literally.  I do think non-mystics can talk about it.  Joseph Campbell did with his telling of the value and use of myths, rites of passage, and understanding life through myths and rites of passage.  The Aesop way of teaching is effective and that is much of what I see the Jesus of the bible is all about.  The Gospel of Thomas is an illustration of that.  But the literalists and fundamentalists make religion dangerous and counter-productive.

Everyone takes everything literally.  Less than 1% take things allegorically, and the guardians of religion piss on that, because interpretation by allegory is inconsistent.  A false consistency, particularly with Protestants, is achieved by sola scriptura .
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 08:46:36 PM
He is using a loose definition of satanism and atheism.  As polemics.  Clearly the LeVay church doesn't do much of anything.
Yeah, I agree with that.  But I think he is using a loose definition for everything.  And the only filters that count are the ones that reside in him.  That's fine--he (or anyone) can believe just about anything they want.  But don't come to a board that is the opposite of what one thinks and not expect, at the very least, some explanation of what he believes and why.  Absolute absolutely ducks all the hard questions. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:49:10 PM
I see that as THE problem--people taking religion literally.  I do think non-mystics can talk about it.  Joseph Campbell did with his telling of the value and use of myths, rites of passage, and understanding life through myths and rites of passage.  The Aesop way of teaching is effective and that is much of what I see the Jesus of the bible is all about.  The Gospel of Thomas is an illustration of that.  But the literalists and fundamentalists make religion dangerous and counter-productive.

He is using a loose definition of satanism and atheism.  As polemics.  Clearly the LeVay church doesn't do much of anything.  Aesop was executed by the people of Delphi for blasphemy.  They tossed him off the top of the nearby mountain.  Campbell was a mystic, a rare bird in any age.

There are degrees of religious participation ...

1. Shaman - the mystics
2. Clergy - the management
3. Laity - the hoi polloi

The problem is with #2 and #3, which is pretty much everybody,.

For example, just this week, in finding Christian theological predecessors in Hinduism ... I could see it now.  Not before.  Wasn't looking in the right places, and farther back not mature enough.  Allegorical anaysis ... is what I am doing.  Even substitutionary atonement is there.  Not just the Trinity.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:51:33 PM
I don't see how we're supposed to believe someone who claims they've had a "revelation from God." How are we to know they're not lying or mistaken? Especially when their "revelation" is the polar opposite of "revelations" given by God to other people?

Correct .. disbelieve everyone.  Why trust monkeys?  Final step, disbelieve yourself.  You are a poo tosser too.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 08:53:29 PM
Everyone takes everything literally.  Less than 1% take things allegorically, and the guardians of religion piss on that, because interpretation by allegory is inconsistent.  A false consistency, particularly with Protestants, is achieve by sola scripture.
I guess I fit into that 1%, for much of life can only be figured out allegorically.  Campbell probes that area quiet well.  Women Who Run With The Wolves (forget the author--Pinkett maybe???) deals with allegory and fairy tales very well.  Gibran does the same with poetry, and while I'm not much into poetry, I have read and re-read The Prophet for ages.  Allegory--the stuff of life! 

BTW, Charles Fillmore (Unity Chruch) wrote the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary; reading the bible in one hand, that book in the other was the only time that book (the bible) made a lick of sense.  Allegory, allegory--love it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:55:39 PM
There is no 100% accurate Bible today, I affirm that.  But blaming it on God is foolishness. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Why not?  The mother of the Egyptian who found the Nag Hammadi codices, was burning them as starter fuel for the kitchen fire, when he was still looking for a buyer.  The monks at St Catherine on Sinai were doing the same to the oldest Bible manuscripts.  Fortunately it doesn't matter.  Scripture is a red herring.  If your deity isn't alive here and now, that deity is useless.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:56:54 PM
I didn't realize that truth was a dick-measuring contest.

Don't tell the women!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:57:45 PM
Scientists don't normally go around killing those who refuse to believe. Christians and Muslims are quite fond of it.

Engineers of Zyklon B.  So you virtue signal for engineers?  Bad move ...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:59:04 PM
Ahhh--yeah.  Now I see.  It is really a god competition.  Which ever god is the most popular is the winner.  Yea, God!!

That works for politics.  Usually the god followers with the largest/most effective military.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:00:06 PM
I read a novel called "American Gods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods), about "the old gods" who are hardly believed in anymore, and "the new gods" who have more believers, and so are stronger than the old gods. Not a bad read, for fantasy.

American Christianity is a new religion .. not just Mormonism.  The latest from 1890s is Capitalist Jesus.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 09:00:23 PM
He is using a loose definition of satanism and atheism.  As polemics.  Clearly the LeVay church doesn't do much of anything.  Aesop was executed by the people of Delphi for blasphemy.  They tossed him off the top of the nearby mountain.  Campbell was a mystic, a rare bird in any age.

There are degrees of religious participation ...

1. Shaman - the mystics
2. Clergy - the management
3. Laity - the hoi polloi

The problem is with #2 and #3, which is pretty much everybody,.

For example, just this week, in finding Christian theological predecessors in Hinduism ... I could see it now.  Not before.  Wasn't looking in the right places, and farther back not mature enough.  Allegorical anaysis ... is what I am doing.  Even substitutionary atonement is there.  Not just the Trinity.
I see the major problem with the clergy.  Especially the clergy that are hierarchical in arrangement.  Then it becomes more about the gathering of power and not helping people figure out what all the scripture nonsense is all about.  Literal interpretations are the easiest propaganda to feed to the masses for the gathering, maintenance and increasing of power.  That is what clergy does--allegory is their enemy.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:01:21 PM
I know of no instance where God ever stopped a child murderer, be he Satanist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. Such crimes are punished by laws written by men.  Oh, God makes a big fuss about it, while at other times, he commands it.  But he fails to stop it in every case.  It's almost like he's not there.

Also, I'm thinking you actually know the difference between Satanist and atheist.  I've met many atheists, but I never met a Satanist.

Now laws are effective, unless enforced.  When the Catholic Church had authority, it was enforced.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:02:02 PM

For some people everything is a dick-measuring contest.

Does Fruit of the Loom know?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:06:36 PM
Nice deflection.  I'm not surprised because no one actually knows God.  He's just a concept to which people assign whatever qualities they want.

I know the images of G-d, because I know people ... animals ... that is as close as one can get.  Prophets in profound trance claim more, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:07:20 PM
Nice deflection.  I'm not surprised because no one actually knows God.  He's just a concept to which people assign whatever qualities they want.

Just like morality etc.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:09:21 PM
I know that, and you know that, but a billion Christians say we're wrong.

The Christians are wrong.  So are the Muslims and the Jews ...

Despise the peasants?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 09:10:35 PM
If only there were some other law (or code) that prohibits murder and theft, especially one that predates the 10 commandments.  I can't quite think of one, but it's on the tip of my hammurabi.

Btw, if the only thing holding you back from raping and pillaging is some religious book, you might want to get your head checked.  Perhaps in a room that is properly barred and locked.

Nothing holds humanity back. Other than being too tired to do evil.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:22:28 PM


If only there were some other law (or code) that prohibits murder and theft, especially one that predates the 10 commandments.  I can't quite think of one, but it's on the tip of my hammurabi.

Btw, if the only thing holding you back from raping and pillaging is some religious book, you might want to get your head checked.  Perhaps in a room that is properly barred and locked.

Religion suits me just fine, thanks for asking.  Hammurabi received his code from God.  If you believe humanity at large are angels in disguise who don't need laws that are enforced, try advocating the release of all criminals from prison and see how well that goes over.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 09:33:57 PM

Religion suits me just fine, thanks for asking.
Aye, that it does. :wink:

Quote
Hammurabi received his code from God.
(https://i.imgur.com/p4VJHkd.jpg)

Quote
If you believe humanity at large are angels in disguise
Let's just say that I believe in The Better Angels of Our Nature while also acknowledging the violence still in our world.

Quote
who don't need laws that are enforced
Is that really what I'm arguing?  Or is it what you wish I was arguing?  Think carefully (for the first time).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
Bullshit. You're a liar or an idiot. History is nothing but killing people over religion. I think you're both.
Ok buddy, so as with @josephpalazzo you are confusing correlation with causation.  The fact that politicians, or military leaders use religion as a justification for war doesn't mean that religion justifies the war.  Wars are never fought over religion.  They are fought over resources--land, water, etc., If not, for other materialistic or practical causes.  Now the fact that every society in those wars had a particular religion, whether Christianity or paganism, doesn't mean those religions were the impetus for war, even if the leaders were spewing religious chants while they're fighting.  Sometimes religion was the rallying call that fired soldiers' emotions and helped demonize the enemy.  But religion itself does not cause war.  What causes war is a failure of communication.  Did religion cause the Civil War?  No, it was over resources.  Did religion cause WWII? No, it was fought over territory.  Did religion cause WWI? No, it was fought for political reasons.  Vietnam? N. Korea?  Nothing to do with religion.  The American revolution?  It was fought over a stamp tax, among other things.  Iraq Wars? Oil.  (WMDs were the propoganda catalyst).  Iraq-Iran War? Territory.  Spanish-American War? Territory. Mexican War? Territory.  Indian Wars? Territory.  And on and on.  Where did you study history anyway?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:06:19 PM


Aye, that it does. :wink:
(https://i.imgur.com/p4VJHkd.jpg)
Let's just say that I believe in The Better Angels of Our Nature while also acknowledging the violence still in our world.
Maybe you live in an idealistic bubble, you haven't studied the gruesome past.  I don't blame you it's hard to stomach.  Humans are still quite savage.  Religion in moderation does a lot of good keeping kids out of trouble, and personally I'd rather put up with goofy guys in ties knocking on the door with Bibles than say, motorcycle gangs driving down the street shooting AK-47's.  Wouldn't you?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 10:25:31 PM
Maybe you live in an idealistic bubble, you haven't studied the gruesome past.
Assumptions are fun (and often wrong).  And easy.  So very easy.  Very suitable for your capacity.

Quote
Humans are still quite savage.
No kidding.  I just read about a guy who was part of some doomsday cult that ultimately committed suicide en masse.  Quite savage.  Though it's interesting how much of this savagery was a learned thing rather than an innate behavior, wouldn't you agree?

Quote
Religion in moderation does a lot of good keeping kids out of trouble
aka, controlling society.  You and I are talking about the same thing in different words.  And does religion stop at allegedly putting a damper on theft and rape?  Can you think of any behaviors (or ideas) that are utterly harmless - perhaps even very beneficial - that are curtailed in the name of religion?

Quote
and personally I'd rather put up with goofy guys in ties knocking on the door with Bibles than say, motorcycle gangs driving down the street shooting AK-47's.  Wouldn't you?
Are those the only two options? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)  If so, then one wonders about the lawlessness of countries like Sweden and the Czech Republic.  They are lawless, right?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 07:05:09 AM
Assumptions are fun (and often wrong).  And easy.  So very easy.  Very suitable for your capacity.
Like uniformitarianism?  Oh yeah, you dodged that topic.
No kidding.  I just read about a guy who was part of some doomsday cult that ultimately committed suicide en masse.  Quite savage.  Though it's interesting how much of this savagery was a learned thing rather than an innate behavior, wouldn't you agree?
Show me any religion that teaches suicide.  Cults don't count as they are by definition deviations from religious orthodoxy.
aka, controlling society.  You and I are talking about the same thing in different words.  And does religion stop at allegedly putting a damper on theft and rape?  Can you think of any behaviors (or ideas) that are utterly harmless - perhaps even very beneficial - that are curtailed in the name of religion?
Tell me, I'm all ears
Are those the only two options? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)  If so, then one wonders about the lawlessness of countries like Sweden and the Czech Republic.  They are lawless, right?
China, the largest atheist state, is quite law- abiding.  They also harvest organs from political dissidents involuntarily.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 11:09:58 AM
Ok buddy, so as with [member=13740]josephpalazzo[/member] you are confusing correlation with causation. 


There's no confusion. My post was about you being a useful idiot who  spreads religion for the benefits of those in power. You haven't answered my previous post because you know I'm right. You are a propagandist who is too stupid to realize that you are on the wrong forum. Only idiots like Baruch will agree with you.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 04, 2019, 11:30:46 AM
I read a novel called "American Gods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods), about "the old gods" who are hardly believed in anymore, and "the new gods" who have more believers, and so are stronger than the old gods. Not a bad read, for fantasy.
The TV show on Amazon Prime American Gods is quite an entertaining watch. I remember seeing the first season last year. Have yet to get around watching 2nd season.


The gods in that are a lot more consistent than any gods offered up to the imaginations and machinations of people.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 11:35:07 AM
There's no confusion.
Clearly you are very confused.
who  spreads religion for the benefits of those in power.
Which theocracy do you live in?  I'm in America.



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 04, 2019, 12:11:12 PM
Here's a single piece... Wow, so easy.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/brazilian-police-release-details-of-grisly-child-sacrifice

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Just what I thought. That has nothing to do with atheism idiot. Try again. Still me 2345869523 you 0
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 12:51:29 PM
Just what I thought. That has nothing to do with atheism idiot. Try again. Still me 2345869523 you 0
Satanists are atheists--it has EVERYTHING to do with atheism.  Where's your objectivity?  I know it's in there somewhere.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 12:58:08 PM
Clearly you are very confused.Which theocracy do you live in?  I'm in America.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


You live in America, and so what? Do you know the mean of "useful idiots"? Apparently not.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 01:10:54 PM
Satanists are atheists--it has EVERYTHING to do with atheism. 


What an idiotic post. It's like saying: Murderers are humans-- it has EVERYTHING to do with humanity.

You are a certified idiot.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 01:11:28 PM
You live in America, and so what? Do you know the mean of "useful idiots"? Apparently not.
Apparently you don't know where you live.  Let's work on this first.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 01:12:48 PM
Apparently you don't know where you live.  Let's work on this first.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Coming from a certified idiot, that's rich.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 01:20:23 PM
What an idiotic post. It's like saying: Murderers are humans-- it has EVERYTHING to do with humanity.

You are a certified idiot.
Certified by you?  I guess it takes one to recognize one... Satanism is all about atheism.  It's not the same as saying murderers have everything to do with humanity because murderers don't go around preaching humanitarian values, claiming to murder in the name of humanity.  Satanists on the other hand emphatically emphasize that they are atheist, this is the whole point of Satanism--and like other atheists, their goal is to destroy theistic religions and establish scientism.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: drunkenshoe on August 04, 2019, 01:32:43 PM
Naaah we only barbecue newborns once in a while  Ffs, atheism and satanism,lol. What now, 3 seasons of Stranger Things and high waisted pants... so it is 80s all over again? I'm not wearing those things.

Satanists -the ones from the Satanist Church- support death penalty for murder, esp. for the likes of those child murderes in the news piece you posted. And some think that parents or anyone related to the victims should carry out the deed. You know, the 'way' they see fit?



Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 01:39:03 PM


Satanists -the ones from the Satanist Church- support death penalty for murder, esp. for the likes of those child murderes in the news piece you posted. And some think that parents or anyone related to the victims should carry out the deed. You know, the 'way' they see fit?
Of course.  But this is beside the point.  The point being that the "child murderers" weren't just murderers. They were Satanists, who are atheists, performing a ritual sacrifice.  Deal with the facts.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 02:04:38 PM
Certified by you?  I guess it takes one to recognize one... Satanism is all about atheism.  It's not the same as saying murderers have everything to do with humanity because murderers don't go around preaching humanitarian values, claiming to murder in the name of humanity.  Satanists on the other hand emphatically emphasize that they are atheist, this is the whole point of Satanism--and like other atheists, their goal is to destroy theistic religions and establish scientism.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



We can say the same about Muslims luring young minds, make them believe they'll get 72 virgins in paradise if they murder innocent people in the name Allah. There are crazy people in every group of people on this planet. What's your point, certified idiot?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: drunkenshoe on August 04, 2019, 02:23:50 PM
Of course.  But this is beside the point.  The point being that the "child murderers" weren't just murderers. They were Satanists, who are atheists, performing a ritual sacrifice.  Deal with the facts.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Atheism is lack of belief in any gods or deities; any supreme power, a creator.

Rituals, sacrifices are for people who have belief in a supreme power -doesn't matter what you call it- so they would 'sacrifice' animals or people to them by rituals...etc. Because that is the whole point of sacrifice. You sacrifice some thing to a thing you recognise as more powerful, higher than you. 

For example, the psychos in the news feed you posted murdered those children; 'sacrificed' them to a supreme power, something they believe is above themselves, so that power would help them with their business. Give them something in return.

The first group does not recognise a supreme power above them, let alone plan any ritual exchange of favours with it. The second group does. They killed children for a favour from their deity. They are fundamentally two different groups.

Can you follow this?

 

     
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 03:02:41 PM


There are crazy people in every group of people on this planet.
That was my point.  Well done, you're learning.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 03:34:58 PM
Atheism is lack of belief in any gods or deities; any supreme power, a creator.

Rituals, sacrifices are for people who have belief in a supreme power -doesn't matter what you call it- so they would 'sacrifice' animals or people to them by rituals...etc. Because that is the whole point of sacrifice. You sacrifice some thing to a thing you recognise as more powerful, higher than you. 

For example, the psychos in the news feed you posted murdered those children; 'sacrificed' them to a supreme power, something they believe is above themselves, so that power would help them with their business. Give them something in return.

The first group does not recognise a supreme power above them, let alone plan any ritual exchange of favours with it. The second group does. They killed children for a favour from their deity. They are fundamentally two different groups.

Can you follow this?

 

     
I see what you mean, however it doesn't require a belief in deity to have rituals, or to believe those rituals convey some important influence. Furthermore  the Temple of Satan and LaVeyan Satanism, etc., are only storefront organizations that act as pools for potential recruits to hardcore satanism--which actually does child sacrifice.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190804/3122ece97b1345742da0aacc9bcc0e6a.jpg)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 04:06:16 PM
That was my point.  Well done, you're learning.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



LOL. The certified idiot wants us to believe he had a point. We know very well you are here to peddle nonsense about your religion. You should quit while you're ahead.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: drunkenshoe on August 04, 2019, 04:21:21 PM
OK, you can't follow it. But this is so 80s. Go watch some David Icke and get with times. I dunno, get into UFOs, reptilians...etc. Satanists? Lol. You make me miss old crackpots we used to have around here.

 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 04, 2019, 05:54:08 PM
You should quit while you're ahead.

He's ahead!? How'd that happen? I haven't been keeping score, but I don't think he's ahead...

:-P
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 06:19:51 PM
He's ahead!? How'd that happen? I haven't been keeping score, but I don't think he's ahead...

:-P

A little encouragement can go a long way...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 06:58:04 PM
There's no confusion. My post was about you being a useful idiot who  spreads religion for the benefits of those in power. You haven't answered my previous post because you know I'm right. You are a propagandist who is too stupid to realize that you are on the wrong forum. Only idiots like Baruch will agree with you.

Hey ... you woke up from your nap? ;-)  Sorry, you woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 04, 2019, 07:03:24 PM
OK, you can't follow it. But this is so 80s. Go watch some David Icke and get with times. I dunno, get into UFOs, reptilians...etc. Satanists? Lol. You make me miss old crackpots we used to have around here.

US is repeating the 1960s.  We can't repeat two decades (adding 1980s) at the same time!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 04, 2019, 09:45:16 PM
Like uniformitarianism?  Oh yeah, you dodged that topic.
Ooh, burn!  ...I think.  No wait, I think that was the one where you were giving me some tripe about how uniformitarianism was disproven as if it were an obvious fact.  Quite presumptuous.  It must be nice to swing from conclusion to conclusion and taking your own opinion as gospel without having to worry about the hard work of having to actually sift through any data.

Quote
Show me any religion that teaches suicide.
Oh really?  You've never heard of the concept of martyrdom?

Quote
Cults don't count as they are by definition deviations from religious orthodoxy.
Special pleading.

Quote
China, the largest atheist state, is quite law- abiding.  They also harvest organs from political dissidents involuntarily.
I feel like there's another factor at work here that strongly affects things.  By the way, I can't help notice that you never really answered the question about Sweden and the Czech Republic.  And the reason is obvious - it doesn't fit your narrative of atheist dystopia.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 07:34:38 AM
Not all thinking is scientific.  Atheists say, everything is natural (this is rhetoric).  It is similar to make the claim that all thinking is scientific. Scientific thinking is a particular kind of thinking that has to be taught.

It is possible to explore the world scientifically learning as you go (childhood) and possible to refine that process into more defined ways (adulthood).  That does not mean I can't enjoy asparagus just for the smell of it in my pee or the sensation of a spicy shrimp in a garlic sauce. 

But when one considers a question that is factual in nature, science is the way to go.  And it is important to recognize what science is NOT. Too many people think science is "having an idea".  Of course not.  But that's what many people do when they say they have a "theory".  It's a supposition at best.

I am reminded that Aristotle basically thought that earthquakes were Earth farts caused by the wind blowing underground through caves.  One other (I forget who at the moment) thought they were from the waves pounding on the shore.  Interesting ideas, given that Earth movement seemed idiotic until the 1960s.  The point being that they never TESTED their suppositions.

So it shows that just having an idea means little scientifically.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 07:55:44 AM
It is possible to explore the world scientifically learning as you go (childhood) and possible to refine that process into more defined ways (adulthood).  That does not mean I can't enjoy asparagus just for the smell of it in my pee or the sensation of a spicy shrimp in a garlic sauce. 

But when one considers a question that is factual in nature, science is the way to go.  And it is important to recognize what science is NOT. Too many people think science is "having an idea".  Of course not.  But that's what many people do when they say they have a "theory".  It's a supposition at best.

I am reminded that Aristotle basically thought that earthquakes were Earth farts caused by the wind blowing underground through caves.  One other (I forget who at the moment) thought they were from the waves pounding on the shore.  Interesting ideas, given that Earth movement seemed idiotic until the 1960s.  The point being that they never TESTED their suppositions.

So it shows that just having an idea means little scientifically.

If one is a Poindexter, then one was born in a lab coat.  But most people aren't like that.  You have been skeptical of religion your whole life, compared to other posters who came to skepticism later in life.  But skepticism isn't the same thing as science, it is a necessary ingredient.  In a sense, we are opposites as children.  While I wasn't raised in religion, I was open minded about it an many there things.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 09:42:08 AM
If one is a Poindexter, then one was born in a lab coat.  But most people aren't like that.  You have been skeptical of religion your whole life, compared to other posters who came to skepticism later in life.  But skepticism isn't the same thing as science, it is a necessary ingredient.  In a sense, we are opposites as children.  While I wasn't raised in religion, I was open minded about it an many there things.

First "Poindexter" (a boringly studious and socially inept person).  Is THAT where Dextor's name comes from in the children's cartoon of the silly little lab rat?    I never made that connection (I'll watch almost anything humorous) and fully admit it.

Second, I've always admired people who came to atheism as adults in spite of the childhoods.  My path was easy.  I have always wondered what my life would have been like if my parents were either moderately of extremely religious.  We are all much the product of our early experiences.

I might well be here arguing with my current fellow (and fellowess?) members as a religious troll instead.  One never knows.  Or not at all on either side, just being the Grand Poobah of some gardening site.  Life is not like the old Quest games where you roll the die and a character has fixed powers for the whole game.

I will forebear to suggest that you always were not ever open-minded...  ;)

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 05, 2019, 10:20:33 AM
Absolute, you are expert at ducking questions or ignoring them.  So, with that in mind, could you address these points??

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
I don't dispute that life is characterized by suffering & death.  Life is also characterized by birth and growth, happiness and pleasure.  Where do you think these came from--random accidents?  What I do find perplexing is how the existence of suffering is assumed to cancel out the existence of comfort and pleasure, or negate the possibility of mercy.  You assume that plants must suffer when they are cooked and eaten--but how do you know?  Does your asparagus cry and scream when you are placing it in your mouth?  As for animals, it is not necessary to kill and eat them in order to survive, we've only been conditioned to eat this way.  It's actually much more efficient and healthy to be vegetarian.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I was going to ignore this post of yours, but I've changed my mind.  You do seem to be a little more thoughtful than most theists that visit here.  So, here goes.
1.  I did not claim (or think) that life is only pain and suffering.  Birth and growth and happiness and pleasure is also a major component of life.  Where does that come from??  From living in a society.  Whatever society/culture we are raised in provides us with the guidelines for what each of those mean and how to avoid/cultivate them.  Then we put own own personal touches on them.

2.  I don't assume that plants feel pain when being cooked or eaten.  You put that assumption into my mouth.  Plants are dead when eaten for the most part.  Yes, cows can eat living grass, but for the most part, humans eat what plants produce; and when we eat them they are dead.  But without living plants all animals would die.  So, as an animal, humans must kill plants to live.  I don't claim they suffer--but they might.  Some experiments suggest plants are more aware of their environment than we had thought.  Some give off chemical signals to neighbors that there is danger nearby.  Some suggest plants do better if a certain type of music is played and not as well when other types are played. 

3.  As for asparagus, I do not let that stuff get anywhere near my mouth!  It may not scream if eaten, but I would probably scream if I had to eat it. 

4.  As for it not being necessary for humans to have meat to survive, that is still up in the air.  It is true, though, that humans have always been omnivorous--we (as a group) would eat almost anything that did not crawl out of our mouths first.  My niece is a vegan and seems to be doing quite well with that.  I have cut down my meat consumption as I've aged and find I don't miss it all that much anymore. I am leaning more and more toward what you say--vegetarians are generally healthier. 

5.  God created mercy and pain and suffering I think you ducked for the most part.  In nature there are two systems that do not require living things to kill to survive.  One is photosynthesis--which requires the sun, of course.  The other exists where sunlight can't get to--the ocean floor.  There volcanic vents provide the heat and minerals need to sustain life.  both systems provide for a way for the living to gather their energy from non-living sources.  This is not so for humans.  We HAVE to gather energy from living sources--or sources that once were alive.  We must kill to live.  There is no choice--vegetarians still  must eat things that were once alive.  Whether those plants suffer is beside the point--they still must be killed.  I understand this to be a bit of proof against the idea of any gods.  Animals eating animals is a built in system of pain and suffering.  Why would a merciful god create such a system when he could use any system he wanted?  So, since god created nature as it is now, he must have done so on purpose.  I don't find any mercy there.

6.  Where do birth defects fit into mercy?  Or babies born with diseases and parasites?  Or punishing people for not following god's rules when he did not make it plain what those rules are?  There is not one religious scripture that is clear, or universal, or written in all languages, or one that does not conflict with itself.  How is that possible if there is one god?  What religion a person follows is very heavily predicated upon geography--not that that one religion is more viable than another.  Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?  If the bible, for example, were found in all places on Earth and all dated to the same time frame, that would be a powerful sign that the bible is what it's followers say it is, the work and word of god.  I would then do my damnedest to learn what it said and then obey!  But it comes from only one place on Earth.  That makes it clear to me that religion is regional, not universal.  That would be odd for a creator god--or it seems so to me.   

PS--I was totally wrong in my assessment of you compared to other theists.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 11:17:06 AM
Absolute, you are expert at ducking questions or ignoring them.  So, with that in mind, could you address these points??

There should be a special forum for Absolute and Baruch to argue in.  To leave the rest of us alone.  They could entertain each other to a score of years...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 11:38:47 AM
There should be a special forum for Absolute and Baruch to argue in.  To leave the rest of us alone.  They could entertain each other to a score of years...

I was open minded as a child.  As a senior, I want all you to get off my grass! ;-)

I don't argue with Absolute much ... that is being done admirably by others.  I am more copacetic with Arik (and again, not much argument).

It is you old farts, Cavebear and Joe who want a quiet old folks home ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 11:44:36 AM
I was open minded as a child.  As a senior, I want all you to get off my grass! ;-)

I don't argue with Absolute much ... that is being done admirably by others.  I am more copacetic with Arik (and again, not much argument).

It is you old farts, Cavebear and Joe who want a quiet old folks home ;-)

If I wanted a quiet old folks home, I sure wouldn't be here.  I just meant that you and Absolute have enough in common but also difference that you COULD just bother each other forever in endless nonsense and leave the rest of us alone in peace.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 12:11:07 PM
If I wanted a quiet old folks home, I sure wouldn't be here.  I just meant that you and Absolute have enough in common but also difference that you COULD just bother each other forever in endless nonsense and leave the rest of us alone in peace.

Well you don't know me very well.  Sad.  And Absolute is new, and you probably don't read his stuff closely.  Absolute and I are not much alike (other than we both live in America, and are both maybe males).  About the same degree of separation as you and I have.  Arik on the other hand ...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 05, 2019, 03:12:20 PM
First "Poindexter" (a boringly studious and socially inept person).  Is THAT where Dextor's name comes from in the children's cartoon of the silly little lab rat?    I never made that connection (I'll watch almost anything humorous) and fully admit it.

Here's the only Poindexter I grew up with:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfPKIr_IT5o
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: drunkenshoe on August 05, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
By the way, I can't help notice that you never really answered the question about Sweden and the Czech Republic.  And the reason is obvious - it doesn't fit your narrative of atheist dystopia.

I know a lot of clubs he can join,lol.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 05:04:32 PM
Well you don't know me very well.  Sad.  And Absolute is new, and you probably don't read his stuff closely.  Absolute and I are not much alike (other than we both live in America, and are both maybe males).  About the same degree of separation as you and I have.  Arik on the other hand ...

I'm sure you see all the differences, but most times, I don't see a whole lot of difference.  Perhaps you don't realize how most people here see you...

I sometimes get told "stop feeding the troll" and they aren't talking about Arik or Absolute.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 05:35:27 PM
I'm sure you see all the differences, but most times, I don't see a whole lot of difference.  Perhaps you don't realize how most people here see you...

I sometimes get told "stop feeding the troll" and they aren't talking about Arik or Absolute.

I have been here longer than you, I can feel the love ...

Fortunately I am not looking for a sexual partner ;-)

[member=9623]Unbeliever[/member] ... Yes, that is exactly where I originally remember Poindexter.  Though the modern one is quite good.  My mother had a clock in her kitchen, that was a black and white Felix the Cat, and the tail went back and forth.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 11:34:49 AM
By the way, I can't help notice that you never really answered the question about Sweden and the Czech Republic.  And the reason is obvious - it doesn't fit your narrative of atheist dystopia.
The reason is obvious, but not what you assume.

1) I don't intend to promote a narrative of an atheist dystopia--rather to challenge the assumption that atheism will magically create a utopian society, this myopic idea you atheists often promote that religion is the source of all our conflicts.  "If we could just eliminate religion, we'd all live happily ever after," you chant devoutly.  Well, you're wrong.  You're just as susceptible to confirmation bias as the religious folks you mock.

2) The above countries have not been shown to be under the control of atheist ideology.  I'm guessing it is secularist-- which is not the same thing.  As such they wouldn't be a good case study for proving that atheism is the wave of social advancement.  China is under atheist control, as were Communist Russia and Nazi Germany!


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 11:37:50 AM
Oh really?  You've never heard of the concept of martyrdom?
Martyrdom does not equate to suicide.  Martyrdom is when someone else kills you for religion.  It doesn't mean killing yourself--which is forbidden.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 06, 2019, 12:13:37 PM
The reason is obvious, but not what you assume.

1) I don't intend to promote a narrative of an atheist dystopia--rather to challenge the assumption that atheism will magically create a utopian society, this myopic idea you atheists often promote that religion is the source of all our conflicts.  "If we could just eliminate religion, we'd all live happily ever after," you chant devoutly.  Well, you're wrong.  You're just as susceptible to confirmation bias as the religious folks you mock.

2) The above countries have not been shown to be under the control of atheist ideology.  I'm guessing it is secularist-- which is not the same thing.  As such they wouldn't be a good case study for proving that atheism is the wave of social advancement.  China is under atheist control, as were Communist Russia and Nazi Germany!


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Exactly what is atheist ideology.

Wait, let me rephrase that, what exactly do you think atheist ideology is?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 06, 2019, 01:19:15 PM
A theist trying to mimic the atheist stance is like Pinocchio trying to understand what it's like to be a real boy.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 06, 2019, 01:43:09 PM
Satanists are atheists--it has EVERYTHING to do with atheism.

as much as muslims are child molesting pedophiles and murderers. And it has evrything to do with Islam
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:02:30 PM


Exactly what is atheist ideology.

Wait, let me rephrase that, what exactly do you think atheist ideology is?
Any ideology that's fundamentally opposed to theistic beliefs.  Any time these ideologies take hold the result is authoritarianism and tyranny.  The cause?  Atheism has no moral foundation, except "survival of the fittest."  That's the only rule that's really acknowledged as binding.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:06:42 PM
as much as muslims are child molesting pedophiles and murderers. And it has evrything to do with Islam
The fundamental essence of Islam is feeding the hungry and taking care of orphans.  See Qur'an 90:17.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 06, 2019, 02:10:31 PM
I thought the fundamental essence of Islam was submission to the will of Allah?

Or the will of whoever claims to speak for Allah, which is the same thing.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 03:23:44 PM
Any ideology that's fundamentally opposed to theistic beliefs.  Any time these ideologies take hold the result is authoritarianism and tyranny.  The cause?  Atheism has no moral foundation, except "survival of the fittest."  That's the only rule that's really acknowledged as binding.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

A negative against a broad target.  Hence the ambiguity.  Human politics is always "of the fittest", though we fight to the death defining what "fittest" is.  Identity politics today being its most explicit and tribal formulation.  "fittest" could be construed as well built male weight lifters in some parts around here ;-)  I find rather that "ends justify the means" to be the more dangerous motto.  Usually, the means devolve into violence.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 03:25:10 PM
The fundamental essence of Islam is feeding the hungry and taking care of orphans.  See Qur'an 90:17.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Hard to say what "essence" means.  At one point it was "don't abandon female babies" ... an admirable cause.  The Shahada is an early summation ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada

That is actually found, disconnected, in the Quran.  But beyond that there is dispute ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam

And it is not clear that any particular interpretation of the Five Pillars is sufficient.  Hence Salafism in Sunni Islam.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 03:37:22 PM
The fundamental essence of Islam is feeding the hungry and taking care of orphans.  See Qur'an 90:17.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


and killing anyone - man, woman or child - if you perceive  them to be a threat to your religion
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 03:40:29 PM

The above countries have not been shown to be under the control of atheist ideology.




Atheist ideology: the belief that there is a LACK of evidence in the existence of a deity. PERIOD.

Now be scared.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 04:07:05 PM
and killing anyone - man, woman or child - if you perceive  them to be a threat to your religion

You missed some of my better posts.  It is not wrong to kill people.  It is right to kill the right people, and wrong to kill the wrong people.  As to the killing, I leave that to our authorities.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 04:08:41 PM

Any ideology that's fundamentally opposed to theistic beliefs.  Any time these ideologies take hold the result is authoritarianism and tyranny.
Case in point:
Atheist ideology: the belief that there is a LACK of evidence in the existence of a deity. PERIOD.

Now be scared.
You're getting really good at reinforcing my points--good job, keep it up!

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 04:13:06 PM
Case in point:You're getting really good at reinforcing my points--good job, keep it up!

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



So are you scared?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 04:32:09 PM
So are you scared?
[emoji28] Incredible...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 06, 2019, 04:34:23 PM
Any ideology that's fundamentally opposed to theistic beliefs.  Any time these ideologies take hold the result is authoritarianism and tyranny.  The cause?  Atheism has no moral foundation, except "survival of the fittest."  That's the only rule that's really acknowledged as binding.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I do understand you don't like facts.   Those few statements are all wrong.  Atheism is not an ideology.  Atheists are not 'against' religion as much as they don't believe in any gods.  The only 'ideologies' that are 'against' religion are other religions; or faction within your own religion.  Atheism does not equate to authoritarianism because atheists don't hold any beliefs nor do they endorse any particular govt. form.  If anything, religion always ends up with authoritarianism--just about all of them.  Atheism does not really exist in that there is not a single code of thought or conduct for atheists--we are not a formal group.  The only thing atheists have in common is disbelief in any gods.  Otherwise they all go their own way. 

Survival of the fittest does not mean what you believe it to mean.  Darwin indicated that survival of the fittest had little to nothing to do with strength.  It is the ability for a species to fit into a particular environment that allows it to survive where other species don't.  Religion, and yours in particular, think the 'survival of the fittest' deals with the ability to kill off its competitors; you buy in totally with the idea that the ends justify the  means.  That is why people of your religion will do anything and everything to rid the world of those who oppose Allah; and many, many christians have the same mindset. 

You don't even know what it is you believe you are opposing.   But then, as a believer, thinking and critical thinking is not necessary, for they are skills you simply don't possess; and I must assume that is why you bow and scrape to your personal dictator in allah.   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 04:37:18 PM
Survival of the Fittest?

Republican = who has the most money

Democrat = who supports the Communist Manifesto best
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 04:39:12 PM
(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji28.png) Incredible...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Liar. We have enough of a president who lies everyday. We don't need another liar. But I'm not surprise coming from a Muslim since your religion allows you to lie to non-Muslims. Your religion is a disgrace to the human race.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 06:26:04 PM
Liar. We have enough of a president who lies everyday. We don't need another liar. But I'm not surprise coming from a Muslim since your religion allows you to lie to non-Muslims. Your religion is a disgrace to the human race.

You know, you would be arrested for saying that, in GB, and other parts of the EU.  I am thankful in that degree, to be American.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 07, 2019, 04:33:20 PM
Any ideology that's fundamentally opposed to theistic beliefs.  Any time these ideologies take hold the result is authoritarianism and tyranny.  The cause?  Atheism has no moral foundation, except "survival of the fittest."  That's the only rule that's really acknowledged as binding.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Lacking to follow, or be swayed by, theistic beliefs =/= fundamental opposition to said beliefs.
Regardless of how anybody who does not follow said theistic beliefs, might come to find him or herself to view said theistic beliefs.
If, like most people here, you make that distinction, what you are saying fails from the get-go.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 07, 2019, 07:32:24 PM


Lacking to follow, or be swayed by, theistic beliefs =/= fundamental opposition to said beliefs.
Regardless of how anybody who does not follow said theistic beliefs, might come to find him or herself to view said theistic beliefs.
If, like most people here, you make that distinction, what you are saying fails from the get-go.

If I read you correctly are saying that not agreeing to theism is not the same as opposing it.  This seems like a philosophical distinction.  Yet in actual life, I find that anyone who does not accept theism is always opposed to it.  This is because humans are not philosophical abstractions but flesh and blood creatures.  What we don't agree with, we see as a threat, if large numbers of people hold to these ideas, and rightly so.  Politics always deals with large numbers of people so any ideology that does not accept theism WILL oppose it actively.  It will definitely represent a threat to such ideology.  A good example of how this works is that I came to this forum with no intention of sharing my beliefs, yet these were immediately attacked without any provocation.  So instead of just chatting with open-minded people about science or philosophy as I hoped, I was constantly defending myself against attacks and correcting misconceptions about my beliefs.  It was assumed I was here to convert--which wasn't the case at all.  And you can see all the bitterness unleashed against my worldview scrolling through my introduction.  Atheists find genuine theism threatening, and no philosophical argument will convince me otherwise.

Who knows, maybe it's only a misconception, but that's highly doubtful.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 07:59:14 PM

 A good example of how this works is that I came to this forum with no intention of sharing my beliefs, yet these were immediately attacked without any provocation.  So instead of just chatting with open-minded people about science or philosophy as I hoped, I was constantly defending myself against attacks and correcting misconceptions about my beliefs.  It was assumed I was here to convert--which wasn't the case at all.  And you can see all the bitterness unleashed against my worldview scrolling through my introduction.  Atheists find genuine theism threatening, and no philosophical argument will convince me otherwise.

Who knows, maybe it's only a misconception, but that's highly doubtful.



No, you came on this forum with a condescending attitude. And at every opportunity you were pushing your religion. So stop the drama queen. We don't care about your religion. Your arguments, which we have seen a thousand times, are silly and childish.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 07, 2019, 10:16:37 PM
No, you came on this forum with a condescending attitude. And at every opportunity you were pushing your religion. So stop the drama queen. We don't care about your religion. Your arguments, which we have seen a thousand times, are silly and childish.
That's unconvincing.  If any of that were honest you wouldn't find it necessary to butt into every conversation.  You're obviously threatened by my beliefs, which if they were of no account as you pretend, you wouldn't waste energy in attacking.   Where there's smoke there's fire.  If you, as most atheists, find theism a threat, then it obviously has an innate power which you feel but cannot account for--since you reject feelings as irrelevant. 

In contrast to an atheist ideology, secularism is not threatened by religion in the least.  Secularism embraces the basic truth that people are religious by nature,  and protects the maximum freedom of religion by keeping religion out of government.  Yet atheists cannot even tolerate secularism, as seen by the multiple attacks on ANY expression of religion in public.  Face the facts guys, atheists are monsters in government, pathetic at self-reflection, and intolerant of diversity & creativity; but mostly they are intolerant of theism.

Thus atheism = opposition to theistic beliefs.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 06:45:55 AM
That's unconvincing.  If any of that were honest you wouldn't find it necessary to butt into every conversation.  You're obviously threatened by my beliefs, which if they were of no account as you pretend, you wouldn't waste energy in attacking.   Where there's smoke there's fire.  If you, as most atheists, find theism a threat, then it obviously has an innate power which you feel but cannot account for--since you reject feelings as irrelevant. 

In contrast to an atheist ideology, secularism is not threatened by religion in the least.  Secularism embraces the basic truth that people are religious by nature,  and protects the maximum freedom of religion by keeping religion out of government.  Yet atheists cannot even tolerate secularism, as seen by the multiple attacks on ANY expression of religion in public.  Face the facts guys, atheists are monsters in government, pathetic at self-reflection, and intolerant of diversity & creativity; but mostly they are intolerant of theism.

Thus atheism = opposition to theistic beliefs.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Sure, atheists who have been a tiny minority for as long as 10,000 years, couldn't even get elected in the US until very recently and in some countries face a death sentence, are the oppressors. Your logic stinks.


It is only recently that atheists have been active on the political scene. Twenty years ago, atheists had to hide because of political and social repercussions. When they did become political active with the internet, it was to remind everyone that we live in a secular society, and such things as "In God we trust" on our money, prayers in the public school, or the teaching of creationism in a science curriculum had to be fought. And these were hard battles as the Christian right was ensconced in every facets of society. Now that we won a few battles, we're the oppressors, and the Christians, still a majority with a lot of power, are the victims!! Yeah, right. Get lost asshole. Your ignorance is disgusting.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 07:34:59 AM
Sure, atheists who have been a tiny minority for as long as 10,000 years, couldn't even get elected in the US until very recently and in some countries face a death sentence, are the oppressors. Your logic stinks.


It is only recently that atheists have been active on the political scene. Twenty years ago, atheists had to hide because of political and social repercussions. When they did become political active with the internet, it was to remind everyone that we live in a secular society, and such things as "In God we trust" on our money, prayers in the public school, or the teaching of creationism in a science curriculum had to be fought. And these were hard battles as the Christian right was ensconced in every facets of society. Now that we won a few battles, we're the oppressors, and the Christians, still a majority with a lot of power, are the victims!! Yeah, right. Get lost asshole. Your ignorance is disgusting.
How touching, you see yourselves as victims.  "In God We Trust" is what makes America who we are.  The problem is you confuse secularism with the abolishment of religious expression.  Secularism was invented by religious people, for religious people primarily.  Atheists are welcome but as a group you are incapable of maintaining a neutral attitude towards theistic paradigms, with some rare exceptions.  Now if you want political power so much, explain to me from what standard your moral foundation for just laws is derived?  You can't because there is none.  But, now you want to run things?  All I see in atheist groups is something like a pack of housecats.  Each to his own devices.  Amusing when you are kept as pets, but catastrophic when your ideology gets the upper hand. Guess where Hitler derived his eugenics program?  Yeah, Darwinism.  Yet @MikeCI over here writes a rambling treatise on how it's such a benign principle.  Everything is benign until you try to subtract God from the equation.  Then it's mayhem. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 08:03:04 AM
You missed some of my better posts.  It is not wrong to kill people.  It is right to kill the right people, and wrong to kill the wrong people.  As to the killing, I leave that to our authorities.

The difficulty is that it is hard to be sure of "the right people to kill".  Partial fingerprints are too often presented as complete, hair samples that were once thought undoubtable are a joke.  Even DNA tests can be pooched!  Wrongful convictions are estimated to be between 2-10%.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 08:21:20 AM
How touching, you see yourselves as victims.  "In God We Trust" is what makes America who we are.  The problem is you confuse secularism with the abolishment of religious expression.  Secularism was invented by religious people, for religious people primarily.  Atheists are welcome but as a group you are incapable of maintaining a neutral attitude towards theistic paradigms, with some rare exceptions.  Now if you want political power so much, explain to me from what standard your moral foundation for just laws is derived?  You can't because there is none.  But, now you want to run things?  All I see in atheist groups is something like a pack of housecats.  Each to his own devices.  Amusing when you are kept as pets, but catastrophic when your ideology gets the upper hand. Guess where Hitler derived his eugenics program?  Yeah, Darwinism.  Yet @MikeCI over here writes a rambling treatise on how it's such a benign principle.  Everything is benign until you try to subtract God from the equation.  Then it's mayhem. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Your attitude is that we are the oppressors?!? How many atheist are elected? Oh yeah, one. Sure we are running things. So be scared. 

FYI, Hitler was a devout Catholic. He even believed that he was God-given choice to rule. Secondly, Atheists are not a monolithic group. The only common thing we have is that we claim there is a lack of evidence in the existence of a deity. I suppose that must be scary for idiots like you. But politically, socially and psychologically, we are as different as night and day. We are not  organized as any of the established religion. We don't have a church/synagogue/temple to go to and behave as a group. We are all on our own. And in the past, we had to hide. You couldn't express any of your beliefs publicly, you couldn't run for office as an atheist, and at work, you couldn't be known as an atheist or otherwise you would lose your jobs.

In the last 20 years, we've made a few gains, and what you see is a threat. And that's because your belief are being questioned like never before, and you know down deep inside of you, there's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. So in a way, you are right to think we are a threat to you. That's because your beliefs are on shaky grounds.So be scared. LOL.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 09:13:28 AM
How touching, you see yourselves as victims.  "In God We Trust" is what makes America who we are.  The problem is you confuse secularism with the abolishment of religious expression.  Secularism was invented by religious people, for religious people primarily.  Atheists are welcome but as a group you are incapable of maintaining a neutral attitude towards theistic paradigms, with some rare exceptions.  Now if you want political power so much, explain to me from what standard your moral foundation for just laws is derived?  You can't because there is none.  But, now you want to run things?  All I see in atheist groups is something like a pack of housecats.  Each to his own devices.  Amusing when you are kept as pets, but catastrophic when your ideology gets the upper hand. Guess where Hitler derived his eugenics program?  Yeah, Darwinism.  Yet @MikeCI over here writes a rambling treatise on how it's such a benign principle.  Everything is benign until you try to subtract God from the equation.  Then it's mayhem. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

The US was not founded as a religious nation.  It is ruled by laws.  The preamble to the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.", etc.  Note that there is no mention of a religion, any deity.

"In God We Trust" was a law passed in a Joint Resolution by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, that declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. This phrase was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate.  It was a knee-jerk response to "godless communism".

Religion (in general or in specific) might be what you think the US is, but it is not what I think it is.  So it is not what makes America who WE are.  You like religion as a basis, I like laws, and laws re what rule us. 

You asked "explain to me from what standard your moral foundation for just laws is derived".  I've addressed that often.  Just laws derive from human experience in getting along together in groups.  And I will add that religious texts always follow human experience, not arise before it.  No religious idea can be shown to come before human experience with a problem.

Religion (at best) CODIFIES human experiences.  And therefore, is not derived externally from "above".

You said "Secularism was invented by religious people".  In all my life, I have never heard a sillier idea.  I would say "idiotic" and "moronic", but I'm trying to restrain myself.  To explain that, I have to hope that you understand that there were once hominids  who did not have thoughts of deities.  They ate fruits and roots and sometimes scavenged marrow from bones.  There is evidence of that.  Alright so far?

So basically, you are proposing that one day, one of these hominids suddenly woke up and said "Oh Dang, we were created by a power from above and HE says we must not do certain things that offend him like work on his sabbath day, carve statues we might thing represent HIM, and not believe in other powers we never even thought of to admire until HE just mentioned it to me today.

Do you see how silly that is?

In a practical sense, it is the concept of a deity that ruins humankind too often.  It's not which leaders commit more atrocities than others and which are theists and which are not.  Some very religious leaders killed millions and some leaders who were religious also killed millions.  Atheism is not a specific set of beliefs.  I can't recall any who specifically said "I killed them in the name of my atheistic beliefs.  One CAN, however, find many who specifically killed in the name of their religion.

For example, "The Crusaders were accompanied by an official representative of the Pope, a French Cistercian monk named Arnaud Amalric (also variously referred to as Arnald Amalric and Arnauld-Amaury).

De Montfort demanded that the leaders of Beziers turn over the town’s Cathar heretics to him. They refused. The Crusaders attacked.

According to accounts written decades later, as the attack began, a soldier asked Amalric how they would be able to tell which Beziers townspeople were Catholics and which were Cathars.

Amalric supposedly answered (in French):  “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.”

No atheist ever said THAT...

And with THAT, I leave you for now.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 10:01:11 AM


Your attitude is that we are the oppressors?!? How many atheist are elected? Oh yeah, one. Sure we are running things. So be scared. 

FYI, Hitler was a devout Catholic. He even believed that he was God-given choice to rule. Secondly, Atheists are not a monolithic group. The only common thing we have is that we claim there is a lack of evidence in the existence of a deity. I suppose that must be scary for idiots like you. But politically, socially and psychologically, we are as different as night and day. We are not  organized as any of the established religion. We don't have a church/synagogue/temple to go to and behave as a group. We are all on our own. And in the past, we had to hide. You couldn't express any of your beliefs publicly, you couldn't run for office as an atheist, and at work, you couldn't be known as an atheist or otherwise you would lose your jobs.

In the last 20 years, we've made a few gains, and what you see is a threat. And that's because your belief are being questioned like never before, and you know down deep inside of you, there's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. So in a way, you are right to think we are a threat to you. That's because your beliefs are on shaky grounds.So be scared. LOL.

If I was scared of having my beliefs challenged I wouldn't be on this forum would I? What I know deep down inside is Allah is the greatest.  But you are having a hard time distinguishing between me and your internal projections.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 10:05:47 AM

What I know deep down inside is Allah is the greatest. 



As I said in an earlier post,"And at every opportunity you were pushing your religion", I am right.

