patrick.net

wthrfrk80 says

Which statement(s) is(are) wrong? (1)? (2)? (3)?

All three statements are wrong in at least one way. Who cares what the "common" definition of morality is. If that definition sucks or if the common man's model of morality is insufficient, than change it. Quite frankly, I don't think that the common man actually thinks deeply enough about morality to even have a systematic model. Most people just go on instinct. In any case, why should a systematic model be limited by what a common person, not thinking about the subject matter, currently understands?

Statement 2 is utterly meaningless unless you precisely and non-ambiguously define "choose" in context of free will. And that's really what's at the heart of the issue. I've been too busy recently to write another 10 page thesis on this site, but eventually I get around to writing about how morality really works and should be modeled. It's not something I'm going to attempt to explain in a single paragraph.

Statement 3 is completely wrong. However, that's not your fault. As I haven't explained what my worldview is, there is no possible way you could know or understand it, especially since you've never heard of anything like it before. But don't worry, I'll explain it when I write about the true nature of morality. For now, I'll let you in on one tidbit: morality does not depend upon free will in my world-view, and blatantly so.

Dan8267 says

All three statements are wrong in at least one way. Who cares what the "common" definition of morality is. If that definition sucks or if the common man's model of morality is insufficient, than change it. Quite frankly, I don't think that the common man actually thinks deeply enough about morality to even have a systematic model. Most people just go on instinct. In any case, why should a systematic model be limited by what a common person, not thinking about the subject matter, currently understands?

I'm pretty sure, from previous comments you've made, that you think (for example) that the war in Iraq was immoral. In other words, you believe that Bush et. al. should not have started it. Bush should have chosen a different course of action. You may not have used the exact word "immoral" anywhere, but you strongly implied it. Therefore you were using the same "common" definition as everyone else. If the "common" definition is wrong (since you're so much smarter than everyone else), than you probably shouldn't use it.

But according to your own worldview, Bush didn't actually have control of any of his actions! All of his "decisions" were really just chemical reactions in his brain working according to the immutable laws of physics. Same goes for religious people. Their religious "thoughts" are nothing more than chemical reactions taking place. If religion is just a "phenomenon" like galaxies, gravity, black holes, etc; than how can you say "religion is bad" any more than you can say "gravity is bad"?

I'm really not trying to "win an argument" or anything. I'm just trying to understand your point of view. I don't understand it because you seem to be making two very contradictory assertions:

1) everything JUST IS and is predetermined. There is no WILL to direct anything. What we humans percieve to be "free choices" are not, they are actions that act only according to physical laws.

2) some things are bad (like religion) and/or immoral (like the Iraq war), even though they are just natural phenomena acting in the only possible manner via the laws of nature.

If everything JUST IS and everything is pre-determined, why complain about anything? Those things you don't like JUST ARE and simply MUST BE accoring to the immutable laws of physics.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Does anyone else?

Dan8267 says

All three statements are wrong in at least one way. Who cares what the "common" definition of morality is. If that definition sucks or if the common man's model of morality is insufficient, than change it.

Why? Does it really matter? You and I we both gonna die and get forgotten. Why would one care what's right and what's wrong?
If nothing we do have any eternal meaning, why do we want to have a meaningful life? And we do.
If there is a truth in "religion is just a fear of death", than "atheism is just a fear of life." And yes there may be something to fear. If anything I do is not wiped out by time it may be a bit scary. If the life is real and the suffering in it is real but meaningless it's very painful (ask Buddha).

From Buddha to Freud and Nietsche this fear of life is the source of atheism.

Dan8267 says

No, but understanding evolution and the evidence for it does.

Here we may get close to an aggreement. My point is: the way they teach evolution in American schools (including colledges) does not contribute to understanding. It's more like indoctrination and brainwashing.

And evolution or not has nothing to do with the existance of the Creator. That's a completely different question related to believe in the objective existence of meaningful life and the value of our decisions not reduced to social contracts and physical/genetical predestination.

wthrfrk80 says

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Yes, but in order for you to understand what I'm saying, I'm going to have to write a complete thesis. You are operating under the false assumption that freedom and free will mean the same thing. They don't. Just be patient, when I have time to sit down for an entire afternoon and right about it I will.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't know. something got messed up in the code I guess. But you know I meant michaelsch.

You can edit your post to fix it.

michaelsch says

It's more like indoctrination and brainwashing.

I haven't taken any college courses in evolution, so I cannot confirm or deny your statement. However, I sincerely doubt that college teaches evolution the way that a parochial school teaches religion. I highly doubt that. Are you speaking from personal experience? If so, which school, class, professor are you referring to?

michaelsch says

And evolution or not has nothing to do with the existance of the Creator.

