12-year-old girl kills herself because of the lie of an afterlife
invite response
2014 Jan 9, 4:42am 92,155 views 428 comments
« First « Previous Comments 256 - 295 of 428 Next » Last » Search these comments
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 1:46pm
It's just like, haven't you wondered why there had never been great baseball players, great soccer players, great basketball players or great football players before the mid-19th to early 20th century? It's not because people couldn't run or jump before then, but because the market place had not developed enough to enable professional sports!
It's like saying an industry didn't developed until it developed. Nice argument.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 1:46pm
The speed of light has been broken.
Nope!
Not to get off topic, but what the laws of physics says is an object with mass cannot accelerate up to or decelerate down to the speed of light because as an object approaches the speed of light from either direction it's relative mass and energy approaches infinity and there's not infinite energy to be had.
There is no known physical law that prevents
1. An object with zero rest mass from traveling at the speed of light. In fact, light has to travel at a constant speed (light speed) precisely because it's energy would be zero if it were traveling at any other speed.
2. An object with non-zero mass from traveling faster than the speed of light as long as it was never traveling slower than light. That said, the theoretical particle, the tachyon, is not generally thought to exist or to be plausible. It just isn't known to be prohibited by any laws.
3. Space, which has no mass, from traveling faster than light. In fact, the accepted Inflationary Hot Big Bang model has space traveling faster than light in the early history of the universe.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that if Superman attempted to save Louis Lane by traveling back in time by flying faster than light around the Earth, he would get longer as he approached the speed of light. In fact, as he approached light speed, Superman would get infinitely long.
This means that as he's speeding up to light speed, Superman's body would stretch around the Earth and Superman's head would rapidly approach his ass. Superman's head would have to go up his own ass, not just once, but in fact an infinite number of times as Superman hit light speed. So much for saving Lois Lane.
The argument is that if the Christian afterlife is not a lie, then it is a moral imperative to murder babies before they are old enough to sin and risk their immortal souls to an eternity of torture and the loss of an eternity in paradise. This is self-evident as a mere 100-year Earthly life infinitely pales in comparison to an eternity of either horrific suffering or unimaginable euphoria. To allow any child to be placed in harms way of going to hell or losing heaven is possibly the most immoral thing one could do whether through action or inaction.
Like I said before, you are entirely out of depth when speaking on this subject. There are at least three problems with your presumptions here:
1. Who the heck are you to decide whether the child is to live or to die?
2. If you kill the baby, you may have just condemned yourself to eternal damnatino.
3. What makes you think the omniscient deity doesn't know ahead of time where that baby is headed? whether in life or in death, and why he puts the baby on the earth to begin with?
Therefore, if the Christian afterlife is not a lie, then it is a moral imperative to kill babies and thus send them directly to heaven bypassing any chance they will suffer for all eternity in hell. The premise of the Christian afterlife necessitates the conclusion that we are morally obligated to kill babies. If you reject the conclusion, you must logically reject the premise that inevitably leads to that conclusion. Proof by contradiction.
You are obviously not familiar with hundreds years, if not thousands of years, of religious debate on the original sin issue. Some branches of Christianity believes in Original Sin (i.e. a new born baby is headed to hell without baptism or good behavior in life to redeem him/herself); some branches believe good behavior doesn't matter, and predestination is set before the child is born, it's a matter for you decide to associate yourself with those who are among the heaven-bound, so to speak.
1. This has nothing to do with me personally. The messenger is irrelevant.
2. This has nothing to do with pre-crime or judging a person or having authority.
3. This has nothing to do with the knowledge that a person will grow up to be evil. It is a moral duty to make sure the babies are not in jeopardy. Allowing any baby to live would be more immoral than locking the baby in a car on a freezing winter night because the risk and damages would be so much greater in the former scenario.
hmm, how is murdering the baby in a 1st degree murder better than a 3rd degree negligence homicide? Apparently you are not only unfamiliar with religion, but also unfamiliar with secular laws.
Of course, that's based on the assumption that the Christian afterlife is not a lie.
Quite frankly, if you cannot understand this argument, then you're really dumb. It's not rocket science. It's simply following the logical conclusion of the afterlife premise to it's ridiculous and unacceptable end. Countless other people understand this argument, even if they hate the fact that it's right.
You are coming to your conclusion because you perceive yourself as the divine dispenser of death and life as you wish. Such hubris among the unintelligent and conceitful is precisely calls for religion as a cure/restraint.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 1:55pm
Ok.
Tell us how consciousness occurs.