But in this country, Muhammad Ali is the greatest.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 08, 2019, 10:20:26 AM

If I was scared of having my beliefs challenged I wouldn't be on this forum would I?
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
That is just bullshit.  You would freely answer all questions, instead of ducking them.  You are simply a coward and liar.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 10:23:44 AM

If I was scared of having my beliefs challenged I wouldn't be on this forum would I? What I know deep down inside is Allah is the greatest.  But you are having a hard time distinguishing between me and your internal projections.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You would be here if tied to wild horses trying to drag you away.  You life's purpose is to convince us atheists we are somehow stupidly wrong.  Or else you WOULDN'T be here.

I'M here because I want to talk to fellow atheists about various subjects rationally and without idiot theists like you getting in the way every damned post!  If I wanted to argue and annoy people like you, I would go to theistic sites.  I don't.

I love cats (for example).  And I specifically do not like dogs (I have reasons).  But that doesn't mean I go to dog discussion boards and tell them how much better cats are than dogs and how dumb dogs are.

That is basically all that you are doing.  You are just coming where you are not particularly wanted and trying to throw sand into the machinery.  Hurry and hallalulieh, you think you have done something godly after each post.  You haven't. 

It isn't that I specially dislike you.  You are just one of a long line of theists who show up here.  In a Desiderata sense, you have a right to be here.  Everyone has to be SOMEWHERE.  But I wish you were annoying your fellow theiists rather than us...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 10:52:56 AM


The US was not founded as a religious nation.
What nonsense.  Go read the Declaration of Independence, whose opening sentence states:

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, "

And which closes with:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

There intention of the founders was not the abolishment of religion as atheists pretend, but the establishment of freedom of religion--specifically to address the long train of abuses which ultimately traced back to the Roman Catholic Church.  This was accomplished through separation of Church and State.  America has always been religious in character, as it is today.  The intent was that no one religion could dominate.  Modern atheism is heavily associated with Marxist political ideology for all appearances.  It was Marx who said "religion is the opiate of the people."
You asked "explain to me from what standard your moral foundation for just laws is derived".  I've addressed that often.  Just laws derive from human experience in getting along together in groups.  And I will add that religious texts always follow human experience, not arise before it.  No religious idea can be shown to come before human experience with a problem.

Religion (at best) CODIFIES human experiences.  And therefore, is not derived externally from "above".

You said "Secularism was invented by religious people".  In all my life, I have never heard a sillier idea.  I would say "idiotic" and "moronic", but I'm trying to restrain myself.  To explain that, I have to hope that you understand that there were once hominids  who did not have thoughts of deities.  They ate fruits and roots and sometimes scavenged marrow from bones.  There is evidence of that.  Alright so far?

So basically, you are proposing that one day, one of these hominids suddenly woke up and said "Oh Dang, we were created by a power from above and HE says we must not do certain things that offend him like work on his sabbath day, carve statues we might thing represent HIM, and not believe in other powers we never even thought of to admire until HE just mentioned it to me today.

Do you see how silly that is?
This is a mix of fantasy and fiction. Divine laws have been received through revelation since the beginning of human civilization.  It was always an organic process.  You assumed hominid had no religion or divine inspiration.  Convenient assumption for your narrative, but even if true, it would only go to show the state humans are capable of attaining without divine guidance.
In a practical sense, it is the concept of a deity that ruins humankind too often.  It's not which leaders commit more atrocities than others and which are theists and which are not.  Some very religious leaders killed millions and some leaders who were religious also killed millions.  Atheism is not a specific set of beliefs.  I can't recall any who specifically said "I killed them in the name of my atheistic beliefs.  One CAN, however, find many who specifically killed in the name of their religion.

For example, "The Crusaders were accompanied by an official representative of the Pope, a French Cistercian monk named Arnaud Amalric (also variously referred to as Arnald Amalric and Arnauld-Amaury).

De Montfort demanded that the leaders of Beziers turn over the town’s Cathar heretics to him. They refused. The Crusaders attacked.

According to accounts written decades later, as the attack began, a soldier asked Amalric how they would be able to tell which Beziers townspeople were Catholics and which were Cathars.

Amalric supposedly answered (in French):  “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.”

No atheist ever said THAT...

And with THAT, I leave you for now.
In your convenient narrative, religion becomes the cause of all human excesses.   Yet this example does not demonstrate ideal behavior derived from an understanding of religious guidance, but rather a superficial religiousity twisted for political purposes.  Politicians frequently use religion, but authentic religion was never meant to be a tool for politicians.  This is what the founding fathers realized, and why they separated Church and State.



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 11:01:02 AM
You would be here if tied to wild horses trying to drag you away.  You life's purpose is to convince us atheists we are somehow stupidly wrong.  Or else you WOULDN'T be here.

I'M here because I want to talk to fellow atheists about various subjects rationally and without idiot theists like you getting in the way every damned post!  If I wanted to argue and annoy people like you, I would go to theistic sites.  I don't.

I love cats (for example).  And I specifically do not like dogs (I have reasons).  But that doesn't mean I go to dog discussion boards and tell them how much better cats are than dogs and how dumb dogs are.

That is basically all that you are doing.  You are just coming where you are not particularly wanted and trying to throw sand into the machinery.  Hurry and hallalulieh, you think you have done something godly after each post.  You haven't. 

It isn't that I specially dislike you.  You are just one of a long line of theists who show up here.  In a Desiderata sense, you have a right to be here.  Everyone has to be SOMEWHERE.  But I wish you were annoying your fellow theiists rather than us...
You crack me up.  It was worth coming here just to meet you.  And I'm not being facetious.  I'm also haggling with my fellow theists, if that makes you feel any better, but they aren't half as fun as atheists. [emoji28]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 11:03:13 AM
You crack me up.  It was worth coming here just to meet you.  And I'm not being facetious.  I'm also haggling with my fellow theists, if that makes you feel any better, but they aren't half as fun as atheists. [emoji28]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Liar.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 11:21:40 AM
What nonsense.  Go read the Declaration of Independence, whose opening sentence states:

"the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, "

And which closes with:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

There intention of the founders was not the abolishment of religion as atheists pretend, but the establishment of freedom of religion--specifically to address the long train of abuses which ultimately traced back to the Roman Catholic Church.  This was accomplished through separation of Church and State.  America has always been religious in character, as it is today.  The intent was that no one religion could dominate.  Modern atheism is heavily associated with Marxist political ideology for all appearances.  It was Marx who said "religion is the opiate of the people."This is a mix of fantasy and fiction. Divine laws have been received through revelation since the beginning of human civilization.  It was always an organic process.  You assumed hominid had no religion or divine inspiration.  Convenient assumption for your narrative, but even if true, it would only go to show the state humans are capable of attaining without divine guidance.In your convenient narrative, religion becomes the cause of all human excesses.   Yet this example does not demonstrate ideal behavior derived from an understanding of religious guidance, but rather a superficial religiousity twisted for political purposes.  Politicians frequently use religion, but authentic religion was never meant to be a tool for politicians.  This is what the founding fathers realized, and why they separated Church and State.



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Please...  The Declaration was a verbose call to arms and a protest document.  It is certainly stirring.  I often read it aloud on July 4th (inaccurate the date may be).  You don't people activated by quoting a lot of rules.  Back in the 70s, I was a talented creator of protest signs.  If you are old enough, you probably saw some of them (not that I was the best).

But the US was not constructed on the Declaration Of Independence.  It was constructed in The Constitution.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 12:47:14 PM
The US was not founded as a religious nation.  It is ruled by laws.  The preamble to the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.", etc.  Note that there is no mention of a religion, any deity.

"In God We Trust" was a law passed in a Joint Resolution by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, that declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. This phrase was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate.  It was a knee-jerk response to "godless communism".

Religion (in general or in specific) might be what you think the US is, but it is not what I think it is.  So it is not what makes America who WE are.  You like religion as a basis, I like laws, and laws re what rule us. 

You asked "explain to me from what standard your moral foundation for just laws is derived".  I've addressed that often.  Just laws derive from human experience in getting along together in groups.  And I will add that religious texts always follow human experience, not arise before it.  No religious idea can be shown to come before human experience with a problem.

Religion (at best) CODIFIES human experiences.  And therefore, is not derived externally from "above".

You said "Secularism was invented by religious people".  In all my life, I have never heard a sillier idea.  I would say "idiotic" and "moronic", but I'm trying to restrain myself.  To explain that, I have to hope that you understand that there were once hominids  who did not have thoughts of deities.  They ate fruits and roots and sometimes scavenged marrow from bones.  There is evidence of that.  Alright so far?

So basically, you are proposing that one day, one of these hominids suddenly woke up and said "Oh Dang, we were created by a power from above and HE says we must not do certain things that offend him like work on his sabbath day, carve statues we might thing represent HIM, and not believe in other powers we never even thought of to admire until HE just mentioned it to me today.

Do you see how silly that is?

In a practical sense, it is the concept of a deity that ruins humankind too often.  It's not which leaders commit more atrocities than others and which are theists and which are not.  Some very religious leaders killed millions and some leaders who were religious also killed millions.  Atheism is not a specific set of beliefs.  I can't recall any who specifically said "I killed them in the name of my atheistic beliefs.  One CAN, however, find many who specifically killed in the name of their religion.

For example, "The Crusaders were accompanied by an official representative of the Pope, a French Cistercian monk named Arnaud Amalric (also variously referred to as Arnald Amalric and Arnauld-Amaury).

De Montfort demanded that the leaders of Beziers turn over the town’s Cathar heretics to him. They refused. The Crusaders attacked.

According to accounts written decades later, as the attack began, a soldier asked Amalric how they would be able to tell which Beziers townspeople were Catholics and which were Cathars.

Amalric supposedly answered (in French):  “Kill them all. God will recognize his own.”

No atheist ever said THAT...

And with THAT, I leave you for now.

We were founded as a Freemasonic conspiracy.  Prove me wrong ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 12:51:53 PM
How touching, you see yourselves as victims.  "In God We Trust" is what makes America who we are.  The problem is you confuse secularism with the abolishment of religious expression.  Secularism was invented by religious people, for religious people primarily.  Atheists are welcome but as a group you are incapable of maintaining a neutral attitude towards theistic paradigms, with some rare exceptions.  Now if you want political power so much, explain to me from what standard your moral foundation for just laws is derived?  You can't because there is none.  But, now you want to run things?  All I see in atheist groups is something like a pack of housecats.  Each to his own devices.  Amusing when you are kept as pets, but catastrophic when your ideology gets the upper hand. Guess where Hitler derived his eugenics program?  Yeah, Darwinism.  Yet @MikeCI over here writes a rambling treatise on how it's such a benign principle.  Everything is benign until you try to subtract God from the equation.  Then it's mayhem. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

US has always been schizoid.  Are we to be European or not?  A parallel to the woe of GB.  Today the battle is ... should the US be an atheist Euro-Communist police state, like Germany and France?  I am not seeing the EU being successful in over-powering the US.  GB is on a much weaker ship of state, shall it remain an atheist Anglo-Monarchist police state?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 12:56:59 PM
The difficulty is that it is hard to be sure of "the right people to kill".  Partial fingerprints are too often presented as complete, hair samples that were once thought undoubtable are a joke.  Even DNA tests can be pooched!  Wrongful convictions are estimated to be between 2-10%.

You took me literally again.  I wouldn't kill a fly.  But the predatory nature of human beings is coming to the fore.  You should always kill the Them, not the Us, of course.  As divided by perceived (real?) existential crisis.  1930s are coming back.  It was not true that European Jews were an existential threat to Western civilization, but a part of its core.  But were perceived as a fatal threat, because Communism was perceived as Jewish on the one hand, and Capitalism was perceived as Jewish on the other hand.  There is no accounting for Gentile stupidity.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
You crack me up.  It was worth coming here just to meet you.  And I'm not being facetious.  I'm also haggling with my fellow theists, if that makes you feel any better, but they aren't half as fun as atheists. [emoji28]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Some of us are charter members of the Curmudgeon club ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 12:59:58 PM
Please...  The Declaration was a verbose call to arms and a protest document.  It is certainly stirring.  I often read it aloud on July 4th (inaccurate the date may be).  You don't people activated by quoting a lot of rules.  Back in the 70s, I was a talented creator of protest signs.  If you are old enough, you probably saw some of them (not that I was the best).

But the US was not constructed on the Declaration Of Independence.  It was constructed in The Constitution.

Yes, you 5th columnist, you ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
Please...  The Declaration was a verbose call to arms and a protest document.  It is certainly stirring.  I often read it aloud on July 4th (inaccurate the date may be).  You don't people activated by quoting a lot of rules.  Back in the 70s, I was a talented creator of protest signs.  If you are old enough, you probably saw some of them (not that I was the best).

But the US was not constructed on the Declaration Of Independence.  It was constructed in The Constitution.
None of that disproves my point.  The rights of man and all just laws were correctly understood by the founding fathers to derive from God, agree with them or not.  They also understood that these laws were an organic outgrowth of implicit laws encoded into nature.  You would, through an atheist lense, view those laws and interpret them as just "the way things are." There isn't anything inaccurate about that.  However I would argue that mankind is inherently theistic in orientation.  It's only recently through science and secularism that he has been enabled to override his own nature and become atheist.  You would say this is a good thing, an advancement in evolution.  I would agree, but for a different reason.  It is good insofar as men are empowered to choose freely their religion or not.  Good for me in that choosing my religion is only that much more meaningful.  It is also a marker of evolution.  I don't have any need to convert you, despite what nonsense others project onto me.  I truly enjoy the challenge of facing your world view full blast, and I benefit from having my every word scrutinized. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 02:39:48 PM
  However I would argue that mankind is inherently theistic in orientation. 


Take away the power of religious institutes to brainwash the young ones, and you'll get a different outcome.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 03:09:48 PM
None of that disproves my point.  The rights of man and all just laws were correctly understood by the founding fathers to derive from God, agree with them or not.  They also understood that these laws were an organic outgrowth of implicit laws encoded into nature.  You would, through an atheist lense, view those laws and interpret them as just "the way things are." There isn't anything inaccurate about that.  However I would argue that mankind is inherently theistic in orientation.  It's only recently through science and secularism that he has been enabled to override his own nature and become atheist.  You would say this is a good thing, an advancement in evolution.  I would agree, but for a different reason.  It is good insofar as men are empowered to choose freely their religion or not.  Good for me in that choosing my religion is only that much more meaningful.  It is also a marker of evolution.  I don't have any need to convert you, despite what nonsense others project onto me.  I truly enjoy the challenge of facing your world view full blast, and I benefit from having my every word scrutinized. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I don't know whether to bother to discuss this with you or let others do it.  But I am the impatient sort...

The writers of the US Constitution arose during The Age Of Enlightenment.  The Enlightment was exemplified by a change from Monarchal and Religious heirarchy to the idea that reason and thought could promote human welfare better than higher powers and command structures.  Embedded in that was the idea that humans determined their own ethics and laws based on the abilities inherent in humans and an understanding of natural laws.

In part, it was a culmination of mass book-printing, exposure to how other non-european cultures succeeded or failed and a deep idea that laws which were collectively agreed-upon were likely to be accepted throughout a society.  In that sense, the protest over "taxation without representation" was less a complaint about the costs than from the lack of participation in the process.

The US Constitution is not the Declaration.  It is a very specifically-organized description of a formal secular government.  Unlike many European nations who had guaranteed functions and powers incrementally assigned to religious groups, the US Constitution has none.

Yes, they sometimes spoke the language of the time, full of religious references.  But it was oratorical habit.  In the same way that even I use religious terms to some expressions of anger or pain (God damn it) they did also.  Reading their seriously thoughtful writings, you see that in deepest thought, religion was seldom invoked.

I understand that the religious want to view the Constitution as deriving some justification from a deity.  Quite frankly, if I thought there was one, I would too.  "Knowing" from All High would be very reassuring and certainly eliminate many doubts about right or wrong. But false assurance is not psychologically healthy.



Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 08, 2019, 03:12:03 PM
However I would argue that mankind is inherently theistic in orientation.
Strange then how a lot of people go through an awful lot of effort to push this stuff on kids, when it would obviously come to them naturally.

Quote
It's only recently through science and secularism that he has been enabled to override his own nature and become atheist.
There's a Westworld joke in there somewhere, I just know it.

Quote
You would say this is a good thing, an advancement in evolution.
Are you then one who doesn't understand evolution or is that your sock?

Quote
I don't have any need to convert you
Good because you're right shit at it.  So much so that you should've stopped on day 1.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 08, 2019, 03:17:13 PM
Strange then how a lot of people go through an awful lot of effort to push this stuff on kids, when it would obviously come to them naturally.


Quote from: Ernestine L. Rose, in A Defense of Atheism, 1878
If belief in God were natural, there would be no need to teach it. Children would possess it as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the heathen as much as the missionary. We don't have to teach the general elements of human nature - the five senses, seeing hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so would religion be if it were natural, but it is not. On the contrary, it is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. Even as it is, they are great skeptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon by which religion has ever been propagated, namely, fear - fear of the lash of public opinion here, and of a jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No; there is no religion in human nature, nor human nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the result of education, while atheism is natural, and, were the human mind not perverted and bewildered by the mysteries and follies of superstition, would be universal.


Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 03:21:52 PM


Thank you so much for that quote.  It says so much that I wish I could say in so few words.  On the other hand, she probably wasn't trying to do it in 2 minutes, LOL!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 08, 2019, 03:38:31 PM

If I read you correctly are saying that not agreeing to theism is not the same as opposing it.  This seems like a philosophical distinction.  Yet in actual life, I find that anyone who does not accept theism is always opposed to it.  This is because humans are not philosophical abstractions but flesh and blood creatures.  What we don't agree with, we see as a threat, if large numbers of people hold to these ideas, and rightly so.  Politics always deals with large numbers of people so any ideology that does not accept theism WILL oppose it actively.  It will definitely represent a threat to such ideology.  A good example of how this works is that I came to this forum with no intention of sharing my beliefs, yet these were immediately attacked without any provocation.  So instead of just chatting with open-minded people about science or philosophy as I hoped, I was constantly defending myself against attacks and correcting misconceptions about my beliefs.  It was assumed I was here to convert--which wasn't the case at all.  And you can see all the bitterness unleashed against my worldview scrolling through my introduction.  Atheists find genuine theism threatening, and no philosophical argument will convince me otherwise.

Who knows, maybe it's only a misconception, but that's highly doubtful.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

If you'll allow me, what I read from this is an insecurity mirrored to others because the idea of being the only one who finds the world to be so hostile is even worse than everybody thinking exactly the same way about the world and by extension the one doing the mirroring.

Who knows though, maybe it is only a misconception. ;)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 03:46:05 PM
If you'll allow me, what I read from this is an insecurity mirrored to others because the idea of being the only one who finds the world to be so hostile is even worse than everybody thinking exactly the same way about the world and by extension the one doing the mirroring.

Who knows though, maybe it is only a misconception. ;)

For someone named Mr. Obvious, that was very subtly snarkish...  Nice.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 04:01:45 PM
I don't know whether to bother to discuss this with you or let others do it.  But I am the impatient sort...

The writers of the US Constitution arose during The Age Of Enlightenment.  The Enlightment was exemplified by a change from Monarchal and Religious heirarchy to the idea that reason and thought could promote human welfare better than higher powers and command structures.  Embedded in that was the idea that humans determined their own ethics and laws based on the abilities inherent in humans and an understanding of natural laws.

In part, it was a culmination of mass book-printing, exposure to how other non-european cultures succeeded or failed and a deep idea that laws which were collectively agreed-upon were likely to be accepted throughout a society.  In that sense, the protest over "taxation without representation" was less a complaint about the costs than from the lack of participation in the process.

The US Constitution is not the Declaration.  It is a very specifically-organized description of a formal secular government.  Unlike many European nations who had guaranteed functions and powers incrementally assigned to religious groups, the US Constitution has none.

Yes, they sometimes spoke the language of the time, full of religious references.  But it was oratorical habit.  In the same way that even I use religious terms to some expressions of anger or pain (God damn it) they did also.  Reading their seriously thoughtful writings, you see that in deepest thought, religion was seldom invoked.

I understand that the religious want to view the Constitution as deriving some justification from a deity.  Quite frankly, if I thought there was one, I would too.  "Knowing" from All High would be very reassuring and certainly eliminate many doubts about right or wrong. But false assurance is not psychologically healthy.

Colonial treason.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 04:02:35 PM
Take away the power of religious institutes to brainwash the young ones, and you'll get a different outcome.

Hitler Youth or New Soviet Man?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 04:40:17 PM
I don't know whether to bother to discuss this with you or let others do it.  But I am the impatient sort...

The writers of the US Constitution arose during The Age Of Enlightenment.  The Enlightment was exemplified by a change from Monarchal and Religious heirarchy to the idea that reason and thought could promote human welfare better than higher powers and command structures.  Embedded in that was the idea that humans determined their own ethics and laws based on the abilities inherent in humans and an understanding of natural laws.

In part, it was a culmination of mass book-printing, exposure to how other non-european cultures succeeded or failed and a deep idea that laws which were collectively agreed-upon were likely to be accepted throughout a society.  In that sense, the protest over "taxation without representation" was less a complaint about the costs than from the lack of participation in the process.

The US Constitution is not the Declaration.  It is a very specifically-organized description of a formal secular government.  Unlike many European nations who had guaranteed functions and powers incrementally assigned to religious groups, the US Constitution has none.

Yes, they sometimes spoke the language of the time, full of religious references.  But it was oratorical habit.  In the same way that even I use religious terms to some expressions of anger or pain (God damn it) they did also.  Reading their seriously thoughtful writings, you see that in deepest thought, religion was seldom invoked.

I understand that the religious want to view the Constitution as deriving some justification from a deity.  Quite frankly, if I thought there was one, I would too.  "Knowing" from All High would be very reassuring and certainly eliminate many doubts about right or wrong. But false assurance is not psychologically healthy.

There's not much I can disagree on here.  Thomas Jefferson, one of primary movers, was a Deist, which would translate into a belief that God was not directly involved in human affairs.  I wouldn't expect such a person to imvoke deity every other sentence, if ever when developing political theory.  He would correctly deduce that it was up to humans to pull ourselves up by our britches, having been given all the necessary faculties to accomplish this on our own, and as such that no God would step in to save us by merely sitting around praying in the pews all day for revelation.  Yet Jefferson was a reader of the Qur'an.   And John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I for one am certain of my hope in an unfailing & ever-present source of help in God.  And He has never failed me.  But believe what you will.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 04:58:12 PM
If you'll allow me, what I read from this is an insecurity mirrored to others because the idea of being the only one who finds the world to be so hostile is even worse than everybody thinking exactly the same way about the world and by extension the one doing the mirroring.

Who knows though, maybe it is only a misconception. ;)
Of course I will allow you, and I'll take Cavebear's word that it was right "snarkish" of you.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 05:10:18 PM

There's not much I can disagree on here.  Thomas Jefferson, one of primary movers, was a Deist, which would translate into a belief that God was not directly involved in human affairs.  I wouldn't expect such a person to imvoke deity every other sentence, if ever when developing political theory.  He would correctly deduce that it was up to humans to pull ourselves up by our britches, having been given all the necessary faculties to accomplish this on our own, and as such that no God would step in to save us by merely sitting around praying in the pews all day for revelation.  Yet Jefferson was a reader of the Qur'an.   And John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I for one am certain of my hope in an unfailing source of help in God.  And He has never failed me.  But believe what you will.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Well said in the first part.  You surprise me.  Well, my logic WAS irrefutable.

As the the rest, yes Jefferson read non-christian religious texts.  So have I.  He explored other ideas.

Ah John Adams., a spirititual ancestor so to speak.  That is some quote.  But what you don't realize is that it comes from a motivational letter he sent to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798.  1798?  Yes.  Nothing to do with the Constitution.  He was basically imploring the local militia to arm and feed themselves, as the US Govt had no funds.  He was begging them in terms they  might respond to. 

What do you think now?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 08, 2019, 09:10:38 PM
Well said in the first part.  You surprise me.  Well, my logic WAS irrefutable.

As the the rest, yes Jefferson read non-christian religious texts.  So have I.  He explored other ideas.

Ah John Adams., a spirititual ancestor so to speak.  That is some quote.  But what you don't realize is that it comes from a motivational letter he sent to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798.  1798?  Yes.  Nothing to do with the Constitution.  He was basically imploring the local militia to arm and feed themselves, as the US Govt had no funds.  He was begging them in terms they  might respond to. 

What do you think now?

Washington was a head of the US Freemasons, as was Franklin.  Jefferson was a member of the Parisian Illuminati.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 09, 2019, 02:17:35 AM
Of course I will allow you, and I'll take Cavebear's word that it was right "snarkish" of you.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

It was. Doesn't mean it is not true.
As to your earlier reply though. You are wrong, it is not just a philosophical distinction. The problem is you can't separate atheism from antitheism, maybe simply because many atheist also become antitheistic.
It seems like a minor distinction to you, maybe, but it is why you can't accept Sweden or other Scandinavian countries as 'atheist' countries. While they are. While many here are indeed antitheistic, myself included, very few would want a country or government that were truly antitheistic, rather atheist in nature and fully separated in it's proceedings and working manner from church. Indeed a fully szcularized nation without predisposition to allow special features for institutions of religion is an atheist nation.
Just not an antitheist one. Which is what you fear we al want because many of us are antitheist.
But our right to antitheism stops, as we here would mostly agree, where your right to theism starts. As in: my right to swing my fist in this free country of mine, stops at your face.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 08:00:29 AM


Well said in the first part.  You surprise me.  Well, my logic WAS irrefutable.

As the the rest, yes Jefferson read non-christian religious texts.  So have I.  He explored other ideas.

Ah John Adams., a spirititual ancestor so to speak.  That is some quote.  But what you don't realize is that it comes from a motivational letter he sent to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798.  1798?  Yes.  Nothing to do with the Constitution.  He was basically imploring the local militia to arm and feed themselves, as the US Govt had no funds.  He was begging them in terms they  might respond to. 

What do you think now?

It seems that we are compatible in terms of a methodology for interpretation, notwithstanding we start from different assumptions. It's important to be open-minded and that's one thing I see we have in common.

You explain away any type of theistic verbiage as if it was pure rhetoric not from the heart.  As you must, in order to make America work for you.  But don't we all.  Nevertheless you work for America and for me, because I wouldn't want the dominant religion to become a political force--and you know what religion I'm talking about.  I wouldn't want any religion to be in power, not even my own.  Personally, atheists help keep me honest with myself, and that's a good thing.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 08:47:26 AM
It was. Doesn't mean it is not true.
As to your earlier reply though. You are wrong, it is not just a philosophical distinction. The problem is you can't separate atheism from antitheism, maybe simply because many atheist also become antitheistic.
It seems like a minor distinction to you, maybe, but it is why you can't accept Sweden or other Scandinavian countries as 'atheist' countries. While they are. While many here are indeed antitheistic, myself included, very few would want a country or government that were truly antitheistic, rather atheist in nature and fully separated in it's proceedings and working manner from church. Indeed a fully szcularized nation without predisposition to allow special features for institutions of religion is an atheist nation.
Just not an antitheist one. Which is what you fear we al want because many of us are antitheist.
But our right to antitheism stops, as we here would mostly agree, where your right to theism starts. As in: my right to swing my fist in this free country of mine, stops at your face.

Yeah, so it's easier to prevent future fists  swinging if we talk things out, wouldn't you say?  I never said your philosophical distinction was not true, yet I have met very few non anti-theist atheists. (There's a tongue twister).  I consider Cavebear an exception.  Counting him there are now two that I personally know of.  I consider myself a non anti-atheist theist (another tongue twister).

A political party is a different beast though.  Communism would be atheist because it derives from Marxism, which looks upon theistic religion unfavorably.  Therefore in China, all religion is heavily controlled and suppressed, such that they are effectively puppets of anti-theistic state religion.

Sweden etc., are what I would call secular.  They don't take any stance for or against religion.  They simply don't interfere and the state does not purport to be a substitute for religion.  That people are religious is understood and accepted implicitly. 

The US is also secular in that the government is not controlled by any religion.  The only difference as you rightly pointed out is that religion is favored through tax breaks etc.  Americans are very religious.  It fits the character of the nation.  It's logical because most who came here came for freedom to practice their religions.  This is why America came into existence.  We want to protect religion.

Back to this dilemma about what exactly is an atheist.  I'm still trying to figure it out.  Because many atheists are saying to the effect, "we aren't atheist, we're agnostic." Here are my definitions, which many atheists would take issue with:

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)
2.  Agnostic: neither believes there is God(s) nor believes there is not.  No position stated.
3. Theist: believes God(s) exist

Would you slice it up differently?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 09:05:33 AM

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)


Would you slice it up differently?



Atheist: there is a LACK of evidence in proving the existence of a deity.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 09:25:46 AM
Atheist: there is a LACK of evidence in proving the existence of a deity.
"There is evidence for God everywhere.  Modern science is handicapped by the unfounded underlying assumptions of material causality and human supremacism."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:45:10 AM
Yeah, so it's easier to prevent future fists  swinging if we talk things out, wouldn't you say?  I never said your philosophical distinction was not true, yet I have met very few non anti-theist atheists. (There's a tongue twister).  I consider Cavebear an exception.  Counting him there are now two that I personally know of.  I consider myself a non anti-atheist theist (another tongue twister).

A political party is a different beast though.  Communism would be atheist because it derives from Marxism, which looks upon theistic religion unfavorably.  Therefore in China, all religion is heavily controlled and suppressed, such that they are effectively puppets of anti-theistic state religion.

Sweden etc., are what I would call secular.  They don't take any stance for or against religion.  They simply don't interfere and the state does not purport to be a substitute for religion.  That people are religious is understood and accepted implicitly. 

The US is also secular in that the government is not controlled by any religion.  The only difference as you rightly pointed out is that religion is favored through tax breaks etc.  Americans are very religious.  It fits the character of the nation.  It's logical because most who came here came for freedom to practice their religions.  This is why America came into existence.  We want to protect religion.

Back to this dilemma about what exactly is an atheist.  I'm still trying to figure it out.  Because many atheists are saying to the effect, "we aren't atheist, we're agnostic." Here are my definitions, which many atheists would take issue with:

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)
2.  Agnostic: neither believes there is God(s) nor believes there is not.  No position stated.
3. Theist: believes God(s) exist

Would you slice it up differently?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Generally, a well thought out statement.  I'd like to make two points in the way of clarification (or to put my slant on it):
1.  I agree with your atheist, agnostic, theist assessment.  Except I'd not say an atheist 'believes' these is no god.  I don't 'believe' in anything, for that means that is what I chose to do.  I simply do not see any evidence that would demonstrate to me that any god exists.  For example--I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I know that it will, so, yeah, I think that it will for all the evidence supports that thought.  Belief doesn't figure in.  It can be a fine-line distinction, but one that is important to me.  In my eyes, when one says an atheist 'believes' there is no god, the assumption is that there is a god and atheists simply chose not to acknowledge that fact.  I suggest there is no fact to acknowledge in the existence of any god.  I realize that I take as proof there is not any evidence as a form of proof--not all atheists agree with me in that.

2.  You suggest---"It's logical because most who came here came for freedom to practice their religions."  In high school that is what I learned as well.  I no longer think that.  The Puritans did come to North America to be able to practice their religion as they saw fit; but they were not for freedom of religion in any way.  You were either a Puritan who followed all the rules or you were punished or banished.  I'd say now that the reason most came to North America was for economic reasons.  Half of the Mayflower were people just like that--they wanted to become part of a successful colony or city that would turn a profit; they were not Puritan.  Economic reasons drove the populating of the Americas, not religion, although it did have an important role to play. 

and 3.  I like the way Mr. Obvious put it--I am atheistic and anti-theistic.  But only to a point.  I do not think I have the right to make religions or the religious to go away; but I do have the right to practice what I think without them interfering.  The best way to do that would be through a constitution in which all people's rights are established and respected.  I don't see that as being practiced in this country.  I see christians insisting I be a christian or else.  We cannot hold public office still in nine states in this country.  In many countries of the world atheists can be killed on sight.   

Anyway, good post.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 09:46:49 AM
"There is evidence for God everywhere.  Modern science is handicapped by the underlying assumptions of material causality and human supremacism."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Scientism works very well, until it doesn't.  But if we got really into post-colonial identity politics, then the values of the West, including material causality and human supremacism ... are just as colonial as Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden".  The Enlightenment of which they speak, is a W European, not even E European phenomena.  Very parochial.

“EVERY SINGLE EMPIRE IN ITS OFFICIAL DISCOURSE HAS SAID THAT IT IS NOT LIKE ALL THE OTHERS, THAT ITS CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SPECIAL, THAT IT HAS A MISSION TO ENLIGHTEN, CIVILIZE, BRING ORDER AND DEMOCRACY, AND THAT IT USES FORCE ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. AND, SADDER STILL, THERE ALWAYS IS A CHORUS OF WILLING INTELLECTUALS TO SAY CALMING WORDS ABOUT BENIGN OR ALTRUISTIC EMPIRES, AS IF ONE SHOULDN'T TRUST THE EVIDENCE OF ONE'S EYES WATCHING THE DESTRUCTION AND THE MISERY AND DEATH."  - EDWARD SAID

Freedom of religion and from religion, only came about after the American Revolution, and was pushed primarily by Thomas Jefferson.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 09, 2019, 10:15:10 AM
Here are my definitions, which many atheists would take issue with:

1.  Atheist: believes there is no God(s)
2.  Agnostic: neither believes there is God(s) nor believes there is not.  No position stated.
3. Theist: believes God(s) exist

Would you slice it up differently?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Yes of course I would, yours are completely wrong. Or at least, two out of three. To an extent, that leads into your seeming inability to understand that fully secularized countries are atheist, and other countries under communist regime that criminalize theism are antitheistic ON TOP of being atheist. There is an interesting discussion to be had about whether or not countries like China, North Korea or the old ussr are indeed fully antitheistic as they substitute religion with a cult worship of a great leader elevated to a godlike status of their own, but that aside: here is how you should define those three:

1. Atheists do not believe there to be one or multiple gods. (notice the difference with what you put forth)
3. Theists believe there is a god or a multitude thereof. (you got that one right)

Agnosticism and gnosticism are two answers to a different question, however. Whether one can know something with absolute certainty or not.
So:
2.a. Agnostic atheists do not believe in one or multiple gods, but do not claim to be 100% certain of this position.
In essencz most atheists are of the agnostic variety. You'll find most here to be such. Like, 99.99% certain, but never claiming they can prove this to be absolutely true.
2.b. Gnostic theists do not believe there to be a god and claim to be 100% certain and validated in their position.

You can make the same distinction for agnostic theists and gnostic theists.
But one can not both believe there to be a god and to not believe there  to be a god. No more than one can do neither. This isn't 1984.
You believe or you do not believe, (a) gnosticism deals in knowledge (and lack there of), not belief.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:29:12 AM
"There is evidence for God everywhere."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

That evidence is a fictional account that exists in your head. IOW, it's worthless.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 10:31:53 AM
That evidence is a fictional account that exists in your head. IOW, it's worthless.
\\

Physics is a model in a persons head (useful too).  Pythagoras/Plato was wrong.  There is no World Of Forms.  You could argue that other ideas in other people's heads, is bad.  But isn't that just prejudice?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:33:51 AM
Some people don't know the difference between ideas and evidence. Too bad.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 10:35:35 AM
Some people don't know the difference between ideas and evidence. Too bad.

Evidence is a word, that is a representation of an idea.  No ideas are superior to another, in post-modernism.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 10:40:59 AM
If someone would punch you in the face, that would be real, regardless if there was an idea going along with that.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 10:49:39 AM

Thanks for that explanation. I would like to dissect your ideas further.
1.  I agree with your atheist, agnostic, theist assessment.  Except I'd not say an atheist 'believes' these is no god.  I don't 'believe' in anything, for that means that is what I chose to do.  I simply do not see any evidence that would demonstrate to me that any god exists.
Don't you assume there is no God(s)?  That is your position correct? Or do you "know" there is no God(s)?
For example--I don't 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow.  I know that it will, so, yeah, I think that it will for all the evidence supports that thought.  Belief doesn't figure in.
Do you actually know this?  Let's imagine for a second that tonight the sun enters a wormhole that hadn't been detected in our current sector of our Galaxy.  The Earth is left spinning alone and starts drifting away into deep space.  You wake up to no sun.  Yet you "knew" it would rise the previous night.  Wasn't that "knowledge" an assumption based on past experience, or the experiences of others?
It can be a fine-line distinction, but one that is important to me.  In my eyes, when one says an atheist 'believes' there is no god, the assumption is that there is a god and atheists simply chose not to acknowledge that fact.  I suggest there is no fact to acknowledge in the existence of any god.  I realize that I take as proof there is not any evidence as a form of proof--not all atheists agree with me in that.
So the fact you have no evidence of something is proof that it doesn't exist.  Is that what you mean?
The Puritans did come to North America to be able to practice their religion as they saw fit; but they were not for freedom of religion in any way.  You were either a Puritan who followed all the rules or you were punished or banished.
Yes, initially they came for freedom to practice THEIR religion, not for everyone to have freedom.  Yet by the time the Constitution was drafted it was becoming obvious this mentality was no longer tenable.  The original states were theocracies which eventually morphed into secular states under the influence of the federal government.  No doubt many Christians want things to go back to the "good old days" when their religion or denomination was in charge.[emoji849]
and 3.  I like the way Mr. Obvious put it--I am atheistic and anti-theistic.  But only to a point.  I do not think I have the right to make religions or the religious to go away; but I do have the right to practice what I think without them interfering.  The best way to do that would be through a constitution in which all people's rights are established and respected.
This is what I consider a secular ideology.
I don't see that as being practiced in this country.  I see christians insisting I be a christian or else.
Agreed.
We cannot hold public office still in nine states in this country.
Didn't know that.  If atheists are prohibited by state law from holding public office this violates the Constitution and should be challenged.
In many countries of the world atheists can be killed on sight.
Islam guarantees freedom of religion.   This has no doubt been misunderstood by many including some Muslims.  However if you look at UAE there is an example of an Islamic nation that protects freedom of religion.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 11:06:58 AM
That evidence is a fictional account that exists in your head. IOW, it's worthless.
You have the same evidence available to you as I do.  The only difference is in how much of it you use, and how you interpret it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 11:20:24 AM
If someone would punch you in the face, that would be real, regardless if there was an idea going along with that.

I feel triggered ... will be contacting my local college LBGT support group ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 11:24:44 AM
You have the same evidence available to you as I do.  The only difference is in how much of it you use, and how you interpret it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Qualia -> Raw Sensation -> Processed Sensation -> Cognitive Processing

Humans don't have empirical access to Qualia, only to Raw Sensation (thru science).  Same for Processed Sensation aka Gestalt.  The world of ideas is on this side of Cognitive Processing.  This is where per the ancient Buddhist parable, where you distinguish between a rope and a snake (in a dim room).  What an adult experiences, in vision for example, is a movie theater screen VR at the back of your brain.  It is a very good system, but is in fact artificial, it isn't Qualia.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 11:25:48 AM
I feel triggered ... will be contacting my local college LBGT support group ;-)

Ok, Baruch, if you want a decent conversation with me, you need to stop this nonsense. Otherwise you're going back to ignore status.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 11:33:31 AM
Ok, Baruch, if you want a decent conversation with me, you need to stop this nonsense. Otherwise you're going back to ignore status.

You alluded to violence (hitting in the face).  Our younger members might object.  I didn't take it personally.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 12:07:02 PM
You alluded to violence (hitting in the face).  Our younger members might object.  I didn't take it personally.

That comment was to make you realize that there are things that exist independently of your thoughts, as you seem to confuse between what is evidence (punching is a hard fact) and what is idea (a fleeting moment in your mind). Can you follow the conversation, instead of scattering all over with needless posts or is this way over your head?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 09, 2019, 12:11:31 PM
That comment was to make you realize that there are things that exist independently of your thoughts, as you seem to confuse between what is evidence (punching is a hard fact) and what is idea (a fleeting moment in your mind). Can you follow the conversation, instead of scattering all over with needless posts or is this way over your head?

One might say he needs some sense knocked into him.
But that might create more confusion :p
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 12:16:54 PM
Thanks for that explanation. I would like to dissect your ideas further.Don't you assume there is no God(s)?  That is your position correct? Or do you "know" there is no God(s)?Do you actually know this?
Me--No I do not 'assume' there is not god.  I was raised in an agnostic environment and don't remember thinking much about god one way or another until the 5th grade when we moved to Alabama.  Then I attended several churches; my mom took us but did not venture an opinion about god nor Jesus.  At that time I assumed there was a god because nobody I knew questioned it.  I did not really seriously think about it one way or the other until college.  Then I began a casual search for god (or not god).  And only in my mid 40's did I become serious.  After my divorce I wanted some personal answers about life and a spiritual life.  When I met my second wife to be (she is a recovering Catholic) we were both in an active searching mode, so we joined (after scouting around) Unity church.  I tried with all my might to find god and Jesus in this time frame (about 10 yrs).  I wanted to believe but I wanted some sort of proof even if it were just personal proof.  I kept saying that I had found that proof of my Christ consciousness but when put to the test, there was no proof, not even personal.  Eventually I realized I had a huge case of wishful thinking, for there was no proof of either god nor Jesus.  I read all angles from the deepest fundamentalist to the most aggressive anti-theist--and everything in between--material.  No god--no real Jesus. I still do not assume there is no god, for if proof emerged, I'd become the best believer you ever saw.  Even though there has been no evidence put forth, I do not assume there is no god.  I don't think (notice I did not say I don't believe....) there is a god(s) and I don't think Jesus ever existed.  But my mind is not closed; I'm still curious. 


 Let's imagine for a second that tonight the sun enters a wormhole that hadn't been detected in our current sector of our Galaxy.  The Earth is left spinning alone and starts drifting away into deep space.  You wake up to no sun.  Yet you "knew" it would rise the previous night.  Wasn't that "knowledge" an assumption based on past experience, or the experiences of others?So the fact you have no evidence of something is proof that it doesn't exist.  Is that what you mean?
Me--Notice how I use the words 'think' and 'believe'.  Believe needs no proof.  Think relies on established fact; but it is not a locked 'knowing', for if new evidence is presented, I re-think what I 'knew'.  I don't believe the sun will rise, I think it will.  Why?  It has done so for millions/billions of years and will do so for another 5 billion.  But if some evidence is produced to show that that is not the case, then I will re-think it.  This is an important point, for me: You say--"So the fact you have no evidence of something is proof that it doesn't exist.  Is that what you mean?" No.  I have not been presented any (and I mean 'any') evidence any god(s) exist.  None--nadda.  That seems quite odd to, so constitutes a sliver of proof of no existence.  Since most consider god to the Creator, there must be some proof in his creation.  When compared to his 'scripture' (whatever that is for you or others) I see his creation, or nature, to be devoid of any examples of his teachings.  I see the opposite.  That constitutes, for me, a little bit of proof that any god(s) exist or existed.  I add all those bits of proof that no god(s) exist and I accept that as more proof against and none for.  So, for now, I accept that as proof god(s) don't exist.  It works for me--but if some evidence were to be presented that a god existed, I reevaluate my thinking.


Yes, initially they came for freedom to practice THEIR religion, not for everyone to have freedom.  Yet by the time the Constitution was drafted it was becoming obvious this mentality was no longer tenable.  The original states were theocracies which eventually morphed into secular states under the influence of the federal government.  No doubt many Christians want things to go back to the "good old days" when their religion or denomination was in charge.[emoji849]This is what I consider a secular ideology.Agreed
Me--Of the 100 or so on the Mayflower, only 40% were Separatists who had to sell passage to the non-religious to raise enough to sail to the New World.  Religion was a big part of the reason the Mayflower sailed, but economics was even bigger.  And even the Separatists were not really about religious freedom; just the ability to practice their own brand of it, which was the only 'real' religion there was.  The constitution, as it emerged (there was a lot of fighting about it), does not mention god.  I think most of the framers realized how destructive any organized religion was.  Secular ideology?  Yeah, I can go along with that term.   



.Didn't know that.  If atheists are prohibited by state law from holding public office this violates the Constitution and should be challenged.Islam guarantees freedom of religion.   This has no doubt been misunderstood by many including some Muslims.  However if you look at UAE there is an example of an Islamic nation that protects freedom of religion.
Me--Curious, is there any Muslim state/country that allows atheists on any level???

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 12:21:46 PM
Yes of course I would
What a snarky fellow [emoji57].  Thanks for that explanation.  If you're an agnostic atheist I'm a gnostic theist.
yours are completely wrong. Or at least, two out of three. To an extent, that leads into your seeming inability to understand that fully secularized countries are atheist, and other countries under communist regime that criminalize theism are antitheistic ON TOP of being atheist.
I do understand your definition.  However I don't agree.  An atheist country must take an official stance that there is no God(s), whether that equates to anti-theism or not.  A secular country takes NO position.  It does not hold there is God(s), nor does it hold there is no God(s).
1. Atheists do not believe there to be one or multiple gods. (notice the difference with what you put forth)
Of course I noticed.  Now can you elaborate logically on the material or functional difference between "not believing there is God(s)", and "believing there is no God(s)?"
Agnosticism and gnosticism are two answers to a different question, however. Whether one can know something with absolute certainty or not.
This points to the science of epistemology.  How can you really know anything?  Isn't all knowledge a belief that seems to be confirmed by experience?  This is where I would make a distinction between absolute knowledge, which no one has but God, and relative knowledge, having degrees of certainty. Belief is an assumption that initiates the process of knowing.  There can be no knowledge without belief because we all have to start somewhere.  We have to assume, to believe things are a certain way, in order to act.  You have to believe your car will get you safely to work before you get in and drive.  But you can't know absolutely that the engine won't cut off  on the interstate.  However you can increase your certainty by doing oil changes regular check ups and maintenance.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 12:25:19 PM
You have the same evidence available to you as I do.  The only difference is in how much of it you use, and how you interpret it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Well so far you haven't pointed to any evidence pertaining to the existence of a deity. Saying the universe exists, therefore God is not evidence. That's just speculation and wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 09, 2019, 01:35:54 PM
\\

Physics is a model in a persons head (useful too).  Pythagoras/Plato was wrong.  There is no World Of Forms.  You could argue that other ideas in other people's heads, is bad.  But isn't that just prejudice?

So you agree with Vizzini, in The Princess Bride, that Plato was a moron, along with Socrates and Aristotle?


:-P
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 01:36:30 PM


Me--Curious, is there any Muslim state/country that allows atheists on any level???
There are 192 Muslim nations who are signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human rights which protects freedom of religion including the freedom to be atheist.  How it plays out in actual practice I can't speak from experience obviously.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 09, 2019, 01:51:04 PM
Now can you elaborate logically on the material or functional difference between "not believing there is God(s)", and "believing there is no God(s)?"

Here's an example that may help clarify that:

I don't have a belief that there are any extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. But, since there could physically and logically be one or more of them in our galaxy, I don't have a belief that there are none. I just don't know which is the case, so I can have no belief either way. I could assume one or the other, and choose to believe, but that belief or non-belief would have no basis in fact, and would tell me nothing about the real world, only about myself and my preferences.

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 02:09:25 PM
Well so far you haven't pointed to any evidence pertaining to the existence of a deity. Saying the universe exists, therefore God is not evidence. That's just speculation and wishful thinking.
Examining the totality of known existence and my experience, I logically conclude there can and must be God, that there cannot logically not be God.  I accept the universe as evidence for God; it cannot rationally be rejected as evidence, since if God had not created it, He would not be God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 02:26:19 PM
... since if God had not created it, He would not be God.


That's circular reasoning.

There is no evidence that God exists, and no evidence that God created the universe. As I said: it's wishful thinking on your part. At most one can say, if you are intellectually honest, is: "Maybe there is a God." Period. Any other claim is downright dishonest.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 02:30:17 PM


Then I began a casual search for god (or not god).  And only in my mid 40's did I become serious.  After my divorce I wanted some personal answers about life and a spiritual life.  When I met my second wife to be (she is a recovering Catholic) we were both in an active searching mode, so we joined (after scouting around) Unity church.  I tried with all my might to find god and Jesus in this time frame (about 10 yrs).  I wanted to believe but I wanted some sort of proof even if it were just personal proof.  I kept saying that I had found that proof of my Christ consciousness but when put to the test, there was no proof, not even personal. 
During all this time of searching and trying to believe, did you ever pray?  If so what was the nature of your prayers?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 02:33:38 PM
That's circular reasoning.

There is no evidence that God exists, and no evidence that God created the universe. As I said: it's wishful thinking on your part. At most one can say, if you are intellectually honest, is: "Maybe there is a God." Period. Any other claim is downright dishonest.
Since God is in part defined as the Creator of the universe, then the universe must be evidence of God. It cannot logically be asserted that the universe is not evidence.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 03:43:49 PM
During all this time of searching and trying to believe, did you ever pray?  If so what was the nature of your prayers?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Yes, I prayed.  And I prayed from my own personal 'closet'.  And I prayed for illumination; for understanding. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 04:01:54 PM
Yes, I prayed.  And I prayed from my own personal 'closet'.  And I prayed for illumination; for understanding.
Forgive me if I'm probing, but understanding of what?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 04:08:40 PM
Forgive me if I'm probing, but understanding of what?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Probing is fine.  Understanding of myself.  Understanding of how to proceed--what would be appropriate thoughts and actions; thoughts and actions that would be positive for others and myself.  Asking for some sort of signal that there is indeed god; and what does that mean?

When you pray, what do you pray for?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 04:24:27 PM
Since God is in part defined as the Creator of the universe, then the universe must be evidence of God. It cannot logically be asserted that the universe is not evidence.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Just because you define God as creator of the universe does not prove the existence of God. The universe could as well exist without a creator. If you argue that if something exists, it must have a creator, then who created God? If you answer no one, God is eternal, likewise, I can say no one created the universe, the universe is eternal.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 05:10:10 PM
That comment was to make you realize that there are things that exist independently of your thoughts, as you seem to confuse between what is evidence (punching is a hard fact) and what is idea (a fleeting moment in your mind). Can you follow the conversation, instead of scattering all over with needless posts or is this way over your head?

Ok for you to worship Plato.  But are you in the Cave, or outside? ;-)  I multitask, and kibitz.  Sorry that is confusing for you.  That is precisely why I have evolved the practice of posting most miscellaneous "ignored" news under a common string.  That makes it easier to ignore or follow.  I am very active, and most posts are short.  You are not my Daddy.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 05:11:57 PM
So you agree with Vizzini, in The Princess Bride, that Plato was a moron, along with Socrates and Aristotle?