Actually, it does for many Christians. Christian mythology is utterly incompatible with evolution. Christians can't accept that Jesus is descendant from a monkey. Christians can't accept that the flood did not wipe out all creatures on the land and that 2 does not make a breeding population. Christians cannot accept that the world is demonstrably way over 6,000 years old. And Christians cannot accept that our species, the entire human race, was simply the result of lots of accidents rather than planning.

Of course, some Christians can accept these things, but the most vocal Christians, the ones influencing legislation, cannot.

Dan8267 says

Are you speaking from personal experience?

From looking at my son's biology books. He is currently an MD/PHD student, but did his Pre-Med BSc. at Berkeley.

And my daughter, who started with Biology at UCSD, but later on switched to a different major.

Dan8267 says

Actually, it does for many Christians. Christian mythology is utterly incompatible with evolution. Christians can't accept that Jesus is descendant from a monkey. Christians can't accept that the flood did not wipe out all creatures on the land and that 2 does not make a breeding population. Christians cannot accept that the world is demonstrably way over 6,000 years old.

Come on, you equal Christians to Prootestant Fundamentalists and keep beating this strawman, talking about monkeys and 6000 years.
But Prootestant Fundamentalism is as unchristian as American Happy Shopping Holidays. (They literally believe in Sola Scriptura, while any sect of theirs use a custom translation tailored for its need. Plus these translations are based on choosing Hebrew Massoretic version edited in the 2nd century AD partially to wipe out any Christian interpretation. Plus they ignore the fact that the New Testament was compiled of the books selected by the Church between 4th and 7th century AD.) Indeed, very easy a strawman to beat, even an idiot like Dan Brown can do this.

michaelsch says

you equal Christians to Prootestant Fundamentalists

It took the Catholic Church 400 years to apologize for locking up Galileo and condemning anyone who said the Earth was round as a heretic. It's not just protestants.

michaelsch says

From looking at my son's biology books.

Take a picture of the offending chapters and post. Then we can discuss whether or not the book is brainwashing. If it is, then it's a bad text, but I can't make that judgement without reading it.

Dan8267 says

Christians can't accept that Jesus is descendant from a monkey.

...nor would anyone who knows anything about how human evolution actually happened.

Kevin says

...nor would anyone who knows anything about how human evolution actually happened.

If you are suggesting that our species isn't descendant from monkeys, make your case. Then I'll tear it apart with concrete evidence.

If not, then explain your statement.

Dan8267 says

Kevin says

...nor would anyone who knows anything about how human evolution actually happened.

If you are suggesting that our species isn't descendant from monkeys, make your case. Then I'll tear it apart with concrete evidence.

If not, then explain your statement.

Well, if Jesus was conceived by the holy ghost and Mary, who herself was immaculately conceived that would make Jesus only one-quarter monkey descendant...

Dan8267 says

Take a picture of the offending chapters and post. Then we can discuss whether or not the book is brainwashing. If it is, then it's a bad text, but I can't make that judgement without reading it.

That would require my looking for 10 to 4 years old texbooks, which are of course not in possession of anyone I know right now. I probably could use libraries for this, but it's not my highest priority. For now I would appreciate would you just accept the existance of my perspective and whenever deal with materials proclaiming evolution just try to see if it may be applicable.

What is truly interesting is the FACT that we are all sitting here thinking and reasoning and creating ideas. These actions are not random at all and rely on our possession of a mind, heart, spirit or whatever you like to call it. It is utterly unique and can't be adequately explained by science as a mere freak of electrochemical impulses. If such a mind is what is needed to experience our universe, and such a mind is not likely to have been brought about by chance, then to believe in the existence of a Creator is only rational. For my own purposes i prefer to think that God experiences creation through us, as our minds are small pieces broken from the infinite Divine.
Thus, what we do can matter as we are all part of God and he/she experiences life through all of us. Is it then any small wonder that all major religions have some variant of the golden rule?
For why would god wish to harm himself?

Dan8267 says

Kevin says

...nor would anyone who knows anything about how human evolution actually happened.

If you are suggesting that our species isn't descendant from monkeys, make your case. Then I'll tear it apart with concrete evidence.

If not, then explain your statement.

Clearly you're one of these people that grossly misunderstands how primates evolved if you believe that man evolved from monkey.

Humans and monkeys are more or less "evolved" the same amount. We had a common ancestor somewhere around 4-6 million years ago, but that ancestor would look like neither monkey nor man.

michaelsch says

For now I would appreciate would you just accept the existance of my perspective

I certainly accept the existence of your perspective. What I don't accept, at least not without evidence, is that your perspective is an accurate account of the material. It might be, but when one person criticizes another (say a reader criticizing an author), I reserve judgement until I hear both sides of the story.

As for my own experience, I've read a lot of material on evolution. Matt Ridley is my favorite author on evolution. His works are great.

Anyway, with all I've read on the subject, I personally have never come across any material that turns evolution into some kind of religion. I've never read anything that sounds like dogma, and I was raised Catholic, so I know what dogma sounds like. Catholics are very big on rituals and old things.

Kevin says

Clearly you're one of these people that grossly misunderstands how primates evolved if you believe that man evolved from monkey.

Humans and monkeys are more or less "evolved" the same amount. We had a common ancestor somewhere around 4-6 million years ago, but that ancestor would look like neither monkey nor man.

It's amazing how wrong "experts talking on the Internet" can be on the subject they think they understand. It's also amazing how quickly they dismiss other people's knowledge with utterly ridiculous and easily disproved statements like "that ancestor would look like neither monkey nor man".

The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, both apes, was an ape. The common ancestor of apes and monkeys was a monkey. The common ancestor of monkeys and pro-simians was indeed a pro-simian. The common ancestor of humans and rodents was a rodent. If this is not obvious to you, then you do not even understand the most basic parts of evolutionary theory, and you have clearly not looked into the ancestry of human kind.

I know this shit because I'm interested in this shit and I spend lots of time reading books and articles and watching videos on this subject matter. Do you really think you can arm-chair quarterback me on something that I spend hundreds of hours a year more than you on learning? If you want to show greater knowledge than me in a subject, try football. I don't know shit about that. Stay away from computers, mathematics, physics, and evolution. They are my areas of interest, and I spend a lot of time learning about them.

Quigley says

These actions are not random at all and rely on our possession of a mind, heart, spirit or whatever you like to call it.

Nothing in the universe is random. Not even atomic motion. [And no, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not imply randomness, just the inability to measure with complete certainty.]

Quigley says

It is utterly unique and can't be adequately explained by science as a mere freak of electrochemical impulses.

Science doesn't say that consciousness is a freak of electrochemical impulses. However, science does explain how our unique minds came into existence without the need to resort to a god. That's why the religious hate science. It explains sentience without mystery, and that is a threat to the power of religions. Science is the greatest equalizer of man. No one has authority over the truth.

Dan,

I don't understand why you are so upset over the existence of religion. I'm assuming you believe Religion is a "phenomenon" that occurs ultimately because of physical laws (like any other phenomenon). If religion is just a phenomenon like weather, earthquakes, stars, and planets, why be so upset about it? It would be like saying "weather is bad".

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

Haha one of my in-laws recently:

A: So isn't it arrogant to think in all this universe with billions of galaxies and stars there's only one planet with life and God's chosen people?

B: Well, if there were other planets with life and people which I don't believe, then Jesus would have to have been born on and visited every one of them.

wthrfrk80 says

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

wthrfrk80 says

I don't understand why you are so upset over the existence of religion.

To repeat what I said before,

I'm anti-religion because I'm anti-murder, anti-theft, anti-genocide, anti-torture, and anti-bigotry. All "successful" religions are for those things. Your Christianity is no different.

1. Early Christians destroyed the Great Wonders of the Ancient World including the Library of Alexandria and the Statue of Zeus.

2. Christians brutally tortured and murdered Hypatia, the last librarian of Alexandria. In a time when women had few rights, Hypatia was a well-respected philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. The Christians, who hated independent women, mob rushed her in the streets, tore off all her clothes, and then killed her by removing all her skin with sea shells. This made Jesus's crucifixion look like a picnic. The leader of the premeditated murder, Cyril the Bishop of Alexandria, was ordained a saint by the Christian church.

Carl Sagan tells the story of Alexandria in this video and the horrific murder of Hypatia and the tragic loss of culture and history in this video. In these videos he also explains why rationalist need to speak out against mysticism. If you understand what he is saying, then you'll understand what I'm doing.

3. Early Christians oppressed and massacred Jews. This behavior would continue until the 1940s.

4. During the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, Christians burned men, women, and children alive as witches and warlocks even though there are no such things.

5. During the Middle Ages, Christians raged war multiple times on the Middle East in the form of "Crusades", which were nothing more than a religious excuse to rape, pillage, and plunder foreign lands while suppressing domestic populations by keeping them in fear of foreigners. This is a tactic still used today by religion.

6. It is the nature of religions to grow and then fragment as power struggles erupt between would-be kings. This happened to Christianity several times, first in the Great Schism, and later in the protestant reformations. The result of these power struggles was tribal religious warfare the likes of which we see in the Middle East today.

7. Next came the Inquisition in which Christians, now fragmented, systematically tortured and killed anyone who would not submit to being their slaves. The Christians made the most horrific and despicable torture devices like the rack, the Judas Cradle, and the Iron Maiden. Gotta love that religion.

8. Next on the shit list was anyone speaking about provable truths like the Earth going around the Sun. The Christians threaten Galileo with arrest, torture, and death for him and his daughter, thereby silencing him and holding science back.

9. In fact, Christianity held back science by at least a thousand years. If we were 1000 years more advanced, we'd surely have the cures for cancer and AIDS by now. So you can count all the cancer and AIDS death as part of the Christian body count.

10. During the Imperial Age, the Christians brutally enslaved and killed "heathens" from India to America. The Spanish Conquistadors are one example. All in all, Christians would commit genocide, destroying two continents of people in the New World alone. Similar atrocities would be carried out in Africa and Asia.

11. As Christianity has long embraced slavery as god's will and their bible supports enslavement, "heathens" from Africa were made to serve as slaves to the Christians in both Europe and the Americas. The price of this crime against humanity is still being paid today.

12. In America, when slavery was finally abolished by a bloody civil war, a Christian terrorist organization called the Ku Klux Klan continued to wage a bloody war against former slaves and their descendants for the next 100 years.

13. Christians once again committed genocide during the 1930s and 1940s in Europe. The Holocaust was a faith-based initiative just like 9-11.

14. The entire Bush-Cheney reign of terror was heavily based on religion and fighting a religious war against Islam. In Bush's own words, "God told me to invade Iraq" and the Iraq war is a "crusade". And this is the guy who had the nuclear launch codes.

And these are just some of the better-known examples of why Christianity has been evil throughout its two thousand year history. There are a plethora of other crimes you can read about.

Of course, I could also show an extensive list of crimes committed by any major religion for it is in the nature of religion to commit crimes against humanity. Religion works by destroying all opposition and brainwashing the masses. And even if you don't agree with these statement, if you are at all rational, you would agree that history has at least shown religion to have done many really bad things in every single century.

And now with nuclear weapons, environmental disintegration, advanced germ warfare, and a host of other problems, can we really risk the insanity of religion and mysticism? A thousand years ago, a civilization might get wiped out because of religion. Today, our entire species could be obliterated by irrationality. And that is why I am anti-religious. I'd like to see our species continue to exist.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan,

I don't understand why you are so upset over the existence of religion. I'm assuming you believe Religion is a "phenomenon" that occurs ultimately because of physical laws (like any other phenomenon). If religion is just a phenomenon like weather, earthquakes, stars, and planets, why be so upset about it? It would be like saying "weather is bad".

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

How is a believe system in any way shape or form like a physical phenomenon? That is the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard and I've listened to George W Bush's speech explaining why we needed to invade Iraq.

Jason M. says

Gee, what a coincidence!

Yes, it's mind control. But I've heard that if you put the tinfoil inside of some sort of regular hat (even a baseball cap works, or you can use a fedora), it will block the mind control rays and people won't know you're wearing the foil.

Jason M. says

Gaia worship is at the very heart of the Global Green Agenda

Are you saying you agree ?

It does make some sense right ?

Respect nature and the planet. Plan for long term coexistence with the planet rather than using it up in short period of time.

I don't really blame Christianity for the fact that we don't plan in this way yet. It's the simple fact that humans are collectively selfish and ignorant. We are just following our instincts and hardwiring which tells us to reproduce and consume.

Jason M. says

"'The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’

What do you think we should do ? Just leave it all in the hands of God ?

Don't you see that even if there is a God, he, she or it gave us a free will, which includes the ability to wake up, plan for the long term, and figure out how to take care of our planet, for the benefit of future generations.

I guess it might be easier to just focus on our own lives, our reward in an otherworldly heaven, and assume that armageddon is coming, so why bother worrying about the planet ?

I don't see how any real Christian would see God as independent of this world (ie this ecosystem).

Dan8267 says

Evil is meant to be opposed.

I agree, 100%. Who gets to decide what is evil, and why them? How will they carry out their defense of good, or destruction of evil? I don't mind using God's Word as the tool for determining what is evil and what is good. What do you suggest?

Dan, that quote is pretty much why Bush went after Sadam .. aint it? And, that is what those crazy arabs say about every non-arab islamuslamist too .. aint it? I mean, they constantly attack Isreal and all things Western/Christian because they say those peoples are evil. So, when a person feels something is eveil, they should oppose it, right? Now you see what Prop 22 and Prop 8 have shown the militant deviants of mexifornia.

Also, up above, you said that the definition of morality did not matter. So, those who oppose public acceptance of deviant sexual couplings are not doing anything wrong, in your opinion. Am I reading that correctly? Or, is that opinion situational.

Dan, I respect your abilities to argue a point. You are a master, no doubt. Your computer skills and typing skills and communication ability are outstanding. I wrote my responses a little bit smartassed to make sure you would respond!! lol. I mean no offense and look forward to your retort. Enjoy this day.

p.s. Science requires faith in your eye's ability to see, and your mind's ability to desern the sights. Why does the moon have no rotation upon it's axis? Where is the moon from? Was there ever more Earth moons? The scientific answers (or theroy/guesses) to these questions have very little to no "proof", and require "faith".

marcus says

Respect nature and the planet. Plan for long term coexistence with the planet rather than using it up in short period of time.
I don't really blame Christianity for the fact that we don't plan in this way yet. It's the simple fact that humans are collectively selfish and ignorant. We are just following our instincts and hardwiring which tells us to reproduce and consume.

good points

I say this partly in jest, but I would really like to know.

There are so many good conspiracy throries, how do you choose which ones to believe and which ones to disregard ?

Is it because some truly creative person put it on the internet ?

Pagans were framed as being tied to the devil since way back. That was basically a propaganda method used to convert people from the old ways to the new way (Christianity). Burning witches at the stake ? In the name of Christianity ?

Give me a break.

If you are a buddist, you might want to check out "the middle path."
It would suggest that these rather extreme conspiracy theories you have bought aren't doing you any good.

But back to my question. Sources for your theories ? Who are the respectable people that advocate these views. I understand that you may just be a creative humorist. In which case well done.

In any belief system, fear is the enemy. This Lucifer stuff only propagates fear, which is what Lucifer (if he existed) would want.

Jason M. says

Nothing that lasts will ever be built from lies and deceit, and immorality.

Then you must be saying nothing can last, be cause there is no perfect morality. There are just many varied forms of self interest, including what I would call enlightened self interest which includes things like looking after the planet, and the disadvantaged.

(btw I too like buddhist philosophy and the idea of no harm to any living creatures but if I practiced it I would be a vegetarian, and I am way too much of a protien addict to do that. )

How are people supposed to find morality when you are throwing around the ideas of demons and such ? That's just a set up to see demons on the side of "the others" so that evil can be done in the name of righteousness.

Jason M. says

Check the resources I posted above

I will later when I have time. I'm thinking you may have some very special gifts that allow you to see these truths that such a high percentage of us do not. But I will check it out.

One other question, and it's just out of curiosity. In the past have there been some "truths" you found on the internet which you later rejected and decided were a little bit too far out there ?

By the way, I do know what you mean about disinformation. there is so much crazy stuff published in the national enquirer and on the internet, that if there ever were for example real aliens or chupacabras (sp?) or whatever, how would we know ? Everyone would assume it was BS.

But that isn't a logical reason to start just randomly believing some random BS on the internet. I don't know, is it possible that GW Bush was a shape shifting reptilian alien ? Certainly if he was, it's so far fetched that nobody would believe it. Ahhhhh. it's the perfect head fake. Those clever aliens got us by making the reality too fare fetched.

It's the old make the truth so far fetched that it's unbelievable trick.

Bap33 says

Who gets to decide what is evil, and why them?

History, and it decides on the basis of what institutions and cultures have used violence and oppression to get their way.

Bap33 says

nd, that is what those crazy arabs say about every non-arab islamuslamist too ..

All religions are bad. Islam in the Middle East is in the same state that Christianity was in the Middle Ages. However, religions can become more aggressive with time as well, as shown in the "heartland" of America. The solution is to phase out all religion, not replace one with another.

Bap33 says

Now you see what Prop 22 and Prop 8

Not everyone lives in California or wherever you live. Prop 22 and Prop 8 refer to different propositions in different states.

Bap33 says

So, those who oppose public acceptance of deviant sexual couplings are not doing anything wrong, in your opinion.

Rights trump morality. If they didn't, it would be legal for any crackpot to kill people the crackpot thought was being immoral including, but hardly limited to:

1. Abortion clinic bombings.
2. Hanging African Americans from trees
3. Baking Jews alive.
4. Forcing women pregnant with interracial or disabled children to get abortions.
5. Forced sterilization of the poor.

And yes, all of these things have happened. All but #3 have happened in the United States.

Rights trump morality.

Bap33 says

I mean no offense

It is pretty hard to offend me, and utterly impossible to do so unintentionally.

Bap33 says

Science requires faith in your eye's ability to see, and your mind's ability to desern the sights.

One can get ridicules if you don't accept basic common sense. Of course, we could all be living in The Matrix or The Thirteenth Floor or The Holodeck and everything we see could be an elaborate illusion. But to live one's life as if that's the case is quite impractical.

Science requires very few assumptions. That we exist and aren't some figments of some boy's dream is one of them, but it's a pretty safe assumption.

Bap33 says

Why does the moon have no rotation upon it's axis?

The moon is tidally locked with the Earth and so does rotate upon its axis. The moon's rotation about its axis and its revolution around the Earth have the same period because gravity keeps the dense side of the moon pointed towards the Earth. This is called being tidally locked. The physics of this is well understood and available to read throughout the Internet.

Bap33 says

Where is the moon from?

The moon formed when a planet hit Earth Mark I and destroyed both planets. From the debris of both planets formed Earth Mark II (the planet you are standing on) and the Earth's moon. The lesser dense material became the moon and the heavier material became Earth Mark II. Again, this is now well known and is easily researched on the Internet.

Bap33 says

Was there ever more Earth moons?

Asteroids are sometimes captured by planets and become temporary or permanent moons. It's possible that the Earth had other small moons from captured asteroids, but what's your point. Whether or not the Earth had short-lived moons in its past is hardly an important issue. Perhaps a few scientists would be interested in how many temporary moons the Earth has had, but it hardly relates to the age of the Earth or religion.

Bap33 says

The scientific answers (or theroy/guesses) to these questions have very little to no "proof", and require "faith".

Scientific answers, by definition, require proof. If there is no proof, there is no scientific answer.

marcus says

Pagans were framed as being tied to the devil since way back. That was basically a propaganda method used to convert people from the old ways to the new way (Christianity). Burning witches at the stake ? In the name of Christianity ?

Actually, that's all true, and there are many more instances of similar things happening such as Jews being falsely accused of poisoning wells. Christianity wormed it's way into being the most popular religion by killing all opposition and incorporating pagan rituals and beliefs into itself. That's why Christmas is on Dec. 25th, an approximation of the Winter Solstice.

marcus says

But that isn't a logical reason to start just randomly believing some random BS on the internet. I don't know, is it possible that GW Bush was a shape shifting reptilian alien ? Certainly if he was, it's so far fetched that nobody would believe it. Ahhhhh.

Now you're getting it. Now just replace the world "Internet" with the word "Bible" and the phrase "GW Bush was a shape shifting reptilian alien" with pretty much any phrase in the Bible.

Do that and realize the statement remains true for the exact same reasons, and you'll finally understand everything I've written about religion and mysticism.

Dan8267 says

Do that and realize the statement remains true for the exact same reasons, and you'll finally understand everything I've written about religion and mysticism.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that refuses to even listen to what you say.

You think I have been advocating literal interpretation of the bible ? What you have mostly heard from me is disagreement with your extremely judgmental absolutist views against ALL religion, and even all "spirituality."

As far as I know you never did answer me. Where is you gratitude directed Dan ?

You and I agree on a lot of things, but I still say you are an arrogant prick.

Dan8267 says

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

But isn't rape a biological phenomenon, controlled ultimately by the laws of physics? Same with your laundry list of crimes commited by the church? If those people don't have free choice, they are like broken machines that need "fixing". They are victims of the laws of physics acting in their brains.

I take it from your quote above that you do believe in the existence of evil, and thus the existence of some kind of absolute, objective, morality. But can you back up your belief with some kind of scientific experiment? I'm only holding you to your own standards...

bob2356 says

How is a believe system in any way shape or form like a physical phenomenon? That is the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard and I've listened to George W Bush's speech explaining why we needed to invade Iraq.

Unless I misunderstand Dan8267, he is asserting that belief systems are ultimately the result of physics / chemistry in the brain, and are thus a physical phenomenon.

Dan8267 says

Rights trump morality

Can that be proven scientifically, or is that just your opinion?

And isn't the statement "right trump morality" a moral assertion?

Bap33 says

Evil is meant to be opposed.
I agree, 100%. Who gets to decide what is evil, and why them? How will they carry out their defense of good, or destruction of evil? I don't mind using God's Word as the tool for determining what is evil and what is good. What do you suggest?

Bap33: right, that's my point. Who is Dan to say what is good and evil?

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

But isn't rape a biological phenomenon, controlled ultimately by the laws of physics? Same with your laundry list of crimes commited by the church? If those people don't have free choice, they are like broken machines that need "fixing". They are victims of the laws of physics acting in their brains.

I take it from your quote above that you do believe in the existence of evil, and thus the existence of some kind of absolute, objective, morality. But can you back up your belief with some kind of scientific experiment? I'm only holding you to your own standards...

excellant response.

marcus says

It's hard to have a conversation with someone that refuses to even listen to what you say.

It would be impossible for me to refute everything you've said as well as I have if I were not listening to the arguments. Do not confuse listening and agreeing, for they are two entirely different things.

marcus says

You think I have been advocating literal interpretation of the bible ?

No. However, when I have been asked why I am against religion, my answers have been the historically verifiable crimes against humanity committed by religions especially Christianity. These crimes have nothing to do with whether or not you, Marcus, take a literal interpretation of the bible.

Furthermore, any Christian must take a few things from the Bible literally, or they would not be Christians. If you don't believe that Christ is literally god and literally rose from the dead three days after dying, then you're not a Christian. It's pretty much a deal killer if you take everything in the Bible including the resurrection as metaphoric. Yeah, Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, that was a metaphor meaning that if you live a good life your ideas will live on. If that's the case, you're as atheistic as I am and Christianity is just a philosophy, not a religion. Which, by the way, would be a good thing.

marcus says

What you have mostly heard from me is disagreement with your extremely judgmental absolutist views against ALL religion, and even all "spirituality."

I certainly have a right to condemn all religion and even all mysticism, or "spirituality" as you euphemize. I have given ample objective and verifiable justification for my position, unlike you. Furthermore, just because you consider the judgment to be extreme hardly makes it so. The religious judgment imposed on so-called sinners thrown into hell is extreme. My judgment is quite moderate in comparison.

marcus says

As far as I know you never did answer me. Where is you gratitude directed Dan ?

When I respond line by line you complain about that. When I fail to respond to every batshit crazy thing you say, you complain about that too. Pick a lane.

Once can be appreciative about life without being grateful to some imaginary being. Appreciation does not need to be directed.

marcus says

I still say you are an arrogant prick.

That is because you are an idiot who thinks that anyone who can prove your wrong on something objective is arrogant. This is simply your own ego trying to defend itself by hypocritically calling other arrogant. It's a common flaw in your species.

I may very well be an arrogant prick, but there is nothing in my writings here that would imply that. I have relied solely upon verifiable facts and indisputable logic to make my case. There is nothing more humble than to submit to scientific and mathematical analysis for these are objective and cannot be commandeer for political purposes.

So I suggest that your false perception of me being arrogant is simply indicative that you are a bigot who thinks that smart equals arrogant. This kind of bigotry is of course harmful to society and the cause of many problems in America.

Dan8267 says

wthrfrk80 says

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

Replace the word religion with rape and realize how stupid your comment is. Evil is meant to be opposed.

But isn't rape a biological phenomenon, controlled ultimately by the laws of physics? Same with your laundry list of crimes commited by the church? If those people don't have free choice, they are like broken machines that need "fixing". They are victims of the laws of physics acting in their brains.

1. Your questions do not address the discussion to which you are replying. You asserted that we should accept religion simply because it exists. This assertion is clearly disproven by the pointing out the fact that rape exists and we don't accept it, but rather we fight to prevent and stop it.

2. Whether or not free will exists is irrelevant to the question of policy making. Congress does not debate on free will when making policies. Judges do not rule on metaphysics when sentencing.

wthrfrk80 says

I take it from your quote above that you do believe in the existence of evil, and thus the existence of some kind of absolute, objective, morality. But can you back up your belief with some kind of scientific experiment? I'm only holding you to your own standards...

1. Yes, evil does exist in that humans are capable of performing evil actions. Evil is not a red guy with a beard and horns.
2. The existence of evil actions does not imply absolute morality. Morality can be objective, but objective and absolute do not mean the same thing. However, your desire to have absolute morality gets to the real reason why people like you want there to be a god. Without a god, you can't justify that there is an absolute morality and therefore cannot cram your morality down other people's throats.

3. Yes, I can justify my beliefs on morality with plenty of scientific experiments. I'll do that when I write my rant on the nature of morality. It's not relevant to this thread and is a big enough discussion on its own.

wthrfrk80 says

Unless I misunderstand Dan8267, he is asserting that belief systems are ultimately the result of physics / chemistry in the brain, and are thus a physical phenomenon.

Everything about your mind is implemented entirely by your brain. This is common knowledge. Every thought you ever had -- both of them -- and every emotion you've ever had -- including so-called "spiritual experiences" -- have occurred entirely inside your brain. Every memory you have, every opinion you have, every moral you have exists as neurological connections in your brain. If this seems implausible to you, it is simply because you do not understand how incredible a human brain is, even, and I never thought I'd say this, yours.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

Rights trump morality

Can that be proven scientifically, or is that just your opinion?

And isn't the statement "right trump morality" a moral assertion?

Principles are not scientific questions. The statement "rights trump morality" is an assertion of principle not morality and it is based on the philosophy of Western Civilization which I have justified above and will repeat below. If you disagree with my justification, feel free to argue against it.

Dan8267 says

Rights trump morality. If they didn't, it would be legal for any crackpot to kill people the crackpot thought was being immoral including, but hardly limited to:

1. Abortion clinic bombings.
2. Hanging African Americans from trees
3. Baking Jews alive.
4. Forcing women pregnant with interracial or disabled children to get abortions.
5. Forced sterilization of the poor.

And yes, all of these things have happened. All but #3 have happened in the United States.

Rights trump morality.

wthrfrk80 says

Bap33: right, that's my point. Who is Dan to say what is good and evil?

Every human being has to decide what is good and evil. It is beneficial that people openly and honestly discuss the subject of good and evil. I have never said that what I call good and evil is absolute and not open for discussion. That is what religion does and that is one of many reasons that religion is bad. It prevents honest adult conversations about morality. And given that society and technology has advanced so much over the past 100 years, it is important that society does openly discuss moral issues and how they apply in the modern age.

Now there are plenty of things I have said in this thread and others. Things like:

1. I have disproved all variations of SMG.
2. I have shown that CMG isn't really a god by monotheist standards.
3. If your religion contradicts science or history, then your religion is wrong.
4. Religion has done more harm than good including some of the worst atrocities in history.
5. All religion is bad because religions are hierarchical power structures based on mysticisms. Power corrupts and mysticism prevents rational thought, opposition, and transparency. Put the two together and you have a recipe for disaster.
6. Mysticism or its euphemism "spirituality", although not as dangerous as religion, is still bad for it prevents rational thought and discussion.
7. People who are intelligent and knowledgeable tend to become atheistic because they do not need to resort to mysticism to explain life or the universe. The natural explanations are more than sufficient and are beautiful in themselves. The more rational and knowledgeable a person is, the more he realizes that there is no justification for believing in any god.

Of course, I have gone into great detail about why each of those things is true. And I have presented the arguments as objectively as possible and with great evidence and clear reasoning. My opposition has yet to offer a shred of evidence that

1. Any god exists.
2. Religion hasn't committed atrocities. Christianity in particular hasn't committed atrocities.
3. Evolution is incorrect.
4. The scientific method is flawed.
5. Religion is necessary or even helpful for
a. Discussions of morality.
b. Living a moral life.

Instead my opposition has made false arguments like Stalin massacred people because he was an atheist. And I have rebutted every one of these false arguments. My opposition has never answered my rebuttals for when they cannot defend their ridiculous arguments as there is no defense for falsehoods.

I think we can stick a fork in this thread, as it's done.

Dan8267 says

If you don't believe that Christ is literally god and literally rose from the dead three days after dying, then you're not a Christian. It's pretty much a deal killer if you take everything in the Bible including the resurrection as metaphoric. Yeah, Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, that was a metaphor meaning that if you live a good life your ideas will live on. If that's the case, you're as atheistic as I am and Christianity is just a philosophy, not a religion

Dan: We agree on this point! Let's have a beer together.

Dan8267 says

This assertion is clearly disproven by the pointing out the fact that rape exists and we don't accept it, but rather we fight to prevent and stop it.

Right, we don't accept rape. And maybe we shouldn't accept religion either. Point taken.

My question is: why are some things acceptable, and other things not? Is there some scientific way to "prove" rape is wrong? I agree with you fully that rape is wrong. But I can't prove it scientifically. Or at least, I don't know how to prove it scientifically. I'm not aware of anyone else who's been able to prove it scientifically. Maybe you are smarter than the rest of us and can prove it scientifically.

Maybe my belief that rape is wrong is based on social consensus and groupthink? Maybe if I was raised in an isolated tribe that believed rape was ok I would have a different belief? (I'm not aware of any such tribe, I'm just asking a hypothetical question).