Energy cannot be destroyed. Your brain runs on energy. Obviously the cells contained in the physical body "die" as humans describe it, but the energy contained within is simply transformed.
Yes, but energy isn't consciousness.
The thing is, I don't have to understand anything about the implementation of consciousness in the human brain in order to know that it is the human brain that creates and maintains consciousness.
Think about it this way, you don't have to understand anything about system memory, arithmetic logic units, logic gates, direct memory access, machine language, or anything else about your computer to understand that the web browser you are using is being generated and maintained by that computer. If you turn off the computer, the web browser does not remain. You don't have to understand anything about how your computer runs that app in order to know that it is solely your computer that is responsible for running that app and not some mythical fairy living inside your computer.
It is also worth noting that the key to understanding how consciousness works is to abandon superstition and to study and implement neural networks. This also happens to be something you can do with a computer for free. If you like, I could get you started with some background knowledge. I have built brains back in graduate school. I built a robot with a neural network that responded to verbal commands. It was fun.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 1:59pm
Christianity replacing the old Roman religion managed to extend the life span of East Roman Empire by about a thousand years
The Roman empire was all but dead after the fall of the western part. The cultural, technological, and military superiority was all but gone.
Furthermore it has been argued that Christianity itself caused its decline , the same way it caused the dark ages: by promoting obscurantism.
Extending its life indeed.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:00pm
Here, I'll help you.
You can't.
Are you implying that I personally do not know the entirety of how consciousness works? Of course, I don't. But that doesn't matter. What I know and do not know is irrelevant to the issue of the afterlife being a lie. It is a fact that the brain is entirely responsible for self-awareness, regardless of how this occurs.
Are you implying that no one yet fully understands how consciousness works? Of course, no one does, yet. But that doesn't matter. Just because mankind doesn't know everything does not mean that mankind knows nothing and can know nothing.
Are you implying that no one can ever understand consciousness? If so, you are wrong. Everything in the universe is intelligible. It is just a matter of time, effort, and research to understand any mystery.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:04pm
Just as I expected, it's full of crap put together by a bunch of bureaucrats and coding monkeys.
And I'm sure the entire world will be convinced by the assertion you just pulled out of your ass instead of being convinced by the multitude of evidence collected and analyzed by people all over the world who independently reached the same conclusions.
After all, you have a much better reputation than, what did you call them, coding monkeys like
the Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research Council, the Goddard Space Flight Center, Earth Systems Research Laboratory, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the Hadley Meteorological Center, the International Panel on Climate Change, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the National Academy of Science, NASA, the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, the National Climate Data Center, the National Hurricane Center, the National Research Council, and many other well respected scientific institutions.
All NASA did was get us to the moon. How can that compare to your enlightening PatNet posts?
marcus
2014 Jan 29, 2:05pm
Neither you nor anyone else has even addressed the fact that if the Christian afterlife were real, then killing babies before they could sin is a moral imperative.
Why should I address that. You've broadened the argument, which is fine, in part to respond to several others who wanted to discuss whether there is an afterlife of not.
The one and only thing I have argued with you in this thread is regarding the question of whether the girl provably killed herself because of religion and because she honestly knew as fact that she would be reunited with her father.
Yes, I have basically repeated an assertion that when a person kills them self it is because of a sick state of mind. Any other thoughts she expressed while in such a sick suicidal state are somewhat irrelevant, or at least not the primary cause of her action.
Finally, try to realize that repeating a lie ad nauseam like Fox News does not turn the lie into a truth. Your post history consists entirely of the pattern of
- make assertion
- ignore opposition to that assertion
- repeat assertion
- insult opposition
- ignore evidence disproving assertion
- repeat assertion
You have a rich fantasy life. Yes, I have repeated an assertion that you can not answer except with your own assertions, or diversions.
Actually I take it back you don't make this assertion anymore. You changed your thesis here. You write thousands of words of jibberish psuedo logic pertaining to I don't know what.
But you're proof that that one phrase that was preceded by "don't feel bad mom," is proof that the girl actually was certain she would be with her father in a literal way ? That can not be proven, and anyone with the slightest understanding of severe emotional problems knows that the real cause of suicide is more complex, and mostly about mental illness rather than about a small phrase spoken (or written) right before the final act.
I'm fairly certain that you're smart enough to understand this.
- ignore evidence disproving assertion
- repeat assertion
You're half right. I have repeated my only assertion and only argument I have with you here, several times. WAy back, I said it's all I have to say about this, and it is.
Sadly, I've repeated it many times because you either don't get it, or because you don't know how to just stop.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 2:05pm
The laws of physics are constantly changing. The bigger question is, why aren't you?
The laws were certainly not changed based on speculations on the results of 2 experiments, and most likely they will not be.
But like I said it generated headlines and presents an opportunity for physicists.
And obviously no observation about consciousness is generating headlines about how it violates the laws of physics. It doesn't.
I just threw out the Parthenon. I'll see your Lincoln Cathedral and raise you . . .
Goes to show the pointlessness of your logic. Big monuments are often signs of concentration of power, not just economic prosperity alone. The soviet union had quite a few white elephants.
Where are the uniformed, regular armies with standardized equipment? The Steel Gladius is standard issue to a Roman Legionary But it's the mark of an unusually wealthy Viking or Frankish warlord. Almost all Dark Ages combatants make due with plain iron for weapons.
They put their money on horses and armor instead. Middle ages military was about cost-effectiveness, as the Roman state-sponsored heavy infantry model had already been doomed in combat against far more mobile cavalry not to mention the cost of maintaining a large force of Roman heavy infantry eventually bankrupted the Roman state itself. That's why feudalism was invented: a small business and more dynamic model for the military, subcontractors on 1099 instead of full time employees with all sorts of benefits and retirement packages regardless domestically sourced or imported immigrants.
The new approach obviously was a resounding success: not only crushing WRE, defeating incursion by the Islamic Caliphate and carrying the fight to its heartland in Levant, but also laying waste to the ERE well equipped army in the 4th Crusade.
Cost-effectiveness, my friend. Not the list of gigantism.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:08pm
During the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, the church was a moderating influence, as evidenced by the less martial aspects of "Chivalry" that the church promoted.
Very Chivalrous
">
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 2:09pm
Here, I'll help you.
You can't.Ok.
Tell us how consciousness occurs.
I'll tell you what consciousness is not: it's not heat escaping your brain after you die.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 2:17pm
1- The creation of consciousness, and how it functions cannot be explained to the acceptance of the majority.
2- The few who denied the earth was flat some centuries ago were eventually proven right as our knowledge advanced. Since the creation and function of consciousness is not understood, as was the earth's shape, it is not out of the question that future knowledge can impart a different definition of what consciousness really is.
3- We are nowhere near understanding the laws of nature in their entirety. We are trying to understand the novel with only one chapter in hand.
Except of course there are numerous observations that can lead you to think the earth is not flat, but none - zero - that can lead you to believe there are unknown physical behaviors that are required to explain consciousness.
Except of course it's emotionally more satisfying to think you and loved ones will survive body death.
According to the same logic you could believe there is a pink unicorn living in NYC subway and bending the laws of physics to remain undetected - and be sure it will be proved one day.
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 2:21pm
Very Chivalrous
Exactly... but remember the bodies don't matter as long as you save the souls....
The kind of thinking that promotes morality on earth.
marcus
2014 Jan 29, 2:22pm
And obviously no observation about consciousness is generating headlines about how violates the laws of physics. It doesn't.
I don't see that consciousness even intersects much with physics, except for the electricity involved. I guess understanding the electical, chemical, atomic and subatomic workings of the brain involves physics.
For those who believe in a soul or in a self or spirit or whatever you want to call it, it transcends a scientific definition and understanding, it isn't even a question of whether science will ever fully understand this. But it should be obvious that it won't.
This gets to philosophical questions. Ontological questions. THe rabid atheist might want to say "just because we don't understand the physical basis for consciousness, doesn't mean that we won't one day."
So what ? That won't answer all that much. We still exist. That is your self, your ego, your soul, your spirit exists. However you frame it. This is beyond total understanding. And yes, of course there is in a sense an aspect of our existence (our being) that is beyond the physical.
(note: I'm not saying it won't go away without the physical, but it's still is beyond the physical. Generated by the physical perhaps. )
I love the truth more than almost anything else, so on things I don't have the answer to, I not only say I don't know, I actually love the mysteries. What can I tell you. Truth and Beauty, they are not mutually exclusive.
How about Commerce? How much wine was shipped to Italy from Spain in the Middle Ages? Enough to build a hundred foot artificial hill just out of broken amphorae?
Do you not realize that Roman Imperial extravaganza like that had to been born by the taxpayers? and was part of the reason why Roman Empire collapsed?
Commercial revival in Western Europe got underway in the 8th and 9th century. By the 10th and 11th century commerce was thriving.
How about Coinage? Hundreds of Copper coins are all over Hadrian's Wall, along the Rhine, everywhere the Roman Writ Ruled. Used for petty purchases, a beer here and lodging there. Non-existent in the Dark Ages and most of the Middle Ages.
Those Roman copper coins were left behind because they were essentially worthless after government debasement. In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, currency on the continent was silver, hence the Troy weight of Sterling Silver, Troy being the name of the market town in Champaign, northern France.
Silver had been the money of choice during Athenian and Roman rise, before substitution by imperially stamped copper discs of little value.
It's not just about the fact that there is little writing. There's also not much tech going on, either.
There were quite a few new inventions: heavy plough, tidal mills, crossbow, hourglass, eye glasses, blast furnace, mechanical clocks (huge mounted in cathedrals to toll the bells), etc.. By contrast, what was invented during Imperial Rome (not Roman Republic or Ancient Greece)?
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:25pm
The open-minded intellectually honest amoung us have somehow developed the ability to state the obvious:
"I don't know".
There are many things that I do not, and even mankind as a whole does not, know. And I'll gladly admit when I don't know something.
For example, here are just a few of the things I don't know.
1. Who's playing in the Superbowl.
2. What the capital of Wyoming is.
3. How many atoms are in a gram of gunpowder. Although I could calculate this if I looked up the ingredients of gunpowder and the Periodic Table.
4. How to prove that x^n + y^n = z^n has no solutions for n >2.
5. What goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole.
6. How to play Texas Hold ‘Em Poker well.
7. The rules of baseball.
8. Why Kim Kardashian is famous.
9. How to speak Japanese.
10. Why we drive on parkways and park on driveways.
11. The history of Canada.
12. How to cook.
13. How to fix anything in my car.
14. How to play the violin.
15. How to compose music.
16. Practically anything about human anatomy.
Well, I could go on for a damn long time, but you get the point. In fact, although I am more knowledgeable than 99% of our species, I possess less than 1% of our species knowledge. In fact, no human brain is capable of possessing much more than 1% of our species acquired knowledge, which is why we have to rely on libraries and the Internet.
Nonetheless, although I have no problem admitting that I do not know something that I do not know, I do have a problem with the false humility of stating that you do not know something that you actually do.
I do know how logic and much of math works. I do know how computers work including not only Turing machines, but to a large extent how neural networks work. Feigning ignorance is not humility. It is just dishonesty.
And I most certainly know -- and so does anyone with a high school education -- that the brain is solely and entirely responsible for every thought, emotion, belief, memory, and idea you have ever had or will ever have. That does not require a leap of faith.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:32pm
If this is your argument then you lose.
Christine doctrine states everyone is born with 'original sin'.
There are no innocent babies.
The argument is that if the Christian afterlife is not a lie, then it is a moral imperative to murder babies before they are old enough to sin and risk their immortal souls to an eternity of torture and the loss of an eternity in paradise.
Ha. You forgot. Although I'm a hard core atheist, I was raised Catholic and therefore am intimately familiar with the Christian mythology. What a waste of neural connections, but it does let me easily demonstrate why you are wrong.
1. One can simply baptize the babies before murdering them, thereby eliminating original sin. It is still a moral imperative to murder the babies before they can commit a mortal sin.
2. Babies who aren't baptize don't go to hell according to Christian mythology. After all, god would have to be a major fucking asshole and evil shithead to send babies to be tortured for all eternity simply because they died of natural or unnatural causes before someone baptized them.
I mean, such a god would have to be stupendously fucking evil, and the Christian masses simply could not accept that especially in an age when babies died frequently before being baptized, say at birth, before birth, or soon after birth.
For a while, Catholics tried to bullshit the unbaptized babies with Limbo, but eventually they abandoned that. Other Christian religions simply assumed all babies go to heaven regardless of baptism.
So, how exactly do I lose this argument? How exactly have you dodge the issue that it is a moral duty to kill babies if the Christian afterlife myth were real?
So why didn't that happen during the dark ages since you are telling us the market place was thriving during this time. You defeated one of your own argument.
No, I did not. The economic development simply had not yet reached that level yet. They had to make up for the damage wrought by the Roman Imperial period excesses first. It's just like the 18th century and early 19th century saw great growth of commerce in the West, but they did not have professional sports or indoor plumbing yet, both of which had existed during Roman time. It would be absurd however to call the 18th century Europe and North America as the dark ages.
During the dark ages religious authorities were excommunication people for heresy - when not just burning them - for researching independent ideas. And they were generally discouraging any beliefs that would even lead you to investigate ideas with a free mind.
That went on well into the Renaissance. In fact, it's being carried out even now with government funding for research: just look at the ratio of grants given to AGW topics! Political machination is just a natural result of government/church being in control of funding.
Your consumerist, tea party type, view of the market + religion as the root of civilization just doesn't hold water.
I never said religion being the root of civilization. However, religion is a cost-effective way of maintaining a workable society. Market is of course the root of civilization. If exchange is not voluntary, the only alternative is mutual predation.
During the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, the church was a moderating influence, as evidenced by the less martial aspects of "Chivalry" that the church promoted.
Very Chivalrous
Once again, we are talking about 2,000 victims over 100 years under Spanish Inquisition vs. 50,000,000 victims in a decade under atheist dictatorships of the 20th century. I know math is not your forte, and you prefer drawings like a 3yr old, but do please give the numbers a try. . . how many 2,000 are there in a 50,000,000? I know you can do it.
1. Attempting to minimize the vileness of the Spanish Inquisition is a pretty weak position.
2. Christianity is responsible for a multitude of genocides including the Holocaust and dozens of North American genocides.
Typical Dan.. guess he never heard of Asian Mongol invasion of europe wiped out half of population.
North Americans were wipped out from the Mongol pox which europeans brough over. Hardly Genocide as we know it...
.... Atheist did far more harm... with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, North Korea today... your well over 100-150 Million....
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 2:40pm
I don't see that consciousness even intersects much with physics, except for the electricity involved.
Marcus, if you want to argue that consciousness survives the decay of the brain, you first need to admit that it exists separately from the brain.
My argument was that it doesn't and in fact is affected by chemicals affecting the brain such as alcohol.
Softshell is arguing indeed that there must indeed be something beyond normal laws of physics to explain consciousness and that just because we don't know what doesn't mean it's not the case.
That's preposterous. Everything we know consciousness links it to the brain: it is affected by chemistry of the brain, it is affected by shocks on the brain, it is affected by damage to the brain. But Softshell here wants us to believe it is not affected by the total destruction of the brain.
And indeed it it is physical, so what? We still are what we are. - except sorry, no afterlife.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:40pm
If this is your argument then you lose.
Christine doctrine states everyone is born with 'original sin'.
There are no innocent babies.
The argument is that if the Christian afterlife is not a lie, then it is a moral imperative to murder babies before they are old enough to sin and risk their immortal souls to an eternity of torture and the loss of an eternity in paradise.
Ha. You forgot. Although I'm a hard core atheist, I was raised Catholic and therefore am intimately familiar with the Christian mythology. What a waste of neural connections, but it does let me easily demonstrate why you are wrong.
1. One can simply baptize the babies before murdering them, thereby eliminating original sin. It is still a moral imperative to murder the babies before they can commit a mortal sin.
2. Babies who aren't baptize don't go to hell according to Christian mythology. After all, god would have to be a major fucking asshole and evil shithead to send babies to be tortured for all eternity simply because they died of natural or unnatural causes before someone baptized them.
I mean, such a god would have to be stupendously fucking evil, and the Christian masses simply could not accept that especially in an age when babies died frequently before being baptized, say at birth, before birth, or soon after birth.
For a while, Catholics tried to bullshit the unbaptized babies with Limbo, but eventually they abandoned that. Other Christian religions simply assumed all babies go to heaven regardless of baptism.
So, how exactly do I lose this argument? How exactly have you dodge the issue that it is a moral duty to kill babies if the Christian afterlife myth were real?Reality says
This is the type of shit logic that I expect from Marcus. Being ran over by a train can cause death. Therefore, being shot in the head cannot cause death because we know that death is caused by being run over by a train.
Do I really need to dumb this down further for you?
Do tell us then do you suggest calling trains evil?
You are fucking retarded.
Reality says
Yet, just like most other "good book" the Bible also has enough passages expressing the counter-point to be quoted by adherents of the opposite positions.
So the Bible is full of contradictions. Just like one would expect from a book written by a single, infallible and omniscient author.
And, of course, we should follow any book that advocates both rape and obeying your parents, because those two things make morality a wash.
That's all you
Hey idiot. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't kill someone's pet. You're argument is irrelevant and nonsensical. Atheists have morals. Hell, we're more moral than anyone who does good simply to avoid punishment or get a reward.
On the contrary, an unintelligent person is far more prone to fall for some personality cult or the government cult (like you may well have) in the absence of influence from traditional religion.
Religion is a cult. The only difference between the terms is that religion is used when a cult becomes popular enough to gain political and/or social power. See Scientology and Mormonism as examples of cults currently going through this transition.
And to suggest that I may be in a cult is just plain stupid. I mean, you're really grasping at straws there, buddy.