:-P

Yes.  Socrates was a guilty pedophile and psychopath.  Plato was a rich counter-revolutionary against democracy.  Aristotle was a suck up to Macedonian monarchy.  But really, post facto, Aristotle is more impressive than Plato.  Aristotle was right to leave the Academy, when Plato insisted on nepotism.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 05:13:27 PM
One might say he needs some sense knocked into him.
But that might create more confusion :p

Belgians have two main languages ... call the kettle black?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 05:15:51 PM
Here's an example that may help clarify that:

I don't have a belief that there are any extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. But, since there could physically and logically be one or more of them in our galaxy, I don't have a belief that there are none. I just don't know which is the case, so I can have no belief either way. I could assume one or the other, and choose to believe, but that belief or non-belief would have no basis in fact, and would tell me nothing about the real world, only about myself and my preferences.

Go to the Area 51 meet up, and one might increase or decrease your election popularity.  That is so unfair!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 09, 2019, 05:31:41 PM
Ok for you to worship Plato.  But are you in the Cave, or outside?

Plato is dead, so let him rest in peace. And the matrix (movie) is just a rehash of Plato's cave. Plato is non-start for me. The world is real. Period. Anything outside the real world would need tangible, verifiable evidence, otherwise it's just fiction. As to ideas/concepts/symbols these are products of brain activity. We don't understand entirely how this functions, some we do, but the day will come when we will know more and more. But any new discovery will only amplify that what you see is what you get.

As I said in another post: trust must be earned.  So I don't think I will indulge into your kibitz. It's infantile, incoherent, contradictory, irrelevant, and smacks of desperation. Most likely I will ignore your posts - no worth the effort.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 05:53:55 PM
Yes, no love.  But then you aren't the goddess of Love.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 09, 2019, 08:08:09 PM


Probing is fine.  Understanding of myself.  Understanding of how to proceed--what would be appropriate thoughts and actions; thoughts and actions that would be positive for others and myself.  Asking for some sort of signal that there is indeed god; and what does that mean?

When you pray, what do you pray for?

I pray two kinds of prayer, formal ritual prayer and informal personal prayer.  In the ritual prayer I say:

"In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

"All grateful praise be to the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful-

"Master of the day of Judgement.

"Thee alone we worship and Thee alone we ask for help.

"Guide us in the straight way, the way of those who earn Thy favor-

"Not of those who earn Thine anger, nor of those who go astray.

Amen."

In personal prayer I ask that He will cause me to be a good person.  I ask to be purified of evil, of wickedness, of rebelliousness and pride.  I ask that I may be counted among the believers and the righteous.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 09, 2019, 08:26:34 PM
Just repeating a mantra does nothing in my opinion.

Asking for change in yourself does nothing. Actually enacting change in oneself is a lot more trickier.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 09, 2019, 09:07:30 PM

I pray two kinds of prayer, formal ritual prayer and informal personal prayer.  In the ritual prayer I say:

"In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

"All grateful praise be to the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful-

"Master of the day of Judgement.

"Thee alone we worship and Thee alone we ask for help.

"Guide us in the straight way, the way of those who earn Thy favor-

"Not of those who earn Thine anger, nor of those who go astray.

Amen."

In personal prayer I ask that He will cause me to be a good person.  I ask to be purified of evil, of wickedness, of rebelliousness and pride.  I ask that I may be counted among the believers and the righteous.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
If I were to pray your formal prayer, any god would be able to tell I was not being truthful, because I don't think any of that is correct.  That would be a totally dishonest thing for me to do.  Plus, I think it would as fruitful as praying to Thor or Paul Bunyan--they/god do not exist.

I tried your personal prayer (or many very close to it) for many years.  I simply did not notice any difference; now that I'm atheist it simply seems silly and non-productive.  However, I do sort of say a prayer to myself from time to time, for I do aspire to be a good person and not to harm anyone (or animals) without cause.  My personal motto, so to speak, is 'first do no harm.' and I take that inside and mull it over, from time to time, to figure out what it means and how it should govern my actions and thoughts.  But this is all inside work with no god anticipated nor expected.  After all, I do have to live with myself.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 09:21:32 PM
Just repeating a mantra does nothing in my opinion.

Asking for change in yourself does nothing. Actually enacting change in oneself is a lot more trickier.

Depends in receptivity, same as any other auto-hypnosis or NLP or meditation.  If you aren't receptive, or aren't prepped, then it won't do anything.  Essentially it is a verbal trigger of these techniques, as in ancient India.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 09, 2019, 09:24:16 PM
If I were to pray your formal prayer, any god would be able to tell I was not being truthful, because I don't think any of that is correct.  That would be a totally dishonest thing for me to do.  Plus, I think it would as fruitful as praying to Thor or Paul Bunyan--they/god do not exist.

I tried your personal prayer (or many very close to it) for many years.  I simply did not notice any difference; now that I'm atheist it simply seems silly and non-productive.  However, I do sort of say a prayer to myself from time to time, for I do aspire to be a good person and not to harm anyone (or animals) without cause.  My personal motto, so to speak, is 'first do no harm.' and I take that inside and mull it over, from time to time, to figure out what it means and how it should govern my actions and thoughts.  But this is all inside work with no god anticipated nor expected.  After all, I do have to live with myself.

Again, real prayer is triggering prior auto-hypnosis (aka how you learned your culture over time).  Works on people who share the same culture.  Works on yourself.  Aka group or self hypnosis.  The prayer is more like an induction, not like a trigger for prior mental conditioning (that would be a mantra).  A trigger just has to be known to the receiver, it doesn't have to be indelible language ... same as a military code word.

If you aren't prepped, then it won't do anything.  And a fair percentage are induction resistant (10-15%).  This is "magic" as in "abracadabra", designed to modify people's mental state.  That changes their perception of what they see,  not the raw sensation.  This is why people of Catholic culture, who are committed Catholics .... are moved by Catholic liturgy and prayer.  But a Muslim in the same room is not.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 10, 2019, 07:16:09 AM
I can say no one created the universe, the universe is eternal.

The big bang theory contradicts that statement.  If the universe had a beginning, it is not eternal.  Everything in the observable universe exhibits transience, impermanence.  You cannot honestly say the universe is eternal.  If it had a beginning, then it had a cause, and that cause can be none but God.

The name by which God called Himself, EHYH, means "I AM THAT I AM", which is interpreted that He is the self-existent, self-subsisting. Since God identified Himself as He is that He is (YHVH), I CAN honestly say that God is He who is uncreated, without beginning or end.  I can honestly say that God is the eternal source of all existence.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 10, 2019, 07:39:49 AM
However, I do sort of say a prayer to myself from time to time, for I do aspire to be a good person and not to harm anyone (or animals) without cause.  My personal motto, so to speak, is 'first do no harm.' and I take that inside and mull it over, from time to time, to figure out what it means and how it should govern my actions and thoughts.  But this is all inside work with no god anticipated nor expected.  After all, I do have to live with myself.

Interesting!  That's a good motto to live by.  Do you find this "self-prayer" makes a difference in your life?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 07:47:49 AM
The big bang theory contradicts that statement. 


Oh now you need science to come to your help! Great, the laws of physics also says that matter/energy cannot be created. BTW, I happen to have great reservation about the BBT. In my last book (check https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0 chapter 7) I outlined all the flaws of that theory. LOL.
My advise to you: stay in your lane, you are not an expert in science.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 10, 2019, 08:19:16 AM
Oh now you need science to come to your help! Great, the laws of physics also says that matter/energy cannot be created. BTW, I happen to have great reservation about the BBT. In my last book (check https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0 chapter 7) I outlined all the flaws of that theory. LOL.
My advise to you: stay in your lane, you are not an expert in science.
Thanks for the book link.  I see you are an unconventional thinker.  I like that.  Can you prove that matter and energy are not created or destroyed, or is that just another convenient assumption?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 08:27:19 AM
Thanks for the book link.  I see you are an unconventional thinker.  I like that.  Can you prove that matter and energy are not destroyed, or is that just another convenient assumption?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Conservation of matter/energy is the bedrock of physics. Without it, Einstein cannot deduce E= mc2 which launched his theory of Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915), Planck cannot deduce E = hf, which launched Quantum Mechanics in 1900, Dirac cannot deduce that anti-particles exist (1927) which launched Quantum Field Theory, nuclear bombs cannot be built in the 1940's, and so on.  All the advancements in science since Newton would go out the window. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 10, 2019, 09:16:11 AM
Conservation of matter/energy is the bedrock of physics. Without it, Einstein cannot deduce E= mc2 which launched his theory of Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915), Planck cannot deduce E = hf, which launched Quantum Mechanics in 1900, Dirac cannot deduce that anti-particles exist (1927) which launched Quantum Field Theory, nuclear bombs cannot be built in the 1940's, and so on.  All the advancements in science since Newton would go out the window.
How inconvenient...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 10, 2019, 09:22:37 AM
The big bang theory contradicts that statement.  If the universe had a beginning, it is not eternal.  Everything in the observable universe exhibits transience, impermanence.  You cannot honestly say the universe is eternal.  If it had a beginning, then it had a cause, and that cause can be none but God.

The name by which God called Himself, EHYH, means "I AM THAT I AM", which is interpreted that He is the self-existent, self-subsisting. Since God identified Himself as He is that He is (YHVH), I CAN honestly say that God is He who is uncreated, without beginning or end.  I can honestly say that God is the eternal source of all existence.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Actually, the universe could be considered eternal in that it is simply one phase of a universe creating system.  If the black holes are sucking in all the energy that comes close, and at a certain time that energy becomes too much for the black hole to handle, that excess energy forms a 'bud' or bubble and then breaks off the black hole and creates another universe via a 'big bang'.  Our universe could be simply part of an eternal system.  Yet, even that leaves us with a question that can never be answered--who/what created the first universe?  Or, who or what created the first god? 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 10, 2019, 09:34:27 AM
Interesting!  That's a good motto to live by.  Do you find this "self-prayer" makes a difference in your life?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I don't call it prayer; I model it after a process I learned in Unity.  It is call affirmations.  I 'affirm' something--which means I take a statement inside and mull it over or sort of meditate on it for a period.  That helps me focus my energy in a more positive and productive way.  For example, if going for a job interview I will 'see' myself being successful and I will make a short physical list of the points I want to cover/improve in and post them on a mirror or somewhere I will see them daily.  I will come as close to experiencing the actual interview as I can.  This helps me focus on that process. 

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 10:37:54 AM
How inconvenient...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



Indeed the idea that God created the universe raises many questions that don't square with science. i guess you can invoke magic. But history shows that as science advances, magic recedes. It becomes more and more difficult to believe that God just pooffed the universe out of nothing when it can't even stop a Hitler to kill millions of innocent people, not to mention the horrific suffering that billions have suffered and continue to suffer.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 10, 2019, 11:39:23 AM
I don't call it prayer; I model it after a process I learned in Unity.  It is call affirmations.  I 'affirm' something--which means I take a statement inside and mull it over or sort of meditate on it for a period.  That helps me focus my energy in a more positive and productive way.  For example, if going for a job interview I will 'see' myself being successful and I will make a short physical list of the points I want to cover/improve in and post them on a mirror or somewhere I will see them daily.  I will come as close to experiencing the actual interview as I can.  This helps me focus on that process.

That is one of the many angles of "self change".
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 10, 2019, 11:40:58 AM
Actually, the universe could be considered eternal in that it is simply one phase of a universe creating system.  If the black holes are sucking in all the energy that comes close, and at a certain time that energy becomes too much for the black hole to handle, that excess energy forms a 'bud' or bubble and then breaks off the black hole and creates another universe via a 'big bang'.  Our universe could be simply part of an eternal system.  Yet, even that leaves us with a question that can never be answered--who/what created the first universe?  Or, who or what created the first god?

Speculation.  Nobody knows what happens inside a black hole, experimentally.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 10, 2019, 11:52:41 AM
That is one of the many angles of "self change".
I agree.  It can also be called thinking positive--Robbins????

It also had elements of NLP as well--self improvement is one of the stated goals of NLP.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 10, 2019, 11:56:30 AM
Speculation.  Nobody knows what happens inside a black hole, experimentally.
Yes, it is speculation.  But more plausible than god did it. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 10, 2019, 12:04:13 PM
Yes, it is speculation.  But more plausible than god did it.

One bad idea doesn't make another bad idea look good ;-)

There is no creator god, because there is no creation.  Creation/Destruction is primitive pre-scientific Indian metaphysics, overseen by Shiva.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 10, 2019, 12:05:55 PM


It becomes more and more difficult to believe that God just pooffed the universe out of nothing
Ha ha... Of course it will become increasingly difficult to believe in creation as you progress through the courses of your theory, if your starting assumption is that nothing that exists was created, all material reality was self-caused! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]  It just randomly poofed itself into existence, you assume?  Once again you have succinctly proved my point: the only difference between us is how much of the available evidence you use, and how you interpret it. Like I said, science is handicapped by its assumptions.
when it can't even stop a Hitler to kill millions of innocent people, not to mention the horrific suffering that billions have suffered and continue to suffer.
God-less science never stopped Hitler; in fact, it enabled him.  The blood of the Jews,  of Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, is on your hands.[emoji3166]



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 10, 2019, 12:09:06 PM
Scientists and engineers are patriotic weapon makers.  As they should be.  There is nothing wrong with killing people.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 12:43:16 PM
... if your starting assumption is that nothing that exists was created, all material reality was self-caused!



???



I don't know where you got that. Certainly not from my post.

Quote
It just randomly poofed itself into existence, you assume?



???


Quote
Once again you have succinctly proved my point: the only difference between us is how much of the available evidence you use, and how you interpret it. Like I said, science is handicapped by its assumptions.


Your assumption is that God exists. And so you are handicapped by your own assumptions. At least science produced electricity, computers, the internet and thousands of other inventions that improve our lives.


Quote


God-less science never stopped Hitler; in fact, it enabled him.  The blood of the Jews,  of Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, is on your hands.(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji3166.png)



Get yourself informed, Hitler was a devout Catholic, a theist like you, who believed that God had sent him to rule the planet. Are you saying that God was wrong in selecting Hitler as his new Messiah?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 10, 2019, 01:22:12 PM

???



I don't know where you got that. Certainly not from my post.
 


???



Your assumption is that God exists. And so you are handicapped by your own assumptions. At least science produced electricity, computers, the internet and thousands of other inventions that improve our lives.



Get yourself informed, Hitler was a devout Catholic, a theist like you, who believed that God had sent him to rule the planet. Are you saying that God was wrong in selecting Hitler as his new Messiah?

Hitler Catholic?  Bwahaha ... stick to Ohm's Law, leave Third Reich history to others.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 01:35:08 PM
Hitler Catholic?  Bwahaha ... stick to Ohm's Law, leave Third Reich history to others.

The ignoramus has spoken. 


It's a well-known fact that Hitler was a Catholic - baptism and confirmation in a Catholic church, which are well documented. He did go through a period of rebellion against the church in his youth but soon reconciled.  He signed the Concordat with the RC as soon he took power in 1933. His relationship with the pope was documented in a book https://www.amazon.ca/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X (https://www.amazon.ca/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X)

Quote
Long-buried Vatican files reveal a new and shocking indictment of World War II’s Pope Pius XII: that in pursuit of absolute power he helped Adolf Hitler destroy German Catholic political opposition, betrayed the Jews of Europe, and sealed a deeply cynical pact with a 20th-century devil.


https://www.vanityfair.com/style/1999/10/pope-pius-xii-199910 (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/1999/10/pope-pius-xii-199910)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 10, 2019, 01:57:39 PM
The ignoramus has spoken. 


It's a well-known fact that Hitler was a Catholic - baptism and confirmation in a Catholic church, which are well documented. He did go through a period of rebellion against the church in his youth but soon reconciled.  He signed the Concordat with the RC as soon he took power in 1933. His relationship with the pope was documented in a book https://www.amazon.ca/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X (https://www.amazon.ca/Hitlers-Pope-Secret-History-Pius/dp/014311400X)


https://www.vanityfair.com/style/1999/10/pope-pius-xii-199910 (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/1999/10/pope-pius-xii-199910)

The Hitler Pope was ... a Nazi himself.  He betrayed the Rome City Jews to the Gestapo.  The Vatican did huge financial deals with Mussolini.  The Vatican was totally evil.  So as an ex-Catholic, are you projecting all your guilt upon Hitler?  Mussolini wasn't a devout Catholic either.  If they were, then you as an ex-Catholic have much to fear in the afterlife.  By saying what you are saying, you insult every Catholic.  Just like the Dems who say ever White Male is a racist misogynist.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 02:11:36 PM
The Hitler Pope was ... a Nazi himself.  He betrayed the Rome City Jews to the Gestapo. 

Yes, the pope, Hitler are all Nazis. Blah, blah, blah...

Stop sidetracking the conversation with your idiocies. Absolute_Agent brought up Hitler and science. My response was in kind: Hitler and religion. No one hired you to defend Absolute_Agent. I'm sure he's capable of doing that on his own. Take a hike...

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 10, 2019, 02:17:43 PM
Actually, the universe could be considered eternal in that it is simply one phase of a universe creating system.  If the black holes are sucking in all the energy that comes close, and at a certain time that energy becomes too much for the black hole to handle, that excess energy forms a 'bud' or bubble and then breaks off the black hole and creates another universe via a 'big bang'.  Our universe could be simply part of an eternal system.  Yet, even that leaves us with a question that can never be answered--who/what created the first universe?  Or, who or what created the first god?
Have you been reading the Rig Veda?  What you describe is the Brahmanda / Cosmic Egg idea from Hindu creation mythology (15-12 B.C.E).  As for God?  Hinduism explains it this:

"Brhadaryanka Upanishad 1.4: the world is said to have come into existence because the Primeval One, having become bored being the only being in existence, split Itself into a variety of forms and manifestations (i.e., the material world and all of its beings) so that, through them, It could experience a loving and playful relationship with Itself. "

https://www.patheos.com/library/answers-to-frequently-asked-religion-questions/what-is-the-creation-story-in-hinduism

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 02:32:14 PM
...the world is said to have come into existence because the Primeval One, having become bored being the only being in existence, split Itself into a variety of forms and manifestations (i.e., the material world and all of its beings) so that, through them, It could experience a loving and playful relationship with Itself.


Someone concocted a fairy tale, and idiots fall for it...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 10, 2019, 03:25:46 PM
Yes, the pope, Hitler are all Nazis. Blah, blah, blah...

Stop sidetracking the conversation with your idiocies. Absolute_Agent brought up Hitler and science. My response was in kind: Hitler and religion. No one hired you to defend Absolute_Agent. I'm sure he's capable of doing that on his own. Take a hike...

Ha ha ... I don't defend anyone.  Nobody is paying me to.  Who is paying you? ;-)  On occasion I agree with Absolute_Agent or Arik.  On occasion I agree with you.  Which bothers you more?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 10, 2019, 04:20:22 PM
I don't know where you got that. Certainly not from my post.
Ok we got our wires crossed.  I'm calling it quits for the day, maybe I'll go for a hike. [emoji6]
Your assumption is that God exists. And so you are handicapped by your own assumptions. At least science produced electricity, computers, the internet and thousands of other inventions that improve our lives.
You act like God is anti-science.  You know, it was a Muslim who invented the scientific method?  That a Muslim invented the algebra you use to factor away God?  And that's just scratching the surface.  I love science.  Don't use it as weapon against my beliefs though. Capiche?
Get yourself informed, Hitler was a devout Catholic, a theist like you, who believed that God had sent him to rule the planet. Are you saying that God was wrong in selecting Hitler as his new Messiah?
If he was so "devout" (what a joke) why was he implementing a political strategy to abolish religion for scientism?  The whole Messiah thing was political gobbledegook.  Just like Trump, a lying, stealing, cheating adulterer suddenly becomes a devout preacher of the "America needs to get back to God" routine, magically coinciding with his nomination.  Ruling the planet?  "Everybody wants to rule the world...". Including you.  You know who was a devout Catholic?  JFK.  The greatest president in history.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 04:29:58 PM
Ha ha ... I don't defend anyone.  Nobody is paying me to.  Who is paying you? ;-)  On occasion I agree with Absolute_Agent or Arik.  On occasion I agree with you.  Which bothers you more?

It's been well documented that people like you who are conspiracy theorists have mental disease. You should check yourself at a mental institute. You would do a great favor not only to yourself but to all those who love you. GL.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 10, 2019, 05:01:42 PM
.I do understand your definition.  However I don't agree.  An atheist country must take an official stance that there is no God(s), whether that equates to anti-theism or not.  A secular country takes NO position.  It does not hold there is God(s), nor does it hold there is no God(s).


Congratulations, you are wrong.
Not only due to the fact that in essence a secular country, which again, whether you like it or not, is an atheist country, does act in such a way that it does not rely on a god nor makes special room for one and thereby, in essence, says that there is none as far as it is concerned, limited to its self-government. But also because you say the stance must be official, for it to be an atheist country.
Atheist means without god. Not against god. You can't make the distinction, which is sad, but hey:your loss. You are wrong, there is no clearer way to say it.

Quote

Of course I noticed.  Now can you elaborate logically on the material or functional difference between "not believing there is God(s)", and "believing there is no God(s)?"
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Well it doesn't change much in how I live my everyday life. Nor the convictions I hold and the choices I make. Practically, the only difference it makes in day-to-day life is this: when I'm debating with someone too dumb to understand the burden of proof, I can still rest assured that the reason for my stance, as the default position, is justified. Rather than feeling compelled to prove a negative statement. Which I would have to do, if I were intellectually honestas I am now, but felt I had evidence to back up my belief in the non-existance of a deity.  Basically it means I don't have to prove to you that there is no magical goblin hiding in my car, because while I have no evidence to support that there is no such creature in my car, I have no reason to assume there is one. So I can just go about my day and when you tell me I need to do something about said goblin, I can just shrug you off like a misinformed madman until you provide evidence for its existence.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 10, 2019, 06:28:32 PM
You act like God is anti-science.
 

God is a fiction. How could it be anti-science???

Quote
You know, it was a Muslim who invented the scientific method?  That a Muslim invented the algebra you use to factor away God?  Get real bro.  I love science.  Don't use it as weapon against my beliefs though.


Well the Greeks pretty much had invented science. But it was fatally interrupted when Archimedes was killed after the siege of Syracuse fell to the Romans. But it's true that it was rediscovered by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in the 11th century. However Islam fell to religious fanatics who declared that only the Quran was the truth. Most of the scientists, scholars and philosophers were dispersed, and the scientific movement was altered until it was rediscovered again during the Italian Renaissance.
Quote
... why was he implementing a political strategy to abolish religion for scientism?


I don't know where you got that. As soon as he took power in 1933, Hitler signed the Concordat with the Roman Catholic church, giving it exclusive right to operate as it saw fit. And in most speeches, he implored God, and in private, always referred himself as a God given gift to the German people.


As to scientism, I believe you mean eugenics, which had a great following before Hitler arrived on the scene. Hitler adopted that because it was in line with his theory that Germans were a superior race.


Quote
"Everybody wants to rule the world...". Including you. 




Sure, more power to me...LOL.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 10, 2019, 06:40:54 PM
You know, it was a Muslim who invented the scientific method?

There is no such thing as "the scientific method". Any dabbler in science who declared he could formulate such a method had his ass handed to him on a platter by people conducting actual science.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 10, 2019, 08:37:15 PM
Have you been reading the Rig Veda?  What you describe is the Brahmanda / Cosmic Egg idea from Hindu creation mythology (15-12 B.C.E).  As for God?  Hinduism explains it this:

"Brhadaryanka Upanishad 1.4: the world is said to have come into existence because the Primeval One, having become bored being the only being in existence, split Itself into a variety of forms and manifestations (i.e., the material world and all of its beings) so that, through them, It could experience a loving and playful relationship with Itself. "

https://www.patheos.com/library/answers-to-frequently-asked-religion-questions/what-is-the-creation-story-in-hinduism

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I have heard of the Rig Veda, but have not read any of it for quite some time.  But I don't really see the connection.  What I was saying is that this hypothesis suggests that this universe was formed from the energy of another universe via a black hole.  I suppose one could call a black hole a cosmic egg, but I don't see a connection between a black hole and a god.  A black hole is real and god(s) are fiction with no evidence to support it.  While interesting, I don't think Hinduism has the answer.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 08:34:00 AM
God is a fiction. How could it be anti-science???
Even if you think God is a fiction, you must acknowledge that it exists, at least as an idea.  Some ideas are opposed to others.  My idea about God, Who I believe is real, is not in opposition to science.  I am not opposed to science, except where it is in opposition to God, namely, these unfounded assumptions:

1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

Returning to the earlier discussion, you stated that the universe was eternal.  But how can you justify that?  Everything is transient.  You said matter and energy are conserved--but you can't prove that. It's an assumption.  Even if that's true, how did all this stuff come into being?  The chances of everything coming together accidentally is so small it's ludicrous. You could say it's as close to zero as any number could get.  If nothing was created, how did it get here?  Did it just "poof" itself into existence.  Science has no logical answer.  There is only one logical answer: God created it all.  God, the eternal.  God the Almighty.  God the omnipotent.  God the omniscient.  God the infinite.  God who is beyond human comprehension.  God who exists beyond all observable material reality.
Well the Greeks pretty much had invented science. But it was fatally interrupted when Archimedes was killed after the siege of Syracuse fell to the Romans. But it's true that it was rediscovered by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in the 11th century. However Islam fell to religious fanatics who declared that only the Quran was the truth. Most of the scientists, scholars and philosophers were dispersed, and the scientific movement was altered until it was rediscovered again during the Italian Renaissance.
Right.  And those fantastics still control the Islamic community at large.  Which is why I would never want my religion to gain political dominance.  If it were possible to purge our community of fanaticism it would be different; but it's not possible and never will be.
I don't know where you got that. As soon as he took power in 1933, Hitler signed the Concordat with the Roman Catholic church, giving it exclusive right [/color]to operate as it saw fit. And in most speeches, he implored God, and in private, always referred himself as a God given gift to the German people.
I prefer not to quote Wikipedia but for time's sake:

"Hitler agreed to the Reich concordat with the Vatican, but then routinely ignored it, and permitted persecutions of the Catholic Church.[25] Smaller religious minorities faced harsher repression, with the Jews of Germany expelled for extermination on the grounds of Nazi racial ideology. Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly persecuted for refusing both military serviceand allegiance to Hitler's movement. Hitler said he anticipated a coming collapse of Christianity in the wake of scientific advances, and that Nazism and religion could not co-exist long term.[1] Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, historians conclude that he ultimately intended the destruction of Christianity in Germany, or at least its distortion or subjugation to a Nazi outlook.[26]"
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler)

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 08:44:16 AM
I have heard of the Rig Veda, but have not read any of it for quite some time.  But I don't really see the connection.  What I was saying is that this hypothesis suggests that this universe was formed from the energy of another universe via a black hole.  I suppose one could call a black hole a cosmic egg, but I don't see a connection between a black hole and a god.  A black hole is real and god(s) are fiction with no evidence to support it.  While interesting, I don't think Hinduism has the answer.
The Brahmanda is an unending cycle of expansion and collapse.  The universe expands until it reaches a point where the energy of expansion is dissipated.  There is a brief pause then gravity starts the reverse process of contraction.  Contraction continues until things are all compressed into an infinitesimally small space (black hole).  Then there is an epic explosion (big bang) that restarts the expansion process.  The shape of the expanding/contracting universe is like an egg.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 09:16:29 AM
Even if you think God is a fiction, you must acknowledge that it exists, at least as an idea.


So is Mickey Mouse, Superman and a million other fictional characters. Humans have a fertile imagination, but it doesn't mean those creations are in the real world.

Quote
1.  All material phenomena have a material cause.


That is a very simplified proposition. In QFT, cause and effect gave way to energy exchanges. So it's almost impossible to determine which is the cause, which is the effect. For the equations it hardly matters which is which.

Quote
2. There is no reality except material reality.


Well there are fictional stuff from our imagination. Our brain activity is real, but its content is another thing.

Quote
3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.


Again, you're leaving out the imaginary stuff the human mind can create.

Quote
Returning to the earlier discussion, you started that the universe was eternal.  But how can you justify that?  Everything is transient.  You said matter and energy are conserved--but you can't prove that. It's an assumption.


It's an assumption that turned out to be quite useful. Just about every technological advancement in the last 400 years is due to that assumption. Graded against any religion, it is unsurpassed.


Quote
Even if that's true, how did all this stuff come into being? 


This question becomes irrelevant since nothing can be created. The universe is eternal, therefore never created. You can only transfer from one type of matter/energy to another type. Read my book: everything is matter moving through space ([size=78%]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0)[/size] )




Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 09:24:04 AM
The Brahmanda is an unending cycle of expansion and collapse.  The universe expands until it reaches a point where the energy of expansion is dissipated.  There is a brief pause then gravity starts the reverse process of contraction.  Contraction continues until things are all compressed into an infinitesimally small space (black hole).  Then there is an epic explosion (big bang) that restarts the expansion process.  The shape of the expanding/contracting universe is like an egg.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Interesting.  That hypothesis--of expansion and contraction--could be, I suppose.  My knowledge of physics limits me--but, yeah, it is interesting;  as is the hypothesis of a black hole causing another universe.  But neither hypothesis has a need for a god. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 09:39:58 AM
  I am not opposed to science, except where it is in opposition to God, namely, these unfounded assumptions:

1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

I think your unfounded assumptions are.............well, unfounded.
1.  That is a useful assumption in that it is a working hypothesis that has proven, to this point, to be accurate.  But if a phenomena is discovered that doesn't fit that hypothesis, then it can be changed.
2.  As far as is known, that is accurate.  But, if evidence can be produced, then that concept can be changed.
3.  That hypothesis was discarded eons ago.  If it were true, then we would not know of dog whistles or x-rays, for example.  I think everybody understands that our 6 senses are quite limited and narrow in scope. 

That something is an idea does not make it real or even close.  It is an idea that trolls live under Swedish bridges.  It is an idea that unicorns existed.  It is an idea that dragons lived---and on and on. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 09:43:09 AM
Atheist means without god. Not against god. You can't make the distinction, which is sad, but hey:your loss. You are wrong, there is no clearer way to say it.
If one is without belief in God, how can that one NOT be opposed the idea of God?  I haven't met one atheist who does not oppose the idea of God.  You wish that you could ignore it, but you can't.  Because the fact you can't ignore it betrays the subconscious knowledge that there is something that must be opposed in order to maintain your intellectual position, which implies that God exists.
I can still rest assured that the reason for my stance, as the default position, is justified. Rather than feeling compelled to prove a negative statement. Which I would have to do, if I were intellectually honestas I am now, but felt I had evidence to back up my belief in the non-existance of a deity.
Throughout recorded history, the existence of God has been the default position.  Civilization is founded upon this position.  That's why simply asserting that with some scientific mumbo jumbo atheism is the default position simply doesn't work.  You would have to first go back to the prehistoric times, have everyone become cavemen, then rebuild a new civilization from scratch founded on atheism.  Which you can never do. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 09:53:28 AM
You would have to first go back to the prehistoric times, have everyone become cavemen, then rebuild a new civilization from scratch founded on atheism.  Which you can never do. 

The problem you are alluding to, indirectly so to speak, is that the leadership in any society is always questionable - Why should it be you that runs things around? Why not me or her? It was always easier if you make everyone believe that your power comes from God or some divine source. So in effect when that happened, that society had less turmoil, the people more compliant, and the leadership more free to do whatever it wanted. So did religion contribute to civilization? No doubt, but not in the way you think. It does not in any way prove that religion is about truth, but more about deception.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 11, 2019, 10:56:33 AM
Even if you think God is a fiction, you must acknowledge that it exists, at least as an idea.  Some ideas are opposed to others.  My idea about God, Who I believe is real, is not in opposition to science.  I am not opposed to science, except where it is in opposition to God, namely, these unfounded assumptions:

1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.


1. Science does not require this assumption, and the best working theories make the word "cause" highly problematic

2. Science does not require this assumption.
3. Science does not require this assumption.

So it would seem your problem with science boils down to your ignorance of what it is. Only you can fix that.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 10:57:38 AM


So is Mickey Mouse, Superman and a million other fictional characters. Humans have a fertile imagination, but it doesn't mean those creations are in the real world.
It is intellectually dishonest to equate the idea of God with pure imagination.  The existence of God has been documented since the dawn of civilization, in scriptures all over the world.
In QFT, cause and effect gave way to energy exchanges. So it's almost impossible to determine which is the cause, which is the effect. For the equations it hardly matters which is which.
Wouldn't this suggest there is an immaterial cause for all material phenomena--with all observable cause-effect relationships being nothing more than correlation?
Well there are fictional stuff from our imagination. Our brain activity is real, but its content is another thing.
Assumption.  If as QFT suggests, all is purely energy... Isn't it rational to consider that external material forms are no more "real" than internal mental forms?
It's an assumption that turned out to be quite useful. Just about every technological advancement in the last 400 years is due to that assumption. Graded against any religion, it is unsurpassed.
Interpretation / Value judgement.
This question becomes irrelevant since nothing can be created. The universe is eternal, therefore never created. You can only transfer from one type of matter/energy to another type. Read my book: everything is matter moving through space ([size=78%]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0)[/size] )
-IF you consider the universe as nothing but energy.  But the universe isn't just a mass of energy.  It's trees, rocks, planets, animals, water, etc.  In other words, it's energy organized in a particular way.  Organization denotes consciousness, intelligence, purpose, design, agency.  Since humans didn't organize the universe, it could only have been God.

-IF you believe energy is neither created or destroyed.  An assumption.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 11:17:46 AM
It does not in any way prove that religion is about truth, but more about deception.
It does not prove religion is about deception, unless you can prove there is no God, which you can't.  It only proves that theism is the bedrock of civilization, and therefore the default position.  It doesn't work for atheists to use science to pretend that atheism is the default, since science itself was developed by theist civilizations and theist individuals. In fact the first science, astrology/astronomy was inseperable from theistic religion.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 11, 2019, 11:21:50 AM
It is intellectually dishonest to equate the idea of God with pure imagination.  The existence of God has been documented since the dawn of civilization, in scriptures all over the world.
Soooo, The epic of Gilgamesh is real?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 11:35:49 AM
Soooo, The epic of Gilgamesh is real?
Most likely, but that wasn't my argument: that the idea of God is documented throughout recorded history.  It is no Mickey Mouse or Superman, which NOBODY believes are real, and which do not have entire religions and civilizations founded upon their worship.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 11, 2019, 11:47:15 AM
Most likely, but that wasn't my argument.  My argument was that the idea of God is documented throughout recorded history.
old text ≠ true text

We have plenty of old fables, written literature, that is as true as todays Mickey Mouse or Superman. The age of a text proves nothing, but you already know that.

  It is no Mickey Mouse or Superman, which NOBODY believes are real, and which do not have entire religions and civilizations founded upon their worship.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Funny you should write that. Here, before Sigmundur Brestisson came along, we believed in the old Norse gods, right up until around the year 1,000. The same was the case for Zeus, Wotan, Isis, etc., there's even text for those gods. What happened to them, hmmm?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 12:50:09 PM
Interesting.  That hypothesis--of expansion and contraction--could be, I suppose.  My knowledge of physics limits me--but, yeah, it is interesting;  as is the hypothesis of a black hole causing another universe.  But neither hypothesis has a need for a god.

No need for life or consciousness either.  Just atoms doing their materialist thing.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 12:51:15 PM
1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

Reductionism (pushed by physicists) does require all three.  All of physical science is based on physics.

In the 20th century even, the ideas of vitalism and pan-psychism were overcome.  A stone and a human are the same thing ... atomic nuclei (quark-gluon plasma) with electrons.  And by derivation it is impossible for matter to be conscious ... otherwise stones are conscious (because of the first point, matter is matter.

But materialism fails to explain all of reality, if reductionism isn't true.  In actual practice, biologists and psychologists simply ignore the ravings of the physical sciences, in regards to reductionism.  They use as much of it is as useful within their own fields, but no more.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 11, 2019, 12:54:58 PM
Reductionism (pushed by physicists) does require all three.
No

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 12:56:42 PM
No

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley

New edit above.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 11, 2019, 12:58:45 PM
New edit above.
Still no.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 12:59:44 PM
Soooo, The epic of Gilgamesh is real?

A real set of clay tablets from the library of King Ashurbanipal of Assyria (and other tablet fragments).  Look, if the Gilgamesh story (a myth retold by Babylonians) isn't true then Babylon and Assyria never existed.  Look, if George Washington chopping down the cherry tree (a myth) is false, then America doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:00:38 PM
Still no.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley

Respectfully disagree.  The rest of you can resume expressing your usual tourettes syndrome ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:04:18 PM
If one is without belief in God, how can that one NOT be opposed the idea of God?  I haven't met one atheist who does not oppose the idea of God.  You wish that you could ignore it, but you can't.  Because the fact you can't ignore it betrays the subconscious knowledge that there is something that must be opposed in order to maintain your intellectual position, which implies that God exists.Throughout recorded history, the existence of God has been the default position.  Civilization is founded upon this position.  That's why simply asserting that with some scientific mumbo jumbo atheism is the default position simply doesn't work.  You would have to first go back to the prehistoric times, have everyone become cavemen, then rebuild a new civilization from scratch founded on atheism.  Which you can never do. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Default cultural position more or less.  But atheists are mostly 13 year old autistic males ;-) .. those who are 13, or who are older with arrested development ;-))

That and they are fanatical followers of Plato.  They are part of the elite outside the Cave.  They accept the need for a secular deceitful tyranny run by intellectuals.  They get catalyzed in universities/colleges ... something founded by Plato.  And yes, Plato wanted all the poets killed, particularly Homer Simpson.  Plato wanted New Athenian Man like 1984 wants NewSpeak.  Even music was to be dictatorially regulated.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:07:23 PM
old text ≠ true text

We have plenty of old fables, written literature, that is as true as todays Mickey Mouse or Superman. The age of a text proves nothing, but you already know that.
Funny you should write that. Here, before Sigmundur Brestisson came along, we believed in the old Norse gods, right up until around the year 1,000. The same was the case for Zeus, Wotan, Isis, etc., there's even text for those gods. What happened to them, hmmm?

US Declaration of Independence ... old fable.  Means nothing.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 01:24:42 PM
It is intellectually dishonest to equate the idea of God with pure imagination. 

How's that? You have no proof for the existence of God. So I can say the same about you being intellectually dishonest.

Quote
The existence of God has been documented since the dawn of civilization, in scriptures all over the world. Wouldn't this suggest there is an immaterial cause for all material phenomena

No it only proves that people have an imagination to create fictitious creatures.

 
Quote
If as QFT suggests, all is purely energy... Isn't it rational to consider that external material forms are no more "real" than internal mental forms?

???

No, it only means that at quantum level, we can't differentiate what came first (the cause) from what came second (the effect). It's inconsequential when you do a calculation or derive a solution. So thinking in terms of cause/effect is superfluous, obsolete.

Quote
IF you consider the universe as nothing but energy.  But the universe isn't just a mass of energy.  It's trees, rocks, planets, animals, water, etc.  In other words, it's energy organized in a particular way.

It's called entropy. Read up on it.

Quote
-IF you believe energy is neither created or destroyed.  An assumption.

Yes, but God is an assumption also. And science is better than religion, any time of the day. No science means that you'd be still living in a cave, with a life expectancy of 35 years. Right now you're benefiting from the advancements in science - the internet, iphone, GPS, TV, radio, MRI, electricity... the list is endless. While religion enslaves your mind. Keeps you in poverty, except for the rich who uses religion to get the poor to do their bidding. Religion is like a cancer.
 
Quote
It does not prove religion is about deception, unless you can prove there is no God, which you can't.  It only proves that theism is the bedrock of civilization, and therefore the default position. 


You've been deceived all your life, so how would you know the difference?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 11, 2019, 01:34:04 PM
US Declaration of Independence ... old fable.  Means nothing.
I think you're conflating content with context.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SGOS on August 11, 2019, 01:35:26 PM
before Sigmundur Brestisson came along, we believed in the old Norse gods, right up until around the year 1,000. The same was the case for Zeus, Wotan, Isis, etc., there's even text for those gods. What happened to them, hmmm?
Man has always known a god existed.  In the last 50,000 years, he has refined his knowledge of God.  He kept getting it better until finally he's got it right, and this is the last one, just a few more tweaks, and man's knowledge will be complete.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:36:04 PM
I think you're conflating content with context.

They are both false.  People ascribe meaning to what has none.  Gospel according to MikeCL ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:37:32 PM
Man has always known a god existed.  In the last 50,000 years, he has refined his knowledge of God.  He kept getting it better until finally he's got it right, and this is the last one, just a few more tweaks, and man's knowledge will be complete.

Typical megalomania of fellow travelers of Guardians in Plato's Republic.  Intelligentsia is always hostile to democracy.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 11, 2019, 01:39:20 PM
Man has always known a god existed.  In the last 50,000 years, he has refined his knowledge of God.  He kept getting it better until finally he's got it right, and this is the last one, just a few more tweaks, and man's knowledge will be complete.
LOL

Like how 50k years ago, people made small clay figurines of mother goddesses, they now make huge cathedrals and massive statutes. Next up: a statue you can see from geostationary orbit.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:43:50 PM
LOL

Like how 50k years ago, people made small clay figurines of mother goddesses, they now make huge cathedrals and massive statutes. Next up: a statue you can see from geostationary orbit.

No .. a giant dick/lingam.  No need for a complete statue.  The ascent of yonis are temporary.  And didn't the Nazca people already make outlined figures that can be seen from space?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: SGOS on August 11, 2019, 01:44:49 PM
LOL

Like how 50k years ago, people made small clay figurines of mother goddesses, they now make huge cathedrals and massive statutes. Next up: a statue you can see from geostationary orbit.
That should scare away the extraterrestrials.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 11, 2019, 01:46:24 PM
No .. a giant dick/lingam.  No need for a complete statue.  And didn't the Nazca people already make outlined figures that can be seen from space?
Those were just arranged stones (if I remember correctly) on the ground, but yeah, they outlined figures.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:46:53 PM
That should scare away the extraterrestrials.

All advance species are gay atheists ;-).  They will bring a book, but not a cookbook.  It will be an alien Kama Sutra ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:47:22 PM
Those were just arranged stones (if I remember correctly) on the ground, but yeah, they outlined figures.

Still a mystery to everyone except Von Daniken ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 01:48:50 PM
Man has always known a god existed.  In the last 50,000 years, he has refined his knowledge of God.  He kept getting it better until finally he's got it right, and this is the last one, just a few more tweaks, and man's knowledge will be complete.

Absolute_Agent, is that you?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 01:50:03 PM
Absolute_Agent, is that you?

Take anti-paranoia medicine ... now!  It was SGOS satire.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 01:51:20 PM
No need for life or consciousness either.  Just atoms doing their materialist thing.
Okay.  And........................??????
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 01:52:29 PM
Take anti-paranoia medicine ... now!  It was SGOS satire.

I knew someone would fall for that... hook, line and sinker... oh, a fish called Baruch.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 02:06:36 PM
Still a mystery to everyone except Von Daniken ;-)
Not so much any more.  According to the latest archaeological hypothesis, they were marked out by the priests of the tribe, then they were followed by the entire tribe at certain times of the year--sort of like the labyrinth the Catholic church is so fond of.  As the tribe was walking the lines, they threw pots down which is why there is a lot of broken pottery in the lines.  They suggest the figures were not meant to be seen from above.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 02:12:28 PM
It is intellectually dishonest to equate the idea of God with pure imagination.  The existence of God has been documented since the dawn of civilization, in scriptures all over the world.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I think it is intellectually dishonest NOT to equate the idea of god with pure imagination.  The existence of god has NOT been documented since the dawn of civilization.  What you  call scriptures are actually wishful thinking.  And documents purported to be of god so that one faction of people can control another.  I find it interesting that each area of the world has it's own set of 'scriptures' which are unlike those of any other area.  Scriptures is a creation of a society--each society or culture has it's own scripture and god(s).  God is created by man and not man created by god(s).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 03:47:27 PM
Here, before Sigmundur Brestisson came along, we believed in the old Norse gods, right up until around the year 1,000. The same was the case for Zeus, Wotan, Isis, etc., there's even text for those gods. What happened to them, hmmm?
All counterfeit gods were eliminated by the only true God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 11, 2019, 03:53:48 PM
All counterfeit gods were eliminated by the only true God.

They

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
All praise Lord Brahman.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 03:59:06 PM
Absolute_Agent, is that you?
No.  Monotheism was present among the elite from day one of human civilization. Polytheism was taken up by the less contemplative, more gullible masses.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 04:02:24 PM
I think it is intellectually dishonest NOT to equate the idea of god with pure imagination.  The existence of god has NOT been documented since the dawn of civilization.  What you  call scriptures are actually wishful thinking.  And documents purported to be of god so that one faction of people can control another.  I find it interesting that each area of the world has it's own set of 'scriptures' which are unlike those of any other area.  Scriptures is a creation of a society--each society or culture has it's own scripture and god(s).  God is created by man and not man created by god(s).
What I call scriptures are documents.  Thus, documentation.  That you consider that wishful thinking is an error of judgement on your part.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 11, 2019, 04:05:55 PM
What I call scriptures are documents.  Thus, documentation.  That you consider that wishful thinking is an error of judgement on your part.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
You're welcome to use your own definitions for words, just as you're welcome to drive on a red light and stop on a green light.

Bad idea, but your choice.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 04:14:15 PM


You've been deceived all your life, so how would you know the difference?
I can tell the difference between factual accounts and fantasies about an alien ant colony on the planet "Zohra" can't I?


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 04:21:18 PM
I can tell the difference between factual accounts and fantasies about an alien ant colony on the planet "Zohra" can't I?


I'm not so sure since you believe in the fantasy called God...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 11, 2019, 04:39:59 PM
I'm not so sure since you believe in the fantasy called God...
That's rich coming from a fantasy author.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 11, 2019, 05:16:01 PM
That's rich coming from a fantasy author.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



That's right. I'm the expert. And I know when I see someone like you trapped in a fantasy. I wish I could say there's a way out for you, but you're too deep with your head in the sand. But as a consolation, you have a lot of company. So don't beat yourself too hard.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 11, 2019, 05:31:37 PM
The Brahmanda is an unending cycle of expansion and collapse.  The universe expands until it reaches a point where the energy of expansion is dissipated.  There is a brief pause then gravity starts the reverse process of contraction.  Contraction continues until things are all compressed into an infinitesimally small space (black hole).  Then there is an epic explosion (big bang) that restarts the expansion process.  The shape of the expanding/contracting universe is like an egg.

I know of at least two scientific models that allow for a universe of infinite temporal duration, both forwards and backward. In both of those the big bang we know of was only the latest in an infinite series of big bangs. Neither of them involve a spatial reversal that collapses into a singularity. Tolman has shown that that model can't continue forever due to entropy.

But the "ekpyrotic" cyclic cosmology of Steinhardt/Turok doesn't have that problem:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

And neither does Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology


So it's at least theoretically possible to have a universe with no beginning or end, with no need of any creator.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 11, 2019, 05:46:06 PM
The existence of God has been documented since the dawn of civilization, in scriptures all over the world.


I've yet to understand why I should rely on "scripture" for my worldview. Why should I believe that people who lived thousands of years ago had any sort of knowledge of any gods, or anything else? When all those scriptures disagree with each other and even themselves in many caes? And none of them are in any way verifiable. No one even know who wrote the vast majority of "scripture." So if you feel the need or desire to believe every word just because it's written in "scripture," you go right ahead, but don't expect everyone else to believe just because you do.

Quote from: Mark Twain
You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:19:00 PM

I've yet to understand why I should rely on "scripture" for my worldview. Why should I believe that people who lived thousands of years ago had any sort of knowledge of any gods, or anything else? When all those scriptures disagree with each other and even themselves in many caes? And none of them are in any way verifiable. No one even know who wrote the vast majority of "scripture." So if you feel the need or desire to believe every word just because it's written in "scripture," you go right ahead, but don't expect everyone else to believe just because you do.

People love political ideology to give them direction to the welfare office ;-)  But I think for some people, sports gives direction to their life.  Football/soccer in particular.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:20:17 PM
Okay.  And........................??????

Explanation ... I am a genius because I voted for Hillary?  Basically cult of personality.  If you do it right, you can end up like Lenin or Mao.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:21:29 PM
Not so much any more.  According to the latest archaeological hypothesis, they were marked out by the priests of the tribe, then they were followed by the entire tribe at certain times of the year--sort of like the labyrinth the Catholic church is so fond of.  As the tribe was walking the lines, they threw pots down which is why there is a lot of broken pottery in the lines.  They suggest the figures were not meant to be seen from above.

Yeah, drunken natives ;-)  Otherwise waste thousands of man hours.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:22:33 PM
You're welcome to use your own definitions for words, just as you're welcome to drive on a red light and stop on a green light.

Bad idea, but your choice.

Hey, people around the Appalachians around here, drive like that!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:23:16 PM
I knew someone would fall for that... hook, line and sinker... oh, a fish called Baruch.

A fish called Wanda? ... not me.  But it was a funny movie.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 06:24:06 PM
All counterfeit gods were eliminated by the only true God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Who created the 'counterfeit gods'?????? :)))))))  That's like saying that Bugs Bunny took out Daffy Duck, Taz, Yosemite Sam , Elemer Fudd---etc.  That is just one big guffaw! :grin:
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:24:14 PM
All praise Lord Brahman.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
-- President Merkin Muffley

Lord Brahman made a mint, selling underwear to the goddesses.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:27:37 PM
Who created the 'counterfeit gods'?????? :)))))))  That's like saying that Bugs Bunny took out Daffy Duck, Taz, Yosemite Sam , Elemer Fudd---etc.  That is just one big guffaw! :grin:

Aristotle (unmoved mover) and Christian apologetics from the 2nd century CE already dealt with that.  The Muslims are guilty of borrowing it.

Obviously we create our own gods (yi dam in Tibetan) ... counterfeit gods are created by people who's day job is counterfeiting.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 06:27:46 PM
Explanation ... I am a genius because I voted for Hillary?  Basically cult of personality.  If you do it right, you can end up like Lenin or Mao.
I'm sorry, Baruch, you forgot to take your medicine today.  Put the keyboard down, and go take it.  Give it a few minutes to take effect.  Then come back to the keyboard.  Or not.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:29:38 PM
I'm sorry, Baruch, you forgot to take your medicine today.  Put the keyboard down, and go take it.  Give it a few minutes to take effect.  Then come back to the keyboard.  Or not.

Can't take the opium?  Get out of the den ;-)

People here express opinions like they are demi-gods (which they all are), but like to pretend they aren't.  Hard to square with atheism.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 06:31:29 PM
Yeah, drunken natives ;-)  Otherwise waste thousands of man hours.
Yeah--just like every other religion--all of which are man made.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
Can't take the opium?  Get out of the den ;-)

People here express opinions like they are demi-gods (which they all are), but like to pretend they aren't.  Hard to square with atheism.
Damn it, Baruch--did you take your meds?  Not wait long enough? 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 11, 2019, 06:38:39 PM
Can't take the opium?  Get out of the den ;-)

People here express opinions like they are demi-gods (which they all are), but like to pretend they aren't.  Hard to square with atheism.
Atheism is just a standard position. Don't give it that much credit, that can't be explained better with pretty much any other -ism.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:45:22 PM
Yeah--just like every other religion--all of which are man made.

Dissing native cultures.  Do Nazca people scalp ... tickets?  I would be worried if I were you.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:46:29 PM
Atheism is just a standard position. Don't give it that much credit, that can't be explained better with pretty much any other -ism.

Yes, like any cheap dictionary, that ran out of letters at M.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 06:50:24 PM
Dissing native cultures.  Do Nazca people scalp ... tickets?  I would be worried if I were you.
I am worried.  About you.  I am sorry your depression is so deep.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 06:57:07 PM
I am worried.  About you.  I am sorry your depression is so deep.

Practicing medicine without a license?  Only poets can do that, with poetry.  That is what I do.  Free verse.  Otherwise I would have to charge you.

Move activity is slow.  But I am patient (when I see the doctor anyway).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 06:58:25 PM
Practicing medicine without a license?  Only poets can do that, with poetry.  That is what I do.  Free verse.  Otherwise I would have to charge you.

Move activity is slow.  But I am patient (when I see the doctor anyway).
Since you are a patient, your doc is letting you down!!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 11, 2019, 07:01:27 PM
Since you are a patient, your doc is letting you down!!

Not really.  She basically prescribes meds, after doing a diagnosis.  Like most doctors.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 11, 2019, 07:08:34 PM
Not really.  She basically prescribes meds, after doing a diagnosis.  Like most doctors.
Then start taking your meds and stop missing doses. 

And you could probably use some of my magic brownies. 
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 11, 2019, 07:42:10 PM
I never said your philosophical distinction was not true, yet I have met very few non anti-theist atheists. (There's a tongue twister).  I consider Cavebear an exception.  Counting him there are now two that I personally know of.  I consider myself a non anti-atheist theist (another tongue twister).
If religion weren't so enmeshed in politics around here, I likely wouldnt care much about it.  Unfortunately, most of the world hasn't yet reached the point of being so thoroughly secular that they have luxury of being indifferent.

Quote
Back to this dilemma about what exactly is an atheist.  I'm still trying to figure it out.  Because many atheists are saying to the effect, "we aren't atheist, we're agnostic."
It can be very difficult to get a bearing on what people do and don't believe, especially when there can be social consequences for the wrong answer.

But, at the end of the day, people either believe in Gods or other supernatural beings, or they don't.  The exact label doesn't much matter.  A rose is a rose...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 11, 2019, 08:05:16 PM
If one is without belief in God, how can that one NOT be opposed the idea of God?  I haven't met one atheist who does not oppose the idea of God.  You wish that you could ignore it, but you can't.  Because the fact you can't ignore it betrays the subconscious knowledge that there is something that must be opposed in order to maintain your intellectual position, which implies that God exists.Throughout recorded history, the existence of God has been the default position.  Civilization is founded upon this position.  That's why simply asserting that with some scientific mumbo jumbo atheism is the default position simply doesn't work.  You would have to first go back to the prehistoric times, have everyone become cavemen, then rebuild a new civilization from scratch founded on atheism.  Which you can never do. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

I don't impose the idea of god itself. I can be without it without opposing it. It is like this:  I am without the belief that I will find a suitcase with 100 million euros in it. I wouldn't mind it happening, but I'm not going to build my life around the assumption that it will. I'm open to finding the suitcase, but people never can quite tell or agree on where it will be exactly, nor what color or shape it is, nor the kind of bills are in it. It doesn't seem likely that it exists, therefore. So I won't get into debt just yet, under the probably false assumption that I'll be ablo to pay back my loans tomorrow. Still: show me the money! Enrich my life.

Though, what I do take problems with, as an antitheist, not as an atheist, is that theists and religions impose such an unproven and most likely completely false assumption on people and get them to live their lives by it, as if it were true. And that, I feel, creates a lot of problems both on a private and on a societal level.

Also, have you heard nothing I said about atheism leading many to antitheist, ON TOP of their atheism? It's like you choose to ignore things, AA.

And lastly, mate, saying 'most people agree with me' does not an argument make.

I guess, I don't know, I'm sorry that the world isn't as out to get you as you think?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 11, 2019, 08:28:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-5VKGqLywo
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 12, 2019, 01:00:13 AM


Who created the 'counterfeit gods'?????? :)))))))  That's like saying that Bugs Bunny took out Daffy Duck, Taz, Yosemite Sam , Elemer Fudd---etc.  That is just one big guffaw! :grin:

The counterfeit gods are certain egocentric extraterrestrials and malevolent demons who induced men to worship things other than their Creator.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 12, 2019, 01:28:31 AM

The counterfeit gods are certain egocentric extraterrestrials and malevolent demons who induced men to worship things other than their Creator.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Mmmmmkay.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 12, 2019, 01:52:52 AM
I don't impose the idea of god itself. I can be without it without opposing it. It is like this:  I am without the belief that I will find a suitcase with 100 million euros in it. I wouldn't mind it happening, but I'm not going to build my life around the assumption that it will. I'm open to finding the suitcase, but people never can quite tell or agree on where it will be exactly, nor what color or shape it is, nor the kind of bills are in it. It doesn't seem likely that it exists, therefore. So I won't get into debt just yet, under the probably false assumption that I'll be ablo to pay back my loans tomorrow. Still: show me the money! Enrich my life.

Though, what I do take problems with, as an antitheist, not as an atheist, is that theists and religions impose such an unproven and most likely completely false assumption on people and get them to live their lives by it, as if it were true. And that, I feel, creates a lot of problems both on a private and on a societal level.

Also, have you heard nothing I said about atheism leading many to antitheist, ON TOP of their atheism? It's like you choose to ignore things, AA.

And lastly, mate, saying 'most people agree with me' does not an argument make.

I guess, I don't know, I'm sorry that the world isn't as out to get you as you think?

Right mate, that was a fantastically enlightening discourse into the mind of a non-anti-theism yet anti-theist atheist.  I'm not ignoring anything you say; sometimes though I press down hard in a focused direction to sort of squeeze the juice out of a particular construct.  I'm crystal clear now about where many of you are coming from.  Thanks much.

Now to get to the heart of what God can offer you if you're interested.  First thing you need to know is how deceptively simple it all is.  Not because God is deceptive, but people are deceived by their own suspicion and lack of trust in pure goodness.  Secondly, there's been a lot of corruption among religions so most of the time you're getting a warped version of the facts, or some of them missing.  Thirdly, all major religions have a common origin, but each is suited to the cultures they were organic to.  It seems like they're all saying different things but it all points the same direction.  It's not important where you start, but THAT you start.  Why were these things revealed in all different formats and different cultures, and why did God make so many cultures and languages anyway?  God you see is a bit playful.  He loves variety and creativity.  He loves the intricate nuances of people relating to one another through different modes of thought.  Fourthly, the main goal of religions is to get you in touch with a reality that's way beyond the physical time-space dimension.  There's an infinite number of ways to do that, but each involves doing a bit of "rewiring" on your mind.  But God isn't a cruel tyrant so He would never force it upon you.  Having created you He knows the perfect way to get you into that state of mind in such a way that it will be a lasting change, no regrets, and no loss of your existing capabilities.  What's the point of all that?  Well, it's indescribably blissful, incomparable--something you would sell all the gold in the world for if you could taste it.  Now, the methodology is a bit bumpy at times because you'll be facing your inner demons--the parts of you that you always avoid because they're ugly.  But God is able to transform those into something exquisitely beautiful with your permission.  Also, it is by no means a passive process, it involves effort on your part. What throws so many people off is they just can't accept that God wants them to be happy.  It's too scary to trust.  But trust is exactly what God loves from you.  And He can be trusted 100%.  When you learn to trust God you can soar to undreamt-of heights; it's like seeing in color for the first time having lived your life in black and white.  Maybe it sounds too good to be true.  Maybe you've heard all this before.  But  I'm not just rattling off a script.  I experience this almost every day, and it gets better and better.

So these are the goods you asked about.  Care to proceed?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 03:19:48 AM
Right mate, that was a fantastically enlightening discourse into the mind of a non-anti-theism yet anti-theist atheist.  I'm not ignoring anything you say; sometimes though I press down hard in a focused direction to sort of squeeze the juice out of a particular construct.  I'm crystal clear now about where many of you are coming from.  Thanks much.

Now to get to the heart of what God can offer you if you're interested.  First thing you need to know is how deceptively simple it all is.  Not because God is deceptive, but people are deceived by their own suspicion and lack of trust in pure goodness.  Secondly, there's been a lot of corruption among religions so most of the time you're getting a warped version of the facts, or some of them missing.  Thirdly, all major religions have a common origin, but each is suited to the cultures they were organic to.  It seems like they're all saying different things but it all points the same direction.  It's not important where you start, but THAT you start.  Why were these things revealed in all different formats and different cultures, and why did God make so many cultures and languages anyway?  God you see is a bit playful.  He loves variety and creativity.  He loves the intricate nuances of people relating to one another through different modes of thought.  Fourthly, the main goal of religions is to get you in touch with a reality that's way beyond the physical time-space dimension.  There's an infinite number of ways to do that, but each involves doing a bit of "rewiring" on your mind.  But God isn't a cruel tyrant so He would never force it upon you.  Having created you He knows the perfect way to get you into that state of mind in such a way that it will be a lasting change, no regrets, and no loss of your existing capabilities.  What's the point of all that?  Well, it's indescribably blissful, incomparable--something you would sell all the gold in the world for if you could taste it.  Now, the methodology is a bit bumpy at times because you'll be facing your inner demons--the parts of you that you always avoid because they're ugly.  But God is able to transform those into something exquisitely beautiful with your permission.  Also, it is by no means a passive process, it involves effort on your part. What throws so many people off is they just can't accept that God wants them to be happy.  It's too scary to trust.  But trust is exactly what God loves from you.  And He can be trusted 100%.  When you learn to trust God you can soar to undreamt-of heights; it's like seeing in color for the first time having lived your life in black and white.  Maybe it sounds too good to be true.  Maybe you've heard all this before.  But  I'm not just rattling off a script.  I experience this almost every day, and it gets better and better.

So these are the goods you asked about.  Care to proceed?

You claims of the love and kindliness of a deity are interesting. Such a strong belief deserves recognition.  Given that unsupported beliefs are not worth much, I offer a raspberry...

But one would have to have a positive reason to think that such a Being existed in the first place.  Lacking any evidence, I will continue to pass on the idea.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 12, 2019, 05:49:20 AM

The counterfeit gods are certain egocentric extraterrestrials and malevolent demons who induced men to worship things other than their Creator.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



ET went home already... he was cute and certainly not malevolent...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 12, 2019, 05:56:36 AM

So these are the goods you asked about.  Care to proceed?

I'm considering the possibility of insanity...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 12, 2019, 09:36:21 AM

The counterfeit gods are certain egocentric extraterrestrials and malevolent demons who induced men to worship things other than their Creator.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
Errr..................uh......................well.......................okay.  Who created these counterfeit gods and demons? 
And are Mazda, Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva, Jesus, Yahweh all counterfeit also??? Is Allah the only true god?   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 12, 2019, 12:15:36 PM
The counterfeit gods are certain egocentric extraterrestrials and malevolent demons who induced men to worship things other than their Creator.
Any idea where these "egocentric extraterrestrials" are?  Asking for a friend at NASA.  Also, SETI.

And I doubt they could be more egocentric than people who claim that they're God's favorite and created literally in his image.  And finally, they sometimes even claim to be part god.  Now THAT is arrogant!

And as far as demons go, praise Slaanesh.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 05:58:00 PM
Any idea where these "egocentric extraterrestrials" are?  Asking for a friend at NASA.  Also, SETI.

And I doubt they could be more egocentric than people who claim that they're God's favorite and created literally in his image.  And finally, they sometimes even claim to be part god.  Now THAT is arrogant!

And as far as demons go, praise Slaanesh.

A friend of mine, concluded that the "aliens" were actually demons, using trans-dimensional Hell tech ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 06:03:05 PM
I think there was a movie like that...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 06:22:23 PM
I think there was a movie like that...

Did you need counseling after that? ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 06:24:16 PM
Yeah, I figured I'd better call Saul...oh, wait, you mean, like therapy, not legal counsel?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 12, 2019, 06:53:48 PM
Yeah, I figured I'd better call Saul...oh, wait, you mean, like therapy, not legal counsel?

How about the witch of Endor?  That is who Saul called on.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 12, 2019, 08:38:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 10:53:31 AM
Errr..................uh......................well.......................okay.  Who created these counterfeit gods and demons? 
And are Mazda, Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva, Jesus, Yahweh all counterfeit also??? Is Allah the only true god?
God created everything, including Jesus (AS). ET's were called gods because they seemed to possess supernatural powers to our primitive ancestors.  Most principle gods can be traced back to Sumerian origins.  These were real extraterrestrial people who in many instances had benevolent designs for humanity, but there were a few who were on the egomaniacal side (Baal / Marduk being the main example). Additionally, non-material beings living in a parallel reality on Earth (also created by God) induced our ancestors to worship them.  In Christianity they are called demons; jinns in Islam.  The majority of jinns are extremely antagonistic towards humankind.  Because of this as well as their enmity towards God, they are given the appellation "satans" / shayateen (opponents).  These are the two principle sources of polytheism in history.  Brahman is likely just another name for God, and is historically linked with the Hebrew YHVH.  The Hebrew nation, tracing its lineage back through Abraham, Noah and Adam were an elite priesthood charged by God with preserving the monotheistic tradition (imparted to them by the ETs) and have done so to this day through the tribe of Judah (origin of the Jews).  The rest of Jacob's descendents (Israel) were scattered and intermixed among the nations.

Deus summus
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 10:54:54 AM


Any idea where these "egocentric extraterrestrials" are?  Asking for a friend at NASA.  Also, SETI.
They're all around us.  They never left.


Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 11:04:43 AM
I know of at least two scientific models that allow for a universe of infinite temporal duration, both forwards and backward. In both of those the big bang we know of was only the latest in an infinite series of big bangs. Neither of them involve a spatial reversal that collapses into a singularity. Tolman has shown that that model can't continue forever due to entropy.

But the "ekpyrotic" cyclic cosmology of Steinhardt/Turok doesn't have that problem:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

And neither does Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology


So it's at least theoretically possible to have a universe with no beginning or end, with no need of any creator.
So what do you think of the multiverse concept?  Ever read Brian Greene?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307278123/ref=sspa_mw_detail_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Deus summus
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 01:23:25 PM
So what do you think of the multiverse concept?  Ever read Brian Greene?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307278123/ref=sspa_mw_detail_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Deus summus


Yeah, I've read Greene. The only multiverse I have any confidence in is the level one multiverse, also known as the quilted multiverse. The others are more problematic, and not immediately apparent as to their existence. I don't know that any of them are testable or falsifiable.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 03:04:41 PM
Yeah, I've read Greene. The only multiverse I have any confidence in is the level one multiverse, also known as the quilted multiverse. The others are more problematic, and not immediately apparent as to their existence. I don't know that any of them are testable or falsifiable.
Cool.  How about quantum computers you follow that much?

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 03:10:45 PM
Yeah, but they're not quite ready for prime time, though they may improve pretty quickly. I don't know what they'll do for human well-being, but I hope they'll do some good. They may even be revolutionary, don't know yet.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 13, 2019, 03:29:45 PM
God created everything, including Jesus (AS).

Woah, dude... You're going to hell as a heretic. See you there soon.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 03:59:43 PM

I've yet to understand why I should rely on "scripture" for my worldview. Why should I believe that people who lived thousands of years ago had any sort of knowledge of any gods, or anything else? When all those scriptures disagree with each other and even themselves in many caes? And none of them are in any way verifiable. No one even know who wrote the vast majority of "scripture." So if you feel the need or desire to believe every word just because it's written in "scripture," you go right ahead, but don't expect everyone else to believe just because you do.
Much of it is corroborated by archeological evidence and older texts. Also the Qur'an corroborates the Bible, and is full of scientific information that wasn't discovered until the modern era.

Deus summus
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Sal1981 on August 13, 2019, 04:05:13 PM
Much of it is corroborated by archeological evidence and older texts. Also the Qur'an corroborates the Bible, and is full of scientific information that wasn't discovered until the modern era.

Deus summus

Bullshit
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 13, 2019, 04:08:55 PM
Additionally, non-material beings living in a parallel reality on Earth (also created by God) induced our ancestors to worship them.
Ripping off Elder Scrolls lore?  Stop right there, criminal scum!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 04:12:10 PM
Bullshit

Took the word right out of my mouth! LOL
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 04:13:25 PM
Much of it is corroborated by archeological evidence and older texts. Also the Qur'an corroborates the Bible, and is full of scientific information that wasn't discovered until the modern era.

Deus summus


If you choose to believe that it's fine with me, but I don't find it believable.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 13, 2019, 04:15:13 PM
Right mate, that was a fantastically enlightening discourse into the mind of a non-anti-theism yet anti-theist atheist.  I'm not ignoring anything you say; sometimes though I press down hard in a focused direction to sort of squeeze the juice out of a particular construct.  I'm crystal clear now about where many of you are coming from.  Thanks much.

Now to get to the heart of what God can offer you if you're interested.  First thing you need to know is how deceptively simple it all is.  Not because God is deceptive, but people are deceived by their own suspicion and lack of trust in pure goodness.  Secondly, there's been a lot of corruption among religions so most of the time you're getting a warped version of the facts, or some of them missing.  Thirdly, all major religions have a common origin, but each is suited to the cultures they were organic to.  It seems like they're all saying different things but it all points the same direction.  It's not important where you start, but THAT you start.  Why were these things revealed in all different formats and different cultures, and why did God make so many cultures and languages anyway?  God you see is a bit playful.  He loves variety and creativity.  He loves the intricate nuances of people relating to one another through different modes of thought.  Fourthly, the main goal of religions is to get you in touch with a reality that's way beyond the physical time-space dimension.  There's an infinite number of ways to do that, but each involves doing a bit of "rewiring" on your mind.  But God isn't a cruel tyrant so He would never force it upon you.  Having created you He knows the perfect way to get you into that state of mind in such a way that it will be a lasting change, no regrets, and no loss of your existing capabilities.  What's the point of all that?  Well, it's indescribably blissful, incomparable--something you would sell all the gold in the world for if you could taste it.  Now, the methodology is a bit bumpy at times because you'll be facing your inner demons--the parts of you that you always avoid because they're ugly.  But God is able to transform those into something exquisitely beautiful with your permission.  Also, it is by no means a passive process, it involves effort on your part. What throws so many people off is they just can't accept that God wants them to be happy.  It's too scary to trust.  But trust is exactly what God loves from you.  And He can be trusted 100%.  When you learn to trust God you can soar to undreamt-of heights; it's like seeing in color for the first time having lived your life in black and white.  Maybe it sounds too good to be true.  Maybe you've heard all this before.  But  I'm not just rattling off a script.  I experience this almost every day, and it gets better and better.

So these are the goods you asked about.  Care to proceed?

Anti-theistic regarding almost everything it puts in practice. Not anti the idea itself as an idea. (I mean you did ask how being without god could possibly NOT be AGAINST the IDEA of god, that's why I delved in there in the first place.) Just making that little distinction there.

Also don't really think I asked for those goods? I mean, more power to you? I'm glad for you, that you supposedly understand the inner machinations of the supposed being that supposedly is all-knowing. But I don't really see what I can do with that. Or what I am supposed to.
Well said, don't get me wrong. But too many words for too little substance, for my taste.

Proceed on, if you want. I'm just not sure what you are hoping for me to reply to this.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 05:46:15 PM
Anti-theistic regarding almost everything it puts in practice. Not anti the idea itself as an idea. (I mean you did ask how being without god could possibly NOT be AGAINST the IDEA of god, that's why I delved in there in the first place.) Just making that little distinction there.

Also don't really think I asked for those goods? I mean, more power to you? I'm glad for you, that you supposedly understand the inner machinations of the supposed being that supposedly is all-knowing. But I don't really see what I can do with that. Or what I am supposed to.
Well said, don't get me wrong. But too many words for too little substance, for my taste.

Proceed on, if you want. I'm just not sure what you are hoping for me to reply to this.
Interesting that you aren't anti-theism.  How is that possible?  I mean don't you see most other atheists also opposing the idea of God (not just the actions of theists)?  Maybe it's a misperception.

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 05:48:15 PM
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Santa Claus.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 13, 2019, 05:51:20 PM
Interesting that you aren't anti-theism.  How is that possible?  I mean don't you see most other atheists also opposing the idea of God (not just the actions of theists)?  Maybe it's a misperception.

Deus summus

I feel like I already explained this to you, using the 100 million euro suitcase example.
Did I lose you somewhere along the line?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 06:00:33 PM
If you choose to believe that it's fine with me, but I don't find it believable.
Why thank you.  Have you read the Qur'an?

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 06:02:41 PM
You already asked me that, and I said no. Apparently the Qur'an can't be translated from the Arabic, and I don't read Arabic.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 06:05:31 PM
I feel like I already explained this to you, using the 100 million euro suitcase example.
Did I lose you somewhere along the line?
Well, if you aren't opposed to the idea of say 100 million euro in a suitcase, and someone tells you there's a suitcase with a 100 million euro sitting on that bench over there, what would stop you or any reasonable person from walking over and opening it to find out?

Deus summus
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 13, 2019, 06:10:54 PM
You already asked me that, and I said no. Apparently the Qur'an can't be translated from the Arabic, and I don't read Arabic.
But you clearly formed an opinion about it without knowing what's in it.  That suggests an irrational response.

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 06:17:08 PM
Yep, totally irrational.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 13, 2019, 06:56:31 PM
Well, if you aren't opposed to the idea of say 100 million euro in a suitcase, and someone tells you there's a suitcase with a 100 million euro sitting on that bench over there, what would stop you or any reasonable person from walking over and opening it to find out?

Deus summus

Did you even read my original example? It seems like you missed a bit. Or just read what you wanted to read.
I could try again, but you can just go look it up. It's on page 43 of this thread, though you also quoted it in full on page 44.
Given that like me, you see 15 replies per page. It's reply 641.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 13, 2019, 07:26:49 PM
Well, if you aren't opposed to the idea of say 100 million euro in a suitcase, and someone tells you there's a suitcase with a 100 million euro sitting on that bench over there, what would stop you or any reasonable person from walking over and opening it to find out?

Deus summus


Because there might be bomb. Anyone who accept your proposal would have to be dumb, naive and gullible. But con artist like you are counting that people ARE dumb, naive and gullible.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 13, 2019, 08:13:20 PM
Much of it is corroborated by archeological evidence and older texts. Also the Qur'an corroborates the Bible, and is full of scientific information that wasn't discovered until the modern era.

Deus summus
What about the bible has been supported by archaeological evidence? 

Let me see if I have this correct.  You accept that a piece of fiction (quran) can corroborate another piece of fiction (bible) and then, like magic, both are accurate?  But you do believe in space spooks, so I don't find that so far fetched for you.   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 13, 2019, 08:21:58 PM
Well, hell yeah, haven't you ever seen Space Ghost?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5K8E48NAOk


Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 13, 2019, 08:49:47 PM
What about the bible has been supported by archaeological evidence?   

You have to understand biblical predictions, aka prophesies. The Bible doesn't make mathematical predictions like science. For example, if the Bible mentions Egypt and there is such a place as Egypt, prophesy fulfilled!
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 13, 2019, 11:20:23 PM
You have to understand biblical predictions, aka prophesies. The Bible doesn't make mathematical predictions like science. For example, if the Bible mentions Egypt and there is such a place as Egypt, prophesy fulfilled!
Yeah, I'm aware of that.  I left the question almost open-ended to see where he'd take it.  Places and some people mentioned in the bible are real.  But that is a far cry proving the accuracy of the bible.  After all,  the Paul Bunyan stories are placed in real places and some of the people may be real; that does not keep the stories from being anything other than fiction.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 11:34:56 PM
You have to understand biblical predictions, aka prophesies. The Bible doesn't make mathematical predictions like science. For example, if the Bible mentions Egypt and there is such a place as Egypt, prophesy fulfilled!

In times past, there were no secular history books.  Your history was the story of your tribe, and the story of your tribe centered around your religion.  This was true of the first secular history.  Herodotus, as repurposed by he 18th century Enlightenment.  Everyone before that, understood, that Herodotus was a Greek pagan, not an atheist.  What made Greece special wasn't atheism, but that myth had been set aside.  Socrates always claimed he was highly religious, not an atheist.  He wasn't accused of atheism, but of worshipping new gods (without authorization).
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 13, 2019, 11:39:22 PM
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-Santa Claus.

But are you pro-communist agitation among the elves for better work conditions?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 14, 2019, 09:14:40 AM
The babble is a mythological fairy tale. All you have to do is read it. You don't need geology or archaeology, nor physics or math.  All that is required to tell it is a mythological fairy tale is reading comprehension. That' it. While on the other side, the fooled scratch and claw, twist them selves into pretzels using any fallen piece of scrap from the annals of science to proclaim, "AHA!" The truth of course they have found nothing, but a piece of scrap from science that doesn't even relate but off they go....now they delve into mysticism because real science just laughs at them.

When we encounter such obviously fooled we should just ignore them, for discussing science with them regarding a mythological fairy tale only emboldens them into thinking they have right to use science to prove something disproved by simply reading it.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 09:37:23 AM


Did you even read my original example? It seems like you missed a bit. Or just read what you wanted to read.
I could try again, but you can just go look it up. It's on page 43 of this thread, though you also quoted it in full on page 44.
Given that like me, you see 15 replies per page. It's reply 641.
I re-read your post and allow me to rephrase my previous response to clear things up.  First I'll quote you:

"I'm open to finding the suitcase, but people never can quite tell or agree on where it will be exactly, nor what color or shape it is, nor the kind of bills are in it. It doesn't seem likely that it exists, therefore. So I won't get into debt just yet, under the probably false assumption that I'll be ablo to pay back my loans tomorrow. Still: show me the money! Enrich my life."

Now the only thing holding you back from being a theist is that there seems to be a lot of disagreement among religions and sects of those religions about exactly how to get the good stuff.  Secondly you don't want to make a risky investment. 

So, using your hypothetical example, I come along and tell you I've spent my life digging through all these suitcases and I've found the genuine article.  Only difference is, it's no 100 million euros.  It's 8,000 cubic metres of solid gold.  Then I tell you it's free for the asking.  Then I tell you you already own it, you just need to claim it.  No payment due.  Then I say, do you wish to retain your claim, or defer it?  It's that simple.  "Why not just hand it to me?" You say.  We there's a lot of legal red tape and you can't take possession until you legally acknowledge ownership, being as your grandfather had retained it in custody and died while you were still too young to assume responsibility for such mind boggling wealth.  Otherwise it will continue to remain in your grandfather's estate.  Then you say, "That's rubbish." And I say no problem, it will be available if and when you should choose to claim it in the future.

Capisce?

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 09:47:44 AM
I re-read your post and allow me to rephrase my previous response to clear things up.  First I'll quote you:

"I'm open to finding the suitcase, but people never can quite tell or agree on where it will be exactly, nor what color or shape it is, nor the kind of bills are in it. It doesn't seem likely that it exists, therefore. So I won't get into debt just yet, under the probably false assumption that I'll be ablo to pay back my loans tomorrow. Still: show me the money! Enrich my life."

Now the only thing holding you back from being a theist is that there seems to be a lot of disagreement among religions and sects of those religions about exactly how to get the good stuff.  Secondly you don't want to make a risky investment. 

So, using your hypothetical example, I come along and tell you I've spent my life digging through all these suitcases and I've found the genuine article.  Only difference is, it's no 100 million euros.  It's 8,000 cubic metres of solid gold.  Then I tell you it's free for the asking.  Then I tell you you already own it, you just need to claim it.  No payment due.  Then I say, do you wish to retain your claim, or defer it?  It's that simple.  "Why not just hand it to me?" You say.  We there's a lot of legal red tape and you can't take possession until you legally acknowledge ownership, being as your grandfather had retained it in custody and died while you were still too young to assume responsibility for such mind boggling wealth.  Otherwise it will continue to remain in your grandfather's estate.  Then you say, "That's rubbish." And I say no problem, it will be available if and when you should choose to claim it in the future.

Capisce?

Deus summus



You're peddling nonsense, hence we have no trust in you. Get it. (read my signature)

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 10:05:28 AM
In times past, there were no secular history books.  Your history was the story of your tribe, and the story of your tribe centered around your religion.  This was true of the first secular history.  Herodotus, as repurposed by he 18th century Enlightenment.  Everyone before that, understood, that Herodotus was a Greek pagan, not an atheist.  What made Greece special wasn't atheism, but that myth had been set aside.  Socrates always claimed he was highly religious, not an atheist.  He wasn't accused of atheism, but of worshipping new gods (without authorization).

I believe elsewhere I read you're Jewish. Until recently almost all my co-workers were New York or Israeli Jews - culturally Jewish at least since very few of them believed in God and there's some dispute about whether or not an atheist/agnostic is really Jewish. They used to joke that they hired me on the diversity plan.

Point is, I'd rather be around a bunch of Jews than a bunch of Christians. At least the Jews who believe in God weren't trying to save my soul from hell. Boy, is that ever fun let me tell you.

Anywho... There was a time not too long ago that the non-miraculous parts of the Bible were assumed to be of historical value by archeologists and historians, but that's no longer the case. The best evidence we have is that the Exodus never happened. People cry the usual objection, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack", but there are at least two problems with that. First, qualified people searching hard for something and not finding it most certainly is evidence of lack -- people need to learn the difference between evidence and proof. Archeologists can trace movements of much smaller groups such as the Trail of Tears or Lewis and Clark to name a few recent ones. Yet using the same tools and techniques they find nothing to support a mass migration described in Exodus. Another problem is it's not just what they're not finding, it's also what they're finding. They found that the Egyptian army routinely patrolled the areas described in the migration and resettlement. It's as if the writers claimed they escaped from the President of the United States by migrating from Pennsylvania to New York.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 10:12:48 AM
You're peddling nonsense, hence we have no trust in you. Get it. (read my signature)
That's rich, coming from a fantasy author.

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 10:21:04 AM
What about the bible has been supported by archaeological evidence? 

Let me see if I have this correct.  You accept that a piece of fiction (quran) can corroborate another piece of fiction (bible) and then, like magic, both are accurate?  But you do believe in space spooks, so I don't find that so far fetched for you.
Sodom & Gommorah.  Again, labeling it fiction reflects your personal opinion, not an objective assessment.

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 10:28:51 AM
That's rich, coming from a fantasy author.

Deus summus



That's rich coming from an ignoramus...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 10:34:04 AM
Sodom & Gommorah.  Again, labeling it fiction reflects your personal opinion, not an objective assessment.


It would be nice if you stopped making bald assertions and gave so much as a shred of support for your statements.

Where today exactly are the places once known as Sodom and Gomorrah? What specific evidence do you have that God wiped out the cities?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 11:15:42 AM
It would be nice if you stopped making bald assertions and gave so much as a shred of support for your statements.

Where today exactly are the places once known as Sodom and Gomorrah? What specific evidence do you have that God wiped out the cities?
I'm not here to convert anybody or write a thesis. My statements are based on personal research that I've done over years.  A lot of people here make make bald assertions without supporting evidence.  That's the nature of online discussion forums.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2018/12/04/new-science-suggests-biblical-city-of-sodom-was-smote-by-an-exploding-meteor/amp/

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 11:32:33 AM
Sodom & Gommorah.  Again, labeling it fiction reflects your personal opinion, not an objective assessment.

Deus summus
And your labeling scripture as accurate is your own personal opinion--not an objective assessment.   I do acknowledge that some of the sites named in the bible are actual places.  So what?  Pecos Bill is put in the setting of Texas.  Since Texas is real, then so is Pecos Bill??  According to your 'reasoning' yeah, it makes Pecos real.  And I'm sure he was put there by a space spook or two.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 11:43:03 AM
And your labeling scripture as accurate is your own personal opinion--not an objective assessment.   I do acknowledge that some of the sites named in the bible are actual places.  So what?  Pecos Bill is put in the setting of Texas.  Since Texas is real, then so is Pecos Bill??  According to your 'reasoning' yeah, it makes Pecos real.  And I'm sure he was put there by a space spook or two.
Ah, of course.  But you've assumed that my belief is based on archeological evidence alone.  That's just icing on the cake for me.

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 11:50:35 AM
Ah, of course.  But you've assumed that my belief is based on archeological evidence alone.  That's just icing on the cake for me.

Deus summus
Whatever your 'belief' is it does not require any proof or evidence; and all that you need to feed your belief can be supplied by space spooks.  Not a problem--believe what you will.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 11:51:45 AM
I'm not here to convert anybody or write a thesis. My statements are based on personal research that I've done over years.

Two statements, two lies. The only way I can understand your presence on this forum is that your god has given you permission to lie.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 12:27:04 PM

The only way I can understand your presence on this forum is that your god
God explains a lot of things.  A useful belief indeed.  So glad you recognized that. 
your god has given you permission to lie
Good thing nobody needs to rely on your understanding of things.  Then that would be dogma. [emoji28]

Deus summus
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 12:32:14 PM
Whatever your 'belief' is it does not require any proof or evidence; and all that you need to feed your belief can be supplied by space spooks.  Not a problem--believe what you will.
Believe what you will.  Yes, I said it myself.  However not all science requires evidence.  Formal science relies solely on deductive reasoning.

Deus summus
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 12:36:20 PM
God explains a lot of things.  A useful belief indeed.  So glad you recognized that.  Good thing nobody needs to rely on your understanding of things.  Then that would be dogma. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji28.png)

Deus summus


So you are lying. Good to know.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 12:48:47 PM
So you are lying. Good to know.
Non sequiter. You're just mad I didn't read your book.  Is that it? [emoji28]

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 12:52:58 PM
Non sequiter. You're just mad I didn't read your book.  Is that it? [emoji28]

Deus summus



At least my books are properly classified as non-fiction or fiction so the reader knows what to expect. In your case, you post links to books which clearly shows you've never read them, and if you had, you would know that they are contrary to your claims. So not only you are liar, and but you are your own worst enemy.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 01:14:44 PM
Whatever your 'belief' is it does not require any proof or evidence; and all that you need to feed your belief can be supplied by space spooks.  Not a problem--believe what you will.

You don't believe in Space Ghost?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FRW2bOqvzI

I feel sorry for Zorak.  I think Mr.Obvious should too.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 02:01:04 PM


which clearly shows
I'm not interested in any of your trash books or comments. Clear enough?


Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 02:06:53 PM
I'm not interested in any of your trash books or comments. Clear enough?


Deus summus

Please be patient.  Some of us are so old we have to often run to put on another adult diaper, or forget to take our medicine ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 02:11:51 PM
I'm not interested in any of your trash books or comments. Clear enough?


Deus summus



As long as you post here, you'll get the treatment you deserve. You're a liar, and you will be called out every time you lie. GET IT.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 02:18:02 PM
Believe what you will.  Yes, I said it myself.  However not all science requires evidence.  Formal science relies solely on deductive reasoning.

Deus summus
I will thank you for forcing me to learn something new.  I love it when my ignorance can be diminished.  This is the definition of both science and formal science:

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

As opposed to empirical sciences (natural and social), the formal sciences do not involve empirical procedures. They also do not presuppose knowledge of contingent facts, or describe the real world. In this sense, formal sciences are both logically and methodologically a priori, for their content and validity are independent of any empirical procedures.
Therefore, straightly speaking, formal science is not a science. 

I can understand why you love formal science, especially since the word 'science' is part of the title of a formal system of wishful thinking.  You can come up with all sorts of assertions and statements in formal science in which you do not have to use nor produce anything testable--you just have to 'believe'it.  You positions and beliefs are just that--beliefs you assert is true for you--you don't have to produce any form of evidence or anything testable.  Really easy for you.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 02:37:36 PM
Please be patient.  Some of us are so old we have to often run to put on another adult diaper, or forget to take our medicine ;-)
That still leaves us with a lot of time to stick a needle into some inflated egos...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 02:42:02 PM
I'm not here to convert anybody or write a thesis. My statements are based on personal research that I've done over years.  A lot of people here make make bald assertions without supporting evidence.  That's the nature of online discussion forums.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2018/12/04/new-science-suggests-biblical-city-of-sodom-was-smote-by-an-exploding-meteor/amp/

Deus summus


So your evidence is an appeal to authority, an authority at a non-accredited Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian "university"?

Oh, my.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 02:50:56 PM
Formal science relies solely on deductive reasoning.
I'd love to see you try to say that BS to an actual scientist in person.

(Empiricism is central to science, in case you didn't know.)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 02:55:35 PM
I'd love to see you try to say that BS to an actual scientist in person.

(Empiricism is central to science, in case you didn't know.)

I think, therefore I am... Okay where do we go from here? Crap... Apparently that's all science can tell us since it solely relies on deduction... Or at least that's all science can tell ME. Y'all are probably demons or I'm a Boltzmann brain or something.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 03:17:22 PM
That's rich coming from an ignoramus...


Maybe he's a causal retarded propagator?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 04:01:13 PM
I will thank you for forcing me to learn something new.  I love it when my ignorance can be diminished.  This is the definition of both science and formal science:

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

As opposed to empirical sciences (natural and social), the formal sciences do not involve empirical procedures. They also do not presuppose knowledge of contingent facts, or describe the real world. In this sense, formal sciences are both logically and methodologically a priori, for their content and validity are independent of any empirical procedures.
Therefore, straightly speaking, formal science is not a science.

I can understand why you love formal science, especially since the word 'science' is part of the title of a formal system of wishful thinking.  You can come up with all sorts of assertions and statements in formal science in which you do not have to use nor produce anything testable--you just have to 'believe'it.  You positions and beliefs are just that--beliefs you assert is true for you--you don't have to produce any form of evidence or anything testable.  Really easy for you.
I'm glad you can begin to understand me, and you're welcome.  I see the world as something like a playground.  It's fun but  you'll never arrive at any absolute truth through empirical data, because everything is relative and consciousness-driven.  Plus we as humans are incapable of perceiving anything as it really is--if such a thing even exists. All reality filters through subjective, instinct-driven senses.  It's an endless rabbit hole trying to find absolute truth in physical existence. 

With that said though, maybe you didn't learn as much as you thought since you are calling it wishful thinking.  Mathematics is a formal science.  You can't do anything in your world without math.  Secondly I didn't say I love formal science, I merely mentioned that it existed.  Honestly, all science including math is just child's play.  And like all children you're hyper-inflated that you think you know "something". The most ignorant is he who doesn't see their own ignorance.

Deus summus
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 04:28:44 PM
As long as you post here, you'll get the treatment you deserve. You're a liar, and you will be called out every time you lie. GET IT.
I see you don't handle rejection well.  Don't worry we'll work on that.

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 04:37:58 PM

I can understand why you love formal science, especially since the word 'science' is part of the title of a formal system of wishful thinking.  You can come up with all sorts of assertions and statements in formal science in which you do not have to use nor produce anything testable--you just have to 'believe'it.  You positions and beliefs are just that--beliefs you assert is true for you--you don't have to produce any form of evidence or anything testable.  Really easy for you.

 He believes you are applauding him. Sarcasm is not his strong suite.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 04:39:36 PM
I see you don't handle rejection well.  Don't worry we'll work on that.

Deus summus



What we need in your case is a LIE COUNTER. I'm pretty sure it's close to 300 by now...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 04:56:47 PM


I'd love to see you try to say that BS to an actual scientist in person.

(Empiricism is central to science, in case you didn't know.)

Oh I would love it too dearest Hydra.  [emoji38]

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Absolute_Agent on August 14, 2019, 04:57:47 PM
What we need in your case is a LIE COUNTER. I'm pretty sure it's close to 300 by now...
Ha ha ha. Pathetic.

Deus summus

Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mike Cl on August 14, 2019, 05:33:53 PM
The most ignorant is he who doesn't see their own ignorance.

Deus summus
Once again, look in the mirror when you say that.  What I see from you is ignorance but you do seem to revel in it.  Your rejection of empirical data and testable data is proof you simply want to rely on wishful beliefs, where little to no actual thinking and reasoning is required--in fact, discouraged.  Yes, I do understand you.  You are simply just another theist who is willfully ignorant and is proud of that fact.   
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 14, 2019, 05:40:12 PM
Ha ha ha. Pathetic.

Deus summus



For once the truth seems to hurt you. But you're still irredeemable. I pity your god for having such a loser like you. No wonder he is so silent and refuses to give you any evidence of its own existence - he wants no part with a shameful person as yourself.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 14, 2019, 05:45:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlNXKOChi8w
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Hydra009 on August 14, 2019, 06:10:25 PM
Oh I would love it too dearest Hydra.  [emoji38]
If only the talents matched the ego...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Minimalist on August 14, 2019, 06:14:18 PM
Every asshole thinks that his god is real.  It is a defining characteristic of assholes.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 06:21:21 PM
I think, therefore I am... Okay where do we go from here? Crap... Apparently that's all science can tell us since it solely relies on deduction... Or at least that's all science can tell ME. Y'all are probably demons or I'm a Boltzmann brain or something.

Deduction from a model validated by experimental data.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 06:22:54 PM
Every asshole thinks that his god is real.  It is a defining characteristic of assholes.

You don't have an asshole too?  You are a department store dummy with a steel pole up a bottom orifice?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 06:28:57 PM
Deduction from a model validated by experimental data.

So there's no place for induction, speculation, wild ass guesses? Karl Popper thought he found the road leading to the scientific method. You may be thinking I telegraphed it was a dead end, but it was more entertaining than that. He was carjacked and jumped by a bunch of scientists who left him bleeding on the curb.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 14, 2019, 06:54:57 PM
I re-read your post and allow me to rephrase my previous response to clear things up.  First I'll quote you:

"I'm open to finding the suitcase, but people never can quite tell or agree on where it will be exactly, nor what color or shape it is, nor the kind of bills are in it. It doesn't seem likely that it exists, therefore. So I won't get into debt just yet, under the probably false assumption that I'll be ablo to pay back my loans tomorrow. Still: show me the money! Enrich my life."

Now the only thing holding you back from being a theist is that there seems to be a lot of disagreement among religions and sects of those religions about exactly how to get the good stuff.  Secondly you don't want to make a risky investment. 

So, using your hypothetical example, I come along and tell you I've spent my life digging through all these suitcases and I've found the genuine article.  Only difference is, it's no 100 million euros.  It's 8,000 cubic metres of solid gold.  Then I tell you it's free for the asking.  Then I tell you you already own it, you just need to claim it.  No payment due.  Then I say, do you wish to retain your claim, or defer it?  It's that simple.  "Why not just hand it to me?" You say.  We there's a lot of legal red tape and you can't take possession until you legally acknowledge ownership, being as your grandfather had retained it in custody and died while you were still too young to assume responsibility for such mind boggling wealth.  Otherwise it will continue to remain in your grandfather's estate.  Then you say, "That's rubbish." And I say no problem, it will be available if and when you should choose to claim it in the future.

Capisce?

Deus summus

Well, actually: no. That's not true. What's holding me back from becoming a theist (again) is that I don't believe the idea. You asked how one being without the belief could possibly not be against the idea itself. I explained it to you. I'm still not anti the idea on its own. It is just that the lack of evidence keeps me from believing it. 

And yes: I have other gripes with how people are indoctrinated into living as if the idea is true, without there being any evidence for it. But that's not against the idea itself. Because the idea is just that: an idea. Be it the idea of 'god' or the idea of the '100 million suitcase' or your 'granddaddy 8000 cubic meter gold'.

So let's see where I am in your adaption of my metaphore. Because, while you change a few things, nothing really changes for me. Not of importance.
You see, while in real life I would indeed not legally acknowledge ownership of something like this because you would most likely be a scammer of sorts... In this example, I can and I will. Because I don't mind the idea. That, however, does not mean I believe you actually have 8000 cubic meters of my grandfather's goldto share with me. But hey, there is no loss yet. I don't mind the idea. I accept ownership.

Now what happens in the example? As it always does. We go to my granddad's house. We go into the basement and you show me zilch. There is no gold. 
You however, insist there is. And what many then follow up with, is this. 'The gold will become clear to you, when you believe it is there."
But you see: believing a claim like that, is indeed a bridge too far. I'm not going to be able to do that. Not even if you grab me by the shoulders and point as hard as you can shouting 'There it is! Can't you see it! It's so goddamn beautiful! So shiny! So marvelous! Gold! Gold! Gold! 8000 cubic meters of pure solid, smooth gold! So Precious... Yessh my precious! Gollum! Gollum!'
See: I can't believe it's there without seeing at least the tiniest bit of evidence. But that's not the same as being anti the idea itself. And you'd do well not to conflate those terms. Especially as you were the one to bring them up in the first place.

So why don't I just go along with you and believe in the 8000 cubic meters of gold in my grandpa's basement that will reveal itself to me as soon as I believe? Well, apart from the fact that my grandfathers are both still alive. The fact that neither of them are rich. The fact that there is no way that 8000 cubic meters of gold could possibly fit in either of my grandfather's basements (One doesn't even have one.) And the fact that there is no measurable reading of gold to find in the empty basement. ... In short, apart from'the facts' which don't support there being a large sum of gold, I can't choose to believe anything. I need to be convinced. It's not that I can just pull a switch because I have nothing to lose. (Which I do, coincidentally. Believing there is gold there while there isn't any is a good way to empoverish my life.)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:06:27 PM
So there's no place for induction, speculation, wild ass guesses? Karl Popper thought he found the road leading to the scientific method. You may be thinking I telegraphed it was a dead end, but it was more entertaining than that. He was carjacked and jumped by a bunch of scientists who left him bleeding on the curb.

Computers don't do those.  Choosing something pseudorandomly from a human supplied list, isn't speculation.  But induction is a rigorously defined process.  Apples vs oranges.  Yes, Karl Popper isn't G-d.  But neither was Lysenko.  Your analogy betrays anti-Fa leanings.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aileron on August 14, 2019, 07:18:37 PM
Computers don't do those.  Choosing something pseudorandomly from a human supplied list, isn't speculation.  But induction is a rigorously defined process.  Apples vs oranges.  Yes, Karl Popper isn't G-d.  But neither was Lysenko.  Your analogy betrays anti-Fa leanings.

Nobody proposed that computers do science, but Agent did propose that deduction is all that's allowed in science. That's simply not the case. You proposed that deduction from accepted empirical starting points is a better description, but it's incomplete. Simply put, there is no scientific method.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 14, 2019, 07:30:21 PM
Nobody proposed that computers do science, but Agent did propose that deduction is all that's allowed in science. That's simply not the case. You proposed that deduction from accepted empirical starting points is a better description, but it's incomplete. Simply put, there is no scientific method.

Shooting fish in a barrel again.  What about Abduction?  Is that even in your dictionary?  It should be, from the AI section of the library.  And yes, induction from empirical data has its problems.  But mathematical induction is rock solid.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 14, 2019, 09:23:32 PM
I believe it is time for this experiment to end. 2 months of jibberish is enough.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 03:10:47 AM
I believe it is time for this experiment to end. 2 months of jibberish is enough.

Yeah, and I propose several decision-gates...

If any posts end in "Deus Summus" or other religious claptrap, ignore them.

If any posts suggest that science is a religion, ignore them. 

If any posts refer to "scientists" who got their degree from a religious university, ignore them.

Etc...  I'm tired of these idiots.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 02:22:03 PM
You know that once this one goes away there'll be another lone to slide right in and start the whole rigmarole over again. Same old lame "arguments," same old trite and unresponsive posts.

But sometimes a bit of entertainment can be had, for a while...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:36:13 PM
You know that once this one goes away there'll be another lone to slide right in and start the whole rigmarole over again. Same old lame "arguments," same old trite and unresponsive posts.

But sometimes a bit of entertainment can be had, for a while...

Well, each one brings a new approach and a personal touch.  Better than the same idiot for years...  And I do like the creative names.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 02:51:08 PM
They all aim to be the next Baruch - our permanent enduring troll...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
They all aim to be the next Baruch - our permanent enduring troll...

I hesitate to think of where we would be without him.  "Better" comes to mind...  As does "uninfested".
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 03:48:58 PM
You know that once this one goes away there'll be another lone to slide right in and start the whole rigmarole over again. Same old lame "arguments," same old trite and unresponsive posts.

But sometimes a bit of entertainment can be had, for a while...

The question is, What is "for a while"?
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 15, 2019, 03:55:23 PM
The question is, What is "for a while"?

Adv.   1.   for a while - for a short timefor a while - for a short time; "sit down and stay awhile"; "they settled awhile in Virginia before moving West"; "the baby was quiet for a while"

Granted this ignores the subtle difference between "a while" and "awhile".
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Unbeliever on August 15, 2019, 04:01:06 PM
The question is, What is "for a while"?

Well, I guess that's different for each of us, since some get tired of the BS sooner than others do.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 04:06:15 PM
Well, I guess that's different for each of us, since some get tired of the BS sooner than others do.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all hop in a rocket ship, travel at nearly the speed of light. When we come back, all the trolls will have aged, some dead, and whatever... no problemo...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 05:33:38 PM
They all aim to be the next Baruch - our permanent enduring troll...

Ogre.  With layers, but not a parfait.

I am unique.
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Baruch on August 15, 2019, 05:34:36 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all hop in a rocket ship, travel at nearly the speed of light. When we come back, all the trolls will have aged, some dead, and whatever... no problemo...

You could write bed time stories, for Bonzo ;-)
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: josephpalazzo on August 15, 2019, 06:05:18 PM
You could write bed time stories, for Bonzo ;-)

It's why I wrote it for you, Bonzo...
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: aitm on August 15, 2019, 06:23:03 PM
You two really need to just stop the petty crap. Just ignore the last swipe and move on eh? We would all appreciate it .
Title: Re: Quest for Truth
Post by: Cavebear on August 20, 2019, 08:04:32 AM
You two really need to just stop the petty crap. Just ignore the last swipe and move on eh? We would all appreciate it .

And what is your opinion between them?