Atheistforums.com

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

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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PMI 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.

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?  ;-))

Quote from: 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?

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

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 16, 2019, 10:14:31 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 10:35:30 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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 16, 2019, 10:58:46 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 10:41:21 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.

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:56:59 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.

So, part of the Dischordian religion then.

Welcome

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 04:09:04 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. ;)

Quote from: 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.

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

Lol, it'd be swell if Allah's followers went around saying stuff like: Allah, Xe wants you convert and follow Xis/Xer teachings!

Quote from: 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.

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:
Ù,ُÙ,,Ù' هُوَ اÙ,,Ù,,Ù'َهُ أَحَدٌ

"Say: Allah, the One!"

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 02:52:58 AM
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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 02:52:58 AMHowever 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.

Christianity and Islam are totally different, you guys! Really!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 16, 2019, 11:56:59 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

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 04:07:16 AM
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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 12:43:14 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.

I am overwhelmed with a sense of complacency......welcome...

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 10:35:30 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. 

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 16, 2019, 10:41:21 PM
Yes I am 100% Muslim and also a freethinking theist.

This is a contradiction in terms.

QuoteRaised by fundamentalist sola-scriptura Protestant Christian parents in an interdenominational environment,

Ouch, you poor guy.  Well, welcome aboard. 

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 12:43:14 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

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 03:43:30 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:49:26 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 03:44:55 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.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 03:51:51 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

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 17, 2019, 04:02:08 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 04:04:40 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:


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.

Old faithful.

Been a while Hijiri. :)

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 04:33:19 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

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

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.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 17, 2019, 06:02:00 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 06:22:02 PM
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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 17, 2019, 07:59:24 AM
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.

As Hijiri has so aptly pointed out. If a god does not have the ability to convince all.....it is not a god.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 09:58:52 AM
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.

Quote from: 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.

Haha ... monkeys aren't worth convincing.  We only care for bananas.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 10:12:59 AM
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:
Ù,ُÙ,,Ù' هُوَ اÙ,,Ù,,ÙŽÙ'هُ 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).

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 01:48:23 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  ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 17, 2019, 01:54:44 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?

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 17, 2019, 02:57:38 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 04:04:40 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 ;-))

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 04:33:19 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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:43:40 PM
Haha ... monkeys aren't worth convincing.  We only care for bananas.

and yet your god wrote a book for monkey eh?

Quote from: 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.

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

My favorite take on scripture.  It's a grocery list (not a recipe book).

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 07:15:31 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 ...

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: aitm on June 17, 2019, 09:57:59 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.

Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 11:08:32 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?

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 07:47:06 PM
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

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:39:32 PM
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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 10:02:34 PM
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

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 18, 2019, 12:47:01 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:31:31 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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 04:00:09 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:29:23 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).

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 12:27:09 AMAccording 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 04:11:47 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

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 08:13:07 AM
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

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:38:18 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?

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:49:55 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?

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 08:42:51 AM

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

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 12:07:53 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:43:09 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:34:52 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:34:52 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.

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.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 01:49:01 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

Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 01:54:19 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:04:02 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.

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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 02:08:21 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

Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:19:41 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 02:22:44 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?

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 01:49:01 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).

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 02:35:55 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 02:22:44 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

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 02:41:51 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:59:20 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.

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:28:56 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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:31:24 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

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:28:56 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:

ÙˆÙŽÙ,ُÙ,,ِ اÙ,,Ù'Ø­ÙŽÙ,Ù'ُ Ù...ِن رÙ'َبÙ'ِكُÙ...Ù' فَÙ...ÙŽÙ† شَاءَ فَÙ,,Ù'يُؤÙ'Ù...ِن ÙˆÙŽÙ...ÙŽÙ† شَاءَ فَÙ,,Ù'ÙŠÙŽÙƒÙ'فُرÙ' إِنÙ'َا أَعÙ'تَدÙ'نَا Ù,,ِÙ,,ظÙ'َاÙ,,ِÙ...ِينَ نَارًا أَحَاطَ بِهِÙ...Ù' سُرَادِÙ,ُهَا وَإِن يَسÙ'تَغِيثُوا يُغَاثُوا بِÙ...َاءٍ كَاÙ,,Ù'Ù...ُهÙ'Ù,,ِ ÙŠÙŽØ´Ù'وِي اÙ,,Ù'وُجُوهَ بِئÙ'سَ اÙ,,Ø´Ù'َرَابُ وَسَاءَتÙ' Ù...ُرÙ'تَفَÙ,ًا

"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

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:33:03 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Quotegas·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"

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:34:45 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:

ÙˆÙŽÙ,ُÙ,,ِ اÙ,,Ù'Ø­ÙŽÙ,ُÙ' Ù...ِن رَÙ'بِÙ'كُÙ...Ù' فَÙ...ÙŽÙ† شَاءَ فَÙ,,Ù'يُؤÙ'Ù...ِن ÙˆÙŽÙ...ÙŽÙ† شَاءَ فَÙ,,Ù'ÙŠÙŽÙƒÙ'فُرÙ' إِنَÙ'ا أَعÙ'تَدÙ'نَا Ù,,ِÙ,,ظَÙ'اÙ,,ِÙ...ِينَ نَارًا أَحَاطَ بِهِÙ...Ù' سُرَادِÙ,ُهَا وَإِن يَسÙ'تَغِيثُوا يُغَاثُوا بِÙ...َاءٍ كَاÙ,,Ù'Ù...ُهÙ'Ù,,ِ ÙŠÙŽØ´Ù'وِي اÙ,,Ù'وُجُوهَ بِئÙ'سَ اÙ,,Ø´ÙŽÙ'رَابُ وَسَاءَتÙ' Ù...ُرÙ'تَفَÙ,ًا

"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).

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:34:45 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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:37:56 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

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:37:56 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.

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:39:34 PM
So what? It's just a book.

That is what the Nazis said as they burned them.

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:39:34 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

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 18, 2019, 03:43:36 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:44:24 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 01:59:20 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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:46:30 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

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 02:39:05 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]

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 12:44:16 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

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 03:47:43 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

Quote from: aitm on June 18, 2019, 03:54:22 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

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 03:44:05 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)

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:44:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:44:24 PM
  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.

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:58:20 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:01:27 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.

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 04:05:44 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:11:45 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.

Quote from: aitm on June 18, 2019, 03:54:22 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

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 04:17:36 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:23:58 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:55:09 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.

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 05:01:09 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:50:12 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.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 05:28:34 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

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 05:37:57 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 05:30:40 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PM
The contradiction is a figment of your imagination.

The only figment of anyone's imagination in this thread is your god.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMI 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."

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMHenceforth, 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMNow, 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMThe 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PMAs 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 05:30:40 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:19:55 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).

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 18, 2019, 03:58:20 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 05:30:40 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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 09:10:03 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

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 07:21:35 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 10:04:04 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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 10:55:12 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

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 05:00:34 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 10:04:04 PM


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.   

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 03:55:09 PM
And I don't intend to [present evidence], since that would violate your free will...

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 06:00:07 PM
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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 11:24:47 PM
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.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 10:46:21 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

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 10:55:59 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 19, 2019, 09:48:29 AM
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

Quote from: Baruch on June 19, 2019, 05:53:48 AM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:03:22 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 19, 2019, 12:27:13 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:30:40 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 19, 2019, 01:18:48 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

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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:58:38 AM
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.

Quote from: 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.

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

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!

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:54:21 AM
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)

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:07:56 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.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 02:06:20 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

Quote from: 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!

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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:03:22 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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 02:24:41 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 19, 2019, 03:13:43 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

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 02:06:20 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 19, 2019, 09:48:29 AM
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

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...

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 03:26:26 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?

Does seem rather an oxymoron, huh?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 12:07:56 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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:10:30 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 04:21:57 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.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 19, 2019, 03:53:44 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

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:26:25 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 04:29:22 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 03:15:24 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 04:21:57 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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:26:25 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.

Quote from: 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.

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 ;-)

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 02:22:27 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 03:26:26 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.

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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 19, 2019, 04:56:50 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

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 10:10:32 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:10:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 12:54:05 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

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 19, 2019, 10:10:32 PM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 01:37:37 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.

Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 03:41:04 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 01:25:10 PM
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? "

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 03:59:34 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 01:37:37 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 11:10:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 20, 2019, 09:42:00 AM
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

Quote from: Baruch on June 20, 2019, 07:57:14 AM
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

Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 20, 2019, 06:11:53 AM
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:

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 19, 2019, 03:35:58 PM
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

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 20, 2019, 09:54:11 AM
"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

"poppycock"......LOL  what a twit.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 20, 2019, 03:12:04 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".

Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 21, 2019, 02:02:08 PM

First: Are you Arik's personal agent?

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

Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 21, 2019, 02:02:08 PM

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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 11:04:17 AM
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.

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)

Quote33 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."

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 01:03:07 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

Quote from: 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)

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

Quote from: 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)

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.

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

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

Kirelian photography shows that even plants blanched at the news that Trump was elected ;-)

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

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???

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2019, 06:47:55 PM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 08:24:49 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 28, 2019, 09:28:00 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

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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 28, 2019, 10:30:13 AM
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

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 28, 2019, 09:28:00 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.

No wonder the planet's getting so much hotter, what with all this hot air blowing around! :-P

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 28, 2019, 06:27:27 PM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 01:38:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 07:12:35 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 08:24:56 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 08:36:48 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 09:09:22 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...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 09:27:25 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:00:27 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...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 10:13:53 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:59:48 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:23:07 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:29:25 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!

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:46:09 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:23:07 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.

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

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 11:52:54 AM
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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 12:43:33 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 10:13:53 AM
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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 01, 2019, 10:59:48 AM
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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:23:07 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.

I like the way Hitchens put it:

QuoteHowever, 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:

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 11:46:09 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!

Quote from: Ernestine L. Rose, in [iA 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:54:53 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...

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2019, 02:23:31 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:13:43 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.

QuoteGranted, 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!

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:59:45 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?

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:22:33 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!

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:28:37 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:38:55 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!

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:52:56 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

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 03:56:07 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.

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.   

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:20:50 PM
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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:59:45 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.

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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:55:17 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 01, 2019, 06:31:08 PM
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

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:06:39 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:44:06 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:55:17 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 ;-)

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:06:39 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:44:06 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:33:51 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?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:55:20 AM
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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:48:40 AM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:55:17 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.

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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 01:39:52 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. 

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 01:53:28 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.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:48:40 AMAnd 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

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 02:51:26 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 03:52:26 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 03:49:06 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. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 02:52:38 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

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 04:02:04 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 04:20:33 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 04:31:58 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.

QuotePower 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 05:14:44 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

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.

Quote from: 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.

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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:29:08 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:47:18 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 04:29:47 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. 

Yeah, how can they have any pudding if they don't eat their meat!?

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 02, 2019, 02:02:11 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?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 02:51:26 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.

Both are socialist, totalitarian.  Both are anti-American.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 03:49:06 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:47:18 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 @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

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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 04:49:31 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.

Part of the 70 prophets for 70 tribes mythology.  It made sense 2000 years ago.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 05:57:58 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 06:44:33 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 06:44:33 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:29:33 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. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:44:56 PM
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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:44:56 PM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:15:02 AMEstablishing 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 03:49:06 PM
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.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 12:50:13 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 ..

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 03:49:06 PM
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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 05:47:18 PM
  But the point of religion has never been about "keeping control of the masses" as @josephpalazzo 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...

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:15:02 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. 

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 12:50:13 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

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 09:14:58 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

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 03, 2019, 09:18:04 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:10:55 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 09:43:38 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:33:24 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.

QuoteFor 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:40:19 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? 

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 10:39:46 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:10:55 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.

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 10:39:46 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:17:11 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 11:06:17 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:40:19 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 11:06:17 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 10:58:54 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 11:06:17 AM
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.

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 12:01:26 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 10:58:54 AM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:44:34 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:10:55 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

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!).

G-d isn't like Gandhi.  Not even Gandhi was like Gandhi.

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 12:01:26 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 12:58:41 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 11:43:54 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:02:56 AM
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?

Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 12:57:29 PM
You don't read Hebrew and Greek??  Scandalous.

Touché.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:10:55 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. 

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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:18:45 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

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:21:07 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 11:49:02 AM
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

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:30:42 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:10:55 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. 

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

QuoteAnd 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 11:29:57 AM
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"?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:16:48 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:33:49 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:

QuoteFor 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:43:17 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:43:17 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:17:11 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.

Bullshit. You're a liar or an idiot. History is nothing but killing people over religion. I think you're both.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:54:32 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

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:08:23 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:16:27 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:16:48 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.   

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:33:49 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!!!

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:16:27 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. :)

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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 11:49:02 AM
  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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 12:58:41 PMI'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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:52:17 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:52:17 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:31:02 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:33:51 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

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:57:24 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 12:44:34 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??

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 03:05:12 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

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:56:39 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!

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:09:04 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?

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 03:12:18 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:29:24 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:29:24 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:29:24 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.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 03:47:09 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!"

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:09:04 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????

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:29:24 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!!

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 04:13:45 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:08:37 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:08:37 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.

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 04:34:47 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

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:20:33 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:00:10 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:59:08 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

Quote from: Sal1981 on August 03, 2019, 03:32:33 PM
I didn't realize that truth was a dick-measuring contest.

For some people everything is a dick-measuring contest.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 04:59:12 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?

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 04:53:16 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

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 06:54:11 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 07:03:13 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.

Lik

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 07:21:21 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.

God is a Rorschach ink blot?


:-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 03:35:20 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:18:45 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 07:56:43 PM
A mystical story.  Not literal at all.

I know that, and you know that, but a billion Christians say we're wrong.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 01:24:49 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:30:42 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:10:55 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.

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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:46:13 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:48:15 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?

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 01:54:32 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).

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:05:20 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 02:08:23 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.

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:11:25 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 02:16:27 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 07:56:43 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 02:31:02 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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 08:41:32 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 .

Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:41:52 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. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 08:41:32 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.

Quote from: 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?

Correct .. disbelieve everyone.  Why trust monkeys?  Final step, disbelieve yourself.  You are a poo tosser too.

Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:43:22 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 03:09:04 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.

Quote from: Sal1981 on August 03, 2019, 03:32:33 PM
I didn't realize that truth was a dick-measuring contest.

Don't tell the women!

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 03:47:09 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 ...

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 03, 2019, 04:13:45 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:20:33 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2019, 08:49:10 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.

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 04:34:47 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 05:55:54 PM

For some people everything is a dick-measuring contest.

Does Fruit of the Loom know?

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 07:21:21 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.

Quote from: SGOS on August 03, 2019, 07:21:21 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 07:58:53 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?

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 08:15:34 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.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 08:15:34 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:22:28 PM

Religion suits me just fine, thanks for asking.

Aye, that it does. :wink:

QuoteHammurabi received his code from God.

(https://i.imgur.com/p4VJHkd.jpg)

QuoteIf 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.

Quotewho 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).

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2019, 02:11:25 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

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 09:33:57 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 10:06:19 PMMaybe 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.

QuoteHumans 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?

QuoteReligion 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?

Quoteand 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?

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 10:25:31 PM
Assumptions are fun (and often wrong).  And easy.  So very easy.  Very suitable for your capacity.

Like uniformitarianism?  Oh yeah, you dodged that topic.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 10:25:31 PM
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.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 10:25:31 PM
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

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2019, 10:25:31 PM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 09:55:12 PM
Ok buddy, so as with @josephpalazzo 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.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 03, 2019, 04:20:33 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.

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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 11:09:58 AM
There's no confusion.

Clearly you are very confused.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 11:09:58 AMwho  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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 03, 2019, 06:59:49 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

Quote from: aitm on August 04, 2019, 12:11:12 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 11:35:07 AM
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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 12:51:29 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 12:58:08 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 01:11:28 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 01:10:54 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

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?

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 04, 2019, 01:32:43 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 01:20:23 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?

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 01:39:03 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?

 

     

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 02:04:38 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

Quote from: drunkenshoe on August 04, 2019, 02:23:50 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)

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 03:02:41 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.

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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 04:06:16 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

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 04, 2019, 05:54:08 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...

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 04, 2019, 11:09:58 AM
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.

Quote from: 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.

US is repeating the 1960s.  We can't repeat two decades (adding 1980s) at the same time!

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 07:05:09 AMLike 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.

QuoteShow me any religion that teaches suicide.

Oh really?  You've never heard of the concept of martyrdom?

QuoteCults don't count as they are by definition deviations from religious orthodoxy.

Special pleading.

QuoteChina, 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2019, 02:58:26 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 07:34:38 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 07:55:44 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...  ;)

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.

Quote from: 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??

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...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 11:17:06 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 ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 11:38:47 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 11:44:36 AM
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 ...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 09:42:08 AM
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

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 04, 2019, 09:45:16 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.

Quote from: Baruch on August 05, 2019, 12:11:07 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 05, 2019, 05:04:32 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 ;-)

@Unbeliever ... 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.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 04, 2019, 09:45:16 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.

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

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 04, 2019, 09:45:16 PM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 11:34:49 AM
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?

A theist trying to mimic the atheist stance is like Pinocchio trying to understand what it's like to be a real boy.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 04, 2019, 12:51:29 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

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 06, 2019, 12:13:37 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

Quote from: aitm on August 06, 2019, 01:43:09 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

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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:02:30 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:06:42 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:06:42 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 11:34:49 AM

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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 03:37:22 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:02:30 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:

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 03:40:29 PM
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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 04:08:41 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?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 04:13:06 PM
So are you scared?

[emoji28] Incredible...

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:02:30 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.   

Survival of the Fittest?

Republican = who has the most money

Democrat = who supports the Communist Manifesto best

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 04:32:09 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 06, 2019, 04:39:12 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 06, 2019, 02:02:30 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.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 07, 2019, 04:33:20 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 07, 2019, 07:32:24 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 07, 2019, 07:59:14 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 07, 2019, 10:16:37 PM
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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 06:45:55 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

Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2019, 04:07:05 PM
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%.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 07:34:59 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 07:34:59 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.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 08, 2019, 08:21:20 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

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 10:01:11 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 10:01:11 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.

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 08, 2019, 10:01:11 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...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 09:13:28 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."

Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 09:13:28 AMYou 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.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 08, 2019, 09:13:28 AM
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