The bottom line is that the truth makes a better foundation for morality than a lie, and nothing you said contradicts the fact that if the afterlife lie were real, the girl in the original article made the right decision to kill herself. No matter how much you try to distract from that point, it remains true. The afterlife lie is a bad thing.
Very Chivalrous
Exactly... but remember the bodies don't matter as long as you save the souls....
The kind of thinking that promotes morality on earth.
The Atheist "Greater good" has long proven to be even more evil in the 20th century than "saving the individual soul." 100,000,000+ victims in a century vs. 2,000 victims in a century, to put in numerical perspective.
1. One can simply baptize the babies before murdering them, thereby eliminating original sin. It is still a moral imperative to murder the babies before they can commit a mortal sin.
What moral imperative? What you are suggesting is murder. Do you kill babies at birth because they will inevitably endure hardship and eventually probably painful death at some point in their lives later?
2. Babies who aren't baptize don't go to hell according to Christian mythology. After all, god would have to be a major fucking asshole and evil shithead to send babies to be tortured for all eternity simply because they died of natural or unnatural causes before someone baptized them.
I mean, such a god would have to be stupendously fucking evil, and the Christian masses simply could not accept that especially in an age when babies died frequently before being baptized, say at birth, before birth, or soon after birth.
For a while, Catholics tried to bullshit the unbaptized babies with Limbo, but eventually they abandoned that. Other Christian religions simply assumed all babies go to heaven regardless of baptism.
Then you are aware the fact that people choose religion.
Atheists have morals. Hell, we're more moral than anyone who does good simply to avoid punishment or get a reward.
Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol pot... all Atheist... so who stopped them ?
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:51pm
Like I said before, you are entirely out of depth when speaking on this subject. There are at least three problems with your presumptions here:
1. Who the heck are you to decide whether the child is to live or to die?
2. If you kill the baby, you may have just condemned yourself to eternal damnatino.
3. What makes you think the omniscient deity doesn't know ahead of time where that baby is headed? whether in life or in death, and why he puts the baby on the earth to begin with?
1. It is irrelevant "who the heck" I am. It is not about me or my decision. If the Christian afterlife myth is real, then morality demands that every single person, including you, murder babies in order to save them from the possibility of hell.
2. It is irrelevant if I or you condemn ourselves to eternal damnation by murdering the babies. Morality demands that we save thousands of babies' souls even at the expense of our own.
3. Sacrificing one's own soul for another is the noblest and morally greatest thing one could possibly do. Therefore, any god who would cast a person in hell for murdering babies in order to save their souls would have to be an evil, vile god. Is your god evil and vile?
4. It is irrelevant whether or not the deity knows ahead of time what the baby's fate is. The fact that you do not know the baby is going to go to heaven when it dies in 80 years means that you are morally obligated to murder that baby to ensure that it does go to heaven instead of hell. To place that baby in jeopardy of eternal damnation would be utterly evil.
5. The fact that you are rejecting the conclusion that we are morally obligated to murder babies and should do so indicates that deep down you do not believe in the Christian afterlife. When life is on the line, you believe the afterlife is a lie every bit as much as I do. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that none of us is killing babies right now proves none of us buys into this afterlife bullshit.
So the Bible is full of contradictions. Just like one would expect from a book written by a single, infallible and omniscient author.
And, of course, we should follow any book that advocates both rape and obeying your parents, because those two things make morality a wash.
Then you are talking about religious fundamentalism. Not every religious person buys into religious fundamentalism. Most scholars of the Bible realize that there have been many different versions, and the various "books" in the Bible are written by different authors. The Bible was simply an authorized compendium of books.
This is the type of shit logic that I expect from Marcus. Being ran over by a train can cause death. Therefore, being shot in the head cannot cause death because we know that death is caused by being run over by a train.
Do I really need to dumb this down further for you?
Do tell us then do you suggest calling trains evil?
You are fucking retarded.
Hey, you brought up the train, so repeat that personal attack in a mirror.
That's all you
Hey idiot. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't kill someone's pet. You're argument is irrelevant and nonsensical. Atheists have morals. Hell, we're more moral than anyone who does good simply to avoid punishment or get a reward.
I see, you chose to avoid debate the relevant point that I raised. So you are essentially conceding the point. The point is not about whether those choosing atheism in a mostly religious society are moral or not, but rather whether religion serves a function in society. I submit it does. It's not the moral people who can already behave themselves that we need to worry about . . . but the immoral twits who can not. For them, a fear of the supernatural deity may well reduce the pool of malfeasants that have to be dealt with by the highly expensive and highly inefficient law enforcement (for there to be personal liberty, law enforcement can not be too efficient).
Heraclitusstudent
2014 Jan 29, 2:56pm
However, religion is a cost-effective way of maintaining a workable society. Market is of course the root of civilization.
So you're an agnostic with a cynical utilitarian and propagandist view of religion, not to mention a consumerist view of civilization.
I believe the respect of truth is the basis for morality, and deceiving people as a cost effective control method is immoral by that standard.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 2:58pm
Some branches of Christianity believes in Original Sin (i.e. a new born baby is headed to hell without baptism or good behavior in life to redeem him/herself);
Any god that would send a baby who died during child birth to be tortured and raped by demons for all eternity would be a evil, despicable, vile god. Such a god would be worse than all the pedophiles in all of human history put together.
Are you really proposing that such an evil god, let's call him Lord Satan, exists? If so, then all bets are off. Such a god might insist that you rape and murder people to avoid going to hell. Are you prepared to act on this possibility and teach your children this? Would you worship this Satan?
Religion is a cult. The only difference between the terms is that religion is used when a cult becomes popular enough to gain political and/or social power. See Scientology and Mormonism as examples of cults currently going through this transition.
And to suggest that I may be in a cult is just plain stupid. I mean, you're really grasping at straws there, buddy.
You obviously have great faith in the earthly government. If you choose to call that the government religion, instead of government cult, that's fine with me.
The bottom line is that the truth makes a better foundation for morality than a lie,
What do you think is the truth? That if you murder someone, you have a better than 50/50 chance of getting away with it? or that if you steal, you have a better than 90% chance of getting away with it? If you rape someone, you have a better than 80% chance of getting away with it? How do you think those real statistics would induce the young and impressionable to carry on their lives? When enough of them do it accordingly, are you sure that you won't feel cheated for not committing the crime and getting away with it like all those home-debtors / squatters?
and nothing you said contradicts the fact that if the afterlife lie were real, the girl in the original article made the right decision to kill herself. No matter how much you try to distract from that point, it remains true. The afterlife lie is a bad thing.
You are forgetting the religious prescription against suicide. Sure, there may be afterlife, but if those who commit suicide end up in hell, that's not much an incentive for suicide, is it?
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 3:03pm
hmm, how is murdering the baby in a 1st degree murder better than a 3rd degree negligence homicide? Apparently you are not only unfamiliar with religion, but also unfamiliar with secular laws.
1. Secular laws are irrelevant to the afterlife. You don't go to hell for jaywalking.
2. Deliberating killing babies would not be immoral, unethical, or wrong in any way if the Christian afterlife is real. I've already explained this a dozen times. Pay attention. Killing the babies means those babies lose their Earthly lives, but those short Earthly lives are insignificant compared to an eternity of torture in hell or bliss in heaven. Therefore, it is immoral to jeopardize the babies' safety (i.e., immortal souls) by allowing them to live.
This is a simple, irrefutable proof by contradiction. Assume a conditional premise. Follow that premise to its logical conclusion. If the conclusion is something you know to be wrong, then the premise must, by mathematical necessity, be wrong.
If you are not capable of understanding this, then you are less intelligent than a typical 9th grader who is expected to produce proofs of contradiction in every Algebra I course.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 3:05pm
You are coming to your conclusion because you perceive yourself as the divine dispenser of death and life as you wish.
That's complete bullshit. As I've said a dozen times already to you, I am utterly irrelevant to the argument I am making.
Do you really have to resort to such transparent lies? Such lies indicate that you know you have no real way to address the proof by contradiction I submitted.
However, religion is a cost-effective way of maintaining a workable society. Market is of course the root of civilization.
So you're an agnostic with a cynical utilitarian and propagandist view of religion, not to mention a consumerist view of civilization.
Most atheistic critic of religion consider religion being a social control tool. My personal view on religion is very open minded agnosticism. No, I do not have a consumerist view of civilization, but one that respects individual liberty; market where individuals engage in mutually willing exchanges just happens to be the place where individuals exercise liberty.
I believe the respect of truth is the basis for morality, and deceiving people as a cost effective control method is immoral by that standard.
It is not deception if nobody knows what the real truth is. Morality has to be result based: it is immoral to constantly remind a cancer patient that he is about to die even if it is the truth.
1. Secular laws are irrelevant to the afterlife. You don't go to hell for jaywalking.
Yet if you decide to keep on living, you need to deal with secular law. So your contention that deliberately killing a baby is better than leaving a baby to die by accident is simply wrong, in the eyes of the secular law, probably in the eyes of a jury too.
2. Deliberating killing babies would not be immoral, unethical, or wrong in any way if the Christian afterlife is real. I've already explained this a dozen times. Pay attention. Killing the babies means those babies lose their Earthly lives, but those short Earthly lives are insignificant compared to an eternity of torture in hell or bliss in heaven. Therefore, it is immoral to jeopardize the babies' safety (i.e., immortal souls) by allowing them to live.
Pay Attention: you have no right to make that decision for the babies! Which part of "Thou shall not kill" don't you understand?
This is a simple, irrefutable proof by contradiction. Assume a conditional premise. Follow that premise to its logical conclusion. If the conclusion is something you know to be wrong, then the premise must, by mathematical necessity, be wrong.
If you are not capable of understanding this, then you are less intelligent than a typical 9th grader who is expected to produce proofs of contradiction in every Algebra I course.
You must have slept through your math classes. Not surprising for a code monkey who could not become a real engineer. FYI, Algera 1 is not where you learn proofs of anything. Algebra 1 means formulae and symbolic sustitutions. Logics and perhaps Geometry are where you learn proofs by logic. In any case, the false presumption in your thesis is that you are the omnipotent entity in charge of everyone else. That is the conceit of typical government worshippers.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 3:19pm
Neither you nor anyone else has even addressed the fact that if the Christian afterlife were real, then killing babies before they could sin is a moral imperative.
Why should I address that.
Because it is a proof by contradiction that the afterlife is a lie. Not addressing it is admitting that it is correct and there is no afterlife.
The one and only thing I have argued
You have argued quite a few things, but if you want to concede that the afterlife is a lie and a dangerous one then at least have the honesty to openly and clearly concede this. Otherwise, address the issue.
You have a rich fantasy life. Yes, I have repeated an assertion that you can not answer except with your own assertions, or diversions.
Marcus, are you capable of doing anything but making unfounded assertions? If you want to make a case that I have made an unfounded assertion than quote the specific alleged assertion and show why it's an assertion.
What you are doing now is simply contradiction, not argument. Granted, it's better than the ad hominem you typically do, but it's simply not good enough.
The difference between argument and contradiction.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y
You write thousands of words of jibberish psuedo logic pertaining to I don't know what.
Merely calling something jibberish or pseudo-logic does not make it so. If you are going to call someone's argument pseudo-logic then quote the specific alleged flaw and explain what logical fallacy is being committed. I do this to you all the time. To simply call some argument garbage and give no reason why is at best responding to tone in the argument pyramid.
You really need to get up to at least level 3, counterargument. Anything below that level is worthless.
marcus says
Sadly, I've repeated it many times because you either don't get it, or because you don't know how to just stop.
Honey, I've enumerated and refuted every one of your arguments labeling each argument and counter-argument. I really can't make the flow of the debate clearer than that. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
You are coming to your conclusion because you perceive yourself as the divine dispenser of death and life as you wish.
That's complete bullshit. As I've said a dozen times already to you, I am utterly irrelevant to the argument I am making.
Do you really have to resort to such transparent lies? Such lies indicate that you know you have no real way to address the proof by contradiction I submitted.
If you are not the divine dispenser of life and death, then you have no right to decide on whether to kill the baby. It is not your concern and not your problem. In fact, if you were religious, in many if not most religions, it's not even your right to kill yourself.
Dan8267
2014 Jan 29, 3:20pm
Very Chivalrous
Exactly... but remember the bodies don't matter as long as you save the souls....
The kind of thinking that promotes morality on earth.
Of course not, which is why if the Christian afterlife were not a lie, it would be a moral imperative to murder babies.
« First « Previous Comments 256 - 295 of 428 Next » Last » Search these comments
A 12-year-old girl whose father died, takes her own life in order to see her father again. Of course, she does not get to see her father again because there is no afterlife. Sure, the lie of the afterlife might numb the pain of loss for a child, but if that child actually believes the lie, she might act on it as this poor girl did.
Now, this isn't about blame. It's about not repeating the same mistake. Stop telling children the lie about there being an afterlife. The lie does far more damage than good.
The Young Turks discuss this issue including the clause about suicide written to discourage people from offing themselves during their productive and taxable years to get to paradise sooner.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_uWMOZ0vaCY
All the false comfort in all of history that the lie of an afterlife offered is outweighed by this one girl's death. The tally is negative for this alone, and I doubt very much that this is the first time in history someone has wasted his or her life because of the afterlife lie. It's just the first indisputable proof we've seen.