# Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical



## bellenuit (21 January 2014)

I have come across some interesting articles that don't easily fit into the Religion Is Crazy or The Beauty In Religion threads that sometimes relate to religion or the intersection of science and religion so I thought I would start a new thread so that these can be discussed.

- - - Updated - - -

*Newly translated and pre-Biblical tablet details a great flood, and a “rescue boat” with animals put aboard””in pairs!*

We’ve known since at least 1872 that the Great Flood detailed in Genesis is a descendant of earlier flood myths from Mesopotamia.  And there may be some credibility to the presence of at least some serious floods then, based on the fact that Mesopotamia is a giant flood plain and some archeological evidence for a big flood around 5000 BC. But what we didn’t know until now is that those earlier flood myths also incorporated a boat onto which local animals were sequestered to save them””two by two! More......

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/newly-translated-and-pre-biblical-tablet-details-a-great-flood-and-a-rescue-boat-with-animals-put-aboard-in-pairs/


----------



## Tink (21 January 2014)

Well done, bellenuit.

Now we can pick that apart


----------



## pavilion103 (21 January 2014)

What a staggering website to put this article on "Why Evolution is True"

Not too sure about the dates of Genesis too. Would have thought it was written closer to 1,400BC rather than around 500BC that they quote in the article. But a flood occurring in 5000BC supports the Genesis account.

If anything this account supports the Genesis flood account. So many independent ancient cultures have accounts of some sort of a global flood occurring around the 5000BC time. This would support the strength of the argument. All these cultures in agreeance with one another.

I thought your article must have been a creationist one. Bizarre that it's on an evolution website when it actually supports some sort of flood account! 

I guess people tend to whack up a bunch of text and draw whatever conclusion they want! Weird.


----------



## burglar (21 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Well done, bellenuit.
> 
> Now we can pick that apart




Onya Tink!


----------



## cynic (21 January 2014)

Great idea bellenuit. This will undoubtedly prove to be a very interesting thread!



Tink said:


> Well done, bellenuit.
> 
> Now we can pick that apart






burglar said:


> Onya Tink!




+1

That's the spirit folks!

I'm sure pav's going to have some fun also!


----------



## bellenuit (21 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> What a staggering website to put this article on "Why Evolution is True"




Since the Biblical account of Noah contradicts what we know of the evolution and migration of plants and animals, any article that emphasises the falseness of the Noah story would seem appropriate for a site called "Why Evolution Is True"



> But a flood occurring in 5000BC supports the Genesis account.
> 
> If anything this account supports the Genesis flood account. So many independent ancient cultures have accounts of some sort of a global flood occurring around the 5000BC time. This would support the strength of the argument. All these cultures in agreeance with one another.




Except that most Biblical scholars date Noah's flood at around 2500BC

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood

Also this......

_According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Irish archbishop and chronologist James Ussher, Bible historians and most conservative Christian scholars, the Flood of Noah's time occurred between 2500 BC and 2300 BC._

http://www.creationtips.com/flooddate.html

And accounts from various cultures of a great flood (global is putting it too strongly - their globe only consisted of the world that was accessible to their civilisation - in other words an area of probably 1000 km in radius at most) is vastly different to the myth of Noah's flood, which details the saving of all animals in existence by putting two of each on an ark. Yes, there were many floods as one would expect since _*Mesopotamia is a giant flood plain*_. Not surprising that stories of great floods would be common place.

What the article shows is that many of the stories of the Bible are just recreations of stories that were already part of theist mythologies relating to gods that had preceded the god of Abraham. Thus, as I detailed in a previous post, we have many god stories that include; virgin births, god trinities, atonement for sins of the world, being put to death and rising again (often 3 days later) etc. And as this article shows, it would appear that Noah's flood, though contrary to everything we know about the evolution and migration of animals, is also a copy of a previous theist myth.


----------



## Chris45 (22 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I thought I would start a new thread so that these can be discussed.



Bellenuit, excellent thread since science and religion seem to be coming together as we start thinking outside the box. I hope this thread grows and develops.

It's a damned shame that ignorant morons decided to burn down the Library of Alexandria in 391 AD or whenever. How many of today's questions would be answered if we had access to the documents it held? How much more advanced would we be today if brainless thugs hadn't held us back by executing intellectuals and burning books?

I remember the young Normie Rowe (aka the "Carnal Knowlege Boy" ... Ahhh, the days when "Carnal Knowlege" was a crime. Nowadays it's virtually compulsory. ) singing his version of "It Ain't Necessarily So" from the 1959 movie Porgy and Bess. The church people at the time thought it was the work of the Devil. Our understanding of the Old Testament has changed a lot since those days.


----------



## pavilion103 (22 January 2014)

Why do people still raise the point about the links with paganism?
Did this a dead argument. The differences are stark and easily explained. 

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-pagan-christianity.htm

Extensive. Should answer any questions posed.


----------



## Chris45 (22 January 2014)

Another example of creation and evolution working conjointly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/10584380/Why-robot-sex-could-be-the-future-of-life-on-earth.html



> Ultimately, the question whether self-reproducing robots will evolve or not boils down to the capability of artificial intelligence systems to self-improve. Only then could the “brains” of the robotic factory build evolved robots without the need of human designers.
> 
> It’s already happening. Machine learning has been around for years. New algorithms for data analysis, combined with increasing computer power and interconnectedness, means that intelligent machines will be able to comprehend massive amounts of contextual information. They would not only be able to understand what a piece of information is about, but how it relates to other information. The capability to understand correlations and get “the big picture” could potentially enable them to set their own goals. Already there are autonomous robotic systems that do that, military drones being an example. Self-improvement could be next.
> 
> ...




Anyone for "robot pr0n"?


----------



## burglar (22 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... Anyone for "robot pr0n"?




We have had that since the seventies! No spontaneity! No intimacy!


----------



## bellenuit (22 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Another example of creation and evolution working conjointly




As well as robots eventually having enough intelligence to "create" their own futures, humans are also now at a stage where they are no longer dependent on the two fundamentals of evolution - random mutation combined with natural selection. With our current knowledge of DNA and the current state of medical technology, man may soon be in a position to alter the DNA of our offspring to add desirable traits or eliminate undesirable traits. Random mutation may only partly determine what our offspring turn out to be. Natural selection is a probability game that favours certain traits over time, but if we know the environment under which natural selection operates, we can also load the dice in our favour by ensuring our offspring have those traits that are likely to be favoured. 

Whether this will be good or bad is hard to say. But it is something that will happen whether we like it or not.


----------



## bellenuit (22 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I remember the young Normie Rowe (aka the "Carnal Knowlege Boy" ... Ahhh, the days when "Carnal Knowlege" was a crime. Nowadays it's virtually compulsory. ) singing his version of "It Ain't Necessarily So" from the 1959 movie Porgy and Bess. The church people at the time thought it was the work of the Devil. Our understanding of the Old Testament has changed a lot since those days.




That's a song I have known all my life but never paid attention to the words until I played the links you gave. Though I can see why conservative Australians at the time might have been shocked by the words, I am surprised that it survived in the ultra conservative Bible belt USA. Looking at the history of the opera on Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be any mention of controversy surrounding that song. Perhaps they were more liberal in 1935.


----------



## sydboy007 (23 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Another example of creation and evolution working conjointly:
> 
> Nanotechnologists, like Eric Drexler, see the future of intelligent machines at the level of molecules: tiny robots that evolve and – like in Lem’s novel – come together to form intelligent superorganisms. Perhaps the future of artificial intelligence will be both silicon- and carbon-based: digital brains directing complex molecular structures to copulate at the nanometre level and reproduce. Perhaps the cyborgs of the future may involve human participation in robot sexual reproduction, and the creation of new, hybrid species.




It may more likely be a graphene (carbon) and carbon future with the way things are progressing with our understanding of graphene.  It will hopefully replace silicon in the not too distant future, help to make batteries recahrgable within seconds, has already allowed a 2/3 reduction in the size of super capacitors used within cameras and can hopefully be scaled up for grid storage based batteries.  Back in 2010 they got graphene based transistors running at 300GHz and expect them to allow terra hertz frequencies.  Combine those speed increases with whatever transistor size reductions we can get from current lithography processes and improvements in programming we might very well get the holy grail of AI good enough to fool a person in a conversation.



bellenuit said:


> As well as robots eventually having enough intelligence to "create" their own futures, humans are also now at a stage where they are no longer dependent on the two fundamentals of evolution - random mutation combined with natural selection. With our current knowledge of DNA and the current state of medical technology, man may soon be in a position to alter the DNA of our offspring to add desirable traits or eliminate undesirable traits. Random mutation may only partly determine what our offspring turn out to be. Natural selection is a probability game that favours certain traits over time, but if we know the environment under which natural selection operates, we can also load the dice in our favour by ensuring our offspring have those traits that are likely to be favoured.
> 
> Whether this will be good or bad is hard to say. But it is something that will happen whether we like it or not.




Makes me fear we're heading towards the star trek future of the Eugenics Wars, or maybe Gattaca where where non genetically modified people become second class citizens.  The utlimate class warfare that might mean within a few generations we have homo sapiens sapiens trying to coexist with homo sapiens enhanced.  

There's also the issue of the hundreds to thousands of viruses that have inserted their genetic code into our DNA.  Too much tinkering around and we may accidentally reactive a virus that has not been in the wild for tens of thousands of years, maybe longer.

I do look forward to a future where heart surgery is generally an injection into the heart of heart stem cells that repair the damage, same with getting a new tooth, kidney, liver etc.  Scientists have already done a 3D printing of a mini kidney.

I just hope it's not a future like Elysium that we're headed for.


----------



## Chris45 (23 January 2014)

DB008 said:


> Full Show: Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science, Religion and the Universe
> 
> [video=vimeo;84349929]http://vimeo.com/84349929#embed[/video]



With respect to DB008, I'm posting a reply here because I think this is the more appropriate thread for it. Here is the link to the original site that enables Full Screen view:
*http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-religion-and-the-universe/*

Excellent discussion, especially from about 16:45
_"So, this whole sort of reinterpretation of the, how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded. And so the educated religious people are perfectly fine with that. It's the fundamentalists who want to say that the Bible is the literally, literal truth of God, that and want to see the Bible as a science textbook, who are knocking on the science doors of the schools, trying to put that content in the science room. Enlightened religious people are not behaving that way. So saying that science is cool, we're good with that, and use the Bible for, to get your spiritual enlightenment and your emotional fulfillment."_

The Bible is not a science textbook and should not be treated as such. The Old Testament is probably best seen as an attempt to explain to the simple minded people of 2000+ years ago how we got here, using the best knowledge available at the time, as well as giving them some basic laws to live by and a carrot and stick approach to encouraging them to abide by them, in the absence of a sophisticated policing and legal system.

Two interesting programs on how to think of Old Testament stories:
The Prophets - Part One		*http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01mlxh2*
1/2 The story of Jonah and Isaiah, two of the prophets of Old Testament and their ideas 

The Prophets - Part Two		*http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01mzmnr*
2/2 The stories of the Prophets Miriam and Elijah of the Old Testament 

-------
These days, only fools dismiss fanciful ideas that they cannot understand, as impossible, and I believe it's best to keep an open mind about the Bible.

Since the introduction of String Theory and Edward Witten's M-theory in the '90s, there has been a growing consensus that multiple universes probably exist, but there is much debate about their nature and size. In that recent documentary "How Small Is the Universe?" it was suggested that a particle as small as a grain of sand could be an entire universe in itself. Mind bending!

Many scientists are convinced that with so many stars and planets in our universe, life as we know it must exist on another planet somewhere, but so far not one skerrick of evidence for it has been found.

It seems to me more likely that intelligent life, NOT as we know it, exists in a neighbouring universe in higher as yet undetected dimensions, and that it can travel between universes and may be responsible for life here on Earth.

Cold Spots were recently identified in the map of the cosmic background radiation generated from the data from the Planck satellite, which are thought to be evidence of collisions between other universes and ours as it formed during the Big Bang.
*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html*

M-theory physicists have speculated that gravitons, particles thought to carry the force of gravity, may "leak" into the fifth or higher dimensions, which would explain why our gravity is significantly weaker than the other three fundamental forces. By what path are they leaking I wonder?

Is our universe connected somehow to a neighbouring universe? In science fiction movies we've seen "space portals" through which the heroes move back and forth between worlds. Could they be possible?

Remember how science fiction often becomes science fact. H. G. Wells' fanciful space travel to the Moon, and his Martian death ray are now realities.
*http://www.army.mil/article/116740/...sfully_demonstrated_against_multiple_targets/*


----------



## Chris45 (23 January 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Makes me fear we're heading towards the star trek future of the Eugenics Wars, or maybe Gattaca where where non genetically modified people become second class citizens.  The utlimate class warfare that might mean within a few generations we have homo sapiens sapiens trying to coexist with homo sapiens enhanced.
> 
> There's also the issue of the hundreds to thousands of viruses that have inserted their genetic code into our DNA.  Too much tinkering around and we may accidentally reactive a virus that has not been in the wild for tens of thousands of years, maybe longer.
> 
> ...



A genetically modified world with more intelligent people and fewer violent thugs would be nice.

As for Elysium, that's quite possible where we're heading. 
*Eighty-five people control the same amount of wealth as half the world's population (3.5 billion).*
*http://www.smh.com.au/business/richest-85-boast-same-wealth-as-half-the-world-20140120-314vk.html*


----------



## spooly74 (24 January 2014)

New Theory of Life. 



> You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant




I quite like the idea. A thermodynamic inevitability.
Let there be light: and there was light.
Something for everyone.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/


----------



## pavilion103 (24 January 2014)

I'd need even one scientific example of life coming from non-life to believe that this is possible. Not one has ever been observed thus I have to follow the current scientific evidence that life does not come from non-life.

Speculation is always fun and interesting but I can't draw my conclusions based on them. I need tangible scientific evidence.


----------



## burglar (24 January 2014)

spooly74 said:


> ... A thermodynamic inevitability ...




If you knew for sure, you could be the first to say, "Let there be light."
And all your mates would think you were brilliant!! :


----------



## cynic (24 January 2014)

burglar said:


> If you knew for sure, you could be the first to say, "Let there be light."
> And all your mates would think you were brilliant!! :




Thanks for illuminating us!


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2014)

*What is Stigmata?*

http://www.livescience.com/42822-stigmata.html


----------



## Chris45 (25 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *What is Stigmata?*
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/42822-stigmata.html



Good question!!! 

In 1998, respected journalist Mike Willesee presented a controversial 2-hour TV program called _"Signs From God"_, a documentary purporting to test faith with science.  *http://www.youtube.com/user/pesaminotili?feature=watch*

He made a video _"A Plea To Humanity"_ *http://www.apleatohumanity.com/plea.htm*



> The Stigmata of Katya Rivas. True or false?
> 
> Mike Willesee made his first trip to Bolivia in July 1998. He went back in Holy Week of April 1999 bringing with him his own film crew to record the story for the Fox Network Television Program. He was hoping that Katya would have the stigmata on Good Friday of that week and that he would be able to film it. The day before Good Friday, Katya said to Mr Willesee that she had had a message from Jesus saying that she would not have the stigmata the next day but that she would have it on the Friday following the Feast of Corpus Christi (which would make it Friday, 4th June 1999, some two months away) and that he could return then and film what happens.
> 
> ...




What he witnessed was enough to drastically change his thinking, as he revealed to ABC journalist Geraldine Doogue.  *http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s802380.htm*


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2014)

I haven't watched the documentary yet, but did some research. This is an interesting article I found (it is better to read at the URL, as there are links from there to supporting articles that don't get reproduced in my cut and paste:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk9.html#stigmata

*July 28, 1999. Fox (Alien) Network's "Signs From God: Science Tests Faith" should have been called "Dollar Signs: Fox Tests Gullibility."*

Giselle Fernandez and Michael Willesee took viewers on an uncritical tour through exotic places like Cochabamba, Bolivia, and Monterrey, Mexico, to "scientifically" examine an uneducated woman who writes books in Greek and Latin, dictated to her by Jesus, and who is filmed while apparently undergoing a stigmata; weeping and bleeding statues; and rose petals with "miraculous" images of Jesus and Mary. The show was truly a worthy follow-up to Fox's presentation of the Alien Autopsy and Miracles and Visions films of a few years ago. (I especially liked the authentic touch of having a commercial for a film called "Stigmata.")

The program was mostly a rehash of "For All Humanity," a film produced several years ago by Ron Tesoriero, an Australian lawyer, about Catalina "Catia" Rivas, the bleeding statue of Cochambamba, and Nancy Fowler, a nurse who started having visions in 1985 and began causing traffic jams near Conyers Hill in Georgia when word got out that the the Virgin Mary was appearing there on the 13th of the month. (The 13th is special for Maryvisions since she allegedly appeared to three children in Fatima, Portugal, on the 13th of May, 1917.) One hoped that some mention would be made of Our Lady of Watsonville or of the "victim soul" of Audrey Santo, but Willesee dumped the Tesoriero segment on Fowler and only added one on Mexican rose petals impressed with medals.

The program's credibility depends heavily upon the reputations of Fox and Willesee. Fernandez does not pretend to be anything more than the host, even if a gushing and fulsome one. Fox has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted. Thus, the credibility of the program rests with Willesee. Who is he?

Willesee is introduced by Fernandez as an "internationally respected journalist" and declares that it is "an honor to work alongside" him. She proclaims that he is renowned for his "skepticism and investigative abilities." That should soon change. He is not much of a skeptic, even though his reporting on such topics as psychic ability, dowsing, and acupuncture earned him the 1987 Responsibility in Journalism Award from CSICOP. (He is a respected broadcaster in Australia.) The program demonstrates that he is not much of an investigator. His honesty might be questioned as well, based on the fact that he does not mention Tesoriero or his work by name, though Willesee's program is largely a rip-off of the lawyer's documentary on "scientifically inexplicable happenings." Willesee only says that "a lawyer" got him interested in the subject and states that his own film was "seven years in the making." The bulk of "Signs from God," however, revisits Tesoriero's work on Catia (identified as "Katya" by Fox), including interviews with the same "experts", such as Dr. Ricardo CastoÃ±an, a Bolivian psychologist who claims he's investigated many miraculous claims and found that most of them were authentic. The credits for the program state that Michael Willesee Sr. is the executive producer and that he wrote the program with Brian Brown. Mike Jr. is listed as a supervising producer and Jo Willasee is listed as doing research. Tesoriero is listed as one of the "segment producers." That is the only recognition he is given.

Willesee was an Australian television broadcaster who did a Current Affairs program for some thirty years before quitting. He found God and returned to the Catholicism of his youth (though he's been divorced twice) due to his belief that God intervened and saved him from dying in a plane crash in 1998. In 1997, he was listed as one of the top 200 richest men in Australia by Business Review Weekly. Things got even better in 1998. After making a few dollars in radio and real estate investments, he turned to film making. His first film was on "primitive tribes."

Willasee's critical skills were revealed early with his comment on the main proof that Jesus dictates books on theology in Greek to "Katya" Rivas: she has the "imprimatur" of the local bishop. Maybe he doesn't know what an imprimatur is. It is not a seal of approval that a miraculous claim has been authenticated. The imprimatur indicates only that the material is doctrinally sound, not heresy, according to an official censor. Later, he asserts that he believes that blood from a "bleeding" statue of Jesus, which was determined by a scientific lab test to be the blood of a human female, was that of the Virgin Mary! Even Fernandez balked at that speculation. (He also had a CAT scan done of the "bleeding weeping" statue, but for what reason one can only guess.) When two scientists reproduced holy images on rose petals by pressing holy medals into the petals, Willasee commented that they didn't "completely answer" the question of whether the Monterrey, Mexico, petals were authentic. He also claims that since the Mexican rose petals were not for sale, there was no possible motive for deceit. Hence, he believes God is involved in their production. This naive notion that if money is not a motive, the probability that the "miracle" is authentic increases, was stated at the top of the program by Willasee. (He also is impressed if the claimant does not have a "cult" following and is humble.) He seem completely oblivious to the possibility of pious fraud or mental disorders that might motivate a person to deceive for Jesus.)

Finally, Willasee's objectivity, skepticism, and critical skills should be questioned if only because the film is so one-sidedly Catholic. Not only do his alleged miracles that science can't explain only involve Catholics, his experts are Catholics, including the one expert he brings in as a skeptic, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, editor of "The Catholic Answer."

Nevertheless, even a pious though uncritical investigator who thinks he is doing God's work might stumble upon a true miracle. Does Willasee's film demonstrate anything of interest to those looking for a miracle? To me, the only miracle is that anyone takes his work seriously.

The program made it clear at both the beginning and the end that there is some connection between natural disasters and claims of apparitions of Jesus and Mary. I can understand the dramatic effect of trying to connect apparent apparitions with doomsday prophecies and the spate of bad weather we've had on this planet during the last decade. It is easy to get people to think of weather and natural disasters in terms of human time, rather than geologic time. Comparisons of one decade with another or even one century with another are, however, misleading. Which assumption do you prefer: an All-Good God created the world in such a way that floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tidal waves, etc., would be a regular feature of life on earth; or, an All-Good God created the world as a benign place but intentionally destroys us on a regular basis to remind us to stop sinning? I think both views are absurd. Even more absurd, however, is the belief that God picks obscure people to reveal special messages to us, such as "repent" and "Remember: I came to save you."

The film itself does not provide anything of interest except as a lesson in how not to do a scientific investigation of such matters. For example, the main proof that the voices Katya hears (giving her theology lessons in Spanish, Greek and Latin) and the images she sees are not delusions or hallucinations or lies is that when she was given an EEG she produced measurable delta waves while awake. (Delta waves usually occur only during sleep.) If this segment was authentic, all it proves is that Katya has an abnormal brain. Where is the Rosetta stone that declares that God speaks in delta waves? (Note: the film was edited to make it appear that Katya and the doctor performing the EEG [who, for some reason, was in another room behind a soundproof glassed enclosure] were communicating telepathically. We have Mr. Willesee's word that there was telepathic communication regarding whether Katya has epilepsy.*)

The segment of the film likely to persuade uncritical viewers that they have witnessed a miracle is the stigmata segment. Some effort went into priming the viewer by stating that the Catholic Church had authenticated some twelve cases of stigmata, including St. Francis of Assisi and Padre Pio. Without belaboring the point, Katya dictated the conditions for the event (telling everyone that Jesus was dictating when and where it would happen). The film showed her before, during and after the event. At the start, she has scars, but no bleeding wounds on her hands and feet. During the film she starts to show scratches on her face and hands, then bleeding from slashes, not punctures, from her hands and feet. A blood sample is taken and proves to be almost certainly her own blood. Willesee indicates that he expected the blood to be Jesus's! He asserts "there's no way" [the wounds] were self-inflicted."

How thorough was this investigation? First, the film clearly shows that Katya has a rosary with a holy medal wrapped around her left hand and a white cloth clutched in her right hand. On each hand, she is wearing a ring with a protruding setting. Her first wounds are some scratches on her right temple. These are declared by an observer priest to be "consistent" with the crown of thorns wounds of Jesus. Her largest facial wound, however, was on her left cheek. Is this a new wound that Jesus had, that no one knew about until now? Could she have cut herself with her rings, fingernails, toenails, rosary, something concealed in the white cloth? Of course. Did the investigator make sure she had no sharp objects available to her? No. Did they use several cameras, focusing on her hands and feet at all times, to detect any self-mutilation? No. The cameras focused almost exclusively on her agonizing face and the agonized faces of those watching her suffer. Did they try to duplicate her wounds by using only rings, finger and toe nails, and a rosary? No. Did they even try to duplicate a single scratch using such primitive implements? No. Did they identify any medications Rivas takes and whether she took her meds that day? (Does she take blood thinners, diuretics, etc.?) What kind of investigation was this? If this was the "thorough expert analysis" promised us by Fernandez at the top of the show, then new meaning has been given to that expression. The only thing Willasee did that was remotely scientific was to have the blood tested. The results of that test? Well, they are consistent with self-mutilation. Where I come from self-mutilation is a symptom of a mental disorder. That does not mean that Rivas does not suffer real agony. Her suffering is most likely authentic, unlike the investigation of Michael Willasee.

(Note: Two Australian readers responded and both claim that Willesee left his current affairs program under less than honorable circumstances. They say he appeared on TV appearing to be drunk; Willesee claims he was on medication and was tired and emotional. Matt Crowe described the scene this way:

[Willesee] appeared one day looking very dazed. In between stories he was slurring, mumbling and giggling. Then it all became too much and he burst into uncontrollable laughter for several minutes. He kept trying to compose himself but it was no good. At one stage he had almost fallen off his chair.

Andrew Dare put it this way:

[Willesee] claimed to have taken some medicine, but the fact that he was on air, slurry, giggling and almost falling over ruined his credibility. That show was going downhill anyway into the "We put a suit in to be dry-cleaned with $50 in the pocket and 9/10 drycleaners took the money" and "New diet pills - do they really work - our scientific tests (i.e. they hire a guy in a lab coat with a clipboard) prove it" sort of stories.

Mr. Willesee is probably still giggling and falling off his chair at how gullible Americans are and at how ready the Fox Alien Network is to take advantage of that fact.

further reading:  

Nickell, Joe. Looking For A Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions and Healing Cures (Prometheus Books: Buffalo,N.Y., 1993).

James Randi on the Fox fiasco
CSICOP Response to Fox's Signs From God: Science Tests Faith
reader comments

One reader, Ermanno D'Annunzio of Adelaide, South Australia, thought the above critique was incomplete. He wanted to know how I could explain the "colored crystals" that appeared on a floor painting. I don't know why I should try to explain it, since Willesee didn't offer any explanation himself. We were told that the glitter miraculously appeared on a print of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Nevertheless, anybody can put glitter on a print. Nothing miraculous about that. Mr. D'Annunzio wants to know how pictures can cry and how a tear got on a print of the Virgin Mary that was under glass. There are many ways to make statues or prints appear to cry, none of them too miraculous. For example, you can surreptitiously dab, squirt or spray water or salt water on the object. We'll never know what method was used in this case because Willesee didn't follow anything resembling a scientific method to investigate the matter. We were asked to take it on faith, on the word of a person who says it's true. Finally, Mr. D'Annunzio is puzzled by how quickly the alleged stigmatic's wounds healed. Since we only have the word of Willesee that the after pictures were taken the day after the wounds appeared, we don't have a very reliable source for this claim. But even if he isn't lying, there is nothing miraculous about wounds healing quickly, especially if they are superficial wounds (mere scratches). Wounds can appear to be worse than they are in some people because they are taking medications that thin the blood. A tiny cut can emit a quantity of blood that indicates a larger wound. Also, makeup can do wonders to hide scratches, marks, blemishes and other signs of our humanity.

26 Dec 2000 (Fox Network re-ran the program just before Christmas, complete with "live" on screen during the showing!)

Re: your attempt to disprove the story of Katya Rivas aired on Fox.

Just wondering if you have actually looked at or read the writings of this woman? What do you make of a woman with a high school education writing things like this? In these languages etc. ? Her writings are located at www.greatcrusade.org. What is your explanation for this? So far, we really haven't seen hard core proof from you that any of this didn't occur. The public is not stupid. We all realize that there are elaborate hoaxes out there but the point of faith is believing in what we can see right?

reply: I took at look at the writing posted at the site you mention and found nothing unusual about them coming from a woman with a high school education. Anyone raised Catholic who has heard priestly devotees of Mary preach would be familiar with the messages of her "writings".

You are right. The public is not stupid, but the public's faith can be easily manipulated by a pious fraud with accomplices like Giselle Fernandez and Michael Willesee.

update June 27, 2001. Rivas has been accused of plagiarizing her "messages" from God, taking them from JosÃ© H. Prado Flores book Formacion de pedicadores (Training preachers), published six years before Catia's "messages." See Funk 21.


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2014)

One of the links from the previous article:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk21.html#rivas

June 22, 2001. Two years ago, in a review of a Fox network pseudo-documentary, I suggested that the alleged stigmatic Catalina ("Catia" or "Katya") Rivas was either deranged or a pious fraud or both. Now she is accused of being a plagiarist. Catia claims she gets messages from God and these have been published, causing amazement among her followers that such an illiterate woman could write such literate prose. Guadalajaran writer JosÃ© H. Prado Flores claims Katya's messages are photocopies of his book Formacion de pedicadores (Training preachers), published six years before Catia's "messages." She was scheduled to speak in Guadalajara a couple of weeks ago, but the show was cancelled by Juan Cardenal Sandoval IÃ±iguez, the  bishop of Guadalajara, after Prado Flores and a friend showed the bishop his work and the book Catia was claiming to have written from divine inspiration.

Unrepentant, Catia has accused Prado Flores of stealing her visions. (Perhaps he dipped into the Akashic record!)

Well, at least that is the story of Prado Flores, a Catholic writer who described himself in an e-mail to me as "a writer of books oriented to forming leaders in the Catholic Church."


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2014)

I've skipped through the docu, watching bits here and there and then watched in its entirety the part where the stigmata appear.

A few general observations I would make. Firstly it's Fox, probably the most unreliable network in the US when it comes to presenting the truth. It is also a network that panders to the Christian Right in a big way. It's also a typically lead the audience on for an horrendous amount of time before getting to the meaty bits - but then there is ad revenue to consider. 

Regarding the actual stigmata segment, many sceptics have pointed out that considering all the expense they went to to produce the docu, they actually omit what everyone wants to see. The actual stigmata appearing from nothing or from just minor wounds. They just cut between stigmata that are already in progress and not once showed, for instance, the skin breaking to produce the cut on her right forehead and the one on her left cheek. Apparently when confronted about this, the producer said it would have made the video too long. As someone posted on another forum: _"The problem is, that someone DID catch a plane to Bolivia and also brought a camera crew. Yet, he didn't show the wounds appearing from nowhere. The whole, 'It woud be hours of video' is incorrect. Have you ever seen those videos of a flower blooming? Its quite straight forward to speed up a video." _ 

There is also, as many others pointed out, the number of sharp objects she had in her hands (rings, rosaries with crucifixes) that could cause self inflicted wounds. A proper scientific study, as the docu claims to be, would never allow that. Additionally, I believe (I didn't get to this part but read it elsewhere) that the blood tests showed it to be hers (or a female) rather than that of Jesus. She said that it would be that of Jesus and since she claims to talk to him on a regular basis, then one would assume she would know. Being her own blood would be consistent with self inflicted wounds.

I think the other link that showed her writings to be plagiarised throws doubt on the whole story. The fact that no proper scientific study was done, other than what Fox and Willesee regard as scientific, gives me no reason so far to accept the claims as true. The docu had all the hallmarks of typical tabloid journalism that tries to lead you to a conclusion that they want you to believe. 

I personally will await something more convincing before I would accept her claims.


----------



## Chris45 (26 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> This is an interesting article I found



I'm not sure what to make of this stigmata phenomenon, but any fool can be an armchair skeptic and pour scorn on the people involved in making a documentary and ask a few questions and then dismiss the entire work as a hoax. I didn't like his scornful language and I didn't find his critique at all useful.

I note this comment from _apleatohumanity.com_:



> By the next morning the injuries she had to her body had completely healed. (The medical opinion is that the wounds like she had should have taken at least 4 to 6 weeks to heal).
> 
> There were at least 9 people in the room who witnessed Katya experience the stigmata that day. Not only was there Mike Willesee and myself, but Greg Barbara, (an Australian 60 Minutes cameraman), his sound recorder, Ralph Steele, Neuropsychophysiologist, Dr Ricardo Castanon, and other people.
> 
> ...




It's very easy to cast doubts, but if these skeptics could *prove* that the stigmata phenomenon was faked, and get off their backsides and demonstrate exactly how it was done, I'd be more interested.

If it's faked, there must be some illusionists out there who know every trick in the book and could explain precisely how it was faked, and accurately duplicate the trick like they do with exposing the tricks that have been created by the world's best magicians in _"Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed"_.

They could even make their own documentary and sell it to one of Fox's rivals.


----------



## bellenuit (26 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> It's very easy to cast doubts, but if these skeptics could *prove* that the stigmata phenomenon was faked, and get off their backsides and demonstrate exactly how it was done, I'd be more interested.




Well James Randi is a sceptic who does it all the time. He is renowned for exposing Uri Geller, the famous spoon bender (of the 70s) and tele-evangelist Peter Popoff, plus innumerable psychics. His foundation has a long standing $1M prize (on offer for decades now) for any psychic / faith healer etc. who will prove their art is not fraudulent under proper scientific lab conditions. It has yet to be won. Many of the more publicly famous healers and psychics have on TV said they will accept the challenge, but invariable subsequently find an excuse not to attend when they do not have a camera fronting them

I haven't found anything on Randi exposing Stigmata, but this is a famous one of his exposing psychic surgery, a phenomena that seems to only occur in The Philippines.




This is him doing a short expose on Gellar, but there are lots more on YouTube if you search their names.



To me the obvious giveaway as mentioned by many is the fact that they do not show the bleeding commencing, they only show it in progress. 



> It is interesting that not one of those journalists or critics has asked to see the raw footage of what was professionally filmed of what actually happened.




Well, we have only their word to take for that and as I believe they are part of this fraud, their word means little IMO. *If the raw  footage shows something that proves the bleeding started spontaneously, then why don't they put the footage on YouTube.* Any documentary that omits the most crucial part of their proof, with just a feeble explanation as to why they didn't show it, is highly suspect.

You have asked for sceptics to show how they could have faked the stigmata. You have already seen Randi expose the psychic healers, with the cameras on him all the time, so it hardly takes much imagination to see how the lady could simply scratch her forehead and cheek with her ring or rosary parts, particularly when that action was off camera.

Then there are the plagiarised texts. I didn't watch the full video (too long), but did they actually show her at any stage composing something original in Greek or Latin or was it just after the fact claims.

It really comes down to to whom to give the benefit of the doubt. Have seen such quackery exposed innumerable times, I certainly take the side of the sceptics.


----------



## bellenuit (26 January 2014)

> Also what these critics have conveniently failed to consider, is that if they believe Katya or someone else somehow inflicted these severe wounds on her without the camera or the witnesses noticing, how did she make those wounds heal completely overnight as they did?




This could partly explain how she did it....

_More recently, Fox Television showed a documentary featuring a woman named Katia Rivas in South America, who exhibited stigmata, and they actually filmed her undergoing the stigmata on cue. 

But she was writhing around under bedcovers in ways that I felt suggested she might be inflicting her own wounds. The wounds were discrete, linear, slash-like marks; whereas, if they were the wounds of Christ they should be puncture wounds. 

She also had scars from previous bouts that made the back of her hand look crisscrossed with marks as if from a series of cuts. In Skeptical Inquirer magazine I reproduced some of her wounds on myself, by cutting myself, showing that you can produce a small cross on the back of your hand. It was actually a very superficial cut, but you can get quite a bit of blood from that. Then you can transfer it, say, by pressing your thumb against the wound and turning your hand over and pressing your thumb against your palm. You now have a splotch of blood on the front and back of your hand that looks like a through-and-through wound. 

Later, as was the case with Katia Rivas, the palm wound will be "miraculously" healed, because, of course, it was never there. And the superficial wound on the back of the hand will already begin to heal the next day. In studying her wounds, for example, I noticed that the wound on top of her foot was far out of alignment with the wound on the bottom of her foot. These kinds of anomalies make one suspicious that these are probably self-inflicted wounds. _

http://www.semperficatholic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4508


----------



## bellenuit (26 January 2014)

*Farce-of-the-Week via Fox-TV*

_But the big feature of this ninety-minute fiasco, was the production of "stigmata" on the hands and feet of SeÃ±ora Rivas, as she lay abed for three and one-half hours, after announcing that she would exhibit the wounds of Christ -- a common claim among saintly folks. While Willesee ran on about how closely they were watching the woman, which was obviously a hollow claim, since she tossed and turned and was embraced and tended to by family all the way through the process, we were shown intermittent glimpses of her face, as well as her hands and feet. At one point, a small cross shaped mark appeared at one of the critical points, looking very much like the results of shallow incisions. These could of course have easily been inflicted by the woman herself. When these tiny wounds began to produce blood, Willesee piously dabbed up minute samples using Q-tips. These were subsequently presented to their forensic expert, and to the great disappointment of the hosts, were identified as being of human female origin. The forensic expert was rather cut off in mid-opinion, just as very interesting things might have been pronounced about the samples. Please note: a doctor was not called in, nor was any present. The family and several priests were there, along with Michael Willesee, as if that were sufficient expertise for them to employ in this unremarkable demonstration.

It is interesting to note that at one point, they got carried away in a zeal of scientific exuberance, and actually had their representative in Bolivia place a few rose petals, live on camera, into the pages of a Bible. This was to discover whether or not a mysterious representation of a divine figure would show up when the petals were later examined. We never found out whether magical forces had performed this feat, because they never went back to it. Gee! I wonder if it worked?

Much was made of the fact that several religious statuettes in the Rivas household were dripping tears and blood, presumably originating from Jesus Christ. Well, the blood tests proved negative in that respect, but still the mystery remained about how the liquids got there in the first place. Now, I don't think you have to be an intellectual giant to come up with a solution to this problem. Of course, the Fox TV people opted to send one of the figures to a prestigious laboratory and have it CAT-scanned. As usual, the emphasis was placed upon super- technology, and not upon simple expert examination. The CAT-scan, not to my surprise, revealed no "mechanism" whatsoever that could have produced the two liquids. But when I was visited here at the JREF offices in Florida by a video crew who were preparing an item for local television, I was able to cause a statute -- one that they purchased and brought with them -- to weep uncontrollably at will. I simply squirted the figure surreptitiously, and the liquid ran down the face and arms quite convincingly. At that same session, I caused "holy oil" (actually Mazola) to appear between the glass of a picture frame and the picture inside. It was done by simple trickery, and looked just as good as any of the miracles shown on the Fox TV presentation. No, better.

I can only brand this shameful farce as the most obvious hoax since the "Alien Autopsy" was given to us, and please note that this, too, was the product of Fox TV. It appears that the American public never tires of nonsense, and so long as that hunger persists, Fox Television will be there to supply it.

Finally, I direct your attention to the examination of SeÃ±ora Rivas's "stigmata" the day after she had been "afflicted with the wounds of Christ." Here, as if we needed it, was the definitive evidence that the SeÃ±ora was perpetrating a blatant hoax on us. The extreme close-up video shots we were offered clearly showed a series of tiny incisions, not any sort of a puncture wound that we might expect if we were viewing a genuine phenomenon. This woman was showing us self-inflicted cuts and any medically informed person could have testified to that fact. But we were not offered the privilege of such expert assistance because that would have evaporated this miracle, as it would have done to all the other farces that we were shown._

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip...PERIENCE/ch3-Farce-of-the-Week via Fox-TV.pdf


----------



## Chris45 (26 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I haven't found anything on Randi exposing Stigmata, but this is a famous one of his exposing psychic surgery, a phenomena that seems to only occur in The Philippines.



Yes, and I'm a bit skeptical that Graham Norton really executed famous young Daniel Radcliffe under the guillotine on QI a couple of years ago, but you never know to what lengths these TV stations will go to get ratings, even the BBC! 



Why on Earth you bring Uri Geller and Filipino psychic surgery into the discussion is beyond me. I thought we were discussing Willesee's stigmata documentary.



> In Skeptical Inquirer magazine I reproduced some of her wounds on myself, by cutting myself, showing that you can produce a small cross on the back of your hand. It was actually a very superficial cut, but you can get quite a bit of blood from that. Then you can transfer it, say, by pressing your thumb against the wound and turning your hand over and pressing your thumb against your palm. You now have a splotch of blood on the front and back of your hand that looks like a through-and-through wound.
> 
> Later, as was the case with Katia Rivas, the palm wound will be "miraculously" healed, because, of course, it was never there. And the superficial wound on the back of the hand will already begin to heal the next day. In studying her wounds, for example, I noticed that the wound on top of her foot was far out of alignment with the wound on the bottom of her foot. These kinds of anomalies make one suspicious that these are probably self-inflicted wounds.




According to Ron Tesoriero, amongst the 9 people in the room who witnessed Katya experience the stigmata was Dr. Ricardo Castanon, a professor of Neuropsychophysiology at the Catholic University of Bolivia, formerly a professor in different State Universities in Italy and Germany, and author of many books and scientific articles on the brain, stress and the nervous system. You can read a bit about him here:  http://the-anointed-one.com/BBU84/biblicalstupidity/science.htm

I find it inconceivable that none of them, especially Dr. Castanon, would pick up on a simple trick like the one described above.

And do you really believe that Mike Willesee would throw away his hard earned credibility and reputation on such an obvious hoax?

These skeptics are so pathetic, they're laughable. 

I suppose they'll also suggest that there was a secret compartment under the bed with a hidden doctor or someone creating the wounds and that they used lasers to magically heal the wounds overnight. You know it's really amazing what they can do with lasers these days!


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Yes, and I'm a bit skeptical that Graham Norton really executed famous young Daniel Radcliffe under the guillotine on QI a couple of years ago, but you never know to what lengths these TV stations will go to get ratings, even the BBC!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The reason I showed the video of Randi is because you asked why the sceptics don't demonstrate how the lady could do what she claims had been done to her. Doing what she did was so trivial, given the cameras were never on her relevant parts at the critical times, I assumed you would too find it trivial when you saw how Randi could expose how another type of religious fraud could be done, even though it was far more complex to do and all the time under the gaze of the camera.  

Don't be impressed by names. Dr. Ricardo Castanon was also taken in by the texts that supposedly were direct from Jesus, unaware they were plagiarised. He is also hardly an unbiased observer since he is in the business of religious phenomena and makes his money from such claims.

When it comes to integrity, Fox has none. As for Mike Willesee, he has nothing to lose by this program and a lot to gain. It doesn't matter that the program may have been rigged by him and his crew, no one will be able to prove otherwise. He had a chance to show the stigmata forming under the view of the camera and didn't do it. There is absolutely no excuse for why that wasn't shown and still has not been shown. No matter what sceptics come up with there will always be believers who will believe no matter what, so being regarded as a fake by one group in society hardly matters in the integrity stakes if the majority simply accept what is fed up to them.

Carl Sagan said: _extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence_. This program made extraordinary claims regarding Rivas but failed miserably to provide video evidence of the actual stigmata happening despite the resources spent producing the program. One is constantly being led on by Willesee to accept what HE is saying as being what is happening, yet they could simply have shown her hands and feet and face constantly for the first few minutes of the stigmata forming that would not have required the viewer to take his word. He confirms in the docu that he was there "watching the wounds spring from nothing". Did we see that? No.

Then there are some other issues, in addition to those raised in previous posts. We are told the wounds cleared by the next day. One of the previous posts showed how a sceptic was able to create a lot of blood by making a very superficial wound and use that same blood to create an apparent wound elsewhere on his body. The latter was able to be washed off immediately and the former cleared the next day. But my question would be.... if the wounds formed spontaneously, why didn't they disappear spontaneously? Why did they need a day? The answer is quite clear. While you can make a superficial wound appear spontaneously (by scratching yourself with a ring say), that same wound cannot be cleared spontaneously. It requires time. And BTW, did they check that the wounds had gone. They just looked at her hands and feet but didn't, for instance, use a wet cloth to wipe any concealing makeup that might have been applied.

The other thing is that although the program claimed to be a scientific investigation it was most certainly not. We have the lack of critical video footage; the subject being allowed to wear instruments that could be used to self-inflict a wound (since Jesus had indicated that he would cause the stigmata that day and time, then these would not have been needed, would they?); the superficial checking that the wounds had gone next day; the lack of credible sceptics (Willasee apparently is to be accepted as one sceptic, even though he has a vested interest in the docu, the other being a catholic priest who was interviewed after the event); no testing for blood thinners which could have been taken hours before the event and would contribute to a lot of blood from just minor cuts (I am on them and know the effect of just nicking myself shaving); the subject being cradled and closely surrounded by relatives; the dramatic effect of the priest praying (again not necessary as Jesus said it would happen); etc, etc

This was a program made by several people and associates that have a vested interest in having the stigmata appear genuine. 

As a sceptic, my starting point is show me the evidence and I will believe the claim if I deem such evidence credible. I check to see if it could be done fraudulently. I look at those involved and check if they have a vested interest in the claims appearing to be true. I look at plausibility - what is more likely - a supernatural event has occurred or a hoax has been perpetrated by all or a few of those involved. There is nothing in that video that would give me a reason to accept the claims made and my opinion is that it is a fraud, perpetrated by Willasee, a few of his relatives who are also involved in the production, Rivas herself (we know she faked the texts) and perhaps a few of the others present. They all have a strong motivation to make the stigmata appear to be true. I don't know what Fox's involvement is, they just seek to maximise their audience, so probably thought Willasee's docu to be something that would do that. It is interesting that the interview by the Fox presenter of Wilasee didn't raise any issues similar to what the sceptics found suspect. Of course it is in their interest not to cast doubt on Willasee's video, so that's probably why.

However thanks for the link as I will be curious to see how that story evolves. 

What I do find interesting though is that since much of the criticism directed at that video is valid (though you most likely disagree with that statement) and the docu is clearly in the style of tabloid journalism (which doesn't prove it wrong but doesn't give it much credibility) why hasn't the Catholic Church subjected Rivas to a proper scientific study that would prove the Stigmata are real? 15 years is a long time to leave people in suspense, particularly when it has the potential to bring a lot of people back to the fold or even attract new believers. I suspect the smart ones in the RC are on the sceptics side.


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2014)

A more recent update on Katya Rivas (from Catholic Planet) .....

*In my humble and pious opinion as a faithful Roman Catholic theologian, the messages and claimed private revelation to Catalina Rivas, a.k.a. Katya or Catia, (http://www.greatcrusade.org) are false and are not from Heaven. A list of reasons and examples follows.*

more......

http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false54.htm

Some other interesting stuff from another Jesus and Mary visionary (it is not just the atheists that are sceptics) ....

_Fowler says that soon after what she says was her final vision of Mary last October -- an event that drew more than 300,000 to her farmhouse -- the Hughes began working with Catalina Rivas, a Bolivian woman who claims to have visions of Jesus Christ. She also claims to have experienced stigmata, or spontaneous bleeding from the palms, while visiting the ''Holy Hill'' in Conyers, about 35 miles east of Atlanta. *Fowler says she has never believed Rivas was genuine*, and has doubts about why the Hughes have started following her.

   ''It just makes me think they want to keep the commercialization going even more,'' Fowler says._

http://onlineathens.com/stories/090599/new_0905990011.shtml


----------



## Ruby (27 January 2014)

Bellenuit, I'm with you.  I  just want to add two comments:- 1. ALL cases of stigmata and spontaneous bleeding of holy statues are eventually proven to be hoaxes or to have a mundane explanation, and 2. Mike Willasee has been around for a long time and has shown himself on many occasions to have doubtful credibility.   Ho hum.... there is always something around to fool the gullible.


----------



## Chris45 (27 January 2014)

As I said earlier, I'm not sure what to make of this stigmata phenomenon, but from what I could see, Rivas' hands, feet and head were clearly visible throughout the ordeal and if she had been cutting herself it would surely have been quite obvious to all around her and there would be no documentary. If they were going to fake something surely they could come up with something a bit more imaginative than that. Even 15 yrs ago, video manipulation would have allowed for something much more impressive.

There have been many attempted hoaxes and magic tricks over the years, including the ridiculous images of Jesus or Mary on pieces of toast, etc, and they've all been exposed as such fairly quickly. If the stigmata phenomenon was all a hoax as the skeptics claim, it should be quite easy to create a convincing reenactment, like Randi did with the Filipino psychic surgery. Why has this not been done?

As I also said earlier, any fool can be an armchair skeptic and dismiss everything as a hoax. Some fools even believe the moon landing never occurred and it was all an elaborate Hollywood stunt. I must confess I'm one of the gullible ones who believe that the landings did occur. 

No one will ever be able to prove the existence of God beyond doubt. That's not what faith is all about.

If Jesus came back to Earth and I snapped a selfie of us with our arms around each other's shoulders and posted it here, you'd all scream "FAKE!!!", "PHOTOSHOP!!!"

If God appeared in the sky in some unmistakable form, from horizon to horizon, you'd all just dismiss it as a clever laser trick.

If you are a committed atheist and skeptic, then nothing will change your mind because every paranormal event will have an alternative explanation, no matter how weak or pathetic, and you will be happy to embrace such explanations because they support your position. But, until such time that it's proven to be a hoax, I will hold the view that the stigmata could be true and maintain an open mind. I haven't bothered to read all of the other stuff about texts and statues etc. but if the stigmata is a hoax, prove it by creating a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult. 

I believe the old saying (based on Jeremiah 5:21, I think) holds true, _"There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear"_.


----------



## Ruby (27 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ................if the stigmata is a hoax, prove it by creating a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult..........




It works the other way round, Chris.  If people staging these elaborate hoaxes want to be believed, they need to prove it.    Those of us who know it is a stunt, or product of a deluded mind, don't need proof.


----------



## burglar (27 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult ...




What I heard (and believe to be true): 

A nail in the palm would not hold the weight 
and would rip the flesh and tendons.

You cannot convince me to do a reenactment. :


----------



## Chris45 (27 January 2014)

Ruby said:


> If people staging these elaborate hoaxes want to be believed, they need to prove it.



Ruby, as I said, no one will ever be able to prove the existence of God beyond doubt to convince committed atheists, and you've made your position about God very clear.

As Robert Ripley said, "Believe It or Not!" and you have been given the free will to make your choice.

Blaise Pascal was not a fool and I've read enough in the last few month's to convince me that his wager is definitely worth taking. If I'm wrong I will have lost nothing, but if you're wrong, ... well I wouldn't like to be going where I think you'll be going.

I'm certainly not trying to convert you because I think that would be an exercise in futility but, just out of interest, what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?


----------



## Chris45 (27 January 2014)

burglar said:


> What I heard (and believe to be true):
> 
> *A nail in the palm would not hold the weight and would rip the flesh and tendons.*
> 
> You cannot convince me to do a reenactment. :



We're not talking about actual crucifixions, but are you sure about that? 

*http://www.ba.no/nyheter/urix/article1529247.ece*


----------



## lindsayf (27 January 2014)

I suppose this conversation crystalises again the stark difference between the faithful and the skeptic.
How such a silly hoax steeped in vested interests could be considered some kind of proof of the hand of god is an amazing leap of......and a worrying suspension of the critical faculties.
but then such leaps occur with the slightest of nudges if the leaper has already leapt.


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> As I said earlier, I'm not sure what to make of this stigmata phenomenon, but from what I could see, Rivas' hands, feet and head were clearly visible throughout the ordeal and if she had been cutting herself it would surely have been quite obvious to all around her and there would be no documentary.




Come on Chris. There is no way you can say that. Her hands, feet and head were not visible at all times throughout the ordeal. They panned to the priest several times and she was completely out of the picture. There were close ups of her face where you couldn't see either her hands or feet. I don't intend to review that segment to give more examples as you know it is simply untrue that Rivas' hands, feet and head were clearly visible throughout the ordeal.



> If they were going to fake something surely they could come up with something a bit more imaginative than that.




They obviously didn't need to. People fell for it in droves.



> If the stigmata phenomenon was all a hoax as the skeptics claim, it should be quite easy to create a convincing reenactment, like Randi did with the Filipino psychic surgery. Why has this not been done?




Why bother. If the type of audience that Fox attracts can't see through that video, then nothing will convince them. And how about this simple re-enactment. She scratches her forehead and it starts bleeding. This is off-camera but in full view of those around her. The camera pans to her forehead and Willisee states the scratch has appeared out of nowhere. Would you accept that is a re-enactment of part of the fraud? Of course not, because you are starting from the assumption that those around her are not part of the fraud. They couldn't be, could they? Why, what motivation do they have? 



> As I also said earlier, any fool can be an armchair skeptic and dismiss everything as a hoax.




They have raised many valid points, none of which you have addressed, because I suspect you really want to believe. I don't want to go over again, but some that come to mind; the blood test was that of a female, not Jesus, though Willasee made the ridiculous statement that Jesus must have had female blood because Jesus had no earthly father; why didn't the wounds spontaneously disappear; why were the wounds on the hands and feet only superficial rather than fully penetrating which would be the case if it were an authentic reliving of the crucifiction; etc.

But the one huge point that you have avoided over and over is: *Why didn't they show the actual stigmata spontaneously appearing, as they claimed occurred.* There were 10 different wounds that supposedly spontaneously started bleeding, but NONE were shown. They have said that no sceptic has asked to see the raw footage. This implies they have it, but didn't include because of the length of time it would have added to the show (not withstanding they spent a lot of time showing the priest praying - something completely irrelevant to the proceedings). That would have been the most convincing footage, yet the didn't include it. 



> If Jesus came back to Earth and I snapped a selfie of us with our arms around each other's shoulders and posted it here, you'd all scream "FAKE!!!", "PHOTOSHOP!!!"




Every rational person would, if all that is offered is a photo. Would you not??? That says a lot about you if you would accept such a photo without demanding further proof.   



> If God appeared in the sky in some unmistakable form, from horizon to horizon, you'd all just dismiss it as a clever laser trick.
> 
> If you are a committed atheist and skeptic, then nothing will change your mind because every paranormal event will have an alternative explanation, no matter how weak or pathetic, and you will be happy to embrace such explanations because they support your position.




A complete misunderstanding of atheists and sceptics. 



> but if the stigmata is a hoax, prove it by creating a convincing reenactment, surely that can't be too difficult




If you are asking sceptics to re-enact the video, that is trivial as per my example above and would not require a Randi. You simply inflict the wounds off camera. However you would never accept that as you assume that those who were involved were not part of the hoax. 



> I believe the old saying (based on Jeremiah 5:21, I think) holds true, _"There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear"_.




That works both ways Chris. You don't want to see and hear the points made by the sceptics. However, when it comes to statues, stigmata, faith healers etc., history is on the side of those who use reason rather than blind belief.


----------



## Ruby (27 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Ruby, as I said, no one will ever be able to prove the existence of God beyond doubt to convince committed atheists, and you've made your position about God very clear.
> 
> As Robert Ripley said, "Believe It or Not!" and you have been given the free will to make your choice.
> 
> ...




This is not a discussion about the existence of God, but about the veracity or otherwise of stigmata


----------



## Ruby (27 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I've read enough in the last few month's to convince me that his wager is definitely worth taking.




And it is "months" without the apostrophe


----------



## bellenuit (28 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> If I'm wrong I will have lost nothing, but if you're wrong, ... well I wouldn't like to be going where I think you'll be going.




Are you sure? What if God is not the God of Christians but Allah, the God of Islam. According to Muhammed you will go to hell. Or perhaps the God of the thousand or so other religions that might deem unbelievers in their faith doomed to hell?

What if the true God decided that he would give humans reason and expected them to use it instead of falling for superstitious beliefs that had no credibility. Maybe he might decide that the former are those who should join him in heaven.

What if God who through the Bible indicated he was infinitely merciful and infinitely forgiving decided that all those who believed in him because they thought it a safe bet purely based on Pascal's wager were in fact unworthy because they doubted he was infinitely merciful and infinitely forgiving (They assumed, as you do, that God would commit to hell all those who did no more wrong than anyone else, but because of their education/background/circumstances concluded that Christian God doesn't exist. Is that an infinitely forgiving and merciful God?).

Don't you realise that you are simply believing out of fear? Do you think God, if he exists, will be impressed and reward you for that.


----------



## cynic (28 January 2014)

lindsayf said:


> I suppose this conversation crystalises again the stark difference between the faithful and the skeptic.
> How such a silly hoax steeped in vested interests could be considered some kind of proof of the hand of god is an amazing leap of......and a worrying suspension of the critical faculties.
> but then such leaps occur with the slightest of nudges if the leaper has already leapt.




You've made some interesting contributions both here and on another of the religion threads. I'm curious about your comment regarding "the stark difference between the faithful and the skeptic." 

Do you consider these two qualities (faith and skepticism) to be mutually exclusive?

Have you perchance noticed that many skeptics (not necessarily all) can be seen to be displaying a certain degree of faith in their own belief system/s?


----------



## cynic (28 January 2014)

Chris,

You're probably feeling a bit ganged up on by now. Given that I definitely believe in the possibility that there are metaphysical phenomena that can physically afflict devout religious practitioners in accordance with their particular belief system (which could explain amongst other things why the wounds appear on the hands and not the wrists!), I can readily entertain the possibility that events have occurred that have come to be understood by the Church as "stigmata". However, that doesn't mean that every claimed event will be genuine!
I would want to see investigations conducted by a far more impartial and credible team. A typically jaundiced "current affairs" style journalist, such as Willisee, cannot be  reasonably expected to provide much more than entertainment value when it comes to the investigation and reporting of events.




Ruby said:


> Bellenuit, I'm with you.  I  just want to add two comments:- 1. ALL cases of stigmata and spontaneous bleeding of holy statues are eventually proven to be hoaxes or to have a mundane explanation, and 2. Mike Willasee has been around for a long time and has shown himself on many occasions to have doubtful credibility.   Ho hum.... there is always something around to fool the gullible.




Ruby, had you used the word "Many" rather than "ALL" I would be in 100% agreeance with your sentiments. The reason for my disagreement with the use of the term "ALL" is simply that, whilst your statement may indeed prove to be true sometime in the future, I don't see how anyone can confidently make such an absolute assertion at this point in time.


----------



## Tink (28 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> As I said earlier, I'm not sure what to make of this stigmata phenomenon, but from what I could see, Rivas' hands, feet and head were clearly visible throughout the ordeal and if she had been cutting herself it would surely have been quite obvious to all around her and there would be no documentary. If they were going to fake something surely they could come up with something a bit more imaginative than that. Even 15 yrs ago, video manipulation would have allowed for something much more impressive.
> 
> There have been many attempted hoaxes and magic tricks over the years, including the ridiculous images of Jesus or Mary on pieces of toast, etc, and they've all been exposed as such fairly quickly. If the stigmata phenomenon was all a hoax as the skeptics claim, it should be quite easy to create a convincing reenactment, like Randi did with the Filipino psychic surgery. Why has this not been done?
> 
> ...




Great post, my bolds


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2014)

When I was 16 I went to the doctor about a dicky knee.  He had a 2nd or 3rd year med student sitting in on the consultation.

At some point my heart stopped and I fell off the chair I was sitting on and gave my head a good crack on the floor.

Strangely I remember looking up at the doctor as he was thumping my chest, since he couldn't find a pulse, and saw the poor med student standing in the doorway looking like she was reconsidering her career.  That prankster voice in my head kept telling me to say boo and she'd probably pass out.

I looked both of them directly in the eye a number of times, yet both told me I had been unconscious for a couple of minutes and it wasn't till the doctor cracked my sternum that I seemed to come back.

Don't really know how to explain this.


----------



## pavilion103 (28 January 2014)

Good post.
I'm not saying that I believe the stigmata stuff but committed atheists will dismiss ANY supernatural activity by giving it an alternate explanation no matter how unconvincing (as you said).

When you are locked into that rigid mindset it seems there is almost no way out!

Everything deserves thorough investigation. No point being gullible. But also no point being gullible in poor explanations to explain things away.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Good post.
> I'm not saying that I believe the stigmata stuff but committed atheists will dismiss ANY supernatural activity by giving it an alternate explanation no matter how unconvincing (as you said).
> 
> When you are locked into that rigid mindset it seems there is almost no way out!
> ...




We like to believe we know so much, yet each new discovery seems to show us just how more complex the universe is.

From believing in phlogiston, to understanding elemental chemistry, from 4 elements to the periodic table, from a sun revolving around the earth to the earth revolving around a sun, from the believe that the weight of a substance was due to its nature to a general theory of gravity.

There's still argument as to how a fat bumble bee can fly on such tiny wings.

Maybe if we continue to grow our minds for a few hundred thousand years we might be deemed at a level capable of meeting some higher existence??  The group of scientists who created the first man made bacteria probably don't get to involved in it's day to day living.  Bit difficult to communicate when you've living in such different planes of existence.


----------



## Chris45 (28 January 2014)

Ruby said:


> And it is "months" without the apostrophe




Thank's Ruby. 

And it's *Willesee* not Willasee.


----------



## pavilion103 (28 January 2014)

Maybe there is no higher existence Syd.
Interesting to speculate.
But I say show me the evidence first and then I'll make a conclusion.
Rather than making a conclusion and believing that evidence will appear.

The complexity of the universe cannot be comprehended. The amount of order is staggering too and the incredible precision.
The more and more we discover the more it points to a creator and the less likely pure 'chance' is. (I won't use the word impossible or some will flip out haha)


----------



## sval62 (28 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Thank's Ruby.
> 
> And it's *Willesee* not Willasee.




Well done Chis45,
The spelling and grammar police defeated again.
Who cares if there is a spelling error, get a life.


----------



## CanOz (28 January 2014)

Interesting story here



> Stone Age Europeans had dark skin and blue eyes, Spanish researchers say






> 50,000-10,000 years ago


----------



## Julia (28 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Thank's Ruby.



Did you put the above apostrophe in "thanks" on purpose seemingly just to irritate Ruby again?



> And it's *Willesee* not Willasee.



There is also a journalist whose surname is spelled "Willacy", so multiple spellings of the same sound.



sval62 said:


> Well done Chis45,
> The spelling and grammar police defeated again.
> Who cares if there is a spelling error, get a life.




The correction was to punctuation, not spelling.

Perhaps consider that the constant inappropriate insertion of apostrophes, not just on this site but seemingly everywhere, is pretty annoying.

There is plenty of information available on how to use apostrophes and it doesn't include "if in doubt, just whack in an apostrophe"!


----------



## pavilion103 (28 January 2014)

Haha first world problems. Joking.

Some care might be beneficial


----------



## Chris45 (28 January 2014)

Bellenuit, I don't accept your premise that the Willesee documentary was a total fraud, hoax and conspiracy. Do you have any actual proof of that?

I disagree with your view and will maintain an open mind until hard evidence is produced. But, if you wish to side with the skeptics then of course you are free to do so.

It's an annoying fact of life these days that video editors tend to chop and change to try and hold the interest of people with short concentration spans. Few viewers, even atheists, have the patience to watch lengthy segments of video in which there is not a lot of continuous action to hold their interest.

I don't know much about Islam but my understanding is that both Christians and Muslims believe in the same God. The Muslims and BahÃ¡'Ã­s believe that Muhammad was a messenger and prophet of God, and the Christians believe that Jesus was God's son. My money is on Jesus.



> What if the true God decided that he would give humans reason and expected them to use it instead of falling for superstitious beliefs that had no credibility. Maybe he might decide that the former are those who should join him in heaven.



You wish! 



> Don't you realise that you are simply believing out of fear? Do you think God, if he exists, will be impressed and reward you for that.



Heck *YES!* The carrot and stick approach works very well with me. One of the reasons I stick to speed limits is the fear of being fined (as well of course as the much larger fear of hitting a child, animal, etc. who suddenly runs out in front of me, as happened once).

The fear of eternal separation from God and all of the good souls in Heaven and being sentenced to Hell in whatever form it takes, maybe as a disembodied soul drifting all alone in the depths of space in one of those parallel universes, as I read somewhere recently, works for me.

I think it will be a HUGE let down if the "Standard Model" was proved to be correct and this was all there was ... no other universes, probably no other life in our universe, no life after death, what you see is what you get, etc. How dreadfully boring!

String Theory, multiverses, reincarnation, Heaven, God ... sounds much more exciting to me, and am I hoping it's all true? Absolutely *YES!!!* ... at least as much as the atheists are hoping it's not. Will I abandon critical thought and blindly accept everything I'm told? Most definitely *NO!!!*

I was told recently that there was an interview with David Attenborough and he was commenting on a recent documentary he did about termite colonies in which he used endoscopes to probe the inner workings of the colony, and he mused something like, "How do we know we're not being observed by beings from another world in a similar fashion?". Even experienced naturalists are starting to open their minds to radical new possibilities.

But if, when I get to the end of the line, I find it's not true my final thought, as my brain shuts down and the darkness descends, will probably be, _"Bugger!!! Well at least I enjoyed the ride."_

-------
Cynic, do you have any evidence of people being able to produce at will wounds on their skin as appears to be the case in the documentary? The stills on apleatohumanity.com, although small, look quite real to me.
Has there been any follow up on the stigmata phenomenon, or could it be that after all of the ridicule heaped on the Willesee team by the skeptics and atheists, no one has been prepared to go near it again?

-------
Sydboy, that must have been a very traumatic experience for you! You had a knee problem but your heart stopped. Wow! Any thoughts as to why that happened? Blood clot from the knee perhaps?
Two explanations of the eye contact experience spring to mind, (1) you imagined it as your brain was being starved of oxygen, (2) you had an "out of body experience" as your soul was preparing to leave your body.
What are your thoughts?
Yes, we think we pretty smart but we have so much more yet to discover. The potential size of the "unknown unknowns" category is mind boggling.

-------
Julia, the smiley should be a clue. The first apostrophe was an accident that my ageing spell checker failed to pick up. I'm getting old!


----------



## Ruby (28 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Ruby, had you used the word "Many" rather than "ALL" I would be in 100% agreeance with your sentiments. The reason for my disagreement with the use of the term "ALL" is simply that, whilst your statement may indeed prove to be true sometime in the future, I don't see how anyone can confidently make such an absolute assertion at this point in time.




Point taken, Cynic.  You are quite correct.

- - - Updated - - -



Chris45 said:


> Thank's Ruby.
> 
> And it's *Willesee* not Willasee.




Touche Chris - I stand corrected.


----------



## Chris45 (28 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The complexity of the universe cannot be comprehended. The amount of order is staggering too and the incredible precision.
> The more and more we discover the more it points to a creator and the less likely pure 'chance' is. (I won't use the word impossible or some will flip out haha)



My thoughts exactly Pavilion. The dots are starting to join up and the picture that's forming is mind bendingly fascinating.

I've always thought abiogenesis was an unlikely phenomenon because it goes against the basic laws of thermodynamics that govern chemical reactions, as evidenced by the fact that it has never been achieved in a laboratory, despite all of our highly sophisticated abilities. And we're asked to accept that it happened spontaneously in a pond or fumarole somewhere? Huge ask!

However, *first* creation, *then* evolution makes sense to me, but the atheists aren't comfortable with the first part.

-------


Ruby said:


> Touche Chris - I stand corrected.



Cheers Ruby


----------



## Ruby (28 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Good post.
> I'm not saying that I believe the stigmata stuff but committed atheists will dismiss ANY supernatural activity by giving it an alternate explanation no matter how unconvincing (as you said).
> 
> When you are locked into that rigid mindset it seems there is almost no way out!
> ...




Pavilion (and Chris) I am not as rigid as you claim, and I suspect many others who share my views feel the same.  I am not closed to the paranormal.   In fact I think it is quite possible that people - using the power of their minds - can make themselves bleed spontaneously (as in cases of stigmata).  Their belief that it will happen is so strong that their minds force it to happen.  The power of the mind is way beyond our current understanding.  I accept there are many things for which we have no explanations - so far.   What I don't accept is that these hard, or impossible, to explain events are a 'sign from God'. 

When people make claims, the onus is on the one making the claim to prove its veracity - not the other way round.  The Willesee (have I got it right this time?) documentary was so full of flaws that anyone with a questioning mind would doubt its veracity.  It seems fairly clear that the woman inflicted the wounds on herself, and if the public is expected to believe otherwise, then video proof would have to be supplied.  It wasn't.  It was a cheap illusionist trick.


----------



## Ruby (28 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> However, *first* creation, *then* evolution makes sense to me, but the atheists aren't comfortable with the first part.




How do you know atheists (or non believers in your god) aren't comfortable with that?  There are many people who do not believe in the Christian god, but who are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind that started things off in the beginning and then left it to evolve.   There are many degrees of 'belief' (for want of a better way of expressing it) which do not include subscribing to Christian beliefs.


----------



## burglar (28 January 2014)

Ruby said:


> How do you know atheists (or non believers in your god) aren't comfortable with that?  There are many people who do not believe in the Christian god, but who are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind that started things off in the beginning and then left it to evolve.   There are many degrees of 'belief' (for want of a better way of expressing it) which do not include subscribing to Christian beliefs.




It's turtles all the way down!

Isn't it?


----------



## burglar (28 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... Even experienced naturalists are starting to open their minds to radical new possibilities ...




David Attenborough has_ always_ had an open mind!!
But he has always had a handbrake on his personal opinion.


----------



## CanOz (28 January 2014)

Ruby said:


> How do you know atheists (or non believers in your god) aren't comfortable with that?  There are many people who do not believe in the Christian god, but who are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind that started things off in the beginning and then left it to evolve.   There are many degrees of 'belief' (for want of a better way of expressing it) which do not include subscribing to Christian beliefs.




Well said


----------



## spooly74 (29 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I've always thought abiogenesis was an unlikely phenomenon because it goes against the basic laws of thermodynamics that govern chemical reactions




Why's that?



> However, *first* creation, *then* evolution makes sense to me, but the atheists aren't comfortable with the first part.




What form of life was first created before evolution took over?


----------



## burglar (29 January 2014)

spooly74 said:


> ... What form of life was first created before evolution took over?




That would be God, the creator!
 "omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence"
 ... but can't prevent war!


----------



## bellenuit (29 January 2014)

Ruby said:


> How do you know atheists (or non believers in your god) aren't comfortable with that?  There are many people who do not believe in the Christian god, but who are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind that started things off in the beginning and then left it to evolve.   There are many degrees of 'belief' (for want of a better way of expressing it) which do not include subscribing to Christian beliefs.




Correct Ruby. Many of us do not believe in God because we do not accept the evidence put forward, but are open to there being a God if we see something that would convince us. God, as revealed through the various Holy Books, just doesn't cut it for most rational people. If he wanted to reveal himself to us, there are a million better and more effective ways that he could have done it. 

I do not accept creation as the first step prior to evolution taking over as that would imply I also accept that there is a God of sorts. However, should I be convinced that there is a God, then creation becomes a plausible explanation of the first existence of life, but it would not in anyway detract from evolution as the process from there (unless one also learns that the God deliberately set out to fool us).

Not believing that creation was the first step leads us to what other possibilities there may be. Abiogenesis as espoused by scientists is one explanation, as is life coming from some alien meteor (though that too would require an explanation of how it came into being).

However, IMO these are all just speculations at present and, along with creation, are a just placeholders until either stronger proof is forthcoming or a better explanation is forthcoming.


----------



## bellenuit (29 January 2014)

Something that may be worth sharing with your Facebook friends if you are constantly bombarded with "incredible" stories that must be true because they also came across it on Facebook.

*Stopping the Spread of Phoney Info on Social Media*

http://notable.ca/nationwide/yp-life/Stopping-the-Spread-of-Phoney-Info-on-Social-Media/


----------



## Chris45 (29 January 2014)

Ruby said:


> Pavilion (and Chris) I am not as rigid as you claim, and I suspect many others who share my views feel the same.  I am not closed to the paranormal.   In fact I think it is quite possible that people - using the power of their minds - can make themselves bleed spontaneously (as in cases of stigmata).  Their belief that it will happen is so strong that their minds force it to happen.



That's a very long bow to draw! Have there been any cases of spontaneous bleeding *with the creation of open wounds* reported? Apart from random nose bleeds that I used to suffer from when young, Hematohidrosis is the only thing that comes close, but that is bleeding through the skin and doesn't involve the creation of open wounds. Our minds are capable of some amazing things but I would need to see some hard evidence before I would believe that someone could create, *on cue*, bleeding open wounds and then heal them up over night.



> What I don't accept is that these hard, or impossible, to explain events are a 'sign from God'.



So you are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind (ie God) that started things off in the beginning, but you don't accept that this "higher mind" is capable of causing hard, or impossible, to explain events?



> It seems fairly clear that the woman inflicted the wounds on herself



No it isn't. I saw nothing to suggest that the wounds were self-inflicted. That is your assumption because that's what *you want to believe* and no amount of video proof would satisfy you to the contrary. You want to believe it was a cheap illusionist trick and even if she had been strapped naked to a table and filmed from every conceivable angle, you would still find an excuse to call it a fake. I'm glad they didn't resort to that because I think the woman is entitled to some dignity.



Ruby said:


> How do you know atheists (or non believers in your god) aren't comfortable with that?  There are many people who do not believe in the Christian god, but who are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind that started things off in the beginning and then left it to evolve.   There are many degrees of 'belief' (for want of a better way of expressing it) which do not include subscribing to Christian beliefs.



An atheist is someone who does not believe in God and believes that no deities exist. If you don't want to believe in "my God" or subscribe to Christian beliefs, that's fine, I won't take that personally, and you can believe what you want. The fact that you are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind that started things off in the beginning is good, and you agree with me on that.



burglar said:


> It's turtles all the way down!
> Isn't it?



Ahhh yes .... but who created the first turtle? 



burglar said:


> David Attenborough has_ always_ had an open mind!!
> But he has always had a handbrake on his personal opinion.



Yes, and when we see the sort of corrosive reaction thinking outside the box attracts from the skeptics and atheists, I don't blame him!



spooly74 said:


> Why's that?



Research "entropy" and "enthalpy".



burglar said:


> ... but can't prevent war!



Do you understand the concept of "free will"?



bellenuit said:


> Correct Ruby. Many of us do not believe in God because we do not accept the evidence put forward, but are open to there being a God if we see something that would convince us.



Bellenuit, you still don't get it.


----------



## bellenuit (29 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Bellenuit, you still don't get it.




Perhaps if you listen to what we say rather than telling us (atheists) what we believe as you have done in several posts over the last few days, you might get it.

I wrote: _Many of us do not believe in God because we do not accept the evidence put forward, but are open to there being a God if we see something that would convince us._

Since I seem to be deficient in logic or intelligence in your mind, what is wrong with that statement that you think I still don't get it?


----------



## burglar (29 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... Do you understand the concept of "free will"?




The concept of "free will" is what I used to get my mother, a devout catholic, off my back.

Nothing else seemed to work.


----------



## cynic (29 January 2014)

burglar said:


> The concept of "free will" is what I used to get my mother, a devout catholic, off my back.
> 
> Nothing else seemed to work.




Did you not consider tattooing 666 on your forehead and wearing an inverted crucifix?


----------



## burglar (29 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Did you not consider tattooing 666 on your forehead and wearing an inverted crucifix?




I had an album by Black Sabbath. The cover art work featured a black cross. She burnt it.

As for a tattoo, I would still have it after she passed on.

Don't get me wrong, I loved my mum!
Just not her religion or evangelical hammering.

I hate evangelists with a passion!


----------



## cynic (29 January 2014)

burglar said:


> ...
> 
> I hate evangelists with a passion!




It sounds like you're evangelising!! No need to hate yourself burglar, we all think you're cool!


----------



## Ruby (29 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> That's a very long bow to draw! Have there been any cases of spontaneous bleeding *with the creation of open wounds* reported?




I have no idea, but that is not what I said.



> Our minds are capable of some amazing things but I would need to see some hard evidence before I would believe that someone could create, *on cue*, bleeding open wounds and then heal them up over night.




Again, that is not what I said; however I think it would be quite easy to do it on cue if you inflict the wounds yourself.




> So you are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind (ie God) that started things off in the beginning, but you don't accept that this "higher mind" is capable of causing hard, or impossible, to explain events?




Again....... read what I wrote.  I did not say it was what I believe.   I said "many people".   I said my mind was open to the paranormal, and that I accept there are many things for which we, as yet, have no explanation.  Stop misquoting me.




> No it isn't. I saw nothing to suggest that the wounds were self-inflicted. That is your assumption because that's what *you want to believe* and no amount of video proof would satisfy you to the contrary. You want to believe it was a cheap illusionist trick and even if she had been strapped naked to a table and filmed from every conceivable angle, you would still find an excuse to call it a fake. I'm glad they didn't resort to that because I think the woman is entitled to some dignity.




Hmm!  Now you are drawing the long bow!!  You saw nothing to suggest the wounds were NOT self inflicted.  I want to believe what my eyes see and what my rational mind tells me.  And........ wrong again!  Video proof of the wounds appearing spontaneously would satisfy me that they had appeared spontaneously - nothing else.  Calm down Chris - you don't know what I would think or say given the unappetising scene you describe.




> An atheist is someone who does not believe in God and believes that no deities exist. If you don't want to believe in "my God" or subscribe to Christian beliefs, that's fine, I won't take that personally, and you can believe what you want. The fact that you are happy to accept that there might be a higher mind that started things off in the beginning is good, and you agree with me on that.




Again........ I did not say that is what I believe.  Get your facts straight.   My mind is open to all sorts of things.  Science is making new discoveries all the time.   Why don't you try and be a little more open minded and stop trying to tell me what I believe?   You are very fond of taking small statements that I (or others) make and extrapolating them to mean something entirely different.


----------



## Chris45 (29 January 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Perhaps if you listen to what we say rather than telling us (atheists) what we believe as you have done in several posts over the last few days, you might get it.
> 
> I wrote: _Many of us do not believe in God because we do not accept the evidence put forward, but are open to there being a God if we see something that would convince us._
> 
> Since I seem to be deficient in logic or intelligence in your mind, what is wrong with that statement that you think I still don't get it?



Bellenuit, I certainly don't think you are deficient in intelligence, but I think you are hamstrung by your demand for logical, convincing, irrefutable proof of everything. Generally that is a good thing, but sometimes you have to think outside the box and use your imagination.

If Einstein had stuck strictly to proven established facts and hadn't allowed his imagination to contemplate mind bending new concepts, how far would he have progressed with his Theory of Relativity?

If the guys who created String Theory in the mid-80s (or whenever), had stuck strictly to proven established facts, how much progress would they have made? Logic dictates that there are only four dimensions of space-time. How can there possibly be any more?

I'll run the risk of drawing the half-wits out of the woodwork to post their idiotic trolling comments one more time, so let me get in first and say I'm just a demented old fart who has completely lost his marbles and has stopped taking his medication, and I'm probably completely wrong and you're completely right. There! ld:

And please don't even think of pulling this post apart line by line with your "non sequitur" stuff etc. Just take it or leave it!

It seems to me that the prerequisite for making sense of this whole picture is accepting, without the prior need for convincing, irrefutable proof, M-theory, multiverses, reincarnation etc. Hopefully, as has happened with Relativity, proof of these theories might emerge later.

If you can accept the mind bending possibility that another universe exists in higher, as yet unknown, dimensions, and that intelligent life *NOT* as we know it exists in that universe, then the Biblical story starts to make sense, at least it does to me, but it requires some imagination and the ability to see the forest beyond the trees, *plus* some understanding of the Bible, which I'm guessing many don't have.

If you can accept the idea of intelligent life outside our universe, then can you accept that we are part of some elaborate experiment being conducted by two powerful entities in that universe?

Think of us being like laboratory mice being used to test a psychological theory in a very elaborate laboratory experiment. Size is relative and if you bothered to watch _"How Small is the Universe?"_ you would be aware that our entire universe could be as small as a grain of sand, or perhaps a Petri Dish, to another being. Time is also relative and billions of years to us could be but a few weeks to them.

So my demented, marbleless, non-medicated idea, based upon what is written in the Bible, is that I think we are part of an experiment being conducted by God and Satan, maybe to see who should rule their universe, or something. God gave us free will to choose between good (God's will) and evil (Satan's will) and it's a battle for our hearts and minds. It's a *test* so there will never be any proof that either God or Satan exists, otherwise there would be no point to the experiment, which is the point I've been trying to make.

Google _"who is Satan and where did he come from"_ for more information.

If none of that makes sense to you, then so be it ... it makes sense to me, but remember, I'm just completely :screwy:


----------



## burglar (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> It sounds like you're evangelising!! No need to hate yourself burglar, we all think you're cool!




TouchÃ© mon ami.


----------



## Tink (30 January 2014)

Well done for expressing your views, Chris, food for thought for many, and the good thing about this thread. 
Btw, thanks burglar and cynic for the comments at the start..

Religion and Science to me are both important, and both play a major role in working together. They come from different angles, but both provide plenty in society.

I like to see the balance of both.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

One of the poorest and most commonly used arguments against the existence of a God is:

"Why do bad things happen to good people?" or "Why can't God prevent war?" (as mentioned just before)


It is important to understand the concept of free will (as mentioned in response). 

Either 

1. 
We are given a free will. 
Maybe most important because it allows us to love. Love has to be a choice not something we are forced to do like a robot. 
If we have a free will we are able to "choose" to do good. But then we can also "choose" to do evil. 
Living in this world where we interact with one another, the bad choices of some will impact the innocent.  
This is unavoidable. 

2. 
We are given no free will. 
We are essentially robots. 
God makes us like what he likes. Worship him without choice. We love him, but not by choice.
We have world peace. Not because we are peaceful. But because we are puppets with no choice to do otherwise.
There is no love. We cannot choose it. We are forced to love. 


This is a dilema.......

"This isn't fair for the innocent" some may ask. 

As mentioned above, because of free will the problems of this world are unavoidable. 
God does not promise justice in this world. 
But He does provide ultimate justice though in eternity, where "good" wins the day! 
He loves us so much that he has provided a way out (at great cost to him).
And what is best this free gift is open to ANYONE who wants to accept it. There is no exclusivity.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> As mentioned above, because of free will the problems of this world are unavoidable.
> God does not promise justice in this world.
> But He does provide ultimate justice though in eternity, where "good" wins the day!
> He loves us so much that he has provided a way out (at great cost to him).
> And what is best this free gift is open to ANYONE who wants to accept it. There is no exclusivity.




Except that you have to follow that particular faith based belief system.  Not sure how many Christians believe Muslims will head off to eternal bliss, likewise I'm sure the infidels get what they deserve in the afterlife according to the Muslims.

We've chosen to make what was really a simple choice into a very complex one.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

Yes, there are many religions and philosophies.
But there is only one who was prophesied about specifically, came to earth, lived a sinless life, predicted his death, died, rose from the dead, and appeared to eye witnesses.

The historical evidence of the resurrection is completely overwhelming. 

I have no doubt that most who don't believe have chosen to not even consider the evidence of then resurrection. 
People are entitled to use their free will to do that if they choose. But there is no shortage of evidence there for those genuine seekers of truth.

Maybe I could post up a summary of the evidence when I'm at home.


Everyone has the choice though.
It's like this...
It's raining outside. There are infinite umbrellas inside. One takes an umbrella and goes out. He calls out to the others "no one has to get wet. Come on let's go!"
Other say "yeh but what if we don't want to take an umbrella? We will get wet then."

We all have a date with death.
Christ is the only one who has provided a solution AND proven his reliability.


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Yes, there are many religions and philosophies.
> But there is only one who was prophesied about specifically, came to earth, lived a sinless life, predicted his death, died, rose from the dead, and appeared to eye witnesses.
> 
> The historical evidence of the resurrection is completely overwhelming.
> ...



Your recollections of Christ are very different to mine!
What's wrong with just sharing some wise and peaceful teachings? (Isn't that what Christ would have wanted?)
Do you really need to claim that one religion holds a monopoly on truth?


----------



## Chris45 (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> One of the poorest and most commonly used arguments against the existence of a God is:
> 
> "Why do bad things happen to good people?" or "Why can't God prevent war?" (as mentioned just before)
> 
> ...



Spot on Pavilion!!!

I'm not privy to the complete set of rules for this "test", but it seems we can also be thrown "curved balls" and part of the test is how we deal with them.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Your recollections of Christ are very different to mine!
> What's wrong with just sharing some wise and peaceful teachings? (Isn't that what Christ would have wanted?)
> Do you really need to claim that one religion holds a monopoly on truth?




With all due respect, I'm not sure what Christ yours is!
Christ never intended to be a "wise and peaceful teacher". 
He made the claim that He was the Son of God and the ONLY way to God. 
Read the gospels. These claims are unmistakable.

Christ did present some brilliant sermons on ethics (e.g. sermon on the mount), but the entire purpose of his message was salvation through rependence. Seriously read the gospels in entirity and find out for yourself. 


Of course I'm going to claim that Jesus Christ has the monopoly on truth. 
Every religion and philosophy is a truth claim. 
Trush IS exclusive. 
1+1 = 2. 1+1 cannot equal 3 or 4. 
Is a professor who marks an exam paper allowed to hold a monopoly on the truthful answer? Or does he have to be tolerant and tick all or most answers as correct?
By definition truth is exclusive. 
What the truth is is another question... but whatever it is, it is exclusive. 

Also, all religions cannot be truthful.
This is because they are contradictory. 
Either 0 of them or 1 of them can be correct. 
E.g. Christianity claims Jesus was the son of God, Islam claims Jesus was only a prophet and not the son of god.
He can't be both 1) the son of God and 2) not the son of God. - it's impossible. 
E.g. Juasiam believes in 1 god, hindism beleives in many gods
There can't be both 1) 1 God and 2) many gods - it's impossible. 

There can be similar elements in religions as there are in many things. 
But two contradictory/conflicting entire belief systems cannot both be correct! This is obvious. 
It's either 0 or 1 that is the truth.


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> With all due respect, I'm not sure what Christ yours is!
> Christ never intended to be a "wise and peaceful teacher".
> He made the claim that He was the Son of God and the ONLY way to God.
> Read the gospels. These claims are unmistakable.
> ...




Pav, I have read several versions of the gospels. I distinctly recall accounts of Christ claiming to be the son of man and also of Him telling his apostles that they are gods!
Whilst I'd agree that the absolute truth is very likely to be definitive, I've yet to encounter one religion that can claim to be sufficiently devoid of contradiction to support their claims to sole ownership of the truth.

I am not certain which version of the new testament your flavour of Christianity studies, but I have found contradictions in the versions that I've examined to date. (Please note that I am not debunking Christ for whom I have much admiration!)

In this discourse, I believe that we are both deviating from one of Christ's key teachings. Do you know which teaching I am alluding to?


----------



## bellenuit (30 January 2014)

*Scientists make a new type of stem cell, using a little acid*

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/scientists-make-new-type-stem-cell-using-little-acid-2D12009007


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

No I'm not sure which teaching?

I gospels that I read included those written by two eye witnesses who went to their death because they refused to renounce that Christ rose from the dead. If I'm going to take anyone's word it will be the eye witnesses who were in a position to know 100% whether the resurrection was a lie or not, and they died for that belief. Powerful!


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> No I'm not sure which teaching?
> ...




Do the words "Do unto others" ring a bell?


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Do the words "Do unto others" ring a bell?




Not sure how that is contradictory to this conversation?

Seems like a reasonably civil, sharing of views.


----------



## Chris45 (30 January 2014)

Bellenuit et al, do you fancy a nice relaxing vacation at a beautiful old hotel with lots of character? 

http://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...-the-cecil-hotel/story-fnizu68q-1226813853089


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Not sure how that is contradictory to this conversation?
> 
> Seems like a reasonably civil, sharing of views.




Yes! I like to believe that we are being civil in our exchange. 

My concern is that if a person is desirous of having their right to a chosen Christian belief system respected, then, to my understanding, the "do unto others" rule requires that I respect the right of others to choose their personal belief system (regardless of whether said belief system includes or excludes the existence of divine beings).


----------



## Chris45 (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> ... and also of Him telling his apostles that they are gods!



Cynic, where in the Bible is this stated?


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Cynic, where in the Bible is this stated?



It's a little over twenty years since I last had cause to read that passage and I don't have any of my bibles handy, so in lieu of a more authoritative reference, I offer the following internet link:
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-10-34/


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Yes! I like to believe that we are being civil in our exchange.  My concern is that if a person is desirous of having their right to a chosen Christian belief system respected, then, to my understanding, the "do unto others" rule requires that I respect the right of others to choose their personal belief system (regardless of whether said belief system includes or excludes the existence of divine beings).




Absolutely. I respect your free will and your right to have whatever belief system you choose.

Does that mean that I can't present my view and encourage you to investigate? No 

Does it mean that some who believes to have the truth can't share that with others? No

Does it mean we should be civil and accept that at the end of a conversation we can still disagree? Yes


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> It's a little over twenty years since I last had cause to read that passage and I don't have any of my bibles handy, so in lieu of a more authoritative reference, I offer the following internet link:
> http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-10-34/




The words is "gods" with a "little g"

This is just one website's explanation below. 
Impotant to look back to the Greek/Hebrew words and the context.
The context both in relation to culture and any Old Testament passages that Jesus quotes from. 

http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html


----------



## Chris45 (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The words is "gods" with a "little g"
> 
> This is just one website's explanation below.
> Impotant to look back to the Greek/Hebrew words and the context.
> ...






> It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule.



Thanks, and that explains it. I don't see a contradiction there.
It also explains why some judges like to be addressed as _"Your Worship"_ which reeks of arrogance to me.


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Absolutely. I respect your free will and your right to have whatever belief system you choose.
> 
> Does that mean that I can't present my view and encourage you to investigate? No
> 
> ...



+1

Extremely well put pav and I am very agreeable. I may have formed a misjudgment on account of projecting my own personal failing onto another.

It is of course important to remember that the rule applies to our thoughts, opinions and judgments of others, irrespective of public expression.


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Thanks, and that explains it. I don't see a contradiction there.
> It also explains why some judges like to be addressed as _"Your Worship"_ which reeks of arrogance to me.




That's great Chris!

I don't see a contradiction either, but my reason for being okay with the passage is quite different from yours.
(However, I am aware of at least one glaring contradiction in the New Testament of the bible, but I choose not to get overwrought by it.)

Incidentally, I don't actually recall any passage where Jesus stated that He was exclusively the son of God. 

If either yourself or pav happen to have it on hand and could direct me to it I'd be most appreciative.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

I will do a write up tonight or find a website that illustrates Jesus clearly identifying himself as the Messiah and son of God


----------



## burglar (30 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... _"Your Worship"_ which reeks of arrogance to me.




You don't get to call him "Your Worstnips" until you are a lawbreaker and have been caught by an enforcer.
I think he has earned his arrogance! :


----------



## Chris45 (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> (However, I am aware of at least one glaring contradiction in the New Testament of the bible, but I choose not to get overwrought by it.)



Cynic, I'd be very interested to know the contradiction to which you are referring.

Many years ago a JW came to my house and I invited him in. We started discussing the Bible and I commented that it was full of contradictions (as many cynics do) and said there was an obvious contradiction in the very first book of Genesis.

I had it firmly in my mind that there was a contradiction in the order of creation of things but when asked to show him the conflicting passages I couldn't find them then and there and I became convinced that I must have imagined it.

I just googled it and discovered http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html which may have been the contradiction I had in mind.

Some would use this as a reason to dismiss the Bible as "a load of rubbish". I don't, but I don't take it as historically accurate either and I'm prepared to give the Bible a bit of slack.



burglar said:


> You don't get to call him "Your Worstnips" until you are a lawbreaker and have been caught by an enforcer.
> I think he has earned his arrogance! :



LOL!!!


----------



## cynic (30 January 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Cynic, I'd be very interested to know the contradiction to which you are referring.




Again, it's been over two decades since I noticed it, but there are two distinctly different accounts of Judas' death and the reasons behind the purchase and naming of the "field of blood". If memory serves me correctly, one account was given by Peter and the other by John.

As for the JW their bible has undergone a significant amount of editing!


----------



## pavilion103 (30 January 2014)

A couple of links about Jesus claims. 

I'll let you decide what you believe Jesus is claiming in these verses. 

http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/01/did-jesus-say-he-was-god/

http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/english/claims.htm


----------



## Chris45 (30 January 2014)

cynic said:


> Again, it's been over two decades since I noticed it, but there are two distinctly different accounts of Judas' death and the reasons behind the purchase and naming of the "field of blood". If memory serves me correctly, one account was given by Peter and the other by John.



Cynic, thank you. I found it. 

_Matthew 27:5
    And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
    Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
_
Explanation here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.php


----------



## burglar (30 January 2014)

Tink said:


> Well done for expressing your views, Chris, food for thought for many, and the good thing about this thread.
> Btw, thanks burglar and cynic for the comments at the start..
> 
> Religion and Science to me are both important, and both play a major role in working together. They come from different angles, but both provide plenty in society.
> ...




Hi Tink,

I'm not afraid of offending a few of those posting in religious threads,
I am not here to make friends!

I see that you have a "Fox Terrier" mindset.
I hope you have the resilience to withstand the onslaught.

If you have not already figured, my mum passed away recently.
For the first time in my life, I can express myself clearly and unashamedly.

I mean no harm to any living creatures.
Don't know why I needed to say any of that?!


----------



## Tink (31 January 2014)

Hi burglar,

I am not quite sure what you are telling me, but whatever comes along, I can deal with it.

Sorry to hear about your mum, but glad that you can express yourself openly.

I think we should all be entitled to say what we think, thats what we are here for


----------



## cynic (31 January 2014)

I am of the belief that the message that Christ delivered is what is important! If the fruit is good then one can have confidence in the tree that produced it! 

Other cultures throughout history have received synonymous messages of truth (good fruit) from their own teachers. Monopolisation of the truth is not only unnecessary, it is contrary to my understanding of Jesus' key teachings!

Some of the posts in this thread offer interesting examples of how easily one can rationalise a myriad of personal opinions. It should now be evident that an ardent scholar can easily construct plausible rationalisations to support a broad spectrum of conflicting viewpoints on the Christian teachings!
This is why I believe it is important to acknowledge one's own capacity for error when attempting to interpret the meaning of such texts!

Debates pertaining to "infallible" doctrine and/or monopolisation of truth, tend to distract from Jesus' message. Arrogant claims of having chosen the only infallible belief system are tantamount to the judging of all other belief systems as false and, as such, tend to provoke inimical and derogatory responses.

Some cultures believe that one's illusory belief in superiority over others is a trick that evil intelligences use to lead people astray.

"I know I am right! So therefore you are wrong! Therefore, it is okay for me to disrespect you! By the way, you are not a victim here because I am oppressing you for your own good! I know that's what God/Science/Logic wants me to do!"

Do these sentiments sound familiar?

I know some will recognise these attitudes in others whilst failing to acknowledge ownership of same. 
One need only ask oneself: "Am I truly infallible?". (An honest answer to this question can reasonably be expected to reveal one's personal capacity for error!)

P.S. I know myself to be so incredibly capable that I am actually capable of incredible errors!


----------



## Tink (1 February 2014)

All people are entitled to their thoughts and experiences, and we don't all have the same.

Sadly, some people need to get personal, which does absolutely nothing in the discussion.


----------



## pavilion103 (1 February 2014)

Some thoughts. 
I appreciate your posts 
These are all friendly (but direct) responses. 



cynic said:


> I am of the belief that the message that Christ delivered is what is important! If the fruit is good then one can have confidence in the tree that produced it!
> The main purpose of his message was repentance for sins and that he was going to do for the sins of the world and those who accepted him as the Son of God could accept this free gift of salvation. His claims were are clear.
> Doing "good things" is obviously what he taught too, as many other cultures do. However, if he is the Son of God, then he is the one I will listen to about origin, purpose and life after death. Anyone who dies and rises again deserves my attention above all others.
> 
> ...


----------



## bellenuit (1 February 2014)

*Latest Conspiracy: US Southeaster Snow Storm Geo-engineering?*

_*‘Fake Snow’ Reported In Multiple States?*

The surprise storm that has largely crippled the southeastern US has generated a buzz online as people post videos of the snow’s weird characteristics.

There is no doubt in many minds, that there is some sort of geo-engineering going on across the Nation, and around the world.

What we do not know, is the specifics behind it, and what the purpose is.

We do know however, that the strongest weapon any military could posses is one that can manipulate the weather at will.

People all across the country have recently began posting videos, and photo’s, of snow that will not melt.
Some people are even reporting that the snow has a strange odor, like chemicals.

Is the snow natural, or the result of a Geo-Engineered or HARRP attack?_



As the conspirators say - *SNOW DOESN'T ACT LIKE THAT...*

http://www.adguk-blog.com/2014/01/fake-snow-reported-in-multiple-states.html?m=1

The truth......

*Debunked: Fake Snow, Burning Snow*

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-fake-snow-burning-snow.3026/


----------



## Tink (2 February 2014)

My concern, which I know has been brought up in a few threads, is the distribution of drugs for every little thing, rather than working through things spiritually, with some cases. 

We seem to be turning to drugs for every little emotion, rather than working through things.

This is where I can see the balance in the two is a good thing also.

Just my thoughts..


----------



## pavilion103 (2 February 2014)

Tink said:


> My concern, which I know has been brought up in a few threads, is the distribution of drugs for every little thing, rather than working through things spiritually, with some cases.  We seem to be turning to drugs for every little emotion, rather than working through things.  This is where I can see the balance in the two is a good thing also.  Just my thoughts..




This society is all about bandaid solutions in many areas.

People don't want to put in the work that is required to overcome certain issues so they look for a quick fix.

Obviously the severity of cases vary and there are times when medication may be beneficial or even necessary. But it should be the exception and not the rule. The last resort.


----------



## bellenuit (2 February 2014)

*Neanderthal Genes Found in Modern Human DNA, Studies Find*

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...nes-found-in-modern-human-dna-researchers-say


----------



## Chris45 (2 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Neanderthal Genes Found in Modern Human DNA, Studies Find*



I read somewhere that red hair, associated particularly with the people located in the British Isles, may be caused by a neanderthal gene.


----------



## bellenuit (3 February 2014)

I would be interested on how those who believe the Bible is the true word of God reconcile this and in particular why this is not a failed prophesy ....

Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return

http://blacknonbelievers.wordpress.com/jesus-failed-prophecy-about-his-return/


----------



## FxTrader (3 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The main purpose of his message was repentance for sins and that he was going to do for the sins of the world and those who accepted him as the Son of God could accept this free gift of salvation. His claims were are clear. Doing "good things" is obviously what he taught too, as many other cultures do. However, if he is the Son of God, then he is the one I will listen to about origin, purpose and life after death. Anyone who dies and rises again deserves my attention above all others.




Jesus was not the "Son of God" he only claimed (by some interpretations) to be.  This is not established fact but myth.  The notion that some degree or level of belief in a fantastic claim qualifies one for a free ticket to eternal servitude in an imaginary paradise is absurd nonsense.  There is NO evidence for resurrection period.  The so called accounts of such in the Bible, embraced by Christians as fact (incredibly), are untrustworthy and unreliable in the extreme.

Jesus, like many before and after him, had a delusional messiah complex.  His teachings on the afterlife must be seen in this context, they are a fiction used to assert moral and heavenly authority over his followers.



> Truth by definition is exclusive. Two or more belief systems cannot all be correct (only parts can be). Either 1 or none are correct. It's the same with the correct answer on an exam paper. This doesn't give us a reason to start wars over it.



This is a misnomer frequently rolled out by Christians.  Truth is by definition "_a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle..._"  As such the term "truth" can't be applied to the core claims of Christian doctrine since none of this fantastic mythology can either be verified or claim to be indisputable fact.  All human religion  at its core is just myth and legend when it comes to invented deities, one or many matters not.



> You have to interpret the text in the same way as any other historical text.
> Who did Jesus say he was?
> What did he teach?
> What is the historical evidence for the resurrection?



Jesus' claims about who he was are much less important than the proof or evidence put forward in support of such claims and there is no proof or evidence he was the "Son of God" placed on Earth by virgin birth to redeem the original sin of an imaginary Adam and Eve (the claimed progenitors of all humankind, except for Neanderthals and other humanoid forms that don't closely resemble modern humans in the fossil record because they immediately discredit the Genesis account.)

There is no verifiable or historically accurate evidence for resurrection period.  I have investigated this thoroughly over the years and concluded it's just part of the tapestry of fraud put forth as fact in Christian mythology. 



> Go WHEREVER the evidence leads you.



Exactly, and since there is nothing more than conflicting anecdotal evidence in iron-age scrolls (written and rewritten many years after events in most cases) for what Christian's believe then one should look elsewhere for explanations of existence and origins. 



> Also interesting to note that anyone who follows Christ will not hate or disrespect anyone.
> We can disagree (like maybe we are doing now), but there is no excuse to hate or disrespect, and anyone who does it not following Christ's teachings, but their own teachings.



Disrespect only has relevance in the context of something that otherwise deserves respect.  Religious mythology is undeserving of respect with regard to unverifiable fantastic and incredible claims about origins and eternity, moral superiority and the inerrancy of any particular magic book or collections thereof.

Religious fantasy is a product of human imagination and when acknowledged as such leads to no conflict.  However, when asserted as absolute truth with eternal consequences for disbelief it becomes a tool for manipulation and control that turns otherwise free thinking humans into obedient drones, willingly enslaved by religious dogma in the vain hope of obtaining some form of eternal life and salvation from an imaginary hell.  Not only is such belief not to be respected, it must be challenged as a fraud and exposed as such.


----------



## pavilion103 (3 February 2014)

I could easily respond to all of that but it is clear that you are angry with God for not existing!
This is a heart issue not a head issue. Personal swipes are embarrassing. 

Anyone who says there is no evidence for the resurrection is delusional. There is so much evidence that intellectual minds have gone out to disprove it and become Christians!!!! That at least suggests some evidence haha, if not an abundance.

I am happy to discuss these things with people, but you are simply a troll. An extremely ignorant one at that! If your facts were as strong as your emotion I would enter into a proper discussion.


----------



## pavilion103 (3 February 2014)

Something very ironic is that everything you have stated is merely opinion. The thoughts invented in a human mind.


----------



## FxTrader (4 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I could easily respond to all of that but it is clear that you are angry with God for not existing!
> This is a heart issue not a head issue. Personal swipes are embarrassing.
> 
> Anyone who says there is no evidence for the resurrection is delusional. There is so much evidence that intellectual minds have gone out to disprove it and become Christians!!!! That at least suggests some evidence haha, if not an abundance.
> ...



Such an arrogant, dismissive and frankly childish reply is more indicative of your anger not mine.  How can one be angry with an imaginary deity?

With respect to "facts", I am asking for evidence while you're asserting supernatural fiction as fact.  Asserting ignorance is an uninformed claim, I am happy to match my understanding of scripture to yours at any time.  I think you would discover I am well versed in Christian mythology and argument having studied it for years.

Keep in mind that my comments are not really directed at you since I consider that you're hopelessly steeped in religious dogma and Christian myth.  My comments are directed at those who have a more balanced view on the subject and are perhaps undecided about religion and where to lean.

I have encountered so many like you over the years.  Practically everything you have written in these threads are themes and arguments I've heard preached from the pulpit, regurgitated, repeated and repackaged by Christian drones time and time again.  It's the same silly, illogical and emotive arguments used as a blueprint by Christians to defend the faith.  Nothing original or insightful just the same old faith based arguments invoking scripture as the final backstop.  Why not surprise everyone here with an argument that isn't faith based or relies on the veracity of claims in a magic book that can't be verified.


----------



## McLovin (4 February 2014)

I think these religious threads are hysterical. Watching supposedly sane (perhaps we need to redefine insanity) people jump through hoops to try and convince others that their version of sorcery is the true and correct version is just fantastic. 

My favourite howler is taking the Bible as fact.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

I will have to find some time to provide evidence for the resurrection. Although I am thinking maybe it is a waste of time as you're conditioning seems to be clouding your ability to converse without insults or objectivity.

The most dismissive and ridiculous comment is "no evidence for the resurrection". If you have genuinely researched it as you claim you would have certainly come across it. This is why I would question the research you have done if you have not discovered something as basic and fundamental as this through historic research. Staggering.

What is most ridiculous is that often the same people that provide posts like the couple above hold to macro evolution as fact! And the atheistic world view! When it is a completely unscientific theory. Then if start at the beginning and ask "give me one scientific example of something coming from nothing" and they can't. Same with life from non life, genetic information increasing etc. 
And with zero scientific evidence brand it as fact. Yet dismiss the scientific and historic evidence that points to firstly, a God, and secondly, the Christian God!


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

An a separate note for some of the others.

The greatest evidence for faith healing I saw in 2010. I haven't shared it on here I don't think.

At my church we had a well known healer from India. A guy that I personally know had a broken leg. He had crutches and went up for healing. 
The next day he came back able to walk (and jumped on his leg). He went to the doctors who could not explain what happened. The crack in the bone was restored.

No doubt some people will somehow try to automatically dismiss the supernatural and desperately find an alternate solution (sorry none exists) or maybe even try and discredit me as a liar as a diversion. I'm not sure most even realize that this sort of stuff actually does happen!

I've read many well documented cases supported by eye witnesses eg Azusa Street Revival, Smith Wigglesworth etc... but to see this first hand was amazing.


----------



## McLovin (4 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> An a separate note for some of the others.
> 
> The greatest evidence for faith healing I saw in 2010. I haven't shared it on here I don't think.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the laugh. I've got some magic beans I can sell you.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

McLovin said:


> Thanks for the laugh. I've got some magic beans I can sell you.




That response says a lot about you.
Dismiss anything that conflicts with your world view.

The one other thing that it does say is that it's impossible to refute personal testimony. There is no argument. Now that doesn't mean that you or someone else should believe it because I say it. 

But it does mean that I personally witnessed this, with a person I know, in front of my eyes. I saw the before and after. There is no debate. This happened irrespective if whether you believe it or not. It doesn't change the truth one tiny bit.


----------



## CanOz (4 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> That response says a lot about you.
> Dismiss anything that conflicts with your world view.
> 
> The one other thing that it does say is that it's impossible to refute personal testimony. There is no argument. Now that doesn't mean that you or someone else should believe it because I say it.
> ...




Pav, with all due respect to you and the other posters...Fact means in this case, before and after x-rays or scans. If you showed me and a proper doctor scans of a broken leg before and after this 'healing' then i would certainly believe you. Anything less is not FACT.

There are stories all over the web like this, most of them get de-bunked sooner or later.


----------



## craft (4 February 2014)

*Charles Eisenstein -  Sacred Economics.*
This video probably fits best in this thread.  This guy is my favourite thinker on the bigger picture of how money and economics fits into our humanity.


----------



## McLovin (4 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> But it does mean that I personally witnessed this, with a person I know, in front of my eyes. I saw the before and after. There is no debate. This happened irrespective if whether you believe it or not. It doesn't change the truth one tiny bit.




I don't doubt what you think you saw. You're probably a case study in cognitive bias. All those snake oil salesmen that plough the Bible Belt "healing" the sick only make money because people believe what they want to believe. What you call a "faith healer" is really just a witch doctor with the Bible in one hand.


----------



## Julia (4 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> At my church we had a well known healer from India. A guy that I personally know had a broken leg. He had crutches and went up for healing.
> The next day he came back able to walk (and jumped on his leg). He went to the doctors who could not explain what happened. The crack in the bone was restored.



As CanOz has pointed out, this claim can only be substantiated as fact if you were to see medically verified before and after Xrays.  Usually, also, someone with a broken leg would be in a cast.

There's nothing to stop someone walking round on crutches, limping, maybe even having some genuine pain in the leg, then - because there was no broken bone in the first place - being entirely able to use the leg normally the following day.




pavilion103 said:


> That response says a lot about you.
> Dismiss anything that conflicts with your world view.
> 
> The one other thing that it does say is that it's impossible to refute personal testimony. There is no argument.



Perhaps no need to be so dismissive because someone disputes your assertion.
Let's say that there's no argument about what you saw.  The argument exists because you have no proof the person actually had a broken leg.



> But it does mean that I personally witnessed this, with a person I know, in front of my eyes. I saw the before and after. There is no debate. This happened irrespective if whether you believe it or not. It doesn't change the truth one tiny bit.



You could only claim that there is no debate if you had been with the person when he was injured, with him while he was Xrayed and seeking medical diagnosis, and then again when subsequent Xray and medical opinion occurred.

I'm happy for people to believe in whatever gives them comfort, a direction in life, a sense of purpose, but when it comes to stating some superficial event is 'proof' of some supernatural healing, it's going too far.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

I'm not saying that because I say it it is proof for people on here. I expect skepticism. Of course.

I am saying that because I know the person personally. I know the before and after condition. That I know it is true. That's all that I'm saying.

My guess is that even if this healing happened to some of the skeptics here, they would feel compelled to come out with 1000 alternate excuses before believing the most obvious one staring them in the face.

Already claims have been made about the character of the preacher too. Well moreso stared as fact. Talk about reaching a conclusion first and then even considering evidence second!


----------



## bellenuit (4 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> My guess is that even if this healing happened to some of the skeptics here, they would feel compelled to come out with 1000 alternate excuses before believing the most obvious one staring them in the face.




That is because a myriad of similar cases has thought us that supernatural intervention is the least likely cause of any unexplained healing.


----------



## burglar (4 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... thought us ...




Did you mean tortoise?

Ya know what's really funny? I can't spell it either! :

Is it tort or taut?


----------



## Chris45 (4 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Is it tort or taut?



Or maybe even tought or taught?

Ah, what the heck, just say "teachered us". :


----------



## Chris45 (4 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> That is because a myriad of similar cases has thought us that supernatural intervention is the least likely cause of any unexplained healing.



Can you definitely eliminate "supernatural intervention" as a cause of an unexplained healing? Of course you can't. Anyone who does is a fool.



CanOz said:


> There are stories all over the web like this, most of them get de-bunked sooner or later.



I note you say "most", not "all".


----------



## burglar (4 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... Anyone who does is a fool ...




Ohh!! 
Chris ... 

You've picked me!!





The forum buffoon!


----------



## bellenuit (4 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Can you definitely eliminate "supernatural intervention" as a cause of an unexplained healing? Of course you can't. Anyone who does is a fool.




There is a huge difference between eliminating "supernatural intervention" as a cause and Pavilion's statement that it is "the most obvious one staring them in the face"

However, all atheists by definition would certainly rule out "supernatural intervention" as would all deists and I am sure a proportion of theists. These are according to you all fools. But just concentrate on the atheists as there are some statistics that back up the claim that you are not just wrong, but that it is quite the opposite. The atheists tend to be the more intelligent people within the population. Here is some research:

*Intelligence and Atheism*_

The article lists some caveats at the beginning but then this:

Still, there is plenty of evidence that atheism is predominately on the side of smart people in the West.  Here are some of the more compelling pieces of evidence:

*There is a negative correlation between  intelligence and religious belief across the board*. In a review of 43 studies, religious belief was negatively correlated to intelligence in all but four.  This is strong corroborative evidence that the correlation is valid.  In a more recent study of children, there was a direct line correlation from “not religious at all” to “very religious,” in which IQ steadily rose with the degree of religious indifference.  The simple fact is (at least in America) the smarter people tend to be less religious.

*Intellectual Elites are drastically more likely to be atheist.* This bit of data is more to the point.  It’s one thing to survey all Westerners for intelligence and god-belief, but as I mentioned earlier, there’s a problem with that.  Not all very intelligent people have the academic training to reach fully justified atheism.  But when we survey the people who do have such training, they’re overwhelmingly atheist.  Only 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences reported god-belief in a survey from the 1990s.  Only 3.3% of the Fellows of the Royal Society in Britain believe in god.  This compared with a 68.5% theism rate in the general population.

*Decline of religious belief through childhood and adolescent development.* It makes sense that if atheism is a more intelligent position, people would tend to abandon religion as cognitive development progresses.  That is in fact the case.  In both the U.S. and Britain, children tend to abandon god belief during the adolescent years when most of the higher cognitive functions are developing to their full adult potential.  Similarly, it has been noted that children raised in high-education atheist homes very seldom convert to god-belief, while children raised in theist environments who subsequently receive higher education are relatively likely to abandon god-belief.

*Over the past 150 years, General Intelligence has increased overall, and god-belief has been in a relatively steady decline*. This is a broad statement, and there are many confounding factors that might well throw a monkey wrench into the works, but the general trend is undeniable.  Beginning in 1850, indicators of both religious belief and practice have been on a steady decline which is more or less inverse to the increase in general intelligence.
_

http://livinglifewithoutanet.com/2010/05/03/intelligence-and-atheism/


----------



## Ves (4 February 2014)

craft said:


> *Charles Eisenstein -  Sacred Economics.*
> This video probably fits best in this thread.  This guy is my favourite thinker on the bigger picture of how money and economics fits into our humanity.



Thanks for the link -  the video had some good ideas that I've seen in other writers / speakers  (that are obviously no where near the surface because their ideas transcend the embedded morality and are "anti-system" by definition).  This guy is definitely accessible and has a clear way of presenting his major themes.

I will try to check out one of this books at some point.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

Do you even know what IQ measures?

You should read Malcolm Gladwell's  "Outliers" a very well known book.
It talks about the misconception of a high IQ leading to success/practical results.

IQ and "book smarts" is so overrated, give me practical results any day.


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

Take trading as an example. It doesn't take a high IQ to be successful. It takes other traits: discipline, teachability, ability to be wrong, persistence etc.
Reasonable intelligence is beneficial but not the most important.

Give me a profitable trader over one with a high IQ any day if I had to choose one!


----------



## burglar (4 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Do you even know what IQ measures? ...




IQ measures the ability to pass IQ tests.

You can improve your IQ by doing crossword puzzles!



What does Sunday School measure?


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

Take one example as simple as someone in this thread saying "there is no evidence for the resurrection". 
Let's also say they have an IQ of 150.
No IQ will help them make an educated decision if they have deliberately decided to not include this evidence in the analysis process.
It's truly absurd.

We are not even taking into consideration environment. We all know the atheistic influence of University. If these dogmas are just getting passed down and the student is only exposed to one side of the debate they are likely going to be conditioned like a robot. They would not have the opportunity to even receive evidence for the other side of the debate and will likely believe what they have been spoon fed by ignorant professors who were also spoon fed by ignorant professors (sharing these views which are often outside their area of expertise anyway).

Let's trot out the old Christians become atheists but atheists don't become Christians. 
Let's just ignore that the centre of Christianity has spread from the Middle East to Rome to Europe to South America and now China (yes that was communist China). But no doubt none of this counts.... Just because....
But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good atheist story!


----------



## CanOz (4 February 2014)

Ves said:


> Thanks for the link -  the video had some good ideas that I've seen in other writers / speakers  (that are obviously no where near the surface because their ideas transcend the embedded morality and are "anti-system" by definition).  This guy is definitely accessible and has a clear way of presenting his major themes.
> 
> I will try to check out one of this books at some point.




Yeah thanks Craft....makes you wonder doesn't it....


----------



## pavilion103 (4 February 2014)

burglar said:


> IQ measures the ability to pass IQ tests.  You can improve your IQ by doing crossword puzzles!  What does Sunday School measure?




I'm not saying that Sunday school measures anything.

I'm not the one ignorantly quoting IQ studies as if they have any real significance in this discussion either though!


----------



## burglar (5 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I'm not saying that Sunday school measures anything.
> 
> I'm not the one ignorantly quoting IQ studies as if they have any real significance in this discussion either though!




I was agreeing with you, that IQ doesn't measure what it is commonly thought to measure.
Lots of measurements are like that.


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> What is most ridiculous is that often the same people that provide posts like the couple above hold to macro evolution as fact!




 



> And the atheistic world view!




For the umpteenth time, there is no atheistic world view other than atheists are people who don't believe the evidence provided to support that there is a god or believe that there is no god. You don't seem to be able to appreciate that scientists have certain opinions because science led them to those conclusions rather than atheism led them to those conclusions. Atheism has no view on how the universe came into existence or life began, but atheists, like Christians and people of other faiths have opinions on such things. Atheists don't all have the same opinion on these issues, but neither do Christians and some atheists and some Christians may have the same view.  Some atheists may have the view that the world started through the big bang, but so do many Christians (and it was first postulated by a priest). Some atheists may have the view that life on earth started through abiogenesis, as do some Christians, or perhaps life began on another planet and came here through a meteor crashing into the earth. As I said in an earlier post, as far as I am concerned, these postulations are just placeholders at the moment until further evidence adds support to these postulations or perhaps gives a different cause. Just because science haven't yet discovered how life came from non-life, doesn't mean that your god must be the answer. The god of the gaps has been in retreat since man first invented gods, so there is no reason to assume that this will be any different.



> Then if start at the beginning and ask "give me one scientific example of something coming from nothing" and they can't.




50 years ago you would have said give me an example of something that could be in two places at the same time, yet now they have sub-atomic particles that seem to act like that. The big bang may become the first example of something coming from nothing and the conditions for that to occur are obviously something that we are not going to see (they are pretty sure of what happened within seconds of the big bang). One other problem is what does "nothing" mean. That may seem obvious, like say you have a volume of 1 cubic meter and within it is a perfect vacuum and there is no energy of any sort passing though it (including dark matter and dark energy). But if space and time were created at the big bang as has been postulated, what does is a volume of 1 cubic meter mean then at just before the big bang when space didn't exist? When it comes to quantum physics, you cannot assume that things are the same as we can observe in our daily humdrum existence.  



> genetic information increasing etc.


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Do you even know what IQ measures?




I don't know if this is supposed to be a response to my post that showed a high correlation between people of high intelligence and atheism. But if it is, you seemed to have ignored everything else but the first item which refers to IQ.



> I'm not the one ignorantly quoting IQ studies as if they have any real significance in this discussion either though!




Again I am not sure if this is in reference to my response. But if it is, it is apparent that you are unaware that it was a rebuttal of Chris' claim, by implication, that all atheists are fools as by definition they would not consider "supernatural causes" for such healing events. So it does have significance to the discussion. 

It is you that seems to be calling everyone ignorant that don't subscribe to your view. And again, if you want some more evidence that perhaps atheists aren't as foolish and ignorant as Christians seem to think, here are some further studies (again US). Oh, one item does mention IQ, so I guess you will dismiss everything because IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence:

_Over 10% of American population are atheist: http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php

Less than 0.25% of prisoners are atheist: http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Majority of Nobel Prize winners atheist: The Religiosity and Religious Affiliation of Nobel Prize Winners (Beit-Hallahmi, 1989)

Majority of University professors atheist: Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists (Ecklund, 2007)

Majority of scientists atheist: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism

Atheist Intellectuals: http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/ http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Category:Atheist

Atheist Celebrities: http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Main_Page

Poverty rate lower among atheists: Society Without God (Zuckerman, 2008)

IQ higher among atheists: http://www.interfaith.org/2008/06/20/study-links-atheism-to-high-iq/

Illiteracy rate lower among atheists: United Nations Human Development Report (2004)

Average Income higher among atheists: United Nations Human Development Report (2004)

Divorce rate lower among atheists: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Teen pregnancy rate lower among atheists: http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/red-states-dominate-teen-pregnancy.html

Abortions lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005): http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

STD infection lower among atheists: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

Crime rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005): http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Homicide rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005): http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
_

http://coreysviews.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/imagine-if-all-atheists-left-america-5/


----------



## burglar (5 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


>




Hi bellenuit,

I enjoyed that immensely, but I learnt nothing. 
But then it is not aimed at an older evolutionist.

I fear though that a younger creationist will find a specious argument.
Then dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.


----------



## wayneL (5 February 2014)

If
religion = dogma
and 
religion = dumb
then 
dogma = dumb?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

or

Dogma has numerous manifestations.

</musing>


----------



## Tink (5 February 2014)

Yes, thanks craft, enjoyed that, "we are all gifts".

Most of the visionaries are Christian Scientists, imo.


----------



## pavilion103 (5 February 2014)

So much there. With limited time this morning I'll ask the question that interests me most.

Bellenut - as an atheist you are of the belief that there is not enough evidence for a god. 
What is your belief in the origin?
What evidence is there for this?
And what evidence is there that a non-supernatural origin is even possible (I.e something from nothing)?


----------



## craft (5 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Yes, thanks craft, enjoyed that, "we are all gifts".
> 
> Most of the visionaries are Christian Scientists, imo.




Charles is certainly visionary but he is not Christian, spiritual yes - but definitely not religious. 

....................

*Christian Scientist *

Isn’t that an oxymoron? Science requires the continual attempt to disprove a falsifiable hypothesis whilst Christianity requires blind faith in an un-falsifiable belief, no matter what the contradictory evidence.


----------



## Tink (5 February 2014)

Thanks craft, my visionary comment was a general comment, not just pointing at him.

You mean to tell me that people that believe in God aren't Scientists?


----------



## pavilion103 (5 February 2014)

craft said:


> Charles is certainly visionary but he is not Christian, spiritual yes - but definitely not religious.  ....................  Christian Scientist   Isn&rsquo;t that an oxymoron? Science requires the continual attempt to disprove a falsifiable hypothesis whilst Christianity requires blind faith in an un-falsifiable belief, no matter what the contradictory evidence.




Wrong.
Christianity requires philosophical, historic and scientific evidence to support the world view, which it certainly does.

Science points to a creator (whatever type that may be) and current scientific evidence does not support the naturalistic view. Take something as simple as question number 1.
The universe is not eternal as we know.
I am still yet to hear any naturalistic view that can account for it or provide even a reasonable suggestion without invalidating its own worldview.

Not hat it matters a great deal but I love how minds like Einstein acknowledged this after studying the universe. Not that it takes an Einstein to figure this out!


----------



## burglar (5 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> ... Not that it takes an Einstein to figure this out!




Einstein allegedly plagiarised his wife's work.


----------



## craft (5 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Thanks craft, my visionary comment was a general comment, not just pointing at him.
> 
> You mean to tell me that people that believe in God aren't Scientists?




I am sure there are Christians that are scientists and I am sure they can reconcile or more likely segregate the two.

God exists – God does not exist.  Neither of these statements can be scientific hypothesis because neither are falsifiable.  Science still leaves a lot unanswerable and nothing is ever proved – just not yet disproved – it’s an important distinction.  This no doubt leaves a void that can be filled by religion if one wishes.  But Christians trying to use science to prove their religion and calling it Christian Science is what I see as an oxymoron.

There would be an awful lot of thinking stimulus in the paradox between how one practices religion and science legitimately so that may be why you have noted some that practice the two are visionary – perhaps forced to be so, to accommodate their personal experiences.


----------



## pavilion103 (5 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Einstein allegedly plagiarised his wife's work.




Always listen to the wife


----------



## pavilion103 (5 February 2014)

craft said:


> I am sure there are Christians that are scientists and I am sure they can reconcile or more likely segregate the two.  God exists &ndash; God does not exist.  Neither of these statements can be scientific hypothesis because neither are falsifiable.  Science still leaves a lot unanswerable and nothing is ever proved &ndash; just not yet disproved &ndash; it&rsquo;s an important distinction.  This no doubt leaves a void that can be filled by religion if one wishes.  But Christians trying to use science to prove their religion and calling it Christian Science is what I see as an oxymoron.  There would be an awful lot of thinking stimulus in the paradox between how one practices religion and science legitimately so that may be why you have noted some that practice the two are visionary &ndash; perhaps forced to be so, to accommodate their personal experiences.




Yes. You can't have a branch called Christian Science. That makes no sense and is silly. You can have a Christian who is a scientist though obviously. The same with any type of person who is a scientist.

Whether the two reconcile or not is another topic then. If science then validates someone's belief systems then great. If it doesn't then time to consider the belief system and whether it needs to be displaced or thrown out. 
But science is science. Observable and repeatable. We use all the scientific evidence to reach an objective conclusion.


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2014)

*Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham*

(This debate was mentioned on one of the forums last month. It was held last night)

There is a 13 minute delay at the beginning. Just scroll forward to the starting point.



According to a "Christian Today" poll, at time of writing, this debate was won by Bill Nye 92% to 8% for the Creationist  Ken Ham

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic....evolution.debate.here.start.tim  e/35688.htm


----------



## burglar (5 February 2014)

craft said:


> I am sure there are Christians that are scientists and I am sure they can reconcile or more likely segregate the two ...



Hi craft,

There you have the nub of it.
I couldn't reconcile

It was tearing my head in two! 

I gave up on religiosity!


----------



## Chris45 (5 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Ohh!!
> Chris ...
> You've picked me!!
> View attachment 56669
> ...



Burglar, again it's great to be able to put a face to the name. 



burglar said:


> IQ measures the ability to pass IQ tests.
> You can improve your IQ by doing crossword puzzles!



IQ tests attempt to measure problem solving ability.

The General IQ tests I've seen measure three aspects of intelligence, linguistic intelligence, mathematical intelligence, and visual-spatial intelligence. It's possible that crossword puzzles may improve your linguistic intelligence, but that's all.

Two people can have the same General IQ, but could have very different intellectual abilities.



bellenuit said:


> The atheists tend to be the more intelligent people within the population. Here is some research:



Selective research quoted by an atheist to support his position ... value = 0. :
Have you heard of the term "Intelligent Idiot"?

High intelligence does not immunize against stupidity, but does facilitate arrogance.

Whether you like it or not, and despite your valiant attempt to plead the case for the more moderate atheist views, the message that atheists continually pump out is that they firmly believe *THERE IS NO GOD*, no ifs or buts!

Atheists do not believe in God and believe that no deities exist and are frequently strident in their ridicule of any notion of a God, or spiritual phenomena such as reincarnation. The reality is that the vast majority, if not all, of them believe that the Big Bang Theory and abiogenesis have answered ALL of the questions.

I reject any attempt to soften the definition of an atheist. Moderate atheists should reclassify themselves as Agnostics and oppose the hard-lined atheists as vehemently as they oppose the theists.

Christians believing in abiogenesis??? Who? Please quote your sources for that remarkable claim.

The Big Bang is not an example of something coming from nothing, it's most likely to be an example of energy becoming matter and antimatter, a well known process that has been frequently observed. What has happened to the antimatter is a known unknown, as is dark matter, but they may be connected.

Many scientists are atheists, but there is a long list of significant scientists who are theists. It is certainly possible to be a Christian AND a scientist. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...science#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29*

Most of your "intelligent atheists" are probably non-scientific artists, literologists, etc. who are quite ignorant of current scientific thinking and research. Mention multiverses and higher dimensions and they would probably adopt an arrogantly superior and disdainful posture and dismiss the suggestions as absolutely ridiculous, because they wouldn't know what you were talking about. I'm guessing their limited scientific thinking is so tightly confined within their current tiny box of well established laws and beliefs, they could not even entertain any serious scientific ideas the least bit "supernatural" (ie. not currently existing in nature, or subject to explanation according to current natural laws) and would dismiss any such ideas as pure fictional nonsense, just as H. G. Wells' "Heat-Ray" was.

It's interesting that many "intelligent atheists" believe that life probably exists elsewhere in our universe ... life as we know it, that is. No doubt they would exclude the possibility of life, NOT as we know it, existing in other universes.

In the light of the mind bending new scientific ideas and discoveries that have emerged recently, and are slowly but surely gaining traction in the scientific community, anyone, atheist or otherwise, who rules out the possibility of supernatural influences which cannot be explained by our current natural laws, is either an arrogant "intelligent idiot" or an ignorant, narrow minded fool.


----------



## burglar (5 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Burglar, again it's great to be able to put a face to the name.  ...








Chris45 said:


> ... IQ tests attempt to measure problem solving ability.
> 
> The General IQ tests I've seen measure three aspects of intelligence, linguistic intelligence, mathematical intelligence, and visual-spatial intelligence ...




I'm glad you sorta agree, sort of!

Of the IQ tests I've seen, none are non-English!
Yet Aboriginals have proven "problem solving ability".
They require bushcraft to be the main aspect - and language to be, ...  well, ...  errrr, ... Aboriginal!!
Or Pictorial even!


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham*




I actually think Bill Nye is appalling after watching up to the Q&A part. He introduces ideas/examples without explaining their relevance and without the audience having some background on the subject they too would not see the relevance. He is also a bad speaker lacking proper flow.

However, I can understand why he was winning 92% to 8% by Christian Today. Ham's position is so preposterous that any person with just common sense could win. Basically he can offer nothing better than the Bible says so, so it must be right.


----------



## Tink (5 February 2014)

Excellent post, Chris  

_Many scientists are atheists, but there is a long list of significant scientists who are theists. It is certainly possible to be a Christian AND a scientist. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...1st_century.29_

Agree.


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2014)

*the most powerful evidence for evolution that you can imagine*

I don't like the original title so that is why I prefer the subtitle from the original article. It's not really a religion thing, just a scientific fact that you can treat as you want:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution


----------



## Chris45 (5 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Yet Aboriginals have proven "problem solving ability".
> They require bushcraft to be the main aspect - and language to be, ...  well, ...  errrr, ... Aboriginal!!
> Or Pictorial even!



You've raised an interesting point. What "problem solving ability" do you refer to?

I don't know how it's measured but according to Richard Lynn, Australian Aboriginals (I'm assuming the "pure breeding" ones, not people like Noel Pearson) reportedly have the second lowest Average IQ in the world, = 60ish. The Kalahari bushmen have an average measured IQ of 50ish.

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I reject any attempt to soften the definition of an atheist.




That is not your choice. We can define our atheism just as you define your Christianity. This is how the standard dictionary on my Mac defines it (as you can see, it encompasses both):

_a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods_

And as many have pointed out, atheists are the same as Christians in regards to god belief except that they have gone one god further. Most Christians do not believe (in fact deny that they exist) all other gods except their own. How hard line is that.

Christians believing in abiogenesis??? Who? Please quote your sources for that remarkable claim.

I just googled "Christians believing in abiogenesis" and this is the first hit I received.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7389698/

I can't understand how you would find that more shocking than to say some Christians believe in evolution. Many Christians (I think you too) accepts that evolution as understood by science is basically correct, but that the laws of nature that direct it were put in place by God. Additionally Adam and Eve were given a soul and they became the ancestors of modern Homo Sapiens. This is not how the Bible describes what happened, but that is how they rationalise the inconsistencies of what science knows now with the Biblical story. To go back one step before the evolution from the first organism and say God's laws of nature also led to a particular chemical and energy mix that allowed that first organism to be created from non-life (e.g. abiogenesis) is hardly any more accommodationist than accepting evolution.



> The Big Bang is not an example of something coming from nothing, it's most likely to be an example of energy becoming matter and antimatter, a well known process that has been frequently observed. What has happened to the antimatter is a known unknown, as is dark matter, but they may be connected.




I was responding to Pavilion who implied that "something from nothing" was what the Big Bang meant. I was also trying to illustrate the difficulty of using terms like "nothing" to describe what might have been the state prior to the Big Bang as it doesn't have meaning (at least how it is generally understood) without also having space. Personally, I have no idea what happened to cause the Big Bang and what may have preceded it, but follow with interest theories suggested by various scientists. 



> Many scientists are atheists, but there is a long list of significant scientists who are theists. It is certainly possible to be a Christian AND a scientist.




In general I would agree with that as much of science does not infringe in the area of religion. However, science is also a particular methodology for understanding our universe and some Christians who are scientists are unwilling to use the scientific method when it comes to areas where science and religion meet. Prime examples of this are some of those connected to Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" organisation, who work on the basis that if observed evidence conflicts with the Bible, then you use the Bible. They may be great in many areas of science, but ignoring observed evidence in favour of Biblical text is not acting as a scientist. They are the extreme, but many scientists that do not have a conflict with their Christian beliefs are accommodationists - they have watered down their beliefs to the point that would have been called heretics just a couple of generations ago. 



> Most of your "intelligent atheists" are probably non-scientific artists, literologists, etc. who are quite ignorant of current scientific thinking and research. Mention multiverses and higher dimensions and they would probably adopt an arrogantly superior and disdainful posture and dismiss the suggestions as absolutely ridiculous, because they wouldn't know what you were talking about. I'm guessing their limited scientific thinking is so tightly confined within their current tiny box of well established laws and beliefs, they could not even entertain any serious scientific ideas the least bit "supernatural" (ie. not currently existing in nature, or subject to explanation according to current natural laws) and would dismiss any such ideas as pure fictional nonsense, just as H. G. Wells' "Heat-Ray" was.
> 
> It's interesting that many "intelligent atheists" believe that life probably exists elsewhere in our universe ... life as we know it, that is. No doubt they would exclude the possibility of life, NOT as we know it, existing in other universes.
> 
> In the light of the mind bending new scientific ideas and discoveries that have emerged recently, and are slowly but surely gaining traction in the scientific community, anyone, atheist or otherwise, who rules out the possibility of supernatural influences which cannot be explained by our current natural laws, is either an arrogant "intelligent idiot" or an ignorant, narrow minded fool.




What a non-sequitor and there we go with the name calling again. You and Pav really seem angry people.


----------



## pavilion103 (5 February 2014)

So in other words you're an agnostic


----------



## burglar (5 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> You've raised an interesting point. What "problem solving ability" do you refer to? ...




Bushcraft !

Finding water in the outback!
Finding food in the outback!
Making shelter ... without Stratco or BHP steel products. lol 

When you qualify the debate with some sort of relevance of said "problem solving ability" to the real life problems that require solving, there is a huge shift.

If stupid irish git was lost in the outback or Kalahari he would not be denigrating Aboriginals or Bushmen.


----------



## Tink (6 February 2014)

Bellenuit, I agree you have the right to choose, and we have had this discussion before in the other thread. 

Atheists are 100%, there is no God, just as Religion is 100%, there is a God.

Agnostic is the one in the middle.

I think a majority see it that way.

The connection between Science and Religion is Mathematics.

I think people tend to forget, that University was started by Religion.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

At the same time Tink I don't think it matters who started what. 
The only question is "what philosophy does he current evidence support - evolution or creation?" And the answer here is creation.

I think Bellenut is trying to say he is agnostic. Maybe he isn't clear on the distinction? 
As Tink says there are three
1) belief in God
2) agnostic = unsure
3) atheism = belief that there is no god


----------



## Julia (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> As Tink says there are three
> 1) belief in God
> 2) agnostic = unsure
> 3) atheism = belief that there is no god



4.  What is the 'ism' for 'don't care'?


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

Julia said:


> 4.  What is the 'ism' for 'don't care'?




They are all contained in the three.

I guess all three positions can not care.

Someone can loosely believe that there is a god but not care that much (for whatever reason).
More likely someone can be agnostic and not care.
Someone can also be an atheist and not care, although most often they seem to care for some reason.

So I wouldn't say there is a separate category for those who don't care because each would have one of the three positions anyway by default.


----------



## bellenuit (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> At the same time Tink I don't think it matters who started what.
> The only question is "what philosophy does he current evidence support - evolution or creation?" And the answer here is creation.
> 
> I think Bellenut is trying to say he is agnostic. Maybe he isn't clear on the distinction?
> ...




No Pav. I already told you what I am. I am an atheist who does not accept the evidence provided as sufficient proof for me to believe in a god. I am quite willing to accept that there might be a god if I see evidence that I deem sufficient.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or *lacks belief in* the existence of God or gods
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or *can be known* of the existence or nature of God.

I think I have been abundantly clear. It seems to be you and others that have an understanding problem.

I noticed you haven't addressed my post from yesterday on some of your criticisms of evolution.


----------



## burglar (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> ... although most often they seem to care for some reason ...




They seem to care, because they might be wrong!


----------



## DocK (6 February 2014)

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist


> Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge.
> 
> Atheists have a position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions, such as Buddhism, have been characterized as atheistic because of their lack of belief in a personal god.




I have just undertaken Jury Duty and was faced with the decision on whether I would swear on a bible, or make an affirmation instead.  My position is best summed up by the definition of Agnostic as given above, so I decided to affirm, rather than make an oath to a God I don't believe in, on a book I regard as largely fiction.  I noted that I was the only juror not to take the traditional oath.  Naturally, there has to be at least one moron on each jury, and there certainly was on mine.  Almost as soon as we were alone in the jury room I was attacked by another juror for not taking the religious oath, and my ability to tell the truth was called into question on the basis that if I didn't fear being punished by God if I lied, what possible reason was there for me to be absolutely truthful.  More ranting along that vein ensued, with the upshot that in her opinion non-religious people shouldn't be allowed to be jurors as they couldn't be relied upon to be truthful.  Now, I'm in no way suggesting that most religious people would agree with this idiot, as indeed none of the other jurors did.  In the rather heated (at least on my part ) conversation that followed, it transpired that almost half of the other jurors had no great faith in any God, were mostly undecided upon whether there was any such thing, and were largely not bothered either way.  We all (apart from the moron) agreed that a belief in a God was certainly not required in order to be truthful, lead a good life or be an upstanding citizen, and in fact the majority agreed with me that if all that was keeping the moron from lying through her teeth was fear of retribution in this life or the next then it was probably she who shouldn't be allowed to be a juror. 

What I find to be most interesting though, is that once the topic had been raised, three or four other jurors said if they'd actually given it any thought they should have "affirmed" rather than taken a religious oath - as the oath on a bible had less meaning for them.  It was simply a natural inclination to follow the accepted and usual proceedings that applied for most of them - if I hadn't been the last juror to be "sworn in" there may indeed have been a stampede away from the bible.  I wonder if it's time for a lot of our current legal practices to be updated, given that a belief in God is not the foregone conclusion that it was when our court system originated?


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> No Pav. I already told you what I am. I am an atheist who does not accept the evidence provided as sufficient proof for me to believe in a god. I am quite willing to accept that there might be a god if I see evidence that I deem sufficient.  Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.  I think I have been abundantly clear. It seems to be you and others that have an understanding problem.  I noticed you haven't addressed my post from yesterday on some of your criticisms of evolution.




An agnostic doesn't have to think that nothing can be known about God or the existence. He can think that with current evidence he is unsure which side of the argument to take.

Your comment is redundant and obvious. Everyone doesn't believe in certain things because of lack of evidence. This is obvious. Otherwise they would believe in them. 

Which points? Aren't they all points previously addressed and answered in the other religion thread (many times!!!)
These arguments are just getting lazy. If you actually wanted answers a little bit of searching would see that all your points can be satisfactorily addressed.

I'm happy to discuss various points here and there if you genuinely can't find answers but it is clear to me that you are not an honest seeker of truth and throw out all these atheist arguments that I've heard and answered what feels like hundreds of times!!!


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

Swearing on the bible is absurd even if the whole population was Christian. It even says in the bible not to swear on 'this or that' just say the honest answer. And those who want to lie will anyway. Telling a lie because your hand is on the bible is no worse than just telling a lie anyway. Jesus was clear.


----------



## CanOz (6 February 2014)

DocK said:


> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist
> 
> 
> I have just undertaken Jury Duty and was faced with the decision on whether I would swear on a bible, or make an affirmation instead.  My position is best summed up by the definition of Agnostic as given above, so I decided to affirm, rather than make an oath to a God I don't believe in, on a book I regard as largely fiction.  I noted that I was the only juror not to take the traditional oath.  Naturally, there has to be at least one moron on each jury, and there certainly was on mine.  Almost as soon as we were alone in the jury room I was attacked by another juror for not taking the religious oath, and my ability to tell the truth was called into question on the basis that if I didn't fear being punished by God if I lied, what possible reason was there for me to be absolutely truthful.  More ranting along that vein ensued, with the upshot that in her opinion non-religious people shouldn't be allowed to be jurors as they couldn't be relied upon to be truthful.  Now, I'm in no way suggesting that most religious people would agree with this idiot, as indeed none of the other jurors did.  In the rather heated (at least on my part ) conversation that followed, it transpired that almost half of the other jurors had no great faith in any God, were mostly undecided upon whether there was any such thing, and were largely not bothered either way.  We all (apart from the moron) agreed that a belief in a God was certainly not required in order to be truthful, lead a good life or be an upstanding citizen, and in fact the majority agreed with me that if all that was keeping the moron from lying through her teeth was fear of retribution in this life or the next then it was probably she who shouldn't be allowed to be a juror.
> ...





Bloody brilliant, good on ya Dock!!

This should be in a newspaper somewhere, how dare they!


----------



## burglar (6 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... I think I have been abundantly clear ...




I have looked it up before. 
I have posted it elsewhere.

It was unexpectedly opaque and overlapped.

It is due to insufficient control on the internet.
Many issues are opaque and overlapped these days!

I used to look to Google to clarify Stuff.
Once, I could safely say "I googled it, it must be true".
Now black is the new white.

The online dictionaries contradict the written dictionaries.
For every definition that says you are an agnostic,
there is another which says you are an atheist.
Either way, you don't believe in God.

And I don't believe in God either!!

Clear?


----------



## Julia (6 February 2014)

DocK said:


> I wonder if it's time for a lot of our current legal practices to be updated, given that a belief in God is not the foregone conclusion that it was when our court system originated?



Yes, an update is overdue.  It's a similar principle to people declaring themselves Christians or some sub branch of this on a Census form, or for that matter, people describing Australia as a Christian country.

You've just demonstrated how little thought most people give to traditional practices  Swearing on a bible or any other religious tome is irrelevant.

How did the case go?  Did the moron manage to apply any greater logic to the facts presented than he/she demonstrated about religion?


----------



## trainspotter (6 February 2014)

313.9 million Americans can't be wrong now can they?


----------



## bellenuit (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Which points? Aren't they all points previously addressed and answered in the other religion thread (many times!!!)
> These arguments are just getting lazy. If you actually wanted answers a little bit of searching would see that all your points can be satisfactorily addressed.




No you didn't. The last time you raised similar issues (Macro Evolution, Irreducible Complexity, plus a few more) on one of these religious orientated threads, I replied to each and every point you raised with rebuttals. I waited for your response to my posts, but never saw them. It seems the same here. You raised objections to some claims of evolution, you are provided with a rebuttal, but you chose to move on saying you addressed the issue before. 

Perhaps you could also add the DNA Fusion evidence I posted yesterday in your response.

Whether you regard me as atheist or agnostic is irrelevant. I know what I am. I have given you accepted definitions and I conform to one of those. But what is your point. What I am is irrelevant. I have posted articles that you can refute if you wish to or not, but I am done with discussing what label should be attached to me, unless *I* wish to offer that information.


----------



## bellenuit (6 February 2014)

trainspotter said:


> 313.9 million Americans can't be wrong now can they?
> 
> View attachment 56706




That was added to notes during the cold war as a sort of anti-communist statement. I think it may have been around the time of McCarthy.


----------



## Chris45 (6 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> That is not your choice. We can define our atheism just as you define your Christianity. This is how the standard dictionary on my Mac defines it (as you can see, it encompasses both): _a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods_



Ahhhh ... so you're using a Mac! No wonder you're confused 



> I just googled "Christians believing in abiogenesis" and this is the first hit I received. http://www.christianforums.com/t7389698/



I'm not interested in reading all 49 pages of that discussion but the first sentence sounds more reasonable. _"Speaking only for myself (though I suspect others may agree with me), I wouldn't say I "believe" in abiogenesis. I simply accept it as a good possibility."_

Of course it's a possibility, but I disagree that it's a "good" possibility. I would consider it a very remote possibility and I would be questioning the bona fides of a theist who believes that life was not created by God.



> Many Christians (I think you too) accepts that evolution as understood by science is basically correct, but that the laws of nature that direct it were put in place by God.



Yes, and as I have said several times, based on what I see all around me, I believe the logical sequence is, first creation by an intelligent mind, then evolution according to certain "natural" laws.

Did God create the laws of nature? ... I don't know. Perhaps God is constrained by natural laws as much as we are, but perhaps in his universe there are laws that we have yet to discover. Was Isaac Newton aware of the quantum laws when he wrote his three laws of motion? Our understanding of the laws of the universes is a work in progress.



> Additionally Adam and Eve were given a soul and they became the ancestors of modern Homo Sapiens. This is not how the Bible describes what happened, but that is how they rationalise the inconsistencies of what science knows now with the Biblical story.



It is theoretically possible that God could have created Adam, and subsequently Eve, from the dust of the ground because all of the required elements can be found therein. Ashes to ashes ... etc.

I guess that if you're a master biochemist and engineer like God, manipulating atoms, molecules and genes etc. to create things would be fairly straight forward, and given his spiritual form, he would have capabilities that we can only dream of. We've made some progress down that path in that we can now manipulate individual gold atoms, which is pretty amazing.

As I've said before, I think the Bible is rather short on detail and I wonder how the simple minded folk of Moses' era would have coped with a detailed explanation of how the first cell was created and then steered down the complex evolutionary path to man? A simple story, loosely based on fact, that they could easily comprehend was what was required.



> To go back one step before the evolution from the first organism and say God's laws of nature also led to a particular chemical and energy mix that allowed that first organism to be created from non-life (e.g. abiogenesis) is hardly any more accommodationist than accepting evolution.



If I understand you, then what you're suggesting is akin to asking us to accept that atoms of metal randomly assembled themselves into the body of a simple vehicle in a lava pond somewhere, which then subsequently evolved into the cars we have today. I suppose it's possible that cars came into being that way. 

As I understand them, the natural laws of thermodynamics (entropy and enthalpy) suggest that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely. Remotely possible, maybe, but extremely unlikely.



> Prime examples of this are some of those connected to Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" organisation, who work on the basis that if observed evidence conflicts with the Bible, then you use the Bible. They may be great in many areas of science, but ignoring observed evidence in favour of Biblical text is not acting as a scientist. They are the extreme, but many scientists that do not have a conflict with their Christian beliefs are accommodationists - they have watered down their beliefs to the point that would have been called heretics just a couple of generations ago.



I'll let Ken Ham speak for himself.

The basis of the scientific method is observation of existing phenomena and ALL belief systems, scientific, religious and atheist (even though you deny that atheism is a belief system) should evolve and adapt to scientific discoveries, in my opinion. To adhere rigidly to a belief (or disbelief) system and ignore new information that comes to hand (eg evidence of the reincarnation of souls) is pig-headed and unreasonable. 

I don't have a problem with accommodationism. It's a pity that atheists can't be accommodationists.



> What a non-sequitor and there we go with the name calling again. You and Pav really seem angry people.



I'm sorry if I come across as angry with you, I'm certainly not, and that perception may be caused by my inadequate wordsmith skills.

Bellenuit, you are obviously a very intelligent person and I'm puzzled why you can't appreciate the evidence of supernatural influences that I have linked to in my previous posts, and acknowledge that there may be forces at work in our lives that we don't yet fully understand.

I really think you should do something about that Mac of yours!  As I understand it, a *non sequitur* (kindly note the spelling) is a statement that does not logically follow from the what preceded it. I'm puzzled as to why you keep classifying what I say as a _"non-sequitor"_.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

I'll have to make time to go over the posts then and reply. Just so time consuming. Tonight I'm on the FTSE. Maybe weekend.

I don't mind if you want to confirm to some definition that you've chosen. You have every right to. Just like I have every right to label myself the greatest person to have ever lived if I choose.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

Lol I'm the one who's angry?
Come on mate...don't give us that


----------



## Chris45 (6 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Bushcraft !
> 
> Finding water in the outback!
> Finding food in the outback!
> ...



There's a huge difference between "problem solving" and the application of learned skills.

Problem solving generally refers to innovating your way around a new and previously unencountered difficulty, and this requires a much higher cognitive ability than the successful application of a set of skills that have been learned from a teacher.

Finding water and food, building a bark hut, and especially tracking animals and humans across outback terrain, are certainly very impressive skills, but they are skills learned from a teacher, not innovated on the spot. I guess that to be good at those, in addition to having a good teacher, you mainly need a good memory and sharp eyes.

However, I am in awe of their outback skills, and if I were lost in the outback, I would certainly be very appreciative of an Aboriginal using his learned skills to help me survive.


----------



## Chris45 (6 February 2014)

Julia said:


> 4.  What is the 'ism' for 'don't care'?



How about "Juliaism"?


----------



## DocK (6 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Yes, an update is overdue.  It's a similar principle to people declaring themselves Christians or some sub branch of this on a Census form, or for that matter, people describing Australia as a Christian country.
> 
> You've just demonstrated how little thought most people give to traditional practices  Swearing on a bible or any other religious tome is irrelevant.
> 
> How did the case go?  Did the moron manage to apply any greater logic to the facts presented than he/she demonstrated about religion?




:topic  After applying the incontrovertible logic that anyone who had family/friends in the gallery with tattoos on their necks_ must _ be a criminal of some sort, so if not guilty of the crime he was on trial for he was nonetheless surely guilty of another, the moron had decided upon her verdict after hearing only a quarter of the evidence.  I must admit to indulging in another spirited discussion with her, based on my opinion of her judging the accused based purely on not merely his own appearance, but that of his family/friends.  I was rather enjoying myself by then.... The rest of us, thankfully, came to agree with her verdict, but for much more sensible reasons, namely the actual evidence presented. :iamwithst   I can understand the thinking behind being judged by ones peers, but I sincerely hope that if I should ever find myself being tried by a jury that it's comprised of wiser heads than the ones I just served with.


----------



## McLovin (6 February 2014)

Julia]Yes said:


> 313.9 million Americans can't be wrong now can they?
> 
> View attachment 56706




I'm sure Thomas Jefferson rolls over in his grave every time he sees that.


----------



## Ruby (6 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Christians believing in abiogenesis??? Who? Please quote your sources for that remarkable claim.




There is nothing remarkable about that claim.  I know many - personally.   



Chris45 said:


> Most of your "intelligent atheists" are probably non-scientific artists, literologists, etc. who are quite ignorant of current scientific thinking and research. Mention multiverses and higher dimensions and they would probably adopt an arrogantly superior and disdainful posture and dismiss the suggestions as absolutely ridiculous, because they wouldn't know what you were talking about. I'm guessing their limited scientific thinking is so tightly confined within their current tiny box of well established laws and beliefs, they could not even entertain any serious scientific ideas the least bit "supernatural" (ie. not currently existing in nature, or subject to explanation according to current natural laws) and would dismiss any such ideas as pure fictional nonsense, just as H. G. Wells' "Heat-Ray" was.
> 
> It's interesting that many "intelligent atheists" believe that life probably exists elsewhere in our universe ... life as we know it, that is. No doubt they would exclude the possibility of life, NOT as we know it, existing in other universes.




Chris........ you need to listen to yourself sometime.  You are quick to slam others for not quoting sources or producing evidence.   Where is YOUR evidence for these baseless statements?  Please quote your sources.




Chris45 said:


> In the light of the mind bending new scientific ideas and discoveries that have emerged recently, and are slowly but surely gaining traction in the scientific community, anyone, atheist or otherwise, who rules out the possibility of supernatural influences which cannot be explained by our current natural laws, is either an arrogant "intelligent idiot" or an ignorant, narrow minded fool.




So....... you are the authority on these matters, are you?   I don't think intelligent highly educated, well qualified, experienced quantum physicists would appreciate being dismissed in one general contemptuous sweep like that!


----------



## Ruby (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Someone can also be an atheist and not care, although most often they seem to care for some reason.




Actually, Pav, mostly they don't care.  Many atheists never give the matter any thought.  If it doesn't exist, it isn't worth thinking about.


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

Ruby said:


> Actually, Pav, mostly they don't care.  Many atheists never give the matter any thought.  If it doesn't exist, it isn't worth thinking about.




Exactly why I wonder why anyone who is an atheist would bother on here.

It's like me going on a thread about purple unicorns and me getting all fired up that they don't exist. I find it bizarre.


----------



## Julia (6 February 2014)

Ruby said:


> Actually, Pav, mostly they don't care.  Many atheists never give the matter any thought.  If it doesn't exist, it isn't worth thinking about.



And this is essentially the point I attempted to make earlier.  A considerable proportion of our society don't give a stuff one way or the other, have more to do with their time and energy than to ponder whether some unproven supernatural persona exists.  Instead, they just get on with their lives and attempt to make the most of the one opportunity we have to live a decent life and make a contribution to our community.

Personally, I resent being labelled even 'agnostic' simply because over my entire life I've given almost no thought to this topic.  Like many, I have no need to have some sort of faith in anything other than the reality of what I can control about my own life.  Neither do I have any wish to make judgements about whether people who decline to believe in some sort of god will be eternally damned.  That's just rubbish imo.

At the same time, if someone wants to believe in some external force governing their lives, then I can understand that might be comforting insofar as it must largely remove a sense of needing to take responsibility, ie if God has the power to control what happens to us, then we would appear to have little need to do anything other than succumb to our fate.

I suppose this is the sort of fatalism which allows people whose child is dying of cancer to utter platitudes like "God doesn't send us anything we cannot deal with"    or   "It's all part of God's special plan".


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

You've given almost no thought to the topic yet you're posting on an internet forum about it?


----------



## pavilion103 (6 February 2014)

The dumbest part is without realising people are debating against some God, or pointing out things in Christianity which aren't even what Christianity is about. No one care to do any research. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. 

The Christianity that people are discussing in this thread is the perception of Christianity that people have. It is clear that there is no proper understanding other than a surface level false Christian image that has been passed around. 

Even I would be debating against the Christianity that many on here are debating against. Because it isn't the real Christianity.


----------



## burglar (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You've given almost no thought to the topic yet you're posting on an internet forum about it?




I think that is an allowable position to hold. 
We are not all of us, PHD's 
Nor do we care to be.

Truth be known, I thought it a very good post indeed!


----------



## bellenuit (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Exactly why I wonder why anyone who is an atheist would bother on here.
> 
> It's like me going on a thread about purple unicorns and me getting all fired up that they don't exist. I find it bizarre.




Perhaps because the thread is called "Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical"

Another reason is many of us believe that religion is causing many of the problems in our world today. It is mainly Islam, but also other sects like Buddhists in Myanmar, extreme Christian groups in Africa (Islamists there too), fundamentalist Christians in the US (trying to push ID as science) and even more moderate Christians in the West that deny minority groups some basic rights. If highlighting the absurdity of some beliefs can help people treat others as equals and not die for their god or mistreat others because they believe something different, that might help in some way.

Another reason is  that here in Australia religious groups get preferential treatment when it comes to taxation. By showing that religion doesn't deserve any preference over non-belief, then that also will help correct a wrong.

And some atheists might enjoy having their non-beliefs challenged. 



> Even I would be debating against the Christianity that many on here are debating against. Because it isn't the real Christianity.




Every Christian believes that their version of Christianity is the real Christianity. And every non-christian believer believes that their religion is the true religion. And they all think atheists are wrong.


----------



## Julia (6 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You've given almost no thought to the topic yet you're posting on an internet forum about it?



Yes, because I'm interested in the vagaries of human nature.
Yes, because I'm very disturbed by the hideous results of some religious beliefs.
Yes, because I'm irritated by the apparent obsession by some, Christians and others, to label others who fail to adhere to their "isms".


----------



## burglar (6 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... And they all think atheists are wrong.




They also believe we haven't agonised for 3 or 4 decades before we come to our conclusion.
They believe our research is flawed, whilst theirs is not.
Teens, without a single thought of their own, quoting Scripture, Pastor Bill or Pastor Darryl.

Obscene!

Need I go on?!


----------



## Lone Wolf (7 February 2014)

Pav, 

I wasn't going to post this as it does nothing for me and I have no desire to change your beliefs. But from the perspective of a casual forum viewer who doesn't know you, it seems you have developed a strong bias towards God existing. It seems you aren't comfortable simply believing and need to justify your stance based on scientific fact. You also appear to be claiming that some things are indisputable when in fact they are not indisputable.

If you care about the truth, (that which can be proven beyond dispute) then you might want to reconsider some of the conclusions you've reached (but this time take away your bias towards believing). Also consider that there is no such thing as indisputable evidence of God. To believe in God takes a leap of faith. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you realise you're making the leap. That's the great thing about belief, you don't need to prove it to anyone. You don't need science to back you up.

You seem to be saying that since science can't explain the origins of the universe, it must therefore be an act of God. This is false logic. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's an act of God. 

You've also mentioned the "something from nothing" thing a few times. Both religion and science face the same problem. How did God create something from nothing? How was God created? You don't understand how, but you believe it to be true. It requires a leap of faith with no evidence to support it.  

Science can't explain how it happened either, but atheists believe that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, they just don't know what that reason is. This too requires a leap of faith with no evidence to support it. 

Regarding the healing event you mentioned - You seem to look down on people who "come out with 1000 alternate excuses before believing the most obvious one staring them in the face." But isn't it commonsense to expect there to be a rational explanation for something before leaping to a supernatural conclusion? Wouldn't the best approach be to put forward 1000 alternate reasons and go about disproving them one by one? You have no evidence of a healing. Only testimony from someone you trust claiming that the bone was broken at the time of the healing. I'm not even saying that this person lied, there are other possibilities. 

Is there a possibility that there is a rational explanation for this healing? The answer can only be yes. There is no indisputable evidence that God was responsible for the healing. The best evidence you could have would be an X-ray from the day before showing a broken bone and and another X-ray the day after showing it healed. But even then, this is only evidence that the healing event caused a rapid acceleration in healing. It provides no evidence as to whether the event was supernatural or not.


----------



## bellenuit (7 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> If I understand you, then what you're suggesting is akin to asking us to accept that atoms of metal randomly assembled themselves into the body of a simple vehicle in a lava pond somewhere, which then subsequently evolved into the cars we have today. I suppose it's possible that cars came into being that way. :roll eyes:




I thought such a non-sequitur was beneath you, but apparently not. I wasn't expressing my belief in abiogenesis, but explaining how some Christians could accept it (you said that it was impossible for Christians to accept it and I then gave you a hit countering that on the first Google search I did). I have already said quite a few times that IMO abiogenesis is just a placeholder, like life coming from an alien planet, that may eventually be proved or disproved, or replaced by some other explanation. I have no opinions as to how life formed as none of the suggestions to date are sufficiently robust to satisfy me.



> The basis of the scientific method is observation of existing phenomena and ALL belief systems, scientific, religious and atheist (even though you deny that atheism is a belief system) should evolve and adapt to scientific discoveries, in my opinion. To adhere rigidly to a belief (or disbelief) system and ignore new information that comes to hand (eg evidence of the reincarnation of souls) is pig-headed and unreasonable.




Firstly, not believing the evidence put forward for a god, is not a belief system. It is like saying the off button is a TV channel or as Bill Maher puts it, saying abstinence is a sex position. Otherwise I agree with the gist of what you are saying. However, you seem to be confusing ignoring things with not accepting the evidence for them. I have again said on several occasions that I would believe in a deity if there was sufficient evidence to satisfy me. I am not against the possibility of reincarnation, I just haven't seen any convincing evidence. 

You continually seem to be getting back to the science should be open to accepting supernatural causes and calling atheist scientists as ignorant as you have so eloquently said in previous posts.  

Firstly let me be clear. While there are scientists who are atheists, there is no atheist science. Science is science and a scientist who ignores all possibilities is a bad scientist not an atheist scientist. While there are also Christians who are scientists (good scientists too), there is a Christian science, just as there is an Islamic science. Christian science is what is practised by Young Earth Creationists and Islamic science is practised by many islamic scientists. That is you reject the evidence if it conflicts with your holy book.

Science is an evidence based system of discovery. Scientists have only natural means to collect evidence and as such they cannot ever have "supernatural" as the explanation. It doesn't matter if the scientist is a Christian or an atheist, their bag of tricks does not have the possibility of proving a "supernatural" cause. While the scientist who is a Christian may accept that "supernatural" is a possibility and believe that the cause is supernatural, by doing so he hasn't progressed knowledge or discovery one whit. Unless a deity were to manifest himself beyond doubt, using "supernatural" as an explanation can only be proposed after all possible natural causes have been ruled out. And we simply do not have enough knowledge to rule out all natural causes. 

Whereas you might think that being willing to declare a cause or event to be supernatural (as opposed to accepting that it is a possibility) leads to better science as one is more "open minded", it actually is the opposite. As soon as you say the cause is supernatural, you have effectively stopped looking for natural causes and that is not good science. You are replacing evidence with belief. 

The reason we have had thousands of different gods, superstitions, burning of witches, exorcisms etc though the ages is that a some point a group stopped looking at the evidence and decided the cause was supernatural. Thus Norse tribes assumed thunder to be supernatural and created their god Thor as the perpetrator.

Since mankind began we have had scientists (very broadly speaking) who believed in a god and scientists who didn't believe in a god. The former would certainly have been open to supernatural explanations. The latter may or may not, but it would be the bottom of their lists if it were. You have a called the latter ignorant. But can you name one supernatural event or cause that has been proven beyond doubt by the former, that would lead you to think that their science is somewhat better.


----------



## artist (7 February 2014)

Lone Wolf said:


> Pav,
> 
> But from the perspective of a casual forum viewer who doesn't know you, it seems you have developed a strong bias towards God existing. It seems you aren't comfortable simply believing and need to justify your stance based on scientific fact. You also appear to be claiming that some things are indisputable when in fact they are not indisputable.




Lone Wolf, I suspect that when / if pavilion103 gets the time to assemble his response you will see why he feels comfortable being so assertive, and so confident in the opinions he espouses.

In the meantime however here is a list of epithets used by the pavilion103 and Chris45 when discussing the people and / or the ideas they disagree with:
stupid, insane, delusional, extremely ignorant troll, ridiculous, fool, ignorant/ly (a few times), arrogantly superior and disdainful, narrow-minded fool, lazy, dumbest, "intelligent idiot", pig-headed and unreasonable.

And it was pavilion103 who wrote that "Also interesting to note that anyone who follows Christ will not hate or disrespect anyone. " and that personal swipes are embarrassing.


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... However, I am in awe of their outback skills ...



Agree!
If my daddy learnt to find water that would be "problem solving". 
Agree!
If he taught me and then I found water, that would be the application of learned skills.

How does that make me less intelligent than my daddy?


----------



## Tink (7 February 2014)

Artist, before you start pointing fingers at people that are giving personal swipes, maybe you should look over a few of these threads and look at the personal swipes directed at myself for my thoughts and opinions in here, and a few of the others that have never come back, sadly, it works both ways, with no contribution in the thread whatsoever.

As I have stated, science and religion are both important in society, and discussing it in a reasonable manner is what we are here for, sadly, some need to get personal to get their views across.


----------



## artist (7 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Artist, before you start pointing fingers at people that are giving personal swipes, maybe you should look over a few of these threads and look at the personal swipes directed at myself for my thoughts and opinions in here, and a few of the others that have never come back, sadly, it works both ways, with no contribution in the thread whatsoever.
> 
> As I have stated, science and religion are both important in society, and discussing it in a reasonable manner is what we are here for, sadly, some need to get personal to get their views across.




I did look back over a couple of threads and read almost every post and saw no invective to match what I just quoted, but I may have missed some. The insults are not, in my opinion, "discussing it in a reasonable manner" and make me (and others as you point out) less inclined to bother to read, let alone participate in the conversation.  As for the points of view you or others express, I made no comment


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Exactly why I wonder why anyone who is an atheist would bother on here.
> 
> It's like me going on a thread about purple unicorns and me getting all fired up that they don't exist. I find it bizarre.




I don't think there are purple unicorns.
They are mostly white.

But then isn't that what people said about swans.


----------



## Tink (7 February 2014)

Thanks artist.

When you get a poster having to open their own thread on the beauty of religion because of the constant abuse being dished out to believers, then it makes you wonder, and I did enjoy reading the time and space, theism and different structures to the universe.
Sadly, the naysayers quickly shot it down.

Science and Religion are both doctrines and dogma in the extreme, if people want to be picky.

As said, it works both ways, and peoples comments and feeds should be welcome.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

burglar said:


> I don't think there are purple unicorns. They are mostly white.  But then isn't that what people said about swans.




Lol I enjoy your interjections. Breaks up the tension at times!


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Thanks artist.  When you get a poster having to open their own thread on the beauty of religion because of the constant abuse being dished out to believers, then it makes you wonder, and I did enjoy reading the time and space, theism and different structures to the universe. Sadly, the naysayers quickly shot it down.  Science and Religion are both doctrines and dogma in the extreme, if people want to be picky.  As said, it works both ways, and peoples comments and feeds should be welcome.




A bit annoying isn't it?

Seems like there are two standards too. 
I can make a negative comment even about the logic of the atheist ideas (not a personal attack) and I get pointed out as hating someone and being not like Jesus teachings.  

Then an atheist can label us as gullible, outdated, indoctrinated, or worse etc and it doesn't even get a mention.

I won't just sit here, smile politely and cop that crap. Either it's the same standard for both or we end this discussion. Needs to be a level playing field in that regard.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

People can say the Christian views are not worthy of respectful discussion. But I'm not allowed to say that the atheist arguments presented as intellectually dishonest, incoherent and inconsistent. 
Give me a break!


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Lol I enjoy your interjections. Breaks up the tension at times!




I am drawn to banter as a moth to a flame! 

Not sure I like the label of interjector, ...
but it may grow on me!


----------



## artist (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> A bit annoying isn't it?
> 
> Seems like there are two standards too.
> I can make a negative comment even about the logic of the atheist ideas (not a personal attack) and I get pointed out as hating someone and being not like Jesus teachings.
> ...




No two standards as far as I am concerned. One can make negative comments about the logic of atheists, just as they can about theists of any persuasion, but some of the comments I quoted were, in my estimation, demeaning personal attacks. And, despite actively searching for equivalent examples from the other side I was unable to find any (but as I wrote above, I may have missed some). Had I noted any then my objection would apply to that also. There is obviously going to be some disagreement on occasion as to whether or not a particular phrasing is apt but in I think that in general it is evident when comments are insulting. 

I anticipated that you might claim I was accusing you of hating someone but I hoped you would be more discerning than that. I should have written "I am not accusing you of hating, but some of the terms you use cannot be said to show respect".

Accusations by either side of gullibility (although that is a word I would hesitate to use), outdatedness or indoctrination are not personal attacks in my view (hence didn't get a mention - it is the "or worse etc" from either side that I find unnecessary, unjustified, unproductive and undignified), but they are pointless unless substantiated with some evidence. But then if there is evidence, why not present it without the acrimony?

As to "Either it's the same standard for both or we end this discussion." an alternative would be to maintain a high standard of debate and conduct for oneself and to refuse to engage in what one sees as inappropriate behaviour even if in your view others do.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

Agree.

I apologise for any personal remarks that I may have made.


On another point, this thread is just becoming the same as the other religion thread.

Was there a specific purpose for this one?
If so maybe we should adhere to that? 

The reason I started posting in here because I was sick of the other one. But this has become the same. I don't see the point?


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

I'm interested to discuss origins. 

It was mentioned that creationists face the same problem as atheists. 
This is not the case. An eternal God is able to "create". He is eternal. He needs no creator. 
The naturalistic world view and current scientific evidence does not allow for something to come from nothing (from within everything that currently exists). To think that it can is unscientific by definition. It's all well and good to think that this evidence will come along, but until it does (which it won't) we have to follow current scientific evidence that says something in this universe can't come from nothing in this universe. 
Atheists have a miracle, but no miracle worker!


I'm curious to know the thoughts of current atheists in this thread about their thoughts on:
1) possible origins
2) the evidence to support these.


----------



## Chris45 (7 February 2014)

burglar said:


> If my daddy learnt to find water that would be "problem solving".
> Agree!
> If he taught me and then I found water, that would be the application of learned skills.
> How does that make me less intelligent than my daddy?



The application of a learned skill requires less cognitive ability than the devising of the skill in the first place.

That doesn't necessarily mean that you are less intelligent than your daddy.

If you are capable of devising your own innovative solutions to problems, in addition to being able to apply your learned skills, then you could be more intelligent than your daddy.


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> ... Atheists have a miracle, but no miracle worker! ...




Correction, if I may:

Atheists have a mystery, ...


Theists have a miracle, and have made a leap of faith ...


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Correction, if I may:  Atheists have a mystery, ...  Theists have a miracle, and have made a leap of faith ...




Atheists believe in what is here in the here and now and no supernatural intervention.

Scientific evidence says that something can't be created from nothing. It also says that the universe is not eternal. That is a huge dilemma! They are snookered.

What are your thoughts on origin Burglar?


----------



## CanOz (7 February 2014)

All this discussion so far and yet no one has mentioned matter and energy


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Atheists believe in what is here in the here and now and no supernatural intervention.
> 
> Scientific evidence says that something can't be created from nothing. It also says that the universe is not eternal. That is a huge dilemma! They are snookered.
> 
> What are your thoughts on origin Burglar?




"I think I am, therefore I am, I think"

Without origin, I would fry my brain. 
Therefore it remains to me, a mystery.
No worse than your dilemma.


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

CanOz said:


> All this discussion so far and yet no one has mentioned matter and energy




I'm exhaustipated = I don't have the energy to excrete matter! :


----------



## Chris45 (7 February 2014)

artist said:


> In the meantime however here is a list of epithets used by the pavilion103 and Chris45 when discussing the people and / or the ideas they disagree with:
> stupid, insane, delusional, extremely ignorant troll, ridiculous, fool, ignorant/ly (a few times), arrogantly superior and disdainful, narrow-minded fool, lazy, dumbest, "intelligent idiot", pig-headed and unreasonable.



Artist, here is a list of epithets used by some of the atheists here when discussing the people and / or the ideas they disagree with:
_gullible, brainwashed, bigoted, sanctimonious, nonsensical, asinine, thoroughly indoctrinated, ignorant, pious, superstitious, ridiculous and ludicrous, delusion, religious nonsense, blinkered, religious drones, magic book, slave to religious superstition, celestial dictator, arrogant, religious myth and poison._

Perhaps you can appreciate why we theists get a little annoyed and sometimes feel the need to respond in kind.


----------



## Chris45 (7 February 2014)

burglar said:


> I'm exhaustipated = I don't have the energy to excrete matter! :



Burglar, you are an exhaustipated treasure!


----------



## bellenuit (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Agree.
> 
> On another point, this thread is just becoming the same as the other religion thread.
> 
> Was there a specific purpose for this one?




I created this forum to discuss *Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical* as the title said.  I didn't want to use the Religion is Crazy thread as there are many aspects of religion worthy of discussion apart from the acts of those with extreme views. I also didn't want to impinge on The Beauty in Religion thread as that would have been too restrictive and the OP said at the outset "Plenty of threads here vilifying religion so it's time for a positive one. If you want to post bigotry or conspiracist nonsense please go elsewhere. Just the good here."

So religion was one of several topics that could be discussed here, but my hope was that it would be discussed at a more philosophical and scientific level than just each calling the other side fools.



> I'm interested to discuss origins.




I kicked off the thread with a post about a newly translated pre-biblical tablet that described a great flood and was supposedly used to save all animals. It was pertinent to the thread as it was relevant to the historicity of the biblical story of Noah and if true, would also have relevance to the origins of man (as our lineage would all descend from those people). 

Your first response to this thread was to express audacity that the source of the story was a website on evolution and you were immediately in attack mode (as if it were relevant where the tablet story came from - there were many sources, I just found it there). The issue was the story, you were up in arms at the source I used.

_What a staggering website to put this article on "Why Evolution is True"

........

I thought your article must have been a creationist one. Bizarre that it's on an evolution website when it actually supports some sort of flood account! 

I guess people tend to whack up a bunch of text and draw whatever conclusion they want! Weird._

There was a big discussion on stigmata, relevant to scepticism. Some discussions on a new theory of life. Articles were posted on a new type of stem cell, on how to evaluate the authenticity of "extraordinary" stories posted on Facebook, on a conspiracy theory relating to snow in the US South, Neanderthal Genes Found in Modern Human DNA, Charles Eisenstein - Sacred Economics, the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate and other things. Some topics took off, others didn't. That is to be expected. But there is obviously interest in this thread as it has grown quickly.

IMO it is successful, though at times it may get bogged down in certain topics that are of interest to just a few.There have been lot of insults thrown at other people who do not share the same views, as documented above. I personally try to avoid doing that. 

However, I am less concerned about the insults that the constant statements from some people adamantly stating what other posters think, ignoring completely what these other posters say, or what certain groups in society think, without any evidence to back up those statements. For instance, I have a few times stated my position on a deity, on abiogenesis, on the Big Bang, yet I am being told that I have a different position on these than I declared. Also people trying to put a label on me that doesn't conform to how I see myself. That is arrogance.

But where this forum goes is up to the participants. My intention is to post articles on thread related topics that I find interesting and whether others want to discuss or not is not for me to decide. However, I think this thread is needed as the topics are of interest to many people and there isn't another thread that is more appropriate for their discussion.


----------



## Chris45 (7 February 2014)

CanOz said:


> All this discussion so far and yet no one has mentioned matter and energy



I mentioned matter and energy in post #157


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

Belrnuit what are your thought on the origin? Apologies if I've missed it posted somewhere


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

burglar said:


> "I think I am, therefore I am, I think"  Without origin, I would fry my brain. Therefore it remains to me, a mystery. No worse than your dilemma.




I don't have a dilemma for the origin though.


----------



## artist (7 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Artist, here is a list of epithets used by some of the atheists here when discussing the people and / or the ideas they disagree with:
> _gullible, brainwashed, bigoted, sanctimonious, nonsensical, asinine, thoroughly indoctrinated, ignorant, pious, superstitious, ridiculous and ludicrous, delusion, religious nonsense, blinkered, religious drones, magic book, slave to religious superstition, celestial dictator, arrogant, religious myth and poison._
> 
> Perhaps you can appreciate why we theists get a little annoyed and sometimes feel the need to respond in kind.




You were able to find examples I did not find, even though I looked back through a couple or three threads. I am not surprised, and, as I wrote above, I lament the use of such terms by either side. It is possible to research these matters, either as an original researcher or as a consumer of others' work (which is the case for most people) without the rancour so while I understand theists' annoyance I don't agree either side needs to respond in (that) kind. These  issues easily inflame emotions yet the emotions won't lead to understanding of the issues. 

I know of an atheist who is so highly regarded for his work in the community that, when he became seriously ill, he was being prayed for by religious communities in Australia and overseas. And he was highly appreciative of their prayers. He, likewise, values the work that some religious leaders carry out in the community. That is the model I prefer to follow.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

That sounds good


----------



## Chris45 (7 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I thought such a non-sequitur was beneath you, but apparently not.



I misunderstood you, sorry.


----------



## artist (7 February 2014)

William Lane Craig is adamant he cannot prove god exits. Graham Oppy, whom Craig has described as "scary smart" has written that he cannot prove god doesn't exist.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

artist said:


> William Lane Craig is adamant he cannot prove god exits. Graham Oppy, whom Craig has described as "scary smart" has written that he cannot prove god doesn't exist.




No one can prove God or disprove God. It's impossible. Any sensible person admits this. 

In the same way no one can prove anything. I can't prove that I'm not in a dream right now. I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I hate the word proof. 
The word to use is evidence. 
We examine evidence and make a conclusion based on that evidence.
E.g. Based on evidence the sun will rise tomorrow (but I can't prove that it will).


----------



## lindsayf (7 February 2014)

Curious to hear from the theists on this;

If a person lives their life without ever being exposed to the teachings of Christ/Christian doctrine, what happens to them when they die?  I suppose whatever the response is, that it applies equally to those that follow alternative religions?


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Curious to hear from the theists on this;
> 
> If a person lives their life without ever being exposed to the teachings of Christ/Christian doctrine, what happens to them when they die?  I suppose whatever the response is, that it applies equally to those that follow alternative religions?




My take on it is this. 
There were many people in the Bible who never heard of Christ and are in heaven:
Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. 

I obviously don't know all the answers. 
What I do know is that God is just. His character is one of ultimate justice. He doesn't rip anyone off in the end. 
Those who haven't heard of Christ aren't automatically going to Hell. 
We are given a conscience. We are given an innate knowledge that some God exists. We can see it clearly in creation also. 
I believe that those who have never heard the Gospel message and humbly put their faith in God will not automatically be sent to Hell. 

However, this would represent a small minority of the world who have never heard of Jesus. 
Just as Moses, Abraham and Isaac never had, but put their sincere faith in God. 

The majority who have heard of Christ have the opportunity to investigage his claims or to ignore them. 
I believe that if people are sincere in their search they will find Christ.
Unfortunately, most are so indifferent to even investigating these enormous claims. Most dismiss it instantly. 
Most I speak to aren't even aware of the piles of evidence when I tell them. They are a bit shocked. 

Put it this way. I don't think anyone that is a sincere seeker, investigated the claims thoroughly and humbles themselves will miss out on eternal life.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

I'll add to that. It certainly isn't some exclusive club. 


It's like this example. 
It's raining outside. 
There is an infinite number of umbrellas. 
Some take them and walk across the road safely. 
Others cry out "It's not fair that only those with umbrellas can get across the road dry". 
Meanwhile their own umbrella is within arm's reach! Everyone can have one. 

The rain, like death, we cannot control. 
We need to carefully examine if there is a solution. 
If there is we obviously need to accept it. 
If it's a free gift even better!
Christ offered this solution loud and clear and backed up his claims. 
This warrants very serious investigation. 
There is no other even like him.


----------



## Chris45 (7 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Atheists are 100%, there is no God, just as Religion is 100%, there is a God.
> Agnostic is the one in the middle.
> I think a majority see it that way.






pavilion103 said:


> As Tink says there are three
> 1) belief in God
> 2) agnostic = unsure
> 3) atheism = belief that there is no god






bellenuit said:


> I am an atheist who does not accept the evidence provided as sufficient proof for me to believe in a god. I am quite willing to accept that there might be a god if I see evidence that I deem sufficient.
> 
> Atheist: a person who disbelieves or *lacks belief in* the existence of God or gods



atheism - from the Greek atheos (a- not, theos god)
I think _"100% belief that there is no God"_ fits.

Bellenuit's definition suggests to me that atheists are trying to soften their definition of atheism. Could this be an attempt to try and make atheism more appealing to the undecided agnostics by making it sound less adamant? 

A person who _lacks belief_ in the existence of God but is quite willing to accept that _there might be a God_ if he sees evidence that he deems sufficient, sounds less sure and therefore more of an agnostic.

Perhaps we could add a couple of extra classifications:
Apatheticist - a person who doesn't care if there is or isn't a God.
Simpleton - a person who has never bothered to think if there is or isn't a God.


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... we could add a couple of extra classifications ...




Lukewarm Catholics - Easily identified as those who flood churches and cathedrals at Christmas and Easter.


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Lukewarm Catholics - Easily identified as those who flood churches and cathedrals at Christmas and Easter.




+1


----------



## pavilion103 (7 February 2014)

burglar said:


> If I call the origin a miracle, (hypothetically speaking ...) And if I create a miracle worker, And if my imaginary miracle worker creates time.  Then I don't have a dilemma for the origin.  I could insert the word "eternal" in nearly every post, whilst simultaneously pretending I am not going around and around and around the same metaphysical roundabout.




You've missed the whole point. 

By scientific standards an "in time" creator does not make sense because someone would have had to have made him. 

There are two options only if there is a creator
1. In time
2. Eternal 

We can eliminate one due to infinite regress.


----------



## bellenuit (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Belrnuit what are your thought on the origin? Apologies if I've missed it posted somewhere




If you mean the origins of our universe, I simply do not know. Scientific explanations are in the realm of quantum physics and that is way beyond my comprehension, except at a very superficial level. As I've said before, there are many speculations but they are all placeholders IMO (and you could include supernatural creation among them) until some evidence is found to support one in particular or perhaps suggest another explanation. My problem with supernatural creation is that if it can be proved, well and good, but I don't know if that would be possible unless a deity made its existence known beyond doubt and then showed how it did it. However, if it cannot be proved and is just accepted (believed without evidence), then why bother to search for other explanations. 

The Big Bang seems at present to be the best explanation of what happened to get from the initial point *just after our universe came into being* (which may have happened in parallel with other universes coming into being) to where it is today. The Big Bang has some credence as it conforms to much observed data, such as an expanding universe (extrapolate backwards and it is a shrinking universe converging to a point if taken to the extreme). The theory also predicted that if there was a Big Bang then there would be background noise from that event still observable and such noise has been detected. I see the Big Bang more as an explanation of what came after this monumental event rather than an explanation of the event itself or what was before.


----------



## bellenuit (7 February 2014)

artist said:


> You were able to find examples I did not find, even though I looked back through a couple or three threads. I am not surprised, and, as I wrote above, I lament the use of such terms by either side. It is possible to research these matters, either as an original researcher or as a consumer of others' work (which is the case for most people) without the rancour so while I understand theists' annoyance I don't agree either side needs to respond in (that) kind. These  issues easily inflame emotions yet the emotions won't lead to understanding of the issues.




A contribution from Jesus and Mo on insults.


----------



## Tink (7 February 2014)

Good on you, bellenuit, for opening this thread, as I said at the start, and I agree there is interest as it has grown quickly. 
I do like hearing all the different views.

_But where this forum goes is up to the participants. My intention is to post articles on thread related topics that I find interesting and whether others want to discuss or not is not for me to decide. However, I think this thread is needed as the topics are of interest to many people and there isn't another thread that is more appropriate for their discussion._

Agree


----------



## Chris45 (7 February 2014)

I wonder how many here have bothered to actually study the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls?

I originally posted about reincarnation in the "Religion IS crazy!" thread but for the benefit of those who didn't see it, and since this is a new thread I'll provide the links again.

Google "reincarnation research" for more information.

* MailOnline article about Jim Tucker's book:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html

Four of the cases described in the book:
_(1) "Hunter", a three-year-old golfing prodigy who said he was the reincarnation of 13-time major winner Bobby Jones.

(2) Ryan, a Baptist Minister's five-year-old son, recalls fast cars, big boats, actor friends sunburn and trips to the Eiffel Tower that mirror the life of Hollywood agent and bit-part actor Marty Martin.

(3) Two-year-old James Leininger claims to have been a World War II fighter pilot.

(4) Three-year-old Lee, who believed that he was Sidney Coe Howard - the Oscar-winning screenwriter for arguably the biggest Hollywood blockbuster of all time Gone With The Wind._​
* Washington Post article about Ian Stevenson:   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001393.html?nav=hcmodule

* Ian Stevenson's paper _"Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons"_:   http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/birthmark.htm

* Documentary about six-year-old Cameron Macaulay: _"The Boy Who Lived Before"_:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgOBfCrxS3U
Synopsis:   http://www.ianlawton.com/cpl2.htm​
* Eleven-year-old boy reincarnated, FOX 8 News:	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWCUjx4nI98

* Wikipedia entries for Tucker & Stevenson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_B._Tucker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson​
Bellenuit cited a skeptic's discussion about the James Leininger case but there hasn't been much other discussion.

I find it puzzling that people can dismiss 40 years of scientific research involving 3,000 cases of apparent reincarnation so easily.


----------



## artist (7 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> A contribution from Jesus and Mo on insults.
> 
> 
> View attachment 56724




Love J & M!  This strip illustrates one of the many objections I have to islam.


----------



## burglar (7 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You've missed the whole point.
> 
> By scientific standards an "in time" creator does not make sense because someone would have had to have made him.
> 
> ...




I have missed the whole point.

I dropped that post on reviewing it.
It was rude ... uncalled for ... unwarranted!


----------



## bellenuit (7 February 2014)

*Some follow up to the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate*

22 self-identifying creationists at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate were asked to write a message/question/note. Some of the questions were what many Young Earth Creationists regard as proof that evolution is false.

These were the questions......

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio

These are answers subsequently given on Slate by an astronomer/scientist:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ience_answering_creationists_questi  ons.html

For those who watched the debate, I think you will find this post-mortem by Jaclyn Glenn apt.


----------



## bellenuit (7 February 2014)

*The British Government Will Soon Take Action Against Female Genital Mutilation*

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ake-action-against-female-genital-mutilation/


----------



## bellenuit (8 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I wonder how many here have bothered to actually study the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls?
> 
> ..........
> 
> I find it puzzling that people can dismiss 40 years of scientific research involving 3,000 cases of apparent reincarnation so easily.




These are some definitions from my online dictionary that I think we would all agree on.

Reincarnation: The rebirth of a soul in another body.

Consciousness:  The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. Consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.

Soul: The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal

I looked at this site for a review of Tucker's book: 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509769/New-book-reveals-children-believe-reincarnated.html

It is interesting that you raise the reincarnation issue again as I was going to post on it yesterday in relation to scientists who disregard looking for "supernatural" causes or events being ignorant. If you take reincarnation as defined here, that is a supernatural event. It involves the soul and the soul is what religious people regard as separate from the person and will continue to live for eternity after the physical body dies. Cardinal Pell described Adam and Eve as mythical, but representative of the first two homo sapiens in the evolutionary path to whom God gave a soul. All subsequent offspring of these two designated beings also acquired a soul at birth according to Pell.  

Since there is no proof that there is such a thing as a soul, then there can be no evidence of reincarnation as defined above or in the sense alluded to by you at the beginning of your post: _the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls._ 

I was then going to put that in the context of the James Leininger case we discussed and see what the difference might be between two equally competent scientists, one that accepted the possibility of supernatural causes and one who didn't.

Since both have the same toolkit, which is a knowledge of natural processes, there should be no difference in what each would learn exploring the case. Neither would be able to prove a supernatural cause, because that is outside the realm of their observations. Having spent a considerable amount of time exploring all natural causes with no success, the first scientist is more likely to conclude the the cause is supernatural and move on.

_That is basically the case when it comes to those miraculously cured in Lourdes - the Vatican appointed scientists don't prove that the cures were supernatural - just that they can't find any natural cause and then conclude that the explanation can only be supernatural. They don't need to show a mechanism for the cure. It is after all supernatural and beyond natural explanations._

The other scientist on the other hand who is not willing to accept supernatural causes perseveres. He may never come up with the answer, but if there is a natural explanation it will be he who finds it. So those reluctant to look at supernatural causes are more likely to find the real natural cause. 

In the case of Tucker, the article I posted stated this:

*Bases the science for his theories in advanced quantum physics, arguing that human consciousness can move in time and space*

Quantum physics provide natural explanations for events, though it is a science beyond the comprehension of most people, including me. Although Tucker uses the word reincarnation and at times the word soul, does he mean soul in the religious sense or as a synonym for consciousness. His explanations of his theory use the word consciousness as the "thing" that sits independent of the body and gets passed to the other person so I suspect he is using it as a synonym.

It is interesting research, but at present it is just speculation worth pursuing. There aren't many pursuing reincarnation per se, but there are quite a few studying consciousness. It would be interesting if they could somehow prove that it can exist outside of the body and be transmittable. I am sure such a discovery would be relished by science as it would lead to potentially new explanations in many fields that deal with the brain (medicine, psychology, criminology etc.). It might prove problematic for some religions.


----------



## Lone Wolf (8 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> It was mentioned that creationists face the same problem as atheists.
> This is not the case. An eternal God is able to "create". He is eternal. He needs no creator.




If God created the universe then it still had to come from somewhere, so even in your view something came from nothing. All we're debating here is the mechanism that allows that to happen. If God can be eternal and create something from nothing, then why can't there be something natural that is eternal that led to our creation? 

The atheist view - "We can't determine how it happened, but considering that there is no indisputable evidence of a supernatural event ever occurring we can only assume that there is a rational explanation.' 

The creationist view - "We can't determine how it happened, so we can only assume that there must be an all powerful eternal being that made it happen." 

Creationists created a miracle worker to explain something that's beyond their understanding. They made God all powerful and eternal. What evidence is there that God is all powerful or that God is eternal?

Why does an atheist need evidence to support their belief that the supernatural doesn't exist? You don't need to supply evidence on how it's possible for God to be an eternal being who can create matter out of nothing, you just believe that he can. So why can't an atheist simply believe that there is a rational solution to the problem of creation? 



pavilion103 said:


> I'm curious to know the thoughts of current atheists in this thread about their thoughts on:
> 1) possible origins
> 2) the evidence to support these.




I'm not an Atheist but as I said above, your assumption that something had to come from nothing might be incorrect. If something can't come from nothing, yet here we are, then something existed before the universe as we know it.

I think most Atheists would leave it at that. It's the creationists that feel the need to go one step further and say, the thing that must have existed before is an all powerful eternal being. Atheists then question on what basis do you make that extra leap?


----------



## bellenuit (8 February 2014)

Lone Wolf said:


> I think most Atheists would leave it at that. It's the creationists that feel the need to go one step further and say, the thing that must have existed before is an all powerful eternal being. Atheists then question on what basis do you make that extra leap?




That's crucial. Atheists say they don't know, but keep seeking. Creationists say they know, but can't offer proof of their claim, but expect you to believe it.


----------



## burglar (8 February 2014)

The process of music making for delivering doctrine in the Christian Family Centre (an Adelaide Pentecostal Church).



> Contemporary Pentecostal Church Music has developed rapidly in the past twenty years in Australia although few ethno-musicological writings on Pentecostal Music are yet available. This research investigates the process of music making for delivering doctrine in the Ministry Time at the Christian Family Centre (an Adelaide Pentecostal Church). Fieldwork at the services of the Christian Family Centre was supported by interviews with the participants and contrasted with the researcher’s own observations as a participant. There are three aspects of discussion in the research. First is a discussion on the people involved in the music making. This is explored through an overview of the participants, a detailed analysis of the roles participants fulfil and the team structures that form. Second is an outline of the process used to make music in the services, tracing an idea from concept through to preparation, development, delivery and evaluation. Third is an examination of the musical product of the Ministry Time and a demonstration of how doctrine (orthodoxy) is delivered through lyrics, song style and interpretation of the arrangement by the players (orthopraxy). Analysis of the data reveals the specific roles and leadership structure of the Church Music Team as well as the individual’s contribution to the music making process, which is best summarised in the metaphorical equation: people + process = product. The thesis argues that although this research considers music performed in a religious context, the findings have potential for broader application to music of sacred, secular and even profane origins.






http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/66192


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

I didn't say something can't come from nothing.

I said nothing can't come from something natural.

An eternal God doesn't encounter this problem.

The atheist won't answer questions about the origin (even share his possible views) because it cannot be accommodated in his worldview regardless of the answer. Without a supernatural creator they are left with the natural. 1.Scientifically there is no viable natural explanation
2. Wisely they can often acknowledge that any explanation outside of the supernatural is guess work and then we have the problem of continuous regression anyway. 

At least the evolutionist can say - I believe in evolution and welcome the possibility that someone put the simplest form if life there in the first place (or created the universe and used evolution to advance life).

The outright atheist has nothing. Nothing scientific. 

God is no a god of the gaps.
There are only 2 options
1) some form of a creator
2) no creator

Science cannot validate or accommodate view number 2. So this should not be accepted. Science and the way the universe works can accommodate number 1 and strongly points to it. To believe number 2 is to blatantly ignore all scientific evidence that we have.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> That's crucial. Atheists say they don't know, but keep seeking. Creationists say they know, but can't offer proof of their claim, but expect you to believe it.  <img src="https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56732"/>




A) don't use the word proof. No one can prove anything.

B) look at my 2 options in the post above. It's scientific evidence and logic that leads to this conclusion not pure faith or guesswork or personal preference. 

You're making an assumption that there is no logic or evidence behind the "some sort of a creator" view but as seen above that is a blatant falsity.


----------



## lindsayf (8 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I didn't say something can't come from nothing.
> 
> I said nothing can't come from something natural.
> 
> ...




Pav

I am struggling with your logic and language.  Science cannot validate either the existence or the non existence of a creator because that is a doctrinal or philosphical proposition, not a scientific one, isnt it?
To say that science points to one or the other is also probably based on a doctrinal confirmation bias.

What do you understand by the continuous regression problem that you refer to?

L


----------



## Julia (8 February 2014)

> It involves the soul and the soul is what religious people regard as separate from the person and will continue to live for eternity after the physical body dies.



Not all religious people believe in a soul.  Seventh Day Adventists discard the idea entirely.



pavilion103 said:


> I said nothing can't come from something natural.



Perhaps my powers of comprehension are deficient, but I'm at a loss to understand this statement.
Could you express it differently?


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Pav
> 
> I am struggling with your logic and language.  Science cannot validate either the existence or the non existence of a creator because that is a doctrinal or philosphical proposition, not a scientific one, isnt it?
> To say that science points to one or the other is also probably based on a doctrinal confirmation bias.
> ...




You are correct in that it is a philosophical proposition. 

But this proposition is (hopefully) reached by the observation of scientific evidence as well as philosophical reasoning. 

For example the person will consider both positions 
1) naturalistic/atheistic view of no creator 
2) a creator (any sort of creator). 

These views aren't just arrived at by a heads or tails coin toss. The choice is arrived at by examining evidence. 

The creationist might, for example, view the world around us and dismiss 1) because
1) naturalistic view isn't supported by scientific evidence because we don't ever observe something coming from nothing, because we never observe life coming from non-life etc.... 
Thus the naturalistic view doesn't accommodate current scientific observation. 

AND 

The creationist might, for example, view the world around us and think 2) is the best proposition because
2) Scientific observation regarding the complexity of creation, the intricate precision of the laws of physics and the universe points to a greater likelihood of a creator than purely "time and chance".


The atheist might have a similar process by which they derive their conclusion. 
In the end can't be proven and of course require some degree of faith. 
But then again so does going to a restaurant without a chemistry kit to test if the food is poisoned. 
We examine evidence and based on that determine which conclusion is most likely. 


So although each position is a philosophical one, whatever choice is made it should be underpinned by current evidence in the world around us, rather than flipping a coin.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Not all religious people believe in a soul.  Seventh Day Adventists discard the idea entirely.
> 
> 
> Perhaps my powers of comprehension are deficient, but I'm at a loss to understand this statement.
> Could you express it differently?




Apologies Julia I made a meal of that statement 
I think I confused myself there haha!

What I meant to say was.
a) something supernatural (and eternal) can create something from nothing within "our" time and space.
b) Within the natural world something cannot be created from nothing (based on scientific observation). Although I'd welcome examples from people if I'm incorrect.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

Infinite regression. 

Whatever is not eternal has a beginning. 
Whatever has a beginning has a cause.

If there is an eternal creator then this creator by definition has always existed outside of time. It has no beginning and thus requires no cause. 

If we take the atheist approach and say that there is no creator(god) then we are faced with a dilemma. 
The universe is not eternal, thus it had a beginning. 
What has a beginning has a cause. 
So how does this fit in with the atheist view?
They might say, well we came from another universe....
Then where did that universe come from?
Another universe....
Where did that universe come from etc. 
We could go on for hours. 

Unless the atheist acknowledges that we had to have originally come from something eternal and thus supernatural (exist above and beyond nature), there is no getting around this because whatever has a beginning has to have had a cause.


----------



## artist (8 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Pav
> 
> I am struggling with your logic and language.  Science cannot validate either the existence or the non existence of a creator because that is a doctrinal or philosphical proposition, not a scientific one, isnt it?
> To say that science points to one or the other is also probably based on a doctrinal confirmation bias.
> ...




To follow this line of argument you will need to familiarise yourself with the Kalam cosmological argument and the various critiques of it, which will lead you to a study of A- and B-theories of time and the philosophical (and physical) arguments concerning causality and indeed the nature of the universe (and beyond/before or whatever), and you will also benefit by becoming familiar with the ontological argument and the various critiques of it too. A familiarity with epistemology will be advantageous as well. Oh, and perhaps a little mathematics, especially set theory. It is not as clear-cut as you may initially think. But remember, as you delve deeper and deeper, we agree you CANNOT prove anything, we can only look at the evidence and make a decision on that basis.

As an aside, it has long struck me as peculiar that the god of the christian religion should choose to first introduce the cosmological argument through pagan philosophers and then develop it through muslim philosophers and latterly, and at last, have it popularised by christian philosophers.


----------



## craft (8 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I didn't say something can't come from nothing.
> 
> I said nothing can't come from something natural.
> 
> An eternal God doesn't encounter this problem.




Eternal Nature?  Is as robust a possibility as an Eternal God.

Which would equate God =Nature.

What are you all arguing about.

Man has contrived so many different answers in different cultures over the ages and then done some of the dumbest, nastiest stupid things defending those answers. 

Yet it is the instinctive questions that unite us all.

As far as I know it’s only Humans that look at the stars and wonder how it is created – the possible answer divides us, but to question how is a universal human trait. 

I have lots of answered question but that’s great – I cherish those unanswered questions of wonder as the spirituality of being human.

As for categories such as atheist or agnostic or religious - I don't know how to define them and don't think they are appropriate any way. We are all unique.


----------



## lindsayf (8 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You are correct in that it is a philosophical proposition.
> 
> But this proposition is (hopefully) reached by the observation of scientific evidence as well as philosophical reasoning.
> 
> ...




Thks Pav
I dont think anyone is flipping a coin are they?
I just want to encourage precision of language.
If you choose to look at aspects of scientific findings and then decide that it fits with your preferred world view( ie God is creator, chistian docrtine is therefore true and so on)..then that sounds like a confirmation bias, not anything that was suggested by the scientific process.  Science only says anything about the hypothesis that is being tested, nothing more.
As pure and correct science cannot, and does not attempt to, posit the existence of a creator then clearly that is a step(leap) that is taken by some for purely non scientific reasons ( ie philosphical/doctrinal)
To *not* take this leap is not an act of faith as you suggest, it is simply a stance of allowing the unknown to be just that until it may become known through further scientific enquiry...or not.

L


----------



## Lone Wolf (8 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I didn't say something can't come from nothing.
> 
> I said nothing can't come from something natural.
> 
> An eternal God doesn't encounter this problem.




I still say an eternal God does have this problem. How did this eternal being create our universe? Where did the energy/mass come from? The question still exists, creationists just sweep it under the "Only God can comprehend the work of God" rug.



> Without a supernatural creator they are left with the natural. 1.Scientifically there is no viable natural explanation
> 2. Wisely they can often acknowledge that any explanation outside of the supernatural is guess work and then we have the problem of continuous regression anyway.




But even if you assume a creator: 
1. There is no scientific evidence, only lack of evidence to the contrary. 
2. Any supernatural explanation is also guesswork. 

So aren't creationists faced with the same problem? 



> There are only 2 options
> 1) some form of a creator
> 2) no creator
> 
> Science cannot validate or accommodate view number 2. So this should not be accepted.




I disagree with your proposal that view 2 should be ruled out because science is currently unable to validate it. I could just as easily say that there are no validated occurrences of the supernatural, therefore view 1 should not be accepted. And I think you'll find that is the Atheist stance. 

To claim one view is true because the other can't be validated is false logic. Especially in the case where neither view can be validated.


----------



## Lone Wolf (8 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> The universe is not eternal, thus it had a beginning.






> Unless the atheist acknowledges that we had to have originally come from something eternal and thus supernatural (exist above and beyond nature), there is no getting around this because whatever has a beginning has to have had a cause.




First you have assumed that the universe is not eternal. Humans have an extremely limited view point. It may well be that the universe we know is only one small part of something eternal.

You have also defined something eternal as needing to be supernatural and have linked supernatural with God. As above, there is nothing to say something natural can't be eternal. But that depends on your definition of supernatural. It might be clearer to say that the origin of the universe could be supernatural without having anything to do with God.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Thks Pav
> I dont think anyone is flipping a coin are they?
> I just want to encourage precision of language.
> If you choose to look at aspects of scientific findings and then decide that it fits with your preferred world view( ie God is creator, chistian docrtine is therefore true and so on)..then that sounds like a confirmation bias, not anything that was suggested by the scientific process.  Science only says anything about the hypothesis that is being tested, nothing more.
> ...




It's not not taking a leap. It is still taking a leap. 
There are two options
1) creator
2) self existing (no creator). 

Rejecting evidence for a creator doesn't mean you are not taking a leap of faith. 
The atheist is in fact taking a leap of faith in believing that it is self existing. 
The atheist is saying there is more evidence for a self-existing universe than a creator and thus choosing option 2. 


Maybe the NOT taking a leap of faith you are referring to is being an agnostic? Where they can happily sit on the fence undecided and believe that we can't decide either way?
It's probably a popular opinion.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

Lone Wolf said:


> First you have assumed that the universe is not eternal. Humans have an extremely limited view point. It may well be that the universe we know is only one small part of something eternal.
> 
> You have also defined something eternal as needing to be supernatural and have linked supernatural with God. As above, there is nothing to say something natural can't be eternal. But that depends on your definition of supernatural. It might be clearer to say that the origin of the universe could be supernatural without having anything to do with God.




With your other post, I didn't respond respectfully because I think we've both had our say and it will only go around in circles. We have probably reached a crossroad with some of those points. I have things I would like to post but I think we are just seeing some of those points quite differently. e.g. A supernatural God creating matter etc. 

With the above post that I've quoted is I'd say - show me the evidence. 
You can say the same to me and I've explained my reasoning although you don't agree. And that's fine. 

Leaving my views aside for a second and referring back to the above post I'd ask:
1) Does current scientific evidence point to an eternal or non-eternal universe?
2) If you say eternal is this based on anything more than speculation e.g. we are too small to know for sure
3) Does current scientific evidence point to something natural being eternal? If so what exactly? Give me an example. 

I believe that scientific evidence does point to a non-eternal universe. 
I believe that science doesn't provide any evidence for something natural being eternal.
Would you agree or disagree?


----------



## Chris45 (8 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> These are some definitions from my online dictionary that I think we would all agree on.
> Reincarnation: The rebirth of a soul in another body.
> Consciousness:  The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. Consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.
> Soul: The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal



The definition I have for soul is: _The immaterial part of a person; *the actuating cause of an individual life*._

Tucker provides the analogy of a television set and the television transmission; the television is required to decode the signal, but it does not create the signal. In a similar way the brain may be required for consciousness to express itself, but may not be the source of consciousness.

A better analogy could be a computer and its operating system. The brain is the computer hardware and the soul is the software operating system. Programs (or "aps") could be akin to knowledge we acquire throughout life.

I don't think it matters whether you use "soul" or "consciousness" since neither have been clearly identified and delineated. I think they're both rather vague terms and I'm not aware of anyone having being able to define the precise section of the brain responsible for consciousness. You can refer to consciousness if you like, I prefer soul. I think of it as our operating system.

Religion is concerned with souls and I think this reincarnation research plus M-Theory could lead to a scientific understanding of religion.



> Since there is no proof that there is such a thing as a soul, then there can be no evidence of reincarnation as defined above or in the sense alluded to by you at the beginning of your post: the evidence presented for the reincarnation of souls.



I disagree with you and I see it differently. There is clear evidence of something currently inexplicable happening, (ie supernatural), and reincarnation of souls/consciousness/whatever is the best guess IMO. There are enormous difficulties with doing this research not the least being the fact that it involves the temporary memories and nightmares of young children that most parents would not regard as significant. If awareness and interest can be spread, we might see more progress.

Have you bothered to read Ian Stevenson's paper _"Birthmarks and Birth Defects Corresponding to Wounds on Deceased Persons"_?   *http://www.childpastlives.org/library_articles/birthmark.htm*



> About 35% of children who claim to remember previous lives have birthmarks and/or birth defects that they (or adult informants) attribute to wounds on a person whose life the child remembers. The cases of 210 such children have been investigated.



The paper includes some photographs:
* Hypopigmented macule on chest of an Indian youth who, as a child, said he remembered the life of a man, Maha Ram, who was killed with a shotgun fired at close range.
* Large verrucous epidermal nevus on head of a Thai man who as a child said he remembered the life of his paternal uncle, who was killed with a blow on the head from a heavy knife.
* Small, round puckered birthmark on a Thai boy that corresponded to the bullet wound of entry in a man whose life he said he remembered and who had been shot with a rifle from behind.
* Severely malformed ear (microtia) in a Turkish boy who said that he remembered the life of a man who was fatally wounded on the right side of the head by a shotgun discharged at close range.
* Almost absent fingers (brachydactyly) on one hand in a boy of India who said he remembered the life of a boy of another village who had put his hand into the blades of a fodderchopping machine and had its fingers amputated.
* Congenital absence of lower leg (unilateral hemimelia) in a girl of Burma who said she remembered the life of a young woman who was accidentally run over by a train, with her right leg being severed first.​His "Discussion" makes interesting reading.

If a soul/consciousness/whatever can transfer from one brain to another, what form does it take? I suppose that's like asking what form does an operating system take, which varies of course depending on the media upon which it is stored. I don't know but I imagine a soul could be a discrete package of energy of some form, maybe like a giant photon. Stevenson and Tucker believe that souls don't always transfer instantly between brains and there seems to be a delay of 15-20 years. Where do the souls reside during this delay period?

Your "two scientists" example is flawed because no two scientists, unless perhaps they are identical twins who have had identical upbringings and educations, would have "identical toolkits", but anyway I think I understand the point you're trying to make.

Supernatural means "Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material". A phenomenon that is currently classified as supernatural, eg reincarnation, which cannot be explained by our current set of natural laws, will probably eventually be explained as our knowledge increases and new laws are discovered. The explanation probably lies in a region we don't yet understand, like a universe in higher dimensions. I think the explanation of who is God might also be revealed if/when we learn how to explore this region.

If this research proves problematic for some religions, that's too bad, and they will have to evolve, like everything else. Cardinal Pell seems to be making progress!


----------



## Chris45 (8 February 2014)

Lone Wolf said:


> If God created the universe then it still had to come from somewhere, so even in your view something came from nothing. All we're debating here is the mechanism that allows that to happen. If God can be eternal and create something from nothing, then why can't there be something natural that is eternal that led to our creation?



Are you familiar with "conservation of energy": a principle stating that the total energy of a closed system remains constant over time, regardless of other possible changes within the system.

String Theory proposes that matter is made up of strings of energy, so everything is energy in one form or another.

If you can think of our universe(s) as a closed system then the total energy of the universe(s) remains constant over time.

Energy has always been here, it always will, it has no beginning and no ending, it's infinite, it's forever and ever amen.

Matter pops in and out of existence as the energy strings transform themselves.



Julia said:


> Not all religious people believe in a soul. Seventh Day Adventists discard the idea entirely.



They might be wrong. Do they have an alternative explanation of our consciousness? I wonder what they think of Stevenson's and Tucker's research?


----------



## bellenuit (8 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Supernatural means "Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material". A phenomenon that is currently classified as supernatural, eg reincarnation, which cannot be explained by our current set of natural laws, will probably eventually be explained as our knowledge increases and new laws are discovered. The explanation probably lies in a region we don't yet understand, like a universe in higher dimensions.




I think that is the point I was trying to make all along. It is the scientist who persists with looking for a solution that will likely discover these new laws. The scientist who on seeing no (current) natural explanation and puts it down to the supernatural is less likely to continue the pursuit.

In the case of Tucker's work, I have come across many sceptical of his work (and Stephenson's), but rather than just rehash what they say, let's say the examples he has provided have no other acceptable explanation.

I obviously only have had a limited time to research his works, but the commonality of the examples he studied seemed to be: 

- Unexplained memory transference from one person to another. The receiver is usually 2 or 3 years old at the time. (I didn't see it mentioned but I presume the transference could be earlier, at least for memories, but the child would unlikely be able to express those memories intelligibly at a younger age). These memories usually start to fade around 6 years of age. 

- Some cases have also involved the transmission of some physical characteristics from the source person.  

Memories are not a soul and neither are physical blemishes, so it is a long bow to draw that even if this evidence is true, we are witnessing reincarnation of the soul or consciousness. It doesn't rule it out, but it in itself is not proof. And I don't think Tucker claims that it is proof of reincarnation.

Tucker then goes on to postulate how these two transferences might happen and suggests that the answer might lie in the realm of quantum mechanics. However, he uses the word consciousness in regards to what is transferred, which, as you rightly pointed out, is a vague term, but would likely encompass more than just memory. The evidence does not support that and any evidence to support the transfer of consciousness would obviously require some precision as to what it means. 

_Although critics have argued there is no physical explanation for the survival of personality, Tucker suggests that quantum mechanics may offer a mechanism by which memories and emotions could carry over from one life to another. He argues that since the act of observation collapses wave equations, consciousness may not be merely a by-product of the physical brain but rather a separate entity in the universe that impinges on the physical. Tucker argues that viewing consciousness as a fundamental, non-physical, part of the universe makes it possible to conceive of it continuing to exist after the death of the physical brain.[26] He provides the analogy of a television set and the television transmission; the television is required to decode the signal, but it does not create the signal. In a similar way the brain may be required for consciousness to express itself, but may not be the source of consciousness._

I do not have any problem with his explanation, but it is just a postulation at this stage, perhaps on a par with abiogenesis. It is currently not testable or provable and doesn't have the strength of a scientific theory. However, science has to start somewhere and he is at least looking at the issue.

He does have his detractors: _On the other hand Susan Huelga, a lecturer in quantum mechanics at the University of Hertfordshire, notes that brain dynamics are highly complex, and she finds that there is no more evidence that quantum mechanics is relevant in this field than that it is relevant regarding whether or not God exists._

If there is one thing that makes me question Tucker, it would be this endorsement on his website: _“an important milestone of an emerging scientific paradigm” —Deepak Chopra - Co-Author of Super Brain"_. Since this is not just a comment put on the website by Chopra, but prominently placed on Tuckers home page, then Tucker obviously sees Chopra as a worthy endorser.

Chopra uses quantum mechanics to describe a sort of New Age spirituality mingled with eastern philosophy. I have seen him interviewed many times, but when there are Q & As and some in the audience are quantum physicists he is usually exposed as a quack. He uses quantum mechanic terms to bamboozle lay audiences (he gets a lot of money for his books and appearances), but when confronted by experts he is shown to be completely misusing the words or to simply have no understanding of what they mean.

_Chopra is using a common trick of the pseudoscientist – exploit cutting edge science, which the public is not likely to understand, and pretend as if there is proof where there is uncertainty. Take some interesting experiments, then leap way ahead to conclusions that serve their metaphysical purposes, but which are not settled science._

That and many examples here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/chopra-mangles-quantum-mechanics-again/


----------



## Lone Wolf (8 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> With your other post, I didn't respond respectfully because I think we've both had our say and it will only go around in circles.




I noted that I had been ignored and I should have taken the hint. But you seem like a rational person and I was interested to know how you justify the leap from "science can't explain" to "the supernatural is the only possible answer".

But we have said all we can say now and I agree that further discussion won't add value.

But I won't run off without answering your questions first.



> Leaving my views aside for a second and referring back to the above post I'd ask:
> 1) Does current scientific evidence point to an eternal or non-eternal universe?
> 2) If you say eternal is this based on anything more than speculation e.g. we are too small to know for sure
> 3) Does current scientific evidence point to something natural being eternal? If so what exactly? Give me an example.




There are scientific theories that point to an eternal existence, see Chris's post on string theory. But since science lacks the capacity to test these theories they remain just that, theories. Scientists are limited in the evidence they can gather since they can only observe what humans can observe. I'll play nice and use the theory I know you want me to use.

The commonly accepted theory - the big bang. There is only one universe and this universe, including time itself began at the big bang. There is no such thing as "prior to the big bang".

So with that theory in mind:
1) The universe is not eternal.
2) I didn't say eternal, but I think it's pretty obvious that humans currently lack the capacity to fully explain the nature of the universe.
3) Science, using the standard big bang theory has no evidence of something eternal.



> I believe that scientific evidence does point to a non-eternal universe.
> I believe that science doesn't provide any evidence for something natural being eternal.
> Would you agree or disagree?




If something can't come from nothing, and we exist, then something must be eternal. So I could argue that science does point to something eternal. But I'm willing to play nice and agree. Observable evidence led to the theory that there is a single universe that is not eternal. This leads to science having to form other theories to explain origins.

Where we disagree is what that means. I believe it simply means that science lacks the capacity to fully explain (and verify) the nature of the universe.

You believe this can be extended to mean God must exist. An extra step that I don't agree with taking.

But then again, if you're wrong in taking the leap - nothing happens. If I'm wrong about not taking the leap - Then according to a certain book I'll burn for all eternity in a pit of fire. Seems a little harsh, but I don't make the rules.


----------



## pavilion103 (8 February 2014)

That last paragraph is something that gets throne around a lot. And I admit that on face value and to someone who doesn't have the full depth of the understanding of Christianity it is utterly outrageous and even cruel.

I could go down another path here that would open up a huge discussion but I'm not sure I have the energy right now! 

I think the truth is that people would rather take Christianity on face value and believe in a tyrant god and multiple contradictions and the evil acts of people who call themselves Christians etc. 
Most really don't care to see behind the societal stereotypes and misconceptions. They feel no need to. To those people I don't really have anything to say on the topic.


----------



## bellenuit (8 February 2014)

Some new and interesting articles I came across today:

*‘So tangible’: 800,000-year-old footprints found in England oldest proof of human life in northern Europe*

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...ldest-proof-of-human-life-in-northern-europe/

*The Universe May be Different on Scales Larger than Those We Can Directly Observe*

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-can-directly-observe-planck-satellite-t.html

An image from this article relevant to the Big Bang





*Confirmed! Newfound Particle Is a Higgs Boson*

http://m.livescience.com/27888-newfound-particle-is-higgs.html

*A New Step In Evolution*

I didn't realise until now that this is from 2008, but good stuff none-the-less

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a-new-step-in-evolution/

*Simulating the Universe from the Beginning of Time*

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/02/hacking-the-universe-from-the-beginning-of-time.html


----------



## burglar (8 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... *Confirmed! Newfound Particle Is a Higgs Boson*




I would be so happy if this particle has the right flavour, colour and spin to explain origin.  :


----------



## Julia (8 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> The definition I have for soul is: _The immaterial part of a person; *the actuating cause of an individual life*._



The actuating cause of an individual life??   This seems to ignore basic biology.



> I don't think it matters whether you use "soul" or "consciousness" since neither have been clearly identified and delineated. I think they're both rather vague terms and I'm not aware of anyone having being able to define the precise section of the brain responsible for consciousness. You can refer to consciousness if you like, I prefer soul. I think of it as our operating system.



This seems to suggest you regard "soul" and "consciousness" as interchangeable terms.  
Even Wiki has a pretty sensible definition of "consciousness:, viz


> Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.



That's pretty different from any definition you might find of "soul" which, incidentally I did look for and could find nothing.

I don't think you'd find too many neurophysiologists or neurosurgeons, or psychologists for that matter, who would think of talking about "soul" when they are discussing "consciousness".



> I disagree with you and I see it differently. There is clear evidence of something currently inexplicable happening, (ie supernatural), and reincarnation of souls/consciousness/whatever is the best guess IMO. There are enormous difficulties with doing this research not the least being the fact that it involves the temporary memories and nightmares of young children that most parents would not regard as significant. If awareness and interest can be spread, we might see more progress.



Consider that even just memory is ill understood in many respects.  We're all familiar with deja vu, that seemingly inexplicable sense of something occurring in the present moment which we are utterly convinced we have previously experienced.  A relatively recent explanation of this is that it's a temporary 'glitch' in the memory system which mistakenly lodges the experience/comment/vision as something already having happened.
In almost every instance of this phenomenon, we objectively know that what has just occurred has absolutely not happened before due to the simple facts involved, but the sense in our minds that it has is extremely strong.

To attribute birthmarks etc to some event in someone else's previous life is, imho, pretty fanciful.


----------



## Lone Wolf (9 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> That last paragraph is something that gets throne around a lot. And I admit that on face value and to someone who doesn't have the full depth of the understanding of Christianity it is utterly outrageous and even cruel.
> 
> I could go down another path here that would open up a huge discussion but I'm not sure I have the energy right now!
> 
> ...






Just for clarity, my last paragraph wasn't meant as a swipe at Christianity. It was saying that if you believe in Christianity, then the consequences of agreeing with the atheist view are severe. So seeing as there is no hard evidence either way it's understandable that people would default to God. 

You seem to be suggesting that what I said about non believers receiving eternal damnation is a misconception and that it shows my lack of understanding. My only excuse is that every religion teacher, Christian and door knocker I've ever spoken to has told me that failure to believe will result in an eternity spent in a pit of fire. So you'll have to excuse my misinformed view. I admit that I only have a basic level of understanding on Christianity. I meant no disrespect. 

Time for me to go back to reading the trading section of the forum.


----------



## pavilion103 (9 February 2014)

Lone Wolf said:


> Just for clarity, my last paragraph wasn't meant as a swipe at Christianity. It was saying that if you believe in Christianity, then the consequences of agreeing with the atheist view are severe. So seeing as there is no hard evidence either way it's understandable that people would default to God.  You seem to be suggesting that what I said about non believers receiving eternal damnation is a misconception and that it shows my lack of understanding. My only excuse is that every religion teacher, Christian and door knocker I've ever spoken to has told me that failure to believe will result in an eternity spent in a pit of fire. So you'll have to excuse my misinformed view. I admit that I only have a basic level of understanding on Christianity. I meant no disrespect.  Time for me to go back to reading the trading section of the forum.




It's hard to communicate across a forum!

I didn't think that your comments were a deliberate swipe but rather that a majority of people would take a swipe based on those points, despite not taking the time to understand the entire picture of what Christianity is. 

I think you've been completely pleasant to talk to and I've enjoyed it. 

These types of discussions are difficult online. Much easier in person.


----------



## Lone Wolf (9 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> It's hard to communicate across a forum!
> 
> I didn't think that your comments were a deliberate swipe but rather that a majority of people would take a swipe based on those points, despite not taking the time to understand the entire picture of what Christianity is.
> 
> ...




Thanks Pav, for participating in the conversation despite there not being much in it for you. 

For me it was an opportunity to learn more about how people with another view reach that view. But I'm sure you've been through this countless times before. 

Time for me to move on now though, if I have time to spare I should focus more on trading.


----------



## pavilion103 (9 February 2014)

Lone Wolf said:


> Thanks Pav, for participating in the conversation despite there not being much in it for you.  For me it was an opportunity to learn more about how people with another view reach that view. But I'm sure you've been through this countless times before.  Time for me to move on now though, if I have time to spare I should focus more on trading.




Amen lol!

Same for me mate. A nice little detour but this is a trading forum and I'll put most of my efforts into that too!
Hopefully catch you on those.


----------



## burglar (9 February 2014)

Lone Wolf said:


> ... But I'm willing to play nice and agree ...




Hi Lone Wolf,

On behalf of all who read and agree, but don't post:
Thank you for being a moderate voice in a sea of ... errr ...  *angst*


----------



## Chris45 (9 February 2014)

Julia said:


> The actuating cause of an individual life??   This seems to ignore basic biology.



What basic biology are you referring to?



> This seems to suggest you regard "soul" and "consciousness" as interchangeable terms.



I'm not convinced "consciousness" is the appropriate term and I think of it along the lines of the definition you quoted. I'm guessing that Tucker might have used "consciousness" to avoid being associated with religion.

Stevenson and Tucker have discovered evidence of phenomena for which there are no adequate current explanations.

As I stated, I prefer "soul" and think of it as our "Operating System" (like "Windows", etc.) but I didn't want to get bogged down with definitions of terms since we're talking about something no one really understands.

Can you offer a better explanation?



> That's pretty different from any definition you might find of "soul" which, incidentally I did look for and could find nothing.



I googled "definition of soul" and came up with dozens of definitions including an extensive Wikipedia entry.



> To attribute birthmarks etc to some event in someone else's previous life is, imho, pretty fanciful.



How would you explain Stevenson's discoveries?


----------



## Julia (9 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> What basic biology are you referring to?



Chris, you said:


> The definition I have for soul is: The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.



I'd define 'actuate' as to make or maybe to motivate.
I was simply thinking of the making of an individual human life being the act which causes conception.
We don't know anything about 'soul'.  But we do know what causes the creation of a life.



> I'm not convinced "consciousness" is the appropriate term and I think of it along the lines of the definition you quoted.



OK, then I just don't understand why you'd want to confuse or align it with something that many people don't believe exists, viz a soul.



> As I stated, I prefer "soul" and think of it as our "Operating System" (like "Windows", etc.) but I didn't want to get bogged down with definitions of terms since we're talking about something no one really understands.



Agree.  However, we do have a reasonable understanding of consciousness.  No such similar agreement about what 'soul' constitutes afaik.



> Can you offer a better explanation?



About what?  I have no reason so far to believe any such phenomenon as a soul exists, so have no interest in seeking explanations for a negative.

I just wanted to raise a gentle protest about 'consciousness' and 'soul' being conflated.
Sorry if I'm sounding dismissive.  You're obviously really interested in all this and I don't mean to be disrespectful of that interest with my boringly prosaic approach to life.


----------



## Chris45 (9 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I think that is the point I was trying to make all along. It is the scientist who persists with looking for a solution that will likely discover these new laws.



I am cautiously optimistic that we might be approaching limited agreement. 

To ridicule and dismiss a body of research as fanciful nonsense because no (current) natural explanation exists, as some "skeptics" do, is one thing; to be skeptical and seek flaws in the data and methodology and offer *intelligent* alternative explanations is another. Peer review is based on the latter and is essential to science and it's important to keep an open mind when confronted with new research.

I feel sure Quantum Mechanics is not the last word in Physics, just as Newtonian Mechanics wasn't. The M-Theory guys have postulated some very radical new ideas, including numerous higher dimensions that we can't even begin to comprehend, but the "cold spots" in the Planck satellite data have been proposed as evidence that they're on the right track. I don't know if Quantum Mechanics covers that but, like you, my understanding of Quantum Mechanics is limited. Higgs Bosons, tachyons, etc ... we are FAR from having all of the answers. What do we know about antimatter? We know it exists but we know zilch about it because it's currently impossible to study. There is so much we don't know.

I feel that what is currently regarded as "supernatural", ie God and his angels, and Satan and his demons could be explained in due course as our understanding of the mutiverse and higher dimensions develops. I have used my imagination to come up with a possible explanation which fits with my (limited) understanding of both the Bible and the latest scientific thinking and it satisfies many questions I had about the meaning of life, but it's still a work in progress. I can imagine a universe, in dimensions we are currently unaware of, inhabited by non-material spiritual beings who are able to interact with us in our material universe. There is no proof of any of this but Stevenson's and Tucker's research could be the evidence, and M-Theory could provide the explanation.



> Memories are not a soul and neither are physical blemishes, so it is a long bow to draw that even if this evidence is true, we are witnessing reincarnation of the soul or consciousness. It doesn't rule it out, but it in itself is not proof. And I don't think Tucker claims that it is proof of reincarnation.



Nobody knows precisely what a soul is and what it includes, so we can't say what is ruled in or out. Silicon based computers are currently our closest parallel to our carbon based brains, and understanding how computers work helps in understanding how our brains work. (Last Monday's SBS documentary about IBM's Watson computer that beat the "Jeopardy!" champions was quite revealing!) Neither Stevenson nor Tucker are claiming "proof" of anything, just evidence of something currently regarded as supernatural.



> If there is one thing that makes me question Tucker, it would be this endorsement on his website: “an important milestone of an emerging scientific paradigm” ””Deepak Chopra - Co-Author of Super Brain".



I agree it's unfortunate that Deepak Chopra is mentioned on the home page. Both Tucker and Chopra are MDs not physicists and like the rest of us, probably neither has a deep understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps it's his views on spirituality that Tucker found appealing. I wouldn't dismiss Tucker just because of that minor misjudgment.


----------



## Chris45 (9 February 2014)

Julia said:


> I just wanted to raise a gentle protest about 'consciousness' and 'soul' being conflated.



Point taken.  I can't speak for others but I have a concept of what a "soul" might be so I'll stick to that.

Using computers as a guide, I think a life is created at conception and then the soul is progressively downloaded somehow onto the developing foetal brain as the infant grows.

Consciousness is acquired as the soul settles into its new habitat and loads drivers for the various senses, organs etc. and takes control. [/GEEK SPEAK]


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> To ridicule and dismiss a body of research as fanciful nonsense because no (current) natural explanation exists, as some "skeptics" do, is one thing;




The sceptic sites I quoted didn't dismiss James' (I might have the wrong name) reincarnation story (of the pilot) because no natural explanation existed, they dismissed some of the aspects of it because *there were* natural explanations. I don't want to go through it again, but the source YouTube program you gave didn't mention that the boy had been taken to an old war plane museum when he was young, so much of what he said could have come from that source. I think there were factual errors too, such as the type of plane flown by the dead pilot. Tucker went further in his research, but the sceptics I referenced were reacting to the YouTube video as it had been shown in the US. Like other tabloid TV programs, they often are trying to get high ratings, not to the truth, so they tend to emphasise the extraordinary and ignore details that might not be supportive. 

Sceptics view all the information with an open mind and look for the most obvious explanations (which usually turn out the be correct) instead of jumping to extraordinary conclusions. If they find no explanation, then they say they have no explanation. Saying the explanation is supernatural is neither here nor there. The sources I used were just guys on blogs like you and me, so don't dismiss scepticism just because some people made comments based on a subset of facts (the TV program).



> (Last Monday's SBS documentary about IBM's Watson computer that beat the "Jeopardy!" champions was quite revealing!)




Yes, I saw that one. Very enjoyable.


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2014)

*22 Messages of Hope (and Science) for Creationists*

https://medium.com/p/8712e42fbb0d

*The Unique Merger That Made You (and Ewe, and Yew)*

http://nautil.us/issue/10/mergers--acquisitions/the-unique-merger-that-made-you-and-ewe-and-yew


----------



## bellenuit (9 February 2014)

*Creationist Questions Translated*

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

*Debate postmortem IV: You know you’re a wacko when Pat Robertson is your voice of reason*

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...o-when-pat-robertson-is-your-voice-of-reason/


----------



## burglar (10 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... 22 Messages of Hope ...




Hi bellenuit, 

I enjoyed that immensely!
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.


----------



## Chris45 (10 February 2014)

Ben Miller Ph.D attempting to explain complex physics to "ordinary people": Sean Lock, Alan Davies and Rob Brydon.

One of the best QI episodes ever!


----------



## bellenuit (10 February 2014)

Interesting.......

*Christians Might Be Surprised to Find That Not God, But Men, Decided What They Would Believe*

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/09/christians-surprised-find-god-men-decided.html


----------



## Chris45 (10 February 2014)

Why abiogenesis is highly unlikely.

Assuming abiogenesis, the first primitive cell must have achieved equilibrium with its surroundings for it to survive.

The equilibrium state is a compromise between minimum enthalpy and maximum entropy.


A living cell has significantly higher enthalpy and lower entropy than its elements, and therefore is highly unlikely to have been created spontaneously, ie. abiogenesis is highly unlikely.

Remove the "life energy" (or whatever it is) from a cell exposed to the environment, and its entropy will quickly increase as it breaks down to compounds with lower enthalpies.

Complex organic molecules, eg pharmaceuticals, require considerable work to be created and will spontaneously decompose if left exposed to the environment.

What is the "life energy" and where did it come from?


----------



## bellenuit (10 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Why abiogenesis is highly unlikely.
> 
> Assuming abiogenesis, the first primitive cell must have achieved equilibrium with its surroundings for it to survive.
> 
> ...




I am not a chemist or biologist, but doesn't that assume a closed system, which the earth is not. We receive energy from the sun and dissipate energy into space. Evolution itself, which is well proven, shows increasing complexity (decreasing entropy). Also, even if a system is closed, it does not mean that certain events cannot occur in a local environment for periods of time. So, for instance, volcanos release heat from the earth's core that is at an extremely high temperature and when combined with the right chemical mix may cause some process to happen. Overall our hypothetically closed earth is in equilibrium, but locally there will be extremes. If these extremes can cause life to form, eventually that life will, as you say, break down into a non-life form. But, because we are not a closed system, our external heat source, the sun, is our "life energy" and it allows that primitive life to increase in complexity as has been observed.

Take away the sun and other sources such as cosmic radiation and eventually, because of the laws you quoted, every form of life, from the simplest living cell to humans, will cease to exist.

I am not pushing the case for abiogenesis, but I don't think the laws you quoted apply, as the earth (still) is and has always been an open system.

At least that is my understanding.


----------



## bellenuit (10 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Ben Miller Ph.D attempting to explain complex physics to "ordinary people": Sean Lock, Alan Davies and Rob Brydon.




I thought Ben looked like the lead actor in "Murder in Paradise" so I Googled him and he is. That was an interesting episode that I hadn't seen before.


----------



## bellenuit (10 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I am not a chemist or biologist, but doesn't that assume a closed system, which the earth is not. We receive energy from the sun and dissipate energy into space.
> 
> ....
> 
> I am not pushing the case for abiogenesis, but I don't think the laws you quoted apply, as the earth (still) is and has always been an open system.




As I said most of that is beyond me, but I did find this in relation to abiogenesis:

_Finally, it’s amusing that JonathanM invokes Le Chatelier’s Principle. That principle is a qualitative description of the fact that in a thermodynamically closed and isolated chemical system, if a reaction is subjected to a shock, the reaction will ‘seek’ to restore some asymptotic equilibrium rate, the asymptote depending on several variables. But a significant strength of the white smoker model is that the system is not thermodynamically closed; energy (and raw materials) flow through the system in a sort of bioreactor, so Le Chandelier’s Principle is largely irrelevant.

So JonathanM misrepresents Lane in his review and in the process reverts once again to the good old creationist Second Law argument._

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/08/di-claims-no-co.html

This is also interesting.....

*Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory*

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/


----------



## Chris45 (10 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> As I said most of that is beyond me, but I did find this in relation to abiogenesis:
> 
> _Finally, it’s amusing that JonathanM invokes Le Chatelier’s Principle. That principle is a qualitative description of the fact that in a thermodynamically closed and isolated chemical system, if a reaction is subjected to a shock, the reaction will ‘seek’ to restore some asymptotic equilibrium rate, the asymptote depending on several variables. But a significant strength of the white smoker model is that the system is not thermodynamically closed; energy (and raw materials) flow through the system in a sort of bioreactor, so Le Chandelier’s Principle is largely irrelevant.
> 
> ...



I couldn't make much sense of the first link but that second link is very interesting!


----------



## bellenuit (10 February 2014)

"Future Universe" on SBS tonight at 8:30pm. Probably already over for eastern staters, but I expect it will be accessible from SBS On Demand tomorrow.


----------



## Chris45 (11 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I am not a chemist or biologist, but doesn't that assume a closed system, which the earth is not.



In a chemical reaction, chemical equilibrium is the state in which both reactants and products are present at concentrations which have no further tendency to change with time. Usually, this state results when the forward reaction proceeds at the same rate as the reverse reaction.

It needs to be a closed system in that reactants and products are neither added nor removed. A test tube can be a closed system for equilibrium purposes, as can a pond, or perhaps a local environment around a fumarole. The position of the equilibrium, favouring reactants or products, can be influenced by varying factors such as temperature or pressure (with gases).

If complex molecules can form and achieve an equilibrium in a particular environment, it's difficult to see how such complicated molecules that make up cells could form spontaneously and remain stable to form even more complicated structures, given the enthalpy-entropy requirements.

"Life energy" may not have been the best term to use, and you have interpreted it to mean the sun, which I agree is the source of energy that *sustains* all life on Earth.

Perhaps "spark of life" or "life force" might be better terms, ie. whatever it is that kick starts the life process. Once the first living cells received that "spark of life", sure evolution took over, but what was that "spark of life" and where did it come from?

The Miller-Urey experiment showed how amino acids and simple sugars could have formed from simple inorganic molecules, but I think the title of that Wired article and the photo is a bit misleading ... "First Spark" may be jumping the gun. However, it sounds like Sutherland's team may have made a significant step forward, but as the article points out they have only synthesized ribonucleotides, the basic ingredients of RNA, not RNA itself as depicted in the photo. If you google images of ribonucleotide and RNA, you can see there's still a very long way to go. The Comments make interesting reading!

While I was reading that article I thought of a possible analogy.
A young child is playing in his back yard and, inspired by the architect designed brick house his father built, dreams of being able to build his own brick cubby-house.
Child discovers how to make plastic clay from fine dirt and water ... the Miller-Urey experiment.
Child then discovers how to fashion a brick and harden it in the sun ... the Sutherland experiment.
Child makes several bricks and starts to build a wall.
I can think of some possible outcomes:
1. Child figures out by himself how to successfully brace walls and roof and completes his cubby house.
2. Child continues to build the wall which, due to his ignorance of engineering laws, collapses on him causing injuries.
3. Father, concerned by what he sees, intervenes and destroys wall and bricks and sends the child off to day-care. 

However, if the Sutherland team continue with their research and manage to synthesize a living cell, I wonder what the repercussions will be? Man synthesizes life ... religions collapse ... atheism rules ... peace and tranquility envelop humanity? 

Perhaps Clive Palmer will one day be able to populate his golf course with real living T-Rexes rather than robotic ones!

True, evolution shows increasing complexity (decreasing entropy), but isn't that because it involves living systems that have the "life force"? Apart from the Miller-Urey and Sutherland experiments, do any inorganic systems evolve spontaneously to more complex structures which defy the enthalpy-entropy requirements?

I understand evolution to be the process resulting in the development of new species. I'd be cautious about saying that evolution is "well proven". Well evidenced maybe, but not well proven, imo. I think some examples of "proof" of evolution (of new species) could simply be examples of selection, eg. insecticide resistant mosquitoes and antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are antibiotic resistant bacteria new species or just new strains?


----------



## bellenuit (11 February 2014)

Some more article that may be of interest.......

*Pastor Running an Online Church for the Deaf Comes Out as an Atheist*

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-church-for-the-deaf-comes-out-as-an-atheist/

*How Creationism Imprisons the Mind*

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...stioning_darwin_shows_how_fundamentalism.html

*France's tough stance on female genital mutilation is working, say campaigners*

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/10/france-tough-stance-female-genital-mutilation-fgm

*Seeds of life can sprout in moon's icy pockets*

http://www.newscientist.com/article...sprout-in-moons-icy-pockets.html#.UvnpaHn9PBw

*Astronomers discover oldest star: Formed shortly after the Big Bang 13. 7 billion years ago*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140209200836.htm


----------



## bellenuit (12 February 2014)

*20 Amazing Quotes From Atheists That Prove Religion Isn’t Necessary For A Meaningful Life*

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/11/20_...isnt_necessary_for_a_meaningful_life_partner/

*Accommodation’s big flaw: The dangers of excusing religion*

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/11/accommodations_big_flaw_the_dangers_of_excusing_religion/

*Is camel discovery the straw that breaks the Bible's back?*

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/11/is-camel-discovery-the-straw-that-broke-the-bibles-back/

*Is Buddhism the Most Science-Friendly Religion?*

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-buddhism-the-most-science-friendly-religion/


----------



## pavilion103 (12 February 2014)

Meaningful life....
You don't need God to attribute subjective meaning to your life. I can make the meaning of my life to feed homeless people, or to kill them. Either way it's not an objective meaning for my life but one that I choose.

If we are a cosmic accident and weren't created for an objective purpose then there is no objective purpose, only the subjective one that I give myself.


----------



## pavilion103 (12 February 2014)

Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. No belief in a God. Not sure that is group it with other religions. Interesting to compare with other philosophies though.


----------



## Chris45 (12 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> "Future Universe" on SBS tonight at 8:30pm. Probably already over for eastern staters, but I expect it will be accessible from SBS On Demand tomorrow.



I watched my recording of that last night. Those robots were fascinating!

Stephen Hawking is certainly a very remarkable man but I'm finding him increasingly difficult to look at as his disease progresses and his body collapses in on itself, and I wish they wouldn't show so many images of him throughout the program.


----------



## bellenuit (12 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I watched my recording of that last night. Those robots were fascinating!
> 
> Stephen Hawking is certainly a very remarkable man but I'm finding him increasingly difficult to look at as his disease progresses and his body collapses in on itself, and I wish they wouldn't show so many images of him throughout the program.




I only watched the first few minutes and recorded the rest for later. I agree, Hawking it is not pleasant to watch for long periods when he appears perfectly still apart from some eye movements. I also find the simulated voice off-putting. I must check it out but I have heard his voice is not produced in real time, but is slowly put together, recorded and played back at normal speed. In which case, why bother to have him present the show. A voice over with a normal voice would be better.


----------



## bellenuit (12 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Meaningful life....
> You don't need God to attribute subjective meaning to your life. I can make the meaning of my life to feed homeless people, or to kill them. Either way it's not an objective meaning for my life but one that I choose.
> 
> If we are a cosmic accident and weren't created for an objective purpose then there is no objective purpose, only the subjective one that I give myself.




What is God's objective purpose for our lives?


----------



## Tink (14 February 2014)

This is what happens when you take religion and God out of the equation, you end up with a cold heartless killing culture, abortion, euthanasia, the list goes on.

How can we get rid of people we don't need or want in society?
Now Belgium wants to bring in euthanasia with no age limit.

Too bad we don't think the same for criminals.


----------



## bellenuit (14 February 2014)

Tink said:


> This is what happens when you take religion and God out of the equation, you end up with a cold heartless killing culture, abortion, euthanasia, the list goes on.




*Atheists Against Abortion* 

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=c...oG4Dg&gws_rd=cr#q="Atheists+against+abortion"

*Abortion Rates Higher for Religious Women*

_According to the BBC, "Catholic women in the United States are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, and 29% more likely than Protestant women." They are quoting research from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. 

A survey at an abortion clinic found that 40% of women getting an abortion were Catholic, 40% were from other religions and 20% were non-religious. This is even though only about 25% of US people are Catholics. _

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/abortion.html

*Useful Atheism Statistics*

_I pulled together data on frequency of prayer from over 50 countries, and found that countries where people prayed more frequently had lower life expectancy and scored lower on the Peace Index. They also had higher infant mortality, homicide rates, and levels of corruption, and had more AIDS and more abortion. That's pretty conclusive.
_
.......

_In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly._

http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/useful-atheism-statistics


----------



## cynic (14 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ...
> _I pulled together data on frequency of prayer from over 50 countries, and found that countries where people prayed more frequently had lower life expectancy and scored lower on the Peace Index. They also had higher infant mortality, homicide rates, and levels of corruption, and had more AIDS and more abortion. That's pretty conclusive.
> _
> ....




One might want to consider the question of causality before drawing conclusions from statistics such as these. 

Are people choosing to pray in an effort to remedy the traumatic imposts of their environment, or did such trauma result from the population's propensity to prayer?


----------



## pavilion103 (14 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> What is God's objective purpose for our lives?




Relationship with Him.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 February 2014)

Some atheists in here struggle with the distinction between
1) what Christianity teaches.
2) how people who profess to believe in Christianity act in their lives.

Christianity is no more discredited by the lives of hypocritical followers than Pythagoras is if I claim to use his formula to solve mathematics problems, I plug in the wrong formula which isn't actually his, and get the wrong answer.


----------



## pavilion103 (14 February 2014)

I can also tell you another thing. If I was an atheist I certainly wouldn't be on a forum looking up studies and stats on religion and a concept of god that I see as ridiculous. It would be the last thing is even consider doing!

There is something about God that people just can't shake off. 

Guys, seriously.... go out and have fun. Do what you love. Spend time with family. Live your life to the full. 
I don't mean this in a condescending way. I just think there are so many better things from your worldviews that you would be doing with your time!!!!!!!


----------



## CanOz (14 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I can also tell you another thing. If I was an atheist I certainly wouldn't be on a forum looking up studies and stats on religion and a concept of god that I see as ridiculous. It would be the last thing is even consider doing!






IF you mean that what is the point in arguing it, then yeah i agree....there's no point in trying to change anyone's beliefs...they must come to believe things on their own.


----------



## Chris45 (14 February 2014)

cynic said:


> One might want to consider the question of causality before drawing conclusions from statistics such as these.
> 
> Are people choosing to pray in an effort to remedy the traumatic imposts of their environment, or did such trauma result from the population's propensity to prayer?



Excellent point Cynic. You beat me to it.


----------



## Chris45 (14 February 2014)

Weeping statues - genuine or fake? 

http://www.news.com.au/world/crowds...-tarshiha-israel/story-fndir2ev-1226824907246

Should be easy enough to prove a hoax I thought, but I have not been able to find any precise explanations of how it's done.

Bellenuit ...?


----------



## pavilion103 (14 February 2014)

Exactly.
Present the info to someone.
But they need to choose to believe or not.


----------



## Chris45 (14 February 2014)

Wikipedia has an interesting table of weeping statues:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_statue

The one in Rockingham looks interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2255713.stm


> Sceptics are sure the statue is a fake, but no-one has yet been able to prove it.
> Devout Catholic Patty Powell, 47, paid $82 (Aus $150) for the statue in Bangkok eight years ago.
> Curtin University X-ray expert Rob Hart could find no cavity or sign of fluid inside the statue, although he reported an unexplained mass at the statue's feet.
> Murdoch University chemist Doug Clarke, who tested the oily liquid, told reporters he thought someone had been "very tricky", but he could find no proof the statue was fake.




There is a link to _"Hoaxes Exposed"_:  http://www.randi.org/jr/042304seven.html  but it's dead, as is the YouTube link.

Come on skeptics. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to track down the manufacturers of these cheap statues and offer them money to reveal how they did it. Hasn't James Randi got $1 million up for grabs? That would have to put a big smile on the face of an empoverished Thai statue maker, wouldn't it?

Make a documentary exposing the whole business and sell it around the world ... you'd make a fortune!


----------



## bellenuit (14 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Weeping statues - genuine or fake?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/world/crowds...-tarshiha-israel/story-fndir2ev-1226824907246
> 
> ...




Not the one you are referring to (I don't have time to look now and obviously will need to see some reports from other sources), but this is one I remember from last year. Note the role played by the local Catholic laity leaders in promoting the "truth"

*Jesus Wept*

_A skeptic faces possible charges for debunking Mumbai’s miracle statue_

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._water_an_indian_skeptic_debunks_miracle.html


----------



## bellenuit (14 February 2014)

cynic said:


> One might want to consider the question of causality before drawing conclusions from statistics such as these.
> 
> Are people choosing to pray in an effort to remedy the traumatic imposts of their environment, or did such trauma result from the population's propensity to prayer?




Yes, of course, correlation is not causation. But at least I have on this and several other occasions at least went to the bother of producing some data to debunk the claims made on this forum. Those making such claims never seem to feel a need to produce evidence in support of their claims. And on previous occasions the data I produced was just summarily dismissed because it came from an atheist or sceptic website, even though for some statistics they were just relaying what had been found by independent bodies.

IMO and statistics also support this correlation (but causation is always difficult to prove) the increased crime rates, abortions etc. are due to the education or in particular lack of education of those in the study groups, which also is correlated to their religiosity.

I am not saying that educated people cannot be religious, but across most of the world (the US being a major exception for reasons mentioned in the previous studies above) religious observance is highest among the less educated in society. There are many studies that also support a high negative correlation between increased education levels and religious observance while at the same time a reduction in abortion and anti-social crimes of that population group.


----------



## burglar (14 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> ... Hawking it is not pleasant to watch for long periods  ...




Some Christians would say that his deep thinking is a result of his affliction!


----------



## burglar (14 February 2014)

Tink said:


> ... euthanasia with no age limit ...




Euthanasia with no age limit.

It's good enough for our pets!
But not our mothers.


----------



## Tink (15 February 2014)

I have a problem with child euthanasia, under 12's, and was expressing my view.
You are entitled to your own.


----------



## burglar (15 February 2014)

Tink said:


> I have a problem with child euthanasia, under 12's, and was expressing my view.
> You are entitled to your own.




Sorry Tink,

I don't mean to denigrate your view.
Until recently, I would have agreed with you.

I don't have a problem with age.
I do however, have a problem with process.

I would happily have flown my mother to Brussels, 
if she would have wanted that!


----------



## Tink (15 February 2014)

That's fine, burglar, I didn't see it that way, we all have differing opinions and its good that we can share them.

My view is --

That country has completely lost the plot.
What is happening in this world.

I see that process as dangerous.
Just my opinion.


----------



## bellenuit (15 February 2014)

Tink said:


> This is what happens when you take religion and God out of the equation, you end up with a cold heartless killing culture, abortion, euthanasia, the list goes on.
> 
> How can we get rid of people we don't need or want in society?
> Now Belgium wants to bring in euthanasia with no age limit.
> ...




Although you have expressed that it is just your opinion, I would take issue with you describing the Belgian situation as cold heartless killing.

For what I understand the legislation to encompass:

1. It must be with the full consent of the parents.
2. It must have the full consent of the child made when that child was in full control of his senses.
3. It must be consented to by 3 doctors, who not only confirm 2 above, but have also determined that the child is in excruciating pain without any chance of recovery.

I am aware that safeguards can sometimes be circumvented, but nothing would be ever legislated if that was an overriding issue. 

Sometimes the heartless people are those who think others should live in excruciating pain because of their beliefs rather than those of the sufferer.


----------



## Tink (15 February 2014)

Yes, lets pull the plug on everyone, its all hopeless, no fight left in you to get through and beat this illness. Lets just give them the option, get the needle its over.
We are talking children here bellenuit, and there is a grey area in the legislation.
You mean to say babies and children can say what they think?

A lot have been diagnosed with debilitating illnesses and have beaten the odds, Jimmy Steins was one that was only given six months to live but lasted three years, and contributed a hell of a lot in life in that time.
Its called the will to live, the will to fight this disease.

Anyway, you are entitled to your views, I dont agree with it.


----------



## McLovin (15 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Its called the will to live, the will to fight this disease.




It's called a platitude. Try walking into a hospice and looking someone in the eye who is in constant pain with a terminal illness waiting to die so they can be put out of their misery and reciting your trite rejoinder to them.


----------



## Chris45 (15 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, of course, correlation is not causation. But at least I have on this and several other occasions at least went to the bother of producing some data to debunk the claims made on this forum. Those making such claims never seem to feel a need to produce evidence in support of their claims. And on previous occasions the data I produced was just summarily dismissed because it came from an atheist or sceptic website, even though for some statistics they were just relaying what had been found by independent bodies.



I'm not sure which "claims made on this forum" you are referring to, but if a researcher goes to considerable effort to document a "supernatural" event, is it acceptable, in your opinion, for a skeptic to summarily dismiss his work with condescending language such as that used by skeptico in his blog?


> And so another legend is born, to be added to the literature that supposedly shows reincarnation really happens, to be repeated ad nauseam by believers. Yawn.



Just because a skeptic can imagine a vaguely plausible but improbable alternative explanation, do we have to reject the original evidence as fake/fraud/etc. and accept his explanation?

My reaction to one of your posts last year may have come across as a bit strong, but I was influenced by the general hostility being expressed towards theists by some posters at the time.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Although you have expressed that it is just your opinion, I would take issue with you describing the Belgian situation as cold heartless killing.
> 
> For what I understand the legislation to encompass:
> 
> ...



+1



Tink said:


> Yes, lets pull the plug on everyone, its all hopeless, no fight left in you to get through and beat this illness. Lets just give them the option, get the needle its over.



Tink, you are using emotive and unreasonable language here.  The topic is *voluntary* euthanasia.  There is no suggestion that anyone happy to endure pain and loss of dignity when terminally ill should not do so.
And if - even in the face of incontrovertible medical evidence that death is inevitable and imminent - they choose to hope for recovery, then that's up to them.

This always come down to the people who are opposed to voluntary euthanasia wishing to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them.  It is never, ever the other way around!



> You mean to say babies and children can say what they think?



Obviously their parents will make the decision on their behalf.

Your comment seems very heartless.
I cannot think of a more difficult decision facing any parent than to see their much loved child dying, and suffering terribly in the process.  Imo it would take huge courage for those parents - knowing there is no chance of recovery - to hasten the loss of such a child.  Much easier to watch and mutter cliches like "God will take her when it's time for her to go" and other similar nonsense.

I've never been in such a position but well recall the agonising decision of accepting it was time to understand that one of my beloved dogs had had enough.  A child must be thousands of times worse.




McLovin said:


> It's called a platitude. Try walking into a hospice and looking someone in the eye who is in constant pain with a terminal illness waiting to die so they can be put out of their misery and reciting your trite rejoinder to them.



Or try experiencing the grief when a loved person has found their pain and indignity so intolerable that they have crawled out into the sea and drowned themselves.  When you identify the body you can never dispel from your mind the expression of agonised determination on their face.

Or try finding the body of another suicide, some time after she died, with the flies settling into her cold flesh.


----------



## McLovin (15 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Or try experiencing the grief when a loved person has found their pain and indignity so intolerable that they have crawled out into the sea and drowned themselves.  When you identify the body you can never dispel from your mind the expression of agonised determination on their face.
> 
> Or try finding the body of another suicide, some time after she died, with the flies settling into her cold flesh.




I don't know if you're speaking from personal experience, Julia, but that sounds awful. 

I remember when my grandfather was in his last few months. Unable to do even the most basic of tasks, like go to the toilet, without assistance, downright miserable and in pain. As he said to me "I've had a good innings but I'm ready to go. I just want to die". Silly cliches ring hollow when you're watching someone you love, admire and respect lose all their dignity.


----------



## bellenuit (15 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Tink, you are using emotive and unreasonable language here.  The topic is *voluntary* euthanasia.  There is no suggestion that anyone happy to endure pain and loss of dignity when terminally ill should not do so. And if - even in the face of incontrovertible medical evidence that death is inevitable and imminent - they choose to hope for recovery, then that's up to them.




Good point Julia. A very important point I missed. 

And to suggest that parents who might arrive at such a heartbreaking decision are "heartless" and "murderers" would be so distressing to them, compounding their pain.


----------



## Tink (15 February 2014)

So what do you say to the ones that beat the odds, and make it through?
Thank God you didn't live in Belgium.

Euthanasia for children

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/miss-judgement/


----------



## Tink (15 February 2014)

As said, you have your views and that's fine, but I don't like the idea of anyone feeling pressured that they are a burden in society.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2014)

McLovin said:


> I don't know if you're speaking from personal experience, Julia, but that sounds awful.



Yes, in both instances.  Preceded, also in both instances, by months of pleading from each person to help him/her to die, wanting to do anything I could to relieve the intense suffering, but too cowardly to face the prospect of going to jail for assisting suicide.



> I remember when my grandfather was in his last few months. Unable to do even the most basic of tasks, like go to the toilet, without assistance, downright miserable and in pain. As he said to me "I've had a good innings but I'm ready to go. I just want to die". Silly cliches ring hollow when you're watching someone you love, admire and respect lose all their dignity.



Yes.   When the platitudes are trotted out about "palliative care can take much of the pain away" etc., the self righteous conveniently ignore the humiliation of a once independent person being dependent on some anonymous carer for the most intimate of personal functions.



Tink said:


> As said, you have your views and that's fine, but I don't like the idea of anyone feeling pressured that they are a burden in society.



The above shows how utterly you do not get what we are even saying.  

You trot out the same platitudes with apparently no understanding whatsoever of the suffering of individuals.
So much for religion.


----------



## McLovin (15 February 2014)

Julia said:


> Yes, in both instances.  Preceded, also in both instances, by months of pleading from each person to help him/her to die, wanting to do anything I could to relieve the intense suffering, but too cowardly to face the prospect of going to jail for assisting suicide.




Very sorry to hear that, Julia. That must have been such a terrible time for you and your family.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> When the platitudes are trotted out about "palliative care can take much of the pain away" etc.the self righteous conveniently ignore the humiliation of a once independent person being dependent on some anonymous carer for the most intimate of personal functions




My word they do. For most people, living is more than just waking up in the morning and breathing in and out, it's about having a life. I remember when I was very young (under 5) we lived in a block of apartments. In the penthouse was this old lady, Sylvia, who would have been well in to her 80's but had a busier social life than most 20 year olds. Every Sunday she would invite the neighbours over for cocktails (fire engine for me) and she'd always have a glass of Scotch in one hand and a cigar in the other. She was the life of the party. One morning she fell over on her morning walk and broke her hip. The doctors said she would be confined to a wheelchair and would need to go into a nursing home, or have a full time nurse. Apart from that she was physically and mentally healthy. She died within three months.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> The above shows how utterly you do not get what we are even saying.
> 
> You trot out the same platitudes with apparently no understanding whatsoever of the suffering of individuals.
> So much for religion.




+1

It almost reads as though it was posted in the wrong thread.


----------



## Tink (16 February 2014)

It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with humanity, not being happy with asking for just one thing, they have to ask for more, and now bring in the children, then start abusing the system. 
How much power do you want to give to these doctors and politicians.

The figures in Belgium are appalling. The world is shocked at the attitude they have taken.
You say history doesn't repeat, I am starting to wonder.

I am sorry if I sound insensitive, but you mention children, and that's it for me.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2014)

Tink said:


> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with humanity, not being happy with asking for just one thing, they have to ask for more, and now bring in the children, then start abusing the system.
> How much power do you want to give to these doctors and politicians.
> 
> The figures in Belgium are appalling. The world is shocked at the attitude they have taken.
> ...




I must admit, Tink and all, that whenever a government, basically a collection of large bellied villagers, decides for all men and women, I retreat to that great Roman Senator , Cicero.



> On Law
> 
> True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application…
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## Tink (16 February 2014)

Julia said:


> The above shows how utterly you do not get what we are even saying.
> 
> You trot out the same platitudes with apparently no understanding whatsoever of the suffering of individuals.
> So much for religion.




Julia, I do understand what you are saying, but I also see the problems associated with opening that door, as stated above.


----------



## DocK (16 February 2014)

Julia said:


> This always come down to the people who are opposed to voluntary euthanasia wishing to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them.  It is never, ever the other way around!




This is the guts of the issue for me, and what annoys me the most about a lot of "religious people".  We have laws, which have been arrived at via a democratically (at least in our country) elected govt.  Why then do I have to be subjected to those who think their particular beliefs take precedence over the law when it comes to issues such as abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, whether I should bare my flesh/eat what I like etc etc.  I know not all of those issues are yet legal in Australia, but I firmly feel that if left to our democratic process - where we all get an equal say - they may very well be.  The point is that we should _all_ have a say in what becomes legal and acceptable, and not be forced into acceding to the wishes of those who have particular religious beliefs.  Nobody is seeking to make any of these things compulsory!  

I have no desire to persuade anyone to undertake any action that goes against their personal beliefs, and would not support any govt that did.  Why then must I put up with doorknockers and sermonisers who seek to impose their beliefs on the community at large?  It's frustrating that most non-believers seem quite content to let others follow whatever religious beliefs they choose, no matter how bizarre or illogical we may consider them to be, but this consideration is not reciprocated.  Indeed the opposite seems to be the norm - with the faithful determined to either convert or dominate those that don't share their beliefs and values.


----------



## McLovin (16 February 2014)

DocK said:


> This is the guts of the issue for me, and what annoys me the most about a lot of "religious people".  We have laws, which have been arrived at via a democratically (at least in our country) elected govt.  Why then do I have to be subjected to those who think their particular beliefs take precedence over the law when it comes to issues such as abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, whether I should bare my flesh/eat what I like etc etc.  I know not all of those issues are yet legal in Australia, but I firmly feel that if left to our democratic process - where we all get an equal say - they may very well be.  The point is that we should _all_ have a say in what becomes legal and acceptable, and not be forced into acceding to the wishes of those who have particular religious beliefs.  Nobody is seeking to make any of these things compulsory!
> 
> I have no desire to persuade anyone to undertake any action that goes against their personal beliefs, and would not support any govt that did.  Why then must I put up with doorknockers and sermonisers who seek to impose their beliefs on the community at large?  It's frustrating that most non-believers seem quite content to let others follow whatever religious beliefs they choose, no matter how bizarre or illogical we may consider them to be, but this consideration is not reciprocated.  Indeed the opposite seems to be the norm - with the faithful determined to either convert or dominate those that don't share their beliefs and values.




Great post DocK. I've said plenty of times that I don't care what someone chooses to believe in, frankly it's none of my business. For most of us who are not religious, it's when the Bible/Koran/Torah bashers start telling the rest of us that unless we live to their dogmatic set of beliefs society will/is fall/ing apart. Of course the reality is that society is not falling apart, they just don't like that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant.

It seems that the less religious we become as a society, the more hysterical the warnings become. I don't doubt that in a few hundred years today's religions will be viewed in the same way we view paganism.


----------



## pavilion103 (16 February 2014)

As a Christian, I agree that people are free to act within the law. We introduce laws by a democratic process. Society then has the freedom to act within them. I can vote against certain laws but in the end the majority will have the say and they may agree it disagree with my view on a certain law.

At the same time, I feel strongly to communicate my view to others. Much in the same way that I would to an alcoholic father and husband who, legally, can drink himself stupid each night at the expense of his family. There is no legal issue. But I would still speak against it to him and then acknowledge that it is his choice to continue to love a drunken life or not.

There is no doubt that the moral standard of society have decayed badly. Look no further than the crap in movies and songs. The goal posts have shifted so much. Divorce and broken families too; there is no incentive to "work out" a marriage. Depression is an ever increasing epidemic in this world. Sexual disease etc. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain to see for those who open their eyes.

As for the church.... It has withstood intense persecution for 2000 years. Much more in many places than it is experiencing now. It seems to be the one thing that remains standing as everything else shifts. Just because a few western cultures are adopting atheistic views, won't change one little thing in the course of history. Especially if counties like China (more Christians than anywhere else) and India (spiritual nation) emerge and countries like the US are no longer the power they once were.


----------



## McLovin (16 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> There is no doubt that the moral standard of society have decayed badly. Look no further than the crap in movies and songs.




The old video games, movies and music. Let's forget about how aboriginals were considered fauna not so long ago, or that Asians were considered some disease that needed to be kept out of Australia, or that being gay was a criminal offence. Where women were considered chattel property, and a blind eye was turned to domestic violence. Yeah, what a morally retrograde society we find ourselves in today. If only we could go back to those days of wholesome music and movies, we can just forget about all the other stuff. 



			
				pavillion103 said:
			
		

> This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain to see for those who open their eyes.




Actually it is. And it's so blissfully removed from reality.



			
				pavillion103 said:
			
		

> As for the church.... It has withstood intense persecution for 2000 years.




That's a new one. 2,000 years of persecution by the church or of the church?


----------



## CanOz (16 February 2014)

Great Sunday entertainment you too are!


----------



## DocK (16 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> As a Christian, I agree that people are free to act within the law. We introduce laws by a democratic process. Society then has the freedom to act within them. I can vote against certain laws but in the end the majority will have the say and they may agree it disagree with my view on a certain law.
> 
> *At the same time, I feel strongly to communicate my view to others.* Much in the same way that I would to an alcoholic father and husband who, legally, can drink himself stupid each night at the expense of his family. There is no legal issue. But I would still speak against it to him and then acknowledge that it is his choice to continue to love a drunken life or not.




I'm not just having a go here - but would seriously like to know, why?  Why do "people of faith" feel they must communicate their views to others?  Why can't they/you just let us be?  Most people that you would label atheist don't feel the need to communicate our disbelief of your views to you and others, but are content to live and let live.  If we are uneasy or unhappy about some aspects of our society, such as alcoholism, we do some volunteer work and offer our help where it is wanted - we mostly don't go sticking our noses into other people's business and insist they mend their ways to our liking.  Of course I don't think alcoholic fathers and husbands are a good thing - but I'd rather focus on education and support programs for their families than preach to the alcoholic that doesn't want my help.  I grew up in a catholic community, and find the idea of the church lecturing about alcoholism hypocritical in the extreme.  My experience was that the catholic church, in particular, would rather see a woman and children endure a miserable life with an alcoholic than allow that divorce is a better alternative in a lot of cases.  Indeed, one of my biggest issues with religion is the misogyny at the heart of most of it - it seems to me that the church has been determined over the years to strip away any power or rights that women once had.  Perhaps there has been some attempt to "get with the times" over recent years, but I recall (as a girl who attended a convent school) being taught by the nuns that I must never refuse my husband his rights, but must not use contraception no matter how a pregnancy would affect my health or my ability to feed the children I may already have.  I could not leave or divorce my husband no matter whether he beat me or mistreated my children, or drank or gambled away our income - but must pray for his soul instead!  I often used to wonder how a bible written by the women of the time, rather than by the men, might read.  It's too bad that the fear of being accused a witch was probably enough to convince most rebellious women to keep their heads down.



> There is no doubt that the moral standard of society have decayed badly. Look no further than the crap in movies and songs. The goal posts have shifted so much. Divorce and broken families too; there is no incentive to "work out" a marriage. Depression is an ever increasing epidemic in this world. Sexual disease etc. This isn't a matter of opinion. It is plain to see for those who open their eyes.
> 
> As for the church.... It has withstood intense persecution for 2000 years. Much more in many places than it is experiencing now. It seems to be the one thing that remains standing as everything else shifts. Just because a few western cultures are adopting atheistic views, won't change one little thing in the course of history. Especially if counties like China (more Christians than anywhere else) and India (spiritual nation) emerge and countries like the US are no longer the power they once were.




Some of the issues you cite as decaying moral standards, such as depression and sexual disease, are made worse by religion.  Many young people are made to feel outcasts or inferior because of a sexual orientation that doesn't fit with the religious views of their family/school etc.  If some religions had their way condoms would not be readily available, sex-ed would not be held in schools, and teenage pregnancy rates would be even higher.  Some of the countries in the world with the highest rates of sexual disease are those that missionaries converted and then largely deserted.  You mentioned the US - isn't it one of the most religious of the Christian countries?  Doesn't it also have amongst the worst rates of all those examples of decaying moral standards


----------



## Chris45 (16 February 2014)

DocK said:


> Why then must I put up with doorknockers and sermonisers who seek to impose their beliefs on the community at large?  It's frustrating that most non-believers seem quite content to let others follow whatever religious beliefs they choose, no matter how bizarre or illogical we may consider them to be, but this consideration is not reciprocated.  *Indeed the opposite seems to be the norm - with the faithful determined to either convert or dominate those that don't share their beliefs and values.*






DocK said:


> I'm not just having a go here - but would seriously like to know, why?  Why do "people of faith" feel they must communicate their views to others?  Why can't they/you just let us be?  *Most people that you would label atheist don't feel the need to communicate our disbelief of your views to you and others, but are content to live and let live.*



I'm sick to death of "believers" knocking on my door and phoning me at all hours trying to convert me to their "beliefs", and trying to extract money from me.

The big difference is that these people have nothing to do with any religion!!!


----------



## bellenuit (16 February 2014)

DocK said:


> I'm not just having a go here - but would seriously like to know, why?  Why do "people of faith" feel they must communicate their views to others?  Why can't they/you just let us be?




DocK, I agree with almost everything in your post except that part. I think Christians and other religions have as much right to express their views as anyone else. I suppose a lot depends on what we mean by "communicate" and so long as it is within the bounds of the law, then so be it. That is what democracy is about. But democracy also requires a level playing field and IMO religious institutions should not get special tax advantages not available to others. I resent the fact that my tax may be used by them to promote ideas that I do not hold. 

I am aware that in some cases religions provide needed services to society, such as schools and hospitals, and I am not against them receiving some compensation for those services, perhaps an amount commensurate with the burden they have removed from the state. However, there must be strict conditions to such compensation, such as not being allowed to reject those of another religion and prevent (in the case of hospitals) women receiving proper family planning guidance. Compensation for services rendered is a controversial subject in its own right.

I think what you are getting at is when they try to stick their noses into others' private lives and I would agree with you there. What gets me is when they want to control what others do in their own bedrooms, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. Stephen Fry said on a TV show that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex and this is so true when one considers the issues that it seems most up in arms about. They like to stay on the pulpit that sex is a gift from God, but whether one wants to see it that way or as a product of evolution, one thing is clear in my mind and that is it is they who have turned this most natural of functions into something dirty.


----------



## Chris45 (16 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> DocK, I agree with almost everything in your post except that part. I think Christians and other religions have as much right to express their views as anyone else. I suppose a lot depends on what we mean by "communicate" and so long as it is within the bounds of the law, then so be it. That is what democracy is about.



I agree and I don't know exactly where DocK lives and why s/he feels so strongly about religious doorknockers. I'm only 5km from Surfers and I've found that religious doorknockers have considerably more respect for my "Do Not Knock" sign than non-religious, and probably atheist, doorknockers such as electricity company doorknockers, solar panel doorknockers, political doorknockers, etc. etc.

I haven't had a religious doorknocker bother me for about twenty years but I've had plenty of the others so I wonder why DocK singles out religious doorknockers as if there's a constant stream of them knocking on her/his door, but doesn't seem to be bothered by any of the others? Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me.


----------



## pavilion103 (16 February 2014)

Yes US which has been a predominantly Christian country does have one of the worst rates of moral decay. This has occurred as the nation has become more and more atheistic.


----------



## pavilion103 (16 February 2014)

For you guys everything is relative.
You cannot have atheism and moral absolutes. Great atheist philosophers like Neitszche recognized this. 
You can make up whatever rules you choose. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong. 
It's all just opinion either minority or majority, even that doesn't matter. It doesn't make it right or wrong.

I'll trust my standards to the one who resurrected from the dead. I'll trust him to define the standards of right and wrong, to tell me the origin, meaning and designation of life. There is no one more reliable. 

But hey, maybe those whose minds developed from monkeys minds should decide? The rational coming from irrational are better equipped to decide? By all means trust yourself, trust your scientist, your philosopher. Pick and choose. It's all relative anyway.

Not for me though guys. I'll take reality thanks. I'll listen to the one who created it all, while you live by your own opinions. 

I couldn't think of anything more arrogant than someone whose mind evolved from a monkey's mind thinking that they can reach a conclusion on what universal truth is!


----------



## sptrawler (16 February 2014)

DocK said:


> This is the guts of the issue for me, and what annoys me the most about a lot of "religious people".  We have laws, which have been arrived at via a democratically (at least in our country) elected govt.  Why then do I have to be subjected to those who think their particular beliefs take precedence over the law when it comes to issues such as abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, whether I should bare my flesh/eat what I like etc etc.  I know not all of those issues are yet legal in Australia, but I firmly feel that if left to our democratic process - where we all get an equal say - they may very well be.  The point is that we should _all_ have a say in what becomes legal and acceptable, and not be forced into acceding to the wishes of those who have particular religious beliefs.  Nobody is seeking to make any of these things compulsory!
> 
> I have no desire to persuade anyone to undertake any action that goes against their personal beliefs, and would not support any govt that did.  Why then must I put up with doorknockers and sermonisers who seek to impose their beliefs on the community at large?  It's frustrating that most non-believers seem quite content to let others follow whatever religious beliefs they choose, no matter how bizarre or illogical we may consider them to be, but this consideration is not reciprocated.  Indeed the opposite seems to be the norm - with the faithful determined to either convert or dominate those that don't share their beliefs and values.




Agree 100% Dock.
I watched my dad fade away over 8 years, a once proud man reduced to a 28kg man in the fetal position at his passing. 
It's a shame those with religous beliefs, seems to take precedence over compassion and respect for peoples rights.
As has been shown, in other aspects of life.

My first and probably last post on this thread.lol 
It is easier debating with Ifocus on politics, than debating religion.lol


----------



## DocK (16 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I agree and I don't know exactly where DocK lives and why s/he feels so strongly about religious doorknockers. I'm only 5km from Surfers and I've found that religious doorknockers have considerably more respect for my "Do Not Knock" sign than non-religious, and probably atheist, doorknockers such as electricity company doorknockers, solar panel doorknockers, political doorknockers, etc. etc.
> 
> I haven't had a religious doorknocker bother me for about twenty years but I've had plenty of the others so I wonder why DocK singles out religious doorknockers as if there's a constant stream of them knocking on her/his door, but doesn't seem to be bothered by any of the others? Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me.




Perhaps my use of the term "doorknocker" was not strictly accurate - although I do get at least 5 or 6 a year.  Maybe I should invest in a sign.  My meaning, which I thought was clear, was my annoyance at often having other people's views thrust upon me - whether they be literally at my front door, on tv, in politics, media, education etc.  It seems that so many areas of our lives, be it our marriages, health, methods of dying/contraception etc are being dictated or heavily influenced by the religious views of a segment of the community.  It annoys me that some would seek to curtail my freedoms based upon a "holy book" or faith that I find to be incredulous.  I'm happy for you to believe in whatever God you choose, and I don't deny that faith brings a lot of joy and comfort to a lot of people.  There have been both great and evil things done in the name of a religion.  What I find illogical though, is why actual laws should be based or heavily influenced on a non-proven, leap-of-faith belief system.  Actually, that's not even strictly correct - it's probably more accurate to say that I don't get why_ I _should be denied something based on something that _you (insert faith of choice)_ believe, but I don't.  

I can understand a person having a deep faith and wishing to live their life in accordance with the guidelines or doctrine of their faith.  I struggle to understand why some simply cannot accept that some will never believe as  they do, without some evidence.  As has been said, it often seems that those of faith seek to impose their views, via education, politics etc, on society at large, but those of no particular faith rarely seek to remove the rights of the faithful to their churches, beliefs etc.


----------



## cbc (16 February 2014)

Gosh DocK,

You're all over the shop.

God sent his son to die on the cross for your sins, to save you from going to hell.

It's the most important, urgent matter of all.  You.


----------



## DocK (16 February 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Agree 100% Dock.
> I watched my dad fade away over 8 years, a once proud man reduced to a 28kg man in the fetal position at his passing.
> It's a shame those with religous beliefs, seems to take precedence over compassion and respect for peoples rights.
> As has been shown, in other aspects of life.
> ...




I think you're entirely correct there, sptrawler.  I think I'll leave this thread alone too.


----------



## bellenuit (16 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Yes US which has been a predominantly Christian country does have one of the worst rates of moral decay. This has occurred as the nation has become more and more atheistic.




Again you stick your head in the sand. Are you going to reject every single study that shows that social ills are higher among the more religious than the less religious and those societies that have moved away from religion have had a reduction in social ills. 

Why don't you for once put up some facts to support your arguments.


----------



## bellenuit (16 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I couldn't think of anything more arrogant than someone whose mind evolved from a monkey's mind thinking that they can reach a conclusion on what universal truth is!



Pav, I thought your opinions were worth respecting when you put up some arguments against evolution, although you never commented on the rebuttals I posted. I see you are now out there with the Ken Hams of this world. Have you ever even studied the most basics of evolution. You are just parroting the silly statements made by the young earth creationists.

And how self defeating that statement is. Whether you think we are all the result of evolution or we were created just as we are today, if we can't reach a conclusion of what universal truth is, then neither can you. Just because you may believe in the Bible doesn't make what it says a universal truth. There are several thousand other religions that all say their book or revelations are also expressing universal truths. 

Any person with a rational mind, even if a strong believer such as yourself, must surely be  honest enough with themselves to admit that what they believe to be true is purely subjective.


----------



## bellenuit (16 February 2014)

Good on you Denmark. This is hardly an example of a country moving away from religion showing a decline in moral values. Quite the opposite!

*Denmark to Ban Halal Slaughter Methods*

http://www.iqna.ir/en/News/1375598


----------



## burglar (16 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... respect for my "Do Not Knock" ...




I had two illiterates knocking recently.
I simply ignored them and they eventually wandered off.


P.S.
My mentor had a dog who would let them up to the front door, ... and then bail them up.
Then he would lecture them on the "beliefs of Steinitz" and the esoteric, and "the Absolute".

They were terrified.
They never came twice.

Hilarious!


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

I just watched a great new series on SBS tonight called "Everything and Nothing". It explains the majesty of our universe through the science and discoveries of mankind's greatest minds; Euclid, Galileo, Gauss, Einstein and Hubble, to name a few. It may only be in two parts, as tonight discussed "Everything" and next week it will be "Nothing", which I thing will be fascinating. 

Some here may find it confronting. However, you can alternatively tune in to Foxtel's ACC channel, where the majesty of our universe will be explained to you by talking snakes and burning bushes.

As an aside, something I learned last week (If you like Astronomy, you should consider following Neil deGrasse Tyson on Facebook or Twitter; he always has some interesting facts). Apparently when you look at the setting sun, you are looking at a mirage. When the "bottom" of the sun appears to touch the horizon, in actuality the "top" of the sun has just sunk below the horizon. The atmosphere at horizon level bends light (like looking at a stick that appears bent when you poke it in water) to roughly the equivalent of the observed sun's diameter at sunset.


----------



## Tink (17 February 2014)

I watched that show too, bellenuit, and found it very interesting. I enjoyed it.

Thanks for the interesting facts on the Sun.


----------



## FxTrader (17 February 2014)

Finally we have a school principal with the courage to speak out against the religious indoctrination of children in schools...

*Primary school principals shut down religious education classes*

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/primary-school-principals-shut-down-religious-education-classes-20140216-32ty8.html

The key quote for me regarding so called _Christian religious education (CRE) classes_...


> "It is not education," Mr Kelly said. "It has no value whatsoever. It is rubbish - hollow and empty rhetoric … My school teachers are committed to teaching children, not indoctrinating them."




This of course is one of the more insidious acts carried out by the religious, programming the mind of a child to accept religious myth as fact with the goal of creating a lifelong convert to the cult of religious belief.  Saving their lost little souls from imagined hellfire is one pretense for such behavior but the real goal is perpetuation of the faith since it's more difficult to recruit/convert adults to the cult of believers.

Christian mythology (including talking serpents, original sin, 7 day creation stories, virgin births, death defying resurrection etc.) is not fact and should never be represented as such to anyone, especially children.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 February 2014)

I wonder if we have any principals with the courage to speak out against the philosophy "theory" of evolution being passed off as science?


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> As an aside, something I learned last week (If you like Astronomy, you should consider following Neil deGrasse Tyson on Facebook or Twitter; he always has some interesting facts). Apparently when you look at the setting sun, you are looking at a mirage. When the "bottom" of the sun appears to touch the horizon, in actuality the "top" of the sun has just sunk below the horizon. The atmosphere at horizon level bends light (like looking at a stick that appears bent when you poke it in water) to roughly the equivalent of the observed sun's diameter at sunset.



Neil deGrasse Tyson must watch QI


----------



## McLovin (17 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Again you stick your head in the sand. Are you going to reject every single study that shows that social ills are higher among the more religious than the less religious and those societies that have moved away from religion have had a reduction in social ills.
> 
> Why don't you for once put up some facts to support your arguments.




It's funny that segregation persisted the longest in the "Bible Belt". Moral decay appears to be shorthand for "doesn't share my beliefs anymore".


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Neil deGrasse Tyson must watch QI




I stand corrected. I must have picked it up from QI and confused it with much of the stuff Tyson posts on a daily basis. BTW, Tyson is hosting a new science series that I think has just started in the US. It is called COSMOS and is a follow on from the series of the same name that won many accolades when presented by Carl Sagan a few decades ago.


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Good on you Denmark. This is hardly an example of a country moving away from religion showing a decline in moral values. Quite the opposite!
> 
> *Denmark to Ban Halal Slaughter Methods*
> 
> http://www.iqna.ir/en/News/1375598



*Agree 100%!!!*    They should also *ban* the importation of halal and kosher meat.

The slaughtering of animals should be as quick and painless as humanly possible, and no animals should be made to suffer unnecessarily because of some stupid religious tradition.


----------



## McLovin (17 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> no animals should be made to suffer unnecessarily because of some stupid religious tradition.




Hey we agree on something!

It's a shame such courtesy isn't extended to humans.


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I wonder if we have any principals with the courage to speak out against the philosophy "theory" of evolution being passed off as science?




I presume you put "theory" in quotes because you wanted to ensure people didn't confuse its usage by scientists with common everyday usage of the word. Theory, when used in a scientific environment, means the best explanation available of a process and has not yet been falsified. It is a robust explanation and its robustness is strengthened when it also accurately predicts events that have yet to be discovered, as the Theory of Evolution has.

I presume your quotes also is meant to highlight that "theory" only applies to the mechanics of evolution (random mutation combined with natural selection) not the fact of evolution. That evolution happens is a proven fact. How it happens is what the theory is about.


----------



## Tink (17 February 2014)

I cannot believe people are complaining that we shouldn't speak, every debate has a 'for and against', and its good to hear different views on all topics.
The ABC, taxpayer funded, is run by the Labor/Greens and is forever pushing their agenda, why aren't you complaining about them?

We may not all agree, but we are entitled to express our thoughts.
At the end of the day, yes, we live in a democracy and views are put through on how the majority thinks. 

I don't like it when people label me religious, my opinions are MY opinions.
I like tradition, that's not just religious people.


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> This of course is one of the more insidious acts carried out by the religious, programming the mind of a child to accept religious myth as fact with the goal of creating a lifelong convert to the cult of religious belief.  Saving their lost little souls from imagined hellfire is one pretense for such behavior but the real goal is perpetuation of the faith since it's more difficult to recruit/convert adults to the cult of believers.
> 
> Christian mythology (including talking serpents, original sin, 7 day creation stories, virgin births, death defying resurrection etc.) is not fact and should never be represented as such to anyone, especially children.



Once again your hatred for religion, that you express in your posts, is palpable.

I'd like to know what happened to you to turn you into the hateful and intolerant person you are. Then again, maybe it's genetic. Whatever the cause, you really need to seek professional help!

Whether you like it or not, the Bible and the ancient scrolls upon which it is based are part of our history.
Whether you like it or not, Jesus Christ walked on this Earth and taught many intelligent and enlightening lessons to those who were prepared to listen to him.

CRE is not science and should not be taught as such, but scientifically tested evidence is now emerging that suggests that there could well be a basis for our religious beliefs, and it's a sad reflection of your intellectual ability that you can't face up to it!

There is *NO* scientific proof that God does not exist, but there is now evidence and scientific thinking that supports the argument that he does. How can people make informed decisions if they aren't presented with both sides of an argument? That's why God gave us intelligence and the free will to choose.

I cannot see the harm in children hearing the teachings of Jesus Christ and I think CRE definitely has a place in public schools, if only to combat the odious atheistic views such as yours that pervade our society and are drummed into them from birth ... and you complain about religious indoctrination!!!

I *TOTALLY* reject the atheists' attempts to programme the minds of children to accept that religion is all lies and without foundation, and that God is just an invention like Santa Claus.


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

Tink said:


> *I cannot believe people are complaining that we shouldn't speak, every debate has a 'for and against', and its good to hear different views on all topics.*
> The ABC, taxpayer funded, is run by the Labor/Greens and is forever pushing their agenda, why aren't you complaining about them?
> 
> *We may not all agree, but we are entitled to express our thoughts.*
> ...



I totally agree Tink. 

It's the hard-nosed atheists who seem to be intent on closing down discussions and silencing people and imposing their narrow-minded views on everyone.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I presume you put "theory" in quotes because you wanted to ensure people didn't confuse its usage by scientists with common everyday usage of the word. Theory, when used in a scientific environment, means the best explanation available of a process and has not yet been falsified. It is a robust explanation and its robustness is strengthened when it also accurately predicts events that have yet to be discovered, as the Theory of Evolution has.  I presume your quotes also is meant to highlight that "theory" only applies to the mechanics of evolution (random mutation combined with natural selection) not the fact of evolution. That evolution happens is a proven fact. How it happens is what the theory is about.




Yes.
Natural selection is a fact (the loss of genetic information).

As you stated, how it happens is what the theory is about.

The problem is that the theory of us evolving from pond scum uses macro evolution which is an increase in genetic information, which has never been observed once. Evolution (natural selection), being a loss of genetic information, is the exact opposite of this macro evolution "theory"

Of course evolution (natural selection - loss of genetic info) occurs. This is a fact. No serious creationist would deny this!!!!


----------



## pavilion103 (17 February 2014)

Teach natural selection in science class. That makes sense.

But don't bundle is dishonestly with macro evolution theory of how humans came to be from less complex animals. This doesn't have one shred of scientific information.

We are genetically similar to monkeys.
We are 50% similar to bananas.
A bridge and a building both use steel, the same building blocks. This only points to a designer using he same building blocks, not that a building evolved from a bridge.

Let's teach natural selection as we should.
But let's leave all the hocus pocus and fiction out of the science class!!!


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

McLovin said:


> Hey we agree on something!
> 
> It's a shame such courtesy isn't extended to humans.



Actually, ... we agree on that too. Now I'm starting to get worried!!!


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> BTW, Tyson is hosting a new science series that I think has just started in the US. It is called COSMOS and is a follow on from the series of the same name that won many accolades when presented by Carl Sagan a few decades ago.



Please give us a "heads up" if it comes onto SBS. 

I missed "Everything and Nothing" last night but Ep. 2 has now been programmed into my recorder.


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> That evolution happens is a proven fact.



Bellenuit, I'm curious as to what you accept as *proven facts* of evolution. Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Julia (17 February 2014)

There was a laughable demonstration of the hypocrisy of the religious on John Cleary's Sunday Night ABC radio program last night.  He - like most ABC presenters - chooses guests who reflect his own views and they spend the first half of the so called talkback hour agreeing with each other, whilst denigrating and rubbishing anyone who might hold a dissenting view.

Last night euthanasia was raised.  John and Bill enthusiastically agreed that it was (insert pretty much every pejorative adjective known here, eg ethically and morally offensive, repugnant, etc.)   A caller described his experience of a loved person struggling to breathe, in intolerable suffering for two years before she finally died.

He received the usual dogmatic, pious response.

Mr Cleary then raised the issue that it's widely known doctors can and do increase drug levels in order to hasten death.  Bill acknowledged this to be true.   However, he declared that was quite fine because he, Bill, didn't actually know it was happening.  So, as long as no one told him about it, they could go right ahead.
What it must be to have such principles.


----------



## rumpole (17 February 2014)

Julia said:


> There was a laughable demonstration of the hypocrisy of the religious on John Cleary's Sunday Night ABC radio program last night.  He - like most ABC presenters - chooses guests who reflect his own views and they spend the first half of the so called talkback hour agreeing with each other, whilst denigrating and rubbishing anyone who might hold a dissenting view.




Dear me, that's not unknown in the broadcasting world is it ? Have you ever listened to Alan Jones ? All sections of the media have their pompous asses, Phillip Adams is one, Alan Jones is another. Don't listen to them if you don't like them.


----------



## burglar (17 February 2014)

McLovin said:


> Hey we agree on something!
> 
> It's a shame such courtesy isn't extended to humans.




+1 ditto that!


----------



## burglar (17 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> ... But don't bundle is dishonestly with macro evolution theory of how humans came to be from less complex animals. This doesn't have one shred of scientific information. ...




First you say, show us one single intermediate.
We produce "Lucy".
Then you say, but there is only one "Lucy".
We are really stoopid because the contract is met, 
but still we go off in search.

Not only do we find "Lucy"'s mates, 
but continuously find more and more intermediates.

Go look in a museum!!


----------



## pavilion103 (17 February 2014)

burglar said:


> First you say, show us one single intermediate. We produce "Lucy". Then you say, but there is only one "Lucy". We are really stoopid because the contract is met, but still we go off in search.  Not only do we find "Lucy"'s mates, but continuously find more and more intermediates.  Go look in a museum!!




In what way does Lucy satisfy my question?

Please elaborate on the evidence for Lucy that supports macro evolution?


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Yes.
> Natural selection is a fact (the loss of genetic information).
> 
> As you stated, how it happens is what the theory is about.
> ...




The same false arguments that you used a few weeks ago for which I posted some rebuttals that you said you would read over that weekend. I guess you didn't.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 February 2014)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v8/n1/bringing-lucy-to-life

I don't see how this is in any way conclusive.

Then the example of increasing genetic information is a whole another question. There are zero scientific examples of genetic information increasing.

Then in terms of transitionary fossils you point out Lucy. If this is the best evolutionists have then I'd be concerned if I was them!!!!! See article above.


----------



## pavilion103 (17 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> The same false arguments that you used a few weeks ago for which I posted some rebuttals that you said you would read over that weekend. I guess you didn't.




Even a quick Google search will provide answers to your rebuttal but let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story hey


----------



## pavilion103 (17 February 2014)

In 1-2 short sentences provide one example of increasing genetic information please


----------



## FxTrader (17 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Once again your hatred for religion, that you express in your posts, is palpable.



Nonsensical supposition, I regard "religion" for what it is - myth.  Indoctrinating the impressionable minds of young children with tales they are sinful creatures in need of redemption and other nonsense about hell and judgement is just despicable.



> I'd like to know what happened to you to turn you into the hateful and intolerant person you are. Then again, maybe it's genetic. Whatever the cause, you really need to seek professional help!



Yet more patronizing BS from you Chris.  I am neither a hater nor am I inclined to be intolerant.  The consequences of humans arguing about, and taking seriously, competing claims in religious magic books are evident throughout the world.  Religious superstition has become institutionalized deception over the ages, something tolerated in a democratic society but it must be exposed for what it is, poisonous superstition.



> Whether you like it or not, the Bible and the ancient scrolls upon which it is based are part of our history.
> Whether you like it or not, Jesus Christ walked on this Earth and taught many intelligent and enlightening lessons to those who were prepared to listen to him.



There have been many wise teachers and philosophers over the centuries, Jesus is just one of many claiming divine authority and origin.  Claims of such divinity remain unsubstantiated and fanciful nonsense.



> CRE is not science and should not be taught as such, but scientifically tested evidence is now emerging that suggests that there could well be a basis for our religious beliefs, and it's a sad reflection of your intellectual ability that you can't face up to it!



LOL, there is no scientific basis for the fantastic claims made in your magic books, if there are produce the *EVIDENCE*.  Your continual pejorative, personal attacks on me are more indicative of your hated and intolerance of atheism and betrays your strong bias for superstitious belief.  Why not try and form reasoned, intelligent arguments for religious faith instead of resorting to personal attacks and emotive laden statements.



> There is *NO* scientific proof that God does not exist, but there is now evidence and scientific thinking that supports the argument that he does. How can people make informed decisions if they aren't presented with both sides of an argument? That's why God gave us intelligence and the free will to choose.



There is no scientific proof that a teapot is not orbiting Venus either.  Try not to equate faith based religious argument with scientific, evidenced based belief.  They are not one and the same.



> I cannot see the harm in children hearing the teachings of Jesus Christ and I think CRE definitely has a place in public schools, if only to combat the odious atheistic views such as yours that pervade our society and are drummed into them from birth ... and you complain about religious indoctrination!!!



Children should be taught a disciplined reasoning process and to be free thinkers.  If schools want to offer courses in philosophy, mysticism or religion in literature that's fine.  The only thing that's odious here is the teaching that we are sinners at birth, unworthy denizens of planet earth destined for hellfire unless we have some measure of belief in fantastic tales told in the Bible whereby we gain entry to a paradise of eternal servitude to a temperamental celestial dictator.  



> I *TOTALLY* reject the atheists' attempts to programme the minds of children to accept that religion is all lies and without foundation, and that God is just an invention like Santa Claus.



On the contrary, atheists promote free thinking, reasoned and rational beliefs and seek to expose religion as nothing more than human invented myth, exactly what it is.


----------



## burglar (17 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> In what way does Lucy satisfy my question?
> 
> Please elaborate on the evidence for Lucy that supports macro evolution?




Four dogs defence?
Why should I bother a reply?
I am absolutely certain you have three more dogs in your arsenal.

Don't know why I post at all.
Perhaps ... one day ... 
someone will read it and agree!?


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Bellenuit, I'm curious as to what you accept as *proven facts* of evolution. Could you please elaborate?




Chris, please go and type in "facts proving evolution" and find out for yourself. I have already posted some articles that show how evolutionary theory predicted that a certain DNA structure must exist in humans and would only come about if we evolved according to the processes that the theory supports and they have found such structures.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/bill-nye-creationism-evolution

Here is some generalised support for the fact of evolution.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/

There is the huge body of DNA evidence that modern genetics is revealing, every bit supporting the theory of evolution and none rebutting it. 

One piece of evidence I particularly like is the inefficient design of the laryngeal nerve in mammals (including humans) and particularly pronounced in giraffes because of their large necks. An intelligent designer would simply not do it that way, but evolution explains how when we were previously fish it was an efficient design but as we evolved and the structure of our bodies changed this nerve ended up wrapping around organs that had slowly moved into what was the original fairly straight path. If you don't mind some gore, this video explains it far better than I can.


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Then the example of increasing genetic information is a whole another question. There are zero scientific examples of genetic information increasing.




I guess they must have a filter on the Answers In Genesis website that prevents them searching Google.

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html



> If this is the best evolutionists have then I'd be concerned if I was them!!!!!




Don't be concerned. There are more fossil records than Lucy and science doesn't only rely on fossil records. There is the DNA evidence, examples already given.

And your rebuttal is a pointer to a website that holds the earth is only 6,000 years old (that must piss off Australian Aborigines) and blocks any discussion from genuine scientists on the stuff it puts up there.


----------



## spooly74 (17 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Yes.
> Of course evolution (natural selection - loss of genetic info) occurs. This is a fact. No serious creationist would deny this!!!!




Serious Creationist...? 
You're having a laugh.


----------



## rumpole (17 February 2014)

My two cents worth is that evolution, like the rest of creation, is a set of laws and principles that is followed when physical and or biological systems develop.

 There is a degree of uncertainty about how biological systems develop that depend on the initial conditions of the planet that holds the system. If no life on earth existed now, but started to develop from now on, evolution would most likely produce creatures that are different from what we know today due to initial conditions, but would that development follow the same laws and principles that it did over the last 4 billion years ?

 If the answer is yes, then it's reasonable to ask why we have these set of laws, and not another set that does not permit life to develop. Accident or design ? Most people would choose the answer they most want to believe. What is the evidence that the evolutionary principles occurred by either of these methods ?


----------



## FxTrader (17 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> My two cents worth is that evolution, like the rest of creation, is a set of laws and principles that is followed when physical and or biological systems develop.
> 
> There is a degree of uncertainty about how biological systems develop that depend on the initial conditions of the planet that holds the system. If no life on earth existed now, but started to develop from now on, evolution would most likely produce creatures that are different from what we know today due to initial conditions, but would that development follow the same laws and principles that it did over the last 4 billion years ?



This assumes that evolution is the only process that determines the survival of species.  Other natural forces interfere (volcanic events, meteorites, atmospheric changes etc.) with evolutionary development.  Something like 99% of everything that has lived on our planet is now extinct (so much for intelligent design).  We humans are only one large asteroid strike away from extinction ourselves and have likely survived due to our adaptability.

The answer to your question then is no, the development and evolution of biological life within the primordial conditions that spawned it could very well never occur again in earth history.


----------



## bellenuit (17 February 2014)

A great article from today that addresses some of the evolution related questions raised here and on other forums, such as:

1. An understanding of speciation (and the origin of life):
2. How natural selection creates new features.
3. “Gain of function.” 
4. The Cambrian Explosion, human intelligence, and other stuff.

*A big stink at The Big Think: the supposed shortcomings of “Darwinism” touted by a quasi-creationist “thinker”*

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...winism-touted-by-a-quasi-creationist-thinker/


----------



## Chris45 (17 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Nonsensical supposition, I regard "religion" for what it is - myth.  Indoctrinating the impressionable minds of young children with tales they are sinful creatures in need of redemption and other nonsense about hell and judgement is just despicable.
> 
> Children should be taught a disciplined reasoning process and to be free thinkers.  If schools want to offer courses in philosophy, mysticism or religion in literature that's fine.  The only thing that's odious here is the teaching that we are sinners at birth, unworthy denizens of planet earth destined for hellfire unless we have some measure of belief in fantastic tales told in the Bible whereby we gain entry to a paradise of eternal servitude to a temperamental celestial dictator.
> 
> On the contrary, atheists promote free thinking, reasoned and rational beliefs and seek to expose religion as nothing more than human invented myth, exactly what it is.



You should have a look at what the CRE program actually involves before going off on one of your ignorant and intolerant atheist BS rants.

http://www.accessministries.org.au/schools/christian-religious-education-cre

As for pejorative attacks, look to your own writings for examples.


----------



## Julia (17 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Dear me, that's not unknown in the broadcasting world is it ? Have you ever listened to Alan Jones ? All sections of the media have their pompous asses, Phillip Adams is one, Alan Jones is another. Don't listen to them if you don't like them.



You miss the point.  Alan Jones et al are presenters on a privately owned network.  He has no charter of responsibility to which he is supposed to adhere, providing balance. 

 The ABC is specifically expected to present a balanced coverage of any topic.  In this instance, Mr Cleary could have offset his own rigid views with a guest who was an advocate for Voluntary Euthanasia, rather than one predetermined to agree with everything he said.


----------



## rumpole (17 February 2014)

Julia said:


> The ABC is specifically expected to present a balanced coverage of any topic.  In this instance, Mr Cleary could have offset his own rigid views with a guest who was an advocate for Voluntary Euthanasia, rather than one predetermined to agree with everything he said.




As I didn't hear the program I can't really comment further. Was it a talkback ? Did you ring in to express your views ? I'm sure you would have got a fairer hearing than if you rang Alan Jones to disagree with him.

Certainly, yes a guest who expressed a different view would have been beneficial to the discussion. Maybe you should call the program producer and suggest that.


----------



## FxTrader (17 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> You should have a look at what the CRE program actually involves before going off on one of your ignorant and intolerant atheist BS rants.
> 
> http://www.accessministries.org.au/schools/christian-religious-education-cre.



What don't you understand about their title and objectives, CRE - Christian Religious Education.  Brought to us by ACCESS ministries - Leaders in Christian Education, Chaplaincy & Wellbeing.  This is simply a religious organization seeking to proselytize to children under the guise of discussing values and spirituality with them.

This quote from them sums it up...


> "Our vision is to reach every student in Victoria with the Gospel. Join the vision and help us transform this nation for God."




It's the religious indoctrination of children, pure and simple.  Your link highlights this quite well I think.  Still having trouble making a non-emotive argument I see.  Juvenile assertions of ignorance and intolerance do not blunt my arguments here, the core of which you rarely address with anything other than invective.

For the record, religious indoctrination should not be "tolerated" in public schools period and many parents would agree.


----------



## Tink (18 February 2014)

I don't know why you wouldn't want a balanced view of religion and science in public schools, FX. Science has its own dogma/religious indoctrination.

They should never have changed it from what it was, and I know this isn't a political thread, but the Greens have completely trashed our public education system, and while its like that, people will be going to the private schools for an education.

The schools need to be brought back into the centre.


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I guess they must have a filter on the Answers In Genesis website that prevents them searching Google.  http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html  Don't be concerned. There are more fossil records than Lucy and science doesn't only rely on fossil records. There is the DNA evidence, examples already given.  And your rebuttal is a pointer to a website that holds the earth is only 6,000 years old (that must piss off Australian Aborigines) and blocks any discussion from genuine scientists on the stuff it puts up there.




No no no. This is why I didn't bother last time.

I'm not talking about duplication of already existing genetic information or mutation, which is a corruption of already existing genetic information. I am talking about a NEW genetic information not already present. 

It's so frustrating when people post these stupid predictable links that I've refuted countless times.     This is embarrassing.


Haha fossil records. You don't rely on fossil records? Fair enough. But you'd expect widespread fossil evidence to be present. 
What other examples do you have? Let's see if I can easily refute those too like with Lucy. Look up quotes of scientists who are also evolutionists who admit their concern over the lack of transitory fossil evidence (zero).

I don't think I'll persist in here much longer. The crap that is served up to me is lazy research. Just plain lazy and sloppy. 
There are more holes than in a slice of Swiss cheese.


----------



## McLovin (18 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> For the record, religious indoctrination should not be "tolerated" in public schools period and many parents would agree.




+1

Keep religion out of public schools. If there is one good thing about the US it's that religion is constitutionally banned in public schools.


----------



## burglar (18 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> ... There are more holes than in a slice of Swiss cheese.




No matter how many holes, Swiss cheese is still cheese!

Just my interjection!!


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

burglar said:


> No matter how many holes, Swiss cheese is still cheese!  Just my interjection!!




And you can still force it down people's throats


----------



## Julia (18 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> As I didn't hear the program I can't really comment further. Was it a talkback ? Did you ring in to express your views ? I'm sure you would have got a fairer hearing than if you rang Alan Jones to disagree with him.



Yes, it was a one hour talkback.  I have already explained that the first half hour was spent with the presenter and guest agreeing with each other.

No, I did not attempt on this occasion to ring in, having made such attempts in the past.  When asked by the producer what I wanted to say, the response is always, always "thanks for calling:  we'll take that as a comment" whereupon they just hang up on you.  So just try getting an alternative view across.



> Certainly, yes a guest who expressed a different view would have been beneficial to the discussion. Maybe you should call the program producer and suggest that.



An email was sent to them the next morning.  I do not, of course, have any expectation of a response.


----------



## DocK (18 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> What don't you understand about their title and objectives, CRE - Christian Religious Education.  Brought to us by ACCESS ministries - Leaders in Christian Education, Chaplaincy & Wellbeing.  This is simply a religious organization seeking to proselytize to children under the guise of discussing values and spirituality with them.
> 
> This quote from them sums it up...
> 
> ...




Agree wholeheartedly.



Tink said:


> I don't know why you wouldn't want a balanced view of religion and science in public schools, FX. Science has its own dogma/religious indoctrination.
> 
> They should never have changed it from what it was, and I know this isn't a political thread, but the Greens have completely trashed our public education system, and while its like that, people will be going to the private schools for an education.
> 
> The schools need to be brought back into the centre.




Tink, I think you and I are in accord in that we both want what is best for children.  We probably also agree on matters such as family values, discipline etc.  Where we are poles apart though, is that religion is necessary for children to flourish, or for the family unit to survive.  Why on earth would non-believers want their kids to be educated in something they regard as fiction?  The same cannot be said for science - it is proven, evidence-based and not alligned with one faith or the other.  My child might be taught about natural selection and evolution, but is not taught that there was or was not a God who provided the first spark of life - that's a matter for personal belief, until such time as science can prove or disprove one way or the other.  

You bet your life people will go to the private schools for an education to avoid religious doctrine being forced down their kids throats - the current trends show this to be the case.  It was certainly a factor in my choice of school, and for many other parents I know.  A faith in one of the various religions is simply not necessary in order to educate children on ethics, morals, values and virtues.  It is entirely possible to raise fine young adults without requiring them to have blind faith in a vengeful God, or to do the right thing purely through a fear of hellfire and brimstone.  



McLovin said:


> +1
> 
> Keep religion out of public schools. If there is one good thing about the US it's that religion is constitutionally banned in public schools.




Agree absolutely.  Those of faith are free to educate their children about religion at home, through their churches, Sunday-school, community gatherings and the like - if they wish.  Nobody is preventing them from sharing their beliefs with their children.  Why then, should I be forced to have my children fed what I consider to be mostly fanciful nonsense?  And how would public schools possibly cater for the differences between the various religious faiths - particularly without promoting division between the kids along religious lines - there's enough of that in the world already!  My children's school manages just fine by running a virtues programme and philosophy lessons which allows all the kids to discuss ethics and values together, while allowing them to remain true to their own personal religious beliefs, or lack of them.  When they're not forced to "choose sides" between one religious affiliation or another it's unsurprising to me how harmonious and mutually tolerant of each other these lessons can be.  If only adults could replicate their behaviour on a global scale huh


----------



## rumpole (18 February 2014)

Julia said:


> When asked by the producer what I wanted to say, the response is always, always "thanks for calling:  we'll take that as a comment" whereupon they just hang up on you.  So just try getting an alternative view across.




I'd have to say those are pretty low tactics (by the producer), similar to commercial talkback. They should either take your call or not and not ask what you have to say. You could of course pretend to agree with them and then voice your real opinion when you get on.


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

As a Christian I will take what is possibly a controversial view. 
Even though I'd like kids to learn about God, I don't think that it should be taught in public schools.

Why should parents with different world views have religion forced upon their kids when this isn't the way that they wish to raise them?

Even if they were taught it, the teachers teaching it may not even be believers and would have no idea to communicate it properly anyway. 

The same goes with macro evolution (not natural selection). Why should kids be force fed unscientific theories? (Often stated as fact!).

By all means, provide philosophy; a sample of various world views. Present it objectively and expose the kids to what types of thinking is out there. 

What would be far more interesting is to present arguments for and against each, maybe similar to some of the points we are debating over here.
Then leave it at that and let them decide!


----------



## DocK (18 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> As a Christian I will take what is possibly a controversial view.
> Even though I'd like kids to learn about God, I don't think that it should be taught in public schools.
> 
> Why should parents with different world views have religion forced upon their kids when this isn't the way that they wish to raise them?
> ...




Agreed.  Isn't it nice to be in accord on something!


----------



## cbc (18 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> As a Christian I will take what is possibly a controversial view.
> Even though I'd like kids to learn about God, I don't think that it should be taught in public schools.
> 
> Why should parents with different world views have religion forced upon their kids when this isn't the way that they wish to raise them?
> ...




No pav, ur wrong.

They should teach it in schools.

Jeremiah 31:34,

They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me.


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

DocK said:


> Agreed.  Isn't it nice to be in accord on something!




I'm sure it makes us both feel like at least some sanity prevails : P


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

cbc said:


> No pav, ur wrong.  They should teach it in schools.  Jeremiah 31:34,  They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me.




Not sure what you're trying to say?


----------



## cbc (18 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Not sure what you're trying to say?




Exactly what I said.  They should throw evolution out of the schools and replace it with JESUS.


----------



## rumpole (18 February 2014)

I can't see any justification for teaching religion in schools apart from a historical perspective, ie how people's religious beliefs determined their behaviour and how this changed the course of history, without making any comment on the accuracy of those beliefs.


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I'm not talking about duplication of already existing genetic information or mutation, which is a corruption of already existing genetic information. I am talking about a NEW genetic information not already present.




You may not call that an increase in genetic information, but geneticists and information scientists do. And those duplications and mutations account for the complete diversity of life that we see today.


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Let's see if I can easily refute those too like with Lucy.




Don't be silly. That link didn't in any way refute Lucy. The most astonishing part of what was on the link was this demonstration of non-science.....

_Based on Genesis 1, biblical creationists recognize that humans and apes were never related. So we naturally conclude that Lucy was not on her way to becoming human. *This viewpoint guides our interpretation of the fossil evidence.*_

and this.....

_Our goal was simply to construct the best model that is consistent with the fossil evidence *and with a literal understanding of the creation account in Genesis*._

You should really look at some other science sites instead of the rubbish on Answers In Genesis. They distort science to suit their belief system. Take this interview of various creationists. The very first speaker sums their "science" up perfectly.


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> You may not call that an increase in genetic information, but geneticists and information scientists do. And those duplications and mutations account for the complete diversity of life that we see today.




Haha. They account for the diversity of life that we see today because all that information has been there from the start! There is no new genetic information created.  

Someone could be born with 5 arms. That doesn't mean there is any new information. The information for an arm was always there. Duplications or mutations only contain information already there. 
It's like saying if I buy 2 copies of a trading book that I have an increase in information. You have the same information twice!

For a reptile to grow wings and fly it needs NEW information not already there. There are ZERO examples of NEW information which would allow this. This is unscientific by definition.


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Don't be silly. That link didn't in any way refute Lucy. The most astonishing part of what was on the link was this demonstration of non-science.....  Based on Genesis 1, biblical creationists recognize that humans and apes were never related. So we naturally conclude that Lucy was not on her way to becoming human. This viewpoint guides our interpretation of the fossil evidence.  and this.....  Our goal was simply to construct the best model that is consistent with the fossil evidence and with a literal understanding of the creation account in Genesis.  You should really look at some other science sites instead of the rubbish on Answers In Genesis. They distort science to suit their belief system. Take this interview of various creationists. The very first speaker sums their "science" up perfectly.  YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O50jl-nLYVU




Haha you criticize their worldview rather than discussing the refutations of Lucy. 

Haha smoke and mirrors much?

If you can't beat their logic, attack their worldview. Classy. 

You are all hype no substance mate.
Heck, you still don't understand the genetic information thing.
Stop wasting your time and mine and go do some research.
Or go do some trading instead.


----------



## Trentb (18 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> You are all hype no substance mate.
> Heck, you still don't understand the genetic information thing.
> Stop wasting your time and mine and go do some research.
> Or go do some trading instead.





What do you do for a job? 

Have you ever worked in biological research lab or similar?


----------



## pavilion103 (18 February 2014)

Trentb said:


> What do you do for a job?  Have you ever worked in biological research lab or similar?




No. Why would I have to work in a lab to know basic scientific principles?

Have you ever worked as a meteorologist to know that it's raining outside?   

I'm a property valuer. And you wouldn't have to sit at my desk either to determine the value of a property!


----------



## Chris45 (18 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> I have come across some interesting articles that don't easily fit into the Religion Is Crazy or The Beauty In Religion threads that sometimes relate to religion or the intersection of science and religion so I thought I would start a new thread so that these can be discussed.



This thread has been going for less than a month and already it has degenerated to the same level as all of the other threads that include "Religion" in their titles ... hard-nosed atheists with their unyielding narrow beliefs in abiogenesis and evolution intent on their mission to crush discussions about God and keep young people ignorant of the spiritual aspects of their lives.

Stevenson's and Tucker's significant body of evidence for the reincarnation of souls seriously conflicts with their views so is swept aside without consideration and ignored.

String Theory and M-Theory, which have found scientific support in the data received from the Planck Satellite and which could well be part of the explanation, are ignored because they fall outside the box.

The documentary about stigmata was immediately dismissed by the atheists as a hoax and a fraud, without any credible evidence of such being produced. The documentary was made by Catholics and shown on Fox therefore it HAS to be a fraud and there's no other explanation!

Then there's the intriguing mystery of the weeping statues which have been scientifically examined but for which no explanation has been found. How can this be? This would seem to be the easiest spiritual mystery to destroy with a simple exposure of the technique used to produce the "tears", but none has been found. More conflict for the atheist brain ... too hard ... just dismiss it as an obvious hoax and gloss over it. If there's a credible explanation out there, I'd be interested to hear it. 

The atheists ridicule God and those who believe in him, but their reaction to the mention of Satan is most interesting. Satan is mentioned frequently in the Bible but any mention of him here draws howls of derision from the atheists, which is exactly what he wants because his aim is simply to destroy belief in God, by any means possible, and the atheists are playing right into his hands. Satan's mission in this spiritual battle is to dethrone God and destroy belief in God by deceiving and dividing humanity. Atheists cannot accept God and there's absolutely no way they can accept that they're being manipulated by an intelligence many magnitudes higher than theirs, and any suggestion they are is absolutely laughable and we get dismissive comments like, _"Fear of Satan's influence is only taken seriously by the most blinkered, brainwashed and indoctrinated of religious drones these days"_. Well, they've been warned, but no one's listening, and Satan must be feeling quite chuffed!

Schools allow all sorts of non-scientific and biased views to be discussed in subjects like Art, English, History, etc. but any attempts to introduce discussions about God are vigorously resisted by the atheists, and kids growing up with atheist parents in atheist neighbourhoods are brainwashed with hateful ideas about religion and kept ignorant. When they have trouble coping with their cold atheist lives, they either seek out their friendly local drug dealers for a quick fix, whether it be alcohol or something much harder which ends up destroying them, ... or they just kill themselves. Either way, Satan is happy. :evilburn:

If you think all of this is ludicrous nonsense, then provide a CREDIBLE scientific explanation for reincarnation (evidence of spirituality), and tell the M-Theory guys (possible mechanism) they're talking rubbish. ... Oh, and don't forget the weeping statues.
Else, try opening your mind to other age-old explanations (and I know that's a BIG ask, and impossible for some who believe that being open-minded is a sign of gullibility) and try reading:  http://www.battlefocused.org/spiritual-warfare/


----------



## cbc (18 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> This thread has been going for less than a month and already it has degenerated to the same level as all of the other threads that include "Religion" in their titles ... hard-nosed atheists with their unyielding narrow beliefs in abiogenesis and evolution intent on their mission to crush discussions about God and keep young people ignorant of the spiritual aspects of their lives.
> 
> Stevenson's and Tucker's significant body of evidence for the reincarnation of souls seriously conflicts with their views so is swept aside without consideration and ignored.
> 
> ...




Dethrone God???

Whatever you recon.........


----------



## Chris45 (18 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Dethrone God???
> 
> Whatever you recon.........


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> This thread has been going for less than a month and already it has degenerated to the same level .....




That is the most silly rant I have ever heard on a thread and I can only assume you haven't taken on board many comments posted about some of the topics you have raised. I do not intend to go back over them because it is patently obvious that much you have stated in that post is contradictory to what has been said by people here.

When you use the word "degenerated", I think you should look closely at yourself. You are the one I mostly see throwing insults at everyone who does hold the same opinions as you.


----------



## cbc (18 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


>





Looks like you don't even know what uv written...  

You said satan attempts to dethrone God.  There is no such thing?

Also, if you want credible spiritual evidence.  Go and find your own.  There are 100s of 1000s of people in this country who have spiritual experiences when they go to church.  YOUR refusing to believe them.  

TO THINK THAT THERE IS SO MUCH SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE HAPPENING IN CHURCHES ALL AROUND YOU AND YOUR MARCHING AROUND IN CIRCLES SAYING 'WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?'

This is what us Christians just can't get our heads around about you atheists.  Considering the seriousness of the Christian faith and that it involves your soul spending eternity in a lake of molten sulfur if you don't believe.  Wouldn't you at least spend some time in church trying to seek out God??


----------



## bellenuit (18 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Weeping statues - genuine or fake?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/world/crowds...-tarshiha-israel/story-fndir2ev-1226824907246
> 
> ...




That's one of yours Chris. A brand new weeping statue that you want us all to believe has a supernatural explanation. You then listed some more and followed up with this challenge:



> Come on skeptics. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to track down the manufacturers of these cheap statues and offer them money to reveal how they did it. Hasn't James Randi got $1 million up for grabs? That would have to put a big smile on the face of an empoverished Thai statue maker, wouldn't it?
> 
> Make a documentary exposing the whole business and sell it around the world ... you'd make a fortune!




Mocking sceptics that haven't investigated the particular cases you are interested in or who may have (I don't have the details) but might simply have no explanation. No explanation doesn't mean supernatural. One would have also to know what conditions were imposed on sceptics who might have been allowed test the statues. Many staunchly Catholic congregations don't want unbelievers poking around in what they see as signs from God. I actual gave you an example of a sceptic who showed how a weeping statue in India was caused by a leaking pipe and he is now facing trial because the local Catholic community used some outmoded law about offending religious beliefs against him.

But putting that aside, what is the most likely cause of this new weeping statue in Tarshiha. We are told it is “covered with oil” and "talked" to the owner. There have been no scientific test on it as far as I am aware, so when we don't jump to your conclusion that it is supernatural, we become ignorant sceptics or ignorant atheists. 

But that is the least logical conclusion to jump to in the case of Tarshiha.

This is the Catholic Church's take on such events (they are obviously ignorant sceptics too).

*Vatican drafts guidelines to combat new boom in fraudulent revelations*

_The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) is to publish up-to-date criteria to help Catholics to distinguish between true and false claims of visions, messages, stigmata, weeping statues and Eucharistic miracles.

......

It said that between 1905 and 1995 there were 295 reported "apparitions", only 11 of which were recognized as genuine. It said that in many cases false seers had been unmasked, pecuniary transactions discovered, and "signs from heaven" exposed as human trickery._

http://www.evangelizationstation.co...lsehoods/vatican_drafts_guidelines_to_com.htm

*Few Weeping Madonnas Pass Vatican`s Test*

_Ninety-nine percent of these cases were due to collective hallucinations, a play on light, a chemical phenomenon and, sometimes, even the speculation of people with few scruples,_

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-03/news/8503070291_1_vatican-statues-weeping

And if you thinks sceptics should be jumping to investigate each and every occurrence (not that they are allowed to) there is this:

*Enough hoaxes have been uncovered, even among people with reputations for piety and honesty, that an extended search for mundane explanations and the hesitancy of church officials to promote phenomena such as weeping statues except in the rarest of cases is justified*.

http://www.answers.com/topic/weeping-statue

Yes, that is why sceptics too, search for mundane explanations.

So perhaps some hesitancy on your part to jump to the conclusion of supernatural causes and to denigrate those who don't is perhaps warranted.


----------



## FxTrader (18 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Also, if you want credible spiritual evidence.  Go and find your own.  There are 100s of 1000s of people in this country who have spiritual experiences when they go to church.  YOUR refusing to believe them.



Not at all, I do believe them and by the way they have such experiences outside the church as well since their God can't be limited to act only on Sunday morning within the confines of a church building (much less common though for reasons few Christians seem to ponder).  What they experience may seem quite real and genuine to them so I believe many of my Christian friends who say they have experienced a spiritual event of some kind (faith healing, specific answer to prayer, purging of demons, speaking in tongues etc).

Many though need such experiences for faith affirmation (self-fulfilling expectation) and rarely question whether these experiences were just wishful thinking nor subject them to serious examination.  It's all excepted on faith because they can't (and generally don't) seek any earthly explanation for what they have experienced - it simply must be of Godly origin.  If some event can't be immediately explained then by default - God.



> TO THINK THAT THERE IS SO MUCH SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE HAPPENING IN CHURCHES ALL AROUND YOU AND YOUR MARCHING AROUND IN CIRCLES SAYING 'WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?'



And I have experienced it all my friend and I can honestly say that for all the times I've "experienced" such "evidence" in the form of faith healings, tongues, casting out of demons (usually by collapsing backward into the waiting hands of the expectant brethren) etc., not once did I ever believe myself that anything genuinely supernatural took place.

The "evidence" required by atheists is of the kind that is testable, repeatable, verifiable and can withstand scrutiny.  Hence your "spiritual" evidence does not qualify and is faith based.  Any God concept may be improbable and unnecessary but I am open to be proved wrong at any time.



> This is what us Christians just can't get our heads around about you atheists.  Considering the seriousness of the Christian faith and that it involves your soul spending eternity in a lake of molten sulfur if you don't believe.  Wouldn't you at least spend some time in church trying to seek out God??



I certainly have (the Christian God since all others must be false God's of course, a selective atheism), but what I found instead was a deeply flawed mythology replete with contradiction, historical flaws, highly questionable authorship and strong reliance on fantastic supernatural events that are just the stuff of fantasy.  When I dug deeper into the origins of Christian myth, what I found was deeply disturbing - it's a grand deception.

Let's consider your molten sulfur motivation for a moment, that is simply not primarily how Christianity is packaged and marketed these days (except to children), it's now all about emphasis on the New Testament and Jesus since judgement day is just not a popular theme to the educated masses of today.

Let me ask you though, how do you define belief and what measure or degree of this belief (since some doubt is usually present) is sufficient to avoid a long swim in the sulfur?  Can I have an each way bet (Pascal's wager) by professing belief just in case, after all that is the only prerequisite set out by Jesus for heavenly inheritance?  Since you seem to be a fundamentalist, feel free to through in a few lines of scripture to support your answers.


----------



## burglar (19 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> ... by professing belief just in case, after all that is the only prerequisite set out by Jesus for heavenly inheritance?  ...




And if you believe in one of those very special christian denominations,
you don't need the whole of the belief system.
Or even a large part, like God or the Holy Trinity.

Just "accept Jesus" and you will have eternal life.

You don't even wait until you die?!

Just "accept Jesus" and you will have eternal life!


----------



## trav365plus (19 February 2014)

My belief is dat miracles do happen whether we believe in dem or not and is not tied to any religion. All u need is faith and believe in the goodness of life.


----------



## bellenuit (19 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Can I have an each way bet (Pascal's wager) by professing belief just in case, after all that is the only prerequisite set out by Jesus for heavenly inheritance?




I always find this a fascinating question. How do you believe if you don't believe? 

If, for instance, my reasoning processes makes me conclude that Jesus was not the son of God, yet I want to be saved (in case I am wrong), how do you do that? You know deep in your heart that it is untrue, yet professing that it is true assumes God can be fooled.  

If you don't believe, you can only feign belief, so if you think Pascal's wager is worth accepting, then you are saying that you believe in God (an entity you are assuming is all knowing) to be on the safe side while at the same time implying that the God you believe in is not God (because you know if he was all knowing, he would see through your pretence and know you to be a fake).

IMO, to think you can fool God is a bigger insult to him than to simply not believe in him because the evidence you have been given is insufficient according to the brain that you have been given. If God is all merciful and all forgiving, surely he will not damn you for eternity for that?


----------



## bellenuit (19 February 2014)

This and the moving statues debacle makes me ashamed of the stupidity of some in my homeland.

*Holy image in stump is Virgin on the miraculous*

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/holy-image-in-stump-is-virgin-on-the-miraculous-26549535.html

_A spokesman for the Limerick diocesan office said the "Church's response to phenomena of this type is one of great scepticism".

"While we do not wish in any way to detract from devotion to Our Lady, we would also wish to avoid anything which might lead to superstition," he said._

One thing perhaps worth emphasising is that some here seem to think sceptics are some sort of organisation whose job is the go around checking the validity of claims made by people regarding supernatural events. A sceptic is someone who evaluates events in a certain way. It is not an organisation or a religion or a non religious belief. So saying sceptics should do this or do that to prove or disprove something really doesn't make sense. 

The definition I like is: a questioning attitude towards what is presented, but not proven, as fact. You will find as many sceptics among the religious as outside of them, as some of the statements from Church sources in the above and my previous post on weeping statues attest. 

To call them ignorant only proves a lack of understanding of what sceptics are.


----------



## Tink (19 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I can't see any justification for teaching religion in schools apart from a historical perspective, ie how people's religious beliefs determined their behaviour and how this changed the course of history, without making any comment on the accuracy of those beliefs.




It has shaped Australia to where we are today, Christianity - Judeo Christian Values. 
I think these should all be in schools.


----------



## rumpole (19 February 2014)

Tink said:


> It has shaped Australia to where we are today, Christianity - Judeo Christian Values.
> I think these should all be in schools.




Does that mean that Judeo-Christian values are the best available ? Have a look at how people with Judeo-Christian values treat others in society. Tony Abbott is a Catholic, but he turns back people looking for asylum, including children ("suffer the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven"),the treatment of children in religious organisations, and the subsequent cover-ups.

 Hypocrisy abounds in religion and their followers. I don't think we should teach that religion is the best way to move society forward, only that it is a shaper of society, for better or worse.


----------



## Tink (19 February 2014)

I don't think they should ever have changed it, to what they used to be, back to the basics, rather than all this PC that has happened in the schools.

Teachers are having a hard time trying to deal with these children.

Thats my opinion.


----------



## bellenuit (19 February 2014)

*Grandma's Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes*

*Your ancestors' lousy childhoods or excellent adventures might change your personality, bequeathing anxiety or resilience by altering the epigenetic expressions of genes in the brain.*

_As animal experiments continue apace, Szyf and Meaney have entered into the next great step in the study of behavioral epigenetics: human studies. In a 2008 paper, they compared the brains of people who had committed suicide with the brains of people who had died suddenly of factors other than suicide. They found excess methylation of genes in the suicide brains’ hippocampus, a region critical to memory acquisition and stress response. If the suicide victims had been abused as children, they found, their brains were more methylated.
_

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ma...ve-epigenetic-mark-on-your-genes#.UwQU63n9PBx


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2014)

Tink said:


> It has shaped Australia to where we are today, Christianity - Judeo Christian Values.
> I think these should all be in schools.




What exactly are "Judeo Christian values"?

You seem to be lumping a bunch of religions together there, how exactly would you teach that.

And why would you try and force a religion through a school anyway, If you want to teach kids a religion do it at church or sunday school, leave the school system out of it.

I am fine with teaching the history of religions as long as the teaching is broad based history on all religions, and is not trying to pass off any religious myths as truth.


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2014)

trav365plus said:


> My belief is dat miracles do happen whether we believe in dem or not and is not tied to any religion. All u need is faith and believe in the goodness of life.




Do you have an example of a miracle?

What exactly is your definition of a miracle?


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Considering the seriousness of the Christian faith and that it involves your soul spending eternity in a lake of molten sulfur if you don't believe.  Wouldn't you at least spend some time in church trying to seek out God??




When was the last time you spent some serious time in a mosque trying to seek Allah?

If there was a god who cared whether I believed in him, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence. The fact that I remain unconvinced is a sign that he either doesn't care about my disbelief or he doesn't exist, Either way I am fine

What kind of god would require belief anyway, believing something doesn't make you a good person? and if he cared about us believing why go out of his way to hide.

If we are playing the what if game, What if this world is just a test to weed out the gullible and only sceptics go to heaven :


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2014)

Tink said:


> I don't know why you wouldn't want a balanced view of religion and science in public schools, FX. .




religion had nothing to do with science, so no religious ideas should not come any where near the science classroom, science lessons teach science.

If you wanted to introduce a religion class, which religion would you teach? 

would you be happy with your kids being taught Islam three times a week, probably not. So don't try and bring your brand in and force it on them or the hindus or the buddists or the atheists.

It would be impossible to put a lesson together that every brand of religion would be happy with without it becoming meaningless, So its best just to leave it out, there is plenty of other stuff to teach about.


----------



## Chris45 (19 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Looks like you don't even know what uv written...



Cbc, I am NOT an atheist, I am a Christian. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.



bellenuit said:


> When you use the word "degenerated", I think you should look closely at yourself. You are the one I mostly see throwing insults at everyone who does hold the same opinions as you.



You conveniently ignore the provocation I have been subjected to here.



bellenuit said:


> That's one of yours Chris. A brand new weeping statue that you want us all to believe has a supernatural explanation.



The reason I raised the topic of weeping statues was to try and get you to look at them, hopefully with an open mind. I realize that's a difficult ask because being a skeptic you naturally assume that because some of them are known frauds, all of them must be frauds. "No explanation doesn't mean supernatural" ... nor does it rule out the possibility of supernatural. I suppose it depends on whether you look at them from the "glass half-empty" or "glass half-full" position.

Until recently I have also dismissed them as frauds, along with the various apparitions of Jesus and Mary on pieces of toast, cheetos, clouds, handrails, stumps etc., until I looked at the statues more closely and read that some *have not* been rejected as frauds, and in the case of the Rockingham statue have actually been accepted as genuine. All of the links I clicked on re. hoaxes were dead, and since you seem to know your way around the skeptic websites better than I do, I thought I'd raise the topic. If they're fakes, how is it done? How can a cheap Thai fiberglass statue fool university experts?

You complain about me mocking skeptics. We had a classic case here a few years ago of a broken council handrail, which when viewed from a certain angle vaguely resembled a statue of Mary, and it was all over the front page of our local rag newspaper. Could that be a case of skeptics mocking Christians perhaps?

Sometimes you have to be taunted a bit to get you going. 

*Of course* there will be fakes, trickery and pecuniary transactions (Satan's deception perhaps?) and I'd be amazed if there weren't. It's an obvious earner for unscrupulous conmen, even within the Church, to exploit the gullible and the Church would be stupid not to be skeptical.

I'm asking about the ones *recognized as genuine*, and which have been scientifically examined and cannot be explained (eg the Rockingham statue) which you automatically assume to be frauds and which I'm asking if they might be genuine.

I've looked at those links you provided and selected quotes that you seem to prefer to ignore.

http://www.evangelizationstation.co...lsehoods/vatican_drafts_guidelines_to_com.htm



> THE VATICAN is planning to warn Catholics of the dangers of believing in bogus claims of heavenly apparitions in the wake of an explosion of so-called private revelations around the world.
> The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) is to publish up-to-date criteria to help Catholics to distinguish between true and false claims of visions, messages, stigmata, weeping statues and Eucharistic miracles. It said the boom in such phenomena posed a risk to the unity of the Church and warranted an "exemplary pastoral response" from the Holy See.
> .......
> It said that between 1905 and 1995 there were 295 reported "apparitions",  only 11 of which were *recognized as genuine.* It said that in many cases false seers had been unmasked, pecuniary transactions discovered, and "signs from heaven" exposed as human trickery.[/I]




http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-03/news/8503070291_1_vatican-statues-weeping



> The only *weeping Madonna accepted by the Vatican* in this century is the one at Syracuse, in Sicily. In 1953 a small terra cotta statue of the Virgin of the Immaculate Heart in a roadside shrine inexplicably wept over a four-day period. The little statue even wept when police confiscated it to stop thousands of the faithful from congregating around the shrine. One year later, Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini, the archbishop of Palermo, announced "it was a miracle. From now on Syracuse will be known as the city of the miracle of the weeping Madonna." Since those four days in 1953, the statue has never wept.




http://www.answers.com/topic/weeping-statue



> Beyond the natural explanation, parapsychologists have offered psychic explanations and *skeptics have reached for any possible explanation, in the end suggesting hoaxing as the most widespread cause.*



In other words, if we can't find a mundane explanation IT HAS TO BE A HOAX according to the skeptics. No other possibility.

I was thinking that perhaps the title of this thread should be changed to *"Atheism, Science, Skepticism and Religion Bashing"*, which would be a better representation of its contents.

Religion is all about the great battle for our souls between the two superpowers, God and Satan. The evidence for the existence of souls is there but you choose to ignore it.

It's fairly obvious that few here want to hear about religion so any posts on the subject, unless they are of a "bashing" nature, are probably a waste of time.


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I realize that's a difficult ask because being a skeptic you naturally assume that because some of them are known frauds, all of them must be frauds.




no that's actually a wrong view of what a sceptic is. A sceptic generally reserves judgement until something is proven. If there is a phenomenon such as a weeping statue, A sceptic will generally say "Without investigating it, it is impossible to establish its cause, It may be an elaborate hoax or it could be something else, without an investigation it is impossible to establish its cause"  

It is religious folk that generally assume things to be signs of their various gods. A sceptic wants to have it proven before they accept something as the best explanation for a phenomenon, The religious however give credit to their god for a whole host of things without ever conducting an investigation.

here is james Randi investigation a faith healer.


----------



## bellenuit (19 February 2014)

Chris. Again you keep implying that I said things I didn't say. I have on many occasions said that if a sceptic finds no explanation for a phenomenon then that is their position. It is the religious that go one step further and say no explanation means supernatural. 

In some cases I will suggest the mundane as being an obvious thing to look at, such as suggesting fraud in the Katya (forgot her family name) case. There were lots of signs that could point to that being a feasible reason - her fraudulent writings, another "visionary" claiming she was only in it for money, crucial footage not shown for no apparent reason, pecuniary interest of those involved with the documentary, the channel it was shown on etc.

In the case of your Tucker post, I left with an open mind and said that it was an area worthy of further research and it was good that Tucker was doing it. Go back and read what I wrote and you will see how unwarranted this attack from you was: 







> Stevenson's and Tucker's significant body of evidence for the reincarnation of souls seriously conflicts with their views so is swept aside without consideration and ignored



 In fact I spent a considerable amount of time looking at your links. But one thing I discovered and stated that you for some reason don't appreciate. That is Tucker and Stevenson provided evidence for apparent temporary memory transfer between one person and another, memories which fade within a few years. They did not provide a shred of evidence for the reincarnation of souls. In fact you yourself had your own definition of "soul" that was different to what is generally accepted. Again this is typical of you. The evidence is that some memories were transferred and there is no current explanation. But no, you must insult everyone who doesn't go overboard and assume that this is something probably supernatural and could be related to M-Theory or unknown dimensions or whatever grabs your imagination.



> I'm asking about the ones recognized as genuine, and which have been scientifically examined and cannot be explained (eg the Rockingham statue) which you automatically assume to be frauds and which I'm asking if they might be genuine.




In the case of the weeping statues, I did not ignore the 11 cases that had no explanation. I tried to explain to you that the Church is equally sceptical about any cases and 11 in 295 is under 4% unexplained. And what did you expect me to do regarding those which hadn't been rejected? Go around the world to verify them myself? Give me a break. If they were examined by scientists as you claim and they said they could not explain the phenomenon, then that is the scientific position - they are unexplained events. And what does it mean that the church found them genuine. That they we're a sign from God? Mary's tears? What do you mean by wanting to know if I found them genuine? If you mean genuine unexplained events, then yes, they are. 



> I realize that's a difficult ask because being a skeptic you naturally assume that because some of them are known frauds, all of them must be frauds.




I'm sick to my teeth with you trying to imply what I think and assume. I, probably more than anyone else here, have spent time following up on the posts you have made (I don't have time to do all), but when you do not get the response from me that you like, it is back to insults. 

My position on most religious phenomena is simple. Those investigated tend to be over 95% rejected as false. Not necessarily fraudulent, as even the church will recognise that people can hallucinate and that was particularly evident in the plethora of moving statues reported in Ireland in the last two decades. If a new incident is presented to me and there has been no investigation done, then on probability I, and the church, would assume that it too is false and probably has a mundane explanation. If investigations have been done by credible scientists and they have no explanation, then that is the the current status position - no explanation. If the church and/or others want to interpret that as meaning they are genuine, then they need to explain what they are referring to as genuine and offer proof other than that is what they believe.

BTW, if you intend to make statements on what I think and assume, that last paragraph is my position on these type of events. Please refer to it and do not try to suggest something different


----------



## bellenuit (19 February 2014)

*Where Native Americans come from*

https://student.societyforscience.org/article/where-native-americans-come


----------



## cbc (19 February 2014)

Fx trader,

You honestly sound dumber than people not even looking for evidence.  Sounds like you had your spiritual experience you were looking for and still refused to believe any of it.   

 If only you had of simply believed it.

Chris45,

Sorry my mistake.  You talked later in the thread about looking for credible scientific evidence nd it sounded like atheist talk.

Value Collector,

You got a little sidetracked with what sounded like 'god should do this for me'.   talk......   Still doesn't make sense to me though.  You should be more concerned for yourself than for the way God does thing.


----------



## Value Collector (19 February 2014)

cbc said:


> You got a little sidetracked with what sounded like 'god should do this for me'.   talk......   Still doesn't make sense to me though.  You should be more concerned for yourself than for the way God does thing.




You tried to make it sound like i risked burning in hell if i dont find and believe in the right god.

I just pointed out that if there was a god that really cared whether i believed in him he wouldn't play hide and seek, so he either doesn't care whether i believe in which case i am safe, or he doesn't exist in which case i am also safe.


----------



## cynic (19 February 2014)

trav365plus said:


> My belief is dat miracles do happen whether we believe in dem or not and is not tied to any religion. All u need is faith and believe in the goodness of life.






Value Collector said:


> Do you have an example of a miracle?
> 
> What exactly is your definition of a miracle?



If you reread that post carefully you'll see that your questions have already been answered!



Value Collector said:


> religion had nothing to do with science, so no religious ideas should not come any where near the science classroom, science lessons teach science.
> ...



In case you hadn't already noticed, science is in fact a religion, and like so many other worthy religions it has been tarnished with a significant degree of jaundiced zealotry. 

Arrogant claims to monopolisation of such things as truth, logic, intelligence and morality are typical of the religious bigotry with which science alongside many other great religions is deeply afflicted.



Value Collector said:


> ...
> If we are playing the what if game, What if this world is just a test to weed out the gullible and only sceptics go to heaven :



Yes! I think you're definitely onto something here! That sounds like a great plan!
(On second thoughts, one might first need to give careful consideration to the various definitions of "heaven".)


----------



## FxTrader (19 February 2014)

cbc said:


> You honestly sound dumber than people not even looking for evidence.  Sounds like you had your spiritual experience you were looking for and still refused to believe any of it.



LOL, and this from a captive to religious mythology who slavishly parrots back the hellfire fiction scribed in iron-age scrolls just as an obedient, brainwashed religious drone should.  I had hoped you were capable of intelligent dialogue even though clearly a fundamentalist dupe - won't make that mistake again.  Revel, if you must, in your delusion that you are in possession of absolute god-inspired truth in the form of an assemblage of magic books called the Bible.  Yet another arrogant, dismissive and willing victim of religious fraud.  It's always sad to encounter someone whose mind is totally enslaved by the deception that is religion yet sees this as a virtue.

By the way, I don't believe Christian myth for reasons clearly explained but obviously beyond your comprehension.


----------



## burglar (19 February 2014)

FxTrader said:


> LOL, and this from a captive to religious mythology who slavishly parrots back the hellfire fiction scribed in iron-age scrolls just as an obedient, brainwashed religious drone should ...




You write so well, ... yet waste your God-given talent in a religious thread. LOL  :


----------



## Tink (20 February 2014)

Value Collector - I really couldn't care less about the public education system, as I never attended and neither did my children, but I was recounting what I have been told by others, especially one that spent her whole life in the public system, and sending her three children in the last thirty years, she couldn't wait to get her son out.
She was disgusted at what it has become.

My recollection of girl convent school is nothing like DocKs, the warmth in the school was obvious as the teachings of Jesus was told through the school. The caring of others was always encouraged and we were sent to help many different areas in society.

As I said at the start of this thread, Religion and Science can both be dogmas if you allow them, a healthy dose of both is a good thing.

Our Christian Values were encouraged from when this country started, if you don't know what they are, then best you look them up. 
Without the influence of Christianity, we wouldnt be where we are today.

The cold stark reality of science without religion is cold. Both contribute in society. 
As I said, they work well together. 

We need to accept both in society for a healthy society.

That is my view


----------



## lindsayf (20 February 2014)

burglar said:


> You write so well, ... yet waste your God-given talent in a religious thread. LOL  :




Burglar I disagree

Fx's perspective and unapolgetic articulateness are extremely well placed in this thread
It is the perfect counter to the doctrinal and dismissive statements herein


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

lindsayf said:


> Burglar I disagree  Fx's perspective and unapolgetic articulateness are extremely well placed in this thread It is the perfect counter to the doctrinal and dismissive statements herein




It's all hot air, bravado and arrogance with zero substance.

Like the guy at the poker table with no cards , trying to bluff and then I call with pocket aces and sink him.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

Hasn't been able to answer my evolution points. No one has. Hasn't been able to provide a more scientific answer than a creator for the origins of the universe. He is like a politician during question time.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

Tink said:


> , the warmth in the school was obvious as the teachings of Jesus was told through the school. The caring of others was always encouraged and we were sent to help many different areas in society.
> 
> As I said at the start of this thread, Religion and Science can both be dogmas if you allow them, a healthy dose of both is a good thing.
> 
> ...




You don't need Jesus to be a good person. There is no good thing that any religious person does that they couldn't do without religion, But there are many bad things that people do because of their religion.

You use the term "Christian Values" but due to the many brands of Christian mythology it's hard for me to know what you mean, There is a lot of human rights abuses and discrimination (look at the banning of gay marriage) in the name of "Christian values", and the good ones you can cherry pick do not rely on the supernatural claims.

I can't see why you couldn't dump the phony supernatural claims and still be a good person.

Science is not cold, its inspiring, and it is the opposite of dogmatic.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

cynic said:


> science is in fact a religion,




No it's not, simple as that.


religion is - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Nothing in science comes close to that, Science is simple a method of establishing what is true and learning about the universe.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

An atheist can be a good person.
That is a fact.

The question is good by what standard?
What do they define as good?
There are no moral absolutes. It is relativism. 
They could be good by the same standard as Christians eg feeding the poor, loving others.
Or they could be good by the same standard as Hitler if they choose eg strengthening the gene pool by killing others.
Either way it doesn't matter. It's just like a personal choice: chocolate or ice cream.
Atheism = relativism.

But God has given us a code of moral absolutes.
When we anchor ourselves to them we live in the best way possible that He intended for us. 

A person CAN be good without being a believer in God. But if there is no God there are no objective morals and we can make up what we choose.

God does help us to be good. The Holy Spirit transforms us and the good atheist would be even better if he had the Holy Spirit.

But what we all need God for is salvation.
You will die.
I will die.
Best to know where you are going.
It's a free gift given in love.
Only foolishness would reject it.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No it's not, simple as that.  religion is - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.  Nothing in science comes close to that, Science is simple a method of establishing what is true and learning about the universe.




Science is not a religion. How could anyone say it is? Any Christian who says this is misguided, given that science undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that there is a creator. It backs up the existence of a god and makes it almost impossible to hold the atheistic position.

What is a religion/philosophy is evolution (macro) as I've pointed out in this thread with much evidence that has not been countered effectively.  


You can't just drop the supernatural claims for convenience though when all the evidence points to the resurrection (as outlined previously).


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Hasn't been able to answer my evolution points. No one has. Hasn't been able to provide a more scientific answer than a creator for the origins of the universe. He is like a politician during question time.




What points on evolution do you need answering?


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What points on evolution do you need answering?




Scroll back and look at the back and forth between Bellinuit and I. 
It went back and forth a bit so I can't just type it all up here or you'll probably dish out the same answers!

If you really care go back and look and post.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Science is not a religion. How could anyone say it is? Any Christian who says this is misguided, given that science undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that there is a creator. It backs up the existence of a god and makes it almost impossible to hold the atheistic position.
> 
> What is a religion/philosophy is evolution (macro) as I've pointed out in this thread with much evidence that has not been countered effectively.
> 
> ...




Even if science did prove a god existed ( which it hasn't), it still wouldn't be a religion unless it created a system of worship based on this god.

- - - Updated - - -



pavilion103 said:


> Scroll back and look at the back and forth between Bellinuit and I.
> It went back and forth a bit so I can't just type it all up here or you'll probably dish out the same answers!
> 
> If you really care go back and look and post.




what page does it start on


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

You're right about religion.
That's why I ask who do I trust to tell me the truth about God.
Christ came to earth, loved a sinless life, predicted his death and resurrected 3 days later with undeniable evidence.

So I'll trust him to tell me who God is and what his purposes are.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

I'll check what pages when I get time to scroll through


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I'd need even one scientific example of life coming from non-life to believe that this is possible. Not one has ever been observed thus I have to follow the current scientific evidence that life does not come from non-life.




Both you and I believe life came from non life. If you believe the genesis story you believe a god created life from non living material, So whether or not life can come from non life is not the issue between our positions.

The only difference between our positions is you believe a super natural being used magic to created life from non life, where as I believe it was probably a natural process that didn't require a higher intelligence.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Christ came to earth, loved a sinless life, predicted his death and resurrected 3 days later with undeniable evidence.
> 
> So I'll trust him to tell me who God is and what his purposes are.




What undeniable evidence do you have access to that could show those things actually happened.

I mean all the religions have supernatural claims, Muhammad is said to have flown to heaven on a winged horse, is this evidence of Islams version of a god.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Both you and I believe life came from non life. If you believe the genesis story you believe a god created life from non living material, So whether or not life can come from non life is not the issue between our positions.  The only difference between our positions is you believe a super natural being used magic to created life from non life, where as I believe it was probably a natural process that didn't require a higher intelligence.




There are two options then.
That life came from a creator.
That life arose from natural processes.

However scientific evidence suggests that we never observe life coming from non-life during natural processes.
Give me one scientific example of this occurring.
There are none.

Scientific evidence this points to the only way that life can come from non life is by some means other than natural processes. 

You might say that they will discover this one day with more time and more money. But then you'd be drawing a conclusion now and hoping for evidence later. You have to go where the scientific evidence is. Keep looking by all means though.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What undeniable evidence do you have access to that could show those things actually happened.  I mean all the religions have supernatural claims, Muhammad is said to have flown to heaven on a winged horse, is this evidence of Islams version of a god.




I will repost this for you when I get time.

The evidence for he resurrection as an historic event is backed up heavily.

Muhammad having flown to heaven has no historical basis, in the same way that I couldn't prove that Jesus ascended to Heaven or performed miracles etc. 
However once the resurrection is established then you tend to trust the words of Jesus. 

I've already posted examples of those who actively went out to disprove it and became believers. The lawyer also with 255 consecutive murder acquittals weighing up the evidence of it and becoming a believer.

I will post some specific when I get time. I've done so in the thee religion thread multiple times.


----------



## overhang (20 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Value Collector - I really couldn't care less about the public education system, as I never attended and neither did my children, but I was recounting what I have been told by others, especially one that spent her whole life in the public system, and sending her three children in the last thirty years, she couldn't wait to get her son out.
> She was disgusted at what it has become.
> 
> My recollection of girl convent school is nothing like DocKs, the warmth in the school was obvious as the teachings of Jesus was told through the school. The caring of others was always encouraged and we were sent to help many different areas in society.
> ...




Why do Christians attempt to have such a monopoly over morality?  Do you really need a book to tell you not to steal etc?  You see I personally have a conscience that helps me determine right from wrong but Christians require the threat of hell and reward of heaven to persuade them right from wrong which is frankly just troubling.

Christianity really nails the perfect cult, you have an almighty magical god that can never be proven but if you believe hard enough then he will reveal himself to you (also known as a placebo, manipulation of the mind).  You require a reward for following (heaven) and a deterrent for not (hell), you condone contraception because its important your cult out grows all others to give you a monopoly.  Religion was established at a time of very limited understanding of earth,  people required a reason why their crops were flooded or children becoming sick.  When his couldn't be answered it's just too easy to say a magical overlord in the sky has a plan and everything is done for a reason but we can never know this plan or that reason because he operates in mysterious ways.
Teach your children what you like at home but don't poison other children with religious dogma.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

overhang said:


> Why do Christians attempt to have such a monopoly over morality?  Do you really need a book to tell you not to steal etc?  You see I personally have a conscience that helps me determine right from wrong but Christians require the threat of hell and reward of heaven to persuade them right from wrong which is frankly just troubling.
> 
> .




I'm not a religious person, but I'd be interested in a scientific reason for the development of a "conscience".

It could be counter productive to survival in some situations, and would seem to detract from the prime motive of living creatures to survive.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

> There are two options then.
> That life came from a creator.
> That life arose from natural processes.




There could also be other options also. But yes, you believe in a creator, I think it is probably a natural process, So between us there is mainly to options, but other options do exist, for example it could be a supernatural process that is not a "Creator" 



> However scientific evidence suggests that we never observe life coming from non-life during natural processes.
> Give me one scientific example of this occurring.
> There are none.




We never see evidence of gods creating life from non life either. Give me one scientific example of a god creating life. 

The natural processes that it took to make the first life may not exist on earth anymore, So it may be wrong to expect it to still be happening, Or it may be such a rare event that it is wrong to expect to see it in the brief history of humans.

Also, you seem to think the difference between life and non life is black and white, but there is a grey area, there is non living material that has many properties of life, but which is not life. It's possible that first life came from these non living self replicating molecules. 



> Scientific evidence this points to the only way that life can come from non life is by some means other than natural processes.




We are a long way from understanding all the natural processes that go on and have gone on in the universe, So it's incorrect to say the only answer to a phenomenon is the supernatural. Years ago we didn't understand how the sun worked or before that lightning, supernatural causes were given, we have since learned they are completely natural and explained by physics.



> You might say that they will discover this one day with more time and more money. But then you'd be drawing a conclusion now and hoping for evidence later. You have to go where the scientific evidence is. Keep looking by all means though.




I am happy to say "I don't know" to the things science is yet to explain, It is the religions that try and draw conclusions before the evidence is in. the difference between you and me is, I say "I don't know, perhaps we could find out" you say, " I don't know, therefore god did it"


----------



## overhang (20 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I'm not a religious person, but I'd be interested in a scientific reason for the development of a "conscience".
> 
> It could be counter productive to survival in some situations, and would seem to detract from the prime motive of living creatures to survive.




I believe this question was asked during the Bill Maher debate and his answer was simply that we don't know yet.  Now of course we could substitute a religious reason that simply god created man and women and stop at that but for most enquiring minds that just doesn't cut it.  You would think it has to do with the fact we're social species that depend on each other to survive.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> I'm not a religious person, but I'd be interested in a scientific reason for the development of a "conscience".
> 
> It could be counter productive to survival in some situations, and would seem to detract from the prime motive of living creatures to survive.




If you mean conscience as it a feeling of right from wrong, it basically goes back to survival and the development of social groups.

An individual living in a social group is much more likely to survive than one that goes it alone. And an individual that has antisocial behaviour will be ejected from the group reducing its chances, So there would be a natural progression of animals that do consider others and live by the social rules staying in the group spreading their genes and the ones the don't being ejected and not thriving.

A member of a group that shares food we be welcome in the group, one the steals gets ejected. So we have this constant play in our brains, we want to do whats good for us, but we also want to protect the group and protect our status in it. this is where the origins of conscience come from.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> If you mean conscience as it a feeling of right from wrong, it basically goes back to survival and the development of social groups.
> 
> An individual living in a social group is much more likely to survive than one that goes it alone. And an individual that has antisocial behaviour will be ejected from the group reducing its chances, So there would be a natural progression of animals that do consider others and live by the social rules staying in the group spreading their genes and the ones the don't being ejected and not thriving.
> 
> A member of a group that shares food we be welcome in the group, one the steals gets ejected. So we have this constant play in our brains, we want to do whats good for us, but we also want to protect the group and protect our status in it. this is where the origins of conscience come from.




Fair points, although there are lots of examples of psychopaths who do quite well for themselves in society while maintaining a hatred for both society and the individuals within it.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

> The evidence for he resurrection as an historic event is backed up heavily.




I am not aware of any historic records of it outside of the bible, which was written many years after it was said to have happened, How can you say this is real evidence. There is no evidence that even suggests jesus lived.



> Muhammad having flown to heaven has no historical basis, in the same way that I couldn't prove that Jesus ascended to Heaven or performed miracles etc.
> However once the resurrection is established then you tend to trust the words of Jesus.




Its written in their scriptures just as the jesus story is written in yours. There is actually a hoof print on the roof of a mosque that they say is from the flying horse. Muhammad is actually a historically figure, jesus is not.



> I've already posted examples of those who actively went out to disprove it and became believers. The lawyer also with 255 consecutive murder acquittals weighing up the evidence of it and becoming a believer.




muslims have the same anecdotal claims.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

No evidence that Jesus even lived = wow. Just wow.
No credible historian would take this position. It is absurd. 
Even the hardest atheists admit that Jesus was an historical character.

Events were written in the lifetime of eye witnesses. 
Secular accounts written about an historic character named Jesus.

And that doesn't even touch on the resurrection yet.

It appears that you 
A) have no real understanding of the branch of study known as history, how it is recorded and what is deemed reliable
B) no real understanding of what evidence there is for even Jesus' life, the dates of writings or how this evidence compares to other historical standards.

This is one of the more perplexing comments I've read in terms of historical evidence. I am genuinely shocked.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Fair points, although there are lots of examples of psychopaths who do quite well for themselves in society while maintaining a hatred for both society and the individuals within it.




there will always be lots of variation when it comes to the traits of individuals in a species. What defines the direction evolution will take is which of these traits survives most frequently, enhancing and concentrating that trait.

So if you look at antelope on the African savannah, being a prey species has made them evolve to move very vast over long distance to evade predators. But if you looked at the stats of each individual, there top speeds and endurance would vary. But eliminating the slowest 1% each generation, as a group they have gotten faster and fitter.

We are the same, We still have variation among individuals when it comes to conscience, but as a group over the last 100,000 generations we have probably improved.


----------



## pavilion103 (20 February 2014)

You know what, I'm leaving this discussion for a while. Cannot believe the rubbish I've been dished up.

My guess is that you are trolling me.
The other alternative is that you haven't taken the time to investigate much.

I'll be back another time guys.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

> No evidence that Jesus even lived = wow. Just wow.
> No credible historian would take this position. It is absurd.




Where is the evidence outside of the bible? 



> Even the hardest atheists admit that Jesus was an historical character.




To be a historical character you have to be in historical documents, the bible is not a historical document, and many of the events in jesus life are likely to be fabricated because they don't match other data.



> Events were written in the lifetime of eye witnesses.




None of the bible authors met jesus, the earlist text was written about 30 years after he had died, based on accounts that had been spread verbally



> Secular accounts written about an historic character named Jesus.




Such as. Where are these secular accounts.



> And that doesn't even touch on the resurrection yet



.

ok, so where is the evidence of that?



> It appears that you
> A) have no real understanding of the branch of study known as history, how it is recorded and what is deemed reliable
> B) no real understanding of what evidence there is for even Jesus' life, the dates of writings or how this evidence compares to other historical standards.
> 
> This is one of the more perplexing comments I've read in terms of historical evidence. I am genuinely shocked




no it appears you over estimate the real evidence for Jesus. 

I am not saying he didn't exist, just that there is no reliable evidence to say he did, and nothing that would show he came back from the dead.


----------



## Ves (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Where is the evidence outside of the bible?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You could start here.   I'm not a Christian,  but find some of these debates interesting.  I thought it was accepted by most historians that Jesus was at least a real person,  most of the arguments about him seem to be about what he did,  what is myth and what is not.  This wiki page and the references there-in seem to confirm this.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

Ves said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
> 
> You could start here.   I'm not a Christian,  but find some of these debates interesting.  I thought it was accepted by most historians that Jesus was at least a real person,  most of the arguments about him seem to be about what he did,  what is myth and what is not.  This wiki page and the references there-in seem to confirm this.




It's possible that there may have been a jewish rabbi wandering around middle east named Jesus, and his character was used as the base for the mythology that developed. But this is far from confirmed.

And if people want to go as far as saying that he rose from the dead etc, well that is certainly not confirmed, Also many parts of the Jesus story have be shown to be fabricated.

I put it in the category with King Arthur, there is some evidence that suggests there was an early nobleman on whom the king arther story was based, However this can not be shown to be true and doesn't come close to proving the full king Arthur story.

or santa claus, yes there was a saint Nicolas, but you can't say his existence is evidence of santa claus and all the supernatural santa claims. There is more evidence of saint Nicolas than Jesus by the way,


----------



## burglar (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... nothing that would show he came back from the dead.




Where is the death certificate?


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

You atheists crack me up.  Willing to believe that there was som1 call Jesus but not willing to believe he was God.


JESUS IS LORD.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

cbc said:


> You atheists crack me up.  Willing to believe that there was som1 call Jesus but not willing to believe he was God.
> 
> 
> JESUS IS LORD.




lol, its I that am cracking up.

Jesus is just a name. Plenty of people called Jesus and plenty called Muhammad, do believe any of them a god you would have to establish a lot more than their mere existence.


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> None of the bible authors met jesus, the earlist text was written about 30 years after he had died, based on accounts that had been spread verbally




Oh really.  How much about the bible do you actually know?  Everyone in the New Testament and many in the old Testament met Jesus.


----------



## bellenuit (20 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Hasn't been able to answer my evolution points. No one has. Hasn't been able to provide a more scientific answer than a creator for the origins of the universe. He is like a politician during question time.




They have all been answered for you. Examples of speciation and increased information have been give. But, arguing with anybody who regards a scientific rebuttal as pointing to a creationist website that from the outset declares that it doesn't use scientific methods to determine what the evidence says but only accepts evidence that agrees with the biblical account of creation is pointless. And to top it off, Lucy was not anything I had offered as a rebuttal, so how that in anyway could be seen as discounting my evidence fails me. 

I have yet to see you actually address the evidence I have provided you with and show where it is wrong.


----------



## bellenuit (20 February 2014)

The tragedy of blind faith.....


*Pa. couple sent to prison for 2nd prayer death*

http://wivb.com/2014/02/19/pa-couple-sent-to-prison-for-2nd-prayer-death/


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No it's not, simple as that.



Oh yes it is!


Value Collector said:


> religion is - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.



Some people do like to confuse subsets with whole sets!

What you are describing is a popular misconception of the meaning of the word religion. A revisitation of the definitions and root origins of the word should be sufficient ro remedy aforesaid misconception. Please learn the actual definition of the word religion because I can assure you that it is certainly not confined to theistic belief systems!

Many today express an understanding of religion as though it is confined to a mere subset of its true definition. Such limited understanding is further evidence of the faulty application of logic with which our society seems to be deeply afflicted. Such faulty logic is out of accord with the true practice of science.



Value Collector said:


> Nothing in science comes close to that, Science is simple a method of establishing what is true and learning about the universe.



It seems that we have found ourselves in accord here. 
Practitioners of other religions are also using practical and theoretical methods in their search for understanding of the true nature and workings of the universe. In this regard the intent of science is no different from any of its competing religions. There may be variances in some of the rituals and holy texts, however, the faith that a scientist invests in his/her rituals of repeatable experiments and sacred doctrine (scientific theories, tabulated measurements, historical accounts etc.) has recognisable synonymity with the behaviour and intent of other religious devotees.

I find it interesting that you've chosen to overlook my comment about monopolisation of truth and religious bigotry. Could it be that you are able to recognise how closely your attitudes towards science, as compared to other religions, reflect the religious zealotry I've described?


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Oh really.  How much about the bible do you actually know?  Everyone in the New Testament and many in the old Testament met Jesus.




I said the authors of the bible didn't met Jesus. I know the characters met Jesus ( just like all the star wars charactors met luke and leia), But the actual guys that wrote it didn't.

and I think it is you that is unfamiliar with the text, please name one person from the old testament that met jesus.


----------



## burglar (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> lol, its I that am cracking up.
> 
> Jesus is just a name. Plenty of people called Jesus and plenty called Muhammad, do believe any of them a god you would have to establish a lot more than their mere existence.




Agree +1

Even Madonna has a boyfriend named Jesus.


----------



## burglar (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I said the authors of the bible didn't met Jesus. I know the characters met Jesus ( just like all the star wars charactors met luke and leia), But the actual guys that wrote it didn't.
> 
> and I think it is you that is unfamiliar with the text, please name one person from the old testament that met jesus.




According to some, ... Abraham is in heaven!
He will have met Jesus (if he had time) amongst the billions of souls who are there!

To get to heaven he will have had to either: 
a.) be baptised (catholic idea, I believe)
b.) accept Jesus (christian idea, I believe)

He would have required either:
a.) time travel into the future, to do either.
b.) wait in Purgatory (not biblical, therefore does not exist).

Therefore we have proved, by unassailable* logic, that time travel exists!!





*=burglar logic


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I said the authors of the bible didn't met Jesus. I know the characters met Jesus ( just like all the star wars charactors met luke and leia), But the actual guys that wrote it didn't.
> 
> and I think it is you that is unfamiliar with the text, please name one person from the old testament that met jesus.





Fair enough valued.  If you have never actually believed then I could understand how you would know nothing about the bible.  You did shoot yourself in the foot because Jesus met with lots of people.  Kinda funny how that works itin it,  Jesus meeting people in the bible that is.  Infact, the bible is mainly about Jesus so to say he never actually met any of the authors is a tad strange. 

Jesus first met with Abraham to promise him and Sarah a baby.

Jesus met with Moses constantly while he was leading Israel.  

He met with many of the prophets in visions.

Don't you understand that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul were the Authors of the New Testament.  They were also the main Characters as well.  So to say what you said makes me think that I might need to use small words and mbey repeat myself a few times for you.


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

Most of the New Testament were letters between Paul and others churches so explain to me how som1 who writes a
letter cant be an Author.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

> What you are describing is a popular misconception of the meaning of the word religion. A revisitation of the definitions and root origins of the word should be sufficient ro remedy aforesaid misconception. Please learn the actual definition of the word religion because I can assure you that it is certainly not confined to theistic belief systems!




well please provide your version of the definition of religion then,

I think the context of the definition I provided is the context in which the original person I commented to was using it.



> Many today express an understanding of religion as though it is confined to a mere subset of its true definition. Such limited understanding is further evidence of the faulty application of logic with which our society seems to be deeply afflicted. Such faulty logic is out of accord with the true practice of science.




many words have multiple meanings, If there is a meaning for the word religion that was broad enough to include the scientific method I don't think that definition would be very useful, especially in conversation about theistic claims.





> It seems that we have found ourselves in accord here.
> Practitioners of other religions are also using practical and theoretical methods in their search for understanding of the true nature and workings of the universe. In this regard the intent of science is no different from any of its competing religions.




except many religious people ignore outcomes that go against their texts, they start with the concept that the bible is true and correct and work from there, that is not a sound pathway to truth.




> There may be variances in some of the rituals and holy texts, however, the faith that a scientist invests in his/her rituals of repeatable experiments and sacred doctrine (scientific theories, tabulated measurements, historical accounts etc.) has recognisable synonymity with the behaviour and intent of other religious devotees.




No, there are actually two different uses of the word faith, and the meanings mean different things, But either way its a bad word to use in describing what scientists do.



> I find it interesting that you've chosen to overlook my comment about monopolisation of truth and religious bigotry. Could it be that you are able to recognise how closely your attitudes towards science, as compared to other religions, reflect the religious zealotry I've described?




Religions say they have the truth, and will never change because their texts contain the truth.

Scientists are willing to admit they don't have all the answers, they admit they could be wrong and they admit when they are proven wrong. the are not monopolising anything.


----------



## rumpole (20 February 2014)

cbc said:


> Jesus met with Moses constantly while he was leading Israel.
> 
> .




What ? Moses, if he existed, lived at least 1000 years before Christ (if he existed)

"Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592 BCE, and Ussher 1619 BCE as his birth year.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses


----------



## FxTrader (20 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> They have all been answered for you. Examples of speciation and increased information have been give. But, arguing with anybody who regards a scientific rebuttal as pointing to a creationist website that from the outset declares that it doesn't use scientific methods to determine what the evidence says but only accepts evidence that agrees with the biblical account of creation is pointless.
> 
> I have yet to see you actually address the evidence I have provided you with and show where it is wrong.



Bellenuit, let me say from the outset that I have enjoyed reading your many posts on evolution and your extensive contribution rebutting the faith based arguments of creationists here.  However, I believe you have been lured into a trap by holy rollers such as Pav who frequently uses discussion and attacks on evolution as a diversionary tactic.  Rather than allow focus on the absurdities of Christian faith in particular and religion in general, he continually shifts the focus onto a critique of evolution which, even if wrong about life's origins, says nothing about the validity or veracity of Christian myth and he knows it.  Pav never presents credible (non faith based) evidence for resurrection and other claims yet asserts it exists over and over again.  He is the most intellectually dishonest person posting on this thread in my opinion and has outed himself as just another blind faith believer with tales of faith healing thrown in.

Anyone who seriously thinks that intelligent design and irreducible complexity have any scientific credibility will not be able to speak objectively about evolution period - it's simply a dead end.  In my view, the focus (and onus) much be placed back on the underpinnings of religious faith itself and the extrordinary claims conjured up from the ether to support it.

I have attached a clip here from a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig (a hero in Christian circles) that is one of the better scholarly demolitions of Christian belief I have heard.  The whole debate is interesting but lengthy. For those who care to listen, it's a gem...


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> What ? Moses, if he existed, lived at least 1000 years before Christ (if he existed)
> 
> "Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592 BCE, and Ussher 1619 BCE as his birth year.[7]"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses






You know if you guys simply started believing and going to church you would understand all of this.

Don't you ever listen to us.

JESUS IS LORD

JESUS IS GOD

HE WAS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE EARTH

Not some wandering prophet in the  Israelie desert which you are saying by what your saying.  

He said 'I AM THE I AM' laying claim to being God. 

Why do you think that all the Pharasies wanted to kill him? And eventually did.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

> Infact, the bible is mainly about Jesus so to say he never actually met any of the authors is a tad strange.




The lady that wrote harry potter never actually met him either.




> Jesus first met with Abraham to promise him and Sarah a baby.
> 
> Jesus met with Moses constantly while he was leading Israel.
> 
> He met with many of the prophets in visions.




can you quote a passage where it mentions Jesus in the old testament



> Don't you understand that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul were the Authors of the New Testament.  They were also the main Characters as well.  So to say what you said makes me think that I might need to use small words and mbey repeat myself a few times for you




 None of the Gospel authors is thought to be an eyewitness, and none claims to be. There is a broad consensus that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them.

The Gospels were originally anonymous, and names were not ascribed to them until around 185 CE.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

cbc said:


> You know if you guys simply started believing and going to church you would understand all of this.
> 
> Don't you ever listen to us.
> 
> ...




and if you spent more time at the mosque you would understand Islam, understanding a story doesn't make it true.


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> well please provide your version of the definition of religion then,
> 
> I think the context of the definition I provided is the context in which the original person I commented to was using it.
> 
> ...



According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
 "any mode of faith and worship" 
is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word. 
Your efforts to artificially limit the word to theistic claims is a departure from my understanding of scientific method.



Value Collector said:


> except many religious people ignore outcomes that go against their texts, they start with the concept that the bible is true and correct and work from there, that is not a sound pathway to truth.



See what I mean?! I did tell you that scientists were just like religious folk!

Had you not noticed that many scientists are doing the same thing with their (chosen) scientific doctrine?




Value Collector said:


> No, there are actually two different uses of the word faith, and the meanings mean different things, But either way its a bad word to use in describing what scientists do.




Again, (according to my copy of the aforementioned dictionary):
 "a taking of what another says or does as true and right" 
is a fair definition of the word "faith".
It is also a very apt description of what many scientists do! 



Value Collector said:


> Religions say they have the truth, and will never change because their texts contain the truth.
> 
> Scientists are willing to admit they don't have all the answers, they admit they could be wrong and they admit when they are proven wrong. the are not monopolising anything.




Do I need to point out the obvious contradiction in these last two sentences?


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

> According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
> "any mode of faith and worship"
> is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
> Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word.
> Your efforts to artificially limit the word to theistic claims is a departure from my understanding of scientific method



.

Ok, so when I use the word science, I am not describing a system of faith and worship, so it is incorrect to say what I am talking about is religion. 




> See what I mean?! I did tell you that scientists were just like religious folk!
> 
> Had you not noticed that many scientists are doing the same thing with their (chosen) scientific doctrine?





No, If the evidence shows that an older idea is wrong, scientists will drop that older idea. They will not cling to it.



> Again, (according to my copy of the aforementioned dictionary):
> "a taking of what another says or does as true and right"
> is a fair definition of the word "faith".
> It is also a very apt description of what many scientists do!




My dictionary lists 2 meanings for the word faith

1, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

the two meanings are not interchangeable.


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> Ok, so when I use the word science, I am not describing a system of faith and worship, so it is incorrect to say what I am talking about is religion.



On the contrary, faith and worship are recognisable traits of many (if not all) practising scientists!


Value Collector said:


> No, If the evidence shows that an older idea is wrong, scientists will drop that older idea. They will not cling to it.



The same can be said for many other religious bodies. Throughout history, many religious practices and doctrine have been revised in response to changing conditions and new discoveries. So science cannot claim a monopoly on that point either!


Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> My dictionary lists 2 meanings for the word faith
> 
> ...




Again you have chosen to prefer the subset over the whole set! (Such behaviour is out of accord with that of a true practitioner of science.) 
Did your dictionary happen to mention the Latin word from whence "faith" derived its original definition and meaning?


----------



## Ves (20 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Did your dictionary happen to mention the Latin word from whence "faith" derived its original definition and meaning?



Do you mean "Fides"?   Interesting that the Romans also had a goddess of trust by the same name.   Apparently they would sign foreign treaties at a place of significance (in relation to the goddess Fides) so that she would protect them.

I can see what you are driving at with this discussion,  and it's an interesting perspective and one that some people may not have thought about in much detail.  I've had similar discussions off this forum in the past.


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Ves said:


> Do you mean "Fides"?   Interesting that the Romans also had a goddess of trust by the same name.   Apparently they would sign foreign treaties at a place of significance (in relation to the goddess Fides) so that she would protect them.
> ...




Almost. My dictionary offered the lower case version "fides" which to my understanding is the Latin word for trust.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

> On the contrary, faith and worship are recognisable traits of many (if not all) practising scientists!




Can you provide examples of some well known scientists, and explain how what they do could be described as worship




> The same can be said for many other religious bodies. Throughout history, many religious practices and doctrine have been revised in response to changing conditions and new discoveries. So science cannot claim a monopoly on that point either!




If you think that religions are as open to new ideas as the scientific community to are crazy, Most religions completely disregard new information if it goes against their book, there was an example earlier in the thread of a religious guy saying if he read in the bible that 1 + 1 = 5, he would believe it, this is what I am talking about.



> Again you have chosen to prefer the subset over the whole set! (Such behaviour is out of accord with that of a true practitioner of science.)




your playing word games, I accept there are many meanings to some words. But If I use a word, I am the one the gets to decide which meaning fits the context in which I am using it. for example if I say I have faith my dad will feed my dog while I am away, you can't come along and say I have faith the same way a religious guy has faith his prayers will be answered, they are different things. 



> Did your dictionary happen to mention the Latin word from whence "faith" derived its original definition and meaning?




it said- Latin fidere to trust 

but again it doesn't matter where the word was derived from, meaning can change through usage over the years, and many meanings can exist.


----------



## Tink (20 February 2014)

Well said, cynic  

Also wanted to add, enjoyed your input on the Adam and Eve and ribs/chromosomes in the other thread.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Well said, cynic
> 
> .




Well said

He has done nothing but try and muddy the waters by confusing terms and playing word games.


----------



## Tink (20 February 2014)

Maybe you should look in a few more threads than just this one


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Can you provide examples of some well known scientists, and explain how what they do could be described as worship



Einstein, Newton, Hawking just to name a few!

How many scientists do you know of that don't employ some level of mathematics, chemistry or physics in their scientific practices?

Any well known scientist can be seen to have invested belief in a body of scientific knowledge and/or practices. When utilising such knowledge, scientists are demonstrating a level of reverence for said knowledge and the scientific predecessors that contributed to its accumulation.




Value Collector said:


> If you think that religions are as open to new ideas as the scientific community to are crazy, Most religions completely disregard new information if it goes against their book, there was an example earlier in the thread of a religious guy saying if he read in the bible that 1 + 1 = 5, he would believe it, this is what I am talking about.



So now you're attempting to claim that the scientific community holds the monopoly on openmindedness!
Have you already forgotten the intense opposition to Einstein's theories of relativity?


Value Collector said:


> your playing word games, I accept there are many meanings to some words. But If I use a word, I am the one the gets to decide which meaning fits the context in which I am using it. for example if I say I have faith my dad will feed my dog while I am away, you can't come along and say I have faith the same way a religious guy has faith his prayers will be answered, they are different things.



Actually they are the same thing. Both are valid examples of faith. Just as a prayer may or may not be answered, one's expectations of a parent may or may not be fulfilled! 



Value Collector said:


> it said- Latin fidere to trust
> 
> but again it doesn't matter where the word was derived from, meaning can change through usage over the years, and many meanings can exist.



Certainly. However, this doesn't change the fact that scientists belief and behaviours in respect to science are recognisably synonymous with the behaviours of religious devotees.


----------



## Chris45 (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Most religions completely disregard new information if it goes against their book, there was an example earlier in the thread of a religious guy saying if he read in the bible that 1 + 1 = 5, he would believe it, this is what I am talking about.



I used to believe that 1 + 1 = 2

Then I read in a book that 1 + 1 = 10, and now I most certainly believe that!


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> I used to believe that 1 + 1 = 2
> 
> Then I read in a book that 1 + 1 = 10, and now I most certainly believe that!




Be careful Chris!

You might get accused of playing number games!

Between the two of us we should have numeracy and literacy completely sewn up!


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Well said, cynic
> 
> Also wanted to add, enjoyed your input on the Adam and Eve and ribs/chromosomes in the other thread.




Thanks for that Tink.

During that particular dialogue I was becoming concerned that I might have been the only person to recognise that possibility.


----------



## Tink (20 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for that Tink.
> 
> During that particular dialogue I was becoming concerned that I might have been the only person to recognise that possibility.




Good on you 

The Bible has a lot of hidden mysteries.
Who would have thought they would have been talking about chromosomes then, or had any idea.


----------



## bellenuit (20 February 2014)

*It’s Snack Time in the Cosmos*

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/science/its-snack-time-in-the-cosmos.html?_r=0


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Einstein, Newton, Hawking just to name a few!
> 
> How many scientists do you know of that don't employ some level of mathematics, chemistry or physics in their scientific practices?
> 
> ...





Lol, so now your trying to define the use of math and physics as worship. I have seen religious people try and twist things to fit their position but you are truly starting to take the cake here.

No the two faiths are different, 1 is a reasonable expectation based on evidence, and the other is belief without evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Good on you
> 
> The Bible has a lot of hidden mysteries.
> Who would have thought they would have been talking about chromosomes then, or had any idea.




Yes, you can twist bible versus to say almost anything you want


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, so now your trying to define the use of math and physics as worship. I have seen religious people try and twist things to fit their position but you are truly starting to take the cake here.



No trying required. Any practical application of any knowledge is recognisable as a display of reverence for such knowledge. Such reverence is compatible with the definition of worship.


Value Collector said:


> No the two faiths are different, 1 is a reasonable expectation based on evidence, and the other is belief without evidence.



Again, I believe that you are trying to create an artificial distinction between two types of faith and preferring the subset over the whole set.
Some people will only believe what they're programmed to believe, irrespective of the available body of evidence (or lack thereof). Many refer to such programming as indoctrination or perhaps "blind faith". An indoctrinated person will normally struggle to recognise as valid anything contrary to their programming irrespective of the amount of compelling evidence.

The definition of the word faith I offered was not only a reasonable general definition of the word, it was also appropriate for the purpose of this discourse.

The fact that some prefer to use the "blind faith" or "theistic faith" subsets in the formulation of their arguments is, to my understanding, simply testimony to the desire for avoidance of the truth. It could even be seen as a symptom of indoctrination.

The repeated denials of the religiosity of scientific practices, combined with repeated assertions of factual superiority over other belief systems, is typical of the jaundiced zealotry that I referred to in an earlier post.


----------



## Value Collector (20 February 2014)

cynic said:


> No trying required. Any practical application of any knowledge is recognisable as a display of reverence for such knowledge. Such reverence is compatible with the definition of worship.
> 
> Again, I believe that you are trying to create an artificial distinction between two types of faith and preferring the subset over the whole set.
> Some people will only believe what they're programmed to believe, irrespective of the available body of evidence (or lack thereof). Many refer to such programming as indoctrination or perhaps "blind faith". An indoctrinated person will normally struggle to recognise as valid anything contrary to their programming irrespective of the amount of compelling evidence.
> ...




Try using the word worship in a sentence to describe the work of hawking and see if it makes sense to people, i doubt you will find many people who would consider his work an act of worship, except for people like to who are trying to construct parallels that dont exist.

There are two different meanings for the word faith, thats why the dictionary lists two meanings, 

Many words have multiple meanings, "gay" " theory"  etc, completely different meanings, and it is dishonest to try and switch the meanings to try and create a straw man argument.


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, you can twist bible versus to say almost anything you want




Sure you can Valued......  Give us an example.


----------



## cbc (20 February 2014)

'twas only a matter of time before the Athiests started fighting each other.


----------



## cynic (20 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Try using the word worship in a sentence to describe the work of hawking and see if it makes sense to people, i doubt you will find many people who would consider his work an act of worship, except for people like to who are trying to construct parallels that dont exist.
> 
> There are two different meanings for the word faith, thats why the dictionary lists two meanings,
> 
> Many words have multiple meanings, "gay" " theory"  etc, completely different meanings, and it is dishonest to try and switch the meanings to try and create a straw man argument.




Throughout this discourse I have not distorted any English words (i.e. religion, faith and worship) beyond their literal definition and I object to any suggestion to the contrary. 
Those choosing to limit such definitions to a theistic context have only themselves to blame when their arguments backfire!

Even if such words were to be limited to a theistic context, such limitation would not invalidate any of the parallels that I've highlighted!

By the way, thankyou for providing me yet another fine example of one of your purportedly "non-existent" parallels!

Can you see how resorting to accusations of "straw man argument" creation and dishonesty is comparable with an accusation of heresy?


----------



## bellenuit (20 February 2014)

How nice it is to see an intelligent catholic priest, Father George Coyne,  discuss evolution and science in a very rational way, unlike some here who have never bothered to study the science and think evolution is a dirty word. Instead they try to defend completely untenable positions that normally are only held by extreme fundamentalists from the US bible belt. Right from the start Coyne correctly defines what "theory" is in the sense it is used in science and in particular when used as in the Theory of Evolution. He even mocks the young earth creationists constantly repeated mantra about evolution being "just a theory". Not that I agree with everything that he said, but watching this is an hour well spent.

I particularly like his description of those who have a literal acceptance of the Bible as simply revealing a very fundamental ignorance of what scripture was all about.


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Throughout this discourse I have not distorted any English words (i.e. religion, faith and worship) beyond their literal definition and I object to any suggestion to the contrary.
> Those choosing to limit such definitions to a theistic context have only themselves to blame when their arguments backfire!
> 
> Even if such words were to be limited to a theistic context, such limitation would not invalidate any of the parallels that I've highlighted!
> ...




Hahaha, you seem to think words only have one meaning, and that when someone decides to use a word, that you get to decide what context is being used instead of them.

We were having a discussion on theism, so off course the context the word was being used in was a theistic context, trying to muddy the waters does not add to the conversation.

Its would be like us having a discussion about marriage equality, and me making a statement that " gay marriage should be allowed" you jumping in and saying " gay means happy, there is no law against happy marriage, what are you talking about" 

It is clear to everyone ( except maybe you ) that i would be using the word gay to to describe same sex marriage, and bringing up the happiness meaning which is almost obsolete is dishonest and useless.

You did the same thing, with faith, religion and worship.


----------



## burglar (21 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... You did the same thing, with faith, religion and worship.




Why does it matter!?

Some of us are here to have fun at the expense of others!!
After all, there are trolls and counter-trolls.

If you want to be another DUCK IN A SHOOTING GALLERY, then, ...

Ding, ding, ding!


----------



## cynic (21 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Hahaha, you seem to think words only have one meaning, and that when someone decides to use a word, that you get to decide what context is being used instead of them.
> 
> We were having a discussion on theism, so off course the context the word was being used in was a theistic context, trying to muddy the waters does not add to the conversation.
> 
> ...



Actually we weren't only discussing theistic religions! We were also discussing the religion of science!

I could just as easily have substituted terms such as "belief","system of belief" and "honour" throughout this discourse. However, the dictionary definitions of faith, religion and worship are able to be used in a wholistic context. 
I've already given ample justification for my use of these words in a wholistic context, and yet, despite alerting you to the fact that the validity of the parallels described was never contingent on my choice of terminology, you continue to insist on arguing semantics rather than offering direct challenges to the actual issues I've raised!


----------



## cynic (21 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Why does it matter!?
> 
> Some of us are here to have fun at the expense of others!!
> After all, there are trolls and counter-trolls.
> ...



Guilty as charged, your worship!

or should I say your honour!
(Versatile as it is, I wouldn't want to be accused of twisting the English language now, would I?!)


----------



## bellenuit (21 February 2014)

*Sir David Attenborough: Enough With the Creationists and Climate Change Deniers!*

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-creationists-and-climate-change-deniers.html


----------



## burglar (21 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Actually we weren't only discussing theistic religions! We were also discussing the religion of science! ...




One of many definitions of Science:


> how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding




Science is not out to prove or disprove God!
Evolution was never about an alternative to creation.
Evolution may prove that there is no need of a God. (ONE DAY!)
But that is not the same thing!!

God and science are not miscible!


----------



## burglar (21 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Sir David Attenborough: Enough With the Creationists and Climate Change Deniers!* ...




DA is awesome!


----------



## cynic (21 February 2014)

burglar said:


> One of many definitions of Science:
> 
> 
> Science is not out to prove or disprove God!
> ...




burglar, you are such a semanticist (if there is such a word!)

I believe that my comments in an earlier post to this thread gave fair account of how science can readily be recognised as the religion that it is! 
The inclusion or exclusion of deities is immaterial to the general definition I offered (i.e. "any mode of faith and worship"). Again arguments about semantics are drawing attention away from my point about the observably synonymous behaviours of various religious practitioners (including practitioners of science).




cynic said:


> According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
> "any mode of faith and worship"
> is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
> Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word.
> ...




P.S. Since we're so fascinated by semantics, my dictionary offers "to hold dear" as a definition of the word "worship".


----------



## burglar (21 February 2014)

cynic said:


> burglar, you are such a semanticist (if there is such a word!) ...




my dictionary gives cunning linguist. :




cynic said:


> ... my dictionary offers "to hold dear" as a definition of the word "worship".




Dear cynic,

Oh dear, you've done it again. A word with two or more meanings!



> Dear
> 
> 1.
> regarded with deep affection.
> ...


----------



## cynic (21 February 2014)

burglar said:


> my dictionary gives cunning linguist. :
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Expensive burglar,

The original and wholistic meaning of the word "worship" embraces both those definitions of "dear".
Expensive as in "worth ship" which can also be understood as synonymous with "held dear".


----------



## bellenuit (21 February 2014)

*WHY THE ONE APPEALING PART OF CREATIONISM IS WRONG*

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...e-appealing-part-of-creationism-is-wrong.html





*Answers in Genesis: Plants Survived the Flood!*

This one is a beaut. They say you can't argue with stupidity. This tautological reasoning can only come from Answers in Genesis. Of course anyone with a modicum of science knowledge knows that the reason we have the diversity and geographical spread of plants today is because there wasn't a global flood that lasted 11 months about 4,000 years ago. As is obvious to anyone who looks at that site, if the scientific evidence conflicts with the bible, ignore the evidence.

_First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood. Knowing the Flood happened, and in light of the fact that we have plants today, the important question is: in what ways did the plants and seeds survive the Flood? The logical argument for the fact that plants survived the Flood is actually quite simple.

- The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.
- We see plants today.
- Therefore plants survived the Flood._

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/aig-plants-survived-the-flood/


----------



## burglar (22 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Expensive burglar,
> 
> The original and wholistic meaning of the word "worship" embraces both those definitions of "dear".
> Expensive as in "worth ship" which can also be understood as synonymous with "held dear".




@My expansive fiend:
Sorry!
I should know better, the worth of goods.
But in my line of business, 
my fence gives me but a tenth of true worth.

So expansive, ... NOT.
I am awfully cheap!! :


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

burglar said:


> @My expansive fiend:
> Sorry!
> I should know better, the worth of goods.
> But in my line of business,
> ...




When pearls of wisdom are offered freely, the price may seem cheap! 
Does that cheapen the pearls? 
Does it cheapen the issuer?
Does one judge a book by its price tag?


----------



## bellenuit (22 February 2014)

A few science related things to kick off the weekend.

*Scientists Claim To Have Found Proof Of Extraterrestrial Life*

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphys...to-have-found-proof-of-extraterrestrial-life/

The original paper here..

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/milton_diatom.pdf

*Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory Explained (Infographic)*

http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html?cmpid=514648

*Our entire universe might exist inside a massive black hole, say physicists*

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/sp...e-might-exist-inside-a-massive-black-hole-say


----------



## bellenuit (22 February 2014)

*A History Of Republicans And Evolution As ‘Just A Theory’*

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/19/history-republicans-evolution-just-theory/

Actually, her explanation for the fish getting progressively smaller is weak and is better explained in the comments by a poster.


----------



## cynic (22 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Scientists Claim To Have Found Proof Of Extraterrestrial Life*
> ...



Hallelujah!

They've finally woken up to the fact that Earth isn't the only place in the universe that supports sentient life!

Talk about slow!

Didn't they realise that they were passing extraterrestrial lifeforms with every venture into space?!!


----------



## pavilion103 (23 February 2014)

Sums it up. 

http://www.faithit.com/religious-tolerance-christianity-tebow-simmons/#.Uwkt6RyNAW8.facebook


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Sums it up.
> 
> http://www.faithit.com/religious-tolerance-christianity-tebow-simmons/#.Uwkt6RyNAW8.facebook




Do you really think he would be looked on more favourably if he thanked "Allah" everytime he scored a touch down, the Christians would be sickened by that, i doubt he get any support then, the Christians would be tearing him apart and saying it shouldn't be allowed on tv.


----------



## burglar (23 February 2014)

cynic said:


> ... Does that cheapen the pearls? ...




In my line of business, the pearls are stolen, ...
So yes, that does cheapen the pearls, somewhat!

My thesaurus gives:



> break in
> verb.  break and enter, burgle, interject, rob, steal







cynic said:


> ... Does one judge a book by its price tag?




I love the library.
And I don't like Judges! :

Just my interjection!!


----------



## pavilion103 (23 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Do you really think he would be looked on more favourably if he thanked "Allah" everytime he scored a touch down, the Christians would be sickened by that, i doubt he get any support then, the Christians would be tearing him apart and saying it shouldn't be allowed on tv.




It's not about what people of other religions would say. 

It's about what the general population and media say. 

Illusion: people claim Christianity is intolerant
Reality: people are more intolerant towards Christians than anyone else.


----------



## Value Collector (23 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> It's not about what people of other religions would say.
> 
> It's about what the general population and media say.
> 
> ...




The general population is Christian in America, and a lot of the media eg. Fox News and the like are very Christian.

Do you think Christians would tolerate worship of a non Christian god on prime time tv, i dont think they would.

American media is very hateful of atheists also.


----------



## bellenuit (24 February 2014)

http://onswipe.com/thedailygalaxy/#...lue-to-the-origin-of,530a2d2b025312186cd5ded5


----------



## Tink (25 February 2014)

So going back to the schools debate, I think RE should be placed back in public schools, as science and religion are two separate topics.

I think children should have a broad view about RE, it is in society, and it benefits them.

My opinion.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

Tink said:


> So going back to the schools debate, I think RE should be placed back in public schools, as science and religion are two separate topics.
> 
> I think children should have a broad view about RE, it is in society, and it benefits them.
> 
> My opinion.




So your happy for your kids to have Islamic teachings presented as fact?

Your happy for them to learn the qua'ran, Muhammad's life and the joys of sharia law?

I am happy to have lessons on all the various religions as part of a history class, but if your talking about teaching a religion as fact, that's not on


----------



## craft (25 February 2014)

Tink said:


> So going back to the schools debate.




I think all we should ‘teach’ our children is how to think independently.  Then expose them to as much variety as possible and they will learn and learn far more than we can ever ‘teach’ them.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

craft said:


> I think all we should ‘teach’ our children is how to think independently.  Then expose them to as much variety as possible and they will learn and learn far more than we can ever ‘teach’ them.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

Teach a variety of philosophies as I've previously said:
Christianity
Determinism
Buddhism
Marco evolution (adding new genetic information)
Etc

Put them all in a philosophy class.
Provide evidences for and against them.
Let them think critically.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Teach a variety of philosophies as I've previously said:
> Christianity
> Determinism
> Buddhism
> ...




the religious tried to get religion into the class room under the science banner of "Intelligent design" and failed, now they are trying to get it in under the banner of philosophy. I actually wouldn't mind philosophy students discussing a very broad range of religious ideas, as long as its not hijacked by religious groups.

I am confused as to why you would put evolution into the philosophy class though, Its science. Even if you don't believe in it and think it is a complete sham, its still a scientific idea, when your talking about genetics it needs to be discussed scientifically, in the science class room.

I don't get why religious people even care about having evolution in the science classes, it is such a small part of the science teaching, unless your doing high level biology a high school student would get maybe 2 - 3 lessons that talked about evolution in there entire schooling.

It's not like we sit primary school kids down and get them to sing evolution songs 3 times a week, and threaten them with hell fire for unbelief.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

Religion obvious has no place in the science class.

But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.

Teach natural selection and the loss of genetic information and duplications and mutations. But then say there are two schools of thought. 

1) intelligent design - because of xyz
2) macro evolution - because of xyz

To present one and not the other is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't go I to great detail on either but you'd raise both as possible proposed explanations.


----------



## Judd (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Religion obvious has no place in the science class.
> 
> But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.
> 
> ...




Provide such evidence, independently peer reviewed with links to the relevant scientific journals and research papers.  If you cannot provide, stop with such rubbish assertions.


----------



## bellenuit (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Religion obvious has no place in the science class.
> 
> But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.
> 
> ...




Except there isn't two schools of thought. Evolution is a fact and the process of evolution is a fully developed scientific theory that explains and has examples of all the processes that got us to where we are today from the earliest living cells. The fact that you haven't the interest to look at it through anything other the Answers From Genesis is more a condemnation of you and your closed mind. You just mouth the same half dozen or so "debating points" that the YECs constantly come up with ("just a theory" being number 1 on the list) and even though each point is debunked a thousand times over as any rudimentary search of the net would reveal, you continue to act as if they are gotchas that evolutionists can't answer. Check out the losses the ID proponents had in the states when they went to court in order to have ID taught as an alternative science. The most famous case, which was overseen by a very conservative Christian judge, was thrown out by him in the end as he saw through the ID sham for what it was.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

There is still not one example given of NEW genetic information being created. Not one EVER.

Only mutations and duplications.

The reason that I continue to raise the same point is because there has not been one answer to it. NOT ONE.

It is completely laughable. 
You'll write paragraphs upon paragraphs that are all meaningless and not provide me with one example.

I love it.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

I don't want any discussion.
I don't want any well worded paragraphs.

Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
It cannot be a mutation or duplication.


GIVE ME JUST 1 EXAMPLE OR SHUT UP
SIMPLE


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> There is still not one example given of NEW genetic information being created. Not one EVER.
> 
> Only mutations and duplications.
> 
> ...




Whats your definition for information?


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

Bottom line is you need a "gain-of-function"

This doesn't include:
Adaptive Immunity
Gene duplication
Degraded information
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

Go ahead and give me 1 example.
1-2 sentences.


----------



## Tink (25 February 2014)

Just posting this here because I forgot to watch it...did anyone watch it?

"Everything And Nothing" S1 Ep2 - "Nothing" SBS on Demand:
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/144367171515/Everything-And-Nothing-S1-Ep2-Nothing
Aired on 23 February 2014, Expires on 2 March 2014, 11:05pm. 

Nothing - In the second part of this intriguing documentary, Professor Jim Al-Khalili explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it. (Part 2 of 2) (From the UK) (Documentary)

In the beginning was energy.
Energy created matter and antimatter theoretically in equal proportions.
For every matter particle created, an antimatter particle was supposed to have been created, eg. electrons and positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos.
This has been experimentally observed on frequent occasions in nuclear laboratories.
A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.
In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms.
On 26 April 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes).
Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container.

Most of the matter and antimatter that formed initially during the Big Bang mutually annihilated, except for the matter of which our universe is composed.
The background radiation that appears as "snow" on analogue TV is thought to be the energy released by this annihilation.

The Dirac equation, formulated by Paul Dirac around 1928 as part of the development of relativistic quantum mechanics, predicts the existence of antiparticles along with the expected solutions for the corresponding particles. Since that time, it has been verified experimentally that every known kind of particle has a corresponding antiparticle. The CPT Theorem guarantees that a particle and its antiparticle have exactly the same mass and lifetime, and exactly opposite charge. Given this symmetry, it is puzzling that the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Indeed, there is no experimental evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

> Religion obvious has no place in the science class.




Agreed



> But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.




No it's not, If you think it is, go prove it scientifically and get your nobel prize.



> Teach natural selection and the loss of genetic information and duplications and mutations. But then say there are two schools of thought.
> 
> 
> 1) intelligent design - because of xyz
> 2) macro evolution - because of xyz




intelligent design is to the evolution theory what Astrology is to Astronomy. 

There is no scientific debate on the two options, evolution is proven intelligent design is not. All the nonsense about there being two competing theories is nonsense.

intelligent design isn't even a theory, it's a hypothesis that is baseless. 

If the two ideas were people, evolution would be a person who has graduated with multiple diplomas and a PHD while intelligent design is at his first day of kinder garden and he forgot his lunch.  




> To present one and not the other is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't go I to great detail on either but you'd raise both as possible proposed explanations.




They are not equal, 

Science classes teach real science,

They teach Astronomy not Astrology
they teach heliocentric models not geocentric models
they teach spherical earth not flat earth

its not up to the science class to examine every crack pot theory that hasn't been proven.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Religion obvious has no place in the science class.
> 
> But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.
> 
> ...




Hey pavillion,

A couple of times I've tried to engage you in the other religion thread (which you seem to be taking a break from) about your assertions regarding evolution and directed you to a couple of sources of information that dispute your  claims.

You've always avoided the topic and never engaged with me in any meaningful dialogue, and then seemed to leave the thread.

Nevertheless I thought I would try again.

Have you read any of the following books by Frank Ryan?

Darwin's Blind Spot.
Mystery of Metamorphosis
Virolution

All thought-provoking reads that you might enjoy. 




Cheers

Sir O


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Hey pavillion,  A couple of times I've tried to engage you in the other religion thread (which you seem to be taking a break from) about your assertions regarding evolution and directed you to a couple of sources of information that dispute your  claims.  You've always avoided the topic and never engaged with me in any meaningful dialogue, and then seemed to leave the thread.  Nevertheless I thought I would try again.  Have you read any of the following books by Frank Ryan?  Darwin's Blind Spot. Mystery of Metamorphosis Virolution  All thought-provoking reads that you might enjoy.  Cheers  Sir O




Hey mate.
Apologies if it appears that I have avoided you in the past. 
With these threads I tend to come and go a bit depending on what other thing I'd like to focus on.

I enjoy the discussion but there isn't too much point spending forever on it.

Happy to discuss things with you, as with anyone else.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

And no I haven't read those books.

What are your views out of curiosity?


----------



## Chris45 (25 February 2014)

Our culture is based on Christianity and our laws are based on Christian principals.

Christianity is part of our history and there is absolutely *NO* reason it shouldn't be discussed in schools as part of a RE program.

If/when science discovers ALL of the answers to how we got here, that might be the time to review the content of the RE program, but it's still an undeniable part of our history so should always have a place in our education system.

Since we have become a multicultural society, other religions could get a *brief* mention so that if children want to investigate them further that's up to them.

Our government should *FIRMLY* resist the atheist's desire to keep the children of today ignorant of our Christian history.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> And no I haven't read those books.




Well they are easily available to you, you can find them at public libraries... warning you now that they will directly challenge your assertions.

I found them very interesting reading as many people think they understand Evolution, and these books have an impressive level of perspective.



> What are your views out of curiosity?




My views on ...

Religion......                (not usually complementary)
Science.....                 (interesting...but full of specialities that are generally beyond me)
Scepticism....              (healthy)
Philosophy....               (my own...)
Things metaphysical...   (I enjoy finding wonder)

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## trainspotter (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I don't want any discussion.
> I don't want any well worded paragraphs.
> 
> Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
> ...




https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/new-genes-arise-quickly/





Surely if genes are mutating then this is the most obvious sign of evolution? Or did some deity programme the genes to mutate and form "new" genes?


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

trainspotter said:


> https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/new-genes-arise-quickly/  <img src="https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56950"/>  Surely if genes are mutating then this is the most obvious sign of evolution? Or did some deity programme the genes to mutate and form "new" genes?




They are not experiencing a gain of function.
Mutation only deals with information already present.

Can anyone else provide a better answer?

One example please people.


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose




Life is not an information phenomena. It's a biochemical one.
DNA does not store information, just biochemical potential, subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, not the laws of information.
DNA is NOT information. Just a complex molecule whose structure decides its function. It doesn't send information to RNA to create proteins. It just reacts.
Evolution only requires the genetic code to change. Nothing more.


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

So in other words you have zero examples.


----------



## trainspotter (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> They are not experiencing a gain of function.
> Mutation only deals with information already present.
> 
> Can anyone else provide a better answer?
> ...




Ermmmm you obviously did not read the link? 



> Once the* new function *has been assumed, and the gene is essential, selection then acts to preserve its *new function* by eliminating new mutations (“purifying selection”).


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> They are not experiencing a gain of function.
> Mutation only deals with information already present.
> 
> Can anyone else provide a better answer?
> ...




Are you asking for Saltation?

"In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate gradualism - involved in modern evolutionary theory."

link


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

And what new function?
What is the example?


And 
No I'm not arguing for slow or fast changes.
Just an increase in information.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I don't want any discussion.
> I don't want any well worded paragraphs.
> 
> Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
> ...




New information is arrived at by a to stage process, 

1, duplication of an existing gene

2, Mutation of this new duplicated copy.

here is a video that explains the process and gives examples.


----------



## trainspotter (25 February 2014)

Platelet formation is one instance. Protein absorption is another. DYOR


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> And what new function?
> What is the example?
> 
> 
> ...




That was an example of Saltation using Moths. There's a picture showing the moths which the authors claim exhibit rapid genetic alterations resulting in a new species.

As you can see from the picture they are significantly different in colour, size and genetic characteristics.

I'm curious...if an increase in information is demonstrated to you.... what would this mean to you?

Cheers 
Sir O


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

Duplication... sigh....


This is from a creation website. It deals with this. 

You'd have to show that these are sensible conclusions based on the rate of duplication necessary.

It's like people saying well if there was a one in a billion trillion chance of the earth randomly being like it is today then there is a chance. Thus we can believe in that conclusion. It's absolutely absurd. 

It's sad that the in the quest to eliminate God, these sort of outlandish, ridiculous, unlogical thoughts are actually even discussed publicly by supposedly intelligent people  

_Gene duplication is often cited as a mechanism for evolutionary progress and as a means of generating ‘new’ information. Here, a gene is duplicated (through several possible means), turned off via mutation, mutated over time, turned on again through a different mutation, and, voilÃ !, a new function has arisen.

Invariably, the people who use this as an argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. These numbers are not friendly to evolutionary theory, and mathematical studies that have attempted to study the issue have run into a wall of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes. This is akin to the mathematical difficulties Michael Behe discusses in his book, The Edge of Evolution. In fact, gene deletions and loss-of-function mutations for useful genes are surprisingly common.Why would anyone expect a deactivated gene to stick around for a million years or more while an unlikely new function develops?

But the situation with gene duplication is even more complicated than this. The effect of a gene often depends on gene copy number. If an organism appears with extra copies of a certain gene, it may not be able to control the expression of that gene and an imbalance will occur in its physiology, decreasing its fitness (e.g. trisomy causes abnormalities such as Down syndrome because of such gene dosage effects). Since copy number is a type of information, and since copy number variations are known to occur (even among people), this is an example of a mutation that changes information. Notice I did not say ‘adds’ information, but ‘changes’. Word duplication is usually frowned upon as being unnecessary (ask any English teacher). Likewise, gene duplication is usually, though not always, bad. In the cases where it can occur without damaging the organism, one needs to ask if this is really an addition of information. Even better than that, is this the type of addition required by evolution? No, it is not.

Several creationists have written on this subject, including Lightner, Liu and Moran. Even if an example of a new function arising through gene duplication is discovered, the function of the new must necessarily be related to the function of the old, such as a new but similar catalysis end product of an enzyme. There is no reason to expect otherwise. New functions arising through duplication are not impossible, but they are vanishingly unlikely, and they become more unlikely with each degree of change required for the development of each new function._


----------



## pavilion103 (25 February 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> That was an example of Saltation using Moths. There's a picture showing the moths which the authors claim exhibit rapid genetic alterations resulting in a new species.
> 
> As you can see from the picture they are significantly different in colour, size and genetic characteristics.
> 
> ...




In addition one key would be further evidence to suggest that a change of kind can occur. Not just a moth to a moth. But this is a slightly different topic. 

This can lead back down the path of transitory fossils, which are non existent etc. 

I'm not sure I want to go back there. We touched on that recently and no conclusive evidence was provided.

- - - Updated - - -

I think I might leave it here for a while again guys. 

I've provided my side. 
I've heard yours. 
Maybe we can revisit this but I'm not sure that it won't be a circular argument again. 

Just so we can see. 
I haven't avoided anyone. 
I've listened. 
I've responded. 

We will pick this up another time. 
Thanks guys.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

> Christianity is part of our history and there is absolutely *NO* reason it shouldn't be discussed in schools as part of a RE program.




A Christian might say that, but a Muslim would disagree. Just put  your self in their shoes, would you want your kids instructed Islamic teaching, probably not. Also which brand of Christianity would you teach, would it be Morman or Jehovah witness, oh probably your brand right 

Why not just leave religion to church and sunday school or faith schools.



> but it's still an undeniable part of our history so should always have a place in our education system.




They cover the various religions as part of high school history already, that where it belongs.



> Since we have become a multicultural society, other religions could get a *brief* mention so that if children want to investigate them further that's up to them



.

A brief mention, why not equal time.



> Our government should *FIRMLY* resist the atheist's desire to keep the children of today ignorant of our Christian history




I don't want ignorant children, I want educated children. I will be teaching my kids the history of all the main religions.

Teaching kids one religion as fact is keeping them ignorant, especially if your not exposing them to the real science of the universe.

- - - Updated - - -



pavilion103 said:


> Bottom line is you need a "gain-of-function"
> 
> .




Gain of function is achieved through duplication and mutation.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

> Duplication... sigh....




Did you watch the video I linked




> This is from a creation website.




That's your first problem, your guessing the incorrect opinions of sudeo science over real science.




> It's like people saying well if there was a one in a billion trillion chance of the earth randomly being like it is today then there is a chance. Thus we can believe in that conclusion. It's absolutely absurd.




Do you not understand probabilities?

It is usually creationists that throw around probabilities of an earth like planet existing to try and make it sound like its unlikely earth would have formed as it is without a creator.

This is usually counter by some one saying "well if your correct and its a one in a billion chance, then there should be billions of earth out there because the universe is huge, In fact there are billions of earth like planets in our galaxy and billions of galaxies that probably hold billions of trillions of other earth like planets.

the odds are highly in our favour. the universe is so huge that extremely unlikely events are happening continually




> It's sad that the in the quest to eliminate God, these sort of outlandish, ridiculous, unlogical thoughts are actually even discussed publicly by supposedly intelligent people




No one is questing to eliminate god, there is just no evidence that suggests he should be included in the models.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> I think I might leave it here for a while again guys.
> 
> .




He always seems to leave as soon as he is presented with evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> In addition one key would be further evidence to suggest that a change of kind can occur. Not just a moth to a moth. But this is a slightly different topic.
> 
> 
> .




Oh, the old no change in "Kinds" argument.

the creationists that use this argument fail when they say they are happy to accept Lions and tigers had a common ancestor because they are both still cats, there was no change in "Kinds"

But when you point out that there is no difference between that and humans sharing a common ancestor with chimpanzees, because we are both still apes we haven't changed "Kinds" they have to back flip.

you can push it back further and say apes and monkeys have common ancestors, and because the are still all primates the haven't changed "kinds"

the term "Kinds" is really meaningless unless they can define what they mean.


----------



## Chris45 (25 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> A Christian might say that, but a Muslim would disagree. Just put  your self in their shoes, would you want your kids instructed Islamic teaching, probably not.



We are not a Muslim based society and I certainly don't want us to become one. If Muslims don't want to hear about our religion they can either opt out, or send their kids to a Muslim school, or move to a Muslim country.



> Also which brand of Christianity would you teach, would it be Morman or Jehovah witness, oh probably your brand right



You're going to kill off even more of your brain cells if you keep doing that. 

I think the CRE program has worked through those details.



> Why not just leave religion to church and sunday school or faith schools.



Because children from 100% atheist environments get no information (apart from intolerance and hate) about religion.



> A brief mention, why not equal time.



Because we're predominantly a Christian country. If they want more information about the other religions they can go elsewhere.



> I don't want ignorant children, I want educated children. I will be teaching my kids the history of all the main religions.
> 
> Teaching kids one religion as fact is keeping them ignorant, especially if your not exposing them to the real science of the universe.



I also want educated children and not children kept ignorant of important aspects of our culture because of the demands of religion haters.

They will learn about science in their science classes and be able to make informed decisions, but only if they hear both sides of the debate.

We're going around in circles again.


----------



## Value Collector (25 February 2014)

> We are not a Muslim based society and I certainly don't want us to become one. If Muslims don't want to hear about our religion they can either opt out, or send their kids to a Muslim school, or move to a Muslim country.




We are not a Christian based society either, we have freedom of religion, so preaching one over the other is not right




> Because children from 100% atheist environments get no information (apart from intolerance and hate) about religion.




So teach a history class about the history of the religions, which they already do in high schools.



> Because we're predominantly a Christian country. If they want more information about the other religions they can go elsewhere.




Lol, your a douche. Some areas are very much muslim dominated with hindu and buddists mixed in.



> I also want educated children and not children kept ignorant of important aspects of our culture because of the demands of religion haters.
> 
> They will learn about science in their science classes and be able to make informed decisions, but only if they hear both sides of the debate.




well send your kids to a faith school, public school has no place for religion.


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> So in other words you have zero examples.




What mechanism prevents duplication errors that add more genetic code?




			
				Chris45 said:
			
		

> However, first creation, then evolution makes sense to me, but the atheists aren't comfortable with the first part.



What form of life was first created before evolution took over?


----------



## Tink (25 February 2014)

Have we already forgotten -

Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> In addition one key would be further evidence to suggest that a change of kind can occur. Not just a moth to a moth. But this is a slightly different topic.
> 
> This can lead back down the path of transitory fossils, which are non existent etc.
> 
> ...




Thanks Pav for responding to me. I know it can be difficult to respond with a clear head when there what appears to be multiple people banging away at the same argument.

I have to say though I am a little disappointed that you decided to stop there. Happy to take this to PM's if that makes you feel more comfortable.

Hope you return to the conversation because it's a little hard to see exactly what kind of things you are looking for...but that doesn't interest me as much as the question you didn't engage with..... What changes for you if someone presents you with something that refutes your position?

Cheers 

Sir o


----------



## Trentb (25 February 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
> It cannot be a mutation or duplication.




Insertion mutation

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898





Here's a thought experiment for you. Please criticize it. 

The following bacteria genome is 816 394 base pairs. 

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/22/4420.full

The oldest fossils on earth are approximately 3.4 billion years old. 

Make three assumptions:

1. Your god is infallible so at least one life form that he made has lasted since he placed life on earth 3.4 billion years go. That life form is 3.4 billion years old. 

2. This life form is the bacteria above or any bacteria with a similar genome size. 

3. This bacteria was placed on earth with a genome 400 000 base pairs in length. 

Calculate the frequency of insertion mutations for it to reach it's current genome size over it's life span. 

Answer: 

To grow to it's current size with insertion mutations would require only 1 insertion mutation every 8500 years without deletions. 

Point of this exercise: Try to think about what can happen when something can accumulate over a large time scale. Try to imagine insertion mutations as analogous to interest rates.  Except the time frame for this 'biological interest rate' is over BILLIONS of years.  

Now do you see how something very very small (1 base pair insertion) can become something very very large when it can grow over an incredible time span?


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

Why would a creator, create freaks?
Why create hybrids, sterile or otherwise?





And vestigial organs, what are they used for?

Were parasites created before man, and if so, how did 
they survive?

And if God is just, why do some parasites enter through a boy's eye enter his brain and eventually kill him?




> A raspberry has only 8 percent as much genetic material as you or I. That’s expected; raspberries aren’t too smart or complex. But an onion isn’t very complex either, and it has more than 12 times as much DNA as a Harvard professor.
> What’s more, amoebas oozing along in shallow ponds boast a genome 200 times as large as those of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.
> 
> Read more:
> http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/02.10/onion.html




I don't require your answers, the questions are entirely rhetorical.
I only pose them out of shear boredom. ho hum :


----------



## cynic (25 February 2014)

I know my religion (unlike yours which is false) is the only true religion and is therefore the only religion that is allowed to be taught in a factual context to children - so there!!

Your religion is false, but since I'm feeling generous, I'll allow you to teach a token amount provided it is framed in a mythical context - aren't I good! Unlike you ya douche bag bigot!

No don't you dare infer hypocrisy when comparing my behaviour to the church! Your analogy doesn't count because unlike me I know other churches are wrong! Again I remind you that I know I am right! Unlike you ya heathen douche bag bigot!

Don't you dare answer any of my questions with anything other than complicity with my infallible religion! Again I remind you that I know I'm right! Unlike you ya sacrilegious heathen douche bag bigot!

Do these sentiments sound familiar? They seem to permeate this thread and are evident on more than one side of the debate!

Let's be honest with ourselves! This is just another crusade for supreme dominion over the holy realm of intellect!

P.S. See what I mean?! Science advocates are just like religious folk!


----------



## cynic (25 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Have we already forgotten -
> 
> Science does not exist to prove or disprove the existence of God




+1
Unfortunately, as we both know, some individuals have arrogantly abused the art of science in the vain hope of expunging their personal insecurity.

Of course, if one were to equate God with Truth (Christianity and other religions have done this!) then science can be recognised as a quest for knowledge of Truth/God.


----------



## cynic (25 February 2014)

craft said:


> I think all we should ‘teach’ our children is how to think independently.  Then expose them to as much variety as possible and they will learn and learn far more than we can ever ‘teach’ them.



Amen to that!

Welcome to the fold Brother Craft.

We are both honoured and humbled to have a true thinker join our ranks.


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Why would a creator, create freaks?
> Why create hybrids, sterile or otherwise?




Why would it create so many other galaxies?

If life on other planets is a problem for some theists, why would it create countless billions of other havens where life can happen?

We wouldn't even need a galaxy, just a single Sun and a planet.
Why make it so unnecessarily complicated?


----------



## Chris45 (25 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> We are not a Christian based society either, we have freedom of religion, so preaching one over the other is not right
> 
> well send your kids to a faith school, public school has no place for religion.




I disagree with you!



> A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.




You sound very much like a troll.


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> ... You sound very much like a troll.




If you, or I, was to find ourselves not provoking readers into an emotional response, 
either accidentally or with the deliberate intent, 
...
then we shouldn't be here.


----------



## Judd (25 February 2014)

A conundrum.  If God exists then he created the Cheetah and the Antelope, one designed to catch the other and the other to evade being caught.  So does he enjoy blood sports then? 

I suppose that, fortunately, not all antelopes get eaten and God designed the whole creation including the food chain but possibly the point is that for biblical literalism there was no carnivorous food chain until after the fall. The lion and antelope coexisted side by side and used to sit around the waterhole together at night singing kumbayah.


----------



## spooly74 (25 February 2014)

Time for a little perspective


----------



## Chris45 (25 February 2014)

burglar said:


> If you, or I, was to find ourselves not provoking readers into an emotional response,
> either accidentally or with the deliberate intent,
> ...
> then we shouldn't be here.



Well, he's shown his true colours by introducing personal insults and I thought you'd be a bit more discerning in who you supported, but if you want to see him to take the thread down that path then you disappoint me.


----------



## barney (25 February 2014)

spooly74 said:


> Time for a little perspective




Magnificent .... thought provoking ... spectacular, and humbling


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Well, he's shown his true colours by introducing personal insults and I thought you'd be a bit more discerning in who you supported, but if you want to see him to take the thread down that path then you disappoint me.




Is he sowing seeds of discord?

If so, he is a naughty lill troll! 

If your on a soccer field, and have no intent to play the ball, you should not be there.
That is my view.

As for the path of the thread, I invite you to read from the first post.
But that is just being silly, cos I know you have been here from the start.

You have enjoyed the good bits, cringed at the bad bits. As have I! 

@V@


----------



## Tink (25 February 2014)

And we wonder why the public schools are a mess .....

Yes, good on you, spooly  thanks for sharing.


----------



## Chris45 (25 February 2014)

Judd said:


> A conundrum.  If God exists then he created the Cheetah and the Antelope, one designed to catch the other and the other to evade being caught.  So does he enjoy blood sports then?



An often asked question, "Why did god create predators?".

If you were a master creator and you designed an ecosystem to be self-sustaining so that you didn't have to continually micromanage it, and you designed all animals to be herbivores, with no predators, can you see a problem with that design?


----------



## burglar (25 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... Lions and tigers had a common ancestor because they are both still cats, there was no change in "Kinds" ...




Male Lions and Female Tigers mate to produce Ligers:




Is that a change in "Kinds"?


Male Tigers and Female Lions mate to produce Tigons:



Is that a change in "Kinds"?








Yes Chris45, it is sexist, but I am just following the protocol!


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> Well, he's shown his true colours by introducing personal insults and I thought you'd be a bit more discerning in who you supported, but if you want to see him to take the thread down that path then you disappoint me.




I called you a douche, because your remarks remind me of so many of the ignorant racist types, when you said " if they dont like they can go elsewhere", 

You also made a comment saying " they can go to a Muslim country", the fact that you seem to think that you have some right to force your religion over all others, and take peoples religious freedoms away angers me, so i lashed out and called you a douche ( which is not that bad)

I am an atheist, but i take religious freedom seriously, what you have to understand is me saying there should be no dominate religion in public schools is not me taking your rights away, i am protecting everyones rights to freedom of religion, i would defend your right to not have Islam pushed on you also.


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

Chris45 said:


> You sound very much like a troll.




Besides calling you a douche in one post, out of the other 100 posts, what have i done to make you think i am a troll.

Just because i dont agree you should be able to dominate every one with your religion, does not make me a troll.


----------



## cynic (26 February 2014)

According to my dictionary the noun "troll" may be defined as "a friendly dwarf" or "a catch or glee".

The verb "troll" is given as "to sing merrily" or "to fish by drawing a baited hook through the water".

The noun "douche" is given as "a stream of water". 

Which leads me to wonder has someone been trolling the douche? 
If so did they catch anything?
Was the douche entertained?


----------



## Tink (26 February 2014)

cynic said:


> +1
> Unfortunately, as we both know, some individuals have arrogantly abused the art of science in the vain hope of expunging their personal insecurity.




Agree, cynic, and this is the rubbish that our public schools are full of, hysteria.


----------



## Tink (26 February 2014)

Well, VC, maybe you should put down that crack pot Dawkins book, and do a little bit of study, and have a look at just how much religion/Christianity has given to society, our world that we live in. 

While you sit and reap the benefits of what it has contributed in society, you don't think there is a place for religion in schools?

Open your eyes and go and find out where universities come from, where the scientific method came from, and why we are a civilised nation as we are.


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

Tink said:


> and have a look at just how much religion/Christianity has given to society, our world that we live in.
> 
> While you sit and reap the benefits of what it has contributed in society, you don't think there is a place for religion in schools?
> 
> Open your eyes and go and find out where universities come from, where the scientific method came from, and why we are a civilised nation as we are.




Care to name any positive benefits of Christianity that can't be achieved in other ways tink?

As I have already said, I agree the various religions have had some positive impacts, but none of the positive impacts are owned by religion, they can all be achieved in other ways, on the contrary, religion has some terrible side effects, So it is not the best way to achieve those few good results.

Also, the benefits are not owned by Christianity, so there is no way you could justify taking away the religious rights of other groups in favour of Christianity.

But, what i fear is happening here tink, is your just looking at all the good things and saying " thats Christianity, see its good" but your ignoring all the bad stuff it has added to society, eg, stalling the progress of gay rights, stalling woman's rights, slowing the stem cell research, burning people to death in Africa, breaking up families, causing people to not accept real science, causing be to die of curable diseases etc etc etc


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Well, VC, maybe you should put down that crack pot Dawkins book, and do a little bit of study, and have a look at just how much religion/Christianity has given to society, our world that we live in.
> 
> While you sit and reap the benefits of what it has contributed in society, you don't think there is a place for religion in schools?
> 
> Open your eyes and go and find out where universities come from, where the scientific method came from, and why we are a civilised nation as we are.




Also have a look at how much killing has been done in the name of a Christian God whilst you are at it. 




Spanish Inquisition anyone?


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Male Lions and Female Tigers mate to produce Ligers:
> 
> 
> Is that a change in "Kinds"?
> ...




you would have to talk to the creationists, They seem to be the experts in what constitutes a "Kind"

From what I can see, the just group groups of animals they want together.

All species of cats = same kind
All species of apes = different kinds

All species of fish= same kind
All species of reptile= same kind
All species of mammals= some are same kind some are different kind.


___


On the topic of hybrid animals, The fact the Tiger and the lion can breed together shows they are very close cousins and share common ancestry, but have been separated long enough to diverge into different species (because there offspring are not fertile). If you follow both of their family trees back, they would have a common ancestor that wasn't a lion or a tiger but a completely different species.

_____

If we evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps? 

we didn't evolve from chimps, much like the lion and tiger share a common ancestor, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, we didn't evolve from them, we a cousins, we share a common ancestor.

Here is a brief video that quickly explains the ape family tree.


----------



## Tink (26 February 2014)

Not as many as the atheists, like I said, hysteria.

_
“The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. _


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

Tink said:


> _
> “The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. _




Do you really think those killings were in the name of atheism.

You can not possible draw a credible line from a person saying "I don't think a god exists" to that person committing genocide, each one of those cases was just mad men trying to maintain power.

There is no tenant of atheism that would inform someone's actions in a way that would lead them to commit such actions.

However, there is a direct line that can be drawn from somebody reading a bible passage that says "Thy shalt not suffer a witch to live" that can lead them directly to commit murder of someone they think is a witch. This is a problem in Africa where witch doctors and shamans are part of the local custom.

or,

Listening to a Jehovah's witness sermon about the evils of blood transfusion, so you refuse to treat your kid, or you decide to pray to cure your cancer instead of real treatment.

or

reading bible passages that are anti gay

or, 

reading bible passages that say abandon your family, the list really does go on.

or, 

you have long standing political troubles because of divisions down religious lines eg northern Ireland and gaza.

Do you really think there would still be trouble in northern Ireland after so many generations if the communities hadn't been divided by religion. the fact that catholics went to catholic schools on the catholic side of town and married catholics, and the protestants, went to protestant scools on the protestant side of town and married protestants, kept that conflict alive for generations. It would have fizzeled out years ago if the religious divide didn't exist.


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2014)

Sorry Tink ... Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin were atheists. Ethnic cleansing on a massive scale by despots and megalomaniacs which were rejected by the rest of civilisation (world)

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Genesis 9:6

Not sure if "Killing in the name of God" has the right "ring" to it ?


----------



## overhang (26 February 2014)

Tink said:


> Not as many as the atheists, like I said, hysteria.
> 
> _
> “The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. _




As VC summed up how many of these were in the name of atheism?  Most occurred by people who just happened to be a non believer, if you wanted to go down this road then does that mean that every single murder committed by someone who just happens to be christian is a murder in the name of religion?  Because I certainly don't think they are.  Timothy McVeigh happened to be a catholic but didn't commit the bombing for religious reason but it can be argued that Anders Behring Breivik did when he committed the mass murder in Norway.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2014)

The difficulty with this discussion is that logic is being offered to people devoted to their religious beliefs.
There is clearly a disconnect right there.


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Sorry Tink ... Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin were atheists. Ethnic cleansing on a massive scale by despots and megalomaniacs which were rejected by the rest of civilisation (world)
> 
> "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." Genesis 9:6
> 
> Not sure if "Killing in the name of God" has the right "ring" to it ?




Actually Hitler was a roman catholic, and his killing was down a religious line, He targeted Jews, who just happened to be a group subject to a lot of catholic hatred. And in his book mein kampf he said he is doing gods work, and his soldiers wore the slogan of "god with us" on their uniforms.

the Catholic church also never said a word against Hitler, though the apologised in recent times for that.

So unless Tink wants to accept Hitler as one of hers, don't go about pushing nonsense claims about murderous mad men onto atheism.


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

Here is a very thought provoking video that will amaze and disturb you. Neil Degrasse Tyson presents what he sees as the most astounding fact about humans followed by the most disturbing thought.

I love Neil's enthusiasm and wonder for science,


----------



## burglar (26 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ... I love Neil's enthusiasm and wonder for science,  ...




I love your enthusiasm and wonder,
for Neil's enthusiasm and wonder for science! 


(He is not nearly as good as Julius Sumner Miller, 
he falls about 1% short of "The Professor")


----------



## burglar (26 February 2014)

Julia said:


> The difficulty with this discussion is that logic is being offered to people devoted to their religious beliefs.
> There is clearly a disconnect right there.




And pavlogic is being returned to us in an abundance of biblical proportions.

Another disconnect right there.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2014)

overhang said:


> As VC summed up how many of these were in the name of atheism?  Most occurred by people who just happened to be a non believer, if you wanted to go down this road then does that mean that every single murder committed by someone who just happens to be christian is a murder in the name of religion?



Or equally that, because so many of the priests who so hideously abused little children were Catholic, they did it in the name of Catholicism.


----------



## cynic (26 February 2014)

This may be news to some (not all) posters, but a fact is a fact and an opinion is an opinion. Whilst opinions can often be seen to differ, facts always concur! 

Also it seems we have a gifted mystic in our presence! A necromancer of such potency as to be able to discern the intent of the long deceased.(Here I was thinking that certain posters didn't believe in God and "paranormal/supernatural" phenomena!).

Presuming to know the mind of Isaac Newton and other mystics simply isn't enough for some religious zealots, they claim to also know the mind of Adolf Hitler! 

Some(not all) atheists doth post overmuch methinks!

P.S. When one has lost a Catholic grandparent (whom happened to fall under Hitler's revised Jew criteria ), then maybe one can claim to know a little about Adolph Hitler and what actually happened during those terrible times!
Likewise, if one cannot demonstrate a working understanding of alchemy, chemistry, astrology, astronomy, calculus,the laws of motion and the connections between such concepts, then one cannot rightly claim to know the mind of Isaac Newton!


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Actually Hitler was a roman catholic, and his killing was down a religious line, He targeted Jews, who just happened to be a group subject to a lot of catholic hatred. And in his book mein kampf he said he is doing gods work, and his soldiers wore the slogan of "god with us" on their uniforms.
> 
> the Catholic church also never said a word against Hitler, though the apologised in recent times for that.
> 
> So unless Tink wants to accept Hitler as one of hers, don't go about pushing nonsense claims about murderous mad men onto atheism.




Errmmmm ... not quite old chum .....



> Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science.[10] In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf, he makes religious allusions, but declares himself neutral in sectarian matters and supportive of the separation between church and state, while criticising political Catholicism. He presented a nihilistic, Social Darwinist vision, in which the universe is ordered around principles of struggle between weak and strong, rather than on conventional Christian notions.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

I was of the understanding he was using this as a "cover" as 3 million Germans considered themselves as Catholics and only 5% declared themselves as atheists? Adolph Hitler could not have come into power without the support of the Protestant and Catholic churches and the German Christian populace who supported his campaign to eradicate the Jewish population as they were seen as inferior to Aryan Christians.

Then again I could be mistaken as you VC seem to hold all the cards on pushing nonsense.


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Presuming to know the mind of Isaac Newton and other mystics simply isn't enough for some religious zealots, they claim to also know the mind of Adolf Hitler!
> 
> !




When have I claimed to know the mind of Isaac newton? please provide a reference, I believe it was you that was claiming he only made his discoveries because he was religious, I don't believe I claimed to know why he made his discoveries, that was all you

I wonder why there is no comment from you as to Tinks claims about genocide loving atheist leaders, you only pick hitler out of the bunch.

The three things that I said about hitler, ie 1, he was a roman catholic, 2, he wrote in mein kampf he was doing gods work and 3, german soldiers had "god with us" on their uniform are not opinions I hold, they are facts.

Even if hitler wasn't religious, the authoritarian nazi party and the communist parties tink mentioned were state religions in their own right, a more sceptical approach by society would have prevented both things.


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Errmmmm ... not quite old chum .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Lets say your right and he wasn't catholic ( even though he was baptised ) 

His system was based on leader worship, which is a religion in itself. And even if that wasn't the case, as you quote said, his system was based on "social darwinisn" which is not atheism.

Atheism is one opinion on one topic, If you don't believe a god exists your an atheist, every thing else is something else.

Atheism is not social darwism.
Atheism is not communism or nazism
Atheism is not a system of leader worship.


----------



## burglar (26 February 2014)

Because I am of the opinion,
that Hitler-bashing does not belong in this thread,
I was wanting to start a separate thread on Hitler.

But I came unstuck immediately.
What would I use as a title?

Was Hitler a Catholic?
Hitler's first Big Mistake?
Hitler and Mussolini?

Borrowing from Spike Milligan;
"Hitler, and my part in his downfall"?

Something equally controversial or topical!?

Any ideas?


----------



## cynic (26 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> When have I claimed to know the mind of Isaac newton? please provide a reference, I believe it was you that was claiming he only made his discoveries because he was religious, I don't believe I claimed to know why he made his discoveries, that was all you



It would seem that bigotry and hypocrisy might be correlated!
I've taken the liberty of bolding a section of one of your posts to another thread:


Value Collector said:


> Well he is obviously not taking literal interpretation of the Qur'an, many would disagree with him. Just like many Christians would disagree with pav and CBC that atheists will go to heaven. There are as many opinion as there are religious people.
> 
> !
> 
> ...




I hope that you now recognise the wisdom contained in my admonition to the effect that those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't be asking questions!




Value Collector said:


> I wonder why there is no comment from you as to Tinks claims about genocide loving atheist leaders, you only pick hitler out of the bunch.



Wonder all you like! 


Value Collector said:


> The three things that I said about hitler, ie 1, he was a roman catholic, 2, he wrote in mein kampf he was doing gods work and 3, german soldiers had "god with us" on their uniform are not opinions I hold, they are facts.
> 
> Even if hitler wasn't religious, the authoritarian nazi party and the communist parties tink mentioned were state religions in their own right, a more sceptical approach by society would have prevented both things.




Well that sure is nice to know! However, it's not going to bring my grandfather back from the dead now is it?!

Do not presume to be qualified to lecture me on Nazism!!!


----------



## cynic (26 February 2014)

burglar said:


> Because I am of the opinion,
> that Hitler-bashing does not belong in this thread,
> I was wanting to start a separate thread on Hitler.
> 
> ...




Actually, I think historical dictators do offer some valuable examples of the dangers posed by the arrogant presumption of moral supremacy. Claims to intellectual and moral superiority can be seen to have permeated this thread since conference of its title.


----------



## bellenuit (26 February 2014)

*Atheism had nothing to do with the holocaust. Christianity however....*

http://www.digitalfreethought.com/blog/2014/02/21/atheism-nothing-holocaust-christianity-however/f


----------



## rumpole (26 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Atheism had nothing to do with the holocaust. Christianity however....*
> 
> http://www.digitalfreethought.com/blog/2014/02/21/atheism-nothing-holocaust-christianity-however/f




Atheism has a lot to do with the cultural revolution in China and the hideous North Korean regime.

Evil regimes don't like competition for superiority from religions and will destroy them when possible.


----------



## bellenuit (26 February 2014)

rumpole said:


> Atheism has a lot to do with the cultural revolution in China and the hideous North Korean regime.
> 
> Evil regimes don't like competition for superiority from religions and will destroy them when possible.




Yes, evil regimes will try and destroy anything that opposes or could oppose them. If there were a secular atheist organisation that had the same influence as the Catholic Church or other Christian churches, they would equally have been opposed by Mao or the North Koreans. Atheism is a statement about belief in the existence of a god or gods. Nothing more. There is no text or dogma to be followed. However, contrast that with some of the bible passages quoted in my previous post. And also some of those of Hitler. A direct encouragement to kill and eliminate those of a different sect/culture/religion.


----------



## cynic (26 February 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, evil regimes will try and destroy anything that opposes or could oppose them. If there were a secular atheist organisation that had the same influence as the Catholic Church or other Christian churches, they would equally have been opposed by Mao or the North Koreans. Atheism is a statement about belief in the existence of a god or gods. Nothing more. There is no text or dogma to be followed. However, contrast that with some of the bible passages quoted in my previous post. And also some of those of Hitler. A direct encouragement to kill and eliminate those of a different sect/culture/religion.




Am I to understand that the presiding communist governments in these evil regimes cannot be recognised as atheist organisations?


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

cynic said:


> 1, I hope that you now recognise the wisdom contained in my admonition to the effect that those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't be asking questions!
> 
> !




1, Your nonsensical replies continue, firstly i am not claiming to know newtons mind, he wrote down those things, he admitted that based on his calculations the planets orbit would not be stable over hundreds of years, he claimed a god must step in and make adjustments,

Let me say again, i didnt say this, he did in his own writings, just as i am not claiming to know hitlers mind, i am going of his own writings.


----------



## cynic (26 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> 1, Your nonsensical replies continue, firstly i am not claiming to know newtons mind, he wrote down those things, he admitted that based on his calculations the planets orbit would not be stable over hundreds of years, he claimed a god must step in and make adjustments,
> 
> Let me say again, i didnt say this, he did in his own writings, just as i am not claiming to know hitlers mind, i am going of his own writings.



As you opine from others' writings I opine from yours!

Again I have taken the liberty of bolding a portion of your post from another thread:


Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> I am not defining theist ideas, i am commenting on the ideas that have been presented to me, you then try to play down those ideas, and install your own, which is taking away from the fact that millions believe those ideas, so it is you who is trying to prune.
> 
> ...




That's strike two by my reckoning! 
Would you care to try for a third?


----------



## Value Collector (26 February 2014)

cynic said:


> As you opine from others' writings I opine from yours!
> 
> Again I have taken the liberty of bolding a portion of your post from another thread:
> 
> ...




The facts that Isaac Newton discovered about the universe don't rely on religion, if he hadn't discovered them eventually someone else would have. and as i said, if the great scientists that went before newton hadn't been punished for making discoveries, there is a good chance they may have been discovered before Isaac.


You like to blur the lines, you bait and switch. You say i am claiming to know his mind, when really i am just commenting on things he actually wrote, then you try and make out that the discoveries couldn't have been made without religion, which is false.


----------



## cynic (27 February 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The facts that Isaac Newton discovered about the universe don't rely on religion, if he hadn't discovered them eventually someone else would have. and as i said, if the great scientists that went before newton hadn't been punished for making discoveries, there is a good chance they may have been discovered before Isaac.
> 
> 
> You like to blur the lines, you bait and switch. You say i am claiming to know his mind, when really i am just commenting on things he actually wrote, then you try and make out that the discoveries couldn't have been made without religion, which is false.



Strike three! You're out! Thanks for playing! Do please come again!
Again from that other thread:


Value Collector said:


> Not if the Muslims are right, he worshipped a false god called Jesus. Isaac will be in the fire with me.
> 
> But you have to give some slack to Isaac, he lived hundreds of years before a lot of discoveries that would have filled the gaps in understanding he filled with god.
> 
> As amazing as he was, he had a lot of crazy ideas, we only accept his ideas that can be proven, just because you are extraordinary some fields does not make you an authority in all fields.




It is truly remarkable how easily indoctrination into one's personal religion can blind one to the evidence of one's very own words!


----------



## Value Collector (27 February 2014)

cynic said:


> Strike three! You're out! Thanks for playing! Do please come again!
> Again from that other thread:
> 
> 
> It is truly remarkable how easily indoctrination into one's personal religion can blind one to the evidence of one's very own words!




What, so now your saying he wasn't a Christian????

You seem to be forgetting the original thing you accused me of was claiming to know Isaac newtons mind. So far every comment I have made is based on things that are common knowledge based on his writings. 

I would ask you to go back and find some thing i have said which is not based on things he himself said or wrote, but it would be a waste of time, because your just going to come back with another nonsensical accusation, and when i have finally answered all your rubbish twisted questions and asked you again for a real example you'll say you have given examples already.

As i said, there is not one thing I have said about Isaac witch could be read by a rational person as me claiming to know his mind.

You however have still not given an example of how Richard Dawkins behaviour goes against his position of being an agnostic atheist.


----------



## cynic (27 February 2014)

The incapacity to recognise evidence conflicting with personal dogma is a common symptom of indoctrination.


----------



## Tink (27 February 2014)

These barbaric acts, be it religious or atheist, are evil.
I put this down to the individual person that is evil, and has no care for others.

Sadly, these evil people forget what Jesus taught us, to love one another as I have loved you.

Anyone that is put in these predicaments, be it these atrocities or war, mainly call for God for help and why? 
Why have people become like this. 

My main posting in here was that a healthy dose of both, science and religion, is good for society and both provide benefits for all.


----------



## Value Collector (27 February 2014)

cynic said:


> The incapacity to recognise evidence conflicting with personal dogma is a common symptom of indoctrination.




I know, but your a smart guy cynic, just keep taking baby steps and you will be able to overcome it.


----------



## Value Collector (27 February 2014)

Tink said:


> These barbaric acts, be it religious or atheist, are evil.
> I put this down to the individual person that is evil, and has no care for others.
> 
> Sadly, these evil people forget what Jesus taught us, to love one another as I have loved you.
> ...





North Korea is a good example of a country that practices leader worship, they are not atheist. North Korea is recognised as a theocratic state, so the deaths of Christians there is part of a religious conflict, which if you haven't guessed I would not be in favour of.


----------



## cynic (27 February 2014)

cynic said:


> The incapacity to recognise evidence conflicting with personal dogma is a common symptom of indoctrination.




Another common symptom of indoctrination is that those suffering it are easily able to recognise their personal failings in others but never themselves.


----------



## spooly74 (28 February 2014)

Some incredible advances in technology.
Cynic, I could see you in an invisibility cloak!
27 Science Fictions That Became Science Fact in 2012



			
				cynic said:
			
		

> What does a particle of dark matter actually weigh?



Good question, but firstly, you'd need to go to mass


----------



## spooly74 (28 February 2014)

A new way to read. 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/g...ur-reading-speed/story-fn81y8rt-1226838402029


----------



## cynic (28 February 2014)

spooly74 said:


> Some incredible advances in technology.
> Cynic, I could see you in an invisibility cloak!



Darn it! That means that "Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe" must have sold me another dud! 



spooly74 said:


> Good question, but firstly, you'd need to go to mass



I was wondering how long it was going to take people to notice! It's great to hear from a poster that shares my appreciation of science!

The last few times I went to mass, I was subjected to much criticism. I think I may have rediscovered critical mass!

Edit: For those unacquainted with physics, what spooly's jestfully alerting us to is the fact that, although weight and mass can be related, they are not synonymous. Even weightless physical bodies have mass.


----------



## bellenuit (2 March 2014)

You Share 98.7 Percent of Your DNA With This Sex-Obsessed Ape

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...onobos-neanderthals-denisovans-chromosome-two


----------



## Tink (3 March 2014)

Back to schools - 

A radio talk show which I thought explained it very well if anyone wants to hear. 
I wasn't sure how to add just the recording, so I am adding the page.

*Is teaching something that should be taught at home and not in the school classroom? *

Bringing God back into our lives, not what to believe, but the concept of what our culture was built upon.

http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/dont-expel-god-from-your-life/20140228-33pjz.html

The article - 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...drens-classrooms/story-fni0cwl5-1226839840326


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

Tink said:


> Back to schools -
> 
> A radio talk show which I thought explained it very well if anyone wants to hear.
> I wasn't sure how to add just the recording, so I am adding the page.
> ...




When they were talking about " Bringing god back to the classroom" the first thing i thought was "which god".

As I have said before in this thread, I would be happy to have a broad based history of religions taught as part of a history curriculum. It would be best suited to high school level though.

It could spend maybe two weeks of history lessons on each of the main religions from history, eg Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism, and others such as the Scandinavian, Mediterranean, African, aboriginal religions etc etc.

My high school did this in year 8 and year 9, it was very informative. And i would have no problem with it.

However if it was going to be the kind of Religious Education classes my primary school had where it was solely Christian based lessons taught as facts rather than myths, then i would not be ok with that.


----------



## Ruby (3 March 2014)

Tink said:


> Well, VC, maybe you should put down that crack pot Dawkins book, and do a little bit of study, and have a look at just how much religion/Christianity has given to society, our world that we live in.
> 
> While you sit and reap the benefits of what it has contributed in society, you don't think there is a place for religion in schools?
> 
> Open your eyes and go and find out where universities come from, where the scientific method came from, and why we are a civilised nation as we are.




By whose measure is he a crackpot?   Perhaps YOU should do a little bit of study Tink.  Have you ever read any of Richard Dawkins' books?   If you had, you would find him an extremely erudite and eloquent writer, well qualified in his subject.   His books on evolution are fascinating.  If you have *not *read any of his works, you are hardly qualified to condemn his as a 'crackpot', are you?

For your edification: during the Renaissance the church did its best to stamp out much of the new leaning and condemned scientists for suggesting that the solar system is heliocentric. (read about Galileo).  The scientific method had its roots in the times of the ancient Greeks - long before Christianity; and although modern universities can trace their origins to post Christian times, there were institutions of higher learning in ancient Greece too.   The Christian church cannot, by any stretch, claim to have given the world all that is good!!

No, there is no place for religion in schools because it is a faith based subject for which no evidence can be found.  If parents wish to teach their children about religion they can take them to their own religious centres.  I have no objection to that.  There is certainly a place in schools for learning about the history of religion, and how it has affected society - for good and bad - and that is now being taught in many schools.


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

If memory serves me correctly, the ancient Greeks weren't content with only one God - they actually had several!
Also worth noting is that the Platonic and/or Socratic dialogues can be used to logically invalidate our concept of reality!
It seems that even the results of our scientific methods cannot survive the rigorous application of pure logic. 

Now that we know our contemporary science is logically flawed, should it also be excluded from the education curriculum?!

Or perhaps science may only be allowable if taught in a mythical context?!


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Ruby said:


> By whose measure is he a crackpot?   Perhaps YOU should do a little bit of study Tink.  Have you ever read any of Richard Dawkins' books?   If you had, you would find him an extremely erudite and eloquent writer, well qualified in his subject.   His books on evolution are fascinating.  If you have *not *read any of his works, you are hardly qualified to condemn his as a 'crackpot', are you?
> ...




Actually Ruby, after watching an hour of Dawkins attempting to debate a certain creationist, my perceptions of Dawkins lowered dramatically. (Before then I was ambivalent but had heard many good things said about him.)
Although I am a big fan of evolution and largely in disagreeance with creationists, I cannot respect Dawkins behaviour. His dismal conduct throughout that debate was an embarassment to those true to the pursuit of science (irrespective of their theistic leanings or lack thereof).

Your rebuttal of Tink over not having read his books could equally be applied to Dawkins regular expression of contempt for subjects of which he is clearly unfamiliar and unwilling to seriously investigate.


----------



## Value Collector (3 March 2014)

cynic said:


> It seems that even the results of our scientific methods cannot survive the rigorous application of pure logic.
> 
> Now that we know our contemporary science is logically flawed, should it also be excluded from the education curriculum?!




How so?

Care to explain how the heliocentric theory is logically flawed?


----------



## cynic (3 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> How so?
> 
> Care to explain how the heliocentric theory is logically flawed?




Describe the heliocentric theory to me and I'll give it a shot.

Alternatively you may wish to take the time to examine the Platonic and Socratic dialogues and find out for yourself!


----------



## Value Collector (4 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Describe the heliocentric theory to me and I'll give it a shot.




The heliocentric theory is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System.


----------



## bellenuit (4 March 2014)

Talking Neanderthals challenge the origins of speech

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm


----------



## cynic (4 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The heliocentric theory is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System.



I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.

In the interim, if anyone is interested that is, I'd be happy to debunk certain popular misconceptions regarding Einstein's theory of relativity.


----------



## spooly74 (4 March 2014)

cynic said:


> I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.
> 
> In the interim, if anyone is interested that is, I'd be happy to debunk certain popular misconceptions regarding Einstein's theory of relativity.



I see Science and Philosophy as siblings, with one peeking over the others shoulder now and again.

Logic is sound tool once the premise is correct.

All elephants are pink
Nelly is an elephant
Nelly is pink



bellenuit said:


> Talking Neanderthals challenge the origins of speech
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm



Interesting.
I read an article recently that there now seems to be some data to suggest crows have developed language.
Parallel evolution?


----------



## Value Collector (4 March 2014)

cynic said:


> I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.




I'll be waiting, Be sure not to commit any logical fallacies or false premises. As spooly pointed out it is easy to confuse people with phony logic based on false premises.

I would especially like you to avoid your favourite logical fallacy of ambiguity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

*ambiguity*

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.

Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said 'Fine for parking here' and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.


----------



## cynic (4 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I'll be waiting, Be sure not to commit any logical fallacies or false premises. As spooly pointed out it is easy to confuse people with phony logic based on false premises.
> 
> I would especially like you to avoid your favourite logical fallacy of ambiguity.
> 
> ...



Yesterday I received an appeal to overlook a certain matter to which I'd taken offense. Out of respect to the appellant I chose to recognise that the discussion had indeed descended into a pointless cycle of accusation and counter accusation and decided to allow the matter to slide. I even chose to respond civilly to two subsequent questions from the offending party, despite my deep personal reservations regarding said party's intentions.

A further accusation has now been made in relation to the integrity of my postings. Clearly my efforts to engage in productive and meaningful discourse have been wasted.

P.S. For those genuinely interested, some reading materials may be found online. If any of you believe you can find fault in the logic and premises used throughout the Platonic/Socratic dialogues, I'd be happy to engage in meaningful discussion.


----------



## cynic (4 March 2014)

spooly74 said:


> I see Science and Philosophy as siblings, with one peeking over the others shoulder now and again.
> 
> Logic is sound tool once the premise is correct.
> 
> ...



I prefer to view the philosophy/science relationship in a slightly more ancestral context, i.e. both the parent and child are living today and the child bears some resemblance to the parent. Having sufficiently matured, the child is now able to engage in meaningful exchanges with the parent.

I think you know me well enough by now to know that I am no stranger to the application of logic!

If there was a logical flaw present throughout the sequence of that philosophical dialogue, neither I nor those present were able to spot it!


----------



## Value Collector (4 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Now that we know our contemporary science is logically flawed, should it also be excluded from the education curriculum?!
> 
> Or perhaps science may only be allowable if taught in a mythical context?!




Makes a bold claim



Value Collector said:


> How so?
> 
> Care to explain how the heliocentric theory is logically flawed?




Gets asked, to justify the claim



cynic said:


> I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.




Stalls



cynic said:


> If any of you believe you can find fault in the logic and premises used throughout the Platonic/Socratic dialogues, I'd be happy to engage in meaningful discussion.




Then moonwalks out of the conversation, shifting the burden of proof onto others to disprove the claim, which he still hasn't provided justification for. 

This is another logical fallacy, "the burden of proof"

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=816747


----------



## cynic (4 March 2014)

cynic said:


> P.S. For those genuinely interested, some reading materials may be found online. If any of you believe you can find fault in the logic and premises used throughout the Platonic/Socratic dialogues, I'd be happy to engage in meaningful discussion.




For those previously unaware, the burden of proof argument happens to be double edged - it cuts both ways!
Those willing to show the proof are likely to come unstuck as many proofs are contingent on factual assumptions or contingent on other proofs that themselves are contingent on factual assumptions etc.

Like so many other things in life, the philosophical dialogue can be seen to entail the sincere and earnest participation of both parties to the dialogue.


----------



## cynic (5 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> How so?
> 
> Care to explain how the heliocentric theory is logically flawed?






cynic said:


> Describe the heliocentric theory to me and I'll give it a shot.
> 
> Alternatively you may wish to take the time to examine the Platonic and Socratic dialogues and find out for yourself!






Value Collector said:


> The heliocentric theory is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System.




I believe many would agree, that there was a discernibly hostile tone present in responses (subsequent to the above quotes) that could be interpreted as malicious intent. 

No matter.

I offered to "give it a shot" and I stand by my offer. 

Please note that since I've been hastily rushed into this ahead of my research into the Platonic dialogues, I'll engage this to the extent of my current abilities and defer demonstration of the awesome power of Platonic philosophy for a later date.

I note that your description of heliocentric theory appears to be a nearly verbatim quote from wikipedia. (If I'd wanted wiki's take on this I'd have looked it up myself!)

In relation to heliocentric theory, would you like to give me your understanding, perceptions/opinions and reasoning?


----------



## Value Collector (5 March 2014)

cynic said:


> I note that your description of heliocentric theory appears to be a nearly verbatim quote from wikipedia. (If I'd wanted wiki's take on this I'd have looked it up myself!)
> 
> In relation to heliocentric theory, would you like to give me your understanding, perceptions/opinions and reasoning?




You didn't say you could prove a layman's understanding of a scientific theory could be shown to be illogical.

You said this.



> Now that we know our contemporary science is logically flawed, should it also be excluded from the education curriculum?!




So you were making a bold statement that contemporary science is logically flawed.

So I asked to show how this is the case by asking you to show the logical flaws in one of the most basic theories in science. So because you are claiming the very nature of science in general is flawed, I don't see how addressing my personal perceptions or opinions will prove your point.

You need to address the heliocentric theory as it is understood by the scientific consensus.

I know you are a fan of committing logical fallacies.

But by addressing my understanding of the scientific theory rather than the actual theory you are in danger of committing "The fallacy, fallacy"

eg -Fallacy fallacy is where, You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.

Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (5 March 2014)

cynic said:


> I believe many would agree, that there was a discernibly hostile tone present in responses (subsequent to the above quotes) that could be interpreted as malicious intent.
> 
> No matter.




Thought I would respond to this...

Erm no - I do not agree that there is a discernibly hostile tone, nor do I interpret a request for justification as malicious intent. I don't get a "hostile" tone from from VC I get a mildly exasperated tone and a sense of eyeball rolling...

But that might be because the tone I get from Cynic is kinda like this...

link


Cheers

Sir O


----------



## burglar (5 March 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> ... from VC I get a mildly exasperated tone and a sense of eyeball rolling ...




From your link:
I get that you are like the referee ... trying to make things right!
But I don't get who cynic is, ... or who, for that matter, VC is!?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (5 March 2014)

burglar said:


> From your link:
> I get that you are like the referee ... trying to make things right!
> But I don't get who cynic is, ... or who, for that matter, VC is!?




Did you read the words that went with the video?

One player "walks" into another one and then moments later all 6'2" of him folds like a wet noodle in an obvious attempt to appeal to the referee. The player who got walked into got red carded and sent off. 

I'm not the ref...I'm harder to fool.


----------



## cynic (5 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You didn't say you could prove a layman's understanding of a scientific theory could be shown to be illogical.
> 
> You said this.
> 
> ...



If I were to address any perception other than your own how will you recognise my answer to your question?


Value Collector said:


> You need to address the heliocentric theory as it is understood by the scientific consensus.



As previously stated, you'll need to give me your understanding of what that is!


Value Collector said:


> I know you are a fan of committing logical fallacies.



Yet more accusations! 
I recommend that one endeavours to know one's own mind before presuming to know the minds of others!


----------



## Ves (5 March 2014)

cynic said:


> As previously stated, you'll need to give me your understanding of what that is!



Those who don't want answers shouldn't ask questions.


----------



## cynic (5 March 2014)

Ves said:


> Those who don't want answers shouldn't ask questions.




+1

I couldn't have expressed it better myself!


----------



## cynic (5 March 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I'll be waiting, Be sure not to commit any logical fallacies or false premises. As spooly pointed out it is easy to confuse people with phony logic based on false premises.
> 
> I would especially like you to avoid your favourite logical fallacy of ambiguity.
> 
> ...






Value Collector said:


> Makes a bold claim
> 
> 
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> I believe many would agree, that there was a discernibly hostile tone present in responses (subsequent to the above quotes) that could be interpreted as malicious intent.
> 
> No matter.
> 
> ...






Sir Osisofliver said:


> Thought I would respond to this...
> 
> Erm no - I do not agree that there is a discernibly hostile tone, nor do I interpret a request for justification as malicious intent. I don't get a "hostile" tone from from VC I get a mildly exasperated tone and a sense of eyeball rolling...
> 
> ...




Thanks for your feedback Sir O.

Whilst I will not claim to impartiality, I believe that my comments were fair.




Sir Osisofliver said:


> Did you read the words that went with the video?
> 
> One player "walks" into another one and then moments later all 6'2" of him folds like a wet noodle in an obvious attempt to appeal to the referee. The player who got walked into got red carded and sent off.
> 
> I'm not the ref...I'm harder to fool.



That's good to know!

Amongst all the fascinating human capacities, there is the capacity for self-delusion.

Whilst again remembering that I do not claim to impartiality, I believe that self-delusion, like so many other concepts, is akin to a double edged blade (i.e. it cuts both ways).

Edit: 
As previously stated:


cynic said:


> No matter.


----------



## Ves (5 March 2014)

cynic said:


> I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one.



Can I also make another recommendation?   Read at least some Aristotle too, especially his replies to Plato's ideas.   Actually start with Aristotle,   some academics would agree that some of his criticisms of Plato's theory of forms and others would give you further insight into the dialogues and the various concepts and issues within.

Philosophy isn't a single static argument that is solidified in any one text or philospher. There is no one claim on truth or logical reasoning (just like science can help us determine what is fact or fiction, but cannot claim ultimate finality). It is a moving dialogue that,  only considering the Western world  (and willfully ignoring many other great thinkers!) has developed,  progressed (sometimes gone backwards) over many, many centuries.   Subjective beings (humans) cannot claim to see the full range of objective possibilities.   However,  true wisdom is proper knowledge of the probabilties and using systems of knowledge to ensure that the scales balance in our favour  (sometimes very closely). 

At any one point in time in science and philosophy we are the seeing the best working models that we have until that point in time,   sometimes there are two models working in apparent opposities,  maybe one will get wiped out, maybe they will both meet at some unknown realisation in the future.   They're both constantly faced with the need to use presuppositions,  but there is no other way of overcoming that hurdle that we currently know. One brick at a time,   we build our wall of knowledge, without much real insight into our true destination.

Despite constant abuse of its writings,  philosophy is much better at assisting you at becoming adept at critical thinking than it is at making you a bearer of the absolute truth that is in reality unobtainable.


----------



## cynic (5 March 2014)

Ves said:


> Can I also make another recommendation?   Read at least some Aristotle too, especially his replies to Plato's ideas.   Actually start with Aristotle,   some academics would agree that some of his criticisms of Plato's theory of forms and others would give you further insight into the dialogues and the various concepts and issues within.
> 
> Philosophy isn't a single static argument that is solidified in any one text or philospher. There is no one claim on truth or logical reasoning (just like science can help us determine what is fact or fiction, but cannot claim ultimate finality). It is a moving dialogue that,  only considering the Western world  (and willfully ignoring many other great thinkers!) has developed,  progressed (sometimes gone backwards) over many, many centuries.   Subjective beings (humans) cannot claim to see the full range of objective possibilities.   However,  true wisdom is proper knowledge of the probabilties and using systems of knowledge to ensure that the scales balance in our favour  (sometimes very closely).
> 
> ...




Thanks for your recommendations Ves.

From your observations (e.g. the challenges confronting human efforts at knowing the truth) I believe our perspectives are largely compatible.

Edit: Out of curiosity,(bearing in mind I haven't actually studied Aristotle's responses), do you believe that Aristotle's perspective to be immune to the dissections pursuant to Plato's theory of forms?


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (5 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for your feedback Sir O.
> 
> Whilst I will not claim to impartiality, I believe that my comments were fair.




Beliefs are hard to change...I prefer ideas and thoughts...and I also think actions speak louder than words.

I do not agree with your statement above. I think your actions accusing VC of malicious intent, is about as honest as the soccer player feigning injury for sympathy. Of course I could be wrong and you genuinely think that there is a vendetta of some kind against your viewpoint. Perhaps you even construe my words instead of polite disagreement as being "malicious" in some way, even though that is not my intent.



> That's good to know!
> Edit:
> As previously stated:




So I thought I would share something cynic...since you shared your experience of being harangued for expressing a theist viewpoint at a party.

Several years ago I'm travelling on a train, engrossed in a book when someone broke my concentration with the words "You should be ashamed of yourself." I looked around and said "Who, me?" Which was apparently all the engagement required for the mid thirties woman to claim that my choice in T-shirts was highly offensive, blathered on about how I needed to take Jesus into my life and stop hating the world and blah blah blah. (honestly I switched off after the first minute or so and just nodded and said ahuh a lot. The conversation continued till I stood up and turned around and showed the tour dates and locations for the band "Bad Religion" and told herit was the name of a band.

What's the point of my little story above? How about I ask some rhetorical questions...
Is it true? Was it even me in the story? How could I possibly validate my personal experience in a way that would meaningful impact in this discussion? How can anyone look at the above story and not think "It's a biased account."?

Cheers 

Sir O


----------



## cynic (6 March 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Beliefs are hard to change...I prefer ideas and thoughts...and I also think actions speak louder than words.
> 
> I do not agree with your statement above. I think your actions accusing VC of malicious intent, is about as honest as the soccer player feigning injury for sympathy. Of course I could be wrong and you genuinely think that there is a vendetta of some kind against your viewpoint.



 Yes! I sincerely do perceive efforts at suppressing the rights of myself (and many others) to hold to a personal viewpoint.


> Perhaps you even construe my words instead of polite disagreement as being "malicious" in some way, even though that is not my intent.



Not at all. When I read your post I was concerned that you may have been unaware of the full discourse between myself and VC and hence misunderstood my true motivations.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> So I thought I would share something cynic...since you shared your experience of being harangued for expressing a theist viewpoint at a party.
> 
> Several years ago I'm travelling on a train, engrossed in a book when someone broke my concentration with the words "You should be ashamed of yourself." I looked around and said "Who, me?" Which was apparently all the engagement required for the mid thirties woman to claim that my choice in T-shirts was highly offensive, blathered on about how I needed to take Jesus into my life and stop hating the world and blah blah blah. (honestly I switched off after the first minute or so and just nodded and said ahuh a lot. The conversation continued till I stood up and turned around and showed the tour dates and locations for the band "Bad Religion" and told herit was the name of a band.
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing that.

Based upon your rhetorical questions I am now nigh on convinced that you've misunderstood my reason/s for offering my (admittedly unverifiable) personal experiences within these threads. (However, given that I cannot claim to impartiality, it would be erroneous of me to presume to know the workings of your mind, especially this early in our juncture.)

When engaging with me, please bear in mind that I make no claim to the infallibility of any belief system (not even my own). I am of course aware that this sometimes gives rise to self contradictions, particularly when I choose to oppose others' assertive claims to supremacy of creed.

By the way, I consider it a privilege that you've taken the time to offer me your perspectives in this matter.

P.S. I was greatly impressed by the manner in which you engaged SCM a couple of years back.


----------



## trainspotter (6 March 2014)

Sums it up perfectly for me.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (6 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Yes! I sincerely do perceive efforts at suppressing the rights of myself (and many others) to hold to a personal viewpoint.
> 
> Not at all. When I read your post I was concerned that you may have been unaware of the full discourse between myself and VC and hence misunderstood my true motivations.
> 
> ...




Perhaps I'm not being clear...

On this forum if I make the extraordinary claim that QAN will be at $150 by the end of 2014 and left it at that...I would be breaching RG176 and be accused of stock ramping. Therefore I must provide validation fory assessment so that others can determine the validity of my claims. It might be worth it to assume that the same rigour should be used for other claims.....

For example...

(please excuse my paraphrase) You've claimed that some people have replaced theist "beliefs" with an atheist scientific "faith". You've even used language like indoctrination and conditioning.

So here is my very serious question Cynic. Since I am incapable of being an expert in many different scientific fields, sometimes I must trust others expertise. * When does trust and respect become belief and worship?*

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## cynic (6 March 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Perhaps I'm not being clear...
> 
> On this forum if I make the extraordinary claim that QAN will be at $150 by the end of 2014 and left it at that...I would be breaching RG176 and be accused of stock ramping. Therefore I must provide validation fory assessment so that others can determine the validity of my claims. It might be worth it to assume that the same rigour should be used for other claims.....
> 
> ...




My apologies for feeling the need to answer your question with a question, but, do you truly think that these words actually need to become what they (to the best of my understanding of my compact dictionary) already are?

I believe I've already opined that a recognisable similarity between human motivations and behaviours, in respect to their chosen (or impressed) theistic and non theistic belief systems, may still be seen to apply, irrespective of chosen nomenclature. However, the accommodations of such nomenclature, whilst unsurprising, are by no means crucial to the argument.

P.S. Perhaps it's just me, but I fear that we may still be viewing this matter from completely different angles. I have no desire to insult or frustrate any ASF participatants whose past contributions have earnt my respect many times over.

I am both happy and appreciative of your willingness to invest your time in continuance of this dialogue, but I'd like us to both be reasonably open and forthright here! 

I'd like to know and understand what it is we are each seeking to achieve with the continuance of this dialogue, as it is my sincere belief that achievement of a mutual understanding, can only enhance our prospects of a productive outcome from our respective time investment.


----------



## sptrawler (6 March 2014)

cynic said:


> My apologies for feeling the need to answer your question with a question, but, do you truly think that these words actually need to become what they (to the best of my understanding of my compact dictionary) already are?
> 
> I believe I've already opined that a recognisable similarity between human motivations and behaviours, in respect to their chosen (or impressed) theistic and non theistic belief systems, may still be seen to apply, irrespective of chosen nomenclature. However, the accommodations of such nomenclature, whilst unsurprising, are by no means crucial to the argument.
> 
> ...




Have you thought about joining the 'Big Bang Theory' forum? 
I'm sure you would find a multitude of people, that have similar enquiring minds. 
Creating banter with people that are more inclined to politics and investments, seems an obvious waste of your talents.
Unless it actually isn't a talent, but more of a pent up ego, trying to find an outlet. 
But an ego, that doesn't want to test itself, on a subject specific forum.


----------



## cynic (6 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Have you thought about joining the 'Big Bang Theory' forum?
> I'm sure you would find a multitude of people, that have similar enquiring minds.
> Creating banter with people that are more inclined to politics and investments, seems an obvious waste of your talents.
> Unless it actually isn't a talent, but more of a pent up ego, trying to find an outlet.
> But an ego, that doesn't want to test itself, on a subject specific forum.




+1 

However, please do remember that your profound observations can be seen to be a double edged blade (i.e. they cut both ways!)


----------



## Ves (6 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Have you thought about joining the 'Big Bang Theory' forum?
> I'm sure you would find a multitude of people, that have similar enquiring minds.



I went and had a quick look at this forum.    It's filled people who indulge in way too much pop culture talking about the show and other related pop culture.   I don't see any philosophy or science on here.... was your comment supposed to be a veiled insult?

If cynic is genuinely interested in other forums to expand his audience he'd be better off with something like the Phora.  Beware,  anything goes on there,  they do not limit ideology; so if you find certain ideologies offensive you may need to work around them or stay away.  

To be honest I'm not sure why people try to suggest that people would be better off if they go elsewhere. 

Cynic is welcome to post what he feels necessary in these threads.  That is why they call it a discussion board.


----------



## sptrawler (6 March 2014)

Ves said:


> I went and had a quick look at this forum.    It's filled people who indulge in way too much pop culture talking about the show and other related pop culture.   I don't see any philosophy or science on here.... was your comment supposed to be a veiled insult?
> 
> If cynic is genuinely interested in other forums to expand his audience he'd be better off with something like the Phora.  Beware,  anything goes on there,  they do not limit ideology; so if you find certain ideologies offensive you may need to work around them or stay away.
> 
> ...



It wasn't meant to be a veiled insult, Cynic has a very deep and thoughtfull ideas.
I was just wondering if they are given a fair airing on a stock forum. 
I would have thought, after numerous attempts to answer his questions were unsuccessful, he may have to look further afield for specific answers.
That is of course unless, you can answer them?
Maybe you could PM him/her.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (6 March 2014)

cynic said:


> My apologies for feeling the need to answer your question with a question, but, do you truly think that these words actually need to become what they (to the best of my understanding of my compact dictionary) already are?




What I'm attempting is to promote thoughts and discussion around this concept of "science being a theist belief". I don't feel the issue is as simple as you've painted it to be. Less absolute, more shades of grey. Hence why I asked the question. There is no right or wrong answer as it is a matter of opinion. I want your opinion on what separates a theist belief structure from trusting someone else's expertise. Where is the line in the sand...for you?







> I believe I've already opined that a recognisable similarity between human motivations and behaviours, in respect to their chosen (or impressed) theistic and non theistic belief systems, may still be seen to apply, irrespective of chosen nomenclature. However, the accommodations of such nomenclature, whilst unsurprising, are by no means crucial to the argument.




I think the words we use are important, because the words give concepts the proper framework. Trust is not a theist word. I am not a marine biologist, but when several of them raise the issue of coral bleaching, I trust that they are dealing in their speciality with integrity. I agree with you in part, that certainly some people display what looks from our external perspective as "faith". We however cannot see inside their heads and determine how much is non theist trust and how much is theist faith.







> P.S. Perhaps it's just me, but I fear that we may still be viewing this matter from completely different angles. I have no desire to insult or frustrate any ASF participatants whose past contributions have earnt my respect many times over.
> 
> I am both happy and appreciative of your willingness to invest your time in continuance of this dialogue, but I'd like us to both be reasonably open and forthright here!
> 
> I'd like to know and understand what it is we are each seeking to achieve with the continuance of this dialogue, as it is my sincere belief that achievement of a mutual understanding, can only enhance our prospects of a productive outcome from our respective time investment.




Don't worry, I'm awfully hard to offend. I hope I've clarified things for you. I'm looking for that glimpse inside your head, and hoping you'll share some interesting ideas with me.

Cheers 

Sir O


----------



## Julia (6 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> I give up.



I admire your stoicism in having persisted thus far.   
Solipsism at its best on display here.


----------



## sptrawler (6 March 2014)

Julia said:


> I admire your stoicism in having persisted thus far.
> Solipsism at its best on display here.




Unfortunately, when burglar deleted his post, I couldn't remember why I posted my response.

Therefore like the rest of the thread, I deleted it, as it appeared meaningless. 
I think? was it? I'm not sure? What was the question.lol

Where is cynic, when you need him, he could get me back on thread, or track, or therapy.


----------



## cynic (6 March 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Unfortunately, when burglar deleted his post, I couldn't remember why I posted my response.
> 
> Therefore like the rest of the thread, I deleted it, as it appeared meaningless.
> I think? was it? I'm not sure? What was the question.lol
> ...




Apologies!

I get a little distracted during DAX hours. If anyone has any doubts about the existence of hell just consult your nearest DAX trader, as they'll have been there once or twice this past week!

Edit: Don't worry about your forgotten question! The answer is yes! Yes! You can trust me on this!


----------



## sptrawler (7 March 2014)

burglar said:


> sptrawler has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.



Sorry, I hadn't looked there for ages.
Now all clear, open for abuse.lol
Jeez,I should have read them.


----------



## cynic (7 March 2014)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> What I'm attempting is to promote thoughts and discussion around this concept of "science being a theist belief". I don't feel the issue is as simple as you've painted it to be. Less absolute, more shades of grey. Hence why I asked the question. There is no right or wrong answer as it is a matter of opinion. I want your opinion on what separates a theist belief structure from trusting someone else's expertise. Where is the line in the sand...for you?




My line in the sand would be a circle encompassing both.

In the spirit of remaining aligned to our mutual intentions, I now offer some associated reasoning. I am of the opinion that it is far too soon for contemporary science to be asserting definitive positions on questions regarding divine existence and I sincerely hope that those engaged in scientific pursuits will conduct themselves with a healthy degree of openminded skepticism (e.g. be open to the entertainment of "paranormal" possibilites whilst maintaining a skeptical approach to the examination of any claims). 

If my beliefs in divine existence are incorrect then I sincerely hope that science makes sufficient discoveries to conclusively prove that to be the case. 
It may surprise some to know this, but, the knowledge that there may actually be an end to this absurd experience of consciousness would be more of a relief than an embarrassment. 

During a time of desperate need I sought an answer from divinity. The answer I received was not the answer I'd hoped for, but my question was answered nonetheless. 

Voila! Fifteen years later, I'm still here! I invite those annoyed by my presence to take the matter up with the divinity that told me "no exit"! If you manage to convince Her to change Her mind I'd be eternally grateful! Failing that, a definitive proof of Her non existence and my insanity would be equally beneficial.

In the interim, I continue to hope that science starts to uncover sufficient evidence to alleviate some of the antagonism experienced by myself, and others, on account of personal subscription to (as yet scientifcally unproven), mystical beliefs.


Sir Osisofliver said:


> I think the words we use are important, because the words give concepts the proper framework. Trust is not a theist word. I am not a marine biologist, but when several of them raise the issue of coral bleaching, I trust that they are dealing in their speciality with integrity. I agree with you in part, that certainly some people display what looks from our external perspective as "faith". We however cannot see inside their heads and determine how much is non theist trust and how much is theist faith.




Again I'll offer some of my opinions, although I must warn you this may seem repetitious. The fact that a word is often seen to have been used to describe an object or action by specialised practitioners doesn't necessarily specialise the use of the word, nor does it quarantine the word from general use.
I do understand that our language may eventually evolve to correlate general definitions with long standing fashions in regard to their popular usage by specialists. However, the contemporary definitions of the words under discussion, are, to the best of my understanding, accommodative of all belief systems, irrespective of theistic context or absence thereof.

To further elaborate on this I invite you to consider a word that is often associated with theism: "pray"

Throughout much of my life I've engaged in acts of prayer. Many of these prayers were directed towards divinity, and as such, could be seen as evidence of my subscription to theism. Others were directed towards my GP and could be viewed by many to be of a non theistic context. Had my GP not answered my prayers over the past several years, I very much doubt this post would ever have eventuated. Likewise, if divinity had not answered one very specific prayer, this post certainly would not have eventuated. The fact that I believe what I am saying here doesn't mean that others are under any obligation to amend their beliefs. It is simply my experience as I understand it and believe it to be. The fact that I believe I have communicated with divinity doesn't mean that I am correct in my understanding and beliefs regarding the existence of said divinity. Having experienced fallibility of former beliefs of which I was once confident, I consider it prudent to continually entertain the possibility that my fallibility persists. However, until I come to recognise additional failings, I cannot claim with any certainty as to whether or not this remains the case.(A wise man once told me that I was "a failure as a failure". He then went on to explain that I couldn't even manage to fail properly!)


Sir Osisofliver said:


> Don't worry, I'm awfully hard to offend. I hope I've clarified things for you. I'm looking for that glimpse inside your head, and hoping you'll share some interesting ideas with me.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Sir O



Thanks for your assurances.

I would love nothing more than for you to be able to have some brief experiences of the contents of my mind.

However, before embarking upon a quest for that which is potentially unknown, it is prudent to be prepared for unexpected eventualities

Bearing in mind that this may be my vanity speaking again, I offer the following caution. Based upon past experience of the general populace, glimpses of certain aspects of my mind have proven troubling for some. There is always the potential for new information and/or experiences to impact one's life in unexpected ways. If one's life experience is more satisfactory than not, then one might want to consider whether or not the acquisition of knowledge truly warrants the acceptance of any associated risks.This caution may be largely irrelevant to a person of such experience and intelligence as oneself, however, I have chosen to alert one to this possibility, no matter how remote it may seem, as I believe it would be negligent for me to do otherwise.


----------



## Tink (7 March 2014)

Agree Ves, and good on you, cynic, for sharing, and thanks


----------



## Ves (7 March 2014)

cynic said:


> Thanks for your recommendations Ves.



Cynic,  further to this,  and it's probably really important for the context of Plato / Socrates and the theory of forms.

The German transcendental idealists, especially Kant's concept of the thing-in-itself and further discussions by Schopenhauer (especially in_ the World as Will and Representation_), directly relate to discussion of the theory of forms and how they relate to the senses,  perception and knowledge.

Then of course there's Hume and Descartes and many others who all had different angles of discussions and conclusions about these issues.

The main hurdle with these sorts of discussions is that they need to be framed within the context of historical discussion (ie.  you need to go over all of the old ground to determine how best to define certain concepts) before you can build on them or disagree with them.   Which in itself can take a life time of dedication - that's the main reason I see it as an on-going dialogue - not so much providing "answers" to "questions" (as sptrawler deemed it).

There's a life-time of learning here and that's how it is best approached.   I won't pretend to know much except the very, very, very basics about some of these philosophers.


----------



## bellenuit (16 March 2014)

Very interesting, honest and thought provoking video. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=nj9uLK-Z1MM


----------



## spooly74 (17 March 2014)

Major announcement coming today rumoured to be the discovery of Gravitational Waves.
This is massive news. Nobel prize straight away if it can be confirmed.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/bicep2/

http://www.universetoday.com/110353...bject-have-gravitational-waves-been-detected/


----------



## bellenuit (18 March 2014)

*Shocked Physicist Learns His Big Bang Theory Is True*

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...nde-learns-his-big-bang-theory-is-true-video/


----------



## bellenuit (18 March 2014)

spooly74 said:


> Major announcement coming today rumoured to be the discovery of Gravitational Waves.
> This is massive news. Nobel prize straight away if it can be confirmed.
> 
> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/bicep2/
> ...




*Cosmic inflation: "Spectacular" discovery hailed.* 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974


----------



## bellenuit (25 March 2014)




----------



## bellenuit (30 March 2014)




----------



## bellenuit (7 April 2014)

*Meet the Prizewinning Catholic Biologist Creationists Can’t Stand*

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...holic-biologist-creationists-can-t-stand.html


----------



## bellenuit (7 April 2014)




----------



## Ruby (8 April 2014)

Bellenuit, I love your posts on this thread - particularly the little humanist video.  It is so true, and makes so much common sense.


----------



## Julia (8 April 2014)

How do I get the cat video to play?  Clicking on it brings no response.


----------



## Ves (8 April 2014)

Julia said:


> How do I get the cat video to play?  Clicking on it brings no response.



That is because it is not a video,  it is an image.


----------



## Julia (8 April 2014)

Ves said:


> That is because it is not a video,  it is an image.




OK, thank you.  I imagined, wrongly it seems, that Ruby was referring to the message which preceded hers.


----------



## CanOz (8 April 2014)

Julia said:


> How do I get the cat video to play?  Clicking on it brings no response.






I'm afraid i had a good laugh at your expense Julia...


----------



## bellenuit (8 April 2014)

Julia said:


> OK, thank you.  I imagined, wrongly it seems, that Ruby was referring to the message which preceded hers.




Julia, it's about 3 or 4 posts further up from the cat image. It's titled That's Humanism and is narrated by Stephen Fry


----------



## Julia (8 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> I'm afraid i had a good laugh at your expense Julia...



Of course you did.  Why am I not surprised?  Obviously nothing has changed in the last few months.   You could, of course, put me back on Ignore.

Thanks to Bellenuit for courtesy in directing me to the video to which Ruby was referring.
And to Ves for simply, but without rancour , pointing out where I'd been in error.


----------



## CanOz (8 April 2014)

Julia said:


> Of course you did.  Why am I not surprised?  Obviously nothing has changed in the last few months.   You could, of course, put me back on Ignore.
> 
> Thanks to Bellenuit for courtesy in directing me to the video to which Ruby was referring.
> And to Ves for simply, but without rancour , pointing out where I'd been in error.




err...I was having a laugh because i can relate to that, as we all can at one time or another...no harm intended...


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2014)

Very interesting talk by Richard Dawkins. The beginning may be a bit uncomfortable for some who see him as a """"""""militant"""""""" atheist, but from about 15 minutes in where he simply discusses his area of expertise, evolutionary biology, as applied to the topic of discussion, he is at his scientific best.


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2014)

*Fresh from raging at Neil deGrasse Tyson over the new "Cosmos" series, Creationists turn their attention to a new, and potentially more unsettling, science based program.*

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/fresh-from-raging-at-neil-degrasse.html


----------



## bellenuit (15 April 2014)

*Best of Sam Harris Amazing Arguments And Clever Comebacks*


----------



## trainspotter (15 April 2014)

The axolotl does not heal by scarring and is capable of the regeneration of entire lost appendages in a period of months, and, in certain cases, more vital structures. Some have indeed been found restoring the less vital parts of their brains. They can also readily accept transplants from other individuals, including eyes and parts of the brain””restoring these alien organs to full functionality. 

We as humans could learn a lot from the Axolotl. Add a bit of thyroxine and this causes the gills to be absorbed into the body and the lungs to fully develop, as well as causing the eyes to develop eyelids like surface-dwelling animals. Hey Presto ... adult salamander.

As God intended no doubt


----------



## bellenuit (16 April 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Fresh from raging at Neil deGrasse Tyson over the new "Cosmos" series, Creationists turn their attention to a new, and potentially more unsettling, science based program.*
> 
> http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/fresh-from-raging-at-neil-degrasse.html




*
Here’s something else oppressing Ken Ham*

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/04/15/heres-something-else-oppressing-ken-ham/


----------



## bellenuit (16 April 2014)

Same story, different perspectives


*Twenty-five Birmingham schools inspected over Islamist 'takeover plot'*

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...vestigated-over-islamist-takeover-allegations

*EXTREMIST MUSLIMS TRY TO BE HEADTEACHER AT 25 BIRMINGHAM SCHOOLS*

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/14/Jihadis-Try-To-Take-Over-25-Schools

*Extremist 'takeovers' in Birmingham schools?*

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-27024881


----------



## bellenuit (18 April 2014)

*Epigenetics Helps Explain Early Humans Appearance*

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...netics-helps-explain-early-humans-appearance/


----------



## bellenuit (24 April 2014)

Should be worth a watch when it is released. 

_Trailer for the feature documentary An Honest Liar, the story of James "The Amazing" Randi. Directed by Tyler Measom and Justin Weinstein._

[video=vimeo;91847894]http://vimeo.com/91847894[/video]


----------



## bellenuit (27 April 2014)

An area of science that is getting a lot of attention recently......

*Epigenetics 101: a beginner’s guide to explaining everything*

http://www.theguardian.com/science/.../25/epigenetics-beginners-guide-to-everything


----------



## bellenuit (6 May 2014)

Click the captions icon to turn on English subtitles.


----------



## bellenuit (6 May 2014)

In a similar vein. Apparently this video is banned in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.


----------



## bellenuit (7 May 2014)

*Things You Cannot Unsee (And What That Says About Your Brain)*

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-and-what-that-says-about-your-brain/361335/

Very interesting article. Perhaps before reading, gaze for a few moments at the image below and note in your mind what you see. Then read on....


----------



## bellenuit (9 May 2014)

*Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”*

*A Conversation with Ayaan Hirsi Ali*

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia




This is a long but interesting article of a conversation between Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

One quote from it.....

*Hirsi Ali*: _Here’s the thing, Sam. Some moderate Muslims hate me””and yes, that’s a strong word, but I think what they’ve said supports it””because I make them feel uncomfortable. The things I talk about put them in a state of dissonance that they can’t live with. Many of them seem to hate me more than they hate al-Qaida._


----------



## bellenuit (17 May 2014)

*'Biggest dinosaur ever' discovered*

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27441156


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *'Biggest dinosaur ever' discovered*
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27441156




That's a big drumstick bellenuit. The mind boggles at the size the KFC premises must have been in those days if they served up these to the local populace.


----------



## bellenuit (5 June 2014)

I guess this is why peer review is so important.....

*Gravitational waves turn to dust after claims of flawed analysis*

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/04/gravitational-wave-discovery-dust-big-bang-inflation?


----------



## bellenuit (14 June 2014)




----------



## bellenuit (20 June 2014)

Not exactly on topic for this thread, but I can't find a better one.

Very interesting audio illusion.

http://gizmodo.com/this-audio-illusion-will-make-you-never-trust-your-ears-1593113324


----------



## bellenuit (25 June 2014)

*Atheist Quotes*

http://www.askatheists.com/atheist-quotes


----------



## Julia (25 June 2014)

Those are very, very good.  I particularly liked this one:


> You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence.
> It is based on a deep seated need to believe.


----------



## bellenuit (1 July 2014)

*Ten Years at Saturn: Cassini’s 10 Greatest Pictures*

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr..._the_mission_s_greatest_images_of_saturn.html


----------



## Tink (26 July 2014)

Well looks like we can push up this thread now, religion and science, one in the same....

Alleluia


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2014)

> You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence.
> It is based on a deep seated need to believe.




I think you can convince "believers" with appropriate evidence that their belief is unfounded.

Can anyone provide some ?


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think you can convince "believers" with appropriate evidence that their belief is unfounded.
> 
> Can anyone provide some ?




There is certainly a lot of religious people that won't be convinced by evidence. Look at the number of people that still believe the Biblical creation story, There is vast amounts of evidence that goes against the creation story, however believers in it just reject the evidence in favour of their bible story.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> There is certainly a lot of religious people that won't be convinced by evidence. Look at the number of people that still believe the Biblical creation story, There is vast amounts of evidence that goes against the creation story, however believers in it just reject the evidence in favour of their bible story.




That's true, and it's sad. But I think that the numbers of those type of people are falling.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That's true, and it's sad. But I think that the numbers of those type of people are falling.




I was listening to an American radio channel that was discussing the issue, and apparently in the last 15years the Population of the USA is becoming more polarised in this Area. 

For decades there was a slow shift of beliefs away from the fundamentalist (bible is literally true crowd), across to the on the fence moderate crowd, But now the number of moderates is shrinking, while both the number of unbelievers and literalists is growing, It seems there is a big shift in both directions.

It seems this is being caused by a growing number of people becoming unbelievers due to a dislike of extremism and a growing acceptance of science, while on the other hand the Literalists have also been pushing hard to whip up emotional responses and attract people to their side.

I mean rubbish like this stuff doesn't help, the religious groups generate Millions of dollars to produce propaganda and misinformation like this.


----------



## Tink (26 July 2014)

Science was never made to discredit God 

Dawkins did that.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I was listening to an American radio channel that was discussing the issue, and apparently in the last 15years the Population of the USA is becoming more polarised in this Area.
> 
> For decades there was a slow shift of beliefs away from the fundamentalist (bible is literally true crowd), across to the on the fence moderate crowd, But now the number of moderates is shrinking, while both the number of unbelievers and literalists is growing, It seems there is a big shift in both directions.
> 
> ...





I wonder if they genuinely believe that or are they  just creating a market and playing to it.


----------



## Tink (26 July 2014)

You get extremes on both sides.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

Tink said:


> Science was never made to discredit God
> 
> Dawkins did that.




Science is about discovering truths, you can use science to test religious claims. But obviously there is no way to disprove something which people can't provide any evidence which can be tested and which they say exists outside space and time.

When it comes to science Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and evolutionary biology does disprove the biblical creation claims, but it doesn't disprove the god hypothesis in general, Dawkins distain for religion comes from the violence of religion, which we all should distain, and the way fundamentalists are trying to hijack science, which he cares very much about.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if they genuinely believe that or are they  just creating a market and playing to it.




I have watched a bunch of Eric hovind videos, and I have to say, I 100% believe that he is serious, his dad is Kent hovind, so he grew up brain washed. But this is the kind of beliefs that can happen when you are raised to take the bible as a literal truth, they are programmed to throw out anything that doesn't go along with their beliefs.


----------



## Value Collector (26 July 2014)

Tink said:


> You get extremes on both sides.




Such as!


----------



## bellenuit (26 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think you can convince "believers" with appropriate evidence that their belief is unfounded.
> 
> Can anyone provide some ?




Not wanting to rehash things said by others and on the other forum, but appropriate evidence will often be ignored. As I pointed to before, this is from the "Answers In Genesis" website that many creationists use as their information source.....

*By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.*

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/


----------



## SirRumpole (26 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Science is about discovering truths, you can use science to test religious claims. But obviously there is no way to disprove something which people can't provide any evidence which can be tested and which they say exists outside space and time.
> 
> When it comes to science Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and evolutionary biology does disprove the biblical creation claims, but it doesn't disprove the god hypothesis in general, Dawkins distain for religion comes from the violence of religion, which we all should distain, and the way fundamentalists are trying to hijack science, which he cares very much about.




I sometimes wonder if scientists hate the God hypothesis so much because they perceive that religion owns God and religion persecuted scientists like Gallileo.

If scientists thought of God as some super advanced scientist, would that make it any more palatable for them ?


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I sometimes wonder if scientists hate the God hypothesis so much because they perceive that religion owns God and religion persecuted scientists like Gallileo.
> 
> If scientists thought of God as some super advanced scientist, would that make it any more palatable for them ?




The lack of evidence is what makes it unpalatable, science is not about personal opinion.


----------



## Tink (27 July 2014)

VC, when bellenuit opened this thread, I said, good on them.
I have always said, you need a balance of both in society, religion and science.
The cold reality of science, with the warmth of religion.
I feel it has held this country well.
The rest is just debated on what we believe, which seems to go round in circles...

Such as -- we have a whole thread on climate change where scientists are debating, there is a war in there.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, when bellenuit opened this thread, I said, good on them.
> I have always said, you need a balance of both in society, religion and science.
> The cold reality of science, with the warmth of religion.
> I feel it has held this country well.
> ...




I was after some examples of extremism based on atheism, I really cant think of any.

Also, I really don't think science is cold, science is amazing, awe inspiring, refreshing.

What is the warmth religion gives, if you mean the sense of community and the joy of helping others, you certainly dont need religion for those. If you mean being told your not really going to die when your afraid of death, well yes i agree some delusions can provide comfort, but i find it very shallow.


----------



## Value Collector (27 July 2014)

Atheists are not immune to awe, Beauty and wonder.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VfW7mKnAJOM&list=PLEYkkLXrAD1w8vkLxJq_pw87fjp2z0FQx[/video]


----------



## bellenuit (29 July 2014)

*Catholicism and theistic evolution*

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/catholicism-and-theistic-evolution/


----------



## Value Collector (29 July 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *Catholicism and theistic evolution*
> 
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/catholicism-and-theistic-evolution/




They disserve a bit of credit for at least realising that they can't beat the scientific evidence that we evolved. 

It does seem crazy to me how they don't even consider the fact that their ancient myth might be just a made up story, The way they try and twist their little fairy tale to fit the scientific evidence we evolved amazes me. 

They can't just say perhaps Adam and eve were made up, they have to try and squish adam and eve and original sin into the evolution theory, saying pehaps they were the first in the line god gave souls to, its crazy.

It's true though that they have a lot of explaining to do, because once they admit adam and eve are not real, then the jesus myth falls apart also,


----------



## SirRumpole (29 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> They disserve a bit of credit for at least realising that they can't beat the scientific evidence that we evolved.
> 
> It does seem crazy to me how they don't even consider the fact that their ancient myth might be just a made up story, The way they try and twist their little fairy tale to fit the scientific evidence we evolved amazes me.
> 
> ...




Not quite. Most historians accept that Jesus actually existed, but we only have the Bible's word for what he actually did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


----------



## Value Collector (29 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Not quite. Most historians accept that Jesus actually existed, but we only have the Bible's word for what he actually did.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus




I was talking about the Jesus myth, eg Son of god, Born of a virgin, walks on water, resurrected from the dead etc.

There is debate over whether there was an actual man or men. who the Jesus myth was based on, But even if we take that for granted, and believe there was in fact an original "Jesus", who the stories are based on, It wouldn't mean any of the Mythical stories are true.

For example, Santa is based on a real person called St Nicolas, But that doesn't mean the stories of  North pole toy factories, Flying reindeer etc etc are true.

The Christian doctrine says it was necessary for Jesus to be Killed because of the original sin of adam and eve, with out adam and eve, the Jesus myth falls apart.


----------



## bellenuit (29 July 2014)

Value Collector said:


> They can't just say perhaps Adam and eve were made up, they have to try and squish adam and eve and original sin into the evolution theory, saying pehaps they were the first in the line god gave souls to, its crazy.




Cardinal Pell said as much when he was on Q&A last year with Dawkins. But unfortunately, even though Dawkins raised the question of where then does Original Sin fit in, I don't think it was ever answered by Pell. The topic moved on to something else I think.


----------



## bellenuit (3 August 2014)




----------



## Ruby (10 August 2014)

Tink said:


> Science was never made to discredit God
> 
> Dawkins did that.




Tink, this is another of your frequently illogical and totally unfounded comments!    

There have been many authors and philosophers before Richard Dawkins who have refuted the idea of god, and he is only one of many currently expressing the same views.   I would be willing to bet you have never read any of his books, so don't realise what an intelligent and erudite man he is, and therefore have no right to dismiss him as you do.  You are speaking from ignorance and bias.


----------



## bellenuit (29 August 2014)

*5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed*

http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed?


----------



## Ruby (29 August 2014)

bellenuit said:


> *5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed*
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed?




Good one, Bellenuit!   I hope Pavilion reads it....... with all his claims of 'eye witness accounts' and 'evidence'!


----------



## pavilion103 (29 August 2014)

bellenuit said:


> 5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed  http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed?




What an absolute load of shyte.

That article seems like a poor attempt at a troll more than anything!


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2014)

There is nothing but mind and its processes.


----------



## bellenuit (29 August 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> What an absolute load of shyte.




You claim to be well versed in the proof of the historicity of Jesus. Perhaps you could address the 5 points made and show why they are a load of shyte? That will give us an opportunity to compare arguments.


----------



## bellenuit (29 August 2014)

Frank Sinatra on God/Religion (from question 6 onwards). I would not have thought such an iconic American entertainer would be so forthright in his views on what is a very delicate topic in the US, particularly 50 years ago.

*Playboy Interview: Frank Sinatra*

http://longform.org/stories/playboy-interview-frank-sinatra


----------



## bellenuit (14 September 2014)

*Lost Early Christian ‘Gospel’ Has Apparently Been Rediscovered*

http://guardianlv.com/2014/09/lost-early-christian-gospel-has-apparently-been-rediscovered/

_What seems to be most noteworthy about the Didache is that in there is nothing that relates to the Apostle Paul’s Gospel. There is no record of atonement through Jesus’ blood and body and no reference to Jesus’ resurrection. In the Didache, it does talk about how Jesus was the one who carried the knowledge of both faith and life *but there was never any importance placed upon the figure of Jesus apart from the message he gave*. Forgiveness of a person’s sins in the Didache appeared to come from a consecrated life and doing good deeds for others._


----------



## bellenuit (21 September 2014)

*Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind*


----------



## bellenuit (9 October 2014)

*Proof of Life After Death? Not Quite*

http://web.randi.org/swift/no-this-study-is-not-evidence-for-life-after-death


----------



## bellenuit (16 October 2014)

*What is the Evidence for Evolution*


----------



## Ruby (16 October 2014)

Thanks Bellenuit - great little video!


----------



## Tink (28 October 2014)

I had posted this in another thread, just showing how much the Christian Churches had contributed through the years throughout History.

Being a Catholic, I have revolved around that Church.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 November 2014)

Value Collector: Is Islam inherently evil thread said:
			
		

> This is not the thread for it, but I would like to hear you explain why you believe your mind will survive the death of your brain, perhaps the religion and science thread.
> 
> Also, do all of the 10,000,000 species of animals have an after life, or just humans? or just the animals with conscious brains? or just apes? and if its just the animals with brains, how does the consciousness survive outside the brain?
> 
> so many questions, I would like to discuss.




If I knew the answers as to "how" these things happen, believe me I would have departed this veil of tears long ago.

Some time ago I saw a BBC documentary on life after death, which presented the story of George Rodonaia, an atheist Russian scientist who was run over by a car and was declared dead and put in a freezer for three days waiting for autopsy. During this time he travelled out of his body to another hospital where the wife of a friend of his had a baby. The child couldn't stop crying. Rodonaia says he was able to communicate with the child and found it had a broken hip.

When the doctors started to do the autopsy on Rodonaia they saw his eyes respond to light and revived him. He told his friend what was wrong with his child and the doctors confirmed this and fixed the child up. Unless Rodonaia went walkabout during the three days and then climbed back into the freezer, he could not have come about this information by physical means.

He tells the story here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5APwnghwDg

He later moved to the US and became a priest. 

The late Peter Brock said several times that when engaged in a motor race he sometimes floated out of his body and looked down on his car racing around the track, which if true indicates that we have a consciousness that can be seperated from our physical bodies.

Of course, the cynics will say that these stories are anecdotal, but I see no reason for either of these people to lie, and in Rodonaia's case at least his account of the child's injuries were confirmed by others.


----------



## herzy (7 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If I knew the answers as to "how" these things happen, believe me I would have departed this veil of tears long ago.
> 
> Some time ago I saw a BBC documentary on life after death, which presented the story of George Rodonaia, an atheist Russian scientist who was run over by a car and was declared dead and put in a freezer for three days waiting for autopsy. During this time he travelled out of his body to another hospital where the wife of a friend of his had a baby. The child couldn't stop crying. Rodonaia says he was able to communicate with the child and found it had a broken hip.
> 
> ...




Something that strikes me as particularly odd is that he then became a priest. What was it about his experience that lead him specifically to Christianity, as opposed to any other (or no formal) religion? In my mind it makes the story much less credible, and much more likely to be 'born again Christian' propaganda.


----------



## Value Collector (8 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Some time ago I saw a BBC documentary on life after death, which presented the story of George Rodonaia, an atheist Russian scientist who was run over by a car and was declared dead and put in a freezer for three days waiting for autopsy. During this time he travelled out of his body to another hospital where the wife of a friend of his had a baby. The child couldn't stop crying. Rodonaia says he was able to communicate with the child and found it had a broken hip.
> 
> .




Ok, firstly I must admit, this story stinks of religious propaganda, and I can't help thinking you must have had some preexisting belief in the after before watching this, and this just reinforced those. Because I can show you videos of people who seem just as sincere claiming every thing from seeing Bigfoot, being probed by aliens or being psychic and i bet you don't automatically start believing. 

Also if this is a real thing, why is he appearing on a cheap late night documentary, I mean if some one comes back to life after three days in a freezer, they would make history, and be written about in medical journals, where is the documented evidence proving he was dead for three days? I mean if we are discussing life after death, we need evidence he was dead.

And why is it only a strange isolated case from 1970's Russia we are hearing about, if this was a real thing that happens, out of 7billion people, surely we would see it happening more often.




> The late Peter Brock said several times that when engaged in a motor race he sometimes floated out of his body and looked down on his car racing around the track, which if true indicates that we have a consciousness that can be seperated from our physical bodies



.

Do you have any quotes of him making these claims?

Are you sure he wasn't meaning it metaphorically?

These two examples you give are quite weak, as I said, if it were any other topic you wouldn't believe, you must have wanted to believe something from the start.



> Of course, the cynics will say that these stories are anecdotal, but I see no reason for either of these people to lie




Well he could have been paid, or people can just be mistaken, not everyone thats wrong is a lier, a lot are just mistaken.

Eg, picture you I and walking down a road, we see black dog in the distance run out and get hit by a car and then land in the gutter, we are both shocked and look at each other and confirm we saw a dog get hit by a car, and for years will tell the story of the day we saw a dog get hit by a car, however in reality, we were not close enough to see, that what we thought was a dog, was actually a black garbage bag that blew into the street and got hit by a car, and no dog was really hit.

If pressed, we might say, "why would i lie" but really we were mistaken all along.


----------



## Value Collector (8 November 2014)

With over 50,000,000 people dying each year, why do we not hear more of this life after death experiences, 

Why could that guy seem to communicate with a baby, but not communicate with the adults in his story,?

Why are people that attend the thousands of funerals every day not being contacted by the dead? because if i had a life after my death and could communicate with the living like that guy suggested, I would surely be making a speech at my funeral.

All these stories are anecdotal, where is the real evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (8 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I had posted this in another thread, just showing how much the Christian Churches had contributed through the years throughout History.
> 
> Being a Catholic, I have revolved around that Church.





Lol, nice try Catholics. 

They left out the crusades, the inquisitions, the burning of innocent women as witches, the torturing and killing of non believers, the covering up of pedophilia, telling people in aids ridden Africa that condoms are immoral and many, many more horrible things.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Do you have any quotes of him making these claims?




I saw it in an interview once, if I find it I'll post it.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> With over 50,000,000 people dying each year, why do we not hear more of this life after death experiences,




Plenty of people have had near death experiences but you haven't bothered searching for the evidence.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> All these stories are anecdotal, where is the real evidence.




What evidence do you want ? 

Death of someone else, for those remaining is the same as someone you know being out of contact on the ocean. You just don't know what has happened to them, they may have reached an island or sunk in the ocean. You may hear from them sometime or you may not. There are some things that you just can't prove either way.

In any case, we will all find the truth one day. What we choose to believe in the meantime is irrelevant.


----------



## Value Collector (8 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Plenty of people have had near death experiences but you haven't bothered searching for the evidence.
> .




I have actually done quite a bit of reading on near death experiences, and there is no evidence that suggests they are anything other than a dream state, inside a brain that is malfunctioning and shutting down.

I had a dream a few weeks ago where Scarlet Johansson and I got intimate, Do you think that while I was asleep, My mind actually left my body, travelled round the world and had sex with Scarlet, off course not, its a dream, a person who is unconscious and dying can have vivid wild brain activity in the final stages, this is the most likely cause for those experiences.




> What evidence do you want ?




If we truly have a consciousness after death, I would like a lot more examples of people communicating after their death, eg. patients regularly having conversations with doctors after they die, murder victims providing evidence in court etc, I have been with a few people when they died, none of them ever spoke to me afterwards. 



> Death of someone else, for those remaining is the same as someone you know being out of contact on the ocean. You just don't know what has happened to them, they may have reached an island or sunk in the ocean. You may hear from them sometime or you may not



. 

Or their brain may have stopped functioning and now they don't exist.



> There are some things that you just can't prove either way.




Yes, like bigfoot, aliens probing red necks, fairies, unicorns but we don't believe that stuff.

And we can test people who claim to have out of body experiences, the James Randi foundation setup a test and offered a $1,000,000 prize, in years none of the people were able to pass the test.


----------



## Value Collector (8 November 2014)

Near Death experience explained.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I have actually done quite a bit of reading on near death experiences, and there is no evidence that suggests they are anything other than a dream state, inside a brain that is malfunctioning and shutting down.
> 
> I had a dream a few weeks ago where Scarlet Johansson and I got intimate, Do you think that while I was asleep, My mind actually left my body, travelled round the world and had sex with Scarlet, off course not, its a dream, a person who is unconscious and dying can have vivid wild brain activity in the final stages, this is the most likely cause for those experiences.
> 
> ...




Now you are getting inanely trivial.

Believe what you want, I don't give a stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (8 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Now you are getting inanely trivial.
> 
> .




Trivial???

All I have done is try and point out that these anecdotal stories of near death experiences can be explained by brain function, and don't actually prove there is a life after death.



> Believe what you want, I don't give a stuff




It's not about believing what I want to believe, It's about believing what is true. 

Do you care if your beliefs are true?

If you care that they are true, shouldn't you require more proof than a few anecdotal stories?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 November 2014)

> Do you care if your beliefs are true?




It would be nice to be able to prove beliefs but as I said there are things that cannot be proved one way or the other, so it comes down to belief.

 If you seek absolute evidence for life after death then you are going to be disappointed. As I also said before what we believe is irrelevant because we will all die and we will then find out the truth.

 I'm fascinated by your apparent need to refute the possibility of an afterlife. Why does it matter so much to you that people not believe in life after death ? What others believe about this subject does not influence how you live your life one iota so the argument although interesting, is irrelevant.


----------



## Value Collector (8 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It would be nice to be able to prove beliefs but as I said there are things that cannot be proved one way or the other, so it comes down to belief.
> 
> .




So why would you believe something which can not be proven?

It may not be possible to disprove it, But I think if it were true, there would be ways to prove it, so the fact that it is unproven, leads me to think it is more than likely not true.

The logical position would be to claim unbelieving Agnosticism on the subject.



> If you seek absolute evidence for life after death then you are going to be disappointed. As I also said before what we believe is irrelevant because we will all die and we will then find out the truth.




Beliefs inform your actions, So the things you believe are not irrelevant.



> I'm fascinated by your apparent need to refute the possibility of an afterlife. Why does it matter so much to you that people not believe in life after death ? What others believe about this subject does not influence how you live your life one iota so the argument although interesting, is irrelevant




I don't have a need to refute an after life, If there was an after life it would be one of the most interesting topics I know of, and I would want to learn more about it. So when someone says they have evidence of one, I will always look into it, and if I find the person has made logical mistakes, I will try and explain that to them.

During my life I have believed all sorts of nonsense, But over time I have learned that it is much more important to believe things that are true, and I have developed a very sceptical mindset, my scepticism is very important to me, I feel it leads me to make better life decisions, and makes me a better person. So when I come across people who are basing parts of their life on unfounded beliefs, I sometimes ask questions to try and inspire a little scepticism in them.

I feel the more true things you believe and the less false things you believe the better, but one of the questions I always ask is "Do you care if the things you believe are true", if the person says "No, I just want to believe them because it makes me feel good", that's fine, I don't press on, But if the person says "yes, I do care", then I feel a responsibility to help that person identify areas where they are making logical mistakes,


----------



## Julia (8 November 2014)

Whether there is some sort of spiritual after life is an interesting subject and the discussion worth having imo, not because anyone is likely to prove or disprove it, but rather because it's fascinating to know what people believe.
It's probably a parallel belief to religion, ie a comfort in the face of the end of life.

My late father, although despising religion, had what to me was a weird conviction that there was another dimension.  A few years before he died I suggested he promise to send me a sign of his continued 'existence' when he died.  He agreed.

So he eventually did die, suicide.  I waited for the communication.  One night in the small hours, I was wakened by what sounded like soft, regular breathing.  I thought "wow, here's father, come to keep his promise".  I waited for something more, some words perhaps?   Nothing at all, but the breathing noise continued.  It happened on a few more occasions, seeming to come from outside rather than within the room.  So I got out of bed and followed the sound.  It was a small creature, no idea exactly what, about the size of a hedgehog but without prickles, that was snuffling its way round, presumably looking for food.

So nothing happening on that front.

But separately, a few years later I was walking past his house, then tenanted and spoke with the tenants outside.  Nice, ordinary people, middle aged, unimaginative.  I mentioned it had been my father's house, how were the fruit trees etc.  They said they loved the house and garden but had to move on, looking uncomfortable as they said this.  When I pressed them, they said in some embarrassment that they felt there was a 'presence' in the house.   The woman described how she would be woken in the night by the sense of someone sitting on the bed in the main bedroom.  She then said she had the sensation that the person was wet, entirely drenched, and in pain.

It so happens that my father drowned himself. She said she had no idea of the method of my father's death.
Now, I have no idea whether there's anything in this or not.  Perhaps in fact this woman was more imaginative than I'd judged, maybe a neighbour might have mentioned something about the drowning, maybe they were just restless people who moved often.

I don't have any belief that there is anything after I die, but vaguely think it would be rather nice if I did have.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 November 2014)

A very interesting story Julia, and my condolences regarding your father and the means of his death.

Anecdotes like yours abound, proving nothing in themselves, but they all add up towards perhaps a meaningful conclusion. The fact that your tenants had no idea of your fathers departing or its means but had sensations that describe it could be considered a form of unbiased evidence.

My late mother reported having a vision of our neighbor in our house, the next morning we learnt of the death of our neighbor from natural causes. My mother didn't lie about anything and her degree of upset when she told me of her vision was enough to confirm to me that her experience was real.

Of course, the cynics will dismiss these type of events, but I don't particularly care. As I say, they all add up.


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

> Anecdotes like yours abound, proving nothing in themselves, but they all add up towards perhaps a meaningful conclusion. The fact that your tenants had no idea of your fathers departing or its means but had sensations that describe it could be considered a form of unbiased evidence



.

Not at all, many anecdotal stories do not add up to proof, do you accept the multiple stories of alien abduction as proof earth is regularly visited by aliens?

it hasn't actually been shown that the tenants didn't know, I couldn't imagine the topic would have been skipped by the neighbourhood gossip cycle.


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Whether there is some sort of spiritual after life is an interesting subject and the discussion worth having imo, not because anyone is likely to prove or disprove it, but rather because it's fascinating to know what people believe.
> It's probably a parallel belief to religion, ie a comfort in the face of the end of life.
> 
> My late father, although despising religion, had what to me was a weird conviction that there was another dimension.  A few years before he died I suggested he promise to send me a sign of his continued 'existence' when he died.  He agreed.
> ...




Thanks for sharing your story Julia,

thats actually a funny story about the breathing you thought was your father, You can probably see how many people have had experiences like this and not investigated, and instead just gone ahead believing that they have had a supernatural encounter, you can also see how people can jump to supernatural conclusions which are completely unjustified.

I have not been immune to such things, I once was convinced there was a ghost in my bathroom, every night as I was going to sleep my toilet would make sounds like someone was playing flicking the water, this went on for weeks, every night just as i turned the lights off and tried to sleep. later i learned we had a partial blockage in the pipe, and my routine of having a shower just before bed was causing the water pressure in the pipe to cause bubbles to pop up in the toilet. If I had a relative pass, perhaps I would have thought it was him.

My partner who used to really believe in ghosts was regularly jumping to conclusions of ghosts, at her cousins funeral a family photo was taken, the photo made it look like it was snowing, the whole family said this was because the cousin who has passed loved the snow, and was showing his presence. however i did some research, and the snowing effect was a common thing that happens in low light condition photos.

another time we traveled to New Zealand for my grandmothers funeral, me and my partner were sleeping on an air bed in the lounge room, with my auntie on the couch, My partner woke me up terrified that my dead grandmothers ghost was outside the window breathing. We sat there for a few minutes and i couldn't here anything, she was convinced breathing was coming out the window, finally I said, all i could here was my aunties faint snoring, when my partner finally moved her head, she realised she was hearing my aunties snoring, and having one ear down on the pillow was creating an audio illusion of the sound coming from the other side.

in regards to your tenant, I wouldn't write of the possibility that they have heard your dad's story, and why is it so many of these ghost encounters happen at night, as people are drifting off to sleep? Could it be that when people are in the dark, and quite, and able to hear faint sounds they normally can't, and are in a semi dream state as they slowly drift off to sleep imagine these things?


----------



## Julia (9 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> .
> 
> Not at all, many anecdotal stories do not add up to proof, do you accept the multiple stories of alien abduction as proof earth is regularly visited by aliens?
> 
> it hasn't actually been shown that the tenants didn't know, I couldn't imagine the topic would have been skipped by the neighbourhood gossip cycle.



I thought Rumpole's response was interesting in that (no offence intended, Rumpole) he seemed to discount my thought that perhaps a neighbour had mentioned the way my father died) and accept that the tenants' account of their experience likely did indicate some spiritual event.  Goes to the way we naturally seek confirmation of existing views.



Value Collector said:


> Thanks for sharing your story Julia,
> 
> thats actually a funny story about the breathing you thought was your father, You can probably see how many people have had experiences like this and not investigated, and instead just gone ahead believing that they have had a supernatural encounter, you can also see how people can jump to supernatural conclusions which are completely unjustified.



Yes, I told it because it was funny and because at the time I felt pretty foolish for even entertaining the thought that it was my father's breathing.

(This is off topic, but I'm reminded of another instance when I was even more stupid:  became aware of a sound which seemed to be coming in from open windows of a chirping bird, becoming annoying when it continued even at night.  Bloody thing was keeping me awake.  Asked a neighbour if he'd heard it.  No.  When I described it, he very courteously explained that it was the smoke alarm battery!)    Had never had one before, didn't know it made that sound when battery needed replacing.



> why is it so many of these ghost encounters happen at night, as people are drifting off to sleep? Could it be that when people are in the dark, and quite, and able to hear faint sounds they normally can't, and are in a semi dream state as they slowly drift off to sleep imagine these things?



Yes, not dissimilar to the sense one has when emerging from a dream when the dream seems totally real.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 November 2014)

Julia said:
			
		

> I thought Rumpole's response was interesting in that (no offence intended, Rumpole) he seemed to discount my thought that perhaps a neighbour had mentioned the way my father died) and accept that the tenants' account of their experience likely did indicate some spiritual event. Goes to the way we naturally seek confirmation of existing views.




You are correct, and later I thought I should have written *if* your tenants did not know of your fathers passing... etc. It would be interesting to confirm whether they did or not, but if they have moved out it would not be worth pursuing. However, if it transpired that they were not aware of the events, what would one's conclusion be ?

I suppose VC is would say that my mother was on drugs when she saw my dead neighbor, but I can assure him that is not the case.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 November 2014)

Julia said:
			
		

> Goes to the way we naturally seek confirmation of existing views.




Indeed, but there is also *rejection bias* in which one rejects all evidence of something that they don't personally believe in. There is plenty of that going around as well.


----------



## Calliope (9 November 2014)

Since experiencing a weird and inexplicable sighting when I was 14, I have always been interested in the relationship between poltergeist activity and adolescence.

I find this stuff intriguing.

http://weirdaustralia.com/2011/10/22/poltergeist-rocks-town-the-stone-throwing-ghost-of-guyra/


----------



## bellenuit (9 November 2014)

I may have posted this TED talk elsewhere, but it gives an intriguing insight into the mind as it begins to shut down following a stroke. In this case it happened to a brain scientist and her experience gives perhaps an explanation of things like near death experiences and dreams. It certainly could be an explanation for many seemingly mysterious experiences that people have.

*Jill Bolte Taylor: My stroke of insight *

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Yes, not dissimilar to the sense one has when emerging from a dream when the dream seems totally real.




Yes, i catch myself in that state sometimes, as I lay in bed before I got to sleep, I often run over numbers and do calculations relating to investment ideas i have had, sometimes Even though I think I am awake, My thought process moves from rational calculations into the weird and wonderful dream world, I often catch this happening and wake up and giggle at the silly direction my brain went.


----------



## Julia (9 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed, but there is also *rejection bias* in which one rejects all evidence of something that they don't personally believe in. There is plenty of that going around as well.



Sure.


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose VC is would say that my mother was on drugs when she saw my dead neighbor, but I can assure him that is not the case.




I wouldn't have said your mother was on drugs, but it would have been interesting to interview her right after the vision, find out what she saw, have her explain it, and then interview her after she found out what happened, normally in situations like this the story grows, and all sorts of details are added to the vision retelling later.

Stuff like dÃ©jÃ  vu, also gets people thinking they can see into the future, even though dÃ©jÃ  vu, is getting to be an understood brain short circuit, it doesn't stop people thinking they can see visions.


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed, but there is also *rejection bias* in which one rejects all evidence of something that they don't personally believe in. There is plenty of that going around as well.




You actually have to present evidence before I can reject it, anecdotal stories are not evidence. i can demonstrate that fact by asking you why you don't believe in all the other unproven anecdotal stories which you don't have a pre existing notion of.

Eg. Big foot, why don't you just believe every story ever told of big foot, the people making those claims will tell they are honest, not drug takers and actually believe they saw a big foot, ( or insert Loch Ness monster, ufo's, angels etc etc)

Things that are asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. 

I am not standing here saying "No evidence will convince me" I am saying " I want to be convinced by evidence." 

I am a sceptic, not a cynic, I have no sacred beliefs, I am willing to change my world view and discard even my most cherished belief, as long as I can be convinced by real evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

Here is a picture of what cameras can sometimes do in low light conditions, it's not the actual photo, but the same affect that happened in the family photo taken after my partners cousins funeral, they jumped to the conclusion that it was the dead cousins presence that made the photo look like it was snowing.

however, as it turns out it is just a very common problem in low light conditions, still nothing can convince some of the family that its not supernatural. 

If you google orbs, there is actually a whole sub group of ghost and paranormal believers that believe this is supernatural and the result of spirits, even though the science behind it is very well understood, and the effect can be replicated by adjusting settings on most cameras.


----------



## herzy (9 November 2014)

I agree, I'm a bit dubious of a 'rejection bias' idea to justify faith in anecdotes: the whole principle of science/emperialism is that we SHOULD reject ideas until we're provided sufficient proof. 

A suggestion that we should lower this standard to allow for some leeway/faith is to depart from rationality and delve into blind faith. 

I also agree with VC that memories are extremely malleable. What may have started out with your mother having a vague sense of unease (or stronger) from a half-remembered dream, could easily become a genuinely held belief of a clear premonition later on. 

This problem has been explored in depth in the courts, due to the (lack of) reliability of witnesses - it's been shown that memories are extremely influenced by subsequent events (such as news reports, subsequent evidence coming to light, etc), despite these witnesses being 100% certain that their memory is accurate.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I wouldn't have said your mother was on drugs, but it would have been interesting to interview her right after the vision, find out what she saw, have her explain it, and then interview her after she found out what happened, normally in situations like this the story grows, and all sorts of details are added to the vision retelling later.




Unfortunately it's too late now to interview my mother, but I agree we can't take things on face value.

I while ago I had a strange experience. A buzzing noise was coming seemingly from the roof of my house. Then it turned into a rattling as though the nails in my tin roof were being shaken off. The noise was so loud I thought the house was coming apart. I had to go to work, but I asked told my neighbor about it (not the one who died), and his son came over while I was at work and he heard it too.

When I got home from work, it was still going, and was coming from all over the house. If I put a hand on the wall, I could feel it vibrating. After going around the house feeling the walls, I could tell the noise was stronger in the bathroom. A few minutes later I found the source. A battery powered shaver which was sitting on a plastic tray on a handrail was sending a vibration up the walls into the roof. Turn razor off, no noise, problem solved.

If the razor's battery ran down while I was at work, I never would have found the source and may have thought I was haunted. I think there are a lot of low frequency sound sources from electrical equipment like refrigerators that in the right conditions can set up resonant vibrations in houses and can sound like moaning etc. Of course a lot of stuff can't be explained by this, but the mundane explanations should be eliminated before we go further.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Eg. Big foot, why don't you just believe every story ever told of big foot, the people making those claims will tell they are honest, not drug takers and actually believe they saw a big foot, ( or insert Loch Ness monster, ufo's, angels etc etc)




There is always going to be a problem with transient phenomena like the examples you quoted. Unless they co-operate and hang around long enough to be investigated all we have is anecdotal testimony.

 That doesn't mean that anecdotal evidence should be discounted. If you weren't there you simply can't say whether people are mistaken or not. While loonies, hoaxers, lonely people wanting attention will always be around, the social consequences of reporting something unusual usually discourages people from talking about such things, unless they have a real conviction for doing so.


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

Here is a good explanation of the most likely cause a dÃ©jÃ  vu. We have all had it, for a moment we have all thought we had experienced this situation before in a vision, but no, its just our brain fooling us again.

its actually a really informative video, it only goes for 6mins, I think you guys will really get something out of it.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CSf8i8bHIns[/video]


----------



## Value Collector (9 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There is always going to be a problem with transient phenomena like the examples you quoted. Unless they co-operate and hang around long enough to be investigated all we have is anecdotal testimony.




Yes, but with 50,000,000 people dying each year, wouldn't we have a lot more examples to work with, wouldn't with such large volumes of spirits getting around we should have testable data regularly.

What about all the examples of people who have said they will come back if there is an after life, Harry Houdini the famous magician and less famous sceptic and buster of psychics promised when he died, no matter what the cost to his immortal soul, he would come back and let us know, An annual seance has be held by his family and friends for the last 70 years, he has never showed.

Also, is it all 10,000,000 species of animals that have after lives, or just humans? What about chimps? 

And why is that these things mostly happen at night when we are close to sleep in the dark, when we are so close to dream state. And why have i not been visited?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Here is a good explanation of the most likely cause a dÃ©jÃ  vu. We have all had it, for a moment we have all thought we had experienced this situation before in a vision, but no, its just our brain fooling us again.
> 
> its actually a really informative video, it only goes for 6mins, I think you guys will really get something out of it.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CSf8i8bHIns[/video]




Can't see the association with life after death, but at least I know I'm not going senile because I can't remember obscure people or places.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, but with 50,000,000 people dying each year, wouldn't we have a lot more examples to work with, wouldn't with such large volumes of spirits getting around we should have testable data regularly.




Not necessarily. If people go into another dimension when they die what makes you think we should be able to see them ? We can only see three dimensions.



> What about all the examples of people who have said they will come back if there is an after life, Harry Houdini the famous magician and less famous sceptic and buster of psychics promised when he died, no matter what the cost to his immortal soul, he would come back and let us know, An annual seance has be held by his family and friends for the last 70 years, he has never showed.




People who are unaware of how things operate after they die made promises they couldn't keep.



> Also, is it all 10,000,000 species of animals that have after lives, or just humans? What about chimps?




Who knows ? Do you talk to many chimps ?



> And why is that these things mostly happen at night when we are close to sleep in the dark, when we are so close to dream state.




Perhaps our minds are more relaxed at that time.



> And why have i not been visited?




What makes you think you are anything special ?


----------



## pavilion103 (9 November 2014)

Lol drilled. Good work!


----------



## Julia (9 November 2014)

herzy said:


> I agree, I'm a bit dubious of a 'rejection bias' idea to justify faith in anecdotes: the whole principle of science/emperialism is that we SHOULD reject ideas until we're provided sufficient proof.
> 
> A suggestion that we should lower this standard to allow for some leeway/faith is to depart from rationality and delve into blind faith.



What I was actually thinking of when agreeing with Rumpole that 'rejection bias' exists is climate change, rather than some supernatural anecdotal account.

I'm sceptical about the degree to which anthropogenic factors are responsible, and this probably renders my attitude biased against some of the very hysterical claims about civilisation being doomed.
(This is not any wish on my part to divert the thread into anything to do with climate change, hell no, but just an explanation of why I agreed that such a bias does exist.)


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Not necessarily. If people go into another dimension when they die what makes you think we should be able to see them ? We can only see three dimensions.
> 
> 
> 
> ?




Well if we can't see, hear or sense them in anyway, that kind off blows your anecdotal stories out of the water.

Firstly your saying the evidence is that people have experienced them, now your saying we can't, because they are in another dimension, also before we jump to conclusions about things existing in other dimensions, you should probably focus on proving other dimensions exist.



> People who are unaware of how things operate after they die made promises they couldn't keep



.

Ok, so these spirits seem to be able to come into our dimension to creepily watch people sleep, but can't fulfil a mission they said they would? 


> Who knows ? Do you talk to many chimps ?




Whats me talking to chimps got to do with anything? I am wondering if people around north sydney have been woken in their sleep by the ghosts of chimps that passed away at Toronga zoo, or the ghosts of rats? 



> Perhaps our minds are more relaxed at that time



.

No doubt the are, and this relaxation probably put them in a dream state.



> What makes you think you are anything special




Well friends and family want to spend time with me while they were alive, why not when they are dead?

Do ghosts only visit certain kinds of people?


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Can't see the association with life after death, but at least I know I'm not going senile because I can't remember obscure people or places.




Deja vu is just another example of the way people can trick them selves into thinking they have had visions. 

Its another phenomena that the majority of people don't understand, so they jump to supernatural conclusions, I have also heard people use their own dÃ©jÃ  vu experiences as a reason to believe in psychics, they said "even I get mini little glimpse into the future sometimes, you know like dÃ©jÃ  vu, so why wouldn't I believe others have learned to hone this skill"

When you not a sceptical person, you set yourself up to be taken advantage of by hucksters selling all sorts of flim flam, whether than be religion, psychic readings, homeopathy, mystic healing etc etc

A healthy level of scepticism is the only way to protect yourself from the next charlatan your encounter, other wise you will end up like Pav.


----------



## Tink (10 November 2014)

VC, you just go on and on with no concept of what religion has actually contributed in society.

You really must be devoid of any beauty or warmth, from language, to music, to architecture, the list goes on.
Do you know the depth of what religion has contributed?

Where does morality come from?

If you are talking about, survival of the fittest, yes, you are on the right path to just thinking about yourself, but religion has always been about caring about others and giving.

Why do you keep saying, can't we make up our own set of rules. regarding the ten commandments, this is rubbish.
Yet it has kept this country standing until now.

Christianity is the foundation of this country.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> A healthy level of scepticism is the only way to protect yourself from the next charlatan your encounter, other wise you will end up like Pav.




I think I have a healthy level of scepticism. I think most psychics can be dismissed as charlatans, especially if they do it for money. If people are really psychic and want to make money out of their "gift", why bother having seances (or mucking around with The Great Randi), instead of just picking the Lotto numbers each week ? But that doesn't mean I automatically dismiss anecdotal evidence as being worthless. Taken with a grain of salt certainly, and look for mundane causes of their experiences first, but if you can't find mundane explanations then you have to accept that there may be something in what they say.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> Well if we can't see, hear or sense them in anyway, that kind off blows your anecdotal stories out of the water.




Most ghosts appear to people very soon after their death. On their way to the next dimension.


----------



## Tink (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole, great posts


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

Tink said:


> You really must be devoid of any beauty or warmth, from language, to music, to architecture, the list goes on.
> Do you know the depth of what religion has contributed?
> 
> .




lol, I am not immune to beauty, wonder or awe I can have my breath taken away by the view across a valley or even learning a new fact about the universe, I enjoy both music and architecture, but I don't know why I would have to believe in a god to enjoy these things.

Yes, the religions did build some great buildings in honour of themselves, you can do that when your swindling the population and they are handing you enormous amounts of unearned income, when it comes to music, I find a lot more meaning in non religious music.



> Where does morality come from?




Morality comes from empathy, not religion. Empathy would have evolved in humans as we became social animals, anti social, selfish individuals without empathy would have been ejected from the group, and had a lower survival rate, social animals with empathy would have flourished in the group and survived and breed at a higher rate.

That's evolution, not scripture.

You actually need morality before you read the bible, other wise how would you distinguish between the good stuff and the bad stuff? 



> If you are talking about, survival of the fittest, yes, you are on the right path to just thinking about yourself, but religion has always been about caring about others and giving.




Survival of the fittest is not about caring for yourself when it comes to social animals like humans, The "fittest" were the ones who worked together in groups the best, protected each other, feed each other and ensure their shared genes were passed down.

But survival of the fittest is just the story of how we got here, no one here is saying its what we should base our society on today.



> Why do you keep saying, can't we make up our own set of rules. regarding the ten commandments, this is rubbish.
> Yet it has kept this country standing until now.




Because we can and have developed better rules than are in the bible, and the ten commandments are not a great list, any thinking person could write a better list, get rid of the first 4 for a start and you would have room for some better ones.



> Christianity is the foundation of this country




No it's not, But you can believe that if you want, just try not to force your nonsense on the rest of us.


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> and look for mundane causes of their experiences first, but if you can't find mundane explanations then you have to accept that there may be something in what they say.
> .




That's just a combination of two logical fallacies, 1. Anecdotal evidence 2. argument from ignorance




> Most ghosts appear to people very soon after their death. On their way to the next dimension




See what your doing there, your inventing a story to justify your belief. In response to questions rather than say "I don't know" your saying "Oh, no, the ghosts just must be on there way to the other dimension" that's just baseless rationalization. 

you have no evidence that the other dimension exists or that its even possible for a ghost to exist, all you have is some anecdotal stories that you are taking on faith because you can't explain them, when they may not even be true.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> See what your doing there, your inventing a story to justify your belief. In response to questions rather than say "I don't know" your saying "Oh, no, the ghosts just must be on there way to the other dimension" that's just baseless rationalization.




That is my theory to explain your question about why ghosts don't appear all the time. Of course I don't know, but scientists don't know what dark matter is, yet they keep making up theories to explain it.



> you have no evidence that the other dimension exists or that its even possible for a ghost to exist, all you have is some anecdotal stories that you are taking on faith because you can't explain them, when they may not even be true.




Ever heard of string theory ? It predicts the existence of other dimensions. If you don't believe it then I suggest you write to the scientists responsible for that theory and tell them that it's rubbish.


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That is my theory to explain your question about why ghosts don't appear all the time. Of course I don't know, but scientists don't know what dark matter is, yet they keep making up theories to explain it.
> 
> 
> 
> .




No, it's your hypothesis, not theory. Actually it's not even a hypothesis, it's just a straight out rationalisation.



> Ever heard of string theory ? It predicts the existence of other dimensions. If you don't believe it then I suggest you write to the scientists responsible for that theory and tell them that it's rubbish




Yes I have heard of it, and it is one of the most misrepresented ideas by pseudoscience, probably second only to quantum mechanics.

It in no way describes the types of dimensions you are talking about, just like quantum mechanics, people trying to justify all sorts of "Woo" often bring up string theory, string theory does not help you in anyway to justify the claims you are making.


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

If anyone is in doubt as to whether altruism, selflessness, kindness and charity etc, were developed by evolution here is a 11 minute video that clearly lays out how all these things are based on natural selection.

Many people have a false understanding of survival of the fittest, they think it only leads to selfishness, but this is not true in social animals. There is many reasons why the genes carried in animals that care for other members of their group will survive.

for example, if I kill a deer and use it to feed my nieces and nephews, or if I  risk my life to protect my nieces and nephews I am still ensuring the survival of my genes, because my nieces, nephews and cousins all share 99.999% of their genes with me.

It's not about the survival of the individual, it's about the survival of the genes, Same can be said for honey bees, I bee defending the hive dies, but it allows its sisters and queen who share it's genes to live on and multiply.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 November 2014)

Richard can justify his many marriages then.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> It in no way describes the types of dimensions you are talking about, just like quantum mechanics, people trying to justify all sorts of "Woo" often bring up string theory, string theory does not help you in anyway to justify the claims you are making.




I doubt if you have the qualifications to define the nature of other dimensions or what they may contain. Maybe you should follow your own advice, and if you don't know, just say so.


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt if you have the qualifications to define the nature of other dimensions or what they may contain. Maybe you should follow your own advice, and if you don't know, just say so.




Well, I am not a physicist, but have read enough on string theory, and seen enough real physicists express their displeasure at how string theory is used to try and prove all sorts of pseudoscience, to know that the things your trying to say, are not what string theory is about.

it would be the equivalent of someone trying the use the theory of evolution to justify a belief in mermaids.

Hearing that humans share ancestry with fish might give a believer in mermaids some sort of feeling that they are on the right track, but anyone with a real understanding of evolution of species would see right through their claims. 

this is what your doing here, you really want to believe in an after life, and have developed this personal "theory" to rationalise it, and have heard scientist talk about dimensions, and your bending a theory to try and rationalise your beliefs.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Well, I am not a physicist, but have read enough on string theory, and seen enough real physicists express their displeasure at how string theory is used to try and prove all sorts of pseudoscience, to know that the things your trying to say, are not what string theory is about.




Scientists don't have a mortgage on how the Universe works. They don't "Own" string theory, the Law of Gravitation, or any other principle that they have merely demonstrated existed long before they did. If what they discover can explain other things that they never bother thinking about then they should be pleased that maybe they discovered more than they bargained for.


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Scientists don't have a mortgage on how the Universe works. They don't "Own" string theory, the Law of Gravitation, or any other principle that they have merely demonstrated existed long before they did. If what they discover can explain other things that they never bother thinking about then they should be pleased that maybe they discovered more than they bargained for.




What I am talking about is taking a scientific theory out of context, or grabbing some key words to try and give credit to pseudoscience / mythical beliefs.  

For example People such a Deepak Chopra try to use quantum mechanics to justify a belief that you can create things with your mind and the universe will respond to your thoughts. There is absolutely nothing in quantum mechanics that suggests this. 

You should be able to see that when scientists spend decades piecing together an understanding of an aspect of the universe, You can't just come along and say. "Yep, they said different dimensions may theoretically exist, that's proof of ghosts" you actually have to go and get an understanding of what they mean by dimensions.

As I said it's just like the mermaid example I gave, your jumping to a huge false conclusion that is not supported by any of the actual science behind the theory.

Not to mention you are about 10 steps ahead of yourself, the first step is to prove that consciousness can survive outside of a brain, once that is proved then you can move on.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Yep, they said different dimensions may theoretically exist, that's proof of ghosts" you actually have to go and get an understanding of what they mean by dimensions.




OK, so explain to me how string theory's idea of dimensions contradicts with what I'm saying.


----------



## Julia (10 November 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, you just go on and on with no concept of what religion has actually contributed in society.
> 
> You really must be devoid of any beauty or warmth, from language, to music, to architecture, the list goes on.
> Do you know the depth of what religion has contributed?



Tink, I support your right to believe in your religion, but when you make statements like this, suggesting that someone who doesn't agree with you must be 'devoid of any beauty or warmth', that support wanes quickly.
That's just silly.   There is absolutely no reason to think that religious belief is necessary to experience beauty in any form, or even that it's conducive to such experience.

It's as silly as saying that all the world's composers, painters, architects, writers, philosophers must have been religious in order to produce their works.



> Where does morality come from?



If you're suggesting it necessarily comes from religion, you're effectively saying that all of us who don't do religion are amoral, incapable of behaving in a morally and ethically acceptable fashion.
Again, too silly.

Basic rules are fundamental to any society.  Doesn't need religion to sort these out.


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> OK, so explain to me how string theory's idea of dimensions contradicts with what I'm saying.




Firstly String theory hasn't proven the existence of different dimensions, they are still theoretical, and you haven't proven the existence of ghosts, bot even theoretical ghosts and nothing suggests that if they existed that ghosts can slip in and out of these dimensions, as I said you still have to demonstrate that these ghosts exist.

Also, even if you could demonstrate a ghost exists, it still wouldn't be able to travel faster than the speed of light.

but, again your jumping the gun, and trying to reverse backwards into this, it's up to you to show how string theory proves your idea, not up to me to show a reason why your idea goes against string theory.

But just in case you haven't understood exactly what string theory is about here is something for you to chew on.


----------



## pavilion103 (10 November 2014)

Rules of society are not morals. 

If there is no moral law giver then moraility of subjective. It doesn't matter who agrees on the particular moral proposed or not. Truth is not decided by consensus. 

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean that they can't act out morally. They can follow the moral laws if they choose. We have all been given a conscience and an ability to obey it. Atheists can be moral people. 


Where Christians differ in the worldview is that if God is a righteous judge of our actions according to morality then we have all missed the mark and are all guilty of offence. If there is no price paid for being guilty of the offence then we deserve punishment for him or he is approving of immorality (in the same way that a judge would be by letting a guily man free). Because we have all fallen short, even once, we all need a saviour. Jesus paid the price for our sins and because of that we can receive right standing before God legally. 

It's not about ojnly Christians can do good. That is nonsense. 
But only through Christ can anyone fulfill the rightgeous standard that removes our guilt.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But just in case you haven't understood exactly what string theory is about here is something for you to chew on.





Was useless and no advance on what I already knew.


----------



## Value Collector (10 November 2014)

> If there is no moral law giver then moraility of subjective




If your just following the orders of a god, your not a moral person, you are amoral by definition, your just going through the motions, and probably willing to commit immoral acts if you think your celestial dictator wants you to.

As I have said earlier our morals come from the ability for us to experience empathy, not a dictatorship, that's why we have been able to over come the immorality of the bible and other religious texts.


----------



## pavilion103 (10 November 2014)

No. I follow God because I WANT to. His laws give spiritual life.


----------



## Tink (10 November 2014)

Julia, I will reply to you shortly.

Some history for you, VC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> Julia, I will reply to you shortly.
> 
> Some history for you, VC.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization




If hitler won the war, not doubt they would have written a sterling portrayal of nazi history also. The wiki page seems like its been written by the catholic church's public relations office rather than an independent historian.

By the way, I have never claimed that religious people have not done good things, I have only ever maintained that religion has terrible side effects, and none of the good things are owned by religion, they can all be achieved in other ways, and the other ways are often better.


----------



## luutzu (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> Julia, I will reply to you shortly.
> 
> Some history for you, VC.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization




The State and its leadership uses the Church, the State create the Church, not the other way around.

Constantine found it convenient to say that Christ and God was on his side, became Emperor and Christ's 13th Apostle - a living saint.

The Western societies are dominantly Christian yet never in its history since Constantine does it take Christ's teaching regarding money or his golden rule seriously. Same goes for all other cultures and societies regarding religious teachings it found "impractical".


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

The Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world, their apology in the year 2000 is an admission of this. He admitted that their list of sins was so vast, he could only summarise a list, but he included the following.

 The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church

The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).

Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).

The Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic)

The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (29 May 1995, in a "letter to women").

The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)

For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.

For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).

For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart? ".

On 20 November 2001, from a laptop in the Vatican, Pope John Paul II sent his first e-mail apologising for the Catholic sex abuse cases, the Church-backed "Stolen Generations" of Aboriginal children in Australia, and to China for the behaviour of Catholic missionaries in colonial times.

They haven't apologised yet for their treatment of the LGBT community or for telling people in aids ridden Africa that condors are bad, but maybe that will come later.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OQHxkX-tyYU[/video]


----------



## Tink (11 November 2014)

I posted that to show you what they contributed in society, but yet again, you are ungrateful.


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I posted that to show you what they contributed in society, but yet again, you are ungrateful.




Ungrateful for what?

Yes they did some good things, but they also did some very, very terrible things, and I don't think the good outweighs the bad. 

I also think your giving them credit for a lot of things good people in society do regardless of their faith.


----------



## Tink (11 November 2014)

I don't expect you to believe, but to acknowledge history and their input, law and order etc and the many other contributions.

As other atheists have said, they don't believe in a religion, but they do acknowledge that  - 

'Christianity has served *THIS COUNTRY* well'.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> or for telling people in aids ridden Africa that condors are bad, but maybe that will come later.




Is this another example of a disease spread by birds ?


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Is this another example of a disease spread by birds ?




lol, I meant condoms,


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I don't expect you to believe, but to acknowledge history and their input, law and order etc and the many other contributions.
> 
> .




For most of the catholic church's history, a non believer like me would have been at risk of death or torture if I was open about my nonbelief, why would I respect that kind of law and order.

You give the church credit for the things people contributed to society, But I say the good things you point at happened despite religion, not because of it.



> As other atheists have said, they don't believe in a religion, but they do acknowledge that  -
> 
> 'Christianity has served *THIS COUNTRY* well'




I genuinely don't get  what you mean by that, I see the various religious institutions as non productive leeches, yes the members are capable of charity work at the ground level, but so are any group of people, and the charity work would be more effective if it didn't also have to support the bloated institutions of fat cats.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Basic rules are fundamental to any society.  Doesn't need religion to sort these out.




Many of the fundamental rules have come from religion though, so even if people don't believe in religion it has had an effect on them via the long influence (good and bad) of religion in society. It's an invalid argument to say "society would be better off if religion had never occurred", we simply don't know as it's impossible to erase religion from history.

Similarly if we say "I'm a moral person but I don't believe in religion therefore religion has had no effect on me", again ignores the impact of religious teachings through the ages that have affected society to date.

Maybe we could say "we don't need religion any more", there may be a valid argument for that in the minds of some people, but it's such a powerful force to believe in eternal life that I doubt if people will want to accept that a single life on earth is all there is for us as individuals.

You don't need religion to believe in an afterlife, but religions seems to have a monopoly on it at the moment.


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Many of the fundamental rules have come from religion though, so even if people don't believe in religion it has had an effect on them via the long influence (good and bad) of religion in society.




I don't agree, I think the rules you would point at as being good moral rules from religion, existed before the religion you give credit for them. Religion has just tried to hijacked the moral high ground and add a bunch of baloney to it.

for example, before the ten commandments were dreamed up, there were civilizations all over the world that had the concept that stealing and killing was bad and had laws against them, the ten commandments were largely taken from Egyptian law.

In Australian Aboriginal tribes theft, adultery, unauthorised physical assault, and insult and neglect of family and clan obligations were offences that were considered unlawful.

Morality predates religion.



> . It's an invalid argument to say "society would be better off if religion had never occurred", we simply don't know as it's impossible to erase religion from history.




In the same breath you would have to say it's invalid argument to say "Society is better off because of religion", we simply don't know as it's impossible to erase religion from history. 



> but it's such a powerful force to believe in eternal life that I doubt if people will want to accept that a single life on earth is all there is for us as individuals.
> 
> You don't need religion to believe in an afterlife, but religions seems to have a monopoly on it at the moment




I really don't get that, I don't know why some people think they have to believe in an after life, isn't this life enough?

I am thankful for every day I wake up and can enjoy another day, I love my life and I love living, But I don't fear death. I don't know why people feel they have to have an after life to give this life meaning. I think it was Mark Twain that said "I was dead for billions of years before I was born, and didn't suffer even the slightest inconvenience"


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> I don't agree, I think the rules you would point at as being good moral rules from religion, existed before the religion you give credit for them. Religion has just tried to hijacked the moral high ground and add a bunch of baloney to it.




Be that as it may religion spread the "rules" through more cultures than otherwise would have happened. It also inspired music, art and architecture more so than any other influence through the ages. If you look at essentially pagan cultures like Rome, we have tyrants like Caligula and Nero, and the Egyptians you exult also believed in an afterlife.

Like it or not, the religious influence is there in our history.


----------



## Tink (11 November 2014)

Sorry Julia, you are right, you can see beauty. 
I was reading an article on how ugly art etc is becoming now.

I was trying to bring across that religion, the Church has an extensive history and has influenced a lot in our society. I have mentioned the Courts before.

Rumpole, thanks for understanding what I was trying to bring across. 

Sadly it seems people aren't learning all this rich history at school.


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Be that as it may religion spread the "rules" through more cultures than otherwise would have happened..




Nope, pretty much all cultures had a handle on the basic rules before the major religions took root.

You can't really have a civilization if you believe killing each other and stealing is ok, 



> It also inspired music, art and architecture more so than any other influence through the ages.




Well art and architecture yes, Because those things take money, and when you have large amounts of unearned income flowing in, like the Catholic church for example, you can spend freely on such luxuries. 

Many of the big religious projects were nothing more than monuments to them selves, the resources they tied up no doubt could probably have been used for better things at the time also.



> If you look at essentially pagan cultures like Rome, we have tyrants like Caligula and Nero, and the Egyptians you exult also believed in an afterlife.




Lots of Christian tyrants also, What's your point? If your trying to say that Christianity ended an era of tyrants, that's just false.

Who cares if the Egyptians believed in an after life, could they prove it. They also believed that the world was flat.

I didn't mention the Egyptians because  I think they had special knowledge, I mentioned them because they had moral concepts that predate the religions. 



> Like it or not, the religious influence is there in our history




Yes, so what. It doesn't mean we have to keep it, or that it's a good idea, or that there is any truth to it.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Lots of Christian tyrants also, What's your point? If your trying to say that Christianity ended an era of tyrants, that's just false.




The Roman Republic of tyrants like Caligula turned into the Holy Roman empire. Nothing false about that, it happened.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> As other atheists have said, they don't believe in a religion, but they do acknowledge that  -
> 
> 'Christianity has served *THIS COUNTRY* well'.



Really?   I haven't seen any atheists saying any such thing.  



SirRumpole said:


> Many of the fundamental rules have come from religion though, so even if people don't believe in religion it has had an effect on them via the long influence (good and bad) of religion in society.



Here you go again, Rumpole, believing something because it suits your personal narrative of seeing religion as necessary and good.

VC has addressed this, especially via the comment


> You can't really have a civilization if you believe killing each other and stealing is ok,




Why on earth would people need to believe in a god to understand that, unless they lay down rules for what is OK and not, there will be chaos?  (It's a rhetorical question, btw, I don't expect an answer.)



> Maybe we could say "we don't need religion any more", there may be a valid argument for that in the minds of some people, but it's such a powerful force to believe in eternal life that I doubt if people will want to accept that a single life on earth is all there is for us as individuals.



Again, you are extrapolating your own belief in 'eternal life' as applying to others.  There is absolutely no evidence that any sort of post-death life exists.
You're so keen on the idea, however, that you accept anecdotes of unexplained claims by individuals as evidence.


----------



## Tink (11 November 2014)

VC, regarding art and architecture, they had pride in how their buildings looked, just look around the city now.

Julia, I have a conservative view, Calliope was one in here, though I have heard it away from this forum.


----------



## bellenuit (11 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It also inspired music, art and architecture more so than any other influence through the ages.




In relation to music and art, I would think "Love" has been a far bigger influence than religion. Perhaps it is true for architecture, but many religious buildings were commissioned rather than inspired.

One should not forget either that artists of every sort have to live and throughout the ages the main source of wealth has been the various churches. So undoubtedly that is also a strong influence on what artists produce. Additionally, not denying that some great art has been inspired by the artists' belief systems, it does not mean that they would not have produced great works if they were non believers, just the topics may be different. One should not forget that religion was very much a part of the culture of most civilisations until perhaps the middle of the twentieth century when its influence started to wane, so art will have reflected that culture. It doesn't mean that if those societies were more like today, where religion has taken a back seat, great and inspiring works would not have been produced. The topics might be different, but there will always be great artists.


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, regarding art and architecture, they had pride in how their buildings looked, just look around the city now.
> 
> .




Yes, while people starved or died of poor sanitation, but we all have different priorities I guess.

There would have been plenty of other infrastructure that could have absorbed excess capital, but yes, I understand they liked to live and work in fancy buildings, surrounded by fancy art.


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The Roman Republic of tyrants like Caligula turned into the Holy Roman empire. Nothing false about that, it happened.




and then the crusades, inquisitions etc.

Yes, Christianity ended the tyranny,


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Really?   I haven't seen any atheists saying any such thing.
> 
> 
> Here you go again, Rumpole, believing something because it suits your personal narrative of seeing religion as necessary and good.




Don't put words into my mouth please, I never said religion was necessary and good, just that it exists and has contributed to the development of society

I have repeatedly said that I don't need religion and that it has done both good and bad things, but if you choose to cherry pick my posts to suit yourself, there is really no point continuing a discussion with you as you seem to be as one eyed as you think I am.
.


> Again, you are extrapolating your own belief in 'eternal life' as applying to others.  There is absolutely no evidence that any sort of post-death life exists.
> You're so keen on the idea, however, that you accept anecdotes of unexplained claims by individuals as evidence.




Another misconstruction of my views. I say anecdotal evidence should not be dismissed not that it should be accepted without question. Please try reading and comprehending what I say before writing such rubbish. I'm sure that is not beyond you.


----------



## Tink (11 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> and then the crusades, inquisitions etc.
> 
> Yes, Christianity ended the tyranny,




Is that all you ever bring up?

You know that is what communists do, just keep putting down religion.


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> Is that all you ever bring up?
> 
> You know that is what communists do, just keep putting down religion.




I don't like in communism either, start a thread about that and I will denounce that to, But I see less need, communism is dying/ dead. except in North Korea.

And the killing side of what it did isn't really communism, that's just leaders fighting to maintain power and suppress the population.

There are no communist texts that say you need to kill people, there are religious texts that say that though.


----------



## Tink (11 November 2014)

The largest amount of people killed were by atheists.

We have been through this already.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't put words into my mouth please, I never said religion was necessary and good, just that it exists and has contributed to the development of society



You're right.  You didn't actually say that.  I was wrong.

But you repeatedly say stuff like


> Many of the fundamental rules have come from religion though, so even if people don't believe in religion it has had an effect on them via the long influence (good and bad) of religion in society. It's an invalid argument to say "society would be better off if religion had never occurred", we simply don't know as it's impossible to erase religion from history.
> 
> Similarly if we say "I'm a moral person but I don't believe in religion therefore religion has had no effect on me", again ignores the impact of religious teachings through the ages that have affected society to date.




which suggests that there would be no proper moral compass for anyone were it not for the teachings of religion.

That is what I dispute so strongly, as do others.

When you continually make such suggestions, people will likely assume you regard religion as a positive thing.


----------



## Value Collector (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> The largest amount of people killed were by atheists.
> 
> We have been through this already.




lol,  not that old red herring again.

Atheism has no tenants, no one has ever killed for atheism, there is no reason too.

I am an atheist, now if I go and kill my neighbour for sleeping with my wife, the fact that I am an atheist is not the cause of the murder, there are no atheist teachings that say, "Thy shalt kill the adulterer that sleeps with your wife." I didn't do it because I was an atheist, I did it because I was angry.

The communists killed because they wanted to spread communism, not because they were atheists, I don't even believe they all were, you can't say all communists were nonbelievers. 

However, If a Muslim, or a Christian goes out and starts killing non believers because that's what their faith lead them to do, there is a direct line to that from their religion.

please name one atheist that has killed for the strict reason he was promoting atheism, (and please don't confuse antitheists with atheists, they are two different things)


----------



## SirRumpole (11 November 2014)

Julia said:


> You're right.  You didn't actually say that.  I was wrong.




Thanks for that




			
				Julia said:
			
		

> But you repeatedly say stuff like [my words in bold]
> 
> *Many of the fundamental rules have come from religion though, so even if people don't believe in religion it has had an effect on them via the long influence (good and bad) of religion in society. It's an invalid argument to say "society would be better off if religion had never occurred", we simply don't know as it's impossible to erase religion from history."
> 
> ...




I didn't say that either. WE DON'T KNOW if there would be a moral compass without religion because it's part of our history. You might as well say "what would the world have been like without WWII ?". We could make a few guesses, but we have no way of saying if they are correct.



> That is what I dispute so strongly, as do others.
> 
> When you continually make such suggestions, people will likely assume you regard religion as a positive thing.




I think it has both positive and negative impacts. (Did you notice the increased size of a part of a post of mine above that you quoted ?). I've said that throughout all the discussions on religion that I've been involved in on this forum and others.

 I don't know how I can state it more clearly. I could write it out a hundred times if you like.

Religion is good and bad
.
.
.
100 times


----------



## Ruby (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> VC, regarding art and architecture, they had pride in how their buildings looked, just look around the city now.




Tink, you really ought to read a bit of history and take off those rosy glasses!   The people who built the magnificent cathedrals of Europe (for example) were not inspired by their religious beliefs but by the opportunity to work and feed hungry families!  It was as fundamental as that!  The building of a cathedral would provide work for a lifetime (sometimes more than one generation) to hundreds of people.  I'm sure they had pride in their work, fed by a lot of fear, because if their work was not up to scratch they were dispensable.  The church always had plenty of money so they were limited only by what was possible at the time.


----------



## Ruby (11 November 2014)

Tink said:


> The largest amount of people killed were by atheists.
> 
> We have been through this already.




Tink, you do make some astoundingly thoughtless comments, with not a scrap of fact to back them up!


----------



## Julia (11 November 2014)

Ruby said:


> Tink, you really ought to read a bit of history and take off those rosy glasses!   The people who built the magnificent cathedrals of Europe (for example) were not inspired by their religious beliefs but by the opportunity to work and feed hungry families!  It was as fundamental as that!  The building of a cathedral would provide work for a lifetime (sometimes more than one generation) to hundreds of people.  I'm sure they had pride in their work, fed by a lot of fear, because if their work was not up to scratch they were dispensable.  The church always had plenty of money so they were limited only by what was possible at the time.



Ah, Ruby, would that your common sense. logical remarks more frequently brought some logic to these discussions.


----------



## pixel (11 November 2014)

Apologies if someone has posted this link before in one of the many threads; I just stumbled upon it and think it's worth watching.
*Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens) *
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw

And the irony should not be lost: Christopher is Greek, meaning "Carrier of Christ"


----------



## Julia (11 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Most ghosts appear to people very soon after their death. On their way to the next dimension.



So clearly you believe in life after death, a religious conviction.



Tink said:


> SirRumpole, great posts



 When Tink thinks you're on the right track, that says plenty.

It's all the same to me, Rumpole.  I don't mind when people find comfort in religion or life after death.
Just doesn't make any rational sense to me.  Each to their own and all the other cliches.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Julia said:


> So clearly you believe in life after death, a religious conviction.




Again, it irks me that people think belief in life after death needs to be a "religious" conviction.

Religions don't own that concept. They have their idea of what an afterlife means, Hell and Damnation or sitting around on clouds playing harps depending on whether you believe in "their' God or not. I don't agree with those silly ideas. A continual progression through many lives learning as we go seems more sensible to me. More of a Buddhist approach. 

And before you say Buddhism is a religion, it's not, it's a philosophy. There is no enforced Deity in Buddhism, but one seems to be an optional extra if people want it. I'm not a card carrying Buddhist, but their ideas just seem to make more sense to me.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Again, it irks me that people think belief in life after death needs to be a "religious" conviction.
> 
> Religions don't own that concept. They have their idea of what an afterlife means, Hell and Damnation or sitting around on clouds playing harps depending on whether you believe in "their' God or not. I don't agree with those silly ideas. A continual progression through many lives learning as we go seems more sensible to me. More of a Buddhist approach.
> 
> And before you say Buddhism is a religion, it's not, it's a philosophy.




It is a religious conviction, your version of the after life just happens to be from your own personal religion you have made up for your self.


----------



## Tink (12 November 2014)

What a silly comment to say, Julia, because I agreed with Rumpole. 

Rumpole has never said he believed in religion but at least he is understanding the influences on what religion has contributed in society, not the rubbish that VC keeps trotting out. 

Even Tisme commented on him, saying that it's all for effect. 
Speak the truth.

What Rumpole said is right, you would never know where we would be, you cannot change history.

I posted what religion contributed as it seems there are a few people in here that have no idea, says a lot about our education system.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It is a religious conviction, your version of the after life just happens to be from your own personal religion you have made up for your self.




Name the "religion" you say I'm associated with ?

What religious "Laws" do I observe ?

Whose God do I worship ?

If you think you can denigrate someone just by calling them religious, that is a pretty poor argument.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Name the "religion" you say I'm associated with ?
> 
> .




You haven't told us what you call it, you may not even have given it a name. I am not saying you subscribe to any of the major religions, I completely understand that you have reject those, but as you have described to us you hold some Pantheist beliefs about there being a creator, you believe in an after life and you also believe you will be held some what accountable for your actions in this life in your after life.



> What religious "Laws" do I observe ?




I not sure, I haven't studied your religion in depth, But no doubt in your belief that your creator will hold you accountable in some way for your actions here, you have developed some sort of concept in your mind about things that are acceptable and things which are not.



> Whose God do I worship ?




I don't think you have given your creator a name, in previous discussions I think you just referred to it as a creator.




> If you think you can denigrate someone just by calling them religious, that is a pretty poor argument




I am not denigrating you, I am just saying it how I see it, from what you have described to us in the past. There is various levels of religious behaviour, not all religious people have to bow down and pray ever few hours in like the Muslims do.

for such its just about rubbing their lucky coin every morning and making a wish, but it's still a belief in the supernatural, and the belief in and semi-worship of a superhuman controlling power.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> There is various levels of religious behaviour, not all religious people have to bow down and pray ever few hours in like the Muslims do.




Oh I see.

Well in that case, you support gay marriage, so you are obviously gay, in one way or another.


----------



## FxTrader (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Name the "religion" you say I'm associated with ?



That you are an apologist for religion, its institutions and the religious in general is abundantly clear from your posts here. Not openly aligning oneself with any particular religious tradition but claiming such traditions are useful panderers to the fraud that religion perpetrates on human society - fiction masquerading as absolute truth.  

Any belief in a cosmic architect(s) is a religious one since it is based on a faith conviction and not the irrefutable, strong evidence required justifying such belief.  Whatever your faith based intuitions may be, that does not grant you kinship with or tolerance from any religious cult or faction.   

For the record, while Buddhism is a philosophy for living, it has many traits that qualifies it as religion.  The foremost of which is strong belief in reincarnation but also temples, idols etc.  Importantly Buddhists don't deny this but claim that Buddhism goes beyond religion so you are at odds with Buddhists themselves on this point.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

Tink said:


> The largest amount of people killed were by atheists.
> 
> We have been through this already.




Perhaps you missed the question in my response to this, I did notice I failed to put I question mark on it originally.

But, if you care to do so I would like you to answer the below question.



> Please name one atheist that has killed for the strict reason he was promoting atheism? (and please don't confuse antitheists with atheists, they are two different things)




In your search for answers to this question, if you fail to find an over whelming number or examples, can you promise never to bring up that statement in a debate again.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

> That you are an apologist for religion, its institutions and the religious in general is abundantly clear from your posts here.




I think you confuse the terms "fair minded" and "apologist".

And what the f*** does it matter to you what other people believe ? Religion isn't compulsory, in this country anyway.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh I see.
> 
> Well in that case, you support gay marriage, so you are obviously gay, in one way or another.




You don't just support peoples right to have a religion, you have told me you actually believe in a creator and an after life, and that you will be responsible for your actions here. that is you partaking in religious beliefs, not just supporting others rights to hold them.

-------------------------

In relation to my personal sexual preferences, I happen to be heterosexual, not that it matters at all to this conversation.


----------



## Joe Blow (12 November 2014)

Ladies and gentlemen, can we please try and make this thread a little less personal? When the discussion becomes about those posting in the thread rather than the topic of the thread, it inevitably results in insults and personal attacks.

Let's get this thread back on topic please.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You don't just support peoples right to have a religion, you have told me you actually believe in a creator and an after life, and that you will be responsible for your actions here. that is you partaking in religious beliefs, not just supporting others rights to hold them.
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> In relation to my personal sexual preferences, I happen to be heterosexual, not that it matters at all to this conversation.




"Partaking in religious beliefs"

I only go to church for weddings and funerals

I don't pray

I don't believe that God intervenes in my life

I never read religious texts

I have no idea what a God wants of me or anyone else, therefore I don't know if he has laid down any laws or observances I should follow.

Religion is not simply a belief in a God or afterlife, it's following a set of rules laid down by religious texts, which I don't, except if they happen to be the law of the land.

If I am a religious person in your eyes, then I'm a very poor example of such.

And your sexuality is no concern of mine, I simply used an example to show how silly your religious perjorative against me was.


----------



## FxTrader (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I think you confuse the terms "fair minded" and "apologist".



Not at all...

_*Apologist*_
 1. a person who makes a defence in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.



> And what the f*** does it matter to you what other people believe?



Where religious belief does not intrude on society in the form of laws, government, freedoms, make claims of moral superiority or undermine the pursuit of science and have an impact human wellbeing in general then it does not warrant much attention.  Otherwise, what people believe based on bad or no evidence but assert as absolute truth that must be applied to all must be challenged or theocracy and its ideals will prevail.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

FxTrader said:


> Not at all...
> 
> _*Apologist*_
> 1. a person who makes a defence in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.




If you have read all my posts you will know that I have criticised religion a lot. An apologist is one who only says good things about a person, action or idea. A fair minded person is one who can see the good and bad sides of an argument.

I don't think you fall into the latter category.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> "Partaking in religious beliefs"
> 
> I only go to church for weddings and funerals
> 
> .




Not all religions have churchs, Remember, this is your own private religion we are talking about. I am not saying your a member of a congregation, Your religion has been made up by you, and you may be the only member.




> I don't pray




not all religions pray, 



> I don't believe that God intervenes in my life




not all religions believe that, that's why I have said your beliefs are very Pantheist.



> I never read religious texts




The vast majority of religions have no texts.




> Religion is not simply a belief in a God or afterlife, it's following a set of rules laid down by religious texts, which I don't.




As I said above most religions have no texts, it can be simply a set of ideas based on the supernatural, which clearly you have.



> If I am a religious person in your eyes, then I'm a very poor example of such




Please understand, I am not saying that you partake in any of the major religions, I understand you have rejected those, What I am saying is that you have retained a few components that are acceptable to you, and built your own set of religious ideas around them, which you live by.

That's all I am saying, Some one with your set of beliefs, can not say they are non religious, maybe they can say less religious.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> That's all I am saying, Some one with your set of beliefs, can not say they are non religious, maybe they can say less religious.




Ok, so given my beliefs  that I have described, do they make me a target for all the scorn you have put on "other" religions ? If I was a politician are my beliefs likely to interfere in any way with the way you or others run their lives ? 

You have always used the word "religion" as a perjorative and I'd just like to know if anyone can have beliefs that you call "religious" (but I don't) without adhering to all the evil that you ascribe to religion.


----------



## FxTrader (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If you have read all my posts you will know that I have criticised religion a lot. An apologist is one who only says good things about a person, action or idea. A fair minded person is one who can see the good and bad sides of an argument.  I don't think you fall into the latter category.



No, that's not what an apologist is.  I gave you the definition, creating a self-styled definition to suit your argument is intellectual dishonesty.

Fair-mindedness implies impartial or unprejudiced argument.  I have studied and considered the argument for religion quite carefully for many years and come to the conclusion that it's largely a fraud and unjustified strong belief in myth and legend.  So you're wrong on both counts Rumpole.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

FxTrader said:


> No, that's not what an apologist is.  I gave you the definition, creating a self-styled definition to suit your argument is intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Fair-mindedness implies impartial or unprejudiced argument.  I have studied and considered the argument for religion quite carefully for many years and come to the conclusion that it's largely a fraud and unjustified strong belief in myth and legend.  So you're wrong on both counts Rumpole.




Ok, so when I see the "Atheist Army" out on the streets feeding the poor, then maybe I'll believe that religion serves no good purpose.

And if I said "Hitler built some good motorways in Germany" would that make me an apologist for Naziism ?

Your argument is bs.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok, so given my beliefs  that I have described, do they make me a target for all the scorn you have put on "other" religions ?




No, I respect peoples rights to have a religion. As long as you respect peoples rights to not have a religion, I am fine with that. I think that your personal religion is a private thing you have, and that fine.



> If I was a politician are my beliefs likely to interfere in any way with the way you or others run their lives ?




I don't think so, I have actually voted for people that profess stronger beliefs than you.



> You have always used the word "religion" as a perjorative and I'd just like to know if anyone can have beliefs that you call "religious" (but I don't) without adhering to all the evil that you ascribe to religion




 Evil means Immoral or wicked, so I guess all you have to do is to avoid having concepts or practices in your religion that could be considered immoral. 

pretty much all religious groups I have run into do have concepts or practices that are immoral, that's what I was referring to, I listed out a bunch of the immorality in Christian beliefs, not only that but practice of lying to and indoctrinating children, especially if threating them with versions of hell is another immorality that religions have.

If you can build a religion that has no immoral or wicked teachings, doesn't involve spreading lie's or false hoods to children or adults, doesn't encroach on the rights of others, and doesn't stop it's members from understanding reality you may be able to say it's not evil.

So far I haven't come across a religious institution that meets those objectives though.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok, so when I see the "Atheist Army" out on the streets feeding the poor, then maybe I'll believe that religion serves no good purpose.




Are you saying that atheists don't do charity work?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Are you saying that atheists don't do charity work?




Not at all, the purpose was to demonstrate that religions do good work, so they aren't all evil. These are the points that one eyed anti religious freaks ignore because of their hatred for religion. It doesn't make them fair minded.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Not at all, the purpose was to demonstrate that religions do good work, so they aren't all evil. These are the points that one eyed anti religious freaks ignore because of their hatred for religion. It doesn't make them fair minded.




My position has always been that religion does have positive effects, however none of them rely on religion, all the positives can be achieved in other ways, avoiding the evils of religion.

You can just do charity, you don't need to do it in the name of religion.

You kind of summed it up before, no one is saying Nazism is good because they provided some good highways or pulled the country out of depression. We understand that the good things could have happened without Nazism, and none of the good things outweigh the bad side effects.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You can just do charity, you don't need to do it in the name of religion.




You can just do charity, and many do, the point of doing it "in the name of something", whether it be a religion or any other sort of group is that it encourages a larger participation and being a member of something bigger than themselves, and results in a larger overall effort. 

Whether it's religion or "Band Aid", a group approach is better than individuals without an organisation behind them.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You can just do charity, and many do, the point of doing it "in the name of something", whether it be a religion or any other sort of group is that it encourages a larger participation and being a member of something bigger than themselves, and results in a larger overall effort.
> 
> Whether it's religion or "Band Aid", a group approach is better than individuals without an organisation behind them.




Studies have shown that religious based charities are some of the least effective, eg. if you donate $1 to your church often less than 20cents makes it to actually charity work, other secular organisations can be as high as 95cents.

Not to mention the stupid examples of religious "charities" using their allotment of space on the limited transport to disaster areas to send bibles and preachers.

I read one example where a charity trying to shipped, tents, chainsaws and other equipment to an earthquake zone, had to leave stuff behind because room was taken up by a crate of bibles


----------



## FxTrader (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok, so when I see the "Atheist Army" out on the streets feeding the poor, then maybe I'll believe that religion serves no good purpose.



Of course there is no "Atheist Army" (a scornful phrase that demonstrates once again your disdain for non-belief) but we have many examples of religious ones over human history and they did not specialize in feeding the poor.  Once again you ply the murky waters of praising religion for its usefulness rather than focus on the many dangers evident in embracing religion and the mythology around it for this purpose.  

Religion is not inherently good because it's useful in controlling or influencing behaviour in some positive way.  Conversely, religion is not inherently evil solely because Catholic priests have raped thousands of children or ISIS is beheading people in the name of Islam.  Religion is a fraud masquerading as revealed truth and should not be praised for its ability motivate people to do good or condemned solely for doing the opposite.



> And if I said "Hitler built some good motorways in Germany" would that make me an apologist for Naziism ?



A plainly ridiculous analogy that deserves no response.


----------



## Julia (12 November 2014)

Tink said:


> What a silly comment to say, Julia, because I agreed with Rumpole.



On the contrary.  You only ever agree with anyone who makes a comment supportive of religion.

You lack any objectivity about religion.  It means a lot in your life, so you're unprepared to acknowledge the harm and hypocrisy that surrounds it.


----------



## Tink (12 November 2014)

Yes, it is a part of my life, but I am not going to sit back and watch people get attacked for being a believer, or making a comment.

I have seen too many members leave for that very reason.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2014)

Tink said:


> Yes, it is a part of my life, but I am not going to sit back and watch people get attacked for being a believer, or making a comment.
> 
> I have seen too many members leave for that very reason.




I for one believe you are a decent caring person, and your religion has played a big role in making you that person.


----------



## Ruby (12 November 2014)

Tink said:


> Yes, it is a part of my life, but I am not going to sit back and watch people get attacked for being a believer, or making a comment.
> 
> I have seen too many members leave for that very reason.




But Tink, YOU attack people for being non-believers.


----------



## Tink (12 November 2014)

Thanks, Calliope 

Ruby, that isn't what Julia is saying.
Maybe you should read what she wrote, that I only defend believers.


----------



## Julia (12 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> your religion has played a big role in making you that person.



Of course.  As long as that religion is Christian.  I wonder if you'd feel so positively disposed if Tink were Muslim, burqa and all.  Or if she suddenly developed sympathy for gay marriage.

However, I completely agree that religion has played a big role in making Tink (and others) what they are.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Of course.  As long as that religion is Christian.  I wonder if you'd feel so positively disposed if Tink were Muslim, burqa and all.  Or if she suddenly developed sympathy for gay marriage.




Obviously you object to me being supportive of Tink. I can't fathom why that should concern you.:dunno:


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> Obviously you object to me being supportive of Tink. I can't fathom why that should concern you.:dunno:




I think Julia was making a reference to the contrast between your glowing reviews for people and things related to Christianity, as opposed to your borderline xenophobic opinions on things related to Islam.

eg, you state that Tink is a decent and caring person and you give her religion credit for that, However If Tink acted and spoke in exactly the same way, but she wore a Burqa, you would not have the same glowing review of her.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> eg, you state that Tink is a decent and caring person and you give her religion credit for that, However If Tink acted and spoke in exactly the same way, but she wore a Burqa, you would not have the same glowing review of her.




It seems that we don't have many (if any) people on this forum who identify themselves as Muslim, so we really can't make a judgement of what effect their religion has on them as reflected in their comments.

Perhaps the strident anti Islamic/anti religion attitude of some posters drives them off, which is unfortunate. It would be good to hear a different viewpoint occasionally.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think Julia was making a reference to the contrast between your glowing reviews for people and things related to Christianity, as opposed to your borderline xenophobic opinions on things related to Islam.
> 
> eg, you state that Tink is a decent and caring person and you give her religion credit for that, However If Tink acted and spoke in exactly the same way, but she wore a Burqa, you would not have the same glowing review of her.




More hyperbole. What "glowing reviews"? However I make no apology for being supportive of Tink or anyone else being hassled by the pack mentality. I have no objection to your "glowing reviews" of, or *your* support for Islamic values or your anti-Christian stance.

I am an atheist, but I was raised according to Christian values, so I make no apology for preferring Christain values to alien Islamic values.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think Julia was making a reference to the contrast between your glowing reviews for people and things related to Christianity, as opposed to your borderline xenophobic opinions on things related to Islam.
> 
> eg, you state that Tink is a decent and caring person and you give her religion credit for that, However If Tink acted and spoke in exactly the same way, but she wore a Burqa, you would not have the same glowing review of her.



Your interpretation is correct, VC.  It's the disconnect, plus the stance of atheism yet painting someone as 'good and caring' *because of religion, which goes to the essence of the discussion.

*  I do not mean the comment to suggest that Tink is not a nice, caring person, etc etc.  I have no idea.  Just the notion that any *good quality is attributable to religion*, especially coming from an atheist, seems hypocritical.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> I have no objection to your "glowing reviews" of, or *your* support for Islamic values.




I think you would have trouble finding any comments where I have had a glowing review or supported Islamic values, I think you will find that I believe pretty much all religions are Immoral.

the closest I have come to giving any praise to Islam, is on there early adoption of humane treatment of animals, that's it, nothing else.

You thought I was an Islamic apologist because I corrected some one when they said Muslims didn't make as big a contribution as Australia to help in the world wars, that's not praising them, that's just stating a fact, I have no problem bashing Islam, I just want to do it based on facts, not xenophobia or misinformation.

Also you thought I was Muslim because you mistook sleeping beauties castle in my avatar for a mosque.



> I am an atheist, but I was raised according to Christian values,




So you keep saying, but you can't seem to name what those "Christian values" are.



> so I make no apology for preferring Christain values to alien Islamic values




interesting you choose the word "alien"

Alien is  - belonging to a foreign country, a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where he or she is living

Xenophobia is - dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries

Yet you have resisted the tag Xenophobia.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> I think you would have trouble finding any comments where I have had a glowing review or supported Islamic values, I think you will find that I believe pretty much all religions are Immoral.




And yet you support religious certification of food (see Halal thread).


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Julia said:
			
		

> I do not mean the comment to suggest that Tink is not a nice, caring person, etc etc. I have no idea. Just the notion that any good quality is attributable to religion, especially coming from an atheist, seems hypocritical.




I can't comment on Calliope's alleged hypocrisy, but it's a fact that people have been saved from a life of crime or worse by religious conversions, so in some cases you CAN attribute "nice, caring" characteristics etc to the effects of religion. 

(Just being the "Devil's advocate", not that I'm religious or anything like that ).


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> And yet you support religious certification of food (see Halal thread).




Yes, for 2 reasons, 1, that I was reffering to when I made the below comment.



> the closest I have come to giving any praise to Islam, is on there early adoption of humane treatment of animals, that's it, nothing else.




the second reason I don't attack halal is because as I have said I am a huge believer in religious freedom, I believe people should be able to practise their religion in any way they want as long as it's not harming others or infringing on the rights of others, If that involves putting a small discrete mark saying that a product doesn't contain certain things, I am fine with that. As long as my taxes are not paying for it.

I am also in favour of the free market, I see nothing wrong with private companies marketing their produce to whom ever they want.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Just the notion that any good quality is attributable to religion, especially coming from an atheist, seems hypocritical.




The notion that no "good quality is attributable to religion" seems very judgemental indeed, especially when you claim to be agnostic. 

VC's observation;



> interesting you choose the word "alien"
> 
> Alien is - belonging to a foreign country, a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where he or she is living
> 
> ...




You should resist trying to put your offensive tags on me.

I used the word "alien " in the sense of; (Oxford Dictionary)



> Unfamiliar and disturbing or distasteful:
> principles that are alien to them
> they found the world of further education a little alien
> MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> I used the word "alien " in the sense of; (Oxford Dictionary)




the 1. meaning in the oxford dictionary is belonging to a foreign country.

but look, I am not interested in arguing this point, you are clearly Xenophobic, But you clearly don't like the label.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am also in favour of the free market, I see nothing wrong with private companies marketing their produce to whom ever they want.




Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.

What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? If the consumer is not happy that the product satisfies the description, then they can take the supplier to court like anyone else.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> the 1. meaning in the oxford dictionary is belonging to a foreign country.
> 
> but look, I am not interested in arguing this point, you are clearly Xenophobic, But you clearly don't like the label.




Apparently being critical of supporters of the Islamic State justifies you labelling people as xenophobic. You have very narrow and extreme views. Of course you have no interest in arguing the point because you haven't any rational point to make.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> Apparently being critical of supporters of the Islamic State justifies you labelling people as xenophobic.




If that's all you did I would be right there beside you, I have made many comments my self against them, just yesterday I uploaded a video showing their maggoty behaviour.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.
> 
> What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? If the consumer is not happy that the product satisfies the description, then they can take the supplier to court like anyone else.




*Please don't make the same statement to me in 2 separate threads, it will get tiresome if I have to copy and paste my response in two threads.

But below I copied and pasted the response I made in the other thread.*

_______________________________________________

They don't "have to" do it, no one forces them to do it. If they wanted they could probably just write it on there themselves, But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.

 for example, in the early 90's It became a big thing in the media that Tuna fishing was killing dolphins, and people who were concerned about that started avoiding eating tuna.

 But not all fishing methods killed dolphins, getting the world wildlife fund to come and check your operations, and allow you to say "Dolphin safe, world wildlife fund approved" gives you a lot more creditability than just saving "trust us, we don't hurt dolphins"

 It's not extortion.





 The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation. Provide me one example of a private company being forced to get certification. 





 What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? They can do that if they like, but it would be less credible to a Muslim consumer than a certification from a company they trust.

 Just like sunglasses or sun screen that says "Cancer Council approved"


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

> Please don't make the same statement to me in 2 separate threads, it will get tiresome if I have to copy and paste my response in two threads.




No intention to be tiresome, I thought this discussion was better in the Halal thread, so I transferred to that.


----------



## FxTrader (13 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> However I make no apology for being supportive of Tink or anyone else being hassled by the pack mentality.



If it can be legitimately asserted that any set of individuals who contribute to the threads discussing religion have a "pack mentality" then that would be the religious contributors.  They all sing to the same tune, religion is good for society because people do good things in its name (forgetting or dismissing all the harm its done over the ages), it's true because it was written in a magic book and it's useful, atheists are essentially evil because they have no moral code without a governing, imaginary celestial dictator telling them how to live and similar rhetorical rubbish.

If there is anything under attack here from atheists it's religion and religious belief and deservedly so.  If you review this thread and others there has been far more invective and personal attack coming from the religious camp. 

Asserting religious belief as some kind of personal virtue such that questioning such belief can be construed as a personal attack is a diversionary tactic used to gag debate and play the victim.  Tink has deployed this tactic before to gain sympathy and change the focus of the discussion away from the many fallacies of her religion and the vile institution that perpetuates it.



> I am an atheist, but I was raised according to Christian values, so I make no apology for preferring Christain values to alien Islamic values.



Agreed.  However, any discussion of values should be in context of human wellbeing. The religious have no monopoly on ethics or values and their magic books are certainly not the best guide we have as a reference for establishing common values in society.


----------



## Tink (13 November 2014)

I haven't put down atheists, agnostics, etc.

All I asked of VC, was to acknowledge History, and if he actually knew what religion contributed in society, that was it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization

I was trying to state, that our foundations had come from Christianity.

You can believe whatever you like.


----------



## herzy (13 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I was trying to state, that our foundations had come from Christianity.




I don't know what you mean. Do you mean Western civilisation? Do you mean Australia?


----------



## Tink (13 November 2014)

herzy said:


> I don't know what you mean. Do you mean Western civilisation? Do you mean Australia?




Both


----------



## FxTrader (13 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I haven't put down atheists, agnostics, etc.



True, but the same cannot be said for other religious contributors or their apologists here.  If they have departed the discussion it's likely that having their religious beliefs and incredible claims challenged and debunked was just too uncomfortable for them.  If you come to a forum and declare you have certain knowledge of the eternal and origins you should expect a vigorous debate to ensue.  



> All I asked of VC, was to acknowledge History, and if he actually knew what religion contributed in society, that was it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization



The Catholic Church’s contribution in particular, what a surprise.  That there have been useful influences, outcomes and contributions from religions in relation to human behaviour does not detract from the core issue of the fantastic claims made by religion and the religious and the unjustified strong belief in the foundational mythology. You also omit the fact that many atrocities and evils have been perpetrated in the name of religion.  Focussing only on the good actions people have undertaken in the name of religion is a blinkered view of its history.



> I was trying to state, that our foundations had come from Christianity.



To what end?  Should we all embrace and revere Christianity just because it brought some order to an earlier time in human history? Should we care if any of its fantastic claims are true? Should the aborigines also appreciate the wonderful impact Christian believers had on their culture?


----------



## herzy (13 November 2014)

Tink said:


> Both




You made the statement that both Western civilisation and Australia have their foundations in Christianity. Presumably you mean this as a positive. 

You pointed out earlier that it's impossible to speculate how a country or civilisation would have turned out had things been different. 

Although that's not entirely true, wouldn't that mean we can't really know the influence that religion has had - either on Australia or on Western civilisation? 

To me, the negatives are apparent. Christianity in England, Portugal, Spain and France seems to have led to a desire to colonise (and bring religion to the savages), which invariably lead to tragedy: see the indigenous populations of Australia and NZ, South America and North America, the civil unrest in Africa created by artificial colonial borders being drawn which didn't represent ethnic territories (this also applies to the Middle East), etc. 

The positives, however, are less apparent: You claim that Christianity is responsible for the positive foundations of both Western and Australian civilisation. By that logic, countries and civilisations devoid of Christian influence would be worse off. However, there are many countries and civilisations which developed rigorous moral values and effective legal systems in the complete absence of Christianity. The fact that society can develop in a healthy way in the absence of Christianity would imply that Christianity was not an explanatory or causative variable. 

Yes, Western countries have developed _faster_, but not _better_ per se - and this could be for myriad reasons, such as better access to resources (access to water and trees/wood, no droughts in Europe, stable climates producing predictable harvests, etc), a relative lack of disease and warring neighbours, etc etc. These are all factors which make it very difficult to categorically say that all benefits of Western society are attributable to Christianity. A good example of this is the fact that all of the countries influenced by Christianity apart from the European ones are WORSE off (apart from the Europeans who have emigrated) than they were in the absence of Christianity. 

Happy for you to explain to me otherwise.


----------



## Tink (14 November 2014)

Thanks for your replies. 

I was talking about when Australia first settled, and though I put up Catholic, it was Anglican schools, as Knobby has stated a few times about History and schooling etc. 

I have always enjoyed looking at Melbourne's History, Australia's too, and of course our lovely old architectural buildings which I have always loved, though we have lost a few over the years.

Where we were and where we are.

That was all I was stating.

That is enough from me in this thread.


----------



## Ruby (14 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I haven't put down atheists, agnostics, etc.
> 
> All I asked of VC, was to acknowledge History, and if he actually knew what religion contributed in society, that was it.




But Tink, you HAVE put down atheists and agnostics, frequently!  You attribute many of the ills of society - not to mention wars - to them.

If you are going to acknowledge history, then acknowledge all of it - the good and the bad.  You like to cherry pick, and choose to ignore the terrible injustices the catholic church has wreaked upon mankind (in the name of Christianity) from its beginnings right up until today.


----------



## Tink (14 November 2014)

How many times do I have to say I have acknowledged the bad, but have you acknowledged the good, since you kept saying they couldn't read and write.
That is not true.

I am not going to get in this. 

Exactly, GOOD AND BAD, not all bad as some of you keep portraying.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

Tink said:


> How many times do I have to say I have acknowledged the bad, but have you acknowledged the good, since you kept saying they couldn't read and write.
> That is not true.
> 
> I am not going to get in this.
> ...




I acknowledge the good, My position has always been that religion has terrible side effects, and although it has done some good, none of the good stuff is owned by religion and all of it can be done in secular ways.

So to me religion is like pill that might have a practical use, but it causes cancer, and since there are other pills that have all the positive benefits but don't cause cancer, we should avoid the cancer causing pill.

You can prove me wrong, all you have to do is name some positive effects that can only come about through religious means, and can not be achieved in a secular society.


----------



## herzy (14 November 2014)

Tink I was hoping to engage with you. I'm not denying that there might be positives. 

I'm asking how you know those positives were the result of religion? 



Tink said:


> Thanks for your replies.
> 
> I was talking about when Australia first settled, and though I put up Catholic, it was Anglican schools, as Knobby has stated a few times about History and schooling etc.
> 
> ...







Tink said:


> How many times do I have to say I have acknowledged the bad, but have you acknowledged the good, since you kept saying they couldn't read and write.
> That is not true.
> 
> I am not going to get in this.
> ...




Surely if the bad outweighs the good, then that's a problem? That's why it's important to objectively determine:
- if there was good that is attributable to religion
- if that good outweighed the bad. 

Again, I'm not trying to attack your faith, or vilify religion per se - on the contrary, I'm hoping to hear the perspective of a religious person. 

Acknowledging that there is bad isn't really helpful if we can't put the good and bad in context.


----------



## Tink (14 November 2014)

Herzy, by bad, I meant the child abuse.

I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.

I have already been through this.


----------



## FxTrader (14 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.



Sorry but this is a very naive and superficial view of what the "Church" actually stands for. Yes, the Catholic Church does take public positions on values and morals in society.  The basis of this presumed moral authority is their particular interpretation of Bible verses; hence the Church is a self-appointed proxy for God/Jesus when speaking about society, family and moral issues.  It's about power on earth first and foremost, using religion as a tool to obtain it and the pulpit to reinforce it.

No church or religion should be deemed to have more authority than any other group or individual to determine what is moral and immoral or good and evil, this is a collective decision for society as a whole.  The Catholic Church exits primarily to perpetuate itself and project its influence and power around the world.  The flock of believers within it may belong to it for many reasons and inclined to do good things in response but the institution itself is rotten to the core.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.




Common good?

For most of their history they would have put an outspoken atheist like me to death, how is this common good?


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2014)

Tink said:


> I have always enjoyed looking at Melbourne's History, Australia's too, and of course our lovely old architectural buildings which I have always loved, though we have lost a few over the years.




Tink, turning to things more inclusive than divisive,(except perhaps to Sydney-siders) todays Herald Sun gives an excellent coverage of the Melbourne I knew and loved in my youth.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ng-back-to-1920s/story-fnkd6ppg-1227122700873


----------



## Knobby22 (14 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> Tink, turning to things more inclusive than divisive,(except perhaps to Sydney-siders) todays Herald Sun gives an excellent coverage of the Melbourne I knew and loved in my youth.
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ng-back-to-1920s/story-fnkd6ppg-1227122700873




That shot of the Russell Street police station is just amazing.


----------



## Tink (14 November 2014)

Yes, just beautiful, Calliope, thanks for sharing 

I have been enjoying these old photos in the Herald Sun.


----------



## herzy (14 November 2014)

Tink said:


> Herzy, by bad, I meant the child abuse.
> 
> I agree with what the Church stands for -- for the common good in society, family and life.
> 
> I have already been through this.




The cognitive dissonance and refusal to engage on a rational level is astounding (and a shame). But perhaps it's a necessary trait to being religious...?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

herzy said:


> Surely if the bad outweighs the good, then that's a problem? That's why it's important to objectively determine:
> - if there was good that is attributable to religion
> - if that good outweighed the bad.




Are we talking about good and bad for society, the world or for the individual ?

Obviously for individuals who remain in the church, the good outweighs the bad, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

For society, the question is irrelevant. Unless we legislate religion out of existence, society can't get rid of it. Individuals have to decide that it's not for them or it is.


----------



## herzy (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Are we talking about good and bad for society, the world or for the individual ?
> 
> Obviously for individuals who remain in the church, the good outweighs the bad, otherwise they wouldn't be there.
> 
> For society, the question is irrelevant. Unless we legislate religion out of existence, society can't get rid of it. Individuals have to decide that it's not for them or it is.




It's not entirely true that for individuals the good outweighs the bad otherwise they wouldn't be there. Some have grown up believing it, and so are trapped in that sense, being terrified of living a life of sin and hell. Unfortunately, it's only a simple 'choice' if you're already of the view that there is no god. If you believe in the particular religion, it's not really a 'decision' as such. But let's leave that. 

For society, it's relevant because Tink was claiming that religion has benefitted society (being Australian and Western society) greatly. I wanted to explore that a little bit. 

Society can (and is) slowly getting rid of religion - largely due to discussions like these. People being brave enough to question ideas and belief systems they've held since children and never re-evaluated.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2014)

herzy said:
			
		

> It's not entirely true that for individuals the good outweighs the bad otherwise they wouldn't be there. Some have grown up believing it, and so are trapped in that sense, being terrified of living a life of sin and hell.




Yes, true there is a lot of family pressure on children to "toe the line", and once baptised the expectation is that the child has a duty to remain in the church for life. This obviously denies them freedom of choice, and if imposed against their will is an immoral thing to do.

 Maybe others like the sense of belonging and security that having ones friends and family in a particular group brings. 

It would be hard to determine what the majority view of churchgoers is as to why they practise religion, but I would hazard a guess that a lot probably see churchgoing as a harmless social event done to please family members and if they don't believe in the doctrines, they don't let on for the sake of family harmony.


----------



## Tink (15 November 2014)

Herzy, I have had numerous discussions in here before.

If I say what I think, then I get accused of putting down atheists etc, so I would rather not.

I think Christians are speaking up more though, and that is one thing I have noticed a lot more of in society.

Religion was a topic rarely mentioned, but it has been interesting watching.

As I have said, a few have left this forum.


----------



## herzy (15 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, true there is a lot of family pressure on children to "toe the line", and once baptised the expectation is that the child has a duty to remain in the church for life. This obviously denies them freedom of choice, and if imposed against their will is an immoral thing to do.
> 
> Maybe others like the sense of belonging and security that having ones friends and family in a particular group brings.
> 
> It would be hard to determine what the majority view of churchgoers is as to why they practise religion, but I would hazard a guess that a lot probably see churchgoing as a harmless social event done to please family members and if they don't believe in the doctrines, they don't let on for the sake of family harmony.




Yes I think you're right. 

Especially for the white, straight males (that haven't been molested). I think among homosexuals and women you'll find higher numbers of dissatisfaction.


----------



## Tink (17 November 2014)

If you are concerned about the rights of others, VC, then you would agree with this post -

_Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...-story/5661198

Sperm donor-conceived woman planning next step in six-year fight to secure identification rights and learn identity of father

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...ildren/5661090_

that I posted in this thread - Children, the big losers

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17282&page=2


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

Tink said:


> If you are concerned about the rights of others, VC, then you would agree with this post -
> 
> _Dr Lauren Burns talks about the rights of children to know their biological parents
> 
> ...




I am not sure Tink, I haven't done a lot of thinking on the topic.

But their would be two sides rights to think about, both the sperm/egg donor and the person that was created in the process have rights.

When a person donates either sperm or an egg to a couple who can't conceive by themselves, that person has rights also. I have no problem with the two parties meeting if thats what both sides want, But if it came down to forcing a donor to meet some one, I am not sure whether that would work, How productive is it going to be to force someone to meet someone.

Also, when people say "Children, the big losers", I don't like that heading, because it causes an emotional response because people immediately think of small children, when we are actually talking about adults, and I can't see how they are "Big losers", because this process has provided them their only ever chance at life, without it they would have remained as one of the Trillions of Trillions of unborn people who never got a chance to live because the certain sperm never met the certain egg it would take to make them.

They are actually big winners, If their donor hadn't had the right to keep his/hers identity secret, he may never have made the donation, and hence that person never have existed.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> and I can't see how they are "Big losers", because this process has provided them their only ever chance at life, without it they would have remained as one of the Trillions of Trillions of unborn people who never got a chance to live because the certain sperm never met the certain egg it would take to make them.




What you don't know can't hurt you. Are you saying we should feel sorry for billions of "unborn" persons ? If that is the case , then contraception should be a crime. No harm ever came to them because they never existed. I think it's much better to concentrate on quality of life, not quantity.

Knowing that a biological parent has rejected you and never wants to see you must be a worse fate than never existing at all. 

Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving biological parents is more important than encouraging more people to be born just because some parents are trying to fulfill their own perceived needs for offspring by any means possible even if it means a detriment to the children.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> without it they would have remained as one of the Trillions of Trillions of unborn people who never got a chance to live because the certain sperm never met the certain egg it would take to make them.




Every sperm is sacred.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What you don't know can't hurt you. Are you saying we should feel sorry for billions of "unborn" persons ? If that is the case , then contraception should be a crime..




Not feel sorry for the unborn, You should feel lucky that you won the lottery and were conceived and born.

I am not talking about contraception, just the trillions of other people that would have resulted from different combinations of your mothers eggs and your fathers sperm, you literally have trillions of possible unborn brothers and sisters. The night you were conceived there would have been thousands different sperm that could have fertilised the egg, and even the egg that was there was random. 



> No harm ever came to them because they never existed. I think it's much better to concentrate on quality of life, not quantity.




Offcourse, But the ones that do exist, especially those born into comfortable lives, should feel lucky, however it was we made our way here.



> Knowing that a biological parent has rejected you and never wants to see you must be a worse fate than never existing at all



. 

I wouldn't say that, there is plenty more reasons to live than the acceptance of people you never met. I think it comes down to how the story is explained to them.



> Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving biological parents is more important than encouraging more people to be born just because some parents are trying to fulfill their own perceived needs for offspring by any means possible even if it means a detriment to the children




This Altered sentence makes more sense to me. "Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving parents is the most important thing, where the DNA comes from is less important"

How can you ensure biological parents are loving?

Normally either the mother or the father is still a biological parent anyway, they just have a sperm or egg donor but one side is still a biological parent normally,


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> How can you ensure biological parents are loving?




It's a lot more likely if children are born into family whose biological parents are together in a good relationship than if a father gave a bit of sperm for money and has no interest in what results from it.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a lot more likely if children are born into family whose biological parents are together in a good relationship than if a father gave a bit of sperm for money and has no interest in what results from it.




Not all biological parents are in good relationships,

Not all people who are in good loving relationships, who would make great parents can have children naturally. I don't see a problem, with couples using donated sperm/egg to have a child.



> then contraception should be a crime




If you think contraception is immoral, then abstaining from sex is also, either way your preventing viable sperm meeting viable eggs,   

Society doesn't have the right force women to be pregnant, even if it does mean some one misses out on their chance of existing, because a potential child's rights doesn't over rule a living woman's right to not be pregnant. Women have the right to choose whether they get pregnant of not.

And consenting to sex is not consenting to be pregnant, and consenting to get pregnant is not the same as consenting to stay pregnant.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Not all biological parents are in good relationships,
> 
> Not all people who are in good loving relationships, who would make great parents can have children naturally. I don't see a problem, with couples using donated sperm/egg to have a child.




The problem is that a lot of IVF children spend years trying to to find a biological parent, so the need to do is very strong. I don't see a reason to put them through that trauma and deny them the knowledge that you and I take for granted. If they don't have that right then they have less rights than you or I and that is unacceptable.

 If sperm donor's identities are by law available to to their children, that should be a minimum requirement. If it turns people off donating sperm, too bad.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The problem is that a lot of IVF children spend years trying to to find a biological parent, so the need to do is very strong. I don't see a reason to put them through that trauma and deny them the knowledge that you and I take for granted. If they don't have that right then they have less rights than you or I and that is unacceptable.
> 
> If sperm donor's identities are by law available to to their children, that should be a minimum requirement. If it turns people off donating sperm, too bad.




As long as donors knew from the start that their details would be handed out, I can't see a problem, Also there should be a limit to the contact details given out, maybe just a first name and a phone number, and a report on some familymedical history and of course the donor has the right to reject a request to met etc.

You can't force people to sit down and have a coffee with you, or be your friend on facebook etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You can't force people to sit down and have a coffee with you, or be your friend on facebook etc.




No, but you can give them the same rights as other children of that person, eg  inheritance


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No, but you can give them the same rights as other children of that person, eg  inheritance




That's just silly.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> That's just silly.




Why ? 

Do you support a system where some people have more rights than others ?


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Why ?
> 
> Do you support a system where some people have more rights than others ?




your shifting the argument away from what you said was your core opposition in the first place.

But, I would think that children don't have any "right" to inheritance, the inheritance will be distributed as the last will and testimony of the deceased states.

 if you tried to muddy the waters and say you are entitled to inheritance from you biological parents, then you would also have to say that your not really entitled to inheritance from the non related family that raised you, you would have biological children getting inheritance while any adopted or non biological siblings didn't get anything, I can't see how this would reduce stress in these situations.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

> then you would also have to say that your not really entitled to inheritance from the non related family that raised you




non sequitor

Why would I have to say that ? People can inherit from more than one person.

By wiping out the rights of a certain class of person you create a divided society. People who know their biological parents and those who don't. It's unfair to put one group at a disadvantage to others.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> By wiping out the rights of a certain class of person you create a divided society. People who know their biological parents and those who don't. It's unfair to put one group at a disadvantage to others.




I don't think its that dramatic,


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think its that dramatic,




Easy for you to say I suppose.


----------



## Julia (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> When a person donates either sperm or an egg to a couple who can't conceive by themselves, that person has rights also. I have no problem with the two parties meeting if thats what both sides want, But if it came down to forcing a donor to meet some one, I am not sure whether that would work, How productive is it going to be to force someone to meet someone.



Completely unproductive, probably.  But it should just be like any other sort of agreement where the parties sign up for the mutually acceptable terms, including the revelation or not of the sperm or egg donor.
Once that agreement is concluded, there should be no right for any resulting child to try to hunt down the donor if that was not originally agreed to.



> Also, when people say "Children, the big losers", I don't like that heading, because it causes an emotional response



Agree.  It's a poor argument that needs to fall back on emotive language.



> If their donor hadn't had the right to keep his/hers identity secret, he may never have made the donation, and hence that person never have existed.



Yep, exactly so.



SirRumpole said:


> Knowing that a biological parent has rejected you and never wants to see you must be a worse fate than never existing at all.



Good heavens, that's a huge bit of overreach, Rumpole.  If someone's life is not worth living just because some adult has made a particular decision, then it wasn't worth that much in the first place imo.
It's not a parent, but I discovered at age 20 ish that I had a half brother.   As an only child, I was absolutely delighted, and asked a family member to take a letter from me asking for a meeting to this newly found sibling.
Response was a flat "NO".  Zero interest.  Bugger off.  
Yes, I was disappointed, but that's his right.  We all have different reasons for the decisions we make.  My wish for a 'real sibling' didn't constitute any obligation on him to fulfil that wish.
It is what it is.  Accept it.



> Trying to ensure that those that are born have loving biological parents is more important than encouraging more people to be born just because some parents are trying to fulfill their own perceived needs for offspring by any means possible even if it means a detriment to the children.



Of course no guarantee that a biological origin means parents will be loving.  I can think of dozens of accidental pregnancies where, sure, the parents have stayed together, but the subsequent disharmony would be more harmful to the child than if he/she had been with one calm, loving parent.

But I do agree about some selfish individuals going to extraordinary lengths , eg buying babies via foreign surrogacy etc, being an undesirable practice.  Seems to me yet another symptom of the current prevailing attitude of "if I want something I will find a way to get it".   Millions of people who have never reproduced by whatever means have still enjoyed positive, fruitful and constructive lives.




SirRumpole said:


> It's a lot more likely if children are born into family whose biological parents are together in a good relationship than if a father gave a bit of sperm for money and has no interest in what results from it.



I'm not sure that's right, Rumpole.   I don't think you can really generalise like that.  Some people are so desperate to have a child that if they can achieve that, then they will fall over themselves to be good parents, unlike some who just accidentally conceive.  People are what they are.  



SirRumpole said:


> The problem is that a lot of IVF children spend years trying to to find a biological parent, so the need to do is very strong. I don't see a reason to put them through that trauma and deny them the knowledge that you and I take for granted. If they don't have that right then they have less rights than you or I and that is unacceptable.
> 
> If sperm donor's identities are by law available to to their children, that should be a minimum requirement. If it turns people off donating sperm, too bad.



That seems a short sighted and rather thoughtless view.  I also find your suggestion that a donor-created person should have inheritance rights very bizarre.  Why should they?   We all have the choice of to whom to leave our estates.  Given the woeful money management of some people, not to mention whether their behaviour has ever deemed them deserving of an inheritance, a bequest to a good charity is often a better option imo.



SirRumpole said:


> No, but you can give them the same rights as other children of that person, eg  inheritance


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

> That seems a short sighted and rather thoughtless view. I also find your suggestion that a donor-created person should have inheritance rights very bizarre. Why should they? We all have the choice of to whom to leave our estates.




Yes we do, but that can sometimes be overturned by courts where children are obviously discriminated against.

All this talk of "contracts" when creating children seems rather mercenary don't you think ? I doubt if I would like it if I was created for a few bucks that someone got for ejaculating into a bottle. How cheap.



> If their donor hadn't had the right to keep his/hers identity secret, he may never have made the donation, and hence that person never have existed.
> 
> Yep, exactly so.




So what ? Billions of potential people never exist, but if they do they should have the same rights to know their biological parents as anyone else.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> That seems a short sighted and rather thoughtless view.




Could you expand on that ?



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> But it should just be like any other sort of agreement where the parties sign up for the mutually acceptable terms, including the revelation or not of the sperm or egg donor.
> Once that agreement is concluded, there should be no right for any resulting child to try to hunt down the donor if that was not originally agreed to.




All you seem interested in are the rights of the donors/parents. The child is a commodity with no rights according to you. Very easy for people who are/were able to contact their own parents to say that others should not have that right.

How arrogant.


----------



## Julia (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> All this talk of "contracts" when creating children seems rather mercenary don't you think ? I doubt if I would like it if I was created for a few bucks that someone got for ejaculating into a bottle. How cheap.



Better to be pragmatic and sensible than get carried away by emotive argument.  So the life of your supposed deprived life is devalued just because you perceive yourself not to have been created by a few moments of hormone driven lust?



> Could you expand on that ?



No.  I've said all I'm interested in saying.  Judging by the extraordinary persistence and endurance displayed by you and VC in this and other threads, you can go on perpetuating an argument for the sake of it for ever.
I have no interest in doing likewise.



> All you seem interested in are the rights of the donors/parents. The child is a commodity with no rights according to you. Very easy for people who are/were able to contact their own parents to say that others should not have that right.
> 
> How arrogant.



You may deem it whatever you like.   I just look for the pragmatic best option, least likely to cause grief all round.
If people don't want to engage in an agreement that the created person should be able to contact either 'parent' then they can word their contract accordingly.  And vice versa.  Don't bring governments or anyone else into it.
If people are going to get involved in all this stuff, then it's up to each individual to agree on the rules surrounding the arrangement.  No need for all your emotive stuff unless that is what the 'parents' agree matters to them and the proposed offspring.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Julia said:
			
		

> So the life of your supposed deprived life is devalued just because you perceive yourself not to have been created by a few moments of hormone driven lust?




If my rights have been diminished by not being able to know my family history like anyone else, then the answer is YES.




			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Don't bring governments or anyone else into it.




Governments and others have to be bought into it to stand up for the rights of the products of these "contracts".

If you want to stick to the mercenary line, contracts are only binding on those who are a party to them, and have informed consent to agree to the conditions of that contract. That can hardly apply to a sperm. The sperm and the children/adults they grow into are not bound by the contract of confidentiality and should be able to get access to information about their ancestors and medical history if necessary, like anyone else, and if the prospect of that disturbs potential donors, then they have the option not to donate.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> All this talk of "contracts" when creating children seems rather mercenary don't you think ?.




Making children almost always involves contracts, verbal mainly even if they are just inferred, Most women want a promise that the man is going to be around to help her raise the child, when he promises he will always be there, that's I form of verbal contract. 

He might even promise to move her into a bigger house etc during discussions.

Maybe that's not what you mean, but contracts are always involved.



> I doubt if I would like it if I was created for a few bucks that someone got for ejaculating into a bottle. How cheap.




so a drunk night seems better? Really it doesn't matter does it, your parents wanted you so much they went to extraordinary lengths to get you. 



> So what ? Billions of potential people never exist, but if they do they should have the same rights to know their biological parents as anyone else.




Do people have the right to meet someone whom doesn't want to met them?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Do people have the right to meet someone whom doesn't want to met them?




They have a right to know who they are, and what their family and medical history is.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> They have a right to know who they are, and what their family and medical history is.




So give them a report, or maybe even access to a live online data base where they have access to family medical history.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> So give them a report, or maybe even access to a live online data base where they have access to family medical history.




Would you treat your own children like that ?

Well, I suppose as long as the IVF clinics can make a buck, that's ok.


----------



## herzy (18 November 2014)

I actually learnt a bit about the relevant legislation and policy this year. 

1. I agree that it's outrageous to retrospectively change legislation to allow children to access the identity of donors, who gave their donation based on legislative anonymity. That's just not ok. 

2. The crucial point which Rumpole is getting at (among others) is that the child has not given consent to be raised in an environment where s/he does not know the identity of their biological parent(s). Accordingly, although it's all well and good for the parents to reach an agreement, it's not entirely up to them - arguably the child should have some say in the matter as well. While it is problematic to remove anonymity (as it may discourage donations, etc), I do think that the right of the child to know shouldn't be entirely decided by parents. 

A much more interesting issue is providing financial incentives for donations... 

I'm all for it. Negates any issues of sperm shortage, for one.


----------



## Value Collector (18 November 2014)

herzy said:


> Accordingly, although it's all well and good for the parents to reach an agreement, it's not entirely up to them - arguably the child should have some say in the matter as well. While it is problematic to remove anonymity (as it may discourage donations, etc), I do think that the right of the child to know shouldn't be entirely decided by parents.
> 
> .




I think the best you could hope for is to provide a report with all the necessary family background and medical history etc, and then when the child is 18 if the decide the want to meet the biological mother or father, have that person contacted to ask whether they are ok with that, if they are pass on the info, if they aren't, leave them be.

You can not force some one into a meeting.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 November 2014)

I would suggest that there are a lot more children from broken homes or other adverse circumstances who would benefit from adoption/fostering without creating a whole new wonderland for lawyers with ivf and surrogacy and the legal and moral issues that these so called "solutions" to perceived problems create.


----------



## bellenuit (22 December 2014)

*Religion’s smart-people problem: The shaky intellectual foundations of absolute faith*

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/21/rel...y_intellectual_foundations_of_absolute_faith/


----------



## Tink (15 January 2015)

Chris45 said:


> I suggest you watch:
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/customuniverse/
> 
> ...




Great post, Chris.

They had a show last night, which sadly I only saw half, that said similar, that it was all well structured.


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2015)

Well, well. The sceptics got it right once again. 

*“Boy Who Came Back from Heaven” says he didn’t go to heaven after all*

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/boy_who_came_back_from_heaven_he_didnt_go_to_heaven_after_all/


----------



## Tink (23 January 2015)

Foundations of Western Civilisation

http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization

Christianity has played a major role in our foundations, and our heritage.


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Well, well. The sceptics got it right once again.
> 
> *“Boy Who Came Back from Heaven” says he didn’t go to heaven after all*
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2015/01/16/boy_who_came_back_from_heaven_he_didnt_go_to_heaven_after_all/




*The boy who didn't come back from heaven: inside a bestseller's 'deception'*

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/21/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-alex-malarkey


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2015)

You need to watch this on a desktop or laptop screen to do it justice.

*This Picture Taken By NASA Is So Beautiful It Will Leave You With Goosebumps*

http://techgeek365.com/picture-taken-nasa-beautiful-will-leave-goosebumps/


----------



## explod (25 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I would suggest that there are a lot more children from broken homes or other adverse circumstances who would benefit from adoption/fostering without creating a whole new wonderland for lawyers with ivf and surrogacy and the legal and moral issues that these so called "solutions" to perceived problems create.




Good thinking here.   If nature or lack of a partner determines the situation then that rule should not be bent.

We evolved to our current perfection on survival of the fittest and smartest.   If there is a fault in the system then no result is a good result for the overall species.


----------



## barney (25 January 2015)

bellenuit said:


> You need to watch this on a desktop or laptop screen to do it justice.
> 
> *This Picture Taken By NASA Is So Beautiful It Will Leave You With Goosebumps*
> 
> http://techgeek365.com/picture-taken-nasa-beautiful-will-leave-goosebumps/




Our chances of experiencing 'existence/life' is like winning the lottery   ...... Humbling stuff!


----------



## explod (25 January 2015)

barney said:


> Our chances of experiencing 'existence/life' is like winning the lottery   ...... Humbling stuff!




Just sit amongst the bush,  you can see it,  smell it,  hear it and feel it.    Your existence and life is now. 

Anything else is a version passed on or handed down with imagination then thrown in as so developed from others.


----------



## Value Collector (26 January 2015)

explod said:


> Just sit amongst the bush,  you can see it,  smell it,  hear it and feel it.    Your existence and life is now.
> 
> Anything else is a version passed on or handed down with imagination then thrown in as so developed from others.




What he is talking about is that we all have trillions of unborn brothers and sisters that could be here in our place, and the chances of us existing are very slim, infact the chances that any single individual is born is like winning the lottery everyday for a year

You are the result of a single combination of a sperm and an egg, your father produced millions of sperm, and your mother thousands of egg, each sperm meeting a different egg, would produce a different person, 

So when you sit in the bush, experiencing life, know you had trillions of possible unborn siblings that could have been sitting in your place,


----------



## So_Cynical (26 January 2015)

Value Collector said:


> What he is talking about is that we all have trillions of unborn brothers and sisters that could be here in our place, and the chances of us existing are very slim, infact the chances that any single individual is born is like winning the lottery everyday for a year
> 
> You are the result of a single combination of a sperm and an egg, your father produced millions of sperm, and your mother thousands of egg, each sperm meeting a different egg, would produce a different person,
> 
> So when you sit in the bush, experiencing life, know you had trillions of possible unborn siblings that could have been sitting in your place,




And yet the planet earth is populated by 6 billion 20 million to 1 shots...most of whom are morons.


----------



## Value Collector (26 January 2015)

So_Cynical said:


> And yet the planet earth is populated by 6 billion 20 million to 1 shots...most of whom are morons.




Yes the possible combinations of DNA allow for wide variation, from great intelligence to blithering indiots.

Richard Dawkins put it best when he explained that out of the millions of unborn people that could of sprung forth from your parents DNA, there would have been scientists greater than Newton and poets greater than Keats, yet here we sit, in our ordinariness.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Richard Dawkins put it best when he explained that out of the millions of unborn people that could of sprung forth from your parents DNA, there would have been scientists greater than Newton and poets greater than Keats, yet here we sit, in our ordinariness.




Surely though, intelligent parents are more likely to produce intelligent offspring, and dumb parents more likely to produce dumb offspring as the genes get passed down the line ?


----------



## Value Collector (26 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Surely though, intelligent parents are more likely to produce intelligent offspring, and dumb parents more likely to produce dumb offspring as the genes get passed down the line ?




Yes, but there is wide variation possible between the genes of all parents, a couple of average intelligence can easily give birth to a genius. And a couple with high intelligence isn't guaranteed to have a high intelligence child.

When we compare the intelligence of humans, there is actually quite a narrow gap between a moron and a genius, I mean even a moron is super intelligent when compared to a chimp or members of other species,


----------



## bellenuit (4 June 2015)

*Lincoln Kennedy Myths*

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4360


----------



## bellenuit (5 June 2015)

*The Unlikely Miracles Used to Justify Sainthood for Recent Popes*

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...s-used-to-justify-sainthood-for-recent-popes/


----------



## bellenuit (6 June 2015)

*DNA carries traces of past events meaning poor lifestyle can affect future generations*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-lifestyle-can-affect-future-generations.html


----------



## Tink (19 June 2015)

*Christianity and the Magna Carta.
*
_June 15th marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta””a document that has been called “the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
As you might expect, Great Britain is pulling out all the stops to celebrate the anniversary. And as you might also expect, the celebrations are omitting an important detail: the role of Christianity in “the foundation of freedom.”

The Magna Carta, Latin for “Great Charter,” was a product of one of the most turbulent periods in English history. Forty-five years earlier, King Henry II was implicated in the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket. And now, in 1215, rebellious barons were objecting to what they saw as King John’s infringement on their traditional rights, including unlawful imprisonment and excessive taxation.

With the disagreement threatening to turn into a civil war, the Archbishop of Canterbury, working as an intermediary between the King and the barons, helped to draft a proposed charter that would settle the dispute.
The Charter was not limited to the barons’ concerns. As historian David Carpenter has written, what made the Magna Carta beloved by the likes of our Founding Fathers and Nelson Mandela was that the Charter “asserted a fundamental principle””the rule of law. The king was beneath the law, the law the Charter itself was making. He could no longer treat his subjects in an arbitrary fashion.”

As Carpenter says, “in 1215 itself both John and his enemies would have been astonished had they known that the Charter would live on and be celebrated 800 years hence.” In 1216, they fought the war the Charter was intended to avoid. But John’s successors reaffirmed their commitment to the Magna Carta, and in 1289 made it part of the laws of England.
Since then, virtually every opponent of despotism and tyranny in the English-speaking world has drawn inspiration from the Magna Carta, which declared, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice.” When the Founding Fathers complained about “taxation without representation,” they were appealing to the Magna Carta.

Given the centrality of this document to our way of life, it behooves us to tell its story accurately and completely. Unfortunately, that is not happening. That’s why British churches have started a major campaign that focuses on the Christian influence on the charter.

The Church of England’s Synod of Bishops has stated that “It is important that the Church’s crucial role in Magna Carta and its rights is not air-brushed out in 2015””as was the role of Christians in the anti-slave trade celebrations.”

As the Bishops remind us, “The Church in England was central to the development of legal and human rights centuries before the French Revolution . . . the first parties to the charter were the bishops””led by Stephen Langton of Canterbury, who was a major drafter and mediator between the king and the barons; and its first and last clauses state that ‘the Church in England shall be free.’”

In other words, no human rights without religious freedom.
Perhaps the secular air-brushing isn’t that hard to understand, after all. The very words of the Magna Carta are a stumbling block for a culture that is eager to cast off its Christian heritage.
_*
Reminding us of the Christian heritage that helped give birth to what we now call Western Civilization*


----------



## Value Collector (19 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Reminding us of the Christian heritage that helped give birth to what we now call Western Civilization[/B]




It's funny how you cling to things you think are good and say "See, that's my religion, its good"

But you shun all the bad things that your religion has done.

The Magna Carta was simply an attempt to prevent an English civil war between the King and his supporters and some rebel Barons. It just laid out some general rules they were going to live by, when it mentions the rights of "Free Men" it is talking about nobles and land holders, it did nothing to protect the rights of serfs or slaves.

It wasn't until years later that the wording was ceased by society to try and give rights to the lower classes.

Also, the kings felt it was in their rights to abuse their power, because they had "divine rights of kings", so you could say wacky religious beliefs added to the drama.


----------



## Tink (20 June 2015)

Just some history, VC. 

_Common law means a legal system based upon the English legal system; a mixture of customary law, judge-made law and parliamentary law. At least until the early 19th century, the common law was heavily influenced by Christian philosophy. This philosophy argues that there is a divine reason for the existence of fundamental laws, and that such laws are superior to human-made legislation, thus reflecting universal and unchangeable principles by which everyone should live. This assumption was expressed, among other things, in the Magna Carta of 1215, a charter which guaranteed the basic rights and privileges to the English barons against the king. Professor Aroney explains Christianity’s ideological influence upon the Magna Carta:
From [the time of Alfred] the kings of England have traditionally recognised their submission to God. At their coronations they take an oath before the Archbishop acknowledging the Law of God as the standard of justice, and the rights of the church. They are also urged to do justice under God and to govern God’s people fairly. Magna Carta was a development of these themes.

At the time of Magna Carta (1215), a royal judge called Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) wrote a massive treatise on principles of law and justice. Bracton is broadly regarded as ‘the father of the common law’, because his book De legibus et consuetudinibus Anglia is one of the most important works on the constitution of medieval England. For Bracton, the application of law implies ‘a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite’, which means that the state law can never depart from God’s higher laws. As Bracton explains, jurisprudence was ‘the science of the just and unjust’. And he also declared that the state is under God and the law, ‘because the law makes the king. For there is no king where will rules rather then the law.’

The Christian faith provided to the people of England a status libertatis (state of liberty) which rested on the Christian presumption that God’s law always works for the good of society. With their conversion to Christianity, the kings of England would no longer possess an arbitrary power over the life and property of individuals, changing the basic laws of the kingdom at pleasure. Rather, they were told about God’s promise in the book Isaiah, to deal with civil authorities who enact unjust laws (Isaiah 10:1). In fact, the Bible contains many passages condemning the perversion of justice by them (Prov 17:15, 24:23; Exo 23:7; Deut 16:18; Hab 1:4; Isa 60:14; Lam 3:34).

New research suggests that Magna Carta may have been published predominantly by the church – rather than the Royal government of the day.
The revelations – announced as Britain prepares to commemorate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta – shed remarkable new light on the politics behind the issuing of the charter.
The research suggests that early 13th century England’s King John was so reluctant to publicize the now world-famous document that the church had to step in to ensure that sufficient copies were made and distributed.

A new investigation into Magna Carta, carried out by scholars from the universities of East Anglia, Cambridge and King’s College London, has revealed, for the first time, that England’s bishops actually placed their own scribes inside the government’s civil service specifically to make copies of Magna Carta – so that every region of the country could have one.

King’s College London’s Professor of Medieval History, David Carpenter, believes that the new revelations are “exciting discoveries”.
“We now know that three of the four surviving originals of the charter went to cathedrals – Lincoln, Salisbury and Canterbury. Probably cathedrals were the destination for the great majority of the other original charters issued in 1215,” he said.
“This overturns the old view that the charters were sent to the sheriffs in charge of the counties. That would have been fatal since the sheriffs were the very people under attack in the charter. They would have quickly consigned Magna Carta to their castle furnaces.
“The church, therefore, was central to the production, preservation and proclamation of Magna Carta. The cathedrals were like a beacon from which the light of the charter shone round the country, thus beginning the process by which it became central to national life,” said Professor Carpenter._

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/06/16/magna-carta-the-christian-connection/


----------



## Value Collector (20 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Just some history, VC.
> 
> Common law means a legal system based upon the English legal system; a mixture of customary law, judge-made law and parliamentary law.




Can you name any good aspect of the legal system which could not have been created by a secular society?



> This assumption was expressed, among other things, in the Magna Carta of 1215, a charter which guaranteed the basic rights and privileges to the English barons against the king.




Yes, as I stated. In its originaly form and intention it was designed to protect the rights of free men, eg Barons and other nobles.

It didn't entrust rights onto serfs and other unfree labour. 

Now, I know the Bible does call for slavery, So you are probably right that it was influenced by Christians, But I maintain my point, nothing good that game about because of it relied on the Christian faith, all the concepts that secular society agree are good today, can be reasoned without the need of imaginary friends.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name any good aspect of the legal system which could not have been created by a secular society?




How can we say ? "Secular" society had a pretty poor record when it comes to laws, the fact is that most laws on the planet have been shaped by religion, like it or not.


----------



## Tink (21 June 2015)

I find it funny that you even ask that question, VC, when you jump on the back of God's Laws, Christian principles, and ask if they could have made it without it.

God's Laws is one above humans.

How do you know right from wrong?
Where did it come from?

The Bible is the oldest book in History.

Agree, Rumpole, what we enjoy today, was set up by our Christian heritage.


----------



## Value Collector (21 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> How can we say ? "Secular" society had a pretty poor record when it comes to laws, the fact is that most laws on the planet have been shaped by religion, like it or not.




I don't believe that at all.

Which laws do you think we're shaped by religion?

I think if you really think about it, most laws that have a moral basis are not from any particular brand of religion, they come from secular ideas and concepts, this can be demonstrated by the fact that they can be found across society's from all over the world.

Eg. You may point to the laws against murder as coming from the the Ten Commandments ie Thy shall not kill.

but the fact is unrelated cultures all over the world have rules against killing each other, same with rules against stealing etc.

Do you really think that the great civilisations and even tribes etc that predate the bible could have formed if people thought it was a good idea to kill each other?

Even animals that live in social groups seem to have rules that refrain them from killing each other, it's based on evolution, the groups that like to kill each other do not survive and thrive.


----------



## Value Collector (21 June 2015)

Tink said:


> I find it funny that you even ask that question, VC, when you jump on the back of God's Laws, Christian principles, and ask if they could have made it without it.
> 
> God's Laws is one above humans.
> 
> ...




As I just explained to rumpole, many of the moral codes you would like to say came from Christians actual predate Christianity, 

Gods laws are above humans? Well considering a lot of the laws in the bible are morally wrong, I can't see how this is true, you need a good moral code before you read the bible, other wise you would not be ignoring the horrible stuff and you would be acting like Isis




> The Bible is the oldest book in History



.

Holy cow!!! I hope you do not honestly believe that

Do understand that the bible is not the oldest book?

There are many older books.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2015)

> Do you really think that the great civilisations and even tribes etc that predate the bible could have formed if people thought it was a good idea to kill each other?




Of course they could and did. You only have to look at the Romans, the majority of whose emperors were slain by people who wanted the emperor's power to know that murder was very much a part of that society, which was based not on any moral principles but simply greed and megalomania. They may well be the same today if they hadn't nailed a bloke to a cross in about 30 AD. I don't see how you can ignore the correlation of the formation of the Roman church with the decline of the Roman empire.

The Roman empire no longer exists, but the Church of Rome does. How do you explain that ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course they could and did. You only have to look at the Romans, the majority of whose emperors were slain by people who wanted the emperor's power to know that murder was very much a part of that society, which was based not on any moral principles but simply greed and megalomania. They may well be the same today if they hadn't nailed a bloke to a cross in about 30 AD. I don't see how you can ignore the correlation of the formation of the Roman church with the decline of the Roman empire.
> 
> The Roman empire no longer exists, but the Church of Rome does. How do you explain that ?




Murdering those in your social group has been a taboo since social groups started forming.

No group is going to become a tight knit thriving social group that's functions well together if they don't trust the others in the group won't kill them in their sleep. From the formation of the first tribes, there would have been a general rule of " hey, you don't kill me and I won't kill you" that's where those moral taboos come from, not the religious texts.

Offcourse humans still then and now kill others outside their social groups, Christianity didn't stop that, and if you read the religious texts, even Moses who brought the Ten Commandments down from the mountain was later sent to massacre other tribes, and the texts order you to kill people of other faiths etc. it's only taboo to kill people in your group eg other Jews.

Not to mention that the Egyptians had rules against killing others, and remember the egyption civilisation was around long before Moses was given the Ten Commandments and the bible, and other civilisations were around before the Egyptians.


----------



## Value Collector (21 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Roman empire no longer exists, but the Church of Rome does. How do you explain that ?




Pretty much every empire in history no longer exists, I don't see your point.

But why does the church exist you ask?

I think for a few reasons, number one is that it taps into people's fears by offering them an eternal life, number two it threatens people with eternal torture if the don't believe, and number 3 it has a long history of killing those who spoke out against it, so the church through out history goes against those moral rules people attribute to it.

It's funny that tink attributes the 1215 Magna carter as being the height of Christian values being pressed onto society by the church, but at that time the church was still burning people at the stake, and blasphemy was still being punished by death and torture.


----------



## Tisme (21 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> As I just explained to rumpole, many of the moral codes you would like to say came from Christians actual predate Christianity,
> 
> Gods laws are above humans? Well considering a lot of the laws in the bible are morally wrong, I can't see how this is true, you need a good moral code before you read the bible, other wise you would not be ignoring the horrible stuff and you would be acting like Isis
> 
> ...




I seem to recall I was taught the Gutenburg Bible was the oldest book in the sense that it was bound and functions as a reader. I'm guessing the old testament is pretty old when it comes to yarns, but the Oz aboriginals must beat that with stories in pictures versus old clay tablets and papyrus scrolls.


----------



## Value Collector (21 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> I seem to recall I was taught the Gutenburg Bible was the oldest book in the sense that it was bound and functions as a reader. I'm guessing the old testament is pretty old when it comes to yarns, but the Oz aboriginals must beat that with stories in pictures versus old clay tablets and papyrus scrolls.




Well considering the bible itself is just a collection of books of short stories by many different authors, it suggests that a lot of writing was happening on probably many different topics long before the bible was compiled.

The Egyptians had books, and since the egyption civilisation is written about in the bible, obviously the egyption predate the bible, so yes there were books before the bible.

Eg the Bible talks about Moses escaping the egyption empire, and then wandering around for 40 years, 

Let's say the bible stories of Moses were written 100 years after he escaped Egypt, that means the egyption civilisation existed long before the bible, it probably existed 100's of years before Moses, so I think many books would have been written before Moses

And let's not forget the Chinese, Chinese writtings predate the bible also.


----------



## bellenuit (21 June 2015)

https://andyrossagency.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/the-first-book-ever-written/

*The First Book Ever Written*

_Let’s begin at the beginning. The first book ever written.  No.  It isn’t The Book of Genesis. Contrary to popular belief, at least  in  certain circles, it wasn’t written by God or Adam or even Moses.

The invention of writing marks the boundary between pre-history and history. The first written language  that we know of  was archaic cuneiform. It is believed to have appeared  around 3400 BC during the early period of  ancient Sumerian civilization in the region  between the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers  in what is now Iraq.  Cuneiform  was originally a pictographic language gradually becoming syllabic and  composed of wedge shaped characters ( the word, “cuneiform,” comes from the latin term cuneus meaning wedge.)   The  earliest writings  were on clay tablets and were probably administrative lists.

The first written story  that has come down to us  is The Epic of Gilgamesh.  It is a mythologized account of an historical figure, Gilgamesh, a ruler of the Sumerian city-state of Uruk,  believed to have ruled  sometime between 2700-2500 BC.

There are a number of fragmentary  versions of the story. The oldest known    are dated around 2100 BC.  But some scholars believe  that these could be transcriptions of earlier Sumerian texts.  Integrated versions have been found dating from around 2000-1700 BC.   The most complete “standard”  version  was written on 12 clay  tablets sometime  between 1500 – 1200 BC.  It was discovered in the ruins of   the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh, which was the largest library in the pre-Hellenic ancient world.

The definition of  “book” has  become more flexible in the last few years. It used to be that  a “book”  was defined as    a collection of  printed sheets of  bound paper,  encased between two covers.  But with the advent of the e-book, the definition is changing almost daily.  One would have to conclude that a  story written and read on clay tablets  is no less a book than  one on an iPad.

The Gilgamesh Epic continues to be available in hardback, paperback and as an e-book edition. There is only  one copy  available on clay tablets. This can  be found at the British Museum.
_


----------



## luutzu (21 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> ... I don't see how you can ignore the correlation of the formation of the Roman church with the decline of the Roman empire.
> 
> The Roman empire no longer exists, but the Church of Rome does. How do you explain that ?




The new Roman Empire (under Constantine) created the Church. Without Constantine mandating Christianity to be the state religion, Christianity would probably died off a long time ago.

You can argue that Constantine took Christianity because it was powerful (or morally superior etc) and that's why it has a large and growing group of followers around his time... But that's only one factor - the other being the meteorite that crashes just before his battle with the Western Roman Emperor and being a clever strategists he say that that''s a sign from God and Christ that his army, with shields painted with a cross, will be victorious.

Why does Rome fell and Christianity still survives? Because it serves the successive Kings and emperor better that it survive. Once a group of people is united, were taught since birth that Christ is the Lord and there is only one God and Christ is his son and saviour etc. etc.... It is much more convenient as a political leader to pretend you are with the people on that one, just that Christ follows you or chose you... if not Christ then God through the Pope ordain you.

That's why for long periods of time the Pope of Rome was all powerful - he wasn't just some dude with one big city and funny looking guards. His words matter, his words were law, and there were Popes that goes around conquering cities and states, not just reading the Bible at home all day.

In our time... just about every political leaders claim to go to Church and all that pious stuff. No political leader who are truly moral could ever stand being a politician for one day - but they have to pretend to be religious for no other reason than it looks like they can't be that bad if they go to the same Church as the masses. Well, you do get leaders like Bush and Abbott who like the Bible and those stories about the Crusades...


----------



## Tink (22 June 2015)

Tisme, I recall the same, first book published off the printing press.

VC, I have already posted this to do with Christianity and Western Civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization
http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au/

As I said, jumping on the back of something that is already established, is easy to say for the atheists.
Documents were kept in the Cathedrals.
Our freedoms were established because of this, responsibility and accountability.

_Every totalitarian regime in the twentieth century was characterised by an obsessive desire to persecute the adherents of Christianity._


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Tisme, I recall the same, first book published off the printing press.
> 
> VC, I have already posted this to do with Christianity and Western Civilization.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Christian_Church_in_civilization
> ...




Tink, it is obvious you are well grounded in common sense. We all know there are the awkward few who just argue for the sake of arguing and have no world view like yourself. Of course the Bible was the first book, scholars agree that is the case, but to save face those "few" will throw anything in the mix, including tenuous references from non peer reviewed internet sites. 

A book is a bound works, whether that be a "book of books" or otherwise. The library of Alexander was a bunch of scrolls, not books. Imagine the size of an imaginary ancient book with the thick two or three layer papyrus pages  and the large symbols using the reed pen; the16k line Iliad, for instance, would be huge and need a D9 to load it into your schoolbag ... 

And yes I think the Poms gave us parliament and the rule of law and that was predicated on Roman history and the persistence of Christianity. All the empire builders like England, France, Spain, Germany took their bibles with them and the Irish monks made sure they brought their fire and brimstone too.... all of them loving their neighbours and not coveting what the others had.


----------



## luutzu (22 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> Tink, it is obvious you are well grounded in common sense. We all know there are the awkward few who just argue for the sake of arguing and have no world view like yourself. Of course the Bible was the first book, scholars agree that is the case, but to save face those "few" will throw anything in the mix, including tenuous references from non peer reviewed internet sites.
> 
> A book is a bound works, whether that be a "book of books" or otherwise. The library of Alexander was a bunch of scrolls, not books. Imagine the size of an imaginary ancient book with the thick two or three layer papyrus pages  and the large symbols using the reed pen; the16k line Iliad, for instance, would be huge and need a D9 to load it into your schoolbag ...
> 
> And yes I think the Poms gave us parliament and the rule of law and that was predicated on Roman history and the persistence of Christianity. All the empire builders like England, France, Spain, Germany took their bibles with them and the Irish monks made sure they brought their fire and brimstone too.... all of them loving their neighbours and not coveting what the others had.




I thought the Chinese were the first to have made 'printed and bound' books - and had them on flat papers too.

And like VC said, the Magna Carta and all its freedoms for the masses was an accident. It was for "free men", and the only free men were... Men, men with titles and land. The rest were either women, serfs or slaves. And the only reason King John agreed to it was because the Nobility were too strong and the King too weak. 

But as accident goes, it was a happy one - one that's fast being undone for some 3 decades now. Justice for those who can afford it; presumed innocent? Tell that to the drone operators or American police beating and shooting coloured suspect; Privacy? Terrorists are everywhere and talking on every smart phone and internet so we must know everything about everyone...


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> I thought the Chinese were the first to have made 'printed and bound' books - and had them on flat papers too.
> 
> And like VC said, the Magna Carta and all its freedoms for the masses was an accident. It was for "free men", and the only free men were... Men, men with titles and land. The rest were either women, serfs or slaves. And the only reason King John agreed to it was because the Nobility were too strong and the King too weak.
> 
> But as accident goes, it was a happy one - one that's fast being undone for some 3 decades now. Justice for those who can afford it; presumed innocent? Tell that to the drone operators or American police beating and shooting coloured suspect; Privacy? Terrorists are everywhere and talking on every smart phone and internet so we must know everything about everyone...





I don't think it's bound (kind of hard to bind one very large page), more a wall poster, but will I stand corrected.  

I was listening to some pointy head on the ABC radio the other day about the Magna Carta... is that topic kismet or wot! 

 The 1225 Henry III version we quote as a freedom document is still really a non sequitur to supposed rights of the individual, but we are all lords of our own manors and "free men" these days, so it must be relevant, even if only two or three of the clauses from both docs are still valid in law.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tink said:


> Tisme, I recall the same, first book published off the printing press.
> 
> ]




So you think the because the bible was the first book printed on a press it was the first book?

That's like saying the first song broadcast on the radio was the first song.

The fact is, books were being written long before the bible.





> Our freedoms were established because of this, responsibility and accountability.




Only if you were a Baron, as I said that original document did not provide freedom to the masses. 

And what do you have to say about the fact that when that document was written the church was still burning people at the stake who were unbelievers or for silly crimes such as being a witch?


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> A book is a bound works, whether that be a "book of books" or otherwise. The library of Alexander was a bunch of scrolls, not books..




If that's the definition you are using, then who cares. There is no significance to the fact that the bible was one of the first works to be printed on a press and bound.

I mean that's like saying X song is more meaningful than all other songs because it was the first to make it to a record or a cd.

If fact even the bible existed for thousands of years before the printing press.


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If that's the definition you are using, then who cares. There is no significance to the fact that the bible was one of the first works to be printed on a press and bound.
> 
> I mean that's like saying X song is more meaningful than all other songs because it was the first to make it to a record or a cd.
> 
> If fact even the bible existed for thousands of years before the printing press.




Agreed, the Bible is of no significance insofar as this context, but a book is generally considered bound and having a worldwide view, plus Tink used it as example. We are all of us armchair historians and we all think we know about past events, ideals, cultures, ethics, customs, ad infinitum and backed up by ad nauseam retweeking and rewriting of history to suit contemporary consumption. 

The bible, the old testament in particular, stands as a rather unpolluted set of stories and isms that do embrace what we consider common sense ideals of freedoms, sacrifices, and social cohesions and it is the foundation of our modern democracies whether we like it or not. I used the aboriginal example to contrast the basic human need to belong to a tribe and of course a tribe must coalesce for the safety, economy of scales and synergy a community brings. But with codification of expected behaviours that in turn gives impetus to religions the tribe becomes obedient to the rules.....some of those religions are not benevolent, as evidenced by many blood lusting civilisations articulated by priests and oracles (apparently), some are malevolent masquerading as civic minded, one of which we are currently witnessing manifestly on the nightly news.

We can't even explain the first half of last century and the virtuous versus the evil, without endless reincarnations of the facts surrounding the WW1 and WW2, how can we hope to know what Egyptians thought savoury, except we know the true Jews were in there as both labour and high ranking public servants, plus probably making a buck finagling whatever and writing down scripts to keep their communion with God staunch. It's supposed the local Egyptians weren't all that fond of Joseph and his nepotistic Hebrew relatives filling all the plum jobs, eventually p!sslng off one Phraoah who decided to take the Hitler method of action and send them off to labour camps .... 

I think Tink's intended message is on song when it comes to 1st world democracies ... so long as the pendulum swings back to centre from its current far right possie.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> plus Tink used it as example.
> 
> .




No, Tink was trying to say it has extra significance because it is the worlds oldest book, which it is not.



> The bible, the old testament in particular, stands as a rather unpolluted set of stories and isms that do embrace what we consider common sense ideals of freedoms, sacrifices, and social cohesions and it is the foundation of our modern democracies whether we like it or not.




I do hope you don't believe that, that book certainly doesn't embrace what I consider common sense ideals of freedoms.

I mean stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath? Killing unbelievers? killing gays? Slavery? 

how are these things common sense?

Sure there might be some good stuff, but you have to pick through a lot of rubbish superstition and gross bronze age immorality to find it.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> Egyptians weren't all that fond of Joseph and his nepotistic Hebrew relatives filling all the plum jobs, eventually p!sslng off one Phraoah who decided to take the Hitler method of action and send them off to labour camps ....
> 
> .




The Christian church wasn't shy of lynching those who spoke against it.

As I said to tink, the same church she attributes free society to was burning people at the stake for speaking against the church or for silly superstitious reasons.


Various Popes order massacres, and laws that squashed the discussion of ideas that went against their teachings.

Only a secular society can be truly free.



> the old testament in particular, stands as a rather unpolluted set of stories and isms that do embrace what we consider common sense ideals




Not true, plenty of other fairy tales are good morals, even the three little pigs can teach kids something.

and atleast most fairy tales don't endorse slavery or genocide.


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No, Tink was trying to say it has extra significance because it is the worlds oldest book, which it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was hoping you would throw in the violence themes, because it cements my opinion that a benevolent society is a newer society that has evolved because of the advent of concepts driven by Magna Carta and the English emire.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> because it cements my opinion that a benevolent society is a newer society that has evolved because of the advent of concepts driven by Magna Carta and the English emire.




Yes offcourse society has grown and evolved, it has done this despite the religions, not because of them.

The fact that you can sit and read a bible and cherry pick the good stuff from the bad stuff, is because you (hopefully) have a moral system that is independent of the religious texts, based of secular ideals.

Knowing the contents of the old testament, how could you make the earlier claim that it was common sense ideals and freedoms?



> opinion that a benevolent society is a newer society that has evolved




I am glad you used the word evolved, because I think our society has been evolving since our first primate ancestors started living in social groups.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am glad you used the word evolved, because I think our society has been evolving since our first primate ancestors started living in social groups.




Society has been evolving due to the influence of many factors including religion. You can't just take any of these factors out of the equation and say that society would have been better or worse without this factor. These factors exist as fact and can't be erased.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Society has been evolving due to the influence of many factors including religion. You can't just take any of these factors out of the equation and say that society would have been better or worse without this factor. These factors exist as fact and can't be erased.




The religious folk here are pointing at religion as the main reason, I am just pointing out that it's not the religions that have been the driving force, in fact the core religious texts go against all the things that make society free, eg the bible does not support freedom of religion, but most of us here do, and a society that doesn't support religious freedoms can't really be a free society.

Hence these core values that modern society are based on, can not be from the core religious values, to the point that some of these values have been adopted by modern religions, it's because their members have brought in outside secular ideas and modernised these older religions, so we can not give the older religion credit.

As I explained to you, the idea of not killing other members of your group was not created by the author of the ten commandments, it actually existed long before, it's a taboo that evolved early on in social groups and exists across cultures and species.

Giving the ten commandments credit for a rule that developed independently in many cultures and species is just silly, Yes the rule was adopted by the author of the ten commandments, but it's a naturally occurring taboo, that developed through evolution.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 June 2015)

Charity is a Christian construct that had done great service to humanity.
St Vinny's, Salvo's Mercy hospitals etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The religious folk here are pointing at religion as the main reason, I am just pointing out that it's not the religions that have been the driving force, in fact the core religious texts go against all the things that make society free, eg the bible does not support freedom of religion, but most of us here do, and a society that doesn't support religious freedoms can't really be a free society.
> 
> Hence these core values that modern society are based on, can not be from the core religious values, to the point that some of these values have been adopted by modern religions, it's because their members have brought in outside secular ideas and modernised these older religions, so we can not give the older religion credit.
> 
> ...




Some of the people you quote; eg the ancient Egyptians were religious in the sense that they believed in Gods and an afterlife. So religious thinking influenced the rules that they created for themselves. The ancient Greeks had their Gods so did the Romans.

 Can you name any totally agnostic/atheist societies that independently developed laws similar or superior to what we have today ?


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Charity is a Christian construct that had done great service to humanity.
> St Vinny's, Salvo's Mercy hospitals etc.




There was charity before Christians. Cultures the world over assist others, even in the animal kingdom there are examples of animals helping others in their social group.

Even the urge to assist others is a product of evolution.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Some of the people you quote; eg the ancient Egyptians were religious in the sense that they believed in Gods and an afterlife. So religious thinking influenced the rules that they created for themselves. The ancient Greeks had their Gods so did the Romans.




Yes, but Tink is not saying religion in general help form societies as we see them now, she is specifically pointing out some things she thinks are good and saying they only formed due to the Christian faith, I am saying this is un true. The good things people point out are mostly human traits that have evolved independently, and in a lot of cases have been slowed in development because of the religions wanting to revert back to old ways, or atleast not change.



> Can you name any totally agnostic/atheist societies that independently developed laws similar or superior to what we have today ?




Most of the laws we have today are superior to the biblical laws, and they are from a society that has become more secular.

eg. The laws that protect religious freedom are superior to the biblical laws that command non believers to be stoned.

It's because society has over time become increasingly secular that these new superior laws exist


----------



## luutzu (22 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Some of the people you quote; eg the ancient Egyptians were religious in the sense that they believed in Gods and an afterlife. So religious thinking influenced the rules that they created for themselves. The ancient Greeks had their Gods so did the Romans.
> 
> Can you name any totally agnostic/atheist societies that independently developed laws similar or superior to what we have today ?




Confucianism and Taoism. 

Well, Lao Tzu's Taoism was agnostic/anti-theistic then evolved into a bunch of gods and what not. But the Tao Te Ching is one of humanity's wisest, most insightful book ever written - and it's not me saying that, some smart White guy did (Carl Jung or Bertrand Russell from memory).

Confucius and Confucianism teaches the moral code and does what religion the world over tries to do without the god and fairy tale stuff. Despite the bad rap during Mao's great leap forward, Confucian teachings influenced the entire Chinese empire and all its colonies and vassals for a couple thousand years - it still does today.

If you ask me, these two are by far more superior to Western Christian bible and other religious texts - It is because it not only teaches independent thought, ways of thinking and examining life, but also morality and righteous code of conduct - all without threats of eternal condemnation and sins and eternal life for followers. 

Just because the year starts with Christ doesn't mean history and wisdom began there too.


----------



## bellenuit (22 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Can you name any totally agnostic/atheist societies that independently developed laws similar or superior to what we have today ?




Can you name any totally agnostic/atheist societies? There may be state mandated anti-theism, but that doesn't imply the society is that way. 

The tone of your question seems to be implying that the corollary is true, namely that moral and ethical standards that evolved in societies that are not totally agnostic/atheist came from the non-agnostic/atheist members only. That is patently false as any reading of history will usually show that it if often the latter that are the last to embrace what we now regard as accepted morality/ethics.

Our morality is primarily driven by empathy with our fellow human beings, not by texts from some ancient scripts. Empathy is something we all as humans share, be one religious or non-religious. Unfortunately, the religious often let their dogma override what they otherwise would not do if driven solely by empathy.


----------



## bellenuit (22 June 2015)

*The Hierarchy of Religious Beliefs*





http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/20/the-hierarchy-of-religious-beliefs/


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *The Hierarchy of Religious Beliefs*
> 
> View attachment 63108
> 
> ...




I like that, but is there a place for basement dwellers like me?


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> I like that, but is there a place for basement dwellers like me?




From your opinions you have expressed I would have thought you fit nicely into the second from the bottom.


But anyway. I asked the below question earlier, just wondering if you could answer it.

Knowing the contents of the old testament, how could you make the earlier claim that it was common sense ideals and freedoms?


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> From your opinions you have expressed I would have thought you fit nicely into the second from the bottom.




Here we go again. 

So what was that you were saying about social cohesion coming naturally and evolving as society progresses ...it's just common sense right? Does insulting people count as cementing relationships? Perhaps a dose of religious instruction wouldn't do you any harm. 

Of course we all knew why you latched onto the evolution of community concept because it fits nicely with your agenda to mainstream homosexuality and disrupt the evolutionary progression of hetrosexuality doesn't it.


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Knowing the contents of the old testament, how could you make the earlier claim that it was common sense ideals and freedoms?




Why bother, you are just picking a fight because you think you are smarter than anyone else.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2015)

> The tone of your question seems to be implying that the corollary is true, namely that moral and ethical standards that evolved in societies that are not totally agnostic/atheist came from the non-agnostic/atheist members only. That is patently false as any reading of history will usually show that it if often the latter that are the last to embrace what we now regard as accepted morality/ethics.




I didn't say that at all, and you missed my point even though I stated it clearly. Society evolves due to many influences, one of them being religion. Some people are trying to say as a fact that if religion was never "invented" we would have a superior society than what we have now. This is impossible to prove one way or the other, because most if not all societies had some sort of religious influence on their moral/legal systems.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> Confucianism and Taoism.
> 
> Well, Lao Tzu's Taoism was agnostic/anti-theistic then evolved into a bunch of gods and what not. But the Tao Te Ching is one of humanity's wisest, most insightful book ever written - and it's not me saying that, some smart White guy did (Carl Jung or Bertrand Russell from memory).
> 
> ...




And look at the Chinese society today. Almost totally amoral, will cheat people wherever they can, will invade other countries like Tibet where they don't belong, have very little regard for other cultures or other people's rights.

If you are proposing China as a beacon of non religious morality, then I think you are on the wrong horse.


----------



## luutzu (22 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And look at the Chinese society today. Almost totally amoral, will cheat people wherever they can, will invade other countries like Tibet where they don't belong, have very little regard for other cultures or other people's rights.
> 
> If you are proposing China as a beacon of non religious morality, then I think you are on the wrong horse.




They got that from Communist totalitarianism, so they're influenced by the West and its debauchery, haha.
Vietnam is also stuffed, and they're also Communists. 

I think the populace, in general, are much more moderate and moral than politicians and the political elite. It's strange but for some reason most ordinarily decent people become psychotic when they take power. It's not that power corrupts, it does that too I think, but for some reason they think that doing amoral, dastardly things (generally to other people) serves their people and the national interests. 

Don't know whether that's just real politik or just an excuse for their psycho self to come out, but yea.

---

While we're on the who and what's first thing... Democracy isn't a Western or Christian thing either. I've read a couple essays and works for ancient Chinese scholars who teaches democratic values and putting the people first as the best way to govern. 

Take Confucius, because he's quotable... Those who give to the people gain the people; those who gain the people gain the world. 

There's at least two other sources that teaches along similar line. Just the Emperors and the warlords of China were too powerful, unlike King John who's being abused by the Nobility, it didn't catch on.

So while we in the West think we're the foundation of democracy and all that... democracy isn't just about letting people turning up to vote (people actually do vote for candidates in VN and China too, apparently)... but it's about benefiting the populace. 

We are slowly seeing how that is eroding and the upper crust have way too much influence and power and wealth and benefits of society aren't reaching enough people...

anyway, back to work.


----------



## bellenuit (22 June 2015)

The interesting thing about the pyramid is that at the outset most followers of the Abrahamic religions would have probably sat at the top of the pyramid. For example, if you take Numbers 31:7-18, we read:

_7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba””the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army””the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds””who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 *Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.* _

This is comparable to if not more barbaric than the actions of ISIS that we read about daily.

Over the centuries, the mainstream followers of the Abrahamic religions have moved down the pyramid to the 2nd level up, though there are minor sects within Christianity and Judaism that are still higher up the pyramid and significant numbers of the Islamic faith that still have not gotten below the third level.

This downward trend had been mainly due to the influence of secular and scientific thinking, not just from secular people but from religious people as well. The changes haven't come from within religion in the sense of alterations to the dogma, with the exception of the New Testament that forms the basis of Christianity as we know it today (with still a lot of reverence to the Old Testament), but from education that forced rational people (religious too) to conclude that much of the dogma had to be rubbish. So the dogma hasn't altered much over the centuries, just parts of it are no longer emphasised and is mainly glossed over.

Although the religious institutions can be credited with promoting education for long periods of their history, it is the ideas acquired through the outside influences that education exposes people to that in turn provided the moderating effect on religion.


----------



## Tink (22 June 2015)

VC, I don't appreciate you saying Tink said, Tink said. 
They know perfectly well what I wrote, and I don't need you to speak for me, thanks.

I put up the Magna Carta and mentioned about our Laws and Legal system, but you can't accept the truth of where we came from.
You twist and turn things to suit yourself, but I was stating FACTS, even if you don't want to hear them.

Thanks, Tisme, you are spot on with what I said about our history.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, I don't appreciate you saying Tink said, Tink said.
> They know perfectly well what I wrote, and I don't need you to speak for me, thanks.
> 
> I put up the Magna Carta and mentioned about our Laws and Legal system, but you can't accept the truth of where we came from.
> ...




if I am responding to something you said, and then a second person comments back to me, but they don't seem to get what I am saying, I will clarify my comment by stating what you have said.

You still haven't responded to my point I made saying that at the time of the Magna carter, the church was still burning witches and heathens, and sentencing people to death or torture for blasphemy, I think it is you that has the selective view of history, you try and paint the Christian faith as a shining light of personal freedoms, which it clearly was not.

After the magma carter was written, your brand of Christian faith was still involved in executions of non Christians for another few hundred years


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> Of course we all knew why you latched onto the evolution of community concept because it fits nicely with your agenda to mainstream homosexuality and disrupt the evolutionary progression of hetrosexuality doesn't it.




You have lost me there, I have no idea what you mean by that.


in regards to me asking you to explain your position on the Old Testament, I am not picking a fight, I am genuinely interested in why you think it is a source of good morals when so much of its content is demonstratably immoral.


----------



## Tink (23 June 2015)

_Yes, but Tink is not saying religion in general help form societies as we see them now,_

Rumpole was right, you were wrong, VC.

So next time just answer their questions rather than, Tink said.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> if I am responding to something you said, and then a second person comments back to me, but they don't seem to get what I am saying, I will clarify my comment by stating what you have said.
> 
> You still haven't responded to my point I made saying that at the time of the Magna carter, the church was still burning witches and heathens, and sentencing people to death or torture for blasphemy, I think it is you that has the selective view of history, you try and paint the Christian faith as a shining light of personal freedoms, which it clearly was not.
> 
> After the magma carter was written, your brand of Christian faith was still involved in executions of non Christians for another few hundred years






Tink said:


> _Yes, but Tink is not saying religion in general help form societies as we see them now,_
> 
> Rumpole was right, you were wrong, VC.
> 
> So next time just answer their questions rather than, Tink said.




Still no comment on the wide spread murder and torture of people who spoke against your church?

Or the killing of people for silly crimes like blasphemy or witch craft?

Your just going to cling to the idea your church was a force for freedom because of the mag a carter, even though it was killing and torturing for years after it was written?

Nice tunnel vision tink


----------



## Tisme (23 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And look at the Chinese society today. Almost totally amoral, will cheat people wherever they can, will invade other countries like Tibet where they don't belong, have very little regard for other cultures or other people's rights.
> 
> If you are proposing China as a beacon of non religious morality, then I think you are on the wrong horse.




It's Europe's  fault for giving the Chinese an unfounded reputation as being the inventors of everything past, present and future.... Marco Polo and his made up yarns in particular. I'm pretty sure they invented fire, round things and Roman soldiers. Even though the iron age hit China about a thousand years after it started in Britain, the Chinese being the mystical, moral and industrial centre of the entire past invented iron tools too. 

Imagine if they had invented The Pill or worse Viagra !!!


.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> Imagine if they had invented The Pill or worse Viagra !!!
> 
> 
> .




Or both, and get the best of both worlds !


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> It's Europe's  fault for giving the Chinese an unfounded reputation as being the inventors of everything past, present and future.... Marco Polo and his made up yarns in particular. I'm pretty sure they invented fire, round things and Roman soldiers. Even though the iron age hit China about a thousand years after it started in Britain, the Chinese being the mystical, moral and industrial centre of the entire past invented iron tools too.
> 
> Imagine if they had invented The Pill or worse Viagra !!!
> 
> ...




The Chinese had a thriving civilisation for thousands of years that a lot of people forget about when saying things like, "the bible was the first book", "Christians invented charity", "morals come from the bible"

Especially when it comes to morality, people have to remember that the things they would say are could moral teachings have developed independently in many cultures around the world, they did not come from the dusty tents of the bible authors in the middle east, they don't require a belief in a god, the require empathy.

And if you take the books to seriously and read the bad parts of the texts, while also lacking empathy you will end up like ISIS or the Catholic church and have innocent blood on your hands.


----------



## Tisme (23 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Or both, and get the best of both worlds !




Can I push my luck and imagine if the Chinese girls (not the fuglies) invented, owned and operated a strip club...with beer .. and big screened TVs that play Family Guy, Archer and AFL 24/7, oh and maybe American Restoration and American Pickers! Can I dad, can I?


----------



## luutzu (23 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> Can I push my luck and imagine if the Chinese girls (not the fuglies) invented, owned and operated a strip club...with beer .. and big screened TVs that play Family Guy, Archer and AFL 24/7, oh and maybe American Restoration and American Pickers! Can I dad, can I?




You shouldn't invent viagra and the pill - the two cancel each other out. It'd be like packing for Disneyland and found out you got no ticket. Will be pretty sad.

But yes they did invent viagra - it's made of tiger and bear's testicles, dried and grounded up. So if a person couldn't get it up, would they prefer some gay blue bill or TIGER's balls? BEAR's and LION's nuts? See, they also invented modern day marketing. haha


Western civilisation is pretty good, but Western European civilisation and expansionism need a few more centuries to really be celebrated and romanticised. A few hundred years isn't long enough to convincingly white wash the good old empire building stuff that was done - needs a thousand year or so for deeds like Caesar's handy work against the Gaul, or Genghis Khan's mountain of skulls to be glossed over without a second thought.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2015)

I wanted to share the Below rant I made in another thread in relation to comments made by sir rumpole, because I think it is a matter that there is confusion on. It seems to be a "go to" response, that people blame Atheism for the crimes of the communist parties last century.



> Atheism is not a group that atheists belong to, Atheism is not like Catholicism.
> 
> An atheist doesn't need to apologise for the actions of other atheists anymore that a red head needs to apologise for the actions of other unrelated red heads.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2015)

Copied from The Pope's Encyclical thread



> If you are going to blame Atheism, then you have to show that Atheism was the cause.




So in the case of Mao persecuting religious people and the current Chinese government persecuting Buddhists and the Falung Gong, what other motivation would you suggest ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Copied from The Pope's Encyclical thread
> 
> 
> 
> So in the case of Mao persecuting religious people and the current Chinese government persecuting Buddhists and the Falung Gong, what other motivation would you suggest ?




There are a few very likely motivations. But I can guarantee, that it is not based on the simple opinion of not believing in any gods, we all have many thoughts, goals and opinions, atheism is just one of them and it doesn't lead anywhere without other opinions or ideas to add to it.

The Chinese have tried to suppress religion because they see it as a threat to the absolute power that they wish their government could hold, they want people to be commited to the state, not a foreign religious organisation,when it comes to Tibet it is also part of a land grab. 

Why do you think it's atheism that causes the communists to act like they have? clearly their bad behaviour has been caused by the desperation of trying it install communism.


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2015)

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself












Karl Marx


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2015)

Value Collector said:


> There are a few very likely motivations. But I can guarantee, that it is not based on the simple opinion of not believing in any gods, we all have many thoughts, goals and opinions, atheism is just one of them and it doesn't lead anywhere without other opinions or ideas to add to it.
> 
> The Chinese have tried to suppress religion because they see it as a threat to the absolute power that they wish their government could hold, they want people to be commited to the state, not a foreign religious organisation,when it comes to Tibet it is also part of a land grab.
> 
> Why do you think it's atheism that causes the communists to act like they have? clearly their bad behaviour has been caused by the desperation of trying it install communism.




It depends how you want to define "atheism". While I don't blame atheism as such for the acts of some atheists I don't think it's fair to blame Christianity for the acts of some people who call themselves Christians, but have misinterpreted parts of the Bible to suit their own prejudices. If Jesus was here today I don't believe he would have supported the Spanish Inquistion or the Holy Wars. Bad things done in his name are not his problem, they are the problem of the people who committed those acts and not the religion itself.


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Copied from The Pope's Encyclical thread




Like 1 minute into this ...deja vu or what:


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2015)

Tisme said:


> Like 1 minute into this ...deja vu or what:





Yep, send in the clones


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> It depends how you want to define "atheism". .




Lack of belief in a god or gods. 

that's it, nothing else.



> While I don't blame atheism as such for the acts of some atheists




good



> I don't think it's fair to blame Christianity for the acts of some people who call themselves Christians



, 

As I said, I don't blame Christianity unless there is a direct link to it.

eg. I don't blame Christianity when Jim the Christian hits a guy with a tyre wrench in a road rage incident.

How ever I do blame Christianity when the leaders of a Christian religion whip up the emotions of a mob of followers to go burn a witch or a non believer. Because their is a direct line between them being raised to believe superstious stuff and being taught the bible is the word of god and the texts that state we should burn witches and non believers.



> but have misinterpreted parts of the Bible to suit their own prejudices



.

Who's is to say they have misinterpreted? But that's the danger of religion, it allows people to think their own private thoughts are the words of a god speaking to them, and there is books that instruct all sorts of nonsense.

If someone has been raised to believe that a god will talk to them in their prayers and they need to read the bible and god will instruct them, offcourse I am going to blame those teachings when they cause them to do horrible things.



> If Jesus was here today I don't believe he would have supported the Spanish Inquistion or the Holy Wars. Bad things done in his name are not his problem, they are the problem of the people who committed those acts and not the religion itself




How do you know? we have no idea what Jesus thought or said or even if he existed, All we have is different interpretations of texts written 100years after he was meant to have died, by people that never met him.

And Christians are taught the best way to find out what he wants of you is to pray and he will guide your thoughts, now if that is not a dangerous thing to be teaching I don't now what is.

And I don't care what jesus would have done, I care what the catholic church did do, and is still doing.


----------



## Tink (25 June 2015)

To dismantle God is your intention, and make your own rules, morals and standards.

*Gods Laws are above humans.*


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2015)

> And I don't care what jesus would have done, I care what the catholic church did do, and is still doing.




I suggest it would be more constructive to direct your attention to what ISIS et al are doing now rather than what the Catholic church did centuries ago. 

What the Catholic church may be doing now is like picking flowers compared to the mass executions, beheadings and sex slavery perpetrated by Muslims in THE NAME of their religion.

So why do we hear so little from you about that ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2015)

Tink said:


> To dismantle God is your intention, and make your own rules, morals and standards.
> 
> *Gods Laws are above humans.*




Which god? and which laws?

none of you religious folk can agree (or prove) which god actually exists, and which book we should work from or even which laws in the book we should follow vs which we should ignore.

either way we have to make up our own laws. I would rather base them on rational thought and evidence rather than superstition.


----------



## Tink (25 June 2015)

It seems you don't know much about our country, do you?

Maybe you should take more interest in our history, and how this country was set up.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suggest it would be more constructive to direct your attention to what ISIS et al are doing now rather than what the Catholic church did centuries ago.
> 
> ?




So far I haven't seen anyone here trying to argue that ISIS is a force for good or that we need to follow their laws.

Also the teachings of the catholic church are causing problems today.



> What the Catholic church may be doing now is like picking flowers compared to the mass executions, beheadings and sex slavery perpetrated by Muslims in THE NAME of their religion.




The catholic churches teachings are helping spread aids in Africa, Spreading Ideas that lead to anti gay laws that involve imprisonment and death and having witch doctors and other traditional spiritual leaders burned alive.

Its not all smiling faces as you would imagine.



> So why do we hear so little from you about that




As I said, there is no one here defending those Ideas, So it would be a very short conversation, I am against taking all forms of mythology seriously, You have the right to do it of course, but you have no right to use it to harm others or to force your mythology secular society.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2015)

Tink said:


> It seems you don't know much about our country, do you?
> 
> Maybe you should take more interest in our history, and how this country was set up.




Is your favourite shape a circle, because your arguments are all circular, it doesn't matter how many times people point out the logical fallacies you are making you keep reverting back to the same pratt (Previously refuted a thousand times)

Australia's constitution doesn't mention the words Jesus, Christian, Bible, pope or catholic.

Our laws do however protect religious freedoms, and it is widely accepted that we are a secular democracy.

and even if it did, it doesn't automatically mean that's the way it always has to be, society changes, it moves on, there was a time when Christianity didn't exist, but parts of the population moved from the old ways to newer ways of Christianity, society will always progress, there is no reason we have to stick to old superstitions, we will eventually drop your mythology.


----------



## luutzu (25 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suggest it would be more constructive to direct your attention to what ISIS et al are doing now rather than what the Catholic church did centuries ago.
> 
> What the Catholic church may be doing now is like picking flowers compared to the mass executions, beheadings and sex slavery perpetrated by Muslims in THE NAME of their religion.
> 
> So why do we hear so little from you about that ?




Won't be that constructive - ISIS won't listen, will probably remove his head, and if he managed to avoid that Abbott will remove his citizenship upon his return 

I won't say what the Church has and is doing is akin to picking flowers.
Take its stance against condoms... all Christian-based charities and NGOs cannot distribute condoms or preach contraception, leading to millions of death from AIDS/STDs etc.; then its stance against gay marriage - millions if not hundreds of millions of homosexuals around the world do not have equal rights as other citizens does.

Then there's the daily collection of donations with most going to build cathedrals and investment trusts while the poor can bugger off to a couple of shelters and charitable soup kitchens here and there.

Then there's its influence on the majority of the people, with ideas like this life is only to suffer or what not, the real life and real paradise awaits us (if you do as the Church saids)... There's some positive to that for some people in some circumstances, I guess... but overall I think a person would be happier, more motivated to get out of their current difficulties, more motivated to "change the world" for the better and live their life fuller if they're more rational and question everything, if they realise that this life is the only one they'll get.

----


----------



## luutzu (25 June 2015)

Tink said:


> It seems you don't know much about our country, do you?
> 
> Maybe you should take more interest in our history, and how this country was set up.




Some change are good, no?


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2015)

I wonder how this fellow would feel, now that the Catholicism of the public service and parliament is almost complete:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20633631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Back in the early 1800s the RC convicts were forced into Anglican Evangelical services and could not carry on with their hocus pocus rites. This is because they tried to hijack the Protestant Reformation only a few years earlier in the 16th century and around the same time played up about the English making Ireland their own back yard.

Somebody obviously took the foot of the brake and look at the mess we are in with Micks running the show on both sides of the argument.


----------



## Value Collector (25 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> Won't be that constructive - ISIS won't listen, will probably remove his head,
> ----




Yes, it's a bit late for rational discussion with those guys, I think JDAM's are the only answer there.

If we truly want to end religious violence, the only way to do it is to stop acting like it's a good thing to lie to children and fill them up with superstitions, and we have to stop feigning respect for adults who claim to be religious, admissions of devout religiosity should be met with laughter not respect.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

> I did not think that it would be personality to be honest. To a large degree personality must be very specific to the body. I thought that we as persons at our fundamental could be like some pure energy form of our selves. An energy that can't be destroyed but is transferred.




You are your personality, which is linked to functions of the brain. everything else is just a meat suit, used as a life support system for your brain.

Our bodies are made of energy and matter that can not be destroyed, when our brain and bodies stop functioning, that matter and energy will just be distributed back into the environment through the living organisms that eat us as we decompose. 

But this in no way suggest that we as persons continue to exist, in the same way that a deck of cards will no longer exist after you burn it, Yes, all the energy and matter contained in the deck of cards still exist, the energy and matter are released as heat, light, smoke and ash, but to say that some how the cards still exist as a deck of cards in spirit is silly, it's just as silly to think we will exist after our brains have been destroyed by fire or bacteria. 




> I am interested to see what happens one day when young Man A looses his head donating his body to science but ten years earlier a old Man B who lost his torso and donated his head to science. When the surgeons sew the body of A to the head of B does man B come back to life as a young man.




I would think if that were possible, you would have an old mans brain and personality sitting on a young mans body, the young mans personality and sense of self would be destroyed and the old mans personality and sense of self would be retained. 



> If that's the case we probably have invented eternal life right? You would not expect the brain of man b to age in a young body




probably not, his brain would probably continue to age. sure he would have a younger body, so might avoid death caused by heart attack or any other weakness in an older body, but he would still be susceptible to health effects caused by an aging brain.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You are your personality, which is linked to functions of the brain. everything else is just a meat suit, used as a life support system for your brain.
> 
> Our bodies are made of energy and matter that can not be destroyed, when our brain and bodies stop functioning, that matter and energy will just be distributed back into the environment through the living organisms that eat us as we decompose.
> 
> ...




 I tend to think of a "soul" if it exists, as being equivalent to "software", a set of instructions that control the hardware of the brain. Faulty hardware can cause the overall system to malfunction, like removing memory chips from a PC, but the software has not altered and it remains separate and independent  from the hardware ; ie it could be run on another piece of hardware, eg another body through reincarnation.

The subconscious mind is known to exist. It contains memories long forgotten by our conscious minds. Perhaps the subconscious is a background process of our underlying software.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I tend to think of a "soul" if it exists, as being equivalent to "software", a set of instructions that control the hardware of the brain. Faulty hardware can cause the overall system to malfunction, like removing memory chips from a PC, but the software has not altered and it remains separate and independent  from the hardware ; ie it could be run on another piece of hardware, eg another body through reincarnation.
> 
> The subconscious mind is known to exist. It contains memories long forgotten by our conscious minds. Perhaps the subconscious is a background process of our underlying software.




That's what you would call a hypothesis, and like all hypothesis, it needs to be proven before it can be taken seriously.

either way though, once a computer suffers a fatal flaw and the hardware dies, the software is lost, it ceases to operate and for all intents and purposes it ceases to exist.

if you switched off a computer and sat it in the bush, its software wouldn't run and the computer would just decompose to nothingness, it software wouldn't run again.

If someone came and took a copy of the software and installed it on a new device, it would be a copy, not the same being. But there is no evidence for anything like that happening in living organisms.

eg. If I could download a copy of Sir rumpole, and up load it into a new body, it would be a copy of you, the being I have created isn't actually you, you are still you.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> That's what you would call a hypothesis, and like all hypothesis, it needs to be proven before it can be taken seriously.




Unlike your own hypothesis which you can't prove either.



> either way though, once a computer suffers a fatal flaw and the hardware dies, the software is lost, it ceases to operate and for all intents and purposes it ceases to exist.




Software does not cease to exist once hardware dies. A computer of mine died a while ago, but I can still load the software onto another machine.



> if you switched off a computer and sat it in the bush, its software wouldn't run and the computer would just decompose to nothingness, it software wouldn't run again.




Patently false as stated above



> If someone came and took a copy of the software and installed it on a new device, it would be a copy, not the same being. But there is no evidence for anything like that happening in living organisms.




The software runs exactly the same on other hardware, so being a copy is meaningless.



> eg. If I could download a copy of Sir rumpole, and up load it into a new body, it would be a copy of you, the being I have created isn't actually you, you are still you.




The definition of what actually defines "you" or "me" is subject to debate. If it's shown that human software actually exists then that must be the definition of a "person", not the hardware it operates on.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Unlike your own hypothesis which you can't prove either.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Which Hypothesis?



> Software does not cease to exist once hardware dies. A computer of mine died a while ago, but I can still load the software onto another machine.




you can load a copy of the software, the original computer (hardware/software combo) is still going to be dead.

Making copies of something is not the same as bringing something back to life.




> Patently false as stated above




what is false about it, a computer loaded with software that can't run anymore, it dead, it will decompose to nothingness, cease to exist.





> The software runs exactly the same on other hardware, so being a copy is meaningless.




Being a copy is not meaningless. 

If I downloaded a copy of your mind to a new body, you would still exist in your old body and a copy would exist in the new body, if I then shot you in the head, I have killed you, the fact that a copy remains is meaningless.

I could make 10 copies, none of them are you, and the moment I kill your brain and your "software" ceases running, you cease to exist.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Which Hypothesis?



That humans have no soul (software) which continues after the hardware dies.



> Making copies of something is not the same as bringing something back to life.




You are the one who introduced copies. I'm saying that software is transferable between hardware.




> what is false about it, a computer loaded with software that can't run anymore, it dead, it will decompose to nothingness, cease to exist.




The hardware rusts, but the machine instructions are recoverable from backup.





> Being a copy is not meaningless.
> 
> If I downloaded a copy of your mind to a new body, you would still exist and a copy would exist, if I then shot you in the head, I have killed you, the fact that a copy remains is meaningless.
> 
> I could make 10 copies, none of them are you, and the moment I kill your brain and your "software" ceases running, you cease to exist.




No, doesn't make sense in the context of human software. That is unique, it's simply transferable between hardware, but can only be on one hardware device at a time (that's the license condition ).


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The definition of what actually defines "you" or "me" is subject to debate. If it's shown that human software actually exists then that must be the definition of a "person", not the hardware it operates on.




In reality the closet thing that actually exists to this "software" is our DNA.

I think the reality of DNA formation and how it grows in complexity and is passed from generation to generation, and improved on by natural selection is a much more interesting story than any fanciful story about life after death and reincarnation.

If there is some part of us that lives on after we die, it is not the individual person, it's the Gene's that we passed on to our offspring, but that's like copying software, nothing about the individual is immortal, individuals live and they die, our genes get replicated, but that's not you, that's your children.

even Identical Twins who share the same DNA, and were formed from the same egg that split in two pieces and grew are not the same person.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> In reality the closet thing that actually exists to this "software" is our DNA.
> 
> I think the reality of DNA formation and how it grows in complexity and is passed from generation to generation, and improved on by natural selection is a much more interesting story than any fanciful story about life after death and reincarnation.
> 
> ...




I don't think so. DNA is part of the hardware, like generations of Intel processors that get improved over time. 

That is a completely different thing to software.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> That humans have no soul (software) which continues after the hardware dies.
> 
> 
> 
> ).




My position is that we have no good reason to believe a soul exists, so I don't believe one exists, its not up to me to disprove a negative, any more than I would expect you to have to disprove fairies exist, if you said you don't believe in fairies, it's up to the people who believe in fairies and souls to prove their position, not for the benefit of me, but to themselves.



> You are the one who introduced copies. I'm saying that software is transferable between hardware.




isn't the only way to transfer software between hardware to make a copy of it?




> The hardware rusts, but the machine instructions are recoverable from backup.




yes, because the data is a physical imprinting on a physical piece of hardware which can be copied, at least until that physical hard drive or brain decays to the point the data is lost.

Back ups are a copy of an original, they may even include slight flaws or differences that make them unique.




> No, doesn't make sense in the context of human software. That is unique, it's simply transferable between hardware, but can only be on one hardware device at a time (that's the license condition




That sounds like special pleading.

You (your mind) are a direct result of your brain chemistry, all the data in your brain is stored physically in the brain, the billions of neurons and trillions of synapses are physical things that together along with other chemistry operate our consciousness, messing up some of that changes you, so it's all physical stuff happening. 

any attempt to rebuild that in some way will create a new being, that as I pointed out is not you, and is bound to have some differences making it unique.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think so. DNA is part of the hardware, like generations of Intel processors that get improved over time.
> 
> That is a completely different thing to software.




Well give me an example of this software then.

Dna is the closet thing to software code we have in our body.
It's what tells our brain how to grow, it puts all the neurons and synapse together.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

DNA explained.

It's chemistry, physical chemistry. no ghosts or gouls needed.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well give me an example of this software then.




No one has explained why different people have different ideas, or even how an idea originates. If it all comes out of brain chemistry then we should be able to create ideas by altering parts of the brain. We can change moods that way, but how do we create an idea for a new spacecraft propulsion system by altering brain chemistry ?


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No one has explained why different people have different ideas, or even how an idea originates.




I would think it's because we all have different experiences, and different amounts of knowledge.



> If it all comes out of brain chemistry then we should be able to create ideas by altering parts of the brain.




Who says we can't? I mean we can make a person with no feet get itchy feet by stimulating parts of the brain. Certain things are hard wired instincts, that the individual might think are ideas.




> We can change moods that way, but how do we create an idea for a new spacecraft propulsion system by altering brain chemistry




Those sorts of things are never created all at once in one idea, they would be the result of countless ideas based on the individuals (and those before him) knowledge and experience, and I system of trial and error, constant learning throughout the process.

But yes the human brain is capable of thought and learning, each time you learn something the brain there are physical changes in the brain.

Thoughts are an emergent property of a physical brain, a thought is actually a physical thing that can be measured, we can observe brain function using certain medical equipment.


----------



## bellenuit (1 July 2015)




----------



## luutzu (1 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> View attachment 63216




But Allah and God is the same "Being" - just different name due to different languages. 

Yea... God wouldn't like me either.


----------



## Tisme (1 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well give me an example of this software then.
> 
> Dna is the closet thing to software code we have in our body.
> It's what tells our brain how to grow, it puts all the neurons and synapse together.




I think you mean kernal and its firmware. Software runs outside the firmware/hardware environment.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I think you mean kernal and its firmware. Software runs outside the firmware/hardware environment.




Software / firmware what ever you would like to call it, do you have an example of any thing like this that operates in biology, and that can be transferred to another entity without making a copy of its self.

Or that operates not as an emergent property of a physical brain, but can continue operating even after its host brain has decayed?


----------



## bellenuit (2 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> But Allah and God is the same "Being" - just different name due to different languages.
> 
> Yea... God wouldn't like me either.




I don't think the ruling party in Malaysia would agree with you there. They have legislated that Christians cannot call the Christian God "Allah". 

In any case, although all the Abrahamic religions share the same God of the Old Testament from a historical perspective, few would today regard the others' God as the same as their own God. Christians and Muslims in particular would regard the others' interpretation of who God is to be so vastly different from their own interpretation that they are really two different "Beings".

Christians see their God as being revealed through the teachings of Jesus, Muslims through the teachings of Mohammed. The Gods each reveals are as different as the two prophets themselves.


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Software / firmware what ever you would like to call it, do you have an example of any thing like this that operates in biology, and that can be transferred to another entity without making a copy of its self.
> 
> Or that operates not as an emergent property of a physical brain, but can continue operating even after its host brain has decayed?




Maybe religion view transfer of the soul as Ultron did in the Avengers.


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think the ruling party in Malaysia would agree with you there. They have legislated that Christians cannot call the Christian God "Allah".
> 
> In any case, although all the Abrahamic religions share the same God of the Old Testament from a historical perspective, few would today regard the others' God as the same as their own God. Christians and Muslims in particular would regard the others' interpretation of who God is to be so vastly different from their own interpretation that they are really two different "Beings".
> 
> Christians see their God as being revealed through the teachings of Jesus, Muslims through the teachings of Mohammed. The Gods each reveals are as different as the two prophets themselves.




Did they? Nuts.

But then Jesus, an Arab Jew, looks way too white and a bit too blond.


----------



## luutzu (2 July 2015)

George Carlin on Religion.

Lots of swearing and foul language. Great humour.


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Maybe religion view transfer of the soul as Ultron did in the Avengers.




Lol, yeah. But I guess even Ultron's mind is an emergent property of the equipment he runs on, without the physical hardware, I don't think he could exist.


----------



## Tisme (2 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Software / firmware what ever you would like to call it, do you have an example of any thing like this that operates in biology, and that can be transferred to another entity without making a copy of its self.
> 
> Or that operates not as an emergent property of a physical brain, but can continue operating even after its host brain has decayed?





yeah firmware in e squared rom/ram in the animal world is probably out of my realm, but I do know there is a lot of seed banks in the world that have a lot of seed kernals ready to assume life with some moisture and oxygen added. I'm guessing there is probably some animal types out there like that too ...seamonkeys?


----------



## Value Collector (2 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> yeah firmware in e squared rom/ram in the animal world is probably out of my realm, but I do know there is a lot of seed banks in the world that have a lot of seed kernals ready to assume life with some moisture and oxygen added. I'm guessing there is probably some animal types out there like that too ...seamonkeys?




That's not really anything to do with reincarnation or life after death.

Just really a dormant set of dna ready to start reproducing itself (Making Copies) when it is activated.


----------



## bellenuit (27 July 2015)

*Three Things You (probably) Don't Know about Islam *


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *Three Things You (probably) Don't Know about Islam *





Serious?

There was a time when Islam rule the entire Middle East, Spain, North Africa, modern day Turkey and other remnants of the Roman empire right?

Within these territories there were Christians, Jews and other infidels... and they seem to not die due to Islamic purges and force conversion. I mean, when Israel was established (800 years? after Islam) there were many Arab Jews around the Middle Eastern/Islamic states still surviving and still Jewish that they migrate to the new Jewish homeland.

When Islam have total control, they still let infidels live among them, there are still trade between Islamic states and Christian states... So there might be some room for tolerating infidels within Islam, right? If not Islam, then at least within the Muslim communities - they too are human right?

---

It's great that we're proud of our own race and religion, that we think it's just the noblest and most righteous... Just be careful when we're also led to believe that another race or religion are just evil and scheming (and have a lot of oil, though that got nothing to do with it)... Once we believe that, the next steps are pretty obvious, and very terrifying - both to our own conscience and to the things that's being done in our name and with our placid consent (if not strong support).


----------



## Tisme (28 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> ---
> 
> It's great that we're proud of our own race and religion, that we think it's just the noblest and most righteous... .




It'd be interesting to get an honest assessment of religions (and political leanings for that matter) based on parental influence. For instance I'd wager that even theists have a pecking order of organised religions, with mum's at the top of the cascading list.

Through post apostolic history the Catholics have been the main perps of religiously driven abominations in the European theatre it seems. The crusades, the inquisition, the English micks trying to bomb English parliament, the Irish micks trying to bomb anything in between pub hours, even one of my ancestors was one of those fenians.

I often wonder if religion is just a convenient skin for the evil men do.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> It'd be interesting to get an honest assessment of religions (and political leanings for that matter) based on parental influence. For instance I'd wager that even theists have a pecking order of organised religions, with mum's at the top of the cascading list.
> 
> Through post apostolic history the Catholics have been the main perps of religiously driven abominations in the European theatre it seems. The crusades, the inquisition, the English micks trying to bomb English parliament, the Irish micks trying to bomb anything in between pub hours, even one of my ancestors was one of those fenians.
> 
> I often wonder if religion is just a convenient skin for the evil men do.




I think so too.

People do things they believe serves their interests. Often serving their interests mean harming others interests and so they pull whatever is at hand to disguise the true intention. Religion seems the most effective because a lot of religious people aren't the thinking type, haha...


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> I often wonder if religion is just a convenient skin for the evil men do.




If not for the belief that they were carrying out the will of a god, and would be rewarded in the after life, What would be the point of a suicide mission flying planes into the world trade centres?

I think religion is to blame for two things.

1, it is the direct cause of many acts of violence and conflicts.

2, even in conflicts where it is not the direct cause, it can lead to the "otherisation" of other groups, which can mean conflicts are dragged out long after a normal settlement should have been reached, and populations never intermingle, and it can lead to people declaring wars on those other worthless groups more easily.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> If not for the belief that they were carrying out the will of a god, and would be rewarded in the after life, What would be the point of a suicide mission flying planes into the world trade centres?
> 
> I think religion is to blame for two things.
> 
> ...




Religion certainly plays a part in violence. The Crusades was a Holy War, without religion it probably would not have taken place. 

The Irish 'troubles' are/were probably more about Republicanism than religion, and religion was an excuse not reason, and any references to religion by Hitler was a device to get people stirred up rather than a true belief.

However, do I get the feeling that we have been through all this before ?


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Irish 'troubles' are/were probably more about Republicanism than religion, and religion was an excuse not reason,




it's easier to blow up other people, Have you noticed how much more Australians care about an act of terrorism in a foreign land when they find out some "Aussies" were killed.

The Catholics went to catholic schools, lived in the Catholic side of town, and married and socialised with Catholics, the Protestants were just "Other" people, different from them, not to be care about as much, this makes it easier to attack them, and makes you care less when you hear about it on the radio.

The religious divide dragged the conflict on, when without the religious element, the cultures would have merged long ago.



> and any references to religion by Hitler was a device to get people stirred up rather than a true belief.




How do you know? Are you saying Hitlers hatred of the Jews wasn't real?

Are you saying that the anti Jewish preachings from the catholic church to the mostly catholic German population didn't lay a foundation for the Nazis to take it a step further?

Again, its a case where religions have created artificial divides in populations, and made it easy for mob mentality to turn against the "other" group.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 July 2015)

bellenuit said:


> *Three Things You (probably) Don't Know about Islam *




Thankfully, Adolf Hitler did not pen his ideologies. 
People choose (out of fear?) greater control rather than greater freedom and civility.
Thankfully, punishment for intentionally harming other peoples lives or property is incarceration organised by sane judgement.
In Australia we are freer willed and regularly vote acceptance of the liberal society. 
By no means are Australians perfect free world role models and there is work for everyone to root out racism and bullying.


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2015)

Wysiwyg said:


> Thankfully, Adolf Hitler did not pen his ideologies.
> .




He did, he wrote "Mein Kampf" (in which I might point out he states he wishes to do gods work)

And the Catholic church which was the biggest book banning organisation in history, did not ban Mein Kamfp, and no doubt was glad to have Hitlers support, and agreed with his hatred of the Jews.

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


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> He did, he wrote "Mein Kampf" (in which I might point out he states he wishes to do gods work)



I assumed that was an autobiography. This will be released from copyright next year but modern world will not see it propagate into another destructive collection of words.




> As per German copyright law, the entire text is scheduled to enter the public domain on 1 January 2016, 70 years after the author's death


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2015)

Wysiwyg said:


> I assumed that was an autobiography. This will be released from copyright next year but modern world will not see it propagate into another destructive collection of words.




It is kind of a story of his early life, and the struggles Germany has faced, but it is far from a biography, it is a manefesto, it's a very political work.

Saying it was a biography is a bit like saying the bible is a simple biography of Jesus or Moses.


----------



## luutzu (28 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> He did, he wrote "Mein Kampf" (in which I might point out he states he wishes to do gods work)
> 
> And the Catholic church which was the biggest book banning organisation in history, did not ban Mein Kamfp, and no doubt was glad to have Hitlers support, and agreed with his hatred of the Jews.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf




Though Hitler certainly hates the Jews, Rumpole might be right that the Nazi's Holocaust against them were motivated by more than just religion though. Probably more political and economic, racial purity stuff than religious. But then most of the books are from Christian states so who knows.

Heard somewhere that the senior Nazi simply wanted Jewish property, wealth and as a convenient scapegoat. Once  the Jewish minority got thoroughly scared want to get the heck out - it serves the Nazi's main objectives with no costs. Problem came up when other countries do not accept too many refugees - it being the Great Depression and not a lot of Western countries like Jews anyway... So came the Holocaust. 

That's not to say the West is to blame or the Nazi won't build the camps - they just want to "cleanse" their state for the 1000 year Reich and Jews, the disabled, the sick, homosexuals and communists are just the one and the same impurity to the crazy idiots.

Anyway, religion is probably the most common and effective tool of state power; other cult and fanaticism have been use if it serves the same end - the Killing Fields, Communism, Capitalism...


----------



## Value Collector (28 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> Though Hitler certainly hates the Jews, Rumpole might be right that the Nazi's Holocaust against them were motivated by more than just religion though. Probably more political and economic, racial purity stuff than religious. But then most of the books are from Christian states so who knows.
> 
> Heard somewhere that the senior Nazi simply wanted Jewish property, wealth and as a convenient scapegoat. Once  the Jewish minority got thoroughly scared want to get the heck out - it serves the Nazi's main objectives with no costs. Problem came up when other countries do not accept too many refugees - it being the Great Depression and not a lot of Western countries like Jews anyway... So came the Holocaust.
> 
> ...




I don't think you could honestly say that none of the wide spread mistrust and dislike of Jews in Germany was caused by religion, the Catholic Church spread antisemitism as policy for centuries, right up until the holocaust.

but again, I blame religion not just for the wars it creates directly, but also those that would have been avoided if the population was not divided down religious lines, it creates tribes where there shouldn't be tribes.

It's easy to hate people you have nothing to do with, people a lot of people hate gays, until they realise their grandson, cousin or friend is gay. it's easy to be racist until you realise that the new Asian guy at work is pretty cool, or the new Indian neighbours are really nice people or you brother gets engaged to black girl.

When societies define them selves by religions and don't mix, the religion ends up being a divide that is stronger than racial divides, look at any place with multigenerational conflict, I bet it is down religious lines, where kids grow up in neighbourhoods dominated by their religion, go to schools with their religion, marry into their religion and work with in their religion, it's very hard to fix those sorts of conflicts, especially if neither side want to negotiate because they have God on their side.


----------



## luutzu (30 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think you could honestly say that none of the wide spread mistrust and dislike of Jews in Germany was caused by religion, the Catholic Church spread antisemitism as policy for centuries, right up until the holocaust.
> 
> but again, I blame religion not just for the wars it creates directly, but also those that would have been avoided if the population was not divided down religious lines, it creates tribes where there shouldn't be tribes.
> 
> ...




I'm sure a lot in the Christian kingdoms of Europe and a lot in the US and elsewhere doesn't like Jews very much. There are still certain segment in the Christian community that wouldn't mind paying for the Jewish state so that Rapture, Armageddon and the return of Christ can take place.

I'm with you about religion and all that.. but maybe it's not religion so much as religiosity - a blind faith, an unquestioned belief in the infallibility of your "religion", be that religion is priestly dogma or other ideologies and systems.

So while Religion, let's call it the Church, can be pointed to as the cause or the inspiration or even the active participant in atrocities and pitting one group against another etc., the Church is only dominant, and religion is at fault, but only because it's the most prominent, the most constant and easiest group to define and take hold of.

But other non-religious fanatacism, say Socialism or even Capitalism/the Market... blind faith in such ideologies have resulted in as much damage and as much atrocities when they go unchallenged.

We all know about Socialism/Communism under Stalin and Mao, and to a bit less Pol Pot and other totalitarian states... Millions died and no traditional God/Christ can be blame for those. 

Or take unregulated Capitalism - slavery, child labour, environmental damages, wars and all that invisible hand and benevolent self-interests of the Market knowing best that leads to financial crisis after financial crisis that destroy lives and livelihood as well as sparking wars and revolutions. 

So while Religion/The Church can be the biggest culprit because it's so established and so influential... the ultimate cause is more due to unquestioned beliefs and assumptions.

So a healthy sense of skepticism, a system that divide power and provide checks and balances like Australia's works well. Though it doesn't lead to dictatorship, oligarchic rule is just around the corner.

Maybe the world works best if there's an enlightened dictator that is all powerful lives forever... wait... haha

But yea, all these tribal and religious division isn't good for humanity. Just we can't get rid of it by peaceful means... the only way seems to be through war of conquest and the dominant culture/group get to have its culture as the standard. 

Which brings to mind that movie where the First Emperor wholeheartedly told his lover that he will bring peace to the world that have seen continuous wars and destruction for over 500 years - his gf didn't realise then to achieve that all the other 7 states have to be destroyed and its culture extinguished.


----------



## Value Collector (30 July 2015)

luutzu said:


> I'm sure a lot in the Christian kingdoms of Europe and a lot in the US and elsewhere doesn't like Jews very much. There are still certain segment in the Christian community that wouldn't mind paying for the Jewish state so that Rapture, Armageddon and the return of Christ can take place.
> 
> I'm with you about religion and all that.. but maybe it's not religion so much as religiosity - a blind faith, an unquestioned belief in the infallibility of your "religion", be that religion is priestly dogma or other ideologies and systems.
> 
> ...




I have said many times the enemy is "faith"

If fact one of my favourite quotes is this.

"The enemy is not Muslims, Muslims are people. The enemy is not people. People are good. The enemy is not god, there is no god. The enemy is faith, love and respect all people, hate and destroy all faith.

As a sceptic, I honour doubt over faith, doubt leads to investigation, discussion, and makes you open to change, open to new ideas and to see things from the other side. Faith shuts all that down.

Religion is against doubt, the religious don't want discussion, they want unquestioned acceptance of their ideas, and at their core they wish to infect us with the same silly Ideas, they don't care about testing or evidence, because they already know they are right in their hearts.

This is what I fight against.

religion is also at the core of tribalism, tribalism certainly helped us in the past, but now it is a hindrance to our development as a global society, its a ball and chain slowing us down.



> So while Religion/The Church can be the biggest culprit because it's so established and so influential... the ultimate cause is more due to unquestioned beliefs and assumptions.




I am against all sorts of superstitious nonsense, but a cricket players private belief about his lucky underpants is not going to hurt me or society, So mainly I focus on areas where the religious are trying to bring their crazy ideas into society in ways that take my freedoms away or hucksters trying to sell bogus healing medicines or psychics etc.

If a guy sat down and tried to explain his lucky under pants to me, I would probably explain how humans find patterns where none exist, and the way we count hits and not the misses, and random chance etc, but mostly I would let him believe what he likes, unfortunately organised religion is a lot more harmful. 




> But yea, all these tribal and religious division isn't good for humanity. Just we can't get rid of it by peaceful means...




I think we can, simply by being willing to question peoples faith, Instead of allowing them to get their way or make unchallenged public claims, always ask them to back up their claims.

I would love to see a day where every single time a religious person made a public claim they were ask "So why do you believe that" and if they gave a religious reason they where asked "and what makes you think that's true"

I would love it is they always had to present facts to support our argument (like we must do) rather than religious bable, Maybe then the constant humiliation instead of feigned respect would make society realise they are holding an empty sack, rather than revealed knowledge.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 July 2015)

All very well VC, but a lot of people reckon that finding religion has saved them from a life of crime or drug abuse, so the need to believe in some higher authority is still relevant, even though it can't be proven that a supernatural being exists.

The philosophy that 'death is the end of everything' for an individual is not very reassuring, so I reckon you are going to have a hard time trying to talk people out of their comfort zone.


----------



## Value Collector (30 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> All very well VC, but a lot of people reckon that finding religion has saved them from a life of crime or drug abuse, so the need to believe in some higher authority is still relevant, even though it can't be proven that a supernatural being exists.
> 
> The philosophy that 'death is the end of everything' for an individual is not very reassuring, so I reckon you are going to have a hard time trying to talk people out of their comfort zone.




If people really can't deal with reality, then I don't mind if they resort to some private fantasy/spirituality, I put that in the same box as the lucky underpants, it doesn't really affect me, but when it moves beyond that and starts to affect laws etc, that when rational thinking needs to be involved and the lucky underpants ignored.

I find stories of people saying religion changed their life to not be very impressive, generally this sort of change happens when the person hits rock bottom and is ready for change any way, they may then seek religion because they want to change and become a "good" person, and society generally believes religious people are "good" people, so when they want to become good, they become religious. 

The fact is there is all sorts of things they could do to change their habits, most of it is just changing who you associate with.


----------



## Value Collector (30 July 2015)

​


SirRumpole said:


> The philosophy that 'death is the end of everything' for an individual is not very reassuring, so I reckon you are going to have a hard time trying to talk people out of their comfort zone.




It's reassuring for me, atleast I know a person that believes that probably won't want to fly a plane into a building, or waste their one and only life sitting in a jail cell.

A person who believes as I do also doesn't have to worry about a spook show starting when they die, and worry about whether it will be heaven or hell at the end of the tunnel.

And most importantly, a person that doesn't believe in any religion is free to think rationally, and make decisions based on facts, rather than dogma, we are free to eat any foods we like, free to accept people for who they are rather than shun them because they are gay etc.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> ​
> It's reassuring for me, atleast I know a person that believes that probably won't want to fly a plane into a building, or waste their one and only life sitting in a jail cell.




People like Timothy McVeigh weren't religious but still wreaked havoc. You can't blame religion for everything wrong with the world.



> A person who believes as I do also doesn't have to worry about a spook show starting when they die, and worry about whether it will be heaven or hell at the end of the tunnel.




Maybe people who think as you do figure that as there is no accountability for what they do in this life then they might as well do whatever they like, even if it hurts other people, as long as they don't get caught.



> And most importantly, a person that doesn't believe in any religion is free to think rationally, and make decisions based on facts, rather than dogma, we are free to eat any foods we like, free to accept people for who they are rather than shun them because they are gay etc.




Sure, I'm all in favour of freedom from religion as well as of it, and it should be called out when it's irrational, but your bigotry towards religion has blinded you to the fact that religion has prompted the formation of charities and other good works for which you give religion no credit at all.


----------



## Tink (31 July 2015)

VC has his own religion -- a militant atheist -- trying to push his ideology on us.

No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals.


----------



## Tisme (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> VC has his own religion -- a militant atheist -- trying to push his ideology on us.
> 
> No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals.




You think the Devil's greatest trick was persuading the world he and God didn't exist?


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> People like Timothy McVeigh weren't religious but still wreaked havoc. You can't blame religion for everything wrong with the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not trying to blame religion for everything, just the large amount of negative stuff it does cause.

There is plenty of accountability in the real world, you don't need to threaten people with myths.

I have never said that religion doesn't do any good, but I have asked people to name one good outcome of religion does that can not be achived in secular ways, and no body has every been able to show me anything.

Religion is like a pill that might prevent headaches in some cases, but it also causes cancer in some cases, and since we have a whole bunch of other head ache pills that don't cause cancer we should avoid the religion pill


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals.




tink,

I believe in right and wrong, I just believe when we try establish what is right and wrong that we should use rational thought and logic not a dusty on book written by fanatics.

In reality you believe this to, hence why you do not agree with a lot of the biblical moral teachings, the bible just holds you back on the edge of development, so you are a bit behind me. In 30 years you will support gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

Tisme said:


> You think the Devil's greatest trick was persuading the world he and God didn't exist?




Is God more powerful than the devil?

if God wanted me to believe, he would know exactly what to do to convince me. The fact that I am unconvinced means he either doesn't care what I believe, or he doesn't exist


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2015)

> There is plenty of accountability in the real world, you don't need to threaten people with myths.




So why are the gaols full ?


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I have said many times the enemy is "faith"
> 
> If fact one of my favourite quotes is this.
> 
> ...




Can't argue with that.

So what's a smart and somewhat liberal guy like you voting Liberal all this time? haha


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> People like Timothy McVeigh weren't religious but still wreaked havoc. You can't blame religion for everything wrong with the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't think VC is bigoted against religion or religious people. Didn't he defend people's right to practice their religious belief (Halal food) as long as such beliefs do not harm society?

I think bigotry is when someone dislike/hate something for no good reason than simply not liking it. I personally don't think it's bigotry if you debate the issue and reason why it's so and so.

I mean, one of religious' people's thesis is that religion give you morality and standards and all that good stuff that make a society good. VC has, and I agree with him, that a person can obtain morality and good judgment without religion - and I'd go further and say that a person is more "moral" and just without religion frame and distort their worldview, holding them and their thinking back.


People always grasp at this and that to justify their actions, or have justification knock into them... But if they think for themselves and do not put faith in any higher authority, do not justify the means for the "greater" end... I think you'll find people generally do and act in a more humane manner.


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> VC has his own religion -- a militant atheist -- trying to push his ideology on us.
> 
> No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals.




There's plenty of right from wrong... just you don't compare right or wrong against some old book that, among other things, talk about stoning women or parting the red sea or eternal damnation. Eternity is a long time to punish somebody.


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So why are the gaols full ?




Because the system and the law is unjust.

A lecture by Chris Hedges talks about how in the US, some 90% of prisoners are there for non-violent crimes.

Most are in prison because they're poor and cannot afford legal defense for the literal stacks of charges that's put in front of them - so they plead a deal and have a couple or more remove and serves "lesser" sentences or risk going all the way with no real representation and end up guilt to all the charges.

He talks about how in a few American cities, some 1/3 of their revenue comes from fines. Fine for not mowing your lawn, for standing too long on a street corner, for parking and tickets... and when the poor can't afford to pay those fines there's a warrant for their arrest; because they're too poor and their car isn't serviced, if they get pulled over by the cops they'd want to run because of all the tickets and warrant for unpaid fines... then they're either shot or caught and put in prison.


----------



## bellenuit (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> VC has his own religion -- a militant atheist -- trying to push his ideology on us.
> 
> No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals.




That's being quite personal isn't it? 

How silly with your "militant atheist". Do you regard argument as militancy. As for your other comment, it is utterly unwarranted based on the posts from him I have read. Because you don't agree with what he says, doesn't mean he lacks morality, a conscience a sense of right or wrong.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2015)

Value Collector said:


> tink,
> 
> I believe in right and wrong, I just believe when we try establish what is right and wrong that we should use rational thought and logic not a dusty on book written by fanatics.




I have no doubt you have a sense of right and wrong, most people do, the question is how did you get it ?

Maybe from the laws that were handed down from generation to generation. It's worth noting that these laws have a religious foundation. I don't think you can easily separate the fact that the First Commandment is that we shall not kill, and our society says that murder is against the Law. Same with laws against theft etc.

You cannot deny the part religion has played in formulating our moral code, which has enabled us to rise above the "power belongs to the most powerful" ethos of thugs like Alexander the "Great" and Genghis Khan et al.


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I have no doubt you have a sense of right and wrong, most people do, the question is how did you get it ?
> 
> Maybe from the laws that were handed down from generation to generation. It's worth noting that these laws have a religious foundation. I don't think you can easily separate the fact that the First Commandment is that we shall not kill, and our society says that murder is against the Law. Same with laws against theft etc.
> 
> You cannot deny the part religion has played in formulating our moral code, which has enabled us to rise above the "power belongs to the most powerful" ethos of thugs like Alexander the "Great" and Genghis Khan et al.




The first commandment is not thy shalt not kill, 

The first commandment is "I am the lord your God, thy shalt not put any Gods before me"

We have been through this before, cultures the world over outlawed killing members of their tribe, it's not just a biblical thing, it's a common sense thing, we work together better and have better lives when we are not killing each other, same with stealing.

in fact you need a sense of right and wrong before you read the bible, other wise how do you go about deciding which parts to ignore?

The bible didn't help us rise above Alexander the Great, the bible commands genocide, and the bible was used by the Catholic Church to justify the killing of other religions and those who were non believers.

If you want to say our sense of right and wrong comes from the bible, then why are we not ok with slavery? Why are we not ok with stoning gays to death? Why are we not stoning people who have sex before marriage? 

The reason is because we have a sense of right and wrong that doesn't rely on the bible.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2015)

> The bible didn't help us rise above Alexander the Great, the bible commands genocide, and the bible was used by the Catholic Church to justify the killing of other religions and those who were non believers.




Just another example of your one sided bigoted attitude. The Bible is a large and diverse document and yet you insist on cherry picking the bits that suit your own argument and leaving out the rest. The Bible certainly has some trash in it, but has other bits that can be used to put people on the right track. It's just a pity that your one sideness (dare I say arrogance) does not allow you to admit that.


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Just another example of your one sided bigoted attitude. The Bible is a large and diverse document and yet you insist on cherry picking the bits that suit your own argument and leaving out the rest. The Bible certainly has some trash in it, but has other bits that can be used to put people on the right track. It's just a pity that your one sideness (dare I say arrogance) does not allow you to admit that.




I am not cherry picking, you did. You pick out a good commandment and say "there you go see morality comes from this" but you ignore the other terrible commandments.

You said the bible is where we get right and wrong from, and cherry picked one commandment, "thy shalt not kill"

I simply pointed out that if that's the case, why don't people follow all the other commandments that command horrible things.

the reason is simple, we don't get our morality from the bible, we get it from our empathy, which is an evolved trait in a social species.

If we didn't have a moral structure that was separate from religion, we would all be acting like Isis.

in fact the catholic used to act like Isis, so your claim that it all stopped after Alexander the Great is just historically false.


----------



## Tink (31 July 2015)

What a load of rubbish, VC.
You have no idea what Christianity contributed to our civilization.

It is easy for you to say now that it is all set up.

Bellenuit, that isn't the first time I have brought up Atheism being another religion, we have an Atheist Convention in Melbourne that they gather together spreading the news.
If that isn't like a religion, what is?

Of course you get good and bad in all, but I was just pointing out to VC, the side effects of his religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (31 July 2015)

> I am not cherry picking, you did. You pick out a good commandment and say "there you go see morality comes from this" but you ignore the other terrible commandments.




So, there is nothing good in the Bible at all according to you ?


----------



## bellenuit (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> Bellenuit, that isn't the first time I have brought up Atheism being another religion, we have an Atheist Convention in Melbourne that they gather together spreading the news.




That is not what I took you to task for. You implied that VC had "_No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals._" That was completely groundless and could not be construed from what he has expressed on this forum.


----------



## Tink (31 July 2015)

_VC has his own religion -- a militant atheist -- trying to push his ideology on us.

No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals. _

I stated in the Gay Marriage thread, I don't agree with it.

Others have picked up what I meant.


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> What a load of rubbish, VC.
> You have no idea what Christianity contributed to our civilization.
> 
> It is easy for you to say now that it is all set up.
> ...




Actually Christianity held Western civilisation back for about 1,000 years. Made Europe so poor and so backward that Genghis Khan and his generals saw no benefit invading it - they only plan to invade after they took all the more civilised and richer kingdoms of Asia, India and the Middle East. Alright, so maybe that's also a contribution concerning the Mongolian hordes.

European civilisation only starts to lighten up and get out of the Dark Ages after the "rebirth" and rediscovery of ancient/classical Greek/Roman/Arabic philosophy and sciences in the 15th century.

And a good example of the Church still trying to hold that scientific progress back was the banning of scientific works by Galileo and a scientific treatise on political discourse of Machiavelli - banning something the Chinese Han Fei Tzu have done with equal ability some 1600 years before. Don't think the Church like Columbus' plan to go to India by crossing the ocean to the West though - implying that the Earth is not flat?

Nice cathedrals though.


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So, there is nothing good in the Bible at all according to you ?




The parting of the Red Sea is pretty good 

I think you'd have to take the entire book and its teachings to consider whether it's a moral book or not overall.

Reminds me a George Carlin joke about executing a guy through lethal injection but having to swipe his skin before injecting the poison. Don't want the dead guy to get an infection... that's nice and good but you know, he end up dead in the end.


----------



## luutzu (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> _VC has his own religion -- a militant atheist -- trying to push his ideology on us.
> 
> No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals. _
> 
> ...




Atheists don't push their ideology on anyone. I think we're all just try to have an "intellectual" discussion on religion and things. So of course people will try to push their case, but that is very different from oppressing or forcing religious people or any people to accept and live with it - or else!

Say an Atheist doesn't like homosexuals... that atheist would tell gay people to get a room and do what they do, or just look away or walk away. If a religious nut doesn't like homosexuals... six of them got stab in a public parade... and the nicer ones make laws that imprison or force castration or just plain old discrimination against them.


How could anyone think a book that could be use to discriminate and even justify murder and genocide a moral book? If not justifiable, then explain it away as "God's plan".


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So, there is nothing good in the Bible at all according to you ?




I have never said there is nothing good in the bible, I have simply disagreed when people say it is the source of all that is good.

Obviously a rule against murder is good, but saying none of us would have any concept that murder is bad without the bible is false.

as I said, our morals come from empathy, you don't need a religion to be moral, you just need empathy, the fact that various religions picked up on some of the morals and included them in their teachings does not mean they invented the concepts.

I am not trying to be silly when I say things like "stoning gays to death is commanded in the bible, why don't you think that is good"

I am asking you that question to point out that your morals that tell you that would be a bad thing to do are obviously not coming from the bible, because the bible instructs you to do that. So you are working off a moral code that is independent of the bible teachings, so saying you can't be good without the bible is plain silly.


----------



## Value Collector (31 July 2015)

Tink said:


> _VC has his own religion -- a militant atheist -- trying to push his ideology on us.
> 
> No right and wrong, no conscience, no standards, no morals. _
> 
> ...




tink,

I am more moral than you god, and your church leaders.

If I saw a man raping a little girl, I would do my best to stop it and have him jailed, if your God exists he sits by and watches and your church leaders cover it up and hide the rapists.


----------



## Tink (1 August 2015)

VC, atheism has now become a religion and as you stand up for yours -- I stand up for my freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

Talking about leaders, why isn't yours, Richard Dawkins, dealing with what is going on under his nose in the UK, now that the pedophiles are coming out of the closet to lower the age limit, since there is no right and wrong there, as we saw on 60 mins.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29542&page=10&p=876473&viewfull=1#post876473

Luutzu, even your left leader, Gillard, admitted the contribution that the Bible has given to society, and she is an athiest.

Mary, the mother of God has always been held up in the Church, so I don't agree with it stopping women.

Christianity contributed much and profound, as I have said before, from our laws, science, literature, architecture, music, values, virtues, family, the list goes on.

I don't care what people believe, but I do like people acknowledging the contributions they have made while we sit here enjoying our freedoms.

Responsibility and Accountability.


----------



## wayneL (1 August 2015)

luutzu said:


> Say an Atheist doesn't like homosexuals... that atheist would tell gay people to get a room and do what they do, or just look away or walk away. If a religious nut doesn't like homosexuals... six of them got stab in a public parade... and the nicer ones make laws that imprison or force castration or just plain old discrimination against them.




That's rubbish http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_persecution_of_homosexuals


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I am asking you that question to point out that your morals that tell you that would be a bad thing to do are obviously not coming from the bible, because the bible instructs you to do that. So you are working off a moral code that is independent of the bible teachings, so saying you can't be good without the bible is plain silly.




I'm not saying "you can't be good without the Bible", I'm pointing out that we DON'T KNOW what we would be like without it because it's there and it's a part of our ongoing cultural development.

It was pointed out that China has evolved without a significant religious history and they are now a country with very few morals or scruples about cheating or mistreating others so maybe they are an indication of how we would turn out without some form of religious belief, flawed though it may be.


----------



## MrBurns (1 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not saying "you can't be good without the Bible", I'm pointing out that we DON'T KNOW what we would be like without it because it's there and it's a part of our ongoing cultural development.
> 
> It was pointed out that China has evolved without a significant religious history and they are now a country with very few morals or scruples about cheating or mistreating others so maybe they are an indication of how we would turn out without some form of religious belief, flawed though it may be.




Good post, food for thought...........


----------



## Value Collector (1 August 2015)

Tink said:


> VC, atheism has now become a religion and as you stand up for yours -- I stand up for my freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
> 
> Talking about leaders, why isn't yours, Richard Dawkins, dealing with what is going on under his nose in the UK, now that the pedophiles are coming out of the closet to lower the age limit, since there is no right and wrong there, as we saw on 60 mins.
> .




Tink, name one piece of doctrine "atheism" has.

Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion, atheism is nothing more than a simple disbelief if a god, every thing else is some thing else.

any opinion I have about anything else is not atheism, eg My belief in equal rights for gays is not atheism, it's part of my humanism, my belief in a free market is not part of my atheism, it's part of my economic beliefs, the difference is, because I base my beliefs on facts and logic rather than faith, scripture and dogma, I am open to change my mind if evidence shows I am wrong, you however are not.


----------



## Value Collector (1 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not saying "you can't be good without the Bible", I'm pointing out that we DON'T KNOW what we would be like without it because it's there and it's a part of our ongoing cultural development.




so say that we don't know what society would be like rather than saying you know it is the source of our morals and you know it's made society better.

You use China as an example of an immoral culture, because you say they lack religion, but look at all the societies that are the most religious, they conduct terrible atrocities, don't look at our society now where we are probably the least religious, look at the actions of the church lead states when the church had the power, you can't simply look back with rose coloured glasses as if the inquisitions, and torture of non believers didn't exist.

I think China's problems stem from their authoritarian communist past, which is based on dogma and is similar to a religious regime in many ways.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> so say that we don't know what society would be like rather than saying you know it is the source of our morals and you know it's made society better.
> 
> You use China as an example of an immoral culture, because you say they lack religion, but look at all the societies that are the most religious, they conduct terrible atrocities, don't look at our society now where we are probably the least religious, look at the actions of the church lead states when the church had the power, you can't simply look back with rose coloured glasses as if the inquisitions, and torture of non believers didn't exist.




I never discounted the abuses by religious people, I simply acknowledge the good that religion does as well the bad. 

This is something that some others seem to have a problem doing.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think China's problems stem from their authoritarian communist past, which is based on dogma and is similar to a religious regime in many ways.




It's a dogma that has no moderating influence, eg belief in something more powerful than the Politburo, and that's the reason they are running amok and putting missile bases on Pacific islands.


----------



## Value Collector (1 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I never discounted the abuses by religious people, I simply acknowledge the good that religion does as well the bad.
> 
> This is something that some others seem to have a problem doing.




I acknowledge that there are some positive side effects of religion, I just don't think any of the positive side effects require religion, they can all be achieved in other ways that are less dangerous without the bad side effects.

I mean to me it sounds like you are trying to justify smoking, because smokers report some positive effects, just as I don't think smoking has any positive side effects that can't be achieved in other ways, I don't think religion has any either.

But the main reason you and I are in this current exchange, is because you said the bible is a source of our morals, which it is not, murder was taboo long before the bible stories were written, our social groups would never have survived long enough to develop language and writing if we thought it was a good idea to kill and eat each other.


----------



## Value Collector (1 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> running amok and putting missile bases on Pacific islands.




And that's something we or our allies would never do right, lol.

I think if you did a count to find which country had the most military hardware distributed around the world, and who's army was set up as an invasion force, no one comes close to our number 1 ally, the USA.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And that's something we or our allies would never do right, lol.
> 
> I think if you did a count to find which country had the most military hardware distributed around the world, and who's army was set up as an invasion force, no one comes close to our number 1 ally, the USA.




The fact is that the USA did not develop a military/industrial complex until it was forced to in order to counteract the threat of Germany and Japan. The Americans were too busy improving their own wealth instead of trying to spread their military around the world. Same with having to counteract the resurgence of the Soviet Union after the war.

Unnecessary militarianism isn't really a winner for democracies, too much taxpayers money being spent on arms when they could be spent on education or science (or pokies and beer) or other handouts to win votes.

It's only to counter the threat of the Godless Communists() that the West spends so much money on arms.


----------



## Value Collector (1 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The Americans were too busy improving their own wealth instead of trying to spread their military around the world. Same with having to counteract the resurgence of the Soviet Union after the war.
> 
> Unnecessary militarianism isn't really a winner for democracies, too much taxpayers money being spent on arms when they could be spent on education or science (or pokies and beer) or other handouts to win votes.
> 
> It's only to counter the threat of the Godless Communists() that the West spends so much money on arms.




You don't know much about American history do you, the Americans had plans for an empire and "expansion at the cost of other people's" as early as 1790.

Not only did they fight a rolling war of genocide expanding across their continent killing hundreds of thousands American Indians, in wars that lasted up until 1898, yes as they were building high rises in New York and the Brooklyn bridge, they were still fighting Indians.

But they also expanded into the pacific taking Hawaii and some Asian and Latin American territories, not to mention a war to expand into areas that had been claimed by the Mexicans.

it is actually no coincidence that the White House and many other capital buildings are inspired by roman architecture, the early leaders saw them selves as building a grand new empire.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You don't know much about American history do you, the Americans had plans for an empire and "expansion at the cost of other people's" as early as 1790.
> 
> Not only did they fight a rolling war of genocide expanding across their continent killing hundreds of thousands American Indians, in wars that lasted up until 1898, yes as they were building high rises in New York and the Brooklyn bridge, they were still fighting Indians.
> 
> But they also expanded into the pacific taking Hawaii and some Asian and Latin American territories, not to mention a war to expand into areas that had been claimed by the Mexicans.




Ancient history, but as far as I recall the takeover of Hawaii (which was not a great demonstration of democracy) was on behalf of a group of American businessmen who owned sugar plantations and who formed some sort of insurgent group and took over the island.

As for the Indians, yes they got thrown out of their land as we threw the aborigine out of theirs, so few people on the planet have nothing to be ashamed of , but it's all history now.

My original point still stands; ie the spread of the US military was in response to external threats, not because of some inner desire to conquer the world.


----------



## Value Collector (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> You don't know much about American history do you, the Americans had plans for an empire and "expansion at the cost of other people's" as early as 1790.
> 
> Not only did they fight a rolling war of genocide expanding across their continent killing hundreds of thousands American Indians, in wars that lasted up until 1898, yes as they were building high rises in New York and the Brooklyn bridge, they were still fighting Indians.
> 
> ...




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Check out the above Wikipedia page for a list of American wars, you will find it is quite massive, even before ww1 America had already been involved in many wars to claim territory. 

if that list of wars is not a clear sign of an expansionist regime, I don't know what is.

We had no such systematic wars of gencide against the Australian aboriginals.


----------



## explod (1 August 2015)

The yanks are only about money and they love guns.  There is money in it too.   Arms production one of thier best earners. 

But oil and gas is the big one.   They undemocratically supported the overthrow of the elected government in the  Ukraine who there is little doubt in my mind brought down that airliner.   The Dutch are not allowed to publish the findings of the disaster because it is not a result against Russia(Putin,  not that I like him).  The US desperately want to curtail Russian oil and gas output. 

Struth it has even come out in the last 24 hours that there has been a US support of ISIS. 

If you look at all the disputs/wars involving the US its all about the oil. 

We are heading for very bad times and our alliance with the US bodes ill.  IMHO


----------



## lindsayf (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Tink, name one piece of doctrine "atheism" has.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion, atheism is nothing more than a simple disbelief if a god, every thing else is some thing else.
> 
> any opinion I have about anything else is not atheism, eg My belief in equal rights for gays is not atheism, it's part of my humanism, my belief in a free market is not part of my atheism, it's part of my economic beliefs, the difference is, because I base my beliefs on facts and logic rather than faith, scripture and dogma, I am open to change my mind if evidence shows I am wrong, you however are not.




VC, you have a level of patience that Job would be envious of......


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> my belief in a free market




You really have no right to criticise belief in non existent entities if you believe in a free market.


----------



## luutzu (1 August 2015)

wayneL said:


> That's rubbish http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_persecution_of_homosexuals




Didn't it said on the page that Cuba followed Stalin's belief that homosexuality is a form of Capitalist decadence? So it's more of a Communist ideological persecution than an antheistic one.

But to be fair, I know a few really religious people - attend Church almost daily, volunteers and visit nursing home etc. - and they have nothing against homosexuals or Islam or Muslims either.



Just saw Child 44 - a movie based on some Russian novel set during the 60s in Stalin's USSR. Read that it's based loosely on true events but not sure how true it is but the movie said that Stalin have stated that there is no murder in paradise, that murder is a Capitalist disease etc. etc. So when children are found dead the authority and investigator classify it as some tragic accident, case closed.

Communism follow its own religion - they just replaced the old God with the new one - their Chairman.


----------



## luutzu (1 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> And that's something we or our allies would never do right, lol.
> 
> I think if you did a count to find which country had the most military hardware distributed around the world, and who's army was set up as an invasion force, no one comes close to our number 1 ally, the USA.




The word "ally" gives the impression of an equal partnership; but calling it for what it is would be impolite


----------



## luutzu (1 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You really have no right to criticise belief in non existent entities if you believe in a free market.




That's a good one


----------



## Value Collector (2 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You really have no right to criticise belief in non existent entities if you believe in a free market.




When I said I believe in free markets, I was using the word believe to mean "I support" free markets. Eg when I say I believe in equal rights for gays, I am not actually making a claim that gays currently have equal rights in all cases, just that I believe they should have it, in a perfect world, and I support a move towards achieving that goal.

so it's a different usage of the word believe, than a person that says they believe something exists, as that person is making a positive claim which is either true or false, where as my statement that I believe in free markets is just giving an opinion of how I think something should be handled.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> so it's a different usage of the word believe, than a person that says they believe something exists, as that person is making a positive claim which is either true or false, where as my statement that I believe in free markets is just giving an opinion of how I think something should be handled.




On one hand you critcise religious people for believing in something you say doesn't exist because you say that those beliefs infringe on the rights of others, on the other hand because of your belief in free markets you say we should open ourselves up to cheap  imports and put Australians out of work and drive Australian business to the wall.

It seems to me that people are suffering from your delusional belief in free markets just like people are suffering from delusional religious belief.


----------



## Tink (2 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Tink, name one piece of doctrine "atheism" has.
> 
> Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion, atheism is nothing more than a simple disbelief if a god, every thing else is some thing else.




'Church of the non believers' run by Richard Dawkins, and you are one of his disciples/mouthpieces, putting the boots into Christianity.
Doing all you can to get rid of Religion.

You are just parrotting everything he says.

What did Richard Dawkins say, there is nothing wrong with rape  -- I suppose if you don't have a base of right and wrong, you can make your own rules. 
There is no value system.

I have already said, they have an Atheist Convention in Melbourne, the Atheist movement.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2015)

Tink said:


> What did Richard Dawkins say, there is nothing wrong with rape




Can you provide a link to that statement by Dawkins ?


----------



## Tink (2 August 2015)

I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2015)

Tink said:


> I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
> I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.




If this is the quote you refer to, I see nothing wrong with his statement



> Richard DawkinsVerified account
> ‏@RichardDawkins
> 
> Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.




https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/494012678432894976


----------



## Tink (2 August 2015)

I think what he was saying was, if you are raped by someone you know, it is not as bad as by a stranger -- something along those lines.

I haven't taken much notice of him, but I am sure others can verify.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2015)

Tink said:


> I think what he was saying was, if you are raped by someone you know, it is not as bad as by a stranger -- something along those lines.
> 
> I haven't taken much notice of him, but I am sure others can verify.




There are various degrees of all types of crimes is what I think he was saying.


----------



## bellenuit (2 August 2015)

Tink said:


> I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
> I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.




Actually it didn't happen last year. What did happen is he made a statement regarding several types of sexual demeanours and expressed his absolute abhorrence of all types of sexual abuse. In trying to categorise types of abuse by their severity on the victims he mentioned that he, personally, had been "felt up" as a boy in school by one of the teachers, but he didn't think he had been harmed by it personally. The "liars for Jesus" lobby then took that remark completely out of context and tried to insinuate that Dawkins was excusing rape of school kids. The Christian lobby then pushed that story out through their various media and never contextualised what was said, other than repeat the erroneous claim that "Dawkins condones rape".

If you actually spent a smidgen of time reading Dawkins, you would know that he is one of the few people out there exposing the ill-treatment of women and children in Islamic (and other) societies when your own Catholic Church turns a blind eye to it or at best talks about it in just general terms without specifically identifying the perpetrators. Most other leaders in society, including the so called feminist movement and many on the Left, simply ignore the issue and treat it as OK because it is part of "their" (Islamic) culture


----------



## Value Collector (2 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> on the other hand because of your belief in free markets you say we should open ourselves up to cheap  imports and put Australians out of work and drive Australian business to the wall.
> 
> It seems to me that people are suffering from your delusional belief in free markets just like people are suffering from delusional religious belief.




Don't you think Australian Iron ore mines are putting Chinese Iron workers out of business right now, and providing jobs for Australians? Don't you think Chinese imports of Australian produce is providing jobs? 

We just have to find the products we are better at producing, and start marketing and exporting like crazy.

on balance though, a lost job in Australia is offset by a job in China, those of us with strong tribalism probably don't like that, but hey that's probably a conversation for another thread.



Tink said:


> 'Church of the non believers' run by Richard Dawkins, and you are one of his disciples/mouthpieces, putting the boots into Christianity.
> Doing all you can to get rid of Religion.
> 
> You are just parrotting everything he says.
> ...




Lol, church of the non believers, you are crazy tink, 

No Richard Dawkins didn't say there is nothing wrong with rape. Please either apologise for that or provide a link.



SirRumpole said:


> Can you provide a link to that statement by Dawkins ?




No she can't because it never happened



Tink said:


> I don't have the link, but it happened last year and after he said it, supposedly it kicked up a storm.
> I am sure the ones that follow Dawkins can fill us in.




You should really get your facts straight before you mouth off.

But back to the topic, please provide one piece of doctrine that this "atheist religion" I am supposed to be part of has.


----------



## Value Collector (2 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There are various degrees of all types of crimes is what I think he was saying.




I don't know if it is what tink is talking about, but I did here him say some time ago that molestation is not always the worst type of damage the churches have done against children.

he gave an example of a woman he was friends with who had been molested as a child by her priest, but she personally felt she had been more emotionally damaged but being taught the doctrine of hell, and being told repeatedly her young Jewish friend was going to burn in hell.

She felt that she had over come the trauma of sexual assault early on, but was still messed up with the doctrines of shame and sin and threats of hell fire.

I think after retelling her story Dawkins said something like "so in some cases compared to that sort of emotional abuse a bit of inappropriate touching isn't as bad"

I guess if that last bit was taken as a sound bite and played out of context, someone looking to discredit Dawkins may beable to give people the wrong impression, I think tinks lack of skeptism leads her to get the wrong idea and never try to back it up with further research, a bit like people that just read headlines and then spread false stories about what they think the article is about.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know if it is what tink is talking about, but I did here him say some time ago that molestation is not always the worst type of damage the churches have done against children.
> 
> he gave an example of a woman he was friends with who had been molested as a child by her priest, but she personally felt she had been more emotionally damaged but being taught the doctrine of hell, and being told repeatedly her young Jewish friend was going to burn in hell.
> 
> ...




Well I suppose one would have to be abused oneself before one could agree with Dawkins on that statement, but I at least physical abuse is someone else fault , while the "burn in hell" threat actually makes the psychologically abused person think that they are the one at fault. Which is worse ? I don't know, I have never been abused either way.


----------



## Value Collector (2 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I suppose one would have to be abused oneself before one could agree with Dawkins on that statement, but I at least physical abuse is someone else fault , while the "burn in hell" threat actually makes the psychologically abused person think that they are the one at fault. Which is worse ? I don't know, I have never been abused either way.




I found the video where Richard Dawkins tells the story about the lady who thought the catholic doctrine was worse abuse than here physical abuse, ( her childhood friend was Protestant, I mistakenly said Jewish earlie)

The video goes for a bit over 2 mins, and ends with a slightly aggressive interviewer trying to disprove Richard by asking the audience to raise hands if they agree with Dawkins, funnily enough alot of the audience thought the catholic doctrine was worse than physical abuse.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c1iSxEtgEGs[/video]

It's crazy how Dawkins can make a point like this, and then people like tink run around and say he said there is nothing wrong with rape. She hates Dawkins, but loves her church leaders some of whom have actually raped children and others who have covered it up.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 August 2015)

I suppose there could be good and bad aspects of the "burn in hell" doctrine. eg if a priest told someone "you will burn in hell if you commit murder", and that prevents someone committing murder, that would be a good thing wouldn't it ?

OTOH, if someone was told "you will burn in hell if you don't go to church every Sunday" that would be a bad thing because whether the person goes to church or not doesn't affect society in any way.


----------



## Value Collector (3 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose there could be good and bad aspects of the "burn in hell" doctrine. eg if a priest told someone "you will burn in hell if you commit murder", and that prevents someone committing murder, that would be a good thing wouldn't it ?
> 
> .




probably best just to raise well balanced adults with a sense of real world responsibilities and consequences of their actions.

I don't think you will find those of us who don't believe in hell are more likely to be murders, after all there are plenty of biblical and qur'anic reasons for killing. 

I personally feel that given this life is the only one I am going to get, I don't want to waste it by spending life in jail. 

If some one is a psycho that lacks empathy and could become a killer, I guess convincing them there is a god might stop them, but that is probably offset by the number of psychos that are convinced a god exists so go out and commit mass murders in his name, or the fruit cakes that kill their children etc because God talks to them.

Religious groups are probably the only groups that when mentally ill people say God has been talking to them, instead of saying you need help, let's get you counselling, they say "good stuff, keep talking to him and listen to what he says"' and then they go and do crazy stuff.

I have personally spoken to a 19 year old guy who was upset because he heard the North Koreans were killing Christians, and he told me that at night when he was in bed thinking about it, he got feelings from God calling him to strike back at North Koreans, now that is scary stuff, he is mistaking his private thoughts for instructions from a god, he has been taught the doctrine of hell, but is also aware of the passages to kill non believers and to defend the faith, lucky there is an ocean between him and the Koreans, and he is not talking about the local Korean take away.


----------



## Value Collector (3 August 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> OTOH, if someone was told "you will burn in hell if you don't go to church every Sunday" that would be a bad thing because whether the person goes to church or not doesn't affect society in any way.




Yeah, could you imagine the torment and emotional pain a person growing up and realising they are gay would go through if they were raised to believe god sends gays to hell. it would be terrible, growing up can be hard enough.


----------



## Tink (27 September 2015)

And I will post here too, just to remind you....

While the Australian legal-political tradition cannot lay claim to the historical depth of America and the United Kingdom, it too was built on solid foundations””starting with the first British fleet departing for Australia in 1787, when Captain Arthur Phillip was instructed to take such steps as were necessary for the celebration of public worship.

At the time of British settlement in Australia, Christianity formed an integral part of the theory of English law and civil government. In his seminal work, A History of English Law, Sir William Holdsworth expressed the traditional view of the close relationship between Christianity and the common law:

Christianity is part and parcel of the common law of England, and therefore is to be protected by it; now whatever strikes at the very root of Christianity tends manifestly to dissolution of civil government.

While the penal colony of New South Wales was established in 1788, English law was not recognised until the passage of the Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp.). This Act determined that all laws and statutes in force in England at that time were to be, as far as it was possible, applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land.
When the English common law was transplanted to Australia, the supreme courts of the colonies were empowered to decide which English laws were applicable to Australia. 

It was at that moment that Christianity was included in the law of the land.

The place of Christianity in the common law was not only acknowledged, but unconditionally adopted by the Supreme Court of NSW in the case of Ex Parte Thackeray (1874). The reception of these principles was perhaps best encapsulated in that case by Justice Hargrave, who famously commented that:

We, the colonists of New South Wales, “bring out with us” … this first great common law maxim distinctly handed down by [Sir Edward] Coke and [Sir William] Blackstone and every other English Judge long before any of our colonies were in existence or even thought of, that ‘Christianity is part and parcel of our general laws’; and that all the revealed or divine law, so far as enacted by the Holy Scripture to be of universal obligation, is part of our colonial law….

It has been said that a people without historical memory can be easily deceived by false and destructive philosophies. Although undeniably diminished and rarely acknowledged, the Christian religion has an enduring role in the Australian legal-political system. 

In these days of political correctness and cultural relativism, it is always good to be reminded of our Christian heritage, which still permeates most of the present laws and socio-political institutions of this democratic nation. 

To state this obvious fact is not to be ‘intolerant’ but to simply stress an undeniable truth.


----------



## Value Collector (27 September 2015)

Just because people in our history had certain superstitions, doesn't mean our modern society is based on those superstitions, because even back then they were smart enough to leave those superstitions out of government policy and left it open for religious freedom, and by then they had already started dumping a lot of the doctrines and taking power away from the churches.


----------



## DB008 (27 September 2015)

Tink, have you read the book, 'The God Delusion', by Richard Dawkins?



> A preeminent scientist -- and the world's most prominent atheist -- asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
> 
> With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe's wonders than any faith could ever muster.




http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618918248/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0618918248&link_code=as3&tag=atheistrepublic-20​


----------



## Tink (28 September 2015)

Why would I read an atheists extremists book? 
I have already given my thoughts about extremists, you can get them in any belief system.

I have seen him in interviews, and for someone that is suppose to be an atheist, a non believer, he spends a lot of time talking about God, and his rage against God, making money off the back of the non believers.
He has his own belief system, and religion, including his followers.

As I said, they have their own Atheist Movement and Convention in Melbourne, that they run like a Church.

I have no reason to question my faith, as I have said many times, because of my own personal experiences.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

Tink said:


> Why would I read an atheists extremists book? .




Because you may actually learn something, its actually a very good book, very well written and in some chapters deals with the science behind some of the stuff you have struggled to understand.




> I have seen him in interviews, and for someone that is suppose to be an atheist, a non believer, he spends a lot of time talking about God, and his rage against God,




No, he  hates religion, he doesn't believe in god, so he doesn't hate god. If he spends any time talking about a certain religions god, it is just to point out the immorality behind that gods mythology.





> I have no reason to question my faith, as I have said many times, because of my own personal experiences




Hindus, Muslims, people with lucky underpants, people who believe astrology, people that believe in ghosts, bigfoot or lochness monster and 1000's of other superstitions all say the same things.

The thing is humans constantly trick themselves into believing things, so you need to question your faith.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 September 2015)

from the great state of texas comes this crime against children.  It's like living in Bernardi world.  After what Tink has said I would not be surprised if she would be supportive of this in Australian schools, along with daily scripture classes.

Suppressing the ability of children to critically examine issues and come to their own conclusions scares the cultists immensely.  Scares the right wing politicians too, and they're usually quite chummy with the cultists.


----------



## Macquack (28 September 2015)

The only logical religion is, we should all worship the sun, because if the sun does not rise tomorrow morning we are all doomed.

But if we truly worship the sun, then we will die of skin cancer. Can't win with any bloody religion.


----------



## Value Collector (28 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> The only logical religion is, we should all worship the sun, because if the sun does not rise tomorrow morning we are all doomed.
> 
> But if we truly worship the sun, then we will die of skin cancer. Can't win with any bloody religion.




Spoiler alert!!!

The sun won't rise tomorrow, the earth will just continue to revolve on its access and we will be able to view the sun for a few hours until we revolve back into our own shadow.

So this religion will have to be polytheistic, because we will have to worship newtons laws of motion also, lol


----------



## luutzu (29 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> The only logical religion is, we should all worship the sun, because if the sun does not rise tomorrow morning we are all doomed.
> 
> But if we truly worship the sun, then we will die of skin cancer. Can't win with any bloody religion.




Can't win with any religion because some idiot will always managed to claim they can speak to the Creator/God and was chosen by said Creator to rule over them.


----------



## Macquack (29 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Spoiler alert!!!
> 
> The sun won't rise tomorrow, the earth will just continue to revolve on its access and we will be able to view the sun for a few hours until we revolve back into our own shadow.
> 
> So this religion will have to be polytheistic, because we will have to worship newtons laws of motion also, lol




When the sun finally burns out, it won't rise even if the world is still spinning.

And if the sun is no more, all the '**** and bull' religions including "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", "Hinduism", "Buddhism etc  will all vanish into the 'black hole' from which they have come (nothing).

"God", "Jesus Christ", the "Holly Spirit', "YHVH", "Allah", "Brahma", "Buda" etc 
will all have their work cut out stoking up that mother of all fires.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

Macquack said:


> When the sun finally burns out, it won't rise even if the world is still spinning.
> 
> And if the sun is no more, all the '**** and bull' religions including "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", "Hinduism", "Buddhism etc  will all vanish into the 'black hole' from which they have come (nothing).
> 
> ...




Yeah the sun would still be there, and it would continue glowing as a dwarf star for many billions of years, and we will continue orbiting it, because it will still have mass and there fore gravity.

maybe Gravity is what we should worship, because with out gravity, the sun would not burn and wouldn't exist in the first place.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2015)

luutzu said:


> Can't win with any religion because some idiot will always managed to claim they can speak to the Creator/God and was chosen by said Creator to rule over them.




It's all to do with risk ... do you take the chance of believing those trendy atheist quacks or do you go for proven God endorsed product?

You're juggling with your afterlife here ... you either get a ringside seat or you get thrown back into the armageddon battle to probably get skewered by some God dammed non believer ... is it worth the gamble?!

Look at those paragons of light, the par excellence of human evolution who reckon science gazumps religions they are generally:

educated in some elite phrontistery where they learn big words like marmalade;
hard core socialists masquerading as conservatives;
write a book about their huge success before the book makes them successful and a legend in their own lunchtime;
have a BBC or toff British accent (you notice none of them have heavy cockney accents);
highly interested in garnering their own flock of followers ;
stereotypical arguments;
 etc.

It's a big risk and one they are prepared for you to take so long as they don't get the blame.


----------



## bellenuit (30 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> It's all to do with risk ... do you take the chance of believing those trendy atheist quacks or do you go for proven God endorsed product?
> 
> You're juggling with your afterlife here ... you either get a ringside seat or you get thrown back into the armageddon battle to probably get skewered by some God dammed non believer ... is it worth the gamble?!
> 
> ...




Actually Tisme, you could reduce their characteristics to just the first word of the first line. 

They are generally:

educated.

As for your rehash of Pascall's wager: _You're juggling with your afterlife here ... you either get a ringside seat or you get thrown back into the armageddon battle to probably get skewered by some God dammed non believer ... is it worth the gamble?!_

Do you really think that these are the only two alternatives? One or the other? Pascall's wager has been debunked so many times before that I won't repeat the arguments again.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> It's all to do with risk ... do you take the chance of believing those trendy atheist quacks or do you go for proven God endorsed product?
> 
> You're juggling with your afterlife here ...:




How worried are you that the any of the Hindu gods are real? or that the Muslims are correct?

If you aren't worried about them, you will see why we aren't worried about your god.

As bellenuit said, Pascals wager is nonsense, any logical person can see the holes in it straight away. 


Do you remember what the year 1895 was like, no you don't you weren't born yet, there is no evidence to suggest 2095 will be any different, as mark twain said, you were dead for billions of years before you were born, and didn't suffer the slightest inconvenience, when you die you will just go back to non-existing.


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2015)

bellenuit said:


> Do you really think that these are the only two alternatives? One or the other? Pascall's wager has been debunked so many times before that I won't repeat the arguments again.




I think it pays to have a bet each way just incase bell, I just hope if HE does exist HE has a sense of humour


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> How worried are you that the any of the Hindu gods are real? or that the Muslims are correct?
> 
> If you aren't worried about them, you will see why we aren't worried about your god.
> 
> ...




Yeah but this thing is bigger than any of us VC. I don't know if we have the technology to counter attack if the big guy does decide enough is enough. I guess we could always send in Richard Dawkins to negotiate or better still convince God that HE doesn't exist.

Obviously the Holy grail is the keys to God's front door or a bunch of grapes. It's pretty obvious the Hindus and the Muslims get a fail as does the Catholic Church, which kinda leaves the Jews who don't appear to be in any rush forgoing their gold and influence and quite happy to wait until judgement day knowing they have a preliminary pass as the chosen ones. I'm keenly looking for some Jew in my gene pool and was pleased the recent blood moon didn't trigger the predicted end of days before I could complete my investigations.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah but this thing is bigger than any of us VC. I don't know if we have the technology to counter attack if the big guy does decide enough is enough. I guess we could always send in Richard Dawkins to negotiate or better still convince God that HE doesn't exist.
> 
> Obviously the Holy grail is the keys to God's front door or a bunch of grapes. It's pretty obvious the Hindus and the Muslims get a fail as does the Catholic Church, which kinda leaves the Jews who don't appear to be in any rush forgoing their gold and influence and quite happy to wait until judgement day knowing they have a preliminary pass as the chosen ones. I'm keenly looking for some Jew in my gene pool and was pleased the recent blood moon didn't trigger the predicted end of days before I could complete my investigations.




But which God are you scared of, and aren't you worried you might be worshipping the wrong one? 

I mean surely a God is going to be more angry at someone who spent their life worshipping a false god than some one who was genuinely unconvinced any existed.

Here is what makes me feel comfortable being an atheist.

Any god would know exactly the evidence I need to be convinced, the fact fact that I remain unconvinced means he either doesn't care what I believe or doesn't exist. Either way I am safe.

When it comes to religions, they are all based on the idea of getting me to give up some freedoms in this life, for the chance of another life after I die, this stinks of hucksterism, and when we look at the world as it exists, we don't see the things we should see if their claims were try, So I think it's better to just not believe, be a good person, and not harm our fellow travelers.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 September 2015)

Value Collector said:


> When it comes to religions, they are all based on the idea of getting me to give up some freedoms in this life, for the chance of another life after I die, this stinks of hucksterism, and when we look at the world as it exists, we don't see the things we should see if their claims were try, So I think it's better to just not believe, be a good person, and not harm our fellow travelers.




And let the hucksters keep huckstering especially if they are members of minority groups.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And let the hucksters keep huckstering especially if they are members of minority groups.




Problem is many of those being huckstered will get angry at you if you try to show what's happening.  Plenty in the USA will say they don't care if what they believe in isn't true, they want to believe because.....

Richard Dawkins says to not attack the person, but attack the idiotic ides they have.  Personally, I think getting religious people to understand what atheism really is, that it's not a religion, that one can still have belief in god if they accept the theory of evolution, they are good chinks in the religious armour.

because God sending himself to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself is a bit much for any logical person.

Satan - because without a scapegoat you might have to take personal responsibility for your own actions.

God - can create everything man can't, but nothing that man can.

Many religious people claim reason is the greatest threat to religion.


----------



## Value Collector (30 September 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And let the hucksters keep huckstering especially if they are members of minority groups.




Well I am not in favour of shutting down churches by force, That won't work. I would rather the religions slowly die of as their members turn away from superstitions in favour of rational thought, and they realise the benefits of living a secular atheistic life.

Do you have think clamping down on religious freedom would work?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Do you have think clamping down on religious freedom would work?




Not by law, except in the cases where there may be a threat to society, eg face covering.

But I would like to see more politicians publicly but politely challenge religious fundamentals and say how they determine the decisions they come to. 

I'd like o see the media challenge politicians on their fundamental beliefs and how they influence decisions just so we can see their rationale.

The problem is of course that politicians don't want to upset large voting blocs, so nothing much will change.


----------



## Tink (1 October 2015)

As I have said, I don't care what people believe, but I do like people to acknowledge the contributions that were made by Christianity to this country, via our laws and our lives, with our Christian principles.
The sacrifices that were made by the ancestors of this country.
It is called being grateful, something people have forgotten.
As you have stated yourself, VC, that it is there.

I have already said, belief systems come in many forms, and you can get extremists in all.

The Greens and their Communist agenda are disgraceful.
A new set of extremists trying to force us how to think, brainwashing the children with lies to suit their own agenda.

Brave New World by Huxley -- and 1984 by Orwell -- come to mind.

Education, yes, where the most robust discussions were fought out, in the Christian Universities. 
......and where parents are lining up to enrol their children in schools with a long waiting list, that are structured and orderly.

We won't even talk about the public education system now.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851
Ask Brendan O'Neill what he thinks of it....and PC.

--------------

I posted this a while back, if you want to talk about reason and science.
As has been mentioned many times -- Science has never been about disproving God.

_About the least fashionable thing one can do these days is utter a kind word about the Catholic Church. The idea that the church has been an obstacle to human progress has been elevated to the level of something everybody thinks he knows. But to the contrary, it is to the Catholic Church more than to any other institution that we owe so many of the treasures of Western civilization. Knowingly or not, scholars operated for two centuries under an Enlightenment prejudice that assumes all progress to come from religious skeptics, and that whatever the church touches is backward, superstitious, even barbaric.

Since the mid-20th century, this unscholarly prejudice has thankfully begun to melt away, and professors of a variety of religious backgrounds, or none at all, increasingly acknowledge the church's contributions.

Nowhere has the revision of what we thought we knew been more dramatic than in the study of the history of science. We all remember what we learned in fourth grade: While scientists were bravely trying to uncover truths about the universe and improve our quality of life, stupid churchmen who hated reason and simply wanted the faithful to shut up and obey placed a ceaseless stream of obstacles in their path.

That was where the conventional wisdom stood just over a century ago, with the publication of Andrew Dickson White's book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," in 1896. And that's where most Americans (and Europeans, for that matter) believe it still stands.

But there is scarcely a historian of science in America who would endorse this comic-book version of events today. To the contrary, modern historians of science freely acknowledge the church's contributions ”” both theoretical and material ”” to the Scientific Revolution. It was the church's worldview that insisted the universe was orderly and operated according to certain fixed laws. Only buoyed with that confidence would it have made sense to bother investigating the physical world in the first place, or even to develop the scientific method (which can work only in an orderly world). It's likewise a little tricky to claim the church has been an implacable foe of the sciences when so many priests were accomplished scientists.

The first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Father Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Father Athanasius Kircher. Father Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory. In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the 18th century, writes historian Jonathan Wright, the Jesuits "had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes, and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics, and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula, and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light."

Their achievements likewise included "star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics."

These were the great opponents of human progress?

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Father J.B. Macelwane, who wrote the first seismology textbook in America in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.

The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In 17th-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible.

Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the 19th century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments and cartography.

The early church also institutionalized the care of widows, orphans, the sick and the poor in ways unseen in classical Greece or Rome. Even her harshest critics, from the fourth-century emperor Julian the Apostate all the way to Martin Luther and Voltaire, conceded the church's enormous contributions to the relief of human misery.

The spirit of Catholic charity ”” that we help those in need not out of any expectation of reciprocity, but as a pure gift, and that we even help those who might not like us ”” finds no analogue in classical Greece and Rome, but it is this idea of charity that we continue to embrace today.

The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world.

By the time of the Reformation, no secular government had chartered more universities than the church. Edward Grant, who has written on medieval science for Cambridge University Press, points out that intellectual life was robust and debate was vigorous at these universities ”” the very opposite of the popular presumption.

It is no surprise that the church should have done so much to foster and protect the nascent university system, since the church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

Until the mid-20th century, the history of economic thought started, more or less, with the 18th century and Adam Smith. But beginning with Joseph Schumpeter, the great economist and historian of his field, scholars have begun to point instead to the 16th-century Catholic theologians at Spain's University of Salamanca as the originators of modern economics.

And the list goes on.

I can already hear the complaint: What about these awful things the church did that I heard about in school? For one thing, isn't it a little odd that we never heard any of the material I've presented here in school? Doesn't that seem a trifle unfair?

But although an episode like the medieval Inquisition has been dramatically scaled back in scope and cruelty by recent scholarship ”” the University of California at Berkeley, not exactly a bastion of traditional Catholicism, published a book substantially revising popular view ”” it is not my subject here. 

My aim is to point out, as I do in my book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," how indebted we are, without realizing it, to an institution popular culture teaches us to despise._

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ic-Church-to-Western-civilization.html?pg=all


----------



## SirRumpole (1 October 2015)

I have been saying for a long time that Christianity has contributed to the development of our laws and morality, but I'm not sure that it has all that much more to give in the modern world.

While the church interferes in individual rights (like the right to die) of people who may not necessarily share the Church's views, then they risk increasing isolation from the mainstream.

Religion should be a voluntary and personal affair, and decisions that effect society overall should be taken without its influence.


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2015)

> The idea that the church has been an obstacle to human progress has been elevated to the level of something everybody thinks he knows.




The thing about the Catholics writing stuff about the Catholic Church contributions, is that it fails to acknowledge the monopoly on schooling and politics it had in Europe for like forever before Protestantism emerged. If you were a scholar you probably had to be a cleric too...and the only organisation with the means to provide room, board, time and resource to invent stuff was the Catholic Church and its revenue streams.

Most of the stuff the Catholic Church says it invented is supposedly re inventions of Chinese and Arab stuff.


Things ramped up after the restraints were lifted during reformations, especially in non Catholic England,Wales and Scotland and now we have Iphones.


----------



## Tink (1 October 2015)

That is fine, what I was trying to point out was the orderly design.

_It was the church's worldview that insisted the universe was orderly and operated according to certain fixed laws. 

Only buoyed with that confidence would it have made sense to bother investigating the physical world in the first place, or even to develop the scientific method (which can work only in an orderly world). _


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2015)

Tink said:


> That is fine, what I was trying to point out was the orderly design.
> 
> _It was the church's worldview that insisted the universe was orderly and operated according to certain fixed laws.
> 
> Only buoyed with that confidence would it have made sense to bother investigating the physical world in the first place, or even to develop the scientific method (which can work only in an orderly world). _




You know I have no problem at all with people plying their religions Tink and I understand that you might get a bit gravitas at the constant assault on your church by people like me (which is rather wasteful of energy ), but what I'm trying to point out is that the Catholic Church and its various incarnations of the Roman and Holy Roman Empire were political war machines that did indeed hold back innovation, often brutally,  up until the emergence of the Protestants and the reformations, wherein the rush was on to keep the flock.

There isn't a lot going for Catholic (and Muslim) rule when you compare the the wealth and living conditions of those countries  that are and aren't....of course we could say that the bloodlines that threw off the yolks of repressive religion have a natural advantage.(of course rabid Gay countries like Ireland went a bit too far with their new independence from the Church )

 Despite enormous pressures and constant threat of Catholic inspired wars and Catholic fifth columnists, England managed to give us the industrial revolution, parliaments, law and self determination that served as the nursery for great things like computers and packaged beer.


----------



## Value Collector (1 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Not by law, except in the cases where there may be a threat to society, eg face covering.
> 
> .




Agreed, I just want to make sure real threats exist, not imagined threats.



> But I would like to see more politicians publicly but politely challenge religious fundamentals and say how they determine the decisions they come to.
> 
> I'd like o see the media challenge politicians on their fundamental beliefs and how they influence decisions just so we can see their rationale.
> 
> The problem is of course that politicians don't want to upset large voting blocs, so nothing much will change




Totally agree, and that's part of the reason non believers have to stop sitting back feigning respect, because I think the voting blocs that they fear would be upset are a lot smaller than they think. 

Every time a religious reason gets given, it needs to be questioned as to what is the secular reasoning, if it can't be justified in a secular way, its invalid.


----------



## Value Collector (1 October 2015)

Tink said:


> As I have said, I don't care what people believe, but I do like people to acknowledge the contributions that were made by Christianity to this country, via our laws and our lives, with our Christian principles.
> The sacrifices that were made by the ancestors of this country.
> It is called being grateful, something people have forgotten.
> As you have stated yourself, VC, that it is there.




The point you miss tink, is that the great things you attribute to Christianity, are secular ideas that just happen to have been done by Christians, pretty much everyone was religious when you go back a few hundred years you can't credit the religion they had for all their achievements.

Otherwise you may as well credit democracy to the Greek Gods. Its strange I have never heard you ask me to respect Zeus, Apollo or Athena for the things they have contributed to society.


----------



## Value Collector (1 October 2015)

Tink said:


> Only buoyed with that confidence would it have made sense to bother investigating the physical world in the first place, or even to develop the scientific method (which can work only in an orderly world). [/I]




people have been investigating the physical world since pre history, your catholic centric view of history is laughable.

Do you understand that great thinkers were making great discoveries long before the catholic church?

and as pointed out other non Christian societies were making scientific discoveries.

When Aristarchus discovered the earth was round and that it orbited the sun and that the moon orbited us, the catholic church wasn't going to be around for another thousand years.



> Aristarchus of Samos (/ˌÃ¦rəˈstɑrkəs/; Greek: Ἀρίσταρχος Aristarkhos; c. 310 – c. 230 BC) was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it (see Solar system). He was influenced by Philolaus of Croton, but he identified the "central fire" with the Sun, and put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun.[1] As Anaxagoras before him, he also suspected that the stars were just other bodies like the sun. His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy




And he worked all that out without the catholic churches support, its funny though, that discovery would have put him on death row in the catholic system, as Galileo's discoveries nearly got him killed.

Yeah, tink, the catholic church really instilled scientists with confidence.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 October 2015)

Tink said:


> That is fine, what I was trying to point out was the orderly design.
> 
> _It was the church's worldview that insisted the universe was orderly and operated according to certain fixed laws.
> 
> Only buoyed with that confidence would it have made sense to bother investigating the physical world in the first place, or even to develop the scientific method (which can work only in an orderly world). _




Tink, 

are you a bible literalist or do you believe most of the stories are metaphors ie do you subscribe to the Ken Ham creationist world view of God creating the world literally in 6 days and that the earth is roughly 6000 years old?






i thoroughly recommend doing some reading about the evolution of morality and how it got humans to where they are now.


----------



## Tink (2 October 2015)

It doesn't matter what I am, Syd.

It is called Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience, which is slowly being closed down in this country, and in the West in general.
 ....and it doesn't have to come from a Christian, even though we seem to be the most persecuted.

We have a lot of Champions of Freedom of Speech calling out, saying the same.

I thought we lived in Australia, not North Korea, where they have stopped a pro-lifer come in to talk.


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Tink,
> 
> are you a bible literalist or do you believe most of the stories are metaphors ie do you subscribe to the Ken Ham creationist world view of God creating the world literally in 6 days and that the earth is roughly 6000 years old?
> 
> .




Do you know anyone who is 6000 years old to prove the earth is 6k less seven days old? 

Why are you guys attacking Tink? I would have thought the hiding you've been getting from Rumpole would have subdued your desires to pick fights. :


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Do you know anyone who is 6000 years old to prove the earth is 6k less seven days old?
> 
> Why are you guys attacking Tink? I would have thought the hiding you've been getting from Rumpole would have subdued your desires to pick fights. :




Low hanging fruit


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

Tink said:


> It is called Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience, which is slowly being closed down in this country,.




Give me an example of how your freedom of speech is being closed down.


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Why are you guys attacking Tink?




Not attacking, just pointing out the silliness in her beliefs.



> I would have thought the hiding you've been getting from Rumpole




When did that happen, lol

consistent use of logical fallacies doesn't make your arguments credible.


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

It Constantly amazes me the lengths Christians go to rationalise their bible.

Listen to this try and explain why the bible talks about fire breathing dragons existing, he tries to claim they are dinosaurs they are talking about, and say that man walked with dinosaurs.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> consistent use of logical fallacies doesn't make your arguments credible.




What logical fallacies are you talking about ?

You have had a few of your own.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Give me an example of how your freedom of speech is being closed down.




She gave one example of a pro-life (anti abortion) campaigner being denied entry into Australia.

Do you agree with that ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She gave one example of a pro-life (anti abortion) campaigner being denied entry into Australia.
> 
> Do you agree with that ?




I asked for an example of how Tink's free speech was being denied.

But, on the topic of the pro-life campaigner, why was she/he denied entry to Australia? what was the actual reason given? 

Being denied entry to a foreign is not a denial of free speech. Plenty of people get denied for all sorts of reasons.

Me refusing to let you on my property is not me taking away your rights to free speech.


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> What logical fallacies are you talking about ?
> 
> :




Is your memory that short? I have been pointing a few of them out to you.

Slippery slope, appeals to popularity, straw man just to name a few of your favourites.



> You have had a few of your own.




Such as?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Is your memory that short? I have been pointing a few of them out to you.
> 
> Slippery slope, appeals to popularity, straw man just to name a few of your favourites.




Slippery slope argument is not necessarily fallacial.

If we wanted to deregulate the banking industry the argument that it may lead to more bank failures could be labelled as slippery slope, but evidence suggests that it's a valid argument.

Popularity ? Overall when you have a large section of the community agreeing with something that means the argument is valid at the time if people have all the evidence.

Straw man ? Such as ?



> Such as?




Your notion that just because someone is a member of a minority they must be right or equal in all regards and they therefore shouldn't be criticised in case their feelings are hurt or that they are above the lower human characteristics that the rest of us have. 

This is evidenced in a number of your posts.

I'm sure you are trying to do the right thing by minorities as you see it, but your political correctness sometimes gets in the way of clear thinking.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Me refusing to let you on my property is not me taking away your rights to free speech.




This country is not your property.

Some people may want to hear what this person says and make up their own minds.


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> This country is not your property.
> 
> .




Gee, you don't seem to understand analogies, the Australian Government is within its rights to deny entry to people, and when they do that's not stopping freedom of speech, around the same time they denied entry to the singer Chris Brown due to his domestic Violence history, that is not a denial of free speech either.



> Some people may want to hear what this person says and make up their own minds




Cool, they can always travel to him or listen to podcasts, read articles, watch you tube videos or the 100's of other ways we can communicate these days.

But I asked you why he was denied, do you know why?

In the past he has called for people to execute abortion doctors, that's why he was denied.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> In the past he has called for people to execute abortion doctors, that's why he was denied.




He questioned why abortion doctors were not executed, ie by the State for murder. That's different from calling for hit men to do it.

Anyway, if he hasn't committed a crime then whether or not you agree with his views shouldn't prevent him coming here.


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Slippery slope argument is not necessarily fallacial.
> 
> If we wanted to deregulate the banking industry the argument that it may lead to more bank failures could be labelled as slippery slope, but evidence suggests that it's a valid argument.
> 
> ...




No, because the banking industry has regulation which was put in place to stop banking failures, So it is not a slippery slope argument to say removing will make failures more likely.

The slippery slope argument would be "If we remove banking regulation, next thing the banks will want to remove regulation on wages and we don't want to get rid of minimum wages so we can't remove regulation> 

this is what you do with gay marriage, you have actually said you aren't really against them marrying, you just don't want them to have children, that's like you saying you aren't against deregulation, you just don't want to lose the minimum wage.




> Popularity ? Overall when you have a large section of the community agreeing with something that means the argument is valid at the time if people have all the evidence.




No, the popularity doesn't at all affect the validity, eg was the world flat when the majority believed it was? they would have given you all sorts of phony logic to prove their position which would have sound ok at the time, but they were wrong, and Aristarchus was right, even though a plebiscite would have went against him.



> Straw man ? Such as ?




The way you often misrepresent my arguments, you attempt to rebuild the argument in a way to make it easier to attack, so you end up not attacking may actual point, but rather a straw man. 



> Your notion that just because someone is a member of a minority they must be right or equal in all regards and they therefore shouldn't be criticised in case their feelings are hurt or that they are above the lower human characteristics that the rest of us have.




See, this is a straw man argument. I have never said anything like that. you have dressed up a straw man, tried to put similar clothing on it and are punching it, rather than attack me.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

> No, the popularity doesn't at all affect the validity, eg was the world flat when the majority believed it was?




Did you notice what I said about having evidence ?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> See, this is a straw man argument. I have never said anything like that. you have dressed up a straw man, tried to put similar clothing on it and are punching it, rather than attack me.




Well, people can mean things without saying them.

You could apparently read my mind when you pulled out of the gay parenting debate after accusations  which you never bothered substantiating, so is that a straw man ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you notice what I said about having evidence ?




In that case its the evidence that gives the concept validity, not the popularity, the popularity still has no bearing on the validity.


----------



## Tisme (2 October 2015)

It's like watching a train wreck trying to phoenix in the little engine that could


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, people can mean things without saying them.
> 
> ?




Yes, but nothing I have said ever, gives the impression that the straw man you just used is what I actually feel or support.



> You could apparently read my mind when you pulled out of the gay parenting debate after accusations  which you never bothered substantiating, so is that a straw man




Its not a straw man argument, because I wasn't using it as an argument, It was a reason that I gave why I wanted to end the discussion because I have a strong suspicion that your feelings on that topic are based on some other discriminatory beliefs which you hold, so there was no value to be gained in continuing the discussion, which had become circular at that point anyway, with you constantly referring back to your slippery slope reasoning.


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> She gave one example of a pro-life (anti abortion) campaigner being denied entry into Australia.




Any way, Back to the free speech claim.

Can you now see that it is not a restriction of free speech.

The government has the right to block entry to anyone seen as a threat, and this would include an abortion campaigner who has said people should execute abortion doctors. 

Free speech, doesn't mean we have to let everyone into the country that requests to enter.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Its not a straw man argument, because I wasn't using it as an argument, It was a reason that I gave why I wanted to end the discussion because I have a strong suspicion that your feelings on that topic are based on some other discriminatory beliefs which you hold, so there was no value to be gained in continuing the discussion, which had become circular at that point anyway, with you constantly referring back to your slippery slope reasoning.




One thing I'll say for you is that your reasoning is extremely manoeuverable.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The government has the right to block entry to anyone seen as a threat, and this would include an abortion campaigner who has said people should execute abortion doctors.




Maybe so, what do you think about this bloke ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe so, what do you think about this bloke ?
> 
> View attachment 64563




Who is he

If that's the real sign that he held up, then I think he is an idiot, and offcourse I would support denying him a visa.

Why, what did you think I would think?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Who is he
> 
> If that's the real sign that he held up, then I think he is an idiot, and offcourse I would support denying him a visa.
> 
> Why, what did you think I would think?




He is a bloke at a protest in Sydney. As far as I know he is still here. Should he and others like him be thrown out ?

So under your reasoning, why should anyone who believes in the Koran be given a visa ? The Koran says to hate infidels (non Muslims) , so why shouldn't they be considered a threat ?

Where should we draw the line ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> He is a bloke at a protest in Sydney. As far as I know he is still here. Should he and others like him be thrown out ?




Is he a citizen? was he born here?

You can't really throw out a citizen, the person we are discussing eg, the anti abortion guy isn't a citizen of Australia, he was an American trying to come in, If the Muslim guy in the photo was trying to come in and authorities new he wanted to behead people, he would have been denied too.



> So under your reasoning, why should anyone who believes in the Koran be given a visa ? The Koran says to hate infidels (non Muslims) , so why shouldn't they be considered a threat ?




The same reason why we give visas to people who believe in the bible. not all of them actually take notice of the nasty bits.



> Where should we draw the line




exactly the same place we draw it for the bible believers, if we think they actually support the nasty bits and want to whip up trouble, we should deny the visa.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Is he a citizen? was he born here?




Don't know. If he's not a citizen should he be thrown out ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't know. If he's not a citizen should he be thrown out ?




I think I would be fine with throwing him out, Can you think of any reason not too?

But according to you and tink I would be denying him his right to free speech.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> I think I would be fine with throwing him out, Can you think of any reason not too?
> 
> But according to you and tink I would be denying him his right to free speech.




No, I would be fine with throwing him out too, but you have to admit it's a fine line.

If the anti abortion guy is just saying that abortion doctors should be prosecuted for murder and then executed if found guilty is that any different to other pro capital punishment advocates ?

Australia does not support capital punishment, so should advocates of it be denied a visa ?

I wouldn't blame anyone for not being able to answer the question because there are arguments on both sides.

How about holocaust deniers ? They aren't advocating violence against anyone, just arguing their version of history, and this guy has been banned.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s96976.htm


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> No, I would be fine with throwing him out too, but you have to admit it's a fine line.
> 
> If the anti abortion guy is just saying that abortion doctors should be prosecuted for murder and then executed if found guilty is that any different to other pro capital punishment advocates ?
> 
> ...




Well really we don't have to let anyone in we feel is a threat or a trouble maker, generally its taken on a case by case basis, I guess the guy responsible for making the decision has to figure out if a genuine threat exists, and will probably lean to the side of caution.

Even if you were convicted with drink driving 5 years ago you can be denied entry to both Australia, USA, Canada and most other western countries, that's the thing, you don't have a "right" to enter other countries, its a privilege granted to those who we feel won't cause trouble.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Well really we don't have to let anyone in we feel is a threat or a trouble maker, generally its taken on a case by case basis, I guess the guy responsible for making the decision has to figure out if a genuine threat exists, and will probably lean to the side of caution.
> 
> Even if you were convicted with drink driving 5 years ago you can be denied entry to both Australia, USA, Canada and most other western countries, that's the thing, you don't have a "right" to enter other countries, its a privilege granted to those who we feel won't cause trouble.




Agree that it's a privilege not a right, but that's where "free speech" comes in doesn't it ?

Do we really think that Brown bloke is a "threat", or do we just don't like what he did a few years ago ?

I'm not having a go a you (this time ), I just think that the boundaries are very blurry and it probably depends on whether the Libs are in power (less tolerant) or the Labs (more tolerant).


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> , but that's where "free speech" comes in doesn't it ?
> 
> .




Nope, free speech means we won't jail him for holding or expressing an opinion, denying him a visa isn't a punishment, it's a security measure we are taking to protect our citizens from a possible external threat.



> Do we really think that Brown bloke is a "threat", or do we just don't like what he did a few years ago ?




I don't know if he is a genuine threat, I haven't interviewed him, but we deny all sorts of people who may not be genuine threats, eg a guy who drank and drove 5 years ago and learned his lesson and wasn't planning on driving during his holiday anyway.



> I'm not having a go a you (this time ), I just think that the boundaries are very blurry and it probably depends on whether the Libs are in power (less tolerant) or the Labs (more tolerant




It was actually labor that wanted to restrict the anti abortion guys visa apparently,


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2015)

> but we deny all sorts of people who may not be genuine threats, eg a guy who drank and drove 5 years ago and learned his lesson and wasn't planning on driving during his holiday anyway.




Ah, that would be the slippery slope fallacy wouldn't it ?


----------



## Value Collector (2 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah, that would be the slippery slope fallacy wouldn't it ?




Nope,


----------



## SirRumpole (3 October 2015)

"Police say gunman outside NSW police headquarters was 15yo radicalised youth of Middle Eastern background"



[ABC Online breaking news headline]

So , where to from here ?

The Muslim community think that stronger anti terrorism laws victimise them, and yet their offspring do things like shooting innocent government employees.

Should we wind back our terrorism laws to avoid offending people, or go in harder and weed them out ?

Tough decision, glad I don't have to make it, but I'm reminded of Theodore Roosevelt's saying,

*"speak softly and carry a big stick"*


----------



## sydboy007 (3 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> "Police say gunman outside NSW police headquarters was 15yo radicalised youth of Middle Eastern background"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




lets wait a week or two before we start to try and answer that question.

Do you remember the police removing the sword from the muslim terrorist suspect house in Sydney last year in September?

Massive front page stories about it in the tabloids as proof just how bad muslims can be.

Turned out the sword was made of plastic, it's actually just plastic decoration common in almost every Shiite Muslim household, not dissimilar to say a crucifix or other religious icons found in many other religious households.

I prefer to remain sceptical until cooler heads have had time to examine the evidence and more of the truth has been able to come out.

You have the Christian right in the USA supporting a neocon view of the world - Bush Jnr showed what that can be like - where half of them are pretty darn sure that the rapture will occur in their life time.  The Hebrew belieft is not dissimilar in the return of God cleansing the earth.

To myself, that is not a dissimilar view to the muslim belief of dying a martyr and getting the all inclusive VIP pass into heaven.  

It's very dangerous when you have people with a view that death is actually the gateway to a better "life".  I fear the muslim version a bit more in that they are currently acting on the belief.  That's not to say some Christians are not as well, but as far as I can tell none of them seem to be actively out trying to end the world, but is a reason why they actively fight against any action against AGW, contraception, stem cell research etc.

Some interesting things to ponder on from history is how during the inquisition years the ottoman empire seemed to be, in relative terms, not dissimilar to how the west is today when compared to islamic nations.  The Ottomans accepted tens of thousands of jews that were fleeing persecution from the Christendom.  Amazingly, when muslims had conquered much of the known world they actually followed the Koran in wiping out all the infidels.

Now we have the Saudis making a pact with the devil to export the virulent destructive wahhabist sick views of what it is to be a muslim. We have the UAE so terrified of what could happen within their borders they wont try to resolve the problem anywhere else.

An argument I hear often is that it's just the muslims doing these mass killings?  Is it?  How many died in the Iraq war?  How many died because we stopped working hard in afghanistan?  How many died with the failed libyan pool party experiment?  Seems in the west we have a blind spot when it's militarily state sanctioned, but never seem to miss when it's done via a someone professing to be a muslim.

I don't believe this clash of cultures can be won by the sword, because if we end up down that path, victory for the 'west" would likely mean a regression back to at least WWII attitudes to war where mass civicilan casualties were not a by product but a design of how to fight.  I don't think going back to that kind of barbarism where fire bombing cities and immolating hundreds of thousands of civilians is the kind of world I want to strive for.

i also know that it's unlikely one can stop the likes of ISIS via talk alone, but where the west does get some kudos from the muslim world for stepping into kosovo to stop the genocide that was going on there, once you get infidels onto traditional arab / muslim land (the two are so intertwined you cannot separate them) then we seem to have to worry so much about inflaming the problem in other areas, that maybe we should be providing the moral and logistical support to those who should be the ones righting against ISIS and all the militant forms of islam and jihad.

So maybe bombing books into countries and providing internet access could be a better, cheaper and more  humane way forward.

Is there much difference in a Christian missionary in sub saharn africa convincing people to not use condoms, therefore increase the rates of HIV infections, and a muslim wearing a bomb vest and killing them?  I'd personally take the fast death, over the extended wasting due to a failing immune system where I would likely not have any access to life saving drugs.

The religion is not so much the problem, but the intent of those who do their best to enforce their religious views into the real world, and the consequences those beliefs cause.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> The religion is not so much the problem, but the intent of those who do their best to enforce their religious views into the real world, and the consequences those beliefs cause.




So you think that if Islam had never been invented we would still have terrorists killing people in the name of Islam ?

Really, what has Islam given the world ?

I haven't heard of any Muslim charities giving out food to the homeless, regardless of what you say about Christians at least some of them are out there trying to help others.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2015)

> Is there much difference in a Christian missionary in sub saharn africa convincing people to not use condoms, therefore increase the rates of HIV infections, and a muslim wearing a bomb vest and killing them?




Yes there is a difference, one of intent. Intent to kill vs misguided adherence to ineffective methods.


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So you think that if Islam had never been invented we would still have terrorists killing people in the name of Islam ?
> 
> Really, what has Islam given the world ?
> 
> I haven't heard of any Muslim charities giving out food to the homeless, regardless of what you say about Christians at least some of them are out there trying to help others.




I saw plenty of billboard ads from Islamic charities around where I live. Raising money for Palestinians, Libyans, Syrians etc. 

Every community raises money for charities, just we may not be made aware of it or they don't have money to buy a TV ad campaign.

Regarding Islam n its contributions... Seriously?

Islam actually encourages science and critical enquiries. That Allah put us on Earth so we can discover his mysteries n solve our own problems etc. hence u get al those Latin books that preserve Western civilisation and teachings. Leading the west out of its Dark Ages. 

The other one kinda burn the books, lock up scholars and scientists and put together witch hunting parties and crazy cures for illnesses. Then when modern science n advances is forced onto them they then claim it's all theirs effort

There's a lot more man... Least is the Arabic numeral system. Can't do proper maths with Roman numerals.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 October 2015)

luutzu said:


> I saw plenty of billboard ads from Islamic charities around where I live. Raising money for Palestinians, Libyans, Syrians etc.
> 
> Every community raises money for charities, just we may not be made aware of it or they don't have money to buy a TV ad campaign.
> 
> ...




There have only been two Muslims that I can find who have been awarded the Nobel Prize for science.

Take that as you will.


----------



## luutzu (4 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There have only been two Muslims that I can find who have been awarded the Nobel Prize for science.
> 
> Take that as you will.




If ur country is colonised and dominated for the past 300 years, with foreign powers, from the Brits to the French to the new American empires, and thru puppets and friendly dictators... See how well you'd turn out scholastically. But eu, they're getting very good at digging tunnels though right? Too bad that's not a category. 

How many Jews won the Nobel during WW2?

Obama and Kissinger won Nobel for peace too. Just saying. The worlds biggest  war criminal, with career spanning decades overthrowing legitimate govt from Asia to the ME to Sth America was given one after decade of stifling the peace effort. And Obama? To be fair, they didn't know he will be expanding drone strikes n keep playing with the Russian at their borders.


----------



## Value Collector (4 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I haven't heard of any Muslim charities giving out food to the homeless, regardless of what you say about Christians at least some of them are out there trying to help others.




Well we can't blame them for your inability to google, have you even done a 2 min search to see what charities are out there?


----------



## sydboy007 (5 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So you think that if Islam had never been invented we would still have terrorists killing people in the name of Islam ?
> 
> Really, what has Islam given the world ?
> 
> I haven't heard of any Muslim charities giving out food to the homeless, regardless of what you say about Christians at least some of them are out there trying to help others.




One could argue that a result of the Islamic prohibition on depicting the human form was the extensive use of complex geometric patterns to decorate their buildings, raising mathematics to the form of an art. In fact, over time, Muslim artists discovered all the different forms of symmetry that can be depicted on a 2-dimensional surface.

You then have the Islamic tradition of the past in collecting as much of the written knowledge of the time and translated much of the Greek and Indian mathematical and astronomy works into Arabic.

I'd go so far as to argue that during the darkest times of the Christian world, that the Islamic nations were far better places to live, especially if you were endeavouring to push the bounds of scientific understanding.

But in many ways that's irrelevant to today.  A crazy person dead 800 years ago can't detonate a nuclear device today, but it does show that islamic nations don't HAVE to be regressive and despotic.



SirRumpole said:


> Yes there is a difference, one of intent. Intent to kill vs misguided adherence to ineffective methods.




I'm sure you'd find that comforting if say a person killed someone you deeply care for and it was considered manslaughter rather than murder.

As far as I am concerned someone telling people in high risk areas for contracting HIV are basically mass murderers.  Christians doing this are just as bad as muslims spreading lies about vaccinations being a western plot to cause men to be sterile which leads to unnecessary deaths and long term health issues.  Religious dogma kills, sometimes fast and sometimes slowly.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 October 2015)

> I'd go so far as to argue that during the darkest times of the Christian world, that the Islamic nations were far better places to live, especially if you were endeavouring to push the bounds of scientific understanding.




I'm sure that in its halcyon days Islam was a cultured and peaceful religion, however, then as now it rules its subjects with an iron fist, threats of death for apostacy and criticising Islam as many of its critics will attest to eg Salman Rushdie.

Once you are born into an Islamic family, they own you for life which is simply wrong.

Yes, you can blame extremist sects, but if the poison was not in the writings in the first place then no one would take it.

Until the violent parts of the Koran and other Islamic texts are expunged or publicly repudiated by Muslim leaders around the world, Muslims will not be entirely trusted.

It's their problem not ours if they chose to follow a poisonous ideology.


----------



## luutzu (5 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure that in its halcyon days Islam was a cultured and peaceful religion, however, then as now it rules its subjects with an iron fist, threats of death for apostacy and criticising Islam as many of its critics will attest to eg Salman Rushdie.
> 
> Once you are born into an Islamic family, they own you for life which is simply wrong.
> 
> ...




Where's VC? He's going to have a field day with the above 

You're not going to get any repudiation from religious leaders about the nastiness of their religion. Most would ignore the bad bits, focus on the good. But the thing about religious text is you can't question any part of it... that kind of work needs to be done by secular political systems. 

Any country that adopt a religion as its guiding principle is doomed. There's plenty of examples in the Arab middle east right? But look at the "democratic" Jewish state of Israel. Theirs is one messed up country with a bunch of crazies who believe the land they're on is God's promised land yadida... 

What we need is a country that put the mighty dollar above all else. Market driven, invisible hand, enlightened self-interest guiding capitalists and people to help one another... Just make sure you got money though.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

luutzu said:


> Where's VC? He's going to have a field day with the above




Why ? It's all true.



> You're not going to get any repudiation from religious leaders about the nastiness of their religion. Most would ignore the bad bits, focus on the good. But the thing about religious text is you can't question any part of it... that kind of work needs to be done by secular political systems.
> 
> Any country that adopt a religion as its guiding principle is doomed. There's plenty of examples in the Arab middle east right? But look at the "democratic" Jewish state of Israel. Theirs is one messed up country with a bunch of crazies who believe the land they're on is God's promised land yadida...




Agreed.



> What we need is a country that put the mighty dollar above all else. Market driven, invisible hand, enlightened self-interest guiding capitalists and people to help one another... Just make sure you got money though.




That's not what we want at all. I'm sure you are saying that tongue in cheek 

What we need is an ethical society without religion, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.


----------



## FxTrader (6 October 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> You have the Christian right in the USA supporting a neocon view of the world - Bush Jnr showed what that can be like - where half of them are pretty darn sure that the rapture will occur in their life time.  The Hebrew belief is not dissimilar in the return of God cleansing the earth.



The Christian right's ultimate focus, like many other fundamentalist religious zealots from other faiths, is to establish a theocratic state.  They use politics as a tool to further social conservatism and preserve (impose) Christian "values" and beliefs in society.  It's religion masquerading as politics as amply demonstrated during the Bush Jr. administration.

To what extent the Christian right as a movement supports the NeoCon agenda is unclear but the focus of NeoCons is to use military power to protect American interests and establish democratic states by force. This focus does not align well with Christian beliefs so it's unlikely to be broadly accepted by conservative Christians as a whole.



> It's very dangerous when you have people with a view that death is actually the gateway to a better "life".  I fear the muslim version a bit more in that they are currently acting on the belief.  That's not to say some Christians are not as well, but as far as I can tell none of them seem to be actively out trying to end the world, but is a reason why they actively fight against any action against AGW, contraception, stem cell research etc.



The bad idea that this life is just a pathway to a better afterlife with a loving sky God is of course not unique to Islam.  I know plenty of Christians who regard their lives as a burden they must bear until they can sing praises for eternity to the God that inflicted this cursed earth test of faith on them.  It's a type of insanity promoted as worthwhile aspiration. 



> I don't believe this clash of cultures can be won by the sword, because if we end up down that path, victory for the 'west" would likely mean a regression back to at least WWII attitudes to war where mass civicilan casualties were not a by product but a design of how to fight.  I don't think going back to that kind of barbarism where fire bombing cities and immolating hundreds of thousands of civilians is the kind of world I want to strive for.



While you may not think that the "clash of religions" (religion alone is not culture but simply one component of it) can be won by conflict, Islamists certainly do.  Jihad as a war or struggle against unbelievers is a core theme in Islam, this struggle includes undermining democratic political systems from within as well as violent conflict against infidels.  Some Muslims take the call to Jihad much more seriously than others but the aim is still theocracy.

The current Turkish government is a good example of how to use democracy to further the cause of an Islamic Republic where some 77,000+ Mosques and Imams are funded by the Turkish taxpayer in a so called secular state.  In virtually every city and town you are treated to the prerecorded prayer chants of Islamic myth (I liken it to a form of religious screaming over loud speakers) several times a day whether you like it or not, that's democracy only for Muslims. 



> The religion is not so much the problem, but the intent of those who do their best to enforce their religious views into the real world, and the consequences those beliefs cause.



Religion is at the very core of the problem, it creates the call to evangelism, promotes myth as absolute truth and promotes the bad idea that some form of afterlife is all that's worth aspiring to in this life.  People are just pawns in an earthly power game (perpetuated by religious clerics) who are manipulated in mass to believe things as a group that would otherwise be considered deranged if held by an individual.

Better educated humans (via the internet and other means) are indeed a hope out of this religious malaise impeding human progress and intellectual enlightenment but do not underestimate the ability of religious groups to suppress teaching of anything deemed offensive to them or their religion (e.g. evolution).  Expect a future where speaking out against the mythical nonsense that is religion will be increasingly dangerous to one's well-being.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Until the violent parts of the Koran and other Islamic texts are expunged or publicly repudiated by Muslim leaders around the world, Muslims will not be entirely trusted.
> 
> .




Can you name any violent parts of the Koran for which the Bible doesn't have an equal verse?

You seem to give the bible credit for Morality because of the 10 commandments, Why don't you give the Koran credit for morality? Because it contains the exact 10 commandments the bible has.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name any violent parts of the Koran for which the Bible doesn't have an equal verse?
> 
> You seem to give the bible credit for Morality because of the 10 commandments, Why don't you give the Koran credit for morality? Because it contains the exact 10 commandments the bible has.




Straw man argument again. You try and distract from the problems of Islam by diversion to another religion.

How many countries with Christian or secular societies in this day and age execute people for marrying who they want to ? stone women for adultery ? flog and imprison homosexuals ? threaten to and actually kill those who criticise their religion ? Where is the morality there ?

Face the problem. Whatever issues other religions have they are miniscule compared to the  problems caused by Islam around the world.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Straw man argument again. You try and distract from the problems of Islam by diversion to another religion.
> 
> 
> .




Its not a straw man at all.

You are saying as long as the Koran contains violent passages, muslims can't be trusted, I am just pointing out that the books from the other brands of Abrahamic religion contain the same violence, however you don't seem to have trouble trusting them, you have even said they are the source of morality, because of the ten commandments.



> How many countries with Christian or secular societies in this day and age execute people for marrying who they want to ? stone women for adultery ? flog and imprison homosexuals ? threaten to and actually kill those who criticise their religion ? Where is the morality there ?




Some Christian countries in Africa are facing those issues.

In recent times Christians in Africa have been burning witches, killing and imprisoning gays, again I think your failure to research being shown here.



> Face the problem. Whatever issues other religions have they are miniscule compared to the  problems caused by Islam around the world




I didn't say Islam wasn't a problem, just pointing out your "Bible good, Koran Bad" attitude is a bit off base, the majority of Muslims ignore the bad parts of the Koran just like the Bible believers ignore the bad parts in their book.

We aren't going to get anywhere by attacking one religion.


----------



## tech/a (6 October 2015)

All religions are prehistoric.
Arrogantly made by Man.

Our God created everything.
My god is a better god than your god.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Its not a straw man at all.
> 
> You are saying as long as the Koran contains violent passages, muslims can't be trusted, I am just pointing out that the books from the other brands of Abrahamic religion contain the same violence, however you don't seem to have trouble trusting them, you have even said they are the source of morality, because of the ten commandments.




I don't trust any extreme religion, there are bad Christian sects but Islam hasn't dragged itself out of the Dark Ages in comparison with mainstream Christianity.





> I didn't say Islam wasn't a problem, just pointing out your "Bible good, Koran Bad" attitude is a bit off base, the majority of Muslims ignore the bad parts of the Koran just like the Bible believers ignore the bad parts in their book.
> 
> We aren't going to get anywhere by attacking one religion.




There are many bits in the Bible that are violent, but in the main the Christian church has raised itself above them. 

How many people have been radicalised to commit crimes in the name of Christianity ? Why is it more of a problem with Islam ?

I will advance this possibility.

In the Bible the violent bits are supposed to be done by God himself to show his displeasure, in the Koran it seems to be encouraging his followers to carry out those acts.  While Christians may say that HIV or global warming is God's revenge (as stupid as that is) is not inciting anyone to violence as this is



> Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
> 
> Qur’an:8:39 *“Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”*
> 
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't trust any extreme religion, there are bad Christian sects but Islam hasn't dragged itself out of the Dark Ages in comparison with mainstream Christianity.
> 
> There are many bits in the Bible that are violent, but in the main the Christian church has raised itself above them.
> 
> How many people have been radicalised to commit crimes in the name of Christianity ? Why is it more of a problem with Islam ?




I think its more of a problem caused by under developed nations, eg Christianity is a problem in third world Africa.

Generally the more developed a nation is the more secular its laws and the more moderate it's population. I think its is by chance alone that Christianity is the main religion in the more advanced nations. When it is introduced into third world countries it can be just as damaging as Islam.



> I will advance this possibility.
> 
> In the Bible the violent bits are supposed to be done by God himself to show his displeasure,




Again you are just showing your lack of biblical knowledge. the bible calls for followers to do lots of horrible things.



> Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
> 
> Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
> 
> Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”




Deuteronomy 13:6-10New International Version (NIV)

 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods”  do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them.  You must certainly put them to death.

 Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 


Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
  Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

Christians Beating, Killing, Burning innocent children in Africa.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

> Deuteronomy 13:6-10New International Version (NIV)




So where are people actually following this ?

The other thing with Islam is that there is no separation of Church and State, so the dictates of Islam are not moderated by secular laws. Islam wants to turn every country it resides in into an Islamic caliphate where the religion is the law. Not so in places like Australia where religion is subordinate to the law.

I would like this country to stay secular, which is why the Muslim population in this country must be limited so they can never get control of our government.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

Christians burning "witches" alive in Africa.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 October 2015)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’*”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one whoad mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”*


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So where are people actually following this ?
> 
> .




Google the lords resistance army. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army



> The other thing with Islam is that there is no separation of Church and State, so the dictates of Islam are not moderated by secular laws. Islam wants to turn every country it resides in into an Islamic caliphate where the religion is the law. Not so in places like Australia where religion is subordinate to the law.




Christians and jews don't want there to be separation between church and state either, that's something secular society has forced them to accept, its not the default position.

Look at the stuff even a moderate like Tink says, she is always pushing for more religion in schools and government.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> The Parable of the Good Samaritan
> 
> 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
> 
> ...



*

Its the big book of multiple choice isn't it.

If you don't want to love your neighbour, just read this verse when jesus says.


Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple*


----------



## Knobby22 (6 October 2015)

Translation's a wonderful thing.

"If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison--your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

Also I am sure you know the verse about taxation, give unto Ceaser what is Ceasar's. etc.


And there are no laws like Sharia. There are laws such as don't eat pork in the old testament but that is not Christianity.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Translation's a wonderful thing.
> 
> "If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison--your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.




lol, nice sugar coating there. 

The thing is, I think its far more healthy to put real people before your imaginary friends.

also, that would be a bad comparison, because hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Google the lords resistance army.




The LRA is an isolated movement centered around one loony.

Islam is a global movement centered around lots of loonies.

Anyway, the "religious" USA has declared the LRA a terrorist organisation.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> The LRA is an isolated movement centered around one loony.
> 
> Islam is a global movement centered around lots of loonies.
> 
> .




The LRA is just one example.

Islam is just like Christianity, it is made up of many groups, some are extreme and some aren't.

Islam is not one thing or one group of people, just like Christianity isn't one thing.



> Anyway, the "religious" USA has declared the LRA a terrorist organisation




Yep, just like they declare the Islamic extremist groups terrorists.

Are you trying to say they aren't Christian, because they are terrorists? because that's like saying ISIS aren't Muslim, because they are terrorists.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> So where are people actually following this ?




Also, just remember, your claim wasn't that there were no people following those bible verses, your claim was that those bible verse didn't exist, so said the bible didn't instruct followers to commit violence rather just let god do it, the reason I posted those verses was to show that in fact it does command followers to kill non believers, as well a bunch of other people.

But as I have pointed out, not only do these verses exist, but there are still Africans following them.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> The LRA is just one example.
> 
> Islam is just like Christianity, it is made up of many groups, some are extreme and some aren't.
> 
> Islam is not one thing or one group of people, just like Christianity isn't one thing.




Your straw man argument is really quite silly.

OK there are a few looney Christian cults, but I haven't seen anyone holding up cafes or shooting innocent people on Sydney streets or planning bomb attacks in the name of Christianity in this country. What happens in Africa is irrelevant to me.

As I said before, Islam is the threat to public safety in this country now, no matter how much you try to deflect the problem elsewhere. 

How are we to know who is a "good" Muslim and who is about to pull a gun on us ?

Other countries with a higher proportional Muslim population are now wishing that they never let them in in the first place.

Let that be a lesson to us.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Your straw man argument is really quite silly.
> 
> .




lol, straw man.

you said this


> In the Bible the violent bits are supposed to be done by God himself to show his displeasure, in the Koran it seems to be encouraging his followers to carry out those acts




I then showed you a few verses that showed what you said was wrong.

So then you said this.



> So where are people actually following this ?




So this is called moving the goal posts, first you claimed the verse didn't exist, then when you found out it exists, you said but no one follows that anyway.

So I gave you an example of people who did follow it. so you then made out that my example were terrorists not Christians. when you said this



> Anyway, the "religious" USA has declared the LRA a terrorist organisation




Then when faced with the problem of there being fanatical Christian groups you retreated to the position of saying you only care about what happens in Australia, which has nothing to do with your original claim that the bible didn't instruct followers to commit violence

So no, I am not making a straw man, your shifting the goal posts.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> lol, straw man.
> 
> you said this
> 
> ...




You can discuss the Bible vs the Koran argument as long as you like but I'm not going down that road. 

Frankly I'm not interested in religion of any kind, what I'm worried about is threats to public safety in this country, now and in the future as a result of a poisoned ideology that has global power and is spreading like a cancer with a desire to convert other cultures to its own sick brand of theological autocracy.

What I said about other countries holds true. You haven't forgotten Charlie Hebdo ?

Now we have violence on our own streets caused by these lunatics.

You can't deal with  isolated cases of lunacy, but you can deal with the ideology that fosters radicalism by not letting it get any larger. That's the first step. Religion has to be kept in a box and the more poisonous the religion, the smaller the box needs to be.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You can discuss the Bible vs the Koran argument as long as you like but I'm not going down that road.
> 
> .




You are the one that brought up the Koran when you said this.



> Until the violent parts of the Koran and other Islamic texts are expunged or publicly repudiated by Muslim leaders around the world, Muslims will not be entirely trusted.




I was just pointing out that if that's the reason for not trusting Muslims, then you can't trust the other books followers either, Because they have the same stuff in it.

They are actually very similar religions, the only difference is your personal experience is with moderate Christians, where as your only experience with Muslims is the extremists you see on the news.


----------



## bellenuit (6 October 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> And there are no laws like Sharia.




Yes, there are. Hundreds. Two examples....

Leviticus 20:10

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Deuteronomy 21:18–21

If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear."




> There are laws such as don't eat pork in the old testament but that is not Christianity.




Why not. What did Jesus reportedly say about the old laws?

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…"


----------



## Knobby22 (6 October 2015)

Christianity mate, not Judaism.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Christianity mate, not Judaism.




Don't you follow Jesus? He said none of the law will change until heaven and earth disappear.

Do you have a reference to where Jesus said the laws of the bible don't matter anymore? Which bible do you think Jesus read from? Do you think he ate bacon?

Hell, where do you think the 10 commandments came from? Do they not matter anymore, if they still count, why not the other rules in the same book.


----------



## bellenuit (6 October 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Christianity mate, not Judaism.




You do realise that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root? That is why they are referred to as Abrahamic religions. Large tracts of the Old Testament are incorporated in the Koran and it was the laws of the Old Testament that Jesus was referring to in the quote from Matthew I gave. If you think the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christianity why do so many Christians quote from Leviticus when claiming God/Jesus is against homosexuality? The quote most often used.....

_You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination._ (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Frankly I'm not interested in religion of any kind.




Except your own private deist religion that you have discussed in the passed.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Except your own private deist religion that you have discussed in the passed.




There is no religion or theology in my belief, I make no claim to be in contact with any higher Being or to know what he wants of me so I'm not about to go on any killing rampages for the sake of my beliefs.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> There is no religion or theology in my belief, I make no claim to be in contact with any higher Being or to know what he wants of me so I'm not about to go on any killing rampages for the sake of my beliefs.




Didn't you say you believed a god existed, and he controlled an afterlife and based on whether your actions were good or bad he would let you in. No doubt you have other beliefs attached to that about what he thinks is good and what he would think is bad etc, that's a religion.

Most people with your style of belief wouldn't go on a killing spree, however it is possible if you developed a mental illness and started believing you God was talking to you, that happens a fair bit. People with personal gods such as yours have killed themselves, their children, pets, family and others.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Didn't you say you believed a god existed, and he controlled an afterlife and based on whether your actions were good or bad he would let you in. No doubt you have other beliefs attached to that about what he thinks is good and what he would think is bad etc, that's a religion.




I don't believe I ever said that.

I think everyone has an afterlife, probably a whole succession of lives that form a learning experience just like life on earth is.



> Most people with your style of belief wouldn't go on a killing spree, however it is possible if you developed a mental illness and started believing you God was talking to you, that happens a fair bit. People with personal gods such as yours have killed themselves, their children, pets, family and others.




Now you are getting into the realms of fantasy.

 I would say the situation you mentioned would be balanced by atheists killing themselves, children, pets, family when they go bonkers and decide that their life has no meaning .


----------



## Tisme (6 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Deuteronomy 13:6-10New International Version (NIV)
> 
> .




Why do you continue to harp on irrelevances to the Christian religion? You need to read Romans.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't believe I ever said that.
> 
> I think everyone has an afterlife, probably a whole succession of lives that form a learning experience just like life on earth is.




Either way, that's a religious belief.

Anyway, not trying to beat up on you, just pointing out that when you say you are interested in any religion, what you mean is any other religion outside your personal one.


----------



## Value Collector (6 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> Why do you continue to harp on irrelevances to the Christian religion? You need to read Romans.




Actually when I mentioned that I was comparing the Koran to the bible, didn't mention Christians till later.

What part of Romans? Does Jesus reverse his statement he made in the serman on the mount where he said none of the laws will change until heaven and earth disappear?

It's Christians that bang on about the Ten Commandments, which is from the same book as the one mentioning all the laws the ignore eg no eating bacon, killing etc


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Either way, that's a religious belief.
> 
> Anyway, not trying to beat up on you, just pointing out that when you say you are interested in any religion, what you mean is any other religion outside your personal one.




Religions require laws , rules , commandments, teachings etc. My beliefs have none of those so they are not a religion.


----------



## Value Collector (7 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Religions require laws , rules , commandments, teachings etc. My beliefs have none of those so they are not a religion.




Nope a religion is just a belief in or worship of a controlling power.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Nope a religion is just a belief in or worship of a controlling power.




You have your definition and I have mine.

Religion involves a power structure Priests & Imams leading their flock, my beliefs don't involve anything like that. 

Methinks you are trying to deflect the discussion away from the cancer that is Islam, its control of its slaves and its desire to convert everyone else to its own beliefs. That's the problem here not my personal beliefs which have no theology and which I'm not trying to push on anyone else.


----------



## Tisme (7 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Actually when I mentioned that I was comparing the Koran to the bible, didn't mention Christians till later.
> 
> What part of Romans? Does Jesus reverse his statement he made in the serman on the mount where he said none of the laws will change until heaven and earth disappear?
> 
> It's Christians that bang on about the Ten Commandments, which is from the same book as the one mentioning all the laws the ignore eg no eating bacon, killing etc




If you had  ever taken notice of Sunday School and your confirmation needs you would know about how Jesus topped himself for the sins of us mere mortals. Part of that sacrifice was to embody and personify deuteronomy so it could be dealt with by the top brass leaving us ground dwellers free of its Mosaic constraint. Romans and Paul the Apostle deal with and explain it's defunct but has historical merit.


There is a reasons(s) for the word "new" in New Testament.


----------



## Value Collector (7 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> You have your definition and I have mine.
> 
> Religion involves a power structure Priests & Imams leading their flock, my beliefs don't involve anything like that.
> 
> .




No your thinking of organised religions/ cults and the institutions they create, I didn't say you have a cult, just that you have your own personal religion, which obviously being a personal religion doesn't require an institution.


----------



## Value Collector (7 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> If you had  ever taken notice of Sunday School and your confirmation needs you would know about how Jesus topped himself for the sins of us mere mortals. Part of that sacrifice was to embody and personify deuteronomy so it could be dealt with by the top brass leaving us ground dwellers free of its Mosaic constraint. Romans and Paul the Apostle deal with and explain it's defunct but has historical merit.
> 
> 
> There is a reasons(s) for the word "new" in New Testament.




So how does any of that affect whether you should now be allowed to eat bacon?

Look its all a big rationalization because you know how morally bankrupt your scriptures are.

So is the Ten commandments still in force?

but anyway none of that matters because there is still groups eg the Jews that have the Bible as their book, and they don't accept your NT, and my original point was that you can't write off Muslims because of the Koran when the bible says the same stuff.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> No your thinking of organised religions/ cults and the institutions they create, I didn't say you have a cult, just that you have your own personal religion, which obviously being a personal religion doesn't require an institution.






> A religion is an *organized* collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people may derive morality, ethics, religious laws, or a preferred lifestyle.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion




One person can't be called organised, especially not me.

I would think that your concepts of morality with its rules and memes would fit the definition of religion much more than my views.


----------



## Tisme (7 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> So how does any of that affect whether you should now be allowed to eat bacon?
> 
> Look its all a big rationalization because you know how morally bankrupt your scriptures are.
> 
> ...




I kinda like being taken to task over an assumption I'm a bible basher.  I will admit I will defend Tink's catholicism, even if it doesn't fit my spiritual needs and if you are going to use the Bible as a bludgeon you really need to understand the differences between the old and the new.

When the Catholics, Protestants and their Skyfaires team up to cause us innocents harm we we should be shipping them off to Antarctica, like we should be doing to that cavemen mob  we imported, right now.

What does it take for pollies to admit our immigration policies have been a dud for a long time now.


----------



## Value Collector (7 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> One person can't be called organised, especially not me.
> 
> I would think that your concepts of morality with its rules and memes would fit the definition of religion much more than my views.




Again you are making the mistake of thinking a religion has to be an organised religion, if that were so we wouldn't need the term "organised religion" in the first place.

Nope, my beliefs on morality is not a religion, it doesn't involve a higher power or creator or any woo, and it's an evidence based belief, there is no faith needed.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> Again you are making the mistake of thinking a religion has to be an organised religion, if that were so we wouldn't need the term "organised religion" in the first place.
> 
> Nope, my beliefs on morality is not a religion, it doesn't involve a higher power or creator or any woo, and it's an evidence based belief, there is no faith needed.




Anyway I doubt if either your beliefs or mine are a danger to society, Islam certainly is.


----------



## Value Collector (7 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyway I doubt if either your beliefs or mine are a danger to society, Islam certainly is.




In most cases your type of beliefs are relatively benign, all depends on how much woo is attached to it, the more you base your beliefs on facts supported by evidence the better in my opinion.

 I am am not saying you are in this basket, but even These "new age" type hippy beliefs that seem the most benign, can be damaging if it causes people to avoid proper medical treatment, or worse convince others to avoid proper medical treatment.

In general I think avoiding al superstition is best.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 October 2015)

Value Collector said:


> In most cases your type of beliefs are relatively benign, all depends on how much woo is attached to it, the more you base your beliefs on facts supported by evidence the better in my opinion.
> 
> I am am not saying you are in this basket, but even These "new age" type hippy beliefs that seem the most benign, can be damaging if it causes people to avoid proper medical treatment, or worse convince others to avoid proper medical treatment.
> 
> In general I think avoiding al superstition is best.




Certainly, if only we can convince the Muslims to do that we would be a lot safer.


----------



## Tisme (20 October 2015)

I can understand the Indians taking a stand on this kind of nonsense:

clicky:



> Melbourne law student Matthew Gordon was at a restaurant in the southern city of Bangalore with his girlfriend on Saturday when around a dozen activists from the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party began harassing the couple.
> 
> They said a tattoo of the Hindu fertility goddess Yellama on his shin offended their religious sentiments, and ordered him to remove it.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (20 October 2015)

Tisme said:


> I can understand the Indians taking a stand on this kind of nonsense:
> 
> clicky:





A nice piece of artwork imo.

Indians are obviously another lot of super sensitive religious nutters.


----------



## Tink (15 December 2015)

Beautiful, Sydney.

The Lights of Christmas.


----------



## Tink (16 December 2015)

As I said to VC in the Racism thread 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=14057&page=13&p=892547&viewfull=1#post892547
_
Well in my view, your indoctrination in schools is more damaging to children, than Christmas songs.
So I disagree.

black is white, a man is a woman, an orange is a tomato, a triangle is a square, in this double speak.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/for...689#post887689_

*Transgender father Stefonknee Wolschtt leaves family in Toronto to start new life as six-year-old girl*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tart-new-life-as-a-six-year-old-a6769051.html

Chaos in Australian Education
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851


----------



## Tisme (16 December 2015)

Tink said:


> *Transgender father Stefonknee Wolschtt leaves family in Toronto to start new life as six-year-old girl*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tart-new-life-as-a-six-year-old-a6769051.html




ROFL 

I'm guessing he's been given mind altering drugs at taxpayers expense for that exercise ...probably cheaper than locking him up in an asylum.

Shirley Temple you're a star ...ESS TEE EH ARE


----------



## Value Collector (16 December 2015)

Tink said:


> As I said to VC in the Racism thread
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=14057&page=13&p=892547&viewfull=1#post892547
> _
> Well in my view, your indoctrination in schools is more damaging to children, than Christmas songs.
> ...




So what exactly is the indoctrination you are saying I am in favour, try to use your words rather than an avalanche of irrelevant links.


----------



## dutchie (16 December 2015)

Tink said:


> View attachment 65302
> 
> 
> Beautiful, Sydney.
> ...




That's got to be offending somebody...


----------



## bellenuit (23 December 2015)

Not really the correct forum for this, but this momentous occasion in science deserves a mention.

*US company SpaceX has successfully landed an unmanned rocket upright, after sending 11 satellites into orbit*.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35157782


----------



## Tink (11 January 2016)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=14&p=894817&viewfull=1#post894817


From the Christmas thread.....

Shows how much you know, they don't deny help, unlike the atheist countries, like China, North Korea.

Yes, the Christian teachings that have inspired all these things in the West, including the Rule of Law, Life and Liberty, etc.

From that God you hate, and Christianity that you are trying to persecute, and shut down.

Sound familiar?

You know what happens when a nation forgets about God, dismantles the rule of law, and takes on board the scientific revolution of survival of the fittest?


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2016)

Tink said:


> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=14&p=894817&viewfull=1#post894817
> 
> 
> From the Christmas thread.....
> ...




Tink, I don't hate your God, I just don't believe it exists, there is a big difference there, and I am happy for you to worship this imaginary friend, I just don't want you to force it on others.

There are plenty of situations where religious charities have denied help to gay couples, the Salvation Army and world vision have been in hot water for this, the secular charities don't do such things, Christian charities have also caused AIDS to be spread in Africa by telling people condoms are a sin.

Tink, laws existed before Christianity, where ever groups of humans lived together they created rules and codes of conduct, it's not a religious thing it's a practical thing.

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with how we should construct our society, it's a description of how natural selection works, just because we believe natural selection is the best explanation of how we evolved doesn't mean that's how we want to design our society.


----------



## Tink (11 January 2016)

I have already told you ---- our LAWS are based on RELIGION.
Unless you have intentions of dismantling the LAW, then our Christian religion is in your life daily.

Has the education department dumbed people down that much that they don't know their own history?
No wonder history can be repeated.

As for sounding familiar, that is what happens when you get a TYRANT in like Hitler, that dismantles the LAW.
His hate for God, and Christianity was all it took.


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2016)

Tink said:


> I have already told you ---- our LAWS are based on RELIGION.
> .




Which laws?

Can you name some?




> Has the education department dumbed people down that much that they don't know their own history?
> No wonder history can be repeated.




All sorts of crazy things are part of our history, you keep the good and get rid of the bad.

I mean the catholic church used to burn people alive for simply not believing in the same god, do you still want this to be done? I hope not, no doubt you are happy to drop that.



> As for sounding familiar, that is what happens when you get a TYRANT in like Hitler, that dismantles the LAW.
> His hate for God, and Christianity was all it took




He didn't hate god, he hated the Jews, which was a hang up from the catholic teachings over the centuries, Hitler was raised in your club, not mine.



> our LAWS are based on RELIGION




Why do you want laws anyway? what good are they?


----------



## Tisme (11 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Which laws?
> 
> Can you name some?
> 
> ...




Mate you have been influenced by fractured fairy tales. Hitler was an evil, power mad tyrant who broke every rule in the Christian book ..... it's a nonsense to say he was Godly and puzzling even to myself you would believe such ****e (which is saying something let me tell you).

You must be too young to remember the truth.


----------



## luutzu (11 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Mate you have been influenced by fractured fairy tales. Hitler was an evil, power mad tyrant who broke every rule in the Christian book ..... it's a nonsense to say he was Godly and puzzling even to myself you would believe such ****e (which is saying something let me tell you).
> 
> You must be too young to remember the truth.




Running out of Bex, O'Grady? 

I'm staying the heck out of this one.... but where's the fun in that right?


Though to be fair, from the little that I know about Western societies back then (Aus, Europe, US)... Christians don't much like Jews as VC said. Henry Ford admired the heck out of Hitler - got a top medal from the Nazi for it too I remember, and the dude wrote some manifesto against Jews that Ford Corp. like to quickly forget.

The US were already making plans for co-existence with the Third Reich ruling over Europe and Russia while they tend to their neck of the Western Hemisphere. 


A lot of Christian states turn away Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution too.

Yes, you'd be right that they didn't know what the crazy bastard and his henchmen have in mind by turning back the boats, as some of us like to say; turned back more for economic reasons - it being the Great Depression and no social security or welfare and stuff (ahem, some of us somehow think it's a good idea to cut that too).

So it's true that Christians then don't like the Jews, and probably not the Muslims either; the Muslims don't like the Christians or the Jews; the Jews don't like both of them but weren't really powerful enough to do much about it since the Roman kinda burn down their Temple and spread their people all over the empire (they'd recently got some big brother and firepower to play with and... ahem).

But yes, would have gone to far, and I think wrong, to say Christians would want that on the Jews - that the dude didn't say that, just it could be read that way. Anyway, we're all sure even the German people who love Hitler back then wouldn't want it to happen - lots of shiet happens without people knowing or could do anything about it. Such as drones in our day, or endless war and the current masters playing chess with human lives and maybe the entire human race in Eastern Europe, the ME, Africa and soon SEAsia...


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Mate you have been influenced by fractured fairy tales. Hitler was an evil, power mad tyrant who broke every rule in the Christian book ..... it's a nonsense to say he was Godly and puzzling even to myself you would believe such ****e (which is saying something let me tell you).
> 
> You must be too young to remember the truth.




i am not saying Hitler was godly, just that Germany was a very Catholic country, and the Catholic Church preached a lot of hate against Jews, Hitlers mistrust and hatred of the Jews, and the relative ease at which he was able to convince good people to do nasty things against the Jews is largely due to the anti Semitic catholic teachings.


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> i am not saying Hitler was godly, just that Germany was a very Catholic country, and the Catholic Church preached a lot of hate against Jews, Hitlers mistrust and hatred of the Jews, and the relative ease at which he was able to convince good people to do nasty things against the Jews is largely due to the anti Semitic catholic teachings.




Yes, it is interesting how often the argument Hitler was an atheist is brought up, even though their is no basis for saying that. In fact Nazi propaganda is full of Christian symbolism and the Nazis were predominantly Christians and celebrated many of the Christian traditions and ceremonies that many here associate with the "good guys" only.

http://catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/NaziCrosses.html

But what cannot be ignored is that whatever Hitler's personal beliefs were, he did not act alone and it is safe to say that a majority of the German people supported him. The German people were predominantly Christian and the Christian Churches, in particular the Catholic Church, cannot abrogate the part that its followers played in the Holocaust. One man didn't kill 6 millions Jews or cause the destruction of most of Europe and Western Russia. It was Hitler supported by a majority of God fearing Christians that caused the deaths and destructions. Blaming it on atheism is just ridiculous, particularly as the main opposition to Nazism within Germany was from the Left, who were more likely, though not exclusively, to have atheists among their ranks. Lest not also forget that Hitler's main allies in Europe were the staunchly Catholic Mussolini of Italy and Franco of Spain.


----------



## Tink (13 January 2016)

From the Christmas thread..
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=15&p=895075&viewfull=1#post895075


So how do you know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil?
Where did it come from?

What is truth?

Going by your moral relativism, nothing is wrong.
There is no judgement.

As I have said, without our Judeo-Christian worldview, the West would not exist as we know it.

Without God, atheism would not exist.
Atheism spends all its time talking about a God that they don't believe in.
A God that has created these laws, our Christian teachings.
Absolute truth.


----------



## qldfrog (13 January 2016)

Tink said:


> As I have said, without our Judeo-Christian worldview, the West would not exist as we know it.



Agree on that 
but beg to differ on


Tink said:


> Without God, atheism would not exist.
> Atheism spends all its time talking about a God that they don't believe in.
> A God that has created these laws, our Christian teachings.
> Absolute truth.



I am atheist if there is such a club, but could not care less about a God,
I would probably challenge that God created our judeo christian heritage, more the need to adopt a code of rules by powers in place who relied on knowledge/absence of knowledge to trick aka dominate the masses.
And I am a bit scared when you write"absolute truth" yet  in general i am a black vs white person aiming to absolute.
Anyway, won't make you change your mind.
Believe if it helps you as long as you do not interfere with my own freedom.That is my view and valid for all crazy radical islamists, christians, hindus, etc etc etc


----------



## Tink (13 January 2016)

Political Correctness, Moral Relativism etc, are freedoms?

The loopy left are doing more damage to this country than you can see, in my view.

While we still have freedom of speech, I will use it.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

Tink said:


> So how do you know the difference between right and wrong,.




By a rational and thought out weighing up of the consequences of my actions and the actions of others, helped by learned moral principles which have been built up by our society through trial and error and also some which are built into us as social animals though natural selection, eg the antisocial individuals were ejected from tribes and survived at lower rates.



> good and evil?
> Where did it come from?




Good and evil (Evil in particular)  are some what religious terms used to describe actions which are either beneficial or harmful, the words were made up by humans.

 I have heard a religious person say condoms are evil and using them is spitting in gods face, I would say telling people in aids ridden countries that condoms are evil is evil, which one of us are correct?

Our modern secular morality is superior to any ancient texts moral teachings. Religions are some of our first attempts at moral systems and because of that they are also our worst.






> What is truth?




a word used as a description of something which is true.

Let me ask you, What's the best way to find out what is true?



> Going by your moral relativism, nothing is wrong.




Nope, that's just your strawman you have built, I have said that objective morality is a real thing, in any situation there is an action which is the most moral action, what that action is can be very hard to figure out, but it exists and the best way to find out what it is is not by reading a bible, but making a rational decisions based on evidence. 




> there is no judgement.




offcourse there is judgement, social animals such as humans are the most judgmental animals, we are constantly judged by our actions, and contently receiving the consequences.




> Without God, atheism would not exist.
> Atheism spends all its time talking about a God that they don't believe in.




that's just a fallacy, if you were trying to bring Unicorn teachings into schools, we would oppose that, and call ourselves Aunicornists, that doesn't mean Unicorns exist.

Atheists exist because pushy theists exists, not because the god claims are true. 



> A God that has created these laws, our Christian teachings.
> Absolute truth




if the laws are absolute, why have even Christian morals changed so much over the years?


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

Tink said:


> While we still have freedom of speech, I will use it.




I think you need to learn what free speech is.

Free speech doesn't mean you are free of any consequences from anyone, just that the government would jail you, if you let your opinions known in public, the public are free to say you're a dick, and avoid you.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

> By a rational and thought out weighing up of the consequences of my actions and the actions of others, helped by learned moral principles which have been built up by our society through trial and error and also some which are built into us as social animals though natural selection, eg the antisocial individuals were ejected from tribes and survived at lower rates.




It's a fact that a lot of those "moral principles" you rely on have been injected into society by religious laws eg the Ten Commandments which we have discussed already many times.

There is actually no reason not to kill anyone if you look at it from a survival situation. There is no need to care for the elderly or the sick because they simply slow the rest of us down. This is the way it happens in the animal world, the elderly or sick are killed and eaten for the good of the rest of the tribe. The animal world is a true moral-less society.

Trying to say that man would have developed morals if there had been no religion is meaningless. Religion existed and it had an influence, both good and bad and you can't deny the influence it has had on your ancestors and on society in general and therefore on the development of your own moral principles.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a fact that a lot of those "moral principles" you rely on have been injected into society by religious laws eg the Ten Commandments which we have discussed already many times.
> 
> .




Morals existed long before the ten commandments, even social animals such as chimps, wolves etc have rules about not killing each other, and how food is distributed etc, social species wouldn't exist if certain fundamental moral codes hadn't evolved with the group.



> There is actually no reason not to kill anyone if you look at it from a survival situation.




Offcourse there is, social species survive better as a group, if you killed off your social group/tribe, you will suffer and not thrive and not be as successful passing on your genes.





> There is no need to care for the elderly or the sick because they simply slow the rest of us down.




Not true, older people would add a lot to a tribe survival, passing on knowledge would be extremely important, plus lots of other tasks, caring for the young etc.



> The animal world is a true moral-less society



.

not true, certain social species show signs of many early moral systems.



> Trying to say that man would have developed morals if there had been no religion is meaningless. Religion existed and it had an influence, both good and bad and you can't deny the influence it has had on your ancestors and on society in general and therefore on your own development of your moral principles




Man invested religion, so either way they come from man, But the best moral rules are across many societies, so you can't give one religion credit, and the reasons you like the rules are secular, so why bother having the religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

> Offcourse there is, social species survive better as a group, if you killed off your social group/tribe, you will suffer and not thrive and not be as successful passing on your genes.




Sure, but there are rivalries within groups. If it was not for moral principles our political parties would be assassinating each other rather than bothering with silly things like Parliament. North Korea for example, what religion is the current despot there ?



> so why bother having the religion.




Yes we can say that now, but religion was the source of moral principles, the "fear of God" etc. 

So keep the principles but ditch religion, but remember where those principles came from because it's a fact despite your own prejudices.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but there are rivalries within groups. If it was not for moral principles our political parties would be assassinating each other rather than bothering with silly things like Parliament. North Korea for example, what religion is the current despot there ?




Firstly, Do you think the religious over the years have been shy of killing those against them, Do you think the religious among us have any moral edge? I don't believe they do, in some situations though they do have verses to quote that allow them to do the horrible immoral things.

the political parties are still part of the same tribe, we all see ourselves as "Aussies" and we generally live and work together as a huge modern tribe, So there is a taboo when it comes to killing each other, modern society has even progressed so far that we see the other nations eg USA, NZ, UK, France and Canada as being defacto tribe members.

There is much less Taboo, when it comes to killing people outside our tribes. In the Army we call assassinating enemy leaders "Counter leadership" missions, which were a part of the Australian special forces mission in Afghanistan. 

.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes we can say that now, but religion was the source of moral principles,.




Can you name a moral principle which religion was the original source?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name a moral principle which religion was the original source?




Again I refer you to the Ten Commandments although I bet you will say they were plagarised from the ancient Zulus or whatever.


----------



## Tink (13 January 2016)

Still the same baloney, VC....

Going by moral relativism, what Hitler did was acceptable as it is his view as right and wrong.

No judgements allowed.

That is how it is.

So are we going to move down to that thinking, where there is no right and wrong.
What sort of society will it become?

VC, we are not animals, we are humans.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Again I refer you to the Ten Commandments although I bet you will say they were plagarised from the ancient Zulus or whatever.




Which ten commandment principle are you referring to most of them are rubbish? (Killing and stealing I guess you are reffering too, which aren't even at the top of the list)

The commandments were written about 4000 years ago, However Both killing and stealing are taboo in cultures from all over the world and in cultures that never saw the ten commandments and that predate the ten commandments, eg aboriginals, American Indians etc all had social taboos around killing tribesmen.

I find it hard to believe that the author of the ten commandments (who ever that was, most likely egyption) was the first person to realise that not killing each other was a good idea.

Humans have been living in social groups for at least 100 thousand years, its very hard to imagine that any social group could form where it was not considered taboo to kill each other or steal from each other.

I mean the idea that for 100 thousand years no group had made an agreement no to kill each other or to steal from each other seems silly to me, As I pointed out, even chimps, wolves, meerkats etc etc all have social rules they live by, this is the origin of what we call morals.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I mean the idea that for 100 thousand years no group had made an agreement no to kill each other or to steal from each other seems silly to me, As I pointed out, even chimps, wolves, meerkats etc etc all have social rules they live by, this is the origin of what we call morals.




Animals live together when it suits them but they still kill or drive out love rivals to prove they are the dominant alpha male and they desert the ill when it suits them.  Spiders kill their mates, some species eat their own young.

The alpha males will mate with as many females as they can so there is no concept of faithfulness, it's all about primal lust with some survival of the species built in. If you try to attribute morality to most animals I think you are on a losing argument.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Animals live together when it suits them but they still kill or drive out love rivals to prove they are the dominant alpha male . .




Aren't humans exactly the same, Try sneaking in and hopping in bed with your neighbors wife tonight and see what happens, or even just try going for an uninvited swim in his pool, Humans are a very territorial species. 




> Spiders kill their mates, some species eat their own young



.

Yep, but I am talking about higher social species.



> The alpha males will mate with as many females as they can so there is no concept of faithfulness, it's all about primal lust with some survival of the species built in. If you try to attribute morality to most animals I think you are on a losing argument




I am saying our moral system is a very advanced moral system that has been built up and created for secular and evolutionary reasons.

I am not saying animals are the pinnacle of morals, I am using them as an example of some very early moral codes of conduct to show where they started.

You named the ten commandments, of which one is "Thou shalt not murder", I use chimps and wolves as non human examples of social groups that already have that as a taboo, so to say it didn't exist in human culture until 4000 years ago is silly.

In fact can you name a culture where it was considered to a good idea to go around killing your social group? I don't think you can, its pretty much every culture invented by humans have rules against killing each other.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Aren't humans exactly the same, Try sneaking in and hopping in bed with your neighbors wife tonight and see what happens, or even just try going for an uninvited swim in his pool, Humans are a very territorial species.




Yes that happens but between people with no moral scruples but it's frowned on in polite society.

Do you think you can determine what the general consensus of apes is towards adultery ?



> You named the ten commandments, of which one is "Thou shalt not murder", I use chimps and wolves as non human examples of social groups that already have that as a taboo, so to say it didn't exist in human culture until 4000 years ago is silly.




I question whether there is a "taboo" on murder within chimps and wolves groups. It's your opinion that there is but on what evidence do you base this ? Chimp law courts ?


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Still the same baloney, VC....
> 
> Going by moral relativism, what Hitler did was acceptable as it is his view as right and wrong.
> 
> ...




I have said I believe in Objective morality, not moral relativism, But I know you don't care, you prefer to keep stuffing that straw man with straw and attack it rather than actually listen to what I am saying.



> VC, we are not animals, we are humans




Humans are a species of animal. we aren't plants, fungi, bacteria etc we are animals.

Saying we aren't animals we are humans is as silly as saying "That's not an animal, its a dolphin"

An animal is -  *a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
*

If we don't fit that definition then I don't know what does.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes that happens but between people with no moral scruples but it's frowned on in polite society.




I don't think its frowned upon at all, Do you think members of "Polite society" would do nothing if an intruder invaded their property an hopped in bed with their wife??? I think anyone would react with vigour and violence if needed, and if they couldn't handle it then they would call some guys in blue with guns to come and handle it.



> Do you think you can determine what the general consensus of apes is towards adultery ?




Which apes? humans are apes.



> I question whether there is a "taboo" on murder within chimps and wolves groups. It's your opinion that there is but on what evidence do you base this ? Chimp law courts ?




The fact that they don't tend to violently murder those in their group, but will kill outsiders and members of other species. A group of chimps can live peacefully for years in a zoo, and never killing each other, but if a racoon gets into the enclosure, suddenly they want to tear it apart.



They also hunt and kill outsider chimp and hunt monkeys etc, but don't really kill each other, this is a clear indication that they have social rules which they live by.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Which apes? humans are apes.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that they don't tend to violently murder those in their group, but will kill outsiders and members of other species.




Sorry that doesn't stack up.

You assert that there is a "taboo" on murder of their own tribe in ape communities ?

That's not the case.

In (non human) ape communities the males *of that group* battle for the alpha male position and some of the losers could get killed.

If there was a taboo on murder then the rest of the tribe would turn on the murdering ape and exact retribution, like killing him or driving him away. But no, the victorious ape gets the girls and the prestige of being the head of the tribe. All the other males are subservient to the alpha male.

So where is the morality in that ?

 Kill and get rewarded, the law of the jungle.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> In (non human) ape communities the males *of that group* battle for the alpha male position and some of the losers could get killed.
> 
> .



 I think you will find battles for dominance very rarely end in death in any species of ape, including humans.

Even in humans we allow killing for self defence etc.



> If there was a taboo on murder then the rest of the tribe would turn on the murdering ape and exact retribution, like killing him or driving him away. But no, the victorious ape gets the girls and the prestige of being the head of the tribe. All the other males are subservient to the alpha male.




That's not true, even when it comes to establishing dominance they have rules and procedures for how this is done, there are examples of groups turning against individuals who break certain rules,  having a biff to establish dominance is probably considered perfectly fine in their culture, it is not a sign that no rules exist at all.

But that's not my point anyway, My point is that in day to day cohabitation they are not killing and eating each other, they look at each other differently than they do other species of monkeys which they are willing to hunt and kill.




> So where is the morality in that ?
> 
> Kill and get rewarded, the law of the jungle




We are getting way off track here, I only used animals as an example of early development of social rules, if you are trying to say chimps etc don't have social rules you are wrong, simple as that, they wouldn't function as the groups they do without them.

My point was that humans would have also developed social rules that covered things such as killing and stealing long before the ten commandments.

*You have it backward, secular morality is the source of religious morality, religious morality is not the source of secular morality.*


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> We are getting way off track here, I only used animals as an example of early development of social rules, if you are trying to say chimps etc don't have social rules you are wrong, simple as that, they wouldn't function as the groups they do without them.




You tried to say that non human apes have a "taboo" on killing and used that to justify that they have developed a moral code. That's simply not true as the following article explains.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ally-aggressive-human-impact-not-to-blame.htm



			
				Value Collector Post #1279 said:
			
		

> You named the ten commandments, of which one is "Thou shalt not murder", I use chimps and wolves as non human examples of social groups that already have that as a taboo, so to say it didn't exist in human culture until 4000 years ago is silly.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You tried to say that non human apes have a "taboo" on killing and used that to justify that they have developed a moral code. That's simply not true as the following article explains.
> 
> ]




So your quoted article says this



> chimps kill each other for personal gain and resources. They kill to gain resources such as land, food or mates. Sound familiar?




So firstly, which of those things hasn't been a part of human history, both religious and non religious???

Secondly, does the fact that humans do that show that humans don't have a moral system? offcourse it doesn't, it shows that sometimes we break our own moral code for personal gain.

In general chimps and the other apes don't kill members of their group, they work together, protect each other, this takes a simple moral code where they value the lives of their social group.

__________________

Instead of getting bogged down in example I gave of animals, I really wish you would back up your claim that morals are sourced from the ten commandments and maybe provide reasoning on why you believe cultures the world over all have rules against killing even though they never saw the ten commandments and how you think human society survived for 100,000 years if they thought it was a good idea to kill each other.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> In general chimps and the other apes don't kill members of their group, they work together, protect each other, this takes a simple moral code where they value the lives of their social group.




I think you are confusing morality with convenience. 

It's more efficient to hunt in packs , it's safer not to be alone. That's all there is with animals, trying to say they are moralistic is absurd.



> Instead of getting bogged down in example I gave of animals, I really wish you would back up your claim that morals are sourced from the ten commandments and maybe provide reasoning on why you believe cultures the world over all have rules against killing even though they never saw the ten commandments and how you think human society survived for 100,000 years if they thought it was a good idea to kill each other.




Humans managed to survive despite wars, sacking , pillaging etc , Again you confuse survival or lust for conquest with morality. 

The Romans, Goths, Vikings, Macedonians thought little of the morality of invading other people's countries, looting their treasures and raping their women. Do you ascribe a morality to those actions ? 

Where is the written set of instructions that describe how they should treat fellow humans ?

Morality is about not just how you treat your own tribe but everyone else in the world. 

What written documentation have you got describing moral principles pre Bible ?


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's more efficient to hunt in packs , it's safer not to be alone. That's all there is with animals, trying to say they are moralistic is absurd.




That's where our morals started in their most primitive form.

People say things like "If it wasn't for religion, we would all be killing each other", well no we wouldn't for the same reason chimps don't. 



> The Romans, Goths, Vikings, Macedonians thought little of the morality of invading other people's countries, looting their treasures and raping their women. Do you ascribe a morality to those actions ?




Again, moral system tend to be applied within social groups, the ten commandments didn't stop either the Christians or the Jews invading other nations, they were rules about how to live in your own society, the same jews in the bible that god gave the ten commandments to later pillaged towns and to women as sex slaves.



> Where is the written set of instructions that describe how they should treat fellow humans ?




why does it have to be written? The aboriginals didn't have a written language, but they had laws.



> Morality is about not just how you treat your own tribe but everyone else in the world




I agree, but then you can't use the biblical morality then, its only for gods chosen people, the other tribes don't count.

But moral systems started from rules about how tribesmen treated each other, do unto others as you would have them treat you etc, you don't need a religion to understand that.



> What written documentation have you got describing moral principles pre Bible




As I have said previously the Egyptians had a similar list, but we don't even need to go that far, the fact that civilizations all over the world with no access to bibles had moral codes that outlawed killing and stealing is enough to show the source can't be biblical.

Think of what you are saying, you are trying to say that until the story of Moses was written, no human civilisation had existed which had thought to introduce laws and moral teachings, that's just silly, you are writing off most of human history, and most of the worlds nations, except for one group with one set of myths.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

> Think of what you are saying, you are trying to say that until the story of Moses was written, no human civilisation had existed which had thought to introduce laws and moral teachings, that's just silly, you are writing off most of human history, and most of the worlds nations, except for one group with one set of myths.




I'm saying that religious laws contributed to the development of morality as did other factors.

You appear to want to ignore the effect of religion entirely.

Are you saying religion played NO part in the development of moral codes ?

As for your Egyptian example, the Egyptians believed in Gods and an afterlife so there is a religious influence there as well.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm saying that religious laws contributed to the development of morality as did other factors.




No, you actually said it was the "Source" of morality. if all you were saying was that it contributed I wouldn't have a problem.

Morality is a topic we have learned about over thousands of years, and we are still learning, the problem with religion is it tends to want absolute answers, which it can lock in and never change, this leads them to resist new moral ideas as we get better and better.



> You appear to want to ignore the effect of religion entirely.
> 
> Are you saying religion played NO part in the development of moral codes




No, I say secular morality is superior, and both the source and need for morality are secular.

Religion and Morality is like the Amish people, the Amish took a snapshot of 1800's technology and said "this is it, this is the correct way to live" and they haven't moved on, the religions take the same snap shot of morality, but we learn more about morality as we go on, so these snapshots are out dated, and tying the morals to religion mean its hard to change.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, I say secular morality is superior, and both the source and need for morality are secular.




You may think we live in a secular society (secular - not connected with religious or spiritual matters) but in fact we live in a multi faceted society where religion has a place as well as do all the other inputs including corporations who would make as much as they could by selling alcohol to minors if they could, and it seems to be only the churches that oppose an alcohol based society because the politicians are too concerned with feathering their own nests.

So I think we need a religious influence as some form of circuit breaker against rising alcohol and gambling abuse because I don't see too many "seculars" all that concerned about it.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You may think we live in a secular society (secular - not connected with religious or spiritual matters) but in fact we live in a multi faceted society where religion has a place as well as do all the other inputs including corporations who would make as much as they could by selling alcohol to minors if they could, and it seems to be only the churches that oppose an alcohol based society because the politicians are too concerned with feathering their own nests.
> 
> So I think we need a religious influence as some form of circuit breaker against rising alcohol and gambling abuse because I don't see too many "seculars" all that concerned about it.




Why would you care about rising alcohol abuse, why do care if children drank?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Why would you care about rising alcohol abuse, why do care if children drank?




Yes I know what you are saying, that everyone should be concerned about alcohol abuse, but our "secular" society sees it as a national rite of passage to get drunk and annoy or kill other people in car accidents etc.

The point is that our "secular" politicians just want the revenue and don't care much about the costs ad our secular society sees interference in their fun as the work of do gooders (churches) and their nanny state lackeys.

So, be my guest and try and talk the country out of being alcoholics if you agree we would be better off that way.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes I know what you are saying, that everyone should be concerned about alcohol abuse, but our "secular" society sees it as a national rite of passage to get drunk and annoy or kill other people in car accidents etc.
> 
> The point is that our "secular" politicians just want the revenue and don't care much about the costs ad our secular society sees interference in their fun as the work of do gooders (churches) and their nanny state lackeys.
> 
> So, be my guest and try and talk the country out of being alcoholics if you agree we would be better off that way.




I see the government paying for Ads encouraging people to not drink drive and have "plan b", I see the police forces out there enforcing the laws and testing people, they obviously care, what are the "churches" doing?

I just have a problem with you making out the it's only churches that have good intentions, everyone else are just uncaring secularists.

You have said things like only churches care about charity etc, yet there are many non religious charities and some of the biggest doners are non religious.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I see the government paying for Ads encouraging people to not drink drive and have "plan b", I see the police forces out there enforcing the laws and testing people, they obviously care, what are the "churches" doing?
> 
> I just have a problem with you making out the it's only churches that have good intentions, everyone else are just uncaring secularists.




I never said "only" the churches care, but the fact is that alcohol is more freely available than it ever was due to its availability in supermarkets, pubs are open to 3 am,  drunken assaults are on the increase, alcohol advertising is pervasive and when the Labor government tried to tax alcopops they were shouted down by the alcohol lobby.

So secular society does not appear to be dealing with the problem. Agree or not ?


----------



## explod (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I never said "only" the churches care, but the fact is that alcohol is more freely available than it ever was due to its availability in supermarkets, pubs are open to 3 am,  drunken assaults are on the increase, alcohol advertising is pervasive and when the Labor government tried to tax alcopops they were shouted down by the alcohol lobby.
> 
> So secular society does not appear to be dealing with the problem. Agree or not ?



On the ball champ. 

Money is everything,  that's why the chief set up the witch doctor on the hill. 

Good. Post.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I never said "only" the churches care, but the fact is that alcohol is more freely available than it ever was due to its availability in supermarkets, pubs are open to 3 am,  drunken assaults are on the increase, alcohol advertising is pervasive and when the Labor government tried to tax alcopops they were shouted down by the alcohol lobby.
> 
> So secular society does not appear to be dealing with the problem. Agree or not ?




Firstly the alco pops tax was dumb, and would lead to more drinking.

Secondly, do you have any stats to show alcohol violence is on the rise?

And what are the churches doing about it? I don't really pay attention to the issue, but all I can remember seeing is secular groups speaking out, and acting on it, and how do you know what the religion of the alcohol lobby is, how do you know they aren't all Anglican.

Also, most of the pollies are religious, why are you blaming their decisions on a lack of religion?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly the alco pops tax was dumb, and would lead to more drinking.




Wat is your evidence for that ?



> Secondly, do you have any stats to show alcohol violence is on the rise?




The evidence isn't hard to find if you have a look.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...y-from-alcohol-related-illness:-study/5637050



> And what are the churches doing about it? I don't really pay attention to the issue, but all I can remember seeing is secular groups speaking out, and acting on it, and how do you know what the religion of the alcohol lobby is, how do you know they aren't all Anglican.




It appears you have a selective memory if you only remember "secular" groups speaking out.



> *Also, most of the pollies are religious*, why are you blaming their decisions on a lack of religion?





A complete generalisation without supporting evidence.


----------



## Tink (14 January 2016)

VC, I have already said that our laws were built by our biblical worldview, and a lot more has come out of the Bible than you realise.
You say I don't listen, you are not listening.

The Bible hasn't changed. The teachings haven't changed. 

As has been pointed out -
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=12&p=894597&viewfull=1#post894597

Now that we have made that clear, that our country was built on our Christian Heritage, can we move on, as we just go on with the same.

Conservatives believe in limited government intervention, where customs, laws and morals run society, not the government.
Life and Liberty, Rule of Law.

Do you know what Life and Liberty means?
It does not mean freedom for the government to pick up the tab, it means to live responsibly, with accountability.

----------------------------

What we are seeing now is a selfish society, in my view, where it is all about yourself, the ME society, not the community.

As I said, in Victoria, it is now becoming an anti-life, anti-family, anti-Christian.
Do they want people to be dependent on the government?

Like this moral relativism, where no judgements are to be made
Society should be about judgements, not without.
If no one can be judged, we will end up in a country that looks like a jungle.
Whatever they want to do, they should be allowed.

It all comes down to this new word - tolerance - which is being thrown about too freely.

The government shouldn't be jumping in to tell people how to think.
Using political correctness, moral relativism etc for social engineering to steer the masses is rubbish, in my view.
Public education is full of this left political rubbish, and it shouldn't be, it should be about literacy and numeracy.

We then have rights, which have taken a whole new life of their own.
It is not about the community anymore.

Just my view
---------

Just so people know, the atheism comment was pointed at VC and my debate.

I have mentioned before, you get good and bad in all people.

From not saying much through the years, I probably have been saying more, because of the changes I am seeing.
The anti-family, anti-fathers, and other things I don't agree with.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Wat is your evidence for that ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The alco pops tax was only a tax on pre mixed drinks, eg cans and bottles of premixed and pre measured and accurately labeled beverages, now by taxing only these, you suddenly make it cheaper to buy a bottle of spirits and a bottle of soft drink and mix it yourself, which generally leads to a lot heavier drinking because people make the drinks stronger when they pour them, think about it. do you want your teenage daughter heading out to a party with a 6 pack of premixed drinks, or do you want to have her go with a 750ml bottle of vodka, and have some scum bag boys pouring her drinks.

That article did mention a flaw in their figures saying the rise could be due to better information, eg since the 60's cancer deaths have risen steadily also, but in reality it's not that cancer rates have risen, it's just we are collecting better information and diagnosing people better, people used to just get sick and die, now we call it cancer.

Can you name some things the churches have done?

How many of the pollies are declare atheists?


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

Tink, you are a very dishonest person, 

Firstly, again you have brought up moral relivatism when I have already corrected you and said I don't agree with that and that I believe in objective morality.

You also are trying to say Christian moral teachings don't change, this is a load of rubbish, your club used to support slavery and the bible supports slavery, now it doesn't.

-----------------

Rumpole,

Read the start of tinks post, it proves my point about how religion slows the progress and hinders. Moral advancement.


----------



## Tink (14 January 2016)

OK, you don't believe in moral relativism, whats the difference?

Read the history.

The Christian teachings abolished slavery. 
Yes, there may have been slaves, but they were made to be treated respectfully.

This is where you bring up all this rubbish about our Christian Bible.
You don't have to believe it, but it is what set up these countries.

We are not going back to this conversation.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Can you name some things the churches have done?




People like Fred Nile have been campaigning on the temperence issue for a long time but I think that because he is a religious person people can easily dismiss him as a wowser, even though the stats surrounding damage due to alcohol bear out his views.

To put my view clearly I hope, there are many things on which I disagree with the churches, including most of the Old Testament and the Koran, the church's attitude towards contraception, voluntary euthanasia and homosexuality and putting forward creation myths unsupported by evidence, BUT I think that to have a balanced society we need a diversity of views and we can make judgements on each of those views on their merits and not just say "oh he is a Christian (or a Muslim) so his views don't count ".  

In the case of alcohol and gambling abuse I happen to agree with the churches view that they are bad for society. Are you disagreeing with this view just to stick it up religion ?



> How many of the pollies are declare atheists?




I've no idea, you made the assertion that most are religious, you provide the evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> People like Fred Nile have been campaigning on the temperence issue for a long time but I think that because he is a religious person people can easily dismiss him as a wowser, even though the stats surrounding damage due to alcohol bear out his views.
> 
> To put my view clearly I hope, there are many things on which I disagree with the churches, including most of the Old Testament and the Koran, the church's attitude towards contraception, voluntary euthanasia and homosexuality and putting forward creation myths unsupported by evidence, BUT I think that to have a balanced society we need a diversity of views and we can make judgements on each of those views on their merits and not just say "oh he is a Christian (or a Muslim) so his views don't count ".
> 
> ...




Religious people are entitled to their opinion and can speak out publically just as anyone can, What I am not in favor of is giving a religious persons opinion extra weight just because they are religious or because they can point to passages from the bibles or qu'ran.

I agree that alcohol or gambling abuse are bad, just like the abuse of anything is bad. I don't think the answer is more taxes though, there is a point where the risk of certain activities is out weighed by the reward. If someone genuinely feels their life is improved by drinking alcohol, who am I to stop them.

If at age 16, you were given a deal by a genie, that if you ate nothing but brown rice and drank nothing but water, he would guarantee you would live to 100, would take the deal?

I thought about this and said no, I will eat what I like within reason and drink what I like within reason, enjoy life and take the risk of maybe an earlier death, perhaps I will live to 100 anyway, and live a better life.

Now where things activities put others at risk, there is a problem, and that's where we need to focus attention, reducing the impact on innocent people, drink driving is bad, violent behaviour is bad, I think education is the best way to change behaviour.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Religious people are entitled to their opinion and can speak out publically just as anyone can, What I am not in favor of is giving a religious persons opinion extra weight just because they are religious or because they can point to passages from the bibles or qu'ran.




Neither am I , the merit of their argument counts not what their religion is.




> Now where things activities put others at risk, there is a problem, and that's where we need to focus attention, reducing the impact on innocent people, drink driving is bad, violent behaviour is bad, I think education is the best way to change behaviour.




As I mentioned before, education programs are expensive and don't work . We had the "Life be in it" campaign years ago and obesity rates haven't changed.

At least try shutting pubs at midnight and see what happens, what is there to lose ?

Having RBT camped in the parking areas of clubs and pubs might help too but the alcohol lobby seems to have shut this down.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

Tink said:


> OK, you don't believe in moral relativism, whats the difference?
> 
> .




*Moral relativism* -  is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

This is the straw man moral belief system that religious people try and say you must believe if you don't believe in gods.

Objective Morality - Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true, meaning in any given situation there is an action which would be the most moral, and that option exists regardless of opinion, based on a set of principles that exist, but which we are discovering over time.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Objective Morality - Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true, meaning in any given situation there is an action which would be the most moral, and that option exists regardless of opinion, based on a set of principles that exist, but which we are discovering over time.




So are you saying that there is a scientific law of morality like there are laws of science that can be proved to be true by experiment ?

Can you give examples ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So are you saying that there is a scientific law of morality like there are laws of science that can be proved to be true by experiment ?




I believe a set of general moral principles can be put together through sound logic and reasoning (we may be wrong and need to make changes and adjustments, just like anything though) and once we have some of these general principles we need to weigh action against them to try and get as close to the best outcome as we can based on the information we have.



> Can you give examples?




Through logic and reasoning, we come to the conclusion that a moral principle is

 "Good Health is preferred to Poor Health"

Now we know through science that pouring battery acid into some ones throat would reduce their over all Health, So based on the facts, we can determine that forciblely pouring Battery acid down some ones throat would be immoral.

But we can't just make an absolute moral rule (like the religions prefer) that pouring battery acid down some ones throat is immoral, because in some medical situation in might be needed and be the most moral thing to do, or if the person wants to do it to them selves, the moral principle that "freedom is preferred to non freedom" might out weigh the other moral principle.


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2016)

Tink said:


> The Christian teachings abolished slavery.
> .




Only in Christian countries Tink


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Tink, you are a very dishonest person,
> 
> Firstly, again you have brought up moral relivatism when I have already corrected you and said I don't agree with that and that I believe in objective morality.
> 
> ...




Unnecessary slur on Tink VC = poor form.

Not sure the old testament supported slavery as opposed to servitude contracts, which is pretty much what an employment contract is these days and a willing population by and large.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Unnecessary slur on Tink VC = poor form.
> 
> :




what better word than dishonest describes her when she constantly repeats the same rubbish after being corrected multiple times. Saying I believe something when I keep saying I don't, she is either trying to defame me by being dishonest, or not being honest with herself, either way it fits.



> Not sure the old testament supported slavery as opposed to servitude contracts, which is pretty much what an employment contract is these days and a willing population by and large.:rolleyes




You boss can't beat you within an inch of your life, and the boss doesn't own your children and your wife.

Its funny to me how religious people make out they are the height of morality, then they go on and rationalise slavery, lol


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I believe a set of general moral principles can be put together through sound logic and reasoning (we may be wrong and need to make changes and adjustments, just like anything though) and once we have some of these general principles we need to weigh action against them to try and get as close to the best outcome as we can based on the information we have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




When you say something is "factually true" you need to be able to prove that it holds in all circumstances. 

I agree that your statement "Good health is preferable to Poor Health" applies in all conditions that I can think of, but it doesn't help in situations where resources are such that giving one person medical treatment may deprive others of it, so does this statement actually help to solve the moral dilemma of who should get the treatment and who doesn't ?


----------



## Tink (14 January 2016)

Thanks, Tisme.
You get used to these people that try to shut you down.

VC, you are constantly in here degrading Christianity, what this country was built on.

If people are smart enough, they will do their own investigation, and learn the truth.

I am not saying Christianity was perfect, but compared to atheist countries, you have nothing to complain about.

Yet you still complain, just like this new student generation that is coming up whinging about the past, and what their forefathers built. Talking about removing this and that.

One ungrateful lot.

How about we talk about where our country is now, and where it is heading, that is my concern.

Yes, I am concerned for the future children, as these people go along destroying everything this country was built on.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> When you say something is "factually true" you need to be able to prove that it holds in all circumstances.




Something will be factually true regardless of whether we can prove it. for example if I am a jar full of sand, the total number of grains that exist in that jar is a fact regardless of whether we know the number or whether we have the ability to count and prove it.

Remember I am not claiming to know every possible option and every thing about every option, I am just saying that all those options exist, and out of them one option will be the most moral out come.

The point of morality from a human stand point is to try and make the best decisions we can based on the information we have, and based on the moral principles we can understand, in doing this, absolute moral rules are not going to lead you to the best outcome, especially if those absolute rules were written hundreds or thousands of years ago based on old information.



> I agree that your statement "Good health is preferable to Poor Health" applies in all conditions that I can think of, but it doesn't help in situations where resources are such that giving one person medical treatment may deprive others of it, so does this statement actually help to solve the moral dilemma of who should get the treatment and who doesn't




there are many more moral principles, eg life is preferable to death, freedom is preferable to non freedom, etc. but these are guiding principles, not moral absolutes, for example death might be preferable to poor health in some situations. 

In your moral dilemma, there would be a most moral decision, what that is can be hard to figure out, but again moral absolutes get you no closer, but doctors make those decisions all the time.

eg, all things being equal, a non smoker will get the transplant organ, because medical science has proved that smokers suffer higher rejection rates etc. if the goal is to save a life, but you can only save one, all else being equal, you have to choose to save the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2016)

> but doctors make those decisions all the time.




Yes they do and one doctor may make a different decision to another, so isn't that "moral relativism" ?



> but you can only save one, all else being equal, you have to choose to saved the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery.




Do we ? Even if that person is a convicted pedophile serving a gaol term and the alternative patient is a life saving neurosurgeon ?

Here is were we get into non absolutes and where your Objective Morality breaks down because it's your opinion that "you have to choose to saved the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery", whereas others may have a different priority.

If Patient A (pedophile) had a 85% chance of recovery and Patient B (the surgeon) had an 80% chance, I'd be picking Patient B.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes they do and one doctor may make a different decision to another, so isn't that "moral relativism" ?




No, because as I said the most moral option exists, its objective, it exists whether the doctors takes that option or not.

One doctor could be right and the other wrong, or they could both be wrong.

Imagine a complicated mathematical problem, two doctors get different answers, does this mean the answer is subjective or based on relativism, not at all, the correct answer is there all along, one or both of the doctors maybe have interpreted the data incorrectly, or most likely neither doctor had all the information needed to get to 100% correct answer.

picture a jar full of sand, both doctors have to make a best estimate based everything they know, to get an answer about how many grains of sand are in the jar, the fact they get it wrong doesn't change the amount of grains, they will be wrong or right based on facts.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Do we ? Even if that person is a convicted pedophile serving a gaol term and the alternative patient is a life saving neurosurgeon ?
> 
> 
> 
> If Patient A (pedophile) had a 85% chance of recovery and Patient B (the surgeon) had an 80% chance, I'd be picking Patient B.




I said all else being equal, so both candidates would be pedophiles serving jail terms.



> Here is were we get into non absolutes and where your Objective Morality breaks down because it's your opinion that "you have to choose to saved the patient with the highest chance of having a good outcome from surgery", .




Its not my opinion, because life is preferable to death, we have to choose the best option that lets a person live, and has the lowest chance of having them both die.



> whereas others may have a different priority




and one of us will be right and one of us wrong.



> If Patient A (pedophile) had a 85% chance of recovery and Patient B (the surgeon) had an 80% chance, I'd be picking Patient B.




As I said, my example was based on all else being equal, every time you add a variable to any calculation you will change the answer, and there may be so many variables its impossible to know for sure what the correct answer is, but that's the shining light on the hill you need to do your best to get to.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2016)




----------



## Tisme (15 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> oral out come.
> 
> The point of morality from a human stand point is to *try and *make the best decisions we can based on the information we have, and based on the moral principles we can understand, i




I think I have a moral obligation to point out that it is " try to", not "try and"


----------



## Tisme (15 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Tisme.
> You get used to these people that try to shut you down.
> 
> VC, you are constantly in here degrading Christianity, what this country was built on.
> ...




I think VC is young. Eventually he'll get old and fat, vote Liberal and wear a tartan cheesecutter to cover his bald pate and a paisley shirt, God will visit him in the night and VC will still argue the toss that gays are just like everyone else.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> God will visit him in the night




Hahaha, You know anyone that's debated theists knows that comments like this means that the theist has nothing to say to support their beliefs. 



> Eventually he'll get old and fat, vote Liberal and wear a tartan cheesecutter to cover his bald pate and a paisley shirt, God will visit him in the night and VC will still argue the toss that gays are just like everyone else.




Yeah, I will get old, but by then you will be dead, and your bigoted opinions will be even more irrelevant than they are now, you will be on the wrong side of history, people like you will be looked back on with embarrassment.


----------



## Tink (16 January 2016)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=15&p=895377&viewfull=1#post895377

From the Christmas thread...

Your messiah disagrees with you.... 

What could 'against something worse' be?


_In a text that is coursing about on social media, professional God-slayer Richard Dawkins begrudgingly admitted that Christianity may actually be our best defense against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world.

“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”

In a rare moment of candor, Dawkins reluctantly accepted that the teachings of Jesus Christ do not lead to a world of terror, whereas followers of radical Islam perpetrate the very atrocities that he laments.

Because of this realization, Dawkins wondered aloud whether Christianity might indeed offer an antidote to protect western civilization against jihad.

“I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,” he said.

Although the text originated in 2010, it has taken on a second life, being sent to and fro on Facebook and Twitter and providing fodder for discussions, even among atheists, of the benefits of Christianity for modern society._


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2016)

Can't wait to see what VC says about that !


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2016)

Tink said:


> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=15&p=895377&viewfull=1#post895377
> 
> From the Christmas thread...
> 
> ...




Do you have a link to the full original text or video from which these snippets were taken, 



SirRumpole said:


> Can't wait to see what VC says about that !




Well, offcourse if it were a choice between having a person believe the teachings of a radical islam group or the teachings of moderate Christian group then offcourse I would choose the moderate Christian group, it could also go the other way, I would probably prefer the teachings of a moderate islam group to a radical Christian group also.

However the lessor of two evils is still evil, and I would much prefer the person avoid both religions and accept reality, think rationally and understand the principles of humanism and real world morality.



> From the Christmas thread...
> 
> Your messiah disagrees with you....
> 
> What could 'against something worse' be?




Tink, I have no idea which part of the linked thread page you are refering to


----------



## Tink (16 January 2016)

The text is here.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/

So what does he mean by -- against something worse?
Communism?
Islam?

Our country is already based on Christianity.
We live in a Christian Culture.
Our biblical worldview that set up the laws - our Christian Bible.

Our DNA, codes, language, information that we have learned,
I say our Creator/God, you say differently.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2016)

Tink said:


> The text is here.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/
> 
> .




No Tink,  that is an article that quotes parts of the text, I would like to see the full original Richards Dawkins interview or text he wrote, not a commentary containing only quotes.



> So what does he mean by -- against something worse?
> Communism?
> Islam?




Communism, why would you think he is talking about communism, you seem obsessed with communism.

He is talking about religion, so the "something worse", is a worse religion.



> Our country is already based on Christianity.
> We live in a Christian Culture.
> Our biblical worldview that set up the laws - our Christian Bible



.

You seem to always ignore that our laws provide freedom of and from religion.

Christianity is not mentioned in the constitution at all, neither is Jesus or the bible.




> Our DNA, codes, language, information that we have learned,
> I say our Creator/God, you say differently




What about DNA implies a god, have you put much effort into finding out whether you beliefs are true?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What about DNA implies a god, have you put much effort into finding out whether you beliefs are true?




Speculation of course, but this article implies that aliens could have implanted messages in our "junk" DNA.

Don't know why they picked aliens, maybe they are more believable than a creator.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn06.htm


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2016)

Tink said:


> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=15&p=895377&viewfull=1#post895377
> 
> From the Christmas thread...
> 
> ...




I don't know what the fuss is here. Dawkins has always held the view that Christianity, because it went through a reformation, is not in the same league as Islam. It was hardly a rare moment, as the author said, but something Dawkins has frequently opined in his many discussions. 

Although he regards some of the teachings of Jesus Christ as good for society (do unto others etc., caring for the poor) they are in his opinion hardly unique (Buddha had expressed the same centuries before) and do not in any way prove either the existence of Jesus or that he is God. However, he doesn't hold back when discussing the teachings/laws of the God of the old testament.

He has always waxed lyrical about his Anglican upbringing, saying how he regarded it as the most benign Christian denomination. He has also expressed his appreciation of some of the great artistic works attributed to Christianity, none of which as he says, prove anything about the existence of Jesus or a God.

I think the only thing revealing about this article and in a way about those who think this is a sensational admission on Dawkins behalf is what it reveals about those people themselves. They have obviously read little of Dawkins or heard little of what he has said in his numerous interviews and talks and have let their opinion be influenced by those in the media who are more interested in labelling Dawkins as some sort of weird extremist than in listening to what he has to say.

As to the question: what could the something worse be. Simply, Islam.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> As to the question: what could the something worse be. Simply, Islam.




That's a pretty wide statement, maybe better to say* radical *Islam is worse.


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a pretty wide statement, maybe better to say* radical *Islam is worse.




Radical Islam is worse than Islam which is worse than Christianity (that form Dawkins was referring to in the article we are discussing).

When one says radical Islam, one immediately thinks of ISIS and the Taliban. But Islam as practised in the Arab world (Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen in particular), in Iran and also in the 'stans' (Pakistan, Afghanistan) is barbaric when compared to the customs and norms of a typical Western Christian country, yet one doesn't refer to them as radical. Even Indonesia, long regarded as a moderate Islamic country, allows Sharia Law in Aceh province. Women (also men) are whipped there on a regular basis for falling foul of Sharia Law.

Quoting Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan: *In fact, there is only One Prophet Muhammad, and there is only One Allah, and there is only One Quran, and there is amongst Muslims only One Islam, hence there can be Only One Muslim. A Moderate Muslim is an oxymoron because there is no such thing as a “Moderate Islam.”*

What we often regard as moderate Islam is what the following article describes as Cultural Islam. 

_Cultural Muslims are religiously unobservant, secular or irreligious individuals who still identify with the Muslim culture due to family background, personal experiences, or the social and cultural environment in which they grew up._

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/abdulmuhd...am-is-an-insult-to-islam-the-cultural-muslim/


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Radical Islam is worse than Islam which is worse than Christianity (that form Dawkins was referring to in the article we are discussing).
> 
> When one says radical Islam, one immediately thinks of ISIS and the Taliban. But Islam as practised in the Arab world (Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen in particular), in Iran and also in the 'stans' (Pakistan, Afghanistan) is barbaric when compared to the customs and norms of a typical Western Christian country, yet one doesn't refer to them as radical. Even Indonesia, long regarded as a moderate Islamic country, allows Sharia Law in Aceh province. Women (also men) are whipped there on a regular basis for falling foul of Sharia Law.
> 
> ...




So are you saying we should close our borders to immigrants from Muslim countries because they could all be terrorists ?

Personally I feel that we should take much less people and on a necessary skills basis only, no family reunions and people should pay a $200,000 deposit before they come so we know they are not going to be reliant on welfare.


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So are you saying we should close our borders to immigrants from Muslim countries because they could all be terrorists ?




I didn't say anything of the sort.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Speculation of course, but this article implies that aliens could have implanted messages in our "junk" DNA.
> 
> Don't know why they picked aliens, maybe they are more believable than a creator.
> 
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn06.htm




Firstly the idea that our junk DNA has messages is rediculous.

However, if it was a choice between believeing in aliens or believeing in gods, aliens are far more likely to exist.

We have no evidence of any gods existing, but we have plenty of evidence of life existing in the universe, planet earth itself is proof that life exists and evolves in the universe, we humans are proof of intelligent life, it's not a big step to accept that what has happened on earth has probably happened in other places in the universe.

Believeing in gods is much more difficult, we have no examples of any gods existing, or even that it's possible for something so complex to exist, let alone exist outside of space and time.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I don't know what the fuss is here. Dawkins has always held the view that Christianity, because it went through a reformation, is not in the same league as Islam. It was hardly a rare moment, as the author said, but something Dawkins has frequently opined in his many discussions.
> 
> Although he regards some of the teachings of Jesus Christ as good for society (do unto others etc., caring for the poor) they are in his opinion hardly unique (Buddha had expressed the same centuries before) and do not in any way prove either the existence of Jesus or that he is God. However, he doesn't hold back when discussing the teachings/laws of the God of the old testament.
> 
> ...




True, I do find it funny that Tink seems to hate Dawkins with a passion, when he out of all the outspoken atheists speaks of some of the positive impacts of Christianity most frequently, his main beef with Christianity is with the fundamentalists who want to teach phony science etc. or want to ignore science and teach creation myths instead.


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly the idea that our junk DNA has messages is rediculous.
> 
> However, if it was a choice between believeing in aliens or believeing in gods, aliens are far more likely to exist.
> 
> ...




Take it you haven't seen Prometheus? 

Aliens and God/Creator are one and the same.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Take it you haven't seen Prometheus?
> 
> Aliens and God/Creator are one and the same.




When people say "God", I think of a being living outside of time and space, that created to universe, and was there before the universe existed.

When people say "alien", I think of an intelligent living organism that has evolved (as we have) over millions of years of evolution, in some other part of the Galaxy/universe. Any species that has evolved inside the universe, can't be the creator of the universe. 

If the arrguement is that life on earth was seeded of genetically engineered by an alien, then that alien isn't a god, it's a scientist, but I can't think of any evidence that suggests that's likely anyway,


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> When people say "God", I think of a being living outside of time and space, that created to universe, and was there before the universe existed.
> 
> When people say "alien", I think of an intelligent living organism that has evolved (as we have) over millions of years of evolution, in some other part of the Galaxy/universe. Any species that has evolved inside the universe, can't be the creator of the universe.
> 
> If the arrguement is that life on earth was seeded of genetically engineered by an alien, then that alien isn't a god, it's a scientist, but I can't think of any evidence that suggests that's likely anyway,




You really have thought this thing through haven't you?

Oh yea, I remember from Noah how God was meant to actually have created the entire universe, not just Earth and Earthlings.

Putting it your way, aren't you just being polite to say that you can't prove God doesn't exist?

Is there really another universe out there where God and His kind exists and all the galaxies and stuff within our huge post Big Bang just his creation?


Our 3.5 year old have been asking us to draw and cut out the solar system for him (3 times a day, two months now). It's cheap so I don't mind, and the kid could be kept busy for at least an hour afterwards playing with the planets. 

One of his favourite youtube video show Earth in relation to the entire solar system, then relative to the various known stars.. and there is a star that scientist have discovered so far where if a half of it takes up half an iPad our Earth is probably a pixel.

So if God did create the entire universe, one with thousands of stars of similar size like that... us Earthlings are probably way too insignificant for the Man to be passing messages thru one of the guys who happen to only live in the ME.. .and if I'm God I'd probably won't know how to find Earth to send my only Son down to.


----------



## Tink (17 January 2016)

Thanks, Bellenuit.

I know there are some things we agree with, and some we don't. 
I don't agree with throwing out the baby with the bathwater (Christianity, that created what we have).
Decency, respect, families, all the things this country was built on, that I have mentioned through my posts.
The beauty in things, appreciation, gratitude, sacrifice, honour.

Our Western Culture/Christian Culture

I believe in freedom of speech, and I think Richard Dawkins is realising he is losing it in the environment he is in.
An environment that sadly he has created.
You know what they say, you don't realise how lucky you had it until it is gone.
We won't realise how much Christianity did contribute, until it is gone.

Political Correctness is closing down any attempt of people talking.
He has destroyed his own country, not just him, others too.

I don't agree with his beliefs, and they are beliefs, because God cannot be disproven, and I don't agree with what he has done, but I did hear he stood up for Christianity in the university, and he said that if people can't cope with listening and learning, then don't come to university. 
University is a place of learning.
They are losing grasp of any reality, in my view.

As I have said, they are happy to take on the Rhode scholarship, but they want the man/statue removed.
The left are so hypocritical.
They have no sense of gratitude for the good, they have become a pack of whiny, whingy victims, and it is all about themselves, nothing else.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29402&page=30&p=885852&viewfull=1#post885852

Communism/Lawlessness, is the same thing, VC.
If you want to get rid of what this country was built on, you only have a few options.

I have said this before, our universe is orderly, you wouldn't be able to do any of your scientific testing if it wasn't orderly.
Straight lines.
Just like our laws, that have been created.
People that talk about science don't really run it right through, do they?
Half baked jobs.

No one is telling you to believe in a God, but this is where it all came from.

I find it amazing that these people that talk about science, see an orderly universe, but they want to create a disorderly environment for us to live in.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly the idea that our junk DNA has messages is rediculous.
> 
> .




Tell it to the world renowned scientist Paul Davies who proposed the idea,


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Hahaha, You know anyone that's debated theists knows that comments like this means that the theist has nothing to say to support their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I will get old, but by then you will be dead, and your bigoted opinions will be even more irrelevant than they are now, you will be on the wrong side of history, people like you will be looked back on with embarrassment.




That's not very nice VC. I give you a free fortune telling and what do I get, but brickbats. 

I'm not judging you VC, just saying you are a walking anachronism of the cliche period, when everyone had a pet homosexual friend they could parade as proof of their 1990's egalitarianism.  You're just caught in a time warp from a period that most people would like to forget.


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2016)

Tink said:


> So what does he mean by -- against something worse?
> Communism?
> Islam?
> 
> .




Well you don't have the luxury of unions in communist countries, so people like Noco might find communism preferable to capitalism, which is a breeding ground of workers rights and the consequent middle class.


----------



## Tisme (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Tell it to the world renowned scientist Paul Davies who proposed the idea,




Does Paul speak with a pompous rec'd accent like Dawkins too? If so it must be true.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Does Paul speak with a pompous rec'd accent like Dawkins too? If so it must be true.




Paul speaks with an enlightened English accent and he definitely is not as bigoted or arrogant as Dawkins.

Here's a starter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tB1jppI3fo

He's not a God believer btw.


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Well you don't have the luxury of unions in communist countries, so people like Noco might find communism preferable to capitalism, which is a breeding ground of workers rights and the consequent middle class.




Those too are on their way out, right?


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2016)

Tink said:


> I believe in freedom of speech, and I think Richard Dawkins is realising he is losing it in the environment he is in.
> An environment that sadly he has created.




One of the things Dawkins constantly has to confront when people react to his talks and particularly to his tweets, is this logical fallacy that is often adopted by those who oppose him:

"If I say X is better than Y, it doesn't mean I support X".

Just because he regards Christianity as more benign than Islam, doesn't mean he supports Christianity. Though he sees Christianity as having some positive values, he does not regard Christianity (or any religion) as the bulwark against suppression of free speech. He just sees Christianity as less of a culprit than some other religions.



> You know what they say, you don't realise how lucky you had it until it is gone.
> We won't realise how much Christianity did contribute, until it is gone.




I think most thinking people realise the contribution of Christianity in the positive and negative sense. It doesn't mean that it is overall a benefit. Dawkins certainly doesn't think that. That article is saying that he would preferable have a Christian dominated society to an Islamic one, but he publicly advocates a society based on humanism and rational thinking.



> Political Correctness is closing down any attempt of people talking.
> He has destroyed his own country, not just him, others too.




Political correctness doesn't come from the atheists, but mainly from the left. Dawkins denounced PC wherever he has heard or seen it and perhaps as much of 25% of his daily twitter tweets is devoted to exposing it where he sees it.



> I don't agree with his beliefs, and they are beliefs, because God cannot be disproven




Nor can the tooth fairy, so that is neither here nor there.



> but I did hear he stood up for Christianity in the university, and he said that if people can't cope with listening and learning, then don't come to university.
> University is a place of learning.
> They are losing grasp of any reality, in my view.




No. He denounced political correctness that is preventing robust discussion on social, ethical, political, religious and philosophical issues. Standing up for Christianity might be an overstatement. He believes that they ought to have their say, but he certainly wasn't standing up for Christianity in the sense of advocating it. And his denouncement of PC is not a one off particular to an issue that happened in one university. As I said he constantly denounces PC.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Tell it to the world renowned scientist Paul Davies who proposed the idea,




He knows the idea is crazy, he says it's crazy himself at the 1.35 mark in the linked video. He is suggesting it as a possible place an alien race may attempt to leave a message, he is not saying any such message has been found, or that he think such messages exist, just that we need to expand our search into many areas.

Also, he has copped a lot of flak for some of his crazier ideas, some of his books contain a lot of unfounded "woo".

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iob4a-R18c0[/video]


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Also, he has copped a lot of flak for some of his crazier ideas, some of his books contain a lot of unfounded "woo".
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iob4a-R18c0[/video]




Anyone who is prepared to think out of the box is going to be attacked by those who aren't.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyone who is prepared to think out of the box is going to be attacked by those who aren't.




Yes, sadly human behaviour has repeatedly demonstrated this tendency throughout history.

One of the things I  find interesting about this discussion is the way in which it highlights the willingness to accept the authority of an agreeable viewpoint without question, whilst at the same time visiting any conflicting viewpoint with the utmost  of scepticism.

It would be even more interesting if parties to each side of the debate were to unilaterally review their personal beliefs with the same degree of scepticism that they typically reserve for others. 

True scepticism isn't defined as simply questioning the things one doesn't happen to believe, that would be more akin to prejudice or bigotry.

Is any one here willing to make a sincere endeavour to examine all sides of this debate with true scepticism?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2016)

cynic said:


> Is any one here willing to make a sincere endeavour to examine all sides of this debate with true scepticism?




What debate ? God vs no God ?

AFAIC the jury is still out. We don't have the knowledge to decide one way or the other, maybe we never will.

The more we find out, the more questions seem to pop up. We still don't know what makes up 70% of the mass of the universe.

I have a feeling that the time needed to determine for certain whether a God exists or not is equal to the total lifetime of the Universe.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What debate ? God vs no God ?
> 
> AFAIC the jury is still out. We don't have the knowledge to decide one way or the other, maybe we never will.
> 
> ...




I more or less agree with what you're saying here. 

The mere fact of our existence is as incomprehensible a mystery to me as the existence of anything. 

Hence, the suggestion of a currently inexplicable creative intelligence to account for an already mysterious existence, does not seem so far fetched as to justify automatic dismissal.

Science, much as I love it, will, almost certainly, take many many human lifetimes to uncover the mysteries of our immediate environment (let alone the entirety of existence).


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyone who is prepared to think out of the box is going to be attacked by those who aren't.




Not if they have valid reasoning to back up their claims.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2016)

cynic said:


> I more or less agree with what you're saying here.
> 
> The mere fact of our existence is as incomprehensible a mystery to me as the existence of anything.
> 
> ...




The origin of life may be a mystery, but that didn't mean we don't know enough to debunk the positive claims made by the religious creation myths.

Also, just because some thing is a mystery doesn't mean you should make up answers and believe them, it's best to just say I don't know.

And even though the origin of life is a mystery, it's less mysterious now than it was 200 years ago


----------



## cynic (17 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The origin of life may be a mystery, but that didn't mean we don't know enough to debunk the positive claims made by the religious creation myths.
> 
> Also, just because some thing is a mystery doesn't mean you should make up answers and believe them, it's best to just say I don't know.
> 
> And even though the origin of life is a mystery, it's less mysterious now than it was 200 years ago




It is Interesting how some dismiss certain beliefs as myths and accuse others of making up answers and believing them. These are things that sadly happen with alarming frequency with practitioners in various branches of science and devotees of same.

After having examined just a few of the so called creation myths, I've sometimes  noticed the symbolic presence of knowledge.

Sadly this is often obscured by the insistence of zealots, from both sides of the debate, that the information must always be interpreted in a strictly literal sense.

As for existence being less mysterious, I  would argue, that the more we discover, the more we realise how much more there is remaining undiscovered than previously thought. It seems that the expansion of scientific discovery, simply raises awareness of how precious  little humanity truly knows. Previously established "facts" are sometimes found to be fallacies as science progresses in it's quest for knowledge, and it would seem that many of our aÃ§cepted facts are, at best, only subjectively proven.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The origin of life may be a mystery, but that didn't mean we don't know enough to debunk the positive claims made by the religious creation myths.




Certainly the "God created the world in seven days" myth can be debunked (what is a day when the earth hadn't been created yet), but a God the rule maker theory is less easily debunked; ie something that created the Laws of Physics and the space and time for the rules to act on.

We may never find the answer to whether the universes was created this way or by some other means, and there is still the mystery of why anything should exist.

So some people should stop trying to pick the low hanging fruit of the Bible myths, that battle has been won. There are a lot deeper questions for science to answer.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Certainly the "God created the world in seven days" myth can be debunked (what is a day when the earth hadn't been created yet), but a God the rule maker theory is less easily debunked; ie something that created the Laws of Physics and the space and time for the rules to act on.
> 
> We may never find the answer to whether the universes was created this way or by some other means, and there is still the mystery of why anything should exist.
> 
> So some people should stop trying to pick the low hanging fruit of the Bible myths, that battle has been won. There are a lot deeper questions for science to answer.




Interestingly enough, the biblical passage, to which you refer, is one of the "myths" that I've examined and found to be insightful when considered from a numerically symbolic perspective.

Have you noticed how convenient (and indeed intelligent) the choice of a seven day period is for members of the earth populace?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2016)

cynic said:


> Have you noticed how convenient (and indeed intelligent) the choice of a seven day period is for members of the earth populace?




You mean seven is a lucky number ?

It seems arbitrary to me. If the Bible said it was 9 days, what difference would it make ?


----------



## cynic (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You mean seven is a lucky number ?
> 
> It seems arbitrary to me. If the Bible said it was 9 days, what difference would it make ?




Quite a bit of difference if you were trying to conveniently measure a calendar year in lunar and seasonal cycles.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2016)

cynic said:


> Quite a bit of difference if you were trying to conveniently measure a calendar year in lunar and seasonal cycles.




Quite likely the Bible writers were farmers ?


----------



## cynic (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Quite likely the Bible writers were farmers ?




Whilst I am unable to  be certain, it does seem quite plausible.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Certainly the "God created the world in seven days" myth can be debunked (what is a day when the earth hadn't been created yet), but a God the rule maker theory is less easily debunked; ie something that created the Laws of Physics and the space and time for the rules to act on.
> 
> We may never find the answer to whether the universes was created this way or by some other means, and there is still the mystery of why anything should exist.
> 
> So some people should stop trying to pick the low hanging fruit of the Bible myths, that battle has been won. There are a lot deeper questions for science to answer.




There are still people on this thread that cling to those bible myths.

but either way, the time to believe in the god hypothesis is when it's proven, until then it's best to say we don't know, when there is a mystery, and we make up unproven hypothesis to explain it we normally always wrong. I don't think there is a reason to invoke a god, because that just brings up a bigger question, ie who created the creator?

And if it's possible an infinite creator could exist, why not an infinite universe.

Not too many years ago we couldn't explain the diversity of life, everything looked designed eg the human body, now we understand the theory of evolution and know it's not designed, and it's also not chance, it's evolution through natural selection, and not to many years ago we couldn't explain the origin of the elements, now nuclear chemistry is well understood, slowly things are becoming clearer.

The mystery of the universe is now pretty much where did the hydrogen and heleum come from, stars planets, diversity of life etc are pretty well explained now, and none of the older creation hypothesis came close to the right answer.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You mean seven is a lucky number ?
> 
> It seems arbitrary to me. If the Bible said it was 9 days, what difference would it make ?




The people that designed the calendar would have just made it around the number 9, and then cynic would be saying how insightful that was.

It's funny, out of all the positive claims the bible creation myth claims, it's know been reduced down to, "well they used the number 7, and that matches up with some modern use of that number" 

Firstly any application of that number that came after the bible was written, eg our modern calendar, is probably not coincidence, and even if there is some significance to it, people would have been tracking lunar cycles etc for thousands of years before the bible was written.


----------



## cynic (18 January 2016)

Normally I  would post this comment in the crazy thread, however, it seems that this thread has, in some respects, become an extension. 

I believe that each of us is entitled to make our own enquiry into the questions of higher beings, afterlives etc. , and form their own opinions and/or convictions. The idea that there exists some infallible and obligatory metric that must be satisfied before anyone can entertain the possibility of otherwise unproven concepts, seems somewhat limited and likely to hamper humanity's progress in the quest for further knowledge.

To those whom are genuinely undecided about the existence of a divine or higher intelligence, I  invite you to find a quiet moment in your life and direct a sincere prayer for evidence of existence.

Observe what happens and draw your own conclusions!


----------



## cynic (18 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The people that designed the calendar would have just made it around the number 9, and then cynic would be saying how insightful that was.
> 
> It's funny, out of all the positive claims the bible creation myth claims, it's know been reduced down to, "well they used the number 7, and that matches up with some modern use of that number"
> 
> Firstly any application of that number that came after the bible was written, eg our modern calendar, is probably not coincidence, and even if there is some significance to it, people would have been tracking lunar cycles etc for thousands of years before the bible was written.




No. The number nine quite simply doesn't accommodate the division of a year neatly into seasons and lunar cycles, however, I  do agree that this knowledge was very likely to have predated the biblical texts.


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2016)

cynic said:


> No. The number nine quite simply doesn't accommodate the division of a year neatly into seasons and lunar cycles, however, I  do agree that this knowledge was very likely to have predated the biblical texts.




The Chinese for one.

Use the Lunar Calendar for thousands of years. They still do. 

Heard it's more accurate and more useful to predict tides and season than the Solar. But not as accurate measuring cycle around the Sun... guess weren't supposed to.


----------



## cynic (18 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> The Chinese for one.
> 
> Use the Lunar Calendar for thousands of years. They still do.
> 
> Heard it's more accurate and more useful to predict tides and season than the Solar. But not as accurate measuring cycle around the Sun... guess weren't supposed to.




I've often been impressed by the inventions of the Eastern world, whilst at the same time dismayed by the way that the western world is so quick to steal the credit after finally catching on to the usefulness of such innovations.


----------



## Tink (18 January 2016)

cynic said:


> Normally I  would post this comment in the crazy thread, however, it seems that this thread has, in some respects, become an extension.
> 
> I believe that each of us is entitled to make our own enquiry into the questions of higher beings, afterlives etc. , and form their own opinions and/or convictions. The idea that there exists some infallible and obligatory metric that must be satisfied before anyone can entertain the possibility of otherwise unproven concepts, seems somewhat limited and likely to hamper humanity's progress in the quest for further knowledge.
> 
> ...




+1

Good to see you in here, cynic.

------------------------------------

Bellenuit, you are entitled to your views, thankfully we live in a free society, for now.

What the left are doing, in my view, is a dangerous move, and the common practice in the Soviet Union.

It is interesting to note that Communism has always been about re-writing history, lawlessness.

George Orwell’s 1984

As I mentioned in my last post --

_The attempt to airbrush historical stuff from the present is the height of authoritarianism. 

It’s an attempt not merely to control what people can think and say today

“He who controls the past controls the future,” said Orwell. Yes, that’s it.

The intolerant students and others seeking to smash past images and ideas really have their eye on establishing their future authority to determine what all of us may think and say.
_


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2016)

cynic said:


> Yes, sadly human behaviour has repeatedly demonstrated this tendency throughout history.
> 
> One of the things I  find interesting about this discussion is the way in which it highlights the willingness to accept the authority of an agreeable viewpoint without question, whilst at the same time visiting any conflicting viewpoint with the utmost  of scepticism.
> 
> ...




You don't think your own post shows a bias to your own desire to express and impose your own opinion? 

I wonder how open minded you will be when you do an introspective and find out you are just as susceptible as the rest of us to bigotted closed mindedness and social engineering.


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Not if they have valid reasoning to back up their claims.




Validity of argument is at best subjective, normally a non sequitur when viewed by the protagonist.


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The people that designed the calendar would have just made it around the number 9, and then cynic would be saying how insightful that was.
> 
> It's funny, out of all the positive claims the bible creation myth claims, it's know been reduced down to, "well they used the number 7, and that matches up with some modern use of that number"
> 
> Firstly any application of that number that came after the bible was written, eg our modern calendar, is probably not coincidence, and even if there is some significance to it, people would have been tracking lunar cycles etc for thousands of years before the bible was written.




I tend to agree with you on this score VC. Certainly the Church is currently reviewing Easter celebrations, with the view it should be a set date in our calendar rather than lunar tracking it.

Seven is certainly used frequently in the old bible, but so is 12, (12 sons Jacobs, Gods's temple loaves,etc) and Jesus liked 12 too:- disciples, legions of angels, gates and dimensions of New Jerusalem, salvation army come end of times, etc. 

I think it was the Egyptians who locked into the apparent twelve solar months long before the Romans came along. The seven days is a no brainer to a fishing addict: ~28 day lunar cycle, first day crescent moon, seven days later half moon, seven days later full moon, seven days later half moon, etc.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2016)

Tink said:


> .
> 
> It is interesting to note that Communism has always been about re-writing history, lawlessness.
> 
> ...




You are obsessed with communism Tink, you are the only one bringing it up, and no one here is mentioning anything that could be described as communism.



> lawlessness




No, that anarchy, not communism, communism is full of rules.


----------



## cynic (18 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> You don't think your own post shows a bias to your own desire to express and impose your own opinion?
> 
> I wonder how open minded you will be when you do an introspective and find out you are just as susceptible as the rest of us to bigotted closed mindedness and social engineering.




Actually I do think that my own posts regularly expose my personal bias and I also agrÃ¨e with your comments about susceptibility to bigotry and social engineering. 

Did I  ever claim to be unprejudiced?


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2016)

Tink said:


> +1
> 
> Good to see you in here, cynic.
> 
> ...




Pretty sure that if Christians were to ask and do what Jesus would do, Australia wouldn't be built by Christians, as you say.

King George: I say governor, what say you go to that Southern Land and claim it for us before them Dutch stake claim to it too. I'm sure that's what Jesus would want us to do. Isn't that right Bishop?

Not sure what Jesus would do if He comes back and take a walk down the Wall Streets of the world. Or God forbid visit the high priests and their not-modest accommodation and treasuries.


In the end, I think, does it matter if Christianity is less prominent in Australians public lives? As long as our God-fearing and mostly "Christian" politicians still care for the people, look after the sick and not at all pay themselves modest life-time pensions and cutting welfare all over the place... as long as that's still achieved and you and fellow Christians still could practice your religion in peace and without oppression. What's the harm right?

As Lao Tzu said, the Great Man do his good work until it is done. Once done he retreat from the world.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> Our 3.5 year old have been asking us to draw and cut out the solar system for him (3 times a day, two months now). It's cheap so I don't mind, and the kid could be kept busy for at least an hour afterwards playing with the planets.
> 
> One of his favourite youtube video show Earth in relation to the entire solar system, then relative to the various known stars.. and there is a star that scientist have discovered so far where if a half of it takes up half an iPad our Earth is probably a pixel.
> 
> .


----------



## stockscbd (18 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> View attachment 65570





Australia should be French!


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2016)

*"Every kid starts out as a natural born scientist, and then we beat it out of them"*

That's true but I don't think the beating is done just by religion which is becoming less influential these days.

It's being done by the "instant gratification" of social media, the dumbing down of school curriculums and the presentation of scientists as "nerds" and "wonks" who are too smart for the rest of society.

You need great teachers to instill enthusiasm for science and maths in children, and I'm afraid that the trading of quality education for mass market lowest common denominator education is what is dragging our kids down, not the ever scapegoated religion.

Why do religious private schools generally have the better education standards if religion is such a drag on education ?


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2016)

cynic said:


> Actually I do think that my own posts regularly expose my personal bias and I also agrÃ¨e with your comments about susceptibility to bigotry and social engineering.
> 
> Did I  ever claim to be unprejudiced?




Goddammit cynic,  can't you just disagree just once !!!!


----------



## Tisme (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> *"Every kid starts out as a natural born scientist, and then we beat it out of them"*
> 
> ?




So Tarzan and Mowgli would have been genius scientists?


----------



## pixel (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> *"Every kid starts out as a natural born scientist, and then we beat it out of them"*
> 
> That's true but I don't think the beating is done just by religion which is becoming less influential these days.
> 
> ...



You need to differentiate, methinks.

Not all "religious" private schools are equal. Yes, a lot of the top achievers each year come from a handful of Catholic or Methodist or Cathedral Grammar. But every year, there is also a select group of public schools featuring a high percentage of High Achievers. (Haven't seen an Islamic school mentioned though.)
In my experience, the common factor across "successful schools" lies more in the fact that they value self-respect and discipline, rather than religious doctrine. That set of values can prevail in a public school just as easily as it can in a private one. Funny enough, where these values are upheld and supported by the bulk of teachers and students' parents, you find academic excellence on a par, regardless whether the school is private or public. 

I agree with you about broad-based dumbing-down and striving for the lowest common denominator. Sadly, a particular faction of social engineers have introduced this mad concept of political correctness, where a child's rights come first, but responsibility and discipline are to be shunned because they could stunt a kid's fragile ego. Unwittingly, these "democrats" push their charges towards conformity, make them follow bland norms that are dominated by social media, which ultimately turns out unquestioning consumers of whatever junk Big Business and Entertainment Media trot out as "role models".


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> *
> 
> Why do religious private schools generally have the better education standards if religion is such a drag on education ?*



*

Firstly, the more religious they are the worse they do, for example the really fundamentalist Islam and Christian schools can be appalling. 

But few reasons others may excel is, generally they have more resources available to them, they dip into both the public and private monies.

Secondly,  I think there is a chicken and the egg situation happening here, by this I mean society in general has a view that private schools are better, So a lot of people that really care about education and raising good children will choose a private school, the fact that this child might go on to excel, may have less to do with the school itself, but is highly related to the fact that the child grew up in a home that valued education with parents that would take extra steps to help their children succeed.

I watched freakanomics the other night, and it made the point that if your the type of parent who read 10 books about raising children, you will probably be a better parent, but not because you read the books, it will be because your the type of person to care enough to buy and read the books, just caring enough to go out and read books shows you are already probably going to be an above average parent.

Also public schools have to take everyone, a lot of private schools pick and choose who they take, meaning they start with a clutch of slightly better stock, and then kids who aren't achieving may be dropped, eg if a child isn't performing, some parents will remove the child but to a cheaper school if they feel they aren't getting value.*


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> So Tarzan and Mowgli would have been genius scientists?




apart from the fact they are fictional characters.

each generation of scientists stands on the shoulders of the ones who went before, taking whats been learned already and adding to it, So no tarzan wouldn't have been able to build a rocket, but his curiosity and willingness to learn and explore would have been there.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2016)

> In my experience, the common factor across "successful schools" lies more in the fact that they value self-respect and discipline, rather than religious doctrine. That set of values can prevail in a public school just as easily as it can in a private one




Indeed so, but as someone pointed out public schools cannot choose their students and what do they do if there is a disruptive element ?

 I don't know what the rules are but can these students be expelled ? If so where do they go ? It would seem that it would be a lot harder to maintain standards in a public school than a private one.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed so, but as someone pointed out public schools cannot choose their students and what do they do if there is a disruptive element ?
> 
> I don't know what the rules are but can these students be expelled ? If so where do they go ? It would seem that it would be a lot harder to maintain standards in a public school than a private one.




This might be true, but it's not due to the religions is it, a secular school given all the various advantages eg more resources, ability to screen pupils, parents that care a bit more than average etc etc would be likely to be better than average also.


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed so, but as someone pointed out public schools cannot choose their students and what do they do if there is a disruptive element ?
> 
> I don't know what the rules are but can these students be expelled ? If so where do they go ? It would seem that it would be a lot harder to maintain standards in a public school than a private one.




I think if you're expelled from one school you can go to another public school with a note attached so the new principal can keep a close watch on you.


----------



## luutzu (18 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> This might be true, but it's not due to the religions is it, a secular school given all the various advantages eg more resources, ability to screen pupils, parents that care a bit more than average etc etc would be likely to be better than average also.




I'd be more impressed if a school can take an disinterested student and turn them into a scholar. Beats picking the already hardworking and well resourced kid with extra tutors on the side, then take all the credit for the kid's achievements.

But of course schools are not out there to impress me.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> View attachment 65570




Thanks. 

He actually does sleep with a bucket full of planet cutouts.

Incredible the things they can learn and know. Say, there's a planet called Gluto... he was complaining that I missed out a dwarf planet Gluto;  I point to Pluto and said there, I didn't missed it; No, Gluto; There! Pluto, what do you mean I miss it? Good thing big sister was around and have seen the same video - that could go on for a while


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> So Tarzan and Mowgli would have been genius scientists?




the gents meant science as an enquiring mind, one that asks questions and find answers through what was taught to them, what they have learnt... try and keep what works, keep what explains their surrounding the best. 

So yes, if they can become king of the jungle they already know science... Not the lab coat and chemistry kind maybe, but still science. 

But I have a feeling you already knew that


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2016)

cynic said:


> I've often been impressed by the inventions of the Eastern world, whilst at the same time dismayed by the way that the western world is so quick to steal the credit after finally catching on to the usefulness of such innovations.




What innovations? 

Humans! We're all ethnocentric like that I think - the Westerners more so because most think the White skin make them more superior. That and a lot of money also drive the point home with the poorer coloured folks.

So take the discussion on the existence of God... On Western forums it'd be about whether the Abrahamic God exists or not, if not then it's obviously evolution and no other Creator. 

Maybe on an Indian or Chinese forum they'd discuss Shiva and whether Mao would have done what the current glorious leaders of the people would or not.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> What innovations?




Where would the westerners be without gunpowder!

Edit: and spaghetti!


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> This might be true, but it's not due to the religions is it, a secular school given all the various advantages eg more resources, ability to screen pupils, parents that care a bit more than average etc etc would be likely to be better than average also.




How many private non religious schools are there ?

This article indicates most private schools are religion based.

http://isca.edu.au/about-independent-schools/


----------



## Tink (19 January 2016)

What you are trying to do, VC, is full of rules, breaking down Western Culture, and re-writing history.
Anarchy -- a state of confusion and chaos -- yes, that would be about right.
Dystopia.

That text came from an athiest, Brendan O'Neill.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29402&page=30&p=885852&viewfull=1#post885852

As I said, I find it amazing that these people that preach Science, see an orderly universe, yet want to impinge their disorderly lifestyle on us.
If the universe was not orderly, it would not survive.
Exactly why our laws were set up as they are.
STRAIGHT lines, orderly, not crooked ones.

---------------------------------------

An interesting site -

http://biosemiosis.org/


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2016)

As we are discussing the topic of schools, this may be of interest.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...-shortage-as-student-population-soars/7096102


----------



## Biosemiosis org (19 January 2016)

*Hello All *

I followed a track-back from my webpage and ended up here, in Australia. Thanks for the link.

Interesting conversation about science, religion, and ultimate reality.

I don't typically involve Biosemiosis.org in social-political dialogue, and I do not wish to intrude. But if I may, I would offer a short paragraph from a page entitled_ “Why is this important”._ I think it reflects some of the comments I’ve read on this thread. 

On Biosemiosis.org, we counsel average citizens -- often weary of the constant culture war -- to learn as much as they can about the issues, and to simply be fair and wise:



> *1. Science cannot answer the questions of ultimate reality*
> 
> _The creation of space and time at the origin of the universe is an event forever hidden in the deep unobservable past. We are likely to never know, with any objective certainty, what the source of this event was. The same is true of the origin of life, the rise of consciousness, and the basis of free will. While it is entirely normal that we would want conclusive answers to these great questions, what we are actually left with is simply existence as we find it. From that, we can pursue discoveries with passion, and hope to have the wisdom to understand what the universe is telling us.
> 
> ...




If you'd like, you can read the entire article here:  *Why is this Important?*


Again, thanks!


----------



## Tisme (19 January 2016)

cynic said:


> Where would the westerners be without gunpowder!
> 
> Edit: and spaghetti!




Gunpowder, nautical compass, printing press , spaghetti and sliced bread.


----------



## Tisme (19 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> As we are discussing the topic of schools, this may be of interest.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-...-shortage-as-student-population-soars/7096102




Too straight jacketted these days to be enjoyable. One of those casualties of the micro management and micro procedural era ..... should just replace teachers with Ipads.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Too straight jacketted these days to be enjoyable. One of those casualties of the micro management and micro procedural era ..... should just replace teachers with Ipads.




I thought KRudd tried that ?


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Gunpowder, nautical compass, printing press , spaghetti and sliced bread.




probably not sliced bread.

They're currently also very good at fake food, and rusting stainless steel.


----------



## Tisme (19 January 2016)

luutzu said:


> probably not sliced bread.
> 
> They're currently also very good at fake food, and rusting stainless steel.




Yeah well I don't subscribe to the Chinese inventing anything much more than any civilisation has. Gunpowder was a quackery concoction made for medicinal use (no one with any nous ever extols the virtues of tiger penis, shark fins, etc for some reason) that resulted in a fire which burnt the witchdoctors humpy down.,,,as legend would have it.

The Greeks documented the use of lodestones as compass in the 6th century BC, not the 9th century AD, paper was being made by Egyptians way before the 6th century AD and I'd wager the Greek Fire no one knows the recipe of was actually saltpetre, sulphur and charcoal. Blocks for letters is hardly printing press stuff either; ask any kid with an elephant stamp.

Sliced bread is a Tip Top invention or Chinese?


----------



## Tisme (19 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I thought KRudd tried that ?




man of vision it seems


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Yeah well I don't subscribe to the Chinese inventing anything much more than any civilisation has. Gunpowder was a quackery concoction made for medicinal use (no one with any nous ever extols the virtues of tiger penis, shark fins, etc for some reason) that resulted in a fire which burnt the witchdoctors humpy down.,,,as legend would have it.
> 
> The Greeks documented the use of lodestones as compass in the 6th century BC, not the 9th century AD, paper was being made by Egyptians way before the 6th century AD and I'd wager the Greek Fire no one knows the recipe of was actually saltpetre, sulphur and charcoal. Blocks for letters is hardly printing press stuff either; ask any kid with an elephant stamp.
> 
> Sliced bread is a Tip Top invention or Chinese?




How many inventions came about through accidents?
The entire field of Chemistry was an attempt to turn lead or rock into Gold.

Beside fireworks, pretty sure they also put it to use fighting and invading other states too.

Printing wasn't just block stamps. They printed books and pr0n with it too. Beats the boring Bible for sure.


While they didn't invent imperialism and power projection, under the Ming they did sent a few junk fleets around the known world, mapping and readying for civilising it. Until that and other projects sent them broke. Maybe we could learn a thing or two about that. Unless all the money in the world are just fake paper stuff we put value to.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> Gunpowder, nautical compass, printing press , spaghetti and sliced bread.




Acupuncture is one of their other discoveries that I've experienced as particularly beneficial.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> How many private non religious schools are there ?




Not sure on numbers, but they are out there.

heres one not far from me.

http://www.hillsgrammar.nsw.edu.au/

Offcourse religious schools only option is to go private, So that's why alot of private ones are religious, but yes there are still very good non religious private schools also,

There is also the happy meal effect, Religions want to operate schools for the same reason mcdonalds has happy meals and playgrounds, and the commonwealth bank gets into schools with childrens accounts, if you can get the kids early, you will get some of them for life.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Not sure on numbers, but they are out there.
> 
> heres one not far from me.
> 
> ...




If I had been 9 years younger I could have gone to that school as I grew up in that area.

Good to see that there are some quality non religious schools out there.


----------



## Hodgie (19 January 2016)

Public Schools can also offer selective classes and programs, that's not exclusive to private schools.

The secondary school I went to had an academic excellence program which offered different classes to what the rest of the students could choose from. You had to pay a small fee (I think it was a few hundred from memory) and be selected after sitting an exam to be accepted into the program. 

I don't have any statistics but I'm sure that the students in those public school programs would score just as well as those private religious schools.

Not really anything to do with religion, if you are able to pick the top students of course it will make a school look better.


----------



## Tink (20 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> *Hello All *
> 
> I followed a track-back from my webpage and ended up here, in Australia. Thanks for the link.
> 
> ...




Hi Biosemiosis, and welcome to the forum.
That must have been me.

As you can see, this is a stock forum, but we also talk about political, social events etc in here.
Thank you for your input on science.

----------------------------------------

Back to the debate on schools, as we can see, the public schools are not so balanced, and in my view, are pushing their own political agenda and social engineering.

The public schools are dividing society with their agenda on identity politics as well,imo.
Political correctness is running the show, as well as all their other political rubbish.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

Do the men have any say in these schools, they seem to be run by women.

As I have said before, I know of people that are flocking to Christian schools, as they don't like what they are seeing in the public schools. 
They have long waiting lists, and  word of mouth is spreading.

That is my opinion.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2016)

Tink said:


> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Back to the debate on schools, as we can see, the public schools are not so balanced, and in my view, are pushing their own *political agenda and social engineering.*
> 
> ...




Such as???



> Christian schools




when it comes to pushing political and social engineering, I doubt public schools come close to pushing as much crap as the Christian schools.


-------------------------------------------------------

Out of interest here is a video of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Charlie Munger talking about education, at 2.50 minute mark Buffett brings up a great point in relation to public vs private schools.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2016)

> Out of interest here is a video of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Charlie Munger talking about education, at 2.50 minute mark Buffett brings up a great point in relation to public vs private schools.




Exactly, and it applies to most other areas as well.

The people in charge send their kids to private schools so they are less worried about public schools, they drive around in chauffer driven cars so they are less worried about public transport, they get treated in private hospitals so they are less worried about public hospitals.

30 years ago Yes Minister said exactly the same.



> 449
> 00:33:06,374 --> 00:33:10,970
> When there's a Tory government, they say
> it's the cheapest way to provide mass education.
> ...




http://www.yes-minister.com/ypm2x06-2x08.srt


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2016)

Interesting Q & A session following a talk by Richard Dawkins where he addresses several topics: political correctness, laws of physics, multiverse, what would make him a believer in a deity etc.


----------



## Tink (25 January 2016)

I noticed an old post by Julia,about the psychiatrist 'Bible'.

One in three children medicated, and it should be a concern.
I would say a lot more than just children medicated, we would be looking at adults also.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=17844&page=3&p=800029&viewfull=1#post800029

I agree with that statement, and where there needs to be a balance between religion and science.

-----------------------------------------

Materialism, is not a word I thought of, but makes perfect sense now with what I have been saying.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...11201&page=210&p=896267&viewfull=1#post896267

We are being reduced to mere blobs, robots, atoms in this world, where men can become women or children, if they wish, and vice versa.

No gender, no age, no family, no values, no judgement etc.

Reality is being thrown out the window.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2016)

Tink said:


> We are being reduced to mere blobs, robots, atoms in this world, where men can become women or children, if they wish, and vice versa.
> 
> No gender, no age, no family, no values, no judgement etc.
> 
> Reality is being thrown out the window.




Nope, I haven't heard anyone saying stuff like that.

If you can't value human life without having an imaginary friend command you to, that says more about you than anyone else.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Interesting Q & A session following a talk by Richard Dawkins where he addresses several topics: political correctness, laws of physics, multiverse, what would make him a believer in a deity etc.





In this video Dawkins posed the question "how do we know we are not dreaming right now ?"

Any answers ?

Maybe if two people or more people agree on the same sequence of events they are unlikely to be dreaming the same dream.


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> In this video Dawkins posed the question "how do we know we are not dreaming right now ?"
> 
> Any answers ?
> 
> Maybe if two people or more people agree on the same sequence of events they are unlikely to be dreaming the same dream.




I don't think that would work as the other person might just be part of your dream and the events that he describes could then be said to be what you are dreaming he is relating. 

I think proving you are not dreaming is a bit like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Since there always is the possibility that there is a God, then there must be the possibility that that God simply implanted in your mind the story that you think you are observing. Perhaps there is no one else other than you and him/her.

As well as proving that it all isn't a dream, other alternatives include us being just part of a computer game. Again probably impossible to disprove.


----------



## Tisme (26 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> *What is Stigmata?*
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/42822-stigmata.html




hypnosis?


----------



## pixel (26 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think that would work as the other person might just be part of your dream and the events that he describes could then be said to be what you are dreaming he is relating.
> 
> I think proving you are not dreaming is a bit like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Since there always is the possibility that there is a God, then there must be *the possibility that that God simply implanted in your mind the story that you think you are observing.* Perhaps there is no one else other than you and him/her.
> 
> As well as proving that it all isn't a dream, other alternatives include us being just part of a computer game. Again probably impossible to disprove.




IMHO it's not so much the question whether some Superior Being exists, but which of the many conflicting attributes invented by different cults, sects, shamans might apply.

Would you want to worship a god that goes to such trouble, just to withhold proof from you? Who demands you take his/her existence "on faith"? And damn you for eternity if you have doubts?



> “The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.”
> ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

> Would you want to worship a god that goes to such trouble, just to withhold proof from you? Who demands you take his/her existence "on faith"? And damn you for eternity if you have doubts?




You are talking about a religious God, but there are other possibilities, such the simulation designer that designs the rules then observes what happens.

Religions claim to "own" God, but that's just convenient for them to do so.


----------



## pixel (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You are talking about a religious God, but there are other possibilities, such the simulation designer that designs the rules then observes what happens.
> 
> Religions claim to "own" God, but that's just convenient for them to do so.




You make a valid point, and that possibility exists indeed.
I do, however, have a problem with applying the "God" label to a hypothetical simulation designer. In such a scenario, the "Rules of the Game" become synonymous with "Laws of Nature", as in E=mc ² and everything else that Scientists have found out.

I know I am subject to those Laws, therefore I won't step off the ledge of a 20th-storey balcony or put my hand into a camp fire. Knowing those Laws does not require hypothesizing about their creator/s, let alone the purpose and motives behind the design. The "motives" - if any - of a sentient entity - if any - that plays games lasting many Billions of years, are as irrelevant to my existence as is the question of its existence or shape. 

If such an entity exists and wants to keep me from knowing, it does a mighty fine job of it; that suits me fine. If anybody wishes to speculate and write poetry or prose about them, that's okay with me as well. If it's written interestingly enough, I'll even read it; but I put it only in the genre "Fiction".


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

> The "motives" - if any - of a sentient entity - if any - that plays games lasting many Billions of years, are as irrelevant to my existence as is the question of its existence or shape.




Sure, but the problem is religion, and if people can be satisfied with an answer to the question of where everything came from without the need for destructive religions then I think that it is worthwhile to put forward alternative explanations to the Gods of the Bible and Koran.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

> I know I am subject to those Laws, therefore I won't step off the ledge of a 20th-storey balcony or put my hand into a camp fire. Knowing those Laws does not require hypothesizing about their creator/s, let alone the purpose and motives behind the design.




No,nothing *requires *hypothesizing about the Nature of existence, but humans and I believe other intelligent life will hypothesize because we have a need to explain things in order to prove how intelligent we are. 

That's why we spend billions on Large Hadron Colliders instead of just being satisfied with our roast lamb and veg on Sundays.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

bellenuit said:


> I don't think that would work as the other person might just be part of your dream and the events that he describes could then be said to be what you are dreaming he is relating.
> 
> I think proving you are not dreaming is a bit like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Since there always is the possibility that there is a God, then there must be the possibility that that God simply implanted in your mind the story that you think you are observing. Perhaps there is no one else other than you and him/her.
> 
> As well as proving that it all isn't a dream, other alternatives include us being just part of a computer game. Again probably impossible to disprove.




It may be possible to prove that you were dreaming by taking a loaded gun and shooting yourself, and if you were dreaming then you would wake up later and remember shooting yourself.


----------



## pixel (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No,nothing *requires *hypothesizing about the Nature of existence, but humans and I believe other intelligent life will hypothesize because we have a need to explain things in order to prove how intelligent we are.
> 
> That's why we spend billions on Large Hadron Colliders instead of just being satisfied with our roast lamb and veg on Sundays.




We're on the same page, Rumpy.

I'm all in favour of the Hadron Collider, Hubble telescope, and supercomputers analysing the first Billion years post-Big Bang. I also follow with great fascination the advances in Cosmology, including models of Multiverses with dimensions exceeding our paltry four.

However, all that those models can give us is an accurate description of our environment - maybe extended by googolplexes in higher dimensions beyond our little planet. I'm happy to look for a key to that model, but I also believe it will take much longer than our kind of humanity is likely to survive. 

Looking for a sentient being outside that Multiverse is an entirely different matter. I like Richard Dawkins' comment where he says, even if a booming voice were heard out of a cloud, proclaiming "I exist", he would rather consider it a hoax or mass hypnosis than proof of a divine existence.
Religious doctrine may well fantasize about a Creator and picture him/her "just like us, only more so". To me, that assumption is presumptuous in the extreme, as if the ultimate goal of innumerable worlds were the evolution of a mass of 7 Billion bipedal organisms with a carbon-based biochemistry, growing at exponential rates and nearing the tipping point on the yeast growth curve. Scientists have known all that for decades; scientists also know remedies to combat the lethal effects of anthropogenic pollution on all levels. Yet the religious nuts prevail, valuing quantity over quality ("Every sperm is Sacred...") denouncing science as a conspiracy and sound logic as hysteria. 

If that were the result of the "Rules of the Game", then the entire experiment must be rated a "Fail".


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

> I like Richard Dawkins' comment where he says, even if a booming voice were heard out of a cloud, proclaiming "I exist", he would rather consider it a hoax or mass hypnosis than proof of a divine existence.




Unfortunately a scientist says he would rather ignore evidence than test it.

That's a sad state of affairs imo.

If he thinks such a thing is a hoax, it's up to him to prove it unless he knows that he can't.


----------



## pixel (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Unfortunately a scientist says he would rather ignore evidence than test it.
> 
> That's a sad state of affairs imo.
> 
> If he thinks such a thing is a hoax, it's up to him to prove it unless he knows that he can't.




Not so. He won't "ignore" hearing that voice. Listen to the interview (via the earlier link). I can't find fault with his reasoning. Actually, he admits that. some time in the past, he would've accepted such an event as prima facie proof and become a "believer". But since then, he has come across many instances of hoaxes and illusionists' tricks that he'd definitely investigate the possibility of such a voice being a fake.


----------



## bellenuit (26 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Unfortunately a scientist says he would rather ignore evidence than test it.
> 
> That's a sad state of affairs imo.
> 
> If he thinks such a thing is a hoax, it's up to him to prove it unless he knows that he can't.




I think you are jumping to conclusions by assuming he would not test it. He was simply noting that although he had previously indicated that hearing a big deep booming voice from out of a cloud might have convinced him that perhaps there was a God, in retrospect he thinks that there could be more likely explanations for such an experience and would no longer jump to the God conclusion straight away. It was a casual remark in part response to a question and hardly warranting in depth explanation of how he would approach such an unlikely event if it were to occur.

Dawkins constantly extols the scientific method as the means to discovery and knowledge, so it goes without saying that he would apply the scientific method to such a momentous event. But one hardly expect him to have to qualify every sentence in a casual conversation by specifying how he would arrive at every decision he makes.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2016)

pixel & bellnuit, fair enough. One would expect a sceptical initial reaction followed by testing of the theory that the voice was a hoax.

If he could not prove it was a hoax, I wonder if he would concede and say God exists or just say "oh well we may prove it's a hoax one day when we get more information".


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> pixel & bellnuit, fair enough. One would expect a sceptical initial reaction followed by testing of the theory that the voice was a hoax.
> 
> If he could not prove it was a hoax, I wonder if he would concede and say God exists or just say "oh well we may prove it's a hoax one day when we get more information".




I think he picked a bad example with that as it would be difficult to prove whether it was a hoax or not because he had set the bar too low as to what would constitute the existence of a deity. It would be difficult but not impossible to simulate the booming voice and unless one was able to react immediately and be completely cognisant of everything that was happening around him, it might be too late to subsequently expose the hoax. Perhaps he should have picked something like the voice saying it would stop the earth from turning for a minute or so and then return it to normal speed. That way it would be scientifically possible to determine if the earth stopped turning for a period.

Dawkins has always said that he cannot be sure there is no God and placed himself at 6+ on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being 100% certain there is a God and 7 being 100% certain there is no God). He has always said that if someone could prove to him there is a God, he would accept it.

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


----------



## Tink (29 January 2016)

From the other religion thread --
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...11201&page=217&p=896760&viewfull=1#post896760

_DNA is a coding system - the most advanced one in the known universe. 

Codes, like languages, demand an intelligent source because meanings are necessarily assigned and imposed on the medium by the source. 

Both sender and receiver must "know" those meanings or information transfers cannot occur, The assigned meanings are abstract and totally independent of the medium used to transmit them. You can understand this because we both know the abstract code of written English, though these words could be transmitted with sound waves, pen and paper, digitally via the internet, or even Morse code. 

Believing that a code can develop without intelligence denies everything we know about logic, science, and human experience. 

It is a scientific impossibility, a logical absurdity, and a leap of faith far beyond what theists take._


----------



## Tink (29 January 2016)

We have been through this, VC.

In my view, if Dawkins cared enough about the truth, he would be following this up, rather than a money making scheme off the non believers.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

Tink said:


> We have been through this, VC.
> 
> In my view, if Dawkins cared enough about the truth, he would be following this up, rather than a money making scheme off the non believers.




tink, DNA is chemistry.

It would have grown in complexity over time, from the first very simple self replicating molecules through to where we are today, there are lots of things in nature that appear designed, but have been shown to be not designed, but developed of long periods of time through natural selection, eg the eye.

The arrguement you are putting forward is no different to the argument that was popular years ago where it was said a complex organ like an eye couldn't have evolved, but it has be shown exactly how even a complex organ like an eye can evolve over lots of incremental steps, each step giving the individual an advantage.

------------

Even if you talk about languages, languages themselves were never "designed", in all their complexity we see today, they developed from simple 1 word grunts etc, and over time different grunts were added for different things, and our voice boxes evolved to allow great diversity of sounds, and languages continue to evolve.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

Tink said:


> From the other religion thread --
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...11201&page=217&p=896760&viewfull=1#post896760
> 
> _DNA is a coding system - the most advanced one in the known universe.
> ...




DNA is chemical molecules, that interact with other chemical molecules following the laws of physics and chemistry.

The chemicals make copies of themselves by interacting with other chemicals following the chemical laws, it is not a language in the sense that two minds are communicating using dna as a common language, its not like that at all, its chemistry.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> tink, DNA is chemistry.
> 
> It would have grown in complexity over time, from the first very simple self replicating molecules through to where we are today, there are lots of things in nature that appear designed, but have been shown to be not designed, but developed of long periods of time through natural selection, eg the eye.
> 
> ...




It's "argument", not "arrguement". Isn't that right Sifu  jk


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

Value Collector said:


> DNA is chemical molecules, that interact with other chemical molecules following the laws of physics and chemistry.
> 
> The chemicals make copies of themselves by interacting with other chemicals following the chemical laws, it is not a language in the sense that two minds are communicating using dna as a common language, its not like that at all, its chemistry.





Not sure it's going to do any good quoting an atheist web site to a Christian.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Not sure it's going to do any good quoting an atheist web site to a Christian.






Well, that host is actually a former Christian, he was actually going to be a minister, but became an atheist while studying to be a minister, if the information is correct it shouldn't matter where it comes from, their answer to the Christian caller is scientifically correct.

I linked it, because the caller is making the exact claim tink just made, he got a good answer.

If the caller called a Christian show with the same question, I doubt he would get a proper answer, the host probably wouldn't understand the science and just be like "Yep, the hand of god is visable every where son"

I mean this is the quality of answers Christians give, beware the atheists nightmare hahaha, complete lack of understanding of the theory they are trying to disprove, and by the way the guys talking are meant to be leading experts on intelligent design.

In the video you can see they don't even know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

they set up phony journals and peer review each others nonsense, and have phoney colleges all to give them selves some cred, but its all baseless.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> DNA is chemistry.






> DNA is chemical molecules, that interact with other chemical molecules following the laws of physics and chemistry.




All symbol structures are chemistry. All symbol structures are material. All symbol structures follow inexorable law.

That is not what makes them symbols, signs , and representations.

You simply do not know what you are talking about, and you don't want to know.

Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> All symbol structures are chemistry. All symbol structures are material. All symbol structures follow inexorable law.
> 
> That is not what makes them symbols, signs , and representations.
> 
> ...




What are you talking about ?

What is your agenda ? 

I might agree with you if I could understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

A lifelong atheist (not that it matters), a physicist, a professor emeritus, a thoughtful intellect -- a man who studies symbol systems for 50 years, becoming a most-revered expert on the subject, writes dozens of papers telling you that you are just completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong, and you refuse to even consider it. You do so because it doesn't fit well with your metaphysics, and for no other reason.

Man of science and reason.....yeah sure.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What are you talking about ?
> 
> What is your agenda ?
> 
> I might agree with you if I could understand where you are coming from.




Hello SirR, 

My "agenda" is simple. We should not bathe ourselves in the self-satisfying idea that we are people of enlightenment, reason, and science ... then turn around and deny physical evidence.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> I might agree with you if I could understand where you are coming from.




Frankly, no one needs to wonder where I am coming from. The material on Biosemiosis.org is accessible to any reasonable thinking person. No advanced degree required.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> A lifelong atheist (not that it matters), a physicist, a professor emeritus, a thoughtful intellect -- a man who studies symbol systems for 50 years, becoming a most-revered expert on the subject, writes dozens of papers telling you that you are just completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong, and you refuse to even consider it. You do so because it doesn't fit well with your metaphysics, and for no other reason.
> 
> Man of science and reason.....yeah sure.




Is this the same dude that said rape and murder is not at all wrong and he'd do it if he can be bothered with the mess? 

After 50 years of serious learning, that man still think he could tell people they're wrong and they'd all agree with him that they're wrong. Time well spent at that pool of wisdom.


----------



## luutzu (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Frankly, no one needs to wonder where I am coming from. The material on Biosemiosis.org is accessible to any reasonable thinking person. No advanced degree required.




So are the Bible and its fancies.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> All symbol structures are chemistry. All symbol structures are material. All symbol structures follow inexorable law.
> 
> That is not what makes them symbols, signs , and representations.
> 
> ...




you are just trying to blur the issue now, Dna isn't a sign or a symbol, it's not like a note written to communicate from one intelligent being to another based on an agreed mutual language.

All of life is a chemical reaction, the chemicals aren't symbols that are read and then followed, we can describe them like that but that's not what's happening, the chemicals are just doing what chemicals do, that's why you die when you drink poison, the chemical in the poison mess with the chemical reaction sustaining your life.

If you don't think life is a physical chemical reaction, try holding your breath and see what happens when you deny your body a key chemical in the reaction eg oxygen, you won't be living long.

all living things are an unbroken chain of chemical reactions dating back to the formation of the first self replicating molecules, that over time grew in complexity through the non random selection of randomly varying replicators.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> Is this the same dude that said rape and murder is not at all wrong and he'd do it if he can be bothered with the mess?




Lutz... like I asked before, do you simply HAVE to lie about what I said in order to communicate with me?

Is it not possible for you to be honest?

And if you TRULY believe that I said any such thing, then GO BACK AND READ it again with your brain engaged.

Otherwise, quite lying about what I said.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

VC, tell me a symbol system that is not material/chemical/follows inexorable law.

Name one.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

VC,

When you touch something warm, do you then have "warmth" going through your nerves to your brain?

*Of course not*, you have a neural representation of warmth.

And does anyone actually believe this neural representation can be isolated and "warmth" be measured from it??

*Of course not,* it is a context-specific representation that must be recognized and interpreted (at the sensory cortex) just like any other representation.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> VC, tell me a symbol system that is not material/chemical/follows inexorable law.
> 
> Name one.




Again you are trying to blur the line here, I never said symbols weren't chemicals printed or made out of chemicals, just about everything is chemical.

you are trying to say dna is a language/symbol, I am saying its not, its a chemical molecules that are part of a self replicating chemical process, based on physical chemical reactions, its not like words in a book that are written by one person and read by another



Biosemiosis org said:


> VC,
> 
> When you touch something warm, do you then have "warmth" going through your nerves to your brain?
> 
> ...




that has nothing to do with dna chemicals, again you are trying to blur the issue.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> Again you are trying to blur the line here




NO…I’m not. I’m trying to get you to understand the fundamental fact that ALL information acts under the same inexorable physical laws. You do not get a special exception for DNA.

DNA, as a medium of information, has to be translated under the same inexorable physical laws as any other medium of information.

The method of that translation is settled science, it is not even controversial.

You are (probably unknowingly) DENYING physical reality, and I am trying to draw your attention to that fact.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

If you want to vent your spleen against religion... well then *knock yourself out*  .... BUT you do not get to deny reality and then pretend that your rant against religion is powered by physical evidence, because that is an out and out lie.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> NO…I’m not. I’m trying to get you to understand the fundamental fact that ALL information acts under the same inexorable physical laws. You do not get a special exception for DNA.
> 
> DNA, as a medium of information, has to be translated under the same inexorable physical laws as any other medium of information.
> 
> ...




I think its pretty clear to everyone here that you are just trying to twist things to inject your "intelligent design" rubbish.

It might work on people like tink and your church group that are really looking for anything that justifies their belief, but the thin veil of "science speak" and silly analogies won't work on most here.

I don't really get anything stimulating out of the discussion with you, so don't mind me if I end up ignoring your posts




Biosemiosis org said:


> If you want to vent your spleen against religion... well then *knock yourself out*  .... BUT you do not get to deny reality and then pretend that your rant against religion is powered by physical evidence, because that is an out and out lie.




I didn't think you were talking about religion, HAHAHA

I guess you slipped up there, turns out you might have shown your hand, and the real reason you care about intelligent design is because you have a religious agenda.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

VC,

When you see a sign painted in red with the pattern “STOP” on it, do you think that this paint and those shapes _chemically_ represents “Apply your brakes”? 

Of course not. It has to be interpreted in a system.

When an ant passes an ALERT pheromone to the other ants causing them to defend their mound, do you think that the pheromone _chemically_ represents “SAVE THE QUEEN!”? 

Of  course not. It has to be interpreted in a system.

When you push the “A” key on a keyboard and the letter “A” appears on your screen, do you think the electromagnetic pulse coming from the keyboard _physically_ represents the letter “A”?

Of  course not. It has to be interpreted in a system.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

You just want to think otherwise of DNA.

But, _CTA does not represent leucine and GAC does not represent aspartic acid. _

They must be interpreted in a system.

The manner of that system is entirely understood. Its not even controversial. 

You just deny it.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> I think its pretty clear to everyone here that you are just trying to twist things to inject your "intelligent design" rubbish.




And there it is. Abject denial of physical reality. Not even gonna give it a thought.

Nice job science man.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

VC, 

Every instance of translated information ever known to exist requires one arrangement of matter to act as a representational medium, and a second arrangement of matter to establish what is being represented. And the system of interpretation (the system doing the translation) must be organized in a way to _preserve_ the natural discontinuity between the representation and its effect. 

This is foundational knowledge in an age of information. It is a physical reality. You doing your damndest to insult me is not going to make it go away


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> I think its pretty clear to everyone here that you are just trying to twist things to inject your "intelligent design" rubbish. It might work on people like tink and your church group that are really looking for anything that justifies their belief, but the thin veil of "science speak" and silly analogies won't work on most here.



_
“Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.”_

*Hungarian-British Polymath, Michael Polanyi *

_ 
“A new scientific truth is usually not propagated in such a way that the opponents become convinced and discard their previous views. No, the adversaries eventually die off, and the upcoming generation is familiarised anew with the truth"_

*Nobel Laureate, Max Planck, Founder of Quantum Physics*

_ 
"...we desire the best available scientific status report on the origin of life. We shall see that adherents of the best known theory have not responded to increasing adverse evidence by questioning the validity of their beliefs, in the best scientific tradition; rather, they have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology."_

*Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, New York University*

_ 
“The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides the living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."_
*
Hubert Yockey, "Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life" (Cambridge University Press)*


_“Semiosis not only is a fact of life, but is the fact that allowed life to emerge from inanimate matter"_

*Marciello Barbieri, Dept of Morphology and Embryology, University of Ferrarra*


_"The basic unit of life is the sign, not the molecule"_

*Professor Emeritus Jesper Hoffmeyer, Institute of Biology, University of Copenhagen*


_“Life is matter controlled by symbols"_
*
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Howard Pattee, New York State University *


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> I don't really get anything stimulating out of the discussion with you, so don't mind me if I end up ignoring your posts




Yes, I'm sure that'll be easier. But is won't change the reality.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> VC,
> 
> When you see a sign painted in red with the pattern “STOP” on it, do you think that this paint and those shapes _chemically_ represents “Apply your brakes”?
> 
> ...




exactly, a stop sign is an example of a true symbol. It was written by an intelligent being to communicate something to another intelligent being, that's not how dna works. the chemicals in the dna are doing what they do because of chemical reactions, not because they are symbols being read.



> When an ant passes an ALERT pheromone to the other ants causing them to defend their mound, do you think that the pheromone _chemically_ represents “SAVE THE QUEEN!”?




pheromone means that to the ants, but the pheromone would also have chemical properties that would cause it to react to different chemicals in different situations, these reactions are not a language, how dna works is more like the chemical reaction not the ant pheromone.



> You just want to think otherwise of DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This video touches on the subject.


----------



## Tisme (29 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> A lifelong atheist (not that it matters), a physicist, a professor emeritus, a thoughtful intellect -- a man who studies symbol systems for 50 years, becoming a most-revered expert on the subject, writes dozens of papers telling you that you are just completely and utterly wrong wrong wrong, and you refuse to even consider it. You do so because it doesn't fit well with your metaphysics, and for no other reason.
> 
> Man of science and reason.....yeah sure.




You must be loving the opportunity to have someone with a similar steel trap opinion argue the toss with you. 

As Thatcher said "You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.", to which I would append a further caveat that sometimes it takes both sides to modify their intransigence ... which is good for me because I don't takes sides ...


----------



## Biosemiosis org (29 January 2016)

> exactly, a stop sign is an example of a true symbol.




A stop sign is a representation, but it is not a representation because of any physical property of the material it’s made of. 

This is to say, the physical properties of the medium do not determine what its effect will be. That effect is determined separately within the system itself. 

But the system only works because it preserves the natural discontinuity (the physical _arbitrariness_) between the arrangement of the medium and the determination of its effect. This is what makes it a “true symbol”, as you say. 

It is the product of a specific type of _organization_, and that organization is understood and documented by the people who study such things. 

This is what I was talking about when I said that the translation of information requires two arrangements of matter. One arrangement to serve as a representational medium and another arrangement to establish what is being represented. 

And this is exactly the type of system found inside the cell. It the physical means that allows _nucleic representations_ to have _amino acid_ effects, thereby making it possible to organize the cell. 

But the system in DNA is required to also be transcribable between mediums, and have enough informational capacity to describe itself into memory; otherwise you could not start the cycle of life. 

This is accomplished inside the cell by a combination of two things: using a finite set of spatially-oriented representations (where the pattern of the nucleic acids in each codon distinguishes one representation from another) and by implementing a reading-frame code. 

Crick demonstrated the reading frame code, and Nirenberg demonstrated the representations. Crick also predicted the adapters between nucleotides and amino acids, then Hoagland and Zamecnik not only confirmed his adapter hypothesis, but also found the proteins that allow the system to preserve the discontinuity that it requires for it to function. Those proteins are called aminoacyl-tRNA tranferases (aaRS). 

All of this is documented in the literature, and not an ounce of it is even controversial. Moreover, this specific physical system is something that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. It is a simple matter of fact that this specific type of semiotic system can be identified in only two other instances anywhere in the cosmos. That is in the use of recorded language and mathematics -- two unambiguous correlates of_ intelligence. _

This is an objective empirical fact. Denying this fact will not make it go away. Being derogatory is in equally bad taste.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (30 January 2016)

VC,

By the way, since you see DNA translation as_ nothing but chemistry_, you may be wondering how is it possible for the nucleic acids in DNA to not physically determine which amino acids are being added to the proteins being built, after all, that’s the whole point -- the cell reads the DNA in order to know how to build itself, right? 

I explained this on the front page of *Biosemiosis.org*. The system separates the establishment of the code from the reading of the DNA.



> *The Basics*
> 
> In all living things, proteins are the workhorses inside the cell. They build structures, regulate processes, transport materials, and take part in virtually every function of cellular life. Well over 100,000 different types of proteins have been found in the living kingdom, and each of them is created by using just 20 different types of amino acids arranged as building blocks in a particular order. Changing the order of the amino acids changes the type of protein being created, and while an average protein might be made up of 200-400 amino acids, others have thousands. Living cells know how to arrange the order of these amino acids by reading the information encoded in their DNA.
> 
> ...




This is not someone trying to trick you. This is how the system actually functions. It is not “just chemistry” as you suppose. It is *organization*. The organization of the system has to occur for the information to even exist. And a description of the system has to be encoded in the very information that it makes possible. Or else, no information, no translation, no cell, and no life.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (30 January 2016)

I know you want me to just go away so that you can go back to practicing your scientific bigotry unabated by physical evidence.

You have your wish.


----------



## Tink (30 January 2016)

Sadly, this is what has become of this world, where truth and reality are being silenced, even in the scientific world.

While the West sleeps.......

Thank you for your input, Biosemiosis


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> VC,
> 
> By the way, since you see DNA translation as_ nothing but chemistry_, you may be wondering how is it possible for the nucleic acids in DNA to not physically determine which amino acids are being added to the proteins being built, after all, that’s the whole point -- the cell reads the DNA in order to know how to build itself, right?
> 
> .




the combination of nucleic acids does determine the protein added, via the RNA.

This is all just complex chemistry, that's built up over time, from simpler replicators.

I know ID guys like you love to latch onto words like "Information", "instructions", "messengers" and "reading", and then make unfounded claims that it must be a designed etc, but its not like that, those words are being used as descriptive metaphors to try and easily explain the process, its not actually being read and interpreted, its all chemical reactions and processes, the nucleotides bond with their matching partner because that's how the physics involved works its based on the chemical properties of those parts.




Any one actually interested in finding out how DNA works, here is a video.




But yeah, I know a guy like you will see his god every where, the only reason you are pushing the dna thing is because it confuses laymen like tink, so they will just take you word for it because it goes along with their pre existing ideas, and you can no longer get away with all the other arguments of irreducible complexity you used to make.

Anyway though, I find this conversion mind numbing, so as I said , dont be offended if I ignore your future phony logic.

If your claims were true you wouldn't be hear trying to convince us, you would be changing mainstream science.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Biosemiosis,

Are you asserting that DNA contains messages from God ?

(Yes or no please).

If so , what do you think these messages say ?


----------



## Biosemiosis org (30 January 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Biosemiosis,
> 
> Are you asserting that DNA contains messages from God ?
> 
> ...




Are you serious?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Biosemiosis org said:


> Are you serious?




Yeah thanks.

Now why don't you go somewhere else.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (30 January 2016)

> *VC:* I know a guy like you will see his god every where




I’m telling you if you don’t believe in God, that’s fine by me. Everybody gets to choose what they believe. I’m telling you that we should have respect for rationality and intellectual freedom among all people. I’m telling you when people look at the scientific evidence for their beliefs (either way), there will be some who think the evidence says more than it does, but that evidence cannot scientifically prove their beliefs to be true. I am telling you that people should endeavor to learn about the issues, and keep a deliberate self-discipline about what they can and cannot say about such evidence.

And that horse**** response is the best you could come up with.   

And oh yes, I am also telling you that the amino acid presented at the binding site in a ribosome is determined solely by the structure of the aaRS, not the structure of the codon. And in response you try to pull off some weird bluff with some videos that you apparently don’t understand. You are needlessly making a fool of yourself. 

*HERE* is a link. 

The link goes to the NCBI website (The National Center for Biotechnology Information). The link directs you to _“BIOCHEMISTRY: 5th EDITION”_ (a collegiate textbook). 

At the top of the page you’ll see *Section 29.2* which is entitled* “Aminoacyl-Transfer RNA Synthetases Read the Genetic Code”* Now, don’t be fooled by their use of the word “Read”, they don’t mean there is something reading the DNA will tiny eyeballs, they mean “read”, more like the head on an old tape player. 

What is it they say about the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSR) in the first two sentences of the text:



> The linkage of an amino acid to a tRNA is crucial for two reasons. First, the attachment of a given amino acid to a particular tRNA establishes the genetic code.




WHAT?!?!?!?   IS THIS A TEXTBOOK OR A SUNDAY HYMNAL???



> When an amino acid has been linked to a tRNA, it will be incorporated into a growing polypeptide chain at a position dictated by the anticodon of the tRNA. Second, the formation of a peptide bond between free amino acids is not thermodynamically favorable. The amino acid must first be activated for protein synthesis to proceed.




One arrangement of matter (the codon) evokes the effect, while a second arrangement of matter (the aaRS) establishes what that effect will be.

Give it a rest, VC. In case it hasn’t occurred to you yet – I haven’t said anything false to you, and I have no reason to. Not one word.

That’s all in your head.


----------



## Biosemiosis org (30 January 2016)

> Now why don't you go somewhere else




I think that's a great idea. If you'll remember, I was already on my way out.


----------



## Tisme (30 January 2016)

I think this thread has been hijacked into a battle of the symbolic meta language that is apparently encoded in DNA/RNA as a pathway to God. For crying out loud guys DILLIGAF !!

Must I defer to Mitchell and Webb for a sanity check?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> I think this thread has been hijacked into a battle of the symbolic meta language that is apparently encoded in DNA/RNA as a pathway to God. For crying out loud guys DILLIGAF !!
> 
> Must I defer to Mitchell and Webb for a sanity check?





Classic !


----------



## Tink (31 January 2016)

There is another scientific discussion here

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...17955&page=357&p=896515&viewfull=1#post896515

and I don't see any God mentioned.

You make the statement true, VC, that atheists spend all their time talking about a God they don't believe in.

Just as you have your scientific opinion, so do others, and trying to silence them does nothing for the Science.

I like to hear all views, unlike you it seems.

As has been mentioned many times, remember where the scientific method began.


----------



## Value Collector (31 January 2016)

Tink said:


> Just as you have your scientific opinion, so do others, and trying to silence them does nothing for the Science.
> 
> .




Do you think science is based on an opinion?

Do you think a flat earth opinion is equally valid as a spherical earth opinion?


----------



## Tink (1 February 2016)

I see you only take a portion of my post.

There is a difference between scientists and science.

You keep pushing YOUR religion.

Why don't you go in the other scientific discussion thread and shut it down, since that is how you think and how you work.
People should be imprisoned for not listening to you.


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2016)

Tink said:


> People should be imprisoned for not listening to you.




no Tink, that's religions that like to lock up people, that how your church acted when it had the power.


----------



## Tink (2 February 2016)

Well now it is yours.

As I mentioned, 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=17844&page=3&p=800029&viewfull=1#post800029 

it is a dangerous path we move down, when we silence others.

Balance is the key.


----------



## Value Collector (2 February 2016)

Tink said:


> Well now it is yours.
> 
> As I mentioned,
> 
> ...




I have now idea what you are trying to say with that link.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 February 2016)

How likely are conspiracies ?

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...e-unlikeliness-of-conspiracy-theories/7129400


----------



## Tink (12 February 2016)

Gravitational waves open 'a window on the universe'

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/gravitational-waves-feat/index.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-12/first-direct-evidence-of-gravitational-waves-detected/7140750


----------



## Tink (19 May 2016)

*War on Christianity is fuelled by ignorance*

It's not the haters who will kill Christianity. It’s the ignorant, who have no clue how we non-Christians will suffer.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...e/news-story/7b5e539b63b1bbb77a40c11123a74cf5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_"We must strive to be worthy of an inheritance that we did not create, and to amend it only when we have first understood it." - Roger Scruton.

"Without the sacred, man lives in a depersonalised world: a world where all is permitted, and where nothing has absolute value"

Remember, good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created._


https://www.facebook.com/ArchMMXII/videos/1061241223947272/?pnref=story


----------



## Value Collector (19 May 2016)

Tink said:


> *War on Christianity is fuelled by ignorance*
> 
> It's not the haters who will kill Christianity. It’s the ignorant, who have no clue how we non-Christians will suffer.
> 
> ...




You don't need Christian mythology to have a good society or be a good person, tink.

Asking "what will take religions place once it's gone" is like asking what will take the cancers place once you're cancer free, the answer is nothing, you just live on without the cancer, as a healthier person.


----------



## Tisme (19 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> You don't need Christian mythology to have a good society or be a good person, tink.




But being a true christian, might just put you at the top of the good person ladder. 

I would suggest we all (mostly)look at ourselves as good, yet others will probably see us as lacking in some way.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

If a religion inspires people to do good, it is a good religion, if it inspires people to do evil, it is an evil religion.

SirR 2016


----------



## Value Collector (19 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> But being a true christian, might just put you at the top of the good person ladder.
> 
> I would suggest we all (mostly)look at ourselves as good, yet others will probably see us as lacking in some way.




So what's a "true Christian"? 

I would think even the Christians have problems deciding that, hence the 10,000 or more different brands of Christianity.



SirRumpole said:


> If a religion inspires people to do good, it is a good religion, if it inspires people to do evil, it is an evil religion.
> 
> SirR 2016




The problem with religion is that it inspires people to be amoral rather than moral.

Rather than reaching a conclusion based on a reasoned debate of the facts, they take short cuts, and "Because the Bible/god/pope said" becomes a basis for their ideas on morality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some times you can observe amoral people doing good things, this doesn't mean their ideas that inform their actions are good or that they are good people, they are just following orders, and next week might follow some bad orders, and won't be able to tell the difference between the good orders and the bad.

For example. 

Take two separate families out for dinner both with children sitting eating dinner quietly and having polite conversation, from the outside you may think both sets of children are good kids who respect the restaurant and the people around them.

However, the two groups of children's "good" behaviour can be informed by different things, and one groups teachings can be amoral while the other based on moral ideas.

eg if one families children are behaving "good" because they were threatened with a smack if they caused a fuss and bribed with desert if they are quiet, these are amoral instructions, and the same threat or reward could get him to throw a pie in some ones face if instructed.

If the other child is "good" because he has been raised to understand the negative effects of his actions on others and behaves himself out of consideration for others these are moral ideas that and they become hard to corrupt.

religions often teach the first set of ideas, rather than actually building moral thought processes.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The problem with religion is that it inspires people to be amoral rather than moral.




I presume you are suggesting that Christians do charity work in the hope of a reward in heaven rather than because they think it's the moral thing to do ?

That maybe true for some, but the point is that they are doing it, so what's the problem with that ?


----------



## Value Collector (19 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I presume you are suggesting that Christians do charity work in the hope of a reward in heaven rather than because they think it's the moral thing to do ?
> 
> That maybe true for some, but the point is that they are doing it, so what's the problem with that ?




I think all sorts of people do charity work for all sorts of reasons.

I think its flawed see a particular religion doing something you think is "good" and then say "There you go that's X religion, see X religion is good" 

---------------------------------------------

I don't mind people doing good charity work for any reason, I feel that the Religions get far to much credit though when

 1, There is loads of non religious charity work going on that is often more effective.
 2, The reason people enjoy their charity work (even if they identify as religious) is probably not religious or biblical.
 3, Often the really religious charities have nasty side effects, and are the least effective.

----------------------------------------------

*My original point is that of religious Amorality though, and the way it can give off the impression that the person is moral and knows how to make moral assessments, when in reality they are following orders and when given the instruction to pie some ones face, will honestly think they are doing the right thing, because "Mum" told me too, and she said I wouldn't get desert unless I pied you.*


----------



## pixel (19 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I presume you are suggesting that Christians do charity work in the hope of a reward in heaven rather than because they think it's the moral thing to do ?
> 
> That maybe true for some, but the point is that they are doing it, so what's the problem with that ?




The only "moral" deed is a deed done out of respect for yourself and your own reasoned morality.
Doing good out of fear of "divine retribution" like hellfire, or with the intention of securing a place at some imaginary table of the blessed in Valhalla or Paradise, is self-delusion. The effect on one's beneficiaries may be the same, and some Do-Gooders may not care about the difference.
I do. But it's a personal thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

pixel said:


> The only "moral" deed is a deed done out of respect for yourself and your own reasoned morality.




Indeed. 

As long as we accept that religious people can also have that motivation and not assume they all do it for "salvation" reasons (Y/N) ?


----------



## Value Collector (19 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as we accept that religious people can also have that motivation and not assume they all do it for "salvation" reasons (Y/N) ?




Offcourse they can, because most "religious people" are actually more influenced by secular morality these days, and make their own assessments and will dump and ignore the immoral parts of the bible.

That's why I don't like it when people say silly stuff like " Without religion society wouldn't have morals", that's BS, if society didn't have morals the moderate religions wouldn't know which parts of the Bible/Qu'ran to ignore and which to follow, the fact they cherry pick shows an outside nonreligious influence


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> the fact they cheery pick shows an outside nonreligious influence




Yes, that's one motivation to "cherry pick", another is the reason that different parts of the Bible are contradictory and they pick what best suits their perception of the world and their own morality the formation of which depends on their upbringing, personal observation and other factors.


----------



## Value Collector (19 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, that's one motivation to "cherry pick", another is the reason that different parts of the Bible are contradictory and they pick what best suits their perception of the world and their own morality the formation of which depends on their upbringing, personal observation and other factors.




The most blatant cherry pick I have seen is when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth", and they quote that in all sorts of places especially round Christmas.

But, the full verse is.

Matthew 10:30
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword


----------



## Tink (19 May 2016)

This must be the new secular morality you are talking about...

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The most blatant cherry pick I have seen is when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth", and they quote that in all sorts of places especially round Christmas.
> 
> But, the full verse is.
> 
> ...




Picky, picky, that's actually Matthew 10:34.


----------



## luutzu (19 May 2016)

Tink said:


> This must be the new secular morality you are talking about...
> 
> http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/




I think the kids will be alright Tink. 

Schools and bigots all over the world have been teaching kids to not be gay or "abnormal"... some still managed to not take that beating.

So if the kid is not gay to start with, teaching him or her that it is OK to be gay may just produce a more tolerant adult who will only hate the poor and the Muslims and not too fuss about the gays


----------



## smallwolf (19 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The most blatant cherry pick I have seen is when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth", and they quote that in all sorts of places especially round Christmas.
> 
> But, the full verse is.
> 
> ...




Is that a literal sword? or Not?

It is easy to take a verse and apply to your case. But it might also help to have a understanding of the landscape, the people he was talking to, and the effect it might have on those who followed Him. A little understanding of history goes a long way.


----------



## pixel (20 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Is that a literal sword? or Not?
> 
> It is easy to take a verse and apply to your case. But it might also help to have a understanding of the landscape, the people he was talking to, and the effect it might have on those who followed Him. A little understanding of history goes a long way.




That is precisely how the ancient books ought to be read: In the context, and with the knowledge of, the times when they've been written. Especially where the oldest texts are concerned, it helps to search for myths and legends of contemporary and preceding peoples in surrounding countries. 

I'll provide only one innocuous example:
I'm sure most of us have heard about the Gilgamesh Epic, part of which tells the story of Utnapishtim, which precedes the Noah legend by hundreds of years. It was adapted for religio-ppolitical reasons and included in the Pentateuch, the earliest collection of stories with a moral background.
from Wikipedia: 







> The causes for God/gods having sent the flood also differ: in the Hebrew narrative the flood comes as God's judgment on a wicked humanity; in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh the reasons are not given and the flood appears to be the result of the caprice of the gods; whereas in the Atrahasis version of the Babylonian flood story the flood was sent by the gods to reduce human over-population, and after the flood other measures were introduced to prevent the problem recurring.




In similar ways, the New Testament has been compiled and amended over hundreds of years, constantly adding new episodes and quotes to older legends, as religious (Christian) leaders at various times deemed necessary to keep the flock in line and attract new customers. The entire Mary cult was imported from Asia Minor, to pull Ishtar's acolytes into the new sect. The Christmas legend spun around Roman (and others') Winter Solstice celebrations, so early Christians could hide among the pagans when they celebrated Saturn, Mithras, or Apollo. 
Classical Linguists had a field day analysing the various stages of development, timing each changed or added section according to words being used in newer additions that weren't in use earlier. Imagine someone tampering with Shakespeare's Hamlet, adding new verses about Louisiana cotton pickers, humming Model T engines, or baseball caps turned backwards. And then claiming that every word is a true record of utterings by the Historic Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. It's been printed, the local Priest assures us it's Gospel, so it's got to be true. Right!


----------



## Tink (20 May 2016)

Thanks, Luutzu.

I always have intentions to reply to all posts, but sometimes don't get around to it, and I apologise, but one thing is, we all should be saying what we want to say.

Bigot is one of those words that works both ways, so it is like water off a ducks back for me, as are all these other made up words to stop you talking from the left.

I have mentioned a few times about our Christian heritage and our foundations, what this country was built on, the biblical worldview.
The West as we know it would not exist.

I would rather look at the people that built this country, rather than the people that are trying to tear it down.

I could say who cares about what happens in public schools, we never used them, and same goes for the hospitals, I am glad we have the choice, as Muschu mentioned in another post.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851&page=6&p=904774#post904774

We used private for both.

But I do care, for the parents that are in those schools that need a voice, for what is right and wrong.

They are not happy that the state is trying to over rule their parenting.

When we were at school, any of those sort of things were done as information nights after school, where the parents and students attended, not forced on the family.


----------



## smallwolf (20 May 2016)

You are partially correct pixel...

Christians were persecuted up until around the time of Constantine, and were also blamed from the fire in 64 AD. As far as the adding new books or writings, that did occur with groups like the Gnostics or Montanists. And it was actually Irenaeus (and Co) in the "main church" that wanted to define some boundaries and not accepting any new writings. 

You also have to remember that in these times, a number people from different groups were writing and decisions had to be made as to what was the accepted as scripture and what was rejected or considered heretical. (For example, Marcion in the 2nd century CE rejected the entire OT, and only accepted the gospel of Luke and letter of Paul!) You could argue that some of the decisions were political - if one can use that word, given what is known about the books today.

There have been and always will be discussions over what books are canonical (and therefore 'viewed' as added) but that is also because the canon is not technically closed.

the problem that we have today is more with the interpretation of the text itself, and then used in isolation or otherwise to prove a point, correctly or otherwise.


----------



## Value Collector (20 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Is that a literal sword? or Not?
> 
> It is easy to take a verse and apply to your case. But it might also help to have a understanding of the landscape, the people he was talking to, and the effect it might have on those who followed Him. A little understanding of history goes a long way.




That's exactly how people of all religions rationalise away the bits of their texts they don't like, eg "oh that doesn't mean what it says it means something else"

If there is a god, and he actually wanted to spread his word, the god relying on these old texts as sources of his message is pretty stupid don't you think? Doesn't seem like a smart god to me, makes me think the god doesn't actually exist, and we should take the mythology with a grain of salt, just like any other myth and legend.

-----------------------

but let me humour you, what do you think that verse meant?

And do you think the Jesus character from the bible actually existed?


----------



## Value Collector (20 May 2016)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Luutzu.
> 
> I always have intentions to reply to all posts, but sometimes don't get around to it, and I apologise, but one thing is, we all should be saying what we want to say.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately tink because of your amorality you can't see that the steps you think are tearing Australia down, are actually creating a better country, you fail to recognise the bad things from the past and instead view it with rose coloured glasses.


----------



## luutzu (20 May 2016)

Tink said:


> Thanks, Luutzu.
> 
> I always have intentions to reply to all posts, but sometimes don't get around to it, and I apologise, but one thing is, we all should be saying what we want to say.
> 
> ...




Yea, people are more complicated and a label this or that would be wrong. 

I don't think sticking to how Australia, and this goes for any country of any race and religion... sticking with how a country was founded or established for moral principle and civil administration... it's not a good idea.

All countries are established from violence and bigotry, and often, from genocide. So it'd be pretty messed up to use the same kind of thinking to keep the peace.

That's not to say Christianity or whatever national foundation should be torn down... but it should be dial down a bit - get the nicer bit from it for everyday use, tolerate a few crazy nonconformist "religion", and save the crazy violent purity stuff for when barbarians are at our gates. 

----

I think the Safe School program was also required teaching in private school. We got info pack on it earlier in the year. Were there exception clause for religious schools?

But either way, we all have our own opinions about what ought to be taught at school... end of day it's whatever the State and its wise people decide, isn't it. I mean, I really do not like how about 1/4 of my kid's fees goes to some Church/Bishop of Sydney or something... but there it goes. And this year, with the fees remaining the same or higher, the school thought to cut back on subscription for the kids PM Reader app they could read from home.

The app would cost about $20 per child and was a great way for the kids to do extra reading... but it's cut and the Church still get that $500+ from the school fee. Not a good way to teach moral value and social justice, in my book anyway.

But like anything, if the parents are upset enough about it, they'll march and maybe then the Masters will listen up.


----------



## smallwolf (20 May 2016)

Value Collector...

The version in Luke reads as....

The Lucan Jesus asks, ''Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" 

The version in Matthew replaces 'division' with 'sword'.

Now...

People back then were more religous than today - in fact, it would be safe to say that everyone worshipped some God. The father of a family was ruler, and what they thought was the law, and if you were the wife, son or daughter you would not go against what you father said. A father could kill his children. (Does not make it right, but that is what happened) So if someone in the family decided to follow Jesus, that person would be marginalised, at the very least and this could also affect the way the entire family was viewed (and excluded) in wider society. There was no safety net back then.

Division was real and had real consequences!

Source: The sword motif in Matthew 10:34
(http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewFile/1698/2988)

"Contrary to the views of most scholars, this study has argued that the motif of the sword in Matthew 10:34 does not reflect the original wording of Q but is more probably the result of Matthean redaction. In determining the meaning of this symbol for the evangelist, it was found that Matthew's intentions were perhaps more nuanced and more complex than scholars have recognised. As is normally acknowledged, the sword is not a literal sword which the Matthean Jesus brandishes to call his followers to an uprising against the Romans; on the contrary, it is a symbol which has eschatological overtones."
...
"In the final analysis it is difficult to ascertain with any certainty precisely how Matthew intended the sword motif in Matthew 10:34 to be taken. The multivocal interpretation offered here is more suggestive than definitive, but it is built upon the indisputable facts that the symbol of the sword had a variety of meanings in the contemporary literature and that the evangelist had a variety of eschatological interests."

As to your second question - Yes I do. But also studying a BTh, listen to Death metal, and work in IT. I don't think that it is relevant.

(and just in case you were wondering... when studying for a BTh you DO NOT take things on face value!)


----------



## luutzu (20 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Value Collector...
> 
> The version in Luke reads as....
> 
> ...




Jesus obviously didn't bring the literal Sword, hence his crucifixion.

Moses and Muhammad have the literal Sword as the peacemaker, hence they get to died in old age


----------



## Value Collector (20 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Value Collector...
> 
> The version in Luke reads as....
> 
> ...





Yeah I have heard all those rationalisations before, I don't buy it. As I said the fact that you have to jump through all those hoops to get to the "real" meaning of a verse is pretty much proof it wasn't inspired by an all knowing god, other wise he wouldn't have chosen languages that die out and texts that get changed as his way to pass on a message.

I don't see any reason to believe the bible is anything more than a book of old myths, so it seems silly to try and make all the rationalisations and bent it to fit current culture, just leave it as an example of an old book of stories, some good some immoral.

-------------------------

When I asked if you believe the Jesus "character" existed, I am not talking about some guy that inspired the stories, In the way the Santa character was loosely based on St Nicholas. I am asking if you believe Jesus as he is described in the bible exists, eg son of a god, does miracles, came back from the dead, etc etc.

In other words I am not asking if st nick version of Jesus existed, I am asking if Santa with reindeer and living in the north pole etc  version of Jesus existed


----------



## pixel (20 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah I have heard all those rationalisations before, I don't buy it. As I said the fact that you have to jump through all those hoops to get to the "real" meaning of a verse is pretty much proof it wasn't inspired by an all knowing god, other wise he wouldn't have chosen languages that die out and texts that get changed as his way to pass on a message.
> 
> I don't see any reason to believe the bible is anything more than a book of old myths, so it seems silly to try and make all the rationalisations and bent it to fit current culture, just leave it as an example of an old book of stories, some good some immoral.
> 
> ...



The argument about "division" or "sword" becomes even hazier when we consider how usage and meaning of words is changing over time. Immensely more research has been done on the issue since the NT was translated from Greek to English. The scholars that worked on the King James-sponsored project may have found the word "sword" a good fit for the Greek word in question. That word is *μάχαιραν* and has a range of meanings with different predominance at various times. Transliteration spells "makhaira", referring to "makhai" = _battle, struggle, disagreement_, but also applied, and even anglicised, to _machete _or _sword_. If we want to know the "true meaning" - whatever that may be - we must first find out at which time this particular verse entered Matthew's gospel. Only then can we make an educated guess about the most likely "meaning". However, even then will we only be able to guess the *intention of the author of that particular verse.* Whether the "Historic Jesus" (assuming there was indeed such a unique person) uttered that sentence at all, and if so, what *Aramaic *expression he used, will have to remain a mystery.


----------



## Value Collector (20 May 2016)

pixel said:


> The argument about "division" or "sword" becomes even hazier when we consider how usage and meaning of words is changing over time. Immensely more research has been done on the issue since the NT was translated from Greek to English. The scholars that worked on the King James-sponsored project may have found the word "sword" a good fit for the Greek word in question. That word is *μάχαιραν* and has a range of meanings with different predominance at various times. Transliteration spells "makhaira", referring to "makhai" = _battle, struggle, disagreement_, but also applied, and even anglicised, to _machete _or _sword_. If we want to know the "true meaning" - whatever that may be - we must first find out at which time this particular verse entered Matthew's gospel. Only then can we make an educated guess about the most likely "meaning". However, even then will we only be able to guess the *intention of the author of that particular verse.* Whether the "Historic Jesus" (assuming there was indeed such a unique person) uttered that sentence at all, and if so, what *Aramaic *expression he used, will have to remain a mystery.




Either way, when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth" they are still blatantly cherry picking, even if you can rationalise away the word sword, the full quote is still saying he didn't come for peace on earth.

And given that the "Jesus character" from the bible almost certainly doesn't/ didn't exist anyway, why put so much effort into twisting and rationalising his words, why not just admit the rubbish bits? And right it off to the poor moral attitudes of the time and move on, constantly rewriting and twisting things to maintain the image of a perfect man and perfect book is stupid.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Either way, when Christians say "Jesus said peace on earth" they are still blatantly cherry picking, even if you can rationalise away the word sword, the full quote is still saying he didn't come for peace on earth.
> 
> And given that the "Jesus character" from the bible almost certainly doesn't/ didn't exist anyway, why put so much effort into twisting and rationalising his words, why not just admit the rubbish bits? And right it off to the poor moral attitudes of the time and move on, constantly rewriting and twisting things to maintain the image of a perfect man and perfect book is stupid.




I doubt the Christians will ever convince you (or me either), but their faith is for them and I doubt we will "unconvince" them either.

It's actually quite an interesting study of human nature. How beliefs form, the ascendancy of rationality, the decline or in some cases the strengthening of religion.

The bottom line is that "rationality" says nothing about life after death, except that there isn't one, and that's where religion steps into that void and as long as it gives people comfort to think that they will not die then religion has a grip, whether we like it or not.


----------



## Value Collector (21 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I doubt the Christians will ever convince you (or me either), but their faith is for them and I doubt we will "unconvince" them either.
> 
> It's actually quite an interesting study of human nature. How beliefs form, the ascendancy of rationality, the decline or in some cases the strengthening of religion.
> 
> The bottom line is that "rationality" says nothing about life after death, except that there isn't one, and that's where religion steps into that void and as long as it gives people comfort to think that they will not die then religion has a grip, whether we like it or not.




To me there is something deeply saddening to think that people may be using this one life we get as a door mat, because the are convinced there is another greater one waiting for them on the other side.

It's even more horrible when they are convinced so much in an afterlife, and the commandments of gods that they do horrible things to their fellow travellers in this life, or fear embracing people of family for who they are because of the opinion of hysterical people from 2000 years ago.


----------



## luutzu (21 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> To me there is something deeply saddening to think that people may be using this one life we get as a door mat, because the are convinced there is another greater one waiting for them on the other side.
> 
> It's even more horrible when they are convinced so much in an afterlife, and the commandments of gods that they do horrible things to their fellow travellers in this life, or fear embracing people of family for who they are because of the opinion of hysterical people from 2000 years ago.




An argument from those high above - the politicians and law giver- is that religion, despite its negatives, work to get people in line with the generally accepted moral standards. That is, religion could mess what is objectively moral and right, but often what is objective and rational does not serve the interests of the state, hence society...

Na, that still doesn't make sense. 

Imagine.... no religion, above us only air and skies...


----------



## cynic (21 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> An argument from those high above - the politicians and law giver- is that religion, despite its negatives, work to get people in line with the generally accepted moral standards. That is, religion could mess what is objectively moral and right, but often what is objective and rational does not serve the interests of the state, hence society...
> 
> Na, that still doesn't make sense.
> 
> Imagine.... no religion, above us only air and skies...




Imagine all the people, living for today...


----------



## luutzu (21 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Imagine all the people, living for today...




Aha-ah...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You,..

tun tun ... tun tun....

-----

No wonder we can't imagine that kind of stuff. 

No one to kill or die for? No religion?

It'll put a lot of generals and religious leaders out of a job. They might have to start doing something more useful with their life.


----------



## cynic (21 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Aha-ah...
> 
> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> ...



I've heard comments to the effect that mankind requires natural predators to arrest the expansion of its populace, and that wars and famines have somehow assumed that role. (Not enough polar bears to go around, apparently!)


----------



## Tink (21 May 2016)

So we get rid of the army, the police, the law -- who needs order in this country, is what you are saying?.

As I have said before, interesting these same people see an orderly universe but what to impinge a disorderly lifestyle in this country on us.


----------



## luutzu (21 May 2016)

cynic said:


> I've heard comments to the effect that mankind requires natural predators to arrest the expansion of its populace, and that wars and famines have somehow assumed that role. (Not enough polar bears to go around, apparently!)




Have heard of something like that... that wars are necessary, or at least the result of, over population. 

Not true.

Wars has always been the result of extreme wealth inequality and high taxation (civil wars) and result from having land but not enough arms and troops to protect it (wars of liberation and civilisation and democracy nation-building, and stuff). 

So wars would reduce the population, but it is not over-population that caused wars - it's always income non-distribution.

Take any empire and regime... it's always the case that the rich merchants and aristocrats that get and own pretty much the entire country. This small group of people own practically everything, have everything while the masses have not much at all.

The imbalance eventually tipped and the rulers and nobility got all their mansions and castles and heads taken from them.

This tend to kill a lot of people; burn the established orders and it all begin the cycle again with the leaders of the people's revolution doing their own house cleaning (against honest revolutionaries) then start moving into those vacant mansions and castles to enjoy the fruits of their labour (and others' sacrifices).

If the country is lucky enough, the neighbours and imperial powers nearby are busy or not paying enough attention while this revolution takes place... Sometime they aren't so lucky and either the people are so poor and weak, with the elite so corrupt that treasuries are emptied... Do gooders of foreign faith comes in and take over.

Then it starts again. Only on a bigger scale at each stage.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 May 2016)

> So wars would reduce the population, but it is not over-population that caused wars - it's always income non-distribution.




No it's not. The Romans attacked much poorer peoples just for the fun of it.

Germany was richer than Poland when Hitler invaded.

Germans-Romans, it was megalomania that caused those wars, belief in the superiority of their race/technology/culture etc.


----------



## luutzu (21 May 2016)

Tink said:


> So we get rid of the army, the police, the law -- who needs order in this country, is what you are saying?.
> 
> As I have said before, interesting these same people see an orderly universe but what to impinge a disorderly lifestyle in this country on us.




Lao Tzu says, it is the sign of insecurity and lawlessness when the country is in great need of armies and peace officers; It is a sign of corruption and moral decay when citizens relies on law and lawyers to deal with each other.

He doesn't mean there is no need for armies or police or law and legal codes... he mean that when you see too much reliance on it, the country's stuffed - something has gone wrong.

----

I don't think other people enjoying themselves or wanting equal rights and freedom, and those freedom of theirs does not harm anyone or impedes anyone else's freedom... well how does it impede or bring disorder?

Sometime people who doesn't believe in Christian values, does not go to Church but to Mosques or Temples or bars and clubs... they do it not to upset or insult the Christians or anyone else but merely to enjoy themselves, waste time and waste their own money.

What we believe in or what we like tend not to matter that much to other people. It doesn't mean they hate us or want to upset us.


----------



## luutzu (22 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No it's not. The Romans attacked much poorer peoples just for the fun of it.
> 
> Germany was richer than Poland when Hitler invaded.
> 
> Germans-Romans, it was megalomania that caused those wars, belief in the superiority of their race/technology/culture etc.




Was referring to Civil wars.. .but it's true for both - if you really think about it 

First, when there are extreme income and wealth inequality, the nation will have the vast majority of the masses poor with a very small minority of elite owning and running everything.

Second, such conditions always mean a poor economy and thereby a weak military - can't pay troops or buy arms; Weakened further because the masses do not support their King and aristocrats, without support, rebellion and terrorism rise, results in more policing and more night terror of the legitimate kind.... Round and round that goes until a more civilised neighbour thought to intervene or internal mobs takes over.


----------



## Value Collector (22 May 2016)

Tink said:


> So we get rid of the army, the police, the law -- who needs order in this country, is what you are saying?.
> 
> As I have said before, interesting these same people see an orderly universe but what to impinge a disorderly lifestyle in this country on us.




I don't think anyone is saying get rid of the Army, police and law, those things add value, and make our life better.

Your second paragraph makes no sense, like you are a bit hysterical.


----------



## Tink (22 May 2016)

Just adding an article of what Western Culture/Western Civilization is ---

Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Western lifestyle or European civilization, is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe.

The term has come to apply to countries whose history is strongly marked by European immigration, such as the countries of the Americas and Australasia, and is not restricted to the continent of Europe.

Western culture is characterized by a host of artistic, philosophic, literary, and legal themes and traditions; the heritage of Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Jewish, Slavic, Latin, and other ethnic and linguistic groups, as well as Christianity, which played an important part in the shaping of Western civilization since at least the 4th century.

Also contributing to Western thought, in ancient times and then in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance onwards, a tradition of rationalism in various spheres of life, developed by Hellenistic philosophy, Scholasticism, humanism, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment.

Values of Western culture have, throughout history, been derived from political thought, widespread employment of rational argument favouring freethought, assimilation of human rights, the need for equality, and democracy.

Historical records of Western culture in Europe begin with Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

Western culture continued to develop with Christianization during the Middle Ages, the reform and modernization triggered by the Renaissance, and with globalization by successive European empires, that spread European ways of life and European educational methods around the world between the 16th and 20th centuries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_We are lucky to be building on the achievements of our ancestors, and the important thing is to maintain them and to not throw them away

The secular liberties on which our cultural and intellectual life depends would not exist, but for the Christian inheritance_


----------



## pixel (22 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> No it's not. The Romans attacked much poorer peoples just for the fun of it.
> 
> Germany was richer than Poland when Hitler invaded.
> 
> *Germans-Romans,* it was megalomania that caused those wars,* belief in the superiority of their race/technology/culture etc.*




You don't suggest that only the Romans and Hitler waged wars to build empires, do you?
Start in antiquity with the Persians, Alexander "The Great", Genghis Khan. Move on to Spanish conquistadors, don't forget Napoleon, and last, not least, the builders of the British Empire.

We agree on the point that the aggressor always justifies the invasion by a "belief in the superiority of their race/technology/culture etc." For the Spanish, the pretense was Christianity; the real reason was gold because the Royals were broke. And the only succeeded because they had firearms and horses, not because they were "richer" than the South-Americans.


----------



## Value Collector (22 May 2016)

Tink said:


> Just adding an article of what Western Culture/Western Civilization is ---
> 
> Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Western lifestyle or European civilization, is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe.
> 
> ...




Yes the Christian myths and legends are part of or past and some people still take the mythology seriously, so what?

None of the good things you attribute to "Christianity" rely on it, we can cut out the myths and legends and still retain all that is good and build on it.

What you need to realize is that society has been getting better and better for hundreds of years, and it's the religious myths that slow down he progress.


----------



## luutzu (22 May 2016)

Tink said:


> Just adding an article of what Western Culture/Western Civilization is ---
> 
> Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Western lifestyle or European civilization, is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe.
> 
> ...




"European immigration"; "globalization". No C and G word at all 

How exactly does Christianity permit the existence of secular liberties?

Christianity, like all other religion, is the thing that kept all these liberties and rights back.

An old, self-serving document - one that serves the interests of the Nobility - that then enable the secular and legal rights of the plebs and the coloured folks... that document is the Magna Carta. Not the Bible; and of course not any other religious text either.

I mean, gays still have problems being recognised as equal citizens.. Why? God apparently doesn't like them.


----------



## Tink (22 May 2016)

Luutzu, I have already posted the connection of the Magna Carta and Christianity.

Magna Carta: Law, Liberty, Legacy 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...publishing-world-famous-charter-10318826.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_On 15 June 1215, with England on the brink of civil war, King John met with the barons at Runnymede and put his seal to what was in effect a peace treaty: Magna Carta. Today, that Charter has become one of the most celebrated and influential documents in history, rightly seen as the foundation for Democracy worldwide. Lord Denning described it as “…the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

Common law means a legal system based upon the English legal system; a mixture of customary law, judge-made law and parliamentary law. At least until the early 19th century, the common law was heavily influenced by Christian philosophy. This philosophy argues that there is a divine reason for the existence of fundamental laws, and that such laws are superior to human-made legislation, thus reflecting universal and unchangeable principles by which everyone should live. This assumption was expressed, among other things, in the Magna Carta of 1215, a charter which guaranteed the basic rights and privileges to the English barons against the king. 

Professor Aroney explains Christianity’s ideological influence upon the Magna Carta:
From [the time of Alfred] the kings of England have traditionally recognised their submission to God. At their coronations they take an oath before the Archbishop acknowledging the Law of God as the standard of justice, and the rights of the church. They are also urged to do justice under God and to govern God’s people fairly. Magna Carta was a development of these themes.

At the time of Magna Carta (1215), a royal judge called Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) wrote a massive treatise on principles of law and justice. Bracton is broadly regarded as ‘the father of the common law’, because his book De legibus et consuetudinibus Anglia is one of the most important works on the constitution of medieval England. For Bracton, the application of law implies ‘a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite’, which means that the state law can never depart from God’s higher laws. As Bracton explains, jurisprudence was ‘the science of the just and unjust’. And he also declared that the state is under God and the law, ‘because the law makes the king
The Christian faith provided to the people of England a status libertatis (state of liberty) which rested on the Christian presumption that God’s law always works for the good of society.

Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, played a central role in drafting the charter, which was signed by King John at Runnymede, Surrey. At least 11 other bishops were present.
A briefing note issued to members of the Synod reads: “The Church in England was central to the development of legal and human rights centuries before the French Revolution, now generally credited (along with the Enlightenment) for the secular genesis of human rights: the first parties to the charter were the bishops – led by Stephen Langton of Canterbury, who was a major drafter and mediator between the king and the barons; and its first and last clauses state that ‘the Church in England shall be free’._


----------



## luutzu (22 May 2016)

Tink said:


> Luutzu, I have already posted the connection of the Magna Carta and Christianity.
> 
> Magna Carta: Law, Liberty, Legacy
> 
> ...




Maybe there was a connection between Christianity and the Magna Carta, but it wasn't the good kind.

The MC was first and foremost a treaty between the King and "free men" - Free Men being the landowners, the nobility, the aristocrats and other imbreds. Free men does not apply to serfs and other low birth; certainly does not apply to women either.

For Christianity, or for the Lords and nobility at Runnymede, to claim credit for the eventual liberties and freedom ordinary White plebs and African slaves and women managed to eventually gain for themselves after literally centuries of fightinga and dying to get it - all the while the Church was at the centre of all that was established and being fought against.... So that's taking credit where it is not due.

Yes a lot of our/Western liberties and legal principles derive from MC... but that's just the result of a great deal of redefition and hard won battles by the masses... It weren't given or won at Runnymede, and not given by the Church and its moral high ground either.

To be fair to the Church, maybe the Bible and all the Bishops and high priests only go along to get along when Kings and emperors thought it'd be nice to stretch their arms and bring Missions to civilise the savages - starting with them being coolies and slaves first to earn God's love... But fact is all the rights and freedom we all enjoy, all of us... they were gained by the sacrifices of the masses and never at the benevolence of the State or the Church.

Hell, the Church still takes Churchgoers monies everyday, three times a day... and most of it goes towards some Trust and some Bishop's controlled account, not to save the Children or feed the poor.

Then there's the thing against gays, transgender, contraception, birth out of wedlock, marriage outside the faith, abortion - even in cases of rape or incest. 

We can't pick the good things that good people of Christian faith does and say that that's what Christianity is about. Can't do that and then ignore the other  stuff nastier Christians have done, or done because it's in the good book.

I think it's only fair to say that when you do good, it is because you are good, not because you are a Christian or a woman or an Australian. Just you do good things, some time... And if a person do bad... not because they aren't Christian enough, or too Christian. 

Works out better for everyone thinking that way.


----------



## Tink (23 May 2016)

Luutzu, you are entitled to your opinion and as I have said -- we should all be free to speak, no matter what we want to say.

*Freedom of speech is a fundamental right for all people in this country.*

No one is telling you to be a Christian or join the Christian movement, I have said many times, you get good and bad in all people -- all I said, was that our heritage is Christian.
That is a fact.

We have Easter and Christmas as public holidays.
We also have penalty rates on a Sunday -- if you don't think this country has a Christian heritage, then remove them.
There is no reason for them to be there.

I agree with you, that our ancestors all made sacrifices in this country, and in my view, they should be appreciated for the good they have achieved and given.

I don't appreciate people trying to tear down our history.


----------



## luutzu (23 May 2016)

Tink said:


> Luutzu, you are entitled to your opinion and as I have said -- we should all be free to speak, no matter what we want to say.
> 
> *Freedom of speech is a fundamental right for all people in this country.*
> 
> ...




Thanks, I know I'm lucky enough to be able to say what's on my mind without being dragged off somewhere dark.

But you do repeat it as though it's a regret, as though sometime it shouldn't apply to some people - ala ValueCollector,   That guy is a handful.

--------

History is there - it is what it is. 

So while we all try to paint better pictures of it or smudge it, those are just temporary and people will see its uses and abuses. So leave that to the patriots and lefty commies. Our job is to learn from our own history and those of others and to build a better society for today - tomorrows belong to the rising oceans we apparently can't and shouldn't do anything about because God promised Noah he'll only flood the world once and no more! 

Didn't occur to those idiots that maybe God didn't do it this time round. 

Anyway...

oh yea, Sunday rates may have been sold as a Christian thing, it is not. It's more likely that the unions got together and said, look mate - Sundays and Weekends and public holidays are when people got off work, take their family out and that mean a very very busy working hour so we deserve a bit extra - for both the extra work and for not hanging out with our own family.

Now... the businesses are saying that, look Canberra, the people are getting poorer and poorer and weekends or not, only a few well to do could afford to take anyone out, and those other plebs need to save up a fair bit to do it - so there's no extra work really. That or they'd just say, remember those thousands we "donate" to your campaign? When's the last time any shift worker donate to you guys? So do the right thing and not be Christian.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Now... the businesses are saying that, look Canberra, the people are getting poorer and poorer and weekends or not, only a few well to do could afford to take anyone out, and those other plebs need to save up a fair bit to do it - so there's no extra work really. That or they'd just say, remember those thousands we "donate" to your campaign? When's the last time any shift worker donate to you guys? So do the right thing and not be Christian.




The argument as I understand it, is that Sunday penalty rates should be the same as Saturday (time and a half as opposed to double time ?), and that sounds reasonable to me.

If Christians complain, they should be going to Church and not working.  Originally I think that Sunday penalty rates were a sop to the Churches, but they have less influence these days and both rates should be the same.


----------



## Tisme (23 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The argument as I understand it, is that Sunday penalty rates should be the same as Saturday (time and a half as opposed to double time ?), and that sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> If Christians complain, they should be going to Church and not working.  Originally I think that Sunday penalty rates were a sop to the Churches, but they have less influence these days and both rates should be the same.




A corollary to that is if the majority of the population have nothing better to do, instead of church going, they will be looking for something to do on Sunday and penalty rates aren't going to do much to  slow sales, because price is relegated when self gratification to relieve boredom takes over.

I remember when 1. Saturday afternoon trading was enabled, 2) when Sunday trading was enabled and how it was some kind of opiate for the retailers and masses ... I'm yet to be convinced it's had any benefit that outweighs the loss of family interaction,  loss of leisure time, loss of introspection, etc. as must needs have been replaced by must haves.

I remember 20 years ago I had a couple of freeways to myself on a Sunday morning, now they are packed.


----------



## Value Collector (23 May 2016)

Tink is a fan of the old magicians trick of misdirection.

When trying to convince people the church has been a force for good, she will point at some charity work or a chap mediating during civil unrest and say "there that's Christianity" while she sweeps centuries of misdeeds and killings under the rug.


----------



## Value Collector (23 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The argument as I understand it, is that Sunday penalty rates should be the same as Saturday (time and a half as opposed to double time ?), and that sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> If Christians complain, they should be going to Church and not working.  Originally I think that Sunday penalty rates were a sop to the Churches, but they have less influence these days and both rates should be the same.




According to the Bible the penalty for working on the sabbath is death, not double pay.


----------



## luutzu (23 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> According to the Bible the penalty for working on the sabbath is death, not double pay.




That's short and sweet. 

Should sell that on a shirt VC. To both major parties.


----------



## luutzu (23 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> A corollary to that is if the majority of the population have nothing better to do, instead of church going, they will be looking for something to do on Sunday and penalty rates aren't going to do much to  slow sales, because price is relegated when self gratification to relieve boredom takes over.
> 
> I remember when 1. Saturday afternoon trading was enabled, 2) when Sunday trading was enabled and how it was some kind of opiate for the retailers and masses ... I'm yet to be convinced it's had any benefit that outweighs the loss of family interaction,  loss of leisure time, loss of introspection, etc. as must needs have been replaced by must haves.
> 
> I remember 20 years ago I had a couple of freeways to myself on a Sunday morning, now they are packed.




Were you saying that retail is today's religion? Keep it Simple McGregor.

Traffic are getting pretty bad in Sydney though. Takes an hour or more on trips that would have taken 10 minutes off-peak.


----------



## luutzu (23 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The argument as I understand it, is that Sunday penalty rates should be the same as Saturday (time and a half as opposed to double time ?), and that sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> If Christians complain, they should be going to Church and not working.  Originally I think that Sunday penalty rates were a sop to the Churches, but they have less influence these days and both rates should be the same.




Never let what the other side was saying getting in the way of a good argument 

I don't know about all these penalty rate stuff, especially since we tend to go Yum Cha on special occasions and we all know how those extra pay will never make its way down to the waiters and cooks - much like the minimum wage and those Seven-Eleven employees.


----------



## Value Collector (24 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> That's short and sweet.
> 
> Should sell that on a shirt VC. To both major parties.




The religious among us will just say "NO,NO,NO where the bible says stone the person working on the Sabbath to death, it doesn't actually mean kill them, its a metaphor for a spiritual death" and "Where the bible says death, it actually is an error in translation, it was meant to say life" etc etc .


----------



## Tisme (24 May 2016)

I am heartened by my scepticism: I'm sure Westfields and those industry super funds that own the shopping centres are profiting, but according to this article:



> The extension of trading
> hours does not increase
> retail turnover




http://mckellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/pdf/McKell_Retail-Hours-Report_A4.pdf


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> I am heartened by my scepticism: I'm sure Westfields and those industry super funds that own the shopping centres are profiting, but according to this article:
> 
> 
> 
> http://mckellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/pdf/McKell_Retail-Hours-Report_A4.pdf




"... days of reflection (Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day and Boxing Day) as well as Anzac Day.." ??

Funny. I would have thought Anzac Day being day of reflection with the others being days of getting drunk and opening presents.

--- 

Funny how it's kind of obvious once you read the conclusion and think about it - flexible hours won't increase spending, money in people's pockets will.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> The religious among us will just say "NO,NO,NO where the bible says stone the person working on the Sabbath to death, it doesn't actually mean kill them, its a metaphor for a spiritual death" and "Where the bible says death, it actually is an error in translation, it was meant to say life" etc etc .




How do they explain the spiritual stone? Those leary dirty looks? 
Killing the spirit tend to also messed people up too though.

But as crazy as religion is, if religion isn't there to excuse certain... certain civilising cause, it'll be something else. We humans are quite something.


----------



## Tink (25 May 2016)

I don't see you mentioning any of your communist atrocities, VC?

We appreciate the living and the dead, we value human life, family, responsibility and accountability.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Value --

the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.


----------



## Tisme (25 May 2016)

Tink said:


> I don't see you mentioning any of your communist atrocities, VC?
> 
> We appreciate the living and the dead, we value human life, family, responsibility and accountability.
> 
> ...




I like to think VC plays for effect, rather than vicious belligerence. Afterall he does demand respect for his belief system that homosexuals are just like the rest of us


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

Tink said:


> I don't see you mentioning any of your communist atrocities, VC?
> 
> .




That's because I am not a communist Tink, So I have no atrocities to mention.

You how ever are a Catholic, and openly support Catholicism and Christianity in general, So its fair for me to point out the atrocities committed by your organisation. Until I am a card carrying member of the Russian communist party you can't link me to anything that a communist party did to entrench its power.

I challenge you to find a single post where I have ever said I support communism, or any of the communist manifestos or literature, or where I have said children should be indoctrinated into communism, or you need to be communist to be a good person etc etc.



> We appreciate the living and the dead, we value human life, family, responsibility and accountability.




So do I, and you don't need to invoke fairy tales to do any of those things, In fact I think that belief in an afterlife can actually cause people to appreciate this life less, why else would they be willing to do a suicide bombing mission?

And its Christianity that human life by itself is kinda worthless, you here them say stupid things like "without god there is no meaning in life" etc

As far as accountability goes, Christianity's view is that as long as you ask forgiveness and accept jesus, your sins are forgiven, and you have no need to make things right, hell Christians believe in using jesus as a scape goat for their sins, where is the accountability in that???


----------



## smallwolf (25 May 2016)

A book titled "The Jihad of Jesus: The Sacred Nonviolent Struggle for Justice"  by Dave Andrews, highlights the wrongs of both Christians and Muslims throughout history...

http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Jesus-Nonviolent-Struggle-Justice/dp/1498217745

on page 6 starts includes...

How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? 5You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matt 7:4,5)

the above applies to the those both religious and not.



> Originally Posted by Value Collector View Post
> The religious among us will just say "NO,NO,NO where the bible says stone the person working on the Sabbath to death, it doesn't actually mean kill them, its a metaphor for a spiritual death" and "Where the bible says death, it actually is an error in translation, it was meant to say life" etc etc .




Ummm. NO. And cherry picking again and/or making assumptions. You also do not seem to be taking into consideration social and cultural aspects of the books were actually written. The books of the OT were written - hundreds of years after the event and concept of the time (in writings) was much different than today. And in their writing would see the world as "if something bad happened, God was angry with us", and "if something good happened, God was happy with us".

And, YES, lots of BAD things, including rape, incest, murder, (and otherwise historically) but you cannot just exclude those parts you dislike. You are reading of events in the past (real or fictional, and 'YES' some of is), through the lens of a group of people/writers. Otherwise you are filter "history" and if you do that where do you stop! You cannot roll back the BAD things that people have done to each other in the name of God.

Finally, just because you see a reaction of some christian in the media does not necessarily represent the viewpoint of all christians.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

> In fact I think that belief in an afterlife can actually cause people to appreciate this life less, why else would they be willing to do a suicide bombing mission?




Because some stupid religion said they would be rewarded for it, but that's not a reason not to believe in an afterlife.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> I like to think VC plays for effect, rather than vicious belligerence. Afterall he does demand respect for his belief system that homosexuals are just like the rest of us




I know you're itching for more, but maybe wait til this settles before prodding again.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> T...
> As far as accountability goes, Christianity's view is that as long as you ask forgiveness and accept jesus, your sins are forgiven, and you have no need to make things right, hell Christians believe in using jesus as a scape goat for their sins, *where is the accountability in that*???




The accounting is in the donation baskets


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because some stupid religion said they would be rewarded for it, but that's not a reason not to believe in an afterlife.




Would they do it if they didn't believe in an afterlife?

That's my point, a doctrine that promotes belief in an afterlife, is more likely to see a lower value to this life, and perhaps human life in general.



> but that's not a reason not to believe in an afterlife




Offcourse its not,  But the lack of evidence is a good reason to not believe.

If there was good evidence to believe something, I wouldn't disbelieve it just because I thought it was negative, just as I won't try and trick myself into believing something because I feel its positive.

-------------------------------------------
This sums it up,


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> (real or fictional, and 'YES' some of is),.




So how do you tell the difference?

And, would an all powerful god really let his book be tainted if he existed and cared about having his message passed along?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

> Would they do it if they didn't believe in an afterlife?
> 
> That's my point, a doctrine that promotes belief in an afterlife, is more likely to see a lower value to this life, and perhaps human life in general.




That's a pretty limited view.

If a doctrine taught that our actions today good or bad will form part of our future lives, that good acts would be rewarded and bad ones punished, then I think that would lead to a greater respect for life and greater propensity to do good things.


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a pretty limited view.
> 
> If a doctrine taught that our actions today good or bad will form part of our future lives, that good acts would be rewarded and bad ones punished, then I think that would lead to a greater respect for life and greater propensity to do good things.




Unless those good acts aren't really good (eg suicide bombing, denying rights to women, opposing gay rights etc) and the bad acts aren't really bad (eg being gay)

--------------------------

These religions tend to tie themselves to a lot of old ideas that are in themselves immoral.

And as I have said there are very practical real world reasons to be good and value human life, you don't need the punish/reward of the superstitious religions.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Unless those good acts aren't really good (eg suicide bombing, denying rights to women, opposing gay rights etc) and the bad acts aren't really bad (eg being gay)
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> ...




Actually there are a lot of good reasons to be evil if you can get away with it. Money, power, sex etc.

The threat of punishment is one of the few things that deters people, and even that is not enough for some.


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Actually there are a lot of good reasons to be evil if you can get away with it. Money, power, sex etc.
> 
> .




and what better way to take those things than with the authority of a god? again its peoples belief in fairy tales and lack of scepticism that opens them up to being taken advantage of in the first place.

trying to trick people into being good by making them superstitious, won't help society long term, if anything the good effects are offset by the bad, and also when people finally realise the superstitious stuff is BS, then you may be to late to actually teach them the real reasons why being its beneficial to act morally.

This goes back to my analogy on Amorality, and the two groups of children that appear to be behaving well, one group from the threat of a smack or promise of desert and the other group behaving because they have been raised to value others and care about the effect of their actions on others.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> and what better way to take those things than with the authority of a god? again its peoples belief in fairy tales and lack of scepticism that opens them up to being taken advantage of in the first place.
> 
> trying to trick people into being good by making them superstitious, won't help society long term, if anything the good effects are offset by the bad, and also when people finally realise the superstitious stuff is BS, then you may be to late to actually teach them the real reasons why being its beneficial to act morally.
> 
> This goes back to my analogy on Amorality, and the two groups of children that appear to be behaving well, one group from the threat of a smack or promise of desert and the other group behaving because they have been raised to value others and care about the effect of their actions on others.




Good, so please let us know when you find a way to abolish prisons and courts.



You still have to explain why morality is better than no morality. The examples of people getting into positions of power and wealth whilst being amoral are plentiful.

Try explaining to a child that it's better to live a poor and moral life than a rich amoral one, especially when there is no afterlife where they have to account for their actions.


----------



## smallwolf (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> again its peoples belief in fairy tales and lack of scepticism that opens them up to being taken advantage of in the first place.




does that apply to Christianity or all "religions"? What about the indigenous people and dreamtime stories?



Value Collector said:


> trying to trick people into being good by making them superstitious, won't help society long term, if anything the good effects are offset by the bad, and also when people finally realise the superstitious stuff is BS, then you may be to late to actually teach them the real reasons why being its beneficial to act morally.




Source: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/identity/marks-of-mission.aspx

The Five Marks of Mission are:


To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
To respond to human need by loving service
To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth


(Bonds of Affection-1984 ACC-6 p49, Mission in a Broken World-1990 ACC-8 p101)

skipping over the first two items.... how does this not help society?


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Good, so please let us know when you find a way to abolish prisons and courts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why would we get rid of prisons and courts?

The benefits of morality are pretty clear? Or are you saying you would rather live amongst a group with no morals?

Why not live a rich moral life? You don't have to be poor to be moral, and being amoral doesn't guarantee wealth, your statement makes no sense.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Why would we get rid of prisons and courts?




You are saying you can persuade anyone to live a moral life without resorting to a "punishment" scenario.



> The benefits of morality are pretty clear? Or are you saying you would rather live amongst a group with no morals?




The benefits of morality may not be clear to everyone. A lot of amoral people get rich and powerful so they set an example for others that "the good life" can be gained without morality.



> Why not live a rich moral life? You don't have to be poor to be moral, and being amoral doesn't guarantee wealth, your statement makes no sense.




It's harder to live a rich moral life if you are talking about "rich" being wealth. Bill Gates is probably soothing his morals now after ripping off a lot of people's IP over the years and stomping on his competition.

So, why don't you tell us the benefits of being moral. Is it just a "feel good" factor ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> does that apply to Christianity or all "religions"? What about the indigenous people and dreamtime stories?




The Christianity and Islam are open to it the most of any religion I know, But offcourse any religion that relies on any sort of priest, pastor, wiseman, guru, etc etc who knows what the gods think and what they want of us will be open to being used to take advantage of people.





> To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom
> To teach, baptise and nurture new believers
> To respond to human need by loving service
> To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation
> To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth




Do you care if your religion is true?

you skipped my question about how do you tell the false parts of the bible from the true bits


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You are saying you can persuade anyone to live a moral life without resorting to a "punishment" scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> ?




Nope, I never said you can persuade anyone one, some people will be born psychopaths or not learn basic moral concepts or be distorted by drugs etc for these people we will need a place to store them to get them out of society or to fix their problems.



> The benefits of morality may not be clear to everyone. A lot of amoral people get rich and powerful so they set an example for others that "the good life" can be gained without morality.




So we should just avoid trying to teach good morals and instead teach superstition???? 




> It's harder to live a rich moral life if you are talking about "rich" being wealth



. 

I don't agree



> So, why don't you tell us the benefits of being moral. Is it just a "feel good" factor




Its easy to understand if you answer this question for me.

"why do you want to live in a country that cares about morals?"


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Its easy if you answer this question for me.
> 
> "why do you want to live in a country that cares about morals?"




I would say "define your morals, they may be different to mine".


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I would say "define your morals, they may be different to mine".




Lets just limit it to well being based morality, eg caring about the affect of your actions on others.

Would you agree that a society where a large portion of the population care about how its actions affect the well being of others would be a better place to live than one where the majority of the population had no regard for the well being of others?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Lets just limit it to well being based morality, eg caring about the affect of your actions on others.
> 
> Would you agree that a society where a large portion of the population care about how its actions affect the well being of others would be a better place to live than one where the majority of the population had no regard for the well being of others?




I would, but others may feel that as long as they are Ok that's good enough for them.

There are some on this forum that believe in a dog eat dog, buyer beware,  survival of the fittest philosophy.

I would say that if you are engaged in share trading then you have some of those "morals". Your profit could be someone else's loss and you can't take care of everyone can you ?.


One example.

You are looking to buy a house. You come across one owned by an old lady who needs a quick sale to pay for a nursing home for her husband. You know she wants to sell fast. Do you try and beat or down or offer her a higher price so she can get a better home for her husband ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I would, but others may feel that as long as they are Ok that's good enough for them.
> 
> There are some on this forum that believe in a dog eat dog, buyer beware,  survival of the fittest philosophy.
> 
> ...




But do you think promoting superstition is the best way around that? I doubt it.

I am a long term investor, I look to the assets I own to generate my returns, it's not dog eat dog, the types of companies I like to own everybody wins, eg our suppliers, employees, customers, shareholders and government all benefit from our existence.

The fact that one trader buys in today and sells at a loss tommorow is irrelevant to the long term returns of investors and the company in general, they are playing a different game, that they choose to play, gambling isn't immorral.

The old lady will only take my offer if I am the highest bidder, so my buying her house has helped her achieve a higher price than she otherwise could have.

-------------

We are getting away from my original question,

Do you want to live in a country with good morals? And if so why?


----------



## smallwolf (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> you skipped my question about how do you tell the false parts of the bible from the true bits




Some might argue that Esther, Tobit and Judith are historical. Others not... You determine it by Research, study, and ????

Just take book of Judith as an example, the place mentioned in the story is only mentioned in this story and nowhere else. Also the events are stated as occurring during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the king “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.” (Judith 1:1, 7 [1:5, 10, Dy]) The introduction and footnotes of this translation point out that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylonia and never reigned in Nineveh, since Nineveh had been destroyed earlier by Nebuchadnezzar’s father (copied from wikipedia)

have a look here also...

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...nFAaM4ChC7BQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=fiction&f=false

you also refer to "myth" quite a bit.... read pg 53 in "An Introduction to the Bible" by Kugler and Hartin.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> We are getting away from my original question,
> 
> Do you want to live in a country with good morals? And if so why?




I've already said I would (assuming your morals coincide with mine). Why, because it makes me feel better that we live in a cooperative society. This feel good factor may be different for others, as I've said and I don't want to repeat myself more than necessary, others may feel good by acquiring wealth and power to the detriment of others.

Explain to them why this is immoral in your world view.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> ....
> 
> I am a long term investor, I look to the assets I own to generate my returns, it's not dog eat dog, the types of companies I like to own everybody wins, eg our suppliers, employees, customers, shareholders and government all benefit from our existence....






You've been watching way too much Disney VC.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I've already said I would (assuming your morals coincide with mine). Why, because it makes me feel better that we live in a cooperative society. This feel good factor may be different for others, as I've said and I don't want to repeat myself more than necessary, others may feel good by acquiring wealth and power to the detriment of others.
> 
> Explain to them why this is immoral in your world view.




Didn't your phrasing kind of explain itself?

It is wrong to harm people; it is immoral to intentionally harm people; it's messed up to harm people so you can profit from it.

True there are sociopaths and psychos out there who get kicks out of hurting people and also get the material reward out of it. But Karma has a way of bringing balance back to the universe.

First, when you screw people over... you'll constantly be looking over your shoulders.

Can have that fixed with body guards and all the security measures in the world... but it's hard to get a good night sleep even if your conscience are living the dream.

Second, if the person is a bastard, good people won't be hanging around them. Those that hang around are brown nosing sycophants... and those tend not to make loyal friends or lovers. They will turn on you for a dime.

Three, assuming all is good and legal and the world doesn't see your crimes as crimes but as "natural" habits of responsible leaders and kings... That if you're big enough and can screw over enough people and countries for power and riches... you can destroy the city, the community, and even the world we all inhabit.

What good is it to have all the power and riches but no friend, no loved ones, no confidant and living in a screwed up environment. 

So in the end, you won't be living in riches nor have power - power over what?


----------



## Tisme (25 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> You've been watching way too much Disney VC.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Some might argue that Esther, Tobit and Judith are historical. Others not... You determine it by Research, study, and ????
> 
> Just take book of Judith as an example, the place mentioned in the story is only mentioned in this story and nowhere else. Also the events are stated as occurring during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the king “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.” (Judith 1:1, 7 [1:5, 10, Dy]) The introduction and footnotes of this translation point out that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylonia and never reigned in Nineveh, since Nineveh had been destroyed earlier by Nebuchadnezzar’s father (copied from wikipedia)
> 
> ...




The Bible is real now?

You would expect the guys who live around the area to know and could name a few of the cities around it. So why the big surprise?


----------



## Tisme (25 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I've already said I would (assuming your morals coincide with mine). Why, because it makes me feel better that we live in a cooperative society. This feel good factor may be different for others, as I've said and I don't want to repeat myself more than necessary, others may feel good by acquiring wealth and power to the detriment of others.
> 
> Explain to them why this is immoral in your world view.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

Tisme said:


>





Nice little match into the kindling there.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

Tisme said:


>





If you remove "God" from their argument and replace it with, I don't know... Pol Pot, Hitler, our/their Military, Catholic Pope... does it still apply?

Nope.

An Objective morality does not reside in any one entity, be it real or imaginary. 

The act of flattening a city and literally obliterate hundreds of thousands of people - that's immoral and fark up. It does not depends on which side you're looking at it; does not depends on what the victims or their Emperor did.


----------



## Tisme (25 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> If you remove "God" from their argument and replace it with, I don't know... Pol Pot, Hitler, our/their Military, Catholic Pope... does it still apply?




IF you replace HIM with Tony Abbott the morality of the Liberal Party voters shifts with him. Likewise for any political party and its adherents.... it's subjective on the circumstance. The Trinity God is not subjective ....... HIS rulz are the rulz, no facsimile thereof, no correspondence entered into.


----------



## luutzu (25 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> IF you replace HIM with Tony Abbott the morality of the Liberal Party voters shifts with him. Likewise for any political party and its adherents.... it's subjective on the circumstance. The Trinity God is not subjective ....... HIS rulz are the rulz, no facsimile thereof, no correspondence entered into.




And here I thought political parties will always do what it does, regardless of leadership. That leaders are like branding, they give a different feel and vibe, but slight below that fascade it's all the same. Kinda like Home Brand.

Pretty sure the Trinity God has been plagiarised more than a few times over the centuries.

Not sure why people think God is the North Star of high morality. I mean, look at the world He'd created. If I were God I'd be so upset I might start another flood to clean the deck. Alright, so maybe He does have a moral compass of hiding in some corner to wish the bad creations to go away all by itself.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Didn't your phrasing kind of explain itself?
> 
> It is wrong to harm people; it is immoral to intentionally harm people; it's messed up to harm people so you can profit from it.
> 
> ...




Yes you can say all that. Some (VC) say that it is moral to care about other people. I  agree but there are a lot of people who don't care about other people and do all right, by their standards.

 They might say "I've only got one life to live and I want to enjoy it all, others just get in the way. Why should I help if I gain no benefit from it ?". They may not actually tread on other people but they won't go out of their way to help anyone either. Are they moral, amoral or somewhere in between, and what do those words mean anyway ?


----------



## Tink (26 May 2016)

Thanks for your youtubes, Tisme.

How simple was that black and white one, such a joy to watch, no fuss.

The morality one is spot on, in my view. 

We are human beings, not animals, as VC says.

We live in a civilised, orderly society where family is the foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

VC, we probably have much in common on some things, but you pushing your atheist views so far, you have to accept that it has become a religion also, imv.

You can't sit here pointing fingers at Christianity, which is the base of this country and western culture, without accepting atheists own failures.

As I said, I don't care what people believe.


----------



## Tisme (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes you can say all that. Some (VC) say that it is moral to care about other people. I  agree but there are a lot of people who don't care about other people and do all right, by their standards.




I'm not sure that a lot of people don't care, more that they can't handle the emotion and consequences of overt and introvert compassion. There is also the spiritual rules that play out from organised religions.

The behaviours of the "Great Generation" would be quite different to the "Baby Boomer" generation, the first probably less generous with care than the second (based on the staunch and proper behaviours I witnessed)..


----------



## smallwolf (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> The Bible is real now?
> 
> You would expect the guys who live around the area to know and could name a few of the cities around it. So why the big surprise?




maybe I could have worded it better, and used the word 'MANY' or 'MOST' people accept those books as religious novels (fictional) as opposed to historical fact. (MANY <> EVERYONE)

As for the names of cities etc. little different to historical fiction or the general fiction where the author makes up place names, etc. The difference is that these particular book are contained in the bible and some would say that EVERY christian treats every word as LITERAL FACT.


----------



## Tisme (26 May 2016)

Tink said:


> Thanks for your youtubes, Tisme.
> 
> How simple was that black and white one, such a joy to watch, no fuss.
> 
> ...




As usual Tink, you show a degree of civility that others can only envy. Thank goodness I'm comfortable being below par.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I've already said I would (assuming your morals coincide with mine). Why, because it makes me feel better that we live in a cooperative society. This feel good factor may be different for others, as I've said and I don't want to repeat myself more than necessary,.




No, you benefit in a lot more ways than just a "Feel good" factor, Your own and everyone you care about's over all well being is improved on pretty much every level.

You benefit greatly from being able to walk down the street and not be bashed and robbed, you benefit greatly from not having to worry that your children will be raped, your wealth and health benefit greatly by society working together to provide services such as roads and hospitals.

Society acting morally towards one another builds a greater society where everyone benefits on all levels, so acting morally has real world benefits, you don't need to trick people with superstition.



> others may feel good by acquiring wealth and power to the detriment of others.




That will happen, there will always be a few pirates, but pirating in unsustainable as system, eg we can't all be pirates, and a lot of the time those that live by the sword die by the sword, and there short term gains were at the detriment of their long term well being, eg how many gangsters etc live the high life only to end up being killed or jailed, there extra benefits are not free, they put themselves and their families at huge risk.



> Explain to them why this is immoral in your world view




I can easily explain that its immoral, it's then up to them to act based on that knowing the risks, But to say that rather than teach the real world morality we should instead teach that a god is watching is silly, because once they relise that's BS, then without a moral base, they are capable of anything.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, you benefit in a lot more ways than just a "Feel good" factor, Your own and everyone you care about's over all well being is improved on pretty much every level.
> 
> You benefit greatly from being able to walk down the street and not be bashed and robbed, you benefit greatly from not having to worry that your children will be raped, your wealth and health benefit greatly by society working together to provide services such as roads and hospitals.




Of course, and that is why we have LAWS. So obviously, laws are based on morality or is morality based on laws ?

As you say, it's not against the law to gamble, but is it moral to deprive a lot of people of their money to benefit a few ?



> Society acting morally towards one another builds a greater society where everyone benefits on all levels, so acting morally has real world benefits, you don't need to trick people with superstition.





That can be hard to show in some cases. 

There have been many cases of good samaritans stopping to help people in broken down cars and getting run over, or people trying to stop a fight and getting beaten up by the fighters, or people offering medical assistance and later getting sued etc etc, so you will have a hard time convincing people that it's always in their interests to act morally towards others, and a lot of people these days will just look the other way..


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Some might argue that Esther, Tobit and Judith are historical. Others not... You determine it by Research, study, and ????
> 
> Just take book of Judith as an example, the place mentioned in the story is only mentioned in this story and nowhere else. Also the events are stated as occurring during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the king “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.” (Judith 1:1, 7 [1:5, 10, Dy]) The introduction and footnotes of this translation point out that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylonia and never reigned in Nineveh, since Nineveh had been destroyed earlier by Nebuchadnezzar’s father (copied from wikipedia)
> 
> ...




I asked how you tell the facts from the fiction, what I meant was since you know that there is fiction in the bible, and there is little historical evidence for Jesus outside the bible, how can you take the claims of miracles etc seriously, even if there was a Man, how can you believe the miracles?

For example, we accept Julius Ceaser as a historical figure, because we have loads of evidence for him, much more than for Jesus, but we don't take the super natural claims of Ceaser as truth.

I also asked, Do you care if your religion is true? (before I discuss anything more with you I need you to answer this, because there is no point me discussing it if you don't care if its true and you just want to believe because it makes you feel good)


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> ...
> 
> I can easily explain that its immoral, it's then up to them to act based on that knowing the risks, But to say that rather than teach the real world morality we should instead teach that a god is watching is silly, because once they relise that's BS, then without a moral base, they are capable of anything.




That's true.  If we use religion and the fear of God to teach morality.. then some smart azz figured there's no God and religion is full of contradictions, and them going against religion and God's teaching have no consequences - then society as a whole become Capitalist, people hungry for power but not good looking enough strive to become high priest...


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> As usual Tink, you show a degree of civility that others can only envy. Thank goodness I'm comfortable being below par.




yes, thank goodness.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> That's true.  If we use religion and the fear of God to teach morality.. then some smart azz figured there's no God and religion is full of contradictions, and them going against religion and God's teaching have no consequences - then society as a whole become Capitalist, people hungry for power but not good looking enough strive to become high priest...




Maybe it's more dangerous to teach that there is no judgement day so people should just do what they like because there are no consequences.


----------



## smallwolf (26 May 2016)

Firstly, Jesus (or Yeshua) was a common name 2000 years ago. Secondly, the area where Jesus came from would be considered a backwater, so there would no reason to report on what he did. He was also disliked by the other religious groups in the area. 

On his existence... 

I cannot really prove it either, except to rely of writings of people like Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus etc.

On the miracles...

Again, I cannot prove the miracle, anymore than you cannot. 

"...does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that? (http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources)

If you asked me whether I think that Christianity has changed somewhat for the worse since the church became an institution.... probably yes. But that does not negate by belief in (a) God.

At the end of the day, it comes down to faith. I have chosen to believe and you have not. To say it is all superstitious nonsense and fairy tales however is insulting.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> IF you replace HIM with Tony Abbott the morality of the Liberal Party voters shifts with him. Likewise for any political party and its adherents.... it's subjective on the circumstance. The Trinity God is not subjective ....... HIS rulz are the rulz, no facsimile thereof, no correspondence entered into.




I think you are confusing "Objective Morality" with peoples opinions on what Morality is.

Morality is  indeed Objective and is not something that is decided, It doesn't need a god to be objective either.

What makes morality "Objective" vs "Subjective" is that what is moral vs Immoral is based on the scientific facts of the universe, and what effect our actions have on the well being of other thinking beings.

eg, we don't need to invoke a god to have objective morality, whether an action increases or decreases the well being of humans and other thinking creatures is a scientific fact, not a subjective opinion.

----------------------------------

Offcourse we do have to make decisions, which are based on opinions, but those decisions in no way change what the facts are, they will either be right or wrong.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe it's more dangerous to teach that there is no judgement day so people should just do what they like because there are no consequences.




I never said there is no judgement day, you are judged every day, multiple times, by yours peers and society.

In your life you have people that you would do anything for and protect with your life, and you probably have others that you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

My guess, is the people you go out of your way to protect, assist and support are also the ones that to their best to help others, are generally good people, don't rip off others etc etc.

And if you find out that person does hit their wife or rob people, you won't be part of their support system anymore.


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe it's more dangerous to teach that there is no judgement day so people should just do what they like because there are no consequences.




There are consequences either way. Put religion into the mix will first dumb down the masses, make them susceptible to charlatans, pious politicians and other fake religious nuts who spout one thing but do the other.

edit: not either way... God's Judgment Day doesn't exist


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, you benefit in a lot more ways than just a "Feel good" factor, Your own and everyone you care about's over all well being is improved on pretty much every level.
> 
> You benefit greatly from being able to walk down the street and not be bashed and robbed, you benefit greatly from not having to worry that your children will be raped, your wealth and health benefit greatly by society working together to provide services such as roads and hospitals.
> 
> ...




I thought you said you're not a commie.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> There are consequences either way. Put religion into the mix will first dumb down the masses, make them susceptible to charlatans, pious politicians and other fake religious nuts who spout one thing but do the other.




Belief in an afterlife does not require religion. Religions try to pretend that they own the afterlife, but that's their problem.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course, and that is why we have LAWS. So obviously, laws are based on morality or is morality based on laws ?
> 
> As you say, it's not against the law to gamble, but is it moral to deprive a lot of people of their money to benefit a few ?
> ..




I have stated my views that morality is objective not subjective, we had a conversation about it over many posts, laws are made by men, and may or may not be based on the best opinion of moral outcomes, but the fact that mens opinion can be wrong or ignored doesn't change the fact that objective morality exists.

Eg, Smoking is dangerous, so it is immoral to force people to smoke, and it was immoral to force people to smoke even before we knew it was dangerous, learning it was dangerous didn't suddenly change the morality of it, the facts about its effect on human wellbeing meant it was immoral even before smoking was invented.



> That can be hard to show in some cases



. 

You don't have to show it for it to be immoral



> There have been many cases of good samaritans stopping to help people in broken down cars and getting run over, or people trying to stop a fight and getting beaten up by the fighters, or people offering medical assistance and later getting sued etc etc,




That doesn't change anything.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I have stated my views that morality is objective not subjective, we had a conversation about it over many posts, laws are made by men, and may or may not be based on the best opinion of moral outcomes, but the fact that mens opinion can be wrong or ignored doesn't change the fact that objective morality exists.
> 
> Eg, Smoking is dangerous, so it is immoral to force people to smoke, and it was immoral to force people to smoke even before we knew it was dangerous, learning it was dangerous didn't suddenly change the morality of it, the facts about its effect on human wellbeing meant it was immoral even before smoking was invented.




Who forced people to smoke ? 





> That doesn't change anything.




Yes it does. It makes your job harder to convince people that moral behaviour is good for society when there are obvious personal perils in helping others.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I thought you said you're not a commie.




I think you need to find out what communism is.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Who forced people to smoke ?
> .




I didn't say any one did. I am saying that due to what we know about the effects of smoking, we know it would be immoral to force some one to smoke, because this would effect their well being. and that's not based on opinion, its a fact of the real world, as doesn't require a god, the objective facts of the universe make it immoral.

The next thing people will say is , "well doctors used to think it was healthy to smoke, so it used to be moral"

What I am saying is that a persons opinion that something is healthy, doesn't change the actually facts or whether it is healthy, and a practice that harms people is and always will be immoral regardless of the opinions involved.



> Yes it does. It makes your job harder to convince people that moral behaviour is good for society when there are obvious personal perils in helping others




But your argument is that tricking them into believing a god is watching is better.

But if you flip your example around, it also shows that a society where good sumaritans are taken advantage of, is probably going to generate less good sumaritans, so it is in my interests to not take advantage of them, if I want people to help me and my family in the future.


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I think you need to find out what communism is.




Why so serious?

In your crusading mode were you?


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Belief in an afterlife does not require religion. Religions try to pretend that they own the afterlife, but that's their problem.




really? I thought only religion could come up with that kind of stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Belief in an afterlife does not require religion.




It does if you want to build some sort of moral system around that idea.

And then once you have the "religious morals", how do you go about changing them once you realise they are wrong.

If you have convinced people that the moral come from an all knowing all powerful god, once we develop a better understanding of something and know the practice is wrong or that its not harmful, how do we change it without looking like the cherry picking fools from the churches?

people will soon see the religion is false, and that they aren't being watched, and without a sound moral base that comes from real world things they will be open to anything.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Why so serious?
> 
> In your crusading mode were you?




No, it just seems you keep suggesting anything to do with capitalism must be wrong, and any thing to do with helping people or looking after society must be communism.

I don't see anything immoral about capitalism, and I don't see capitalism as preventing social structures forming.

Wanting the people to have access to education, healthcare, social safty nets etc etc isn't a communist thing, its a part of strong capitalist society IMO, I will be richer (wealthier) personally, if society is in general happy, healthy, educated and productive.

offcourse I don't want the social safety nets to encourage society to become unproductive, because then no one benefits long term, productivity boosts every ones standard of living


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It does if you want to build some sort of moral system around that idea.




Well, I don't want to preach to anyone. I have my beliefs and I will tell people what they are if they ask, but I'm not looking for disciples or trying for any sort of theocracy. 

The belief I have is pretty simple. What you give out you get back, either in this life or the next. It's a punishment/reward system or if you prefer a learn by experience system.

I don't really see any need to go into objective morality, in fact this is what rationalwiki says about it



> Objective morality
> J
> Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.
> 
> ...




So my opinion is that morality is subjective and derives from the experiences of people throughout their life (or lives). ie people learn as they live and so their morality developes.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, I don't want to preach to anyone. I have my beliefs and I will tell people what they are if they ask, but I'm not looking for disciples or trying for any sort of theocracy.
> 
> The belief I have is pretty simple. What you give out you get back, either in this life or the next. It's a punishment/reward system or if you prefer a learn by experience system.
> 
> ...




objective morality is bogus when its used in a religious context, but when you are using human wellbeing its not, because things are either good for wellbeing or they aren't, its not an opinion.

What is the best outcome for human wellbeing in any scenario is not subjective, its objective based on facts.

----

its true your understanding (and societies understanding) of morality develops over time, and you may have opinions on what is moral, But that doesn't change the facts of what is objectively moral based on human wellbeing.

Hence my long winded analogy about smoking, eg it was immoral for doctors to prescribe smoking, even though at the time they didn't know it was harmful, it didn't just become immoral the day they learned of the dangers.


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, it just seems you keep suggesting anything to do with capitalism must be wrong, and any thing to do with helping people or looking after society must be communism.
> 
> I don't see anything immoral about capitalism, and I don't see capitalism as preventing social structures forming.
> 
> ...




Oi, I was being sarcastic about the communism stuff. But (partly) true, I don't like the Capitalism bit either.

We all get into trouble when we use terms with ism in it. We all know Communism isn't really communism - or maybe it is but it's not the Socialist -ism that communists proclaims to represent; Same with Capitalism.

Your definition of Capitalism are textbook definition. Capitalism as practised, since ever, has never really been "Capitalism" where free enterprise and innovation and entrepreneurialism triumph over less innovative, less efficient operators and status quo etc. etc.

You talk of capitalism benefiting consumers, emplyees, the community and then shareholder benefits from benefiting all those... yea that's the idealised version. There might be companies and capitalists out there that does that, and I honestly believe that long term value and riches come from creating such value and providing such benefits... BUT...

Just as a business make profit from providing real value; another business could make just as much profit, if not more, by buying politicians, lobbying for certain law, and so corner practically the entire market and providing false choices and only some value (when compare to what a free market and even playing field could otherwise have provided).

In other words, a business could make profit by fair dealing and treat their workers well; or they could make profit just as well through slave labour and harmful products; Business could make money by taking care of their waste, pass that cost on to consumers so we all benefit from clean air etc.; or they just dump the waste into the environment at no cost to themselves, past on that cost to the public through ill health and pollution and eventual cleanup, and get to keep as much if not more profit in their own pocket.

Capitalism as practised is a total disaster. It harm the environment, ill treat the workers, and ill serve the public.

No one said it better than Buffett - probably the most generous Capitalist in the history of the world - that if he was around at Kitty Hawk [?] when the Wright Brothers were testing their aeroplanes, he'd shoot them. Why? Because all investor in airliners have gone broke doing it. 

We don't need to go into the benefit of air travel to the hundreds of million travellers and commerce and all that right?

What Buffett said there show that Capitalist are simply after profit and money - social contribution and well being are incidental. 

So the kind of capital allocation we all love and benefit from... it's not the Capitalism that's out there as the epitome of Capitalism. The innovation and value creation we all want and grant to Capitalists and captain of industries... it's all either through entreprenuers who take great personal and commercial risk, or through small businesses getting a kickstart from grants and contracts for research and development from the gov't.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

> Hence my long winded analogy about smoking, eg it was immoral for doctors to prescribe smoking, even though at the time they didn't know it was harmful, it didn't just become immoral the day they learned of the dangers.




Ok, some some things may be found to be objectively wrong at some time in the future, but so what if we don't know all the facts NOW ?

It seems that you can't accept that people can act morally NOW based on information they have NOW, if their actions are intended to do good, even if at some time in the future it is found that their actions may have caused harm because of information that they weren't aware of ?

And if you don't accept the above then I think you are setting yourself up as some sort of God, expecting people to have unlimited knowledge about all the implications of their actions.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok, some some things may be found to be objectively wrong at some time in the future, but so what if we don't know all the facts NOW ?
> 
> .




I am suggesting we just act as best we can, and make the best decisions we can based on the information we know, and not be scared to change our ideas as we discover new information, Religion based moral systems generally oppose change, eg God said this, so it must be so, forever.



> It seems that you can't accept that people can act morally NOW based on information they have NOW,




Nope, I didn't say that.



> if their actions are intended to do good, even if at some time in the future it is found that their actions may have caused harm because of information that they weren't aware of ?




you are saying morality is subjective, I am saying it's not its based on facts that don't change.

Now Offcourse peoples ideas and understandings can change, but that doesn't change the facts.





> And if you don't accept the above then I think you are setting yourself up as some sort of God, expecting people to have unlimited knowledge about all the implications of their actions




I am not expecting people to have ultimate knowledge of anything, I am saying we should do our best to act morally based on the information we have, and as we learn more and gain a better understanding we should be prepared to change our actions.

I fully accept that a person can make the wrong decisions even though they are trying their best to make moral decisions, that's just a fact of life, but a truly moral person will change their actions when they discover a flaw, a person of religious Amorality probably won't be able to.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

> I fully accept that a person can make the wrong decisions even though they are trying their best to make moral decisions, that's just a fact of life, but a truly moral person will change their actions when they discover a flaw, a person of religious Amorality probably won't be able to.




Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Live and learn right ?

But in that case you seem to be admitting that morality is subjective, ie it can vary with knowledge.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Oi, I was being sarcastic about the communism stuff. But (partly) true, I don't like the Capitalism bit either.
> 
> We all get into trouble when we use terms with ism in it. We all know Communism isn't really communism - or maybe it is but it's not the Socialist -ism that communists proclaims to represent; Same with Capitalism.
> 
> ...




What you are describing of business is no different to people.

Pointing that Pirates exist, in no way suggests or proves that co-operative societies can't and don't exist or that its better for you to choose to be a pirate.

Just as I suggested being a person of poor character will be bad for your well being long term, I suggest being a business of poor character is also bad for you long term.

Rumpoles original comment was that when you make money in capitalism and the stockmarket, you must be creating a victim some where, In general this is not the case.

-------

Even if you are involved in a situation where you make money gambling, that isn't itself immoral either, the counter party that lost entered the transaction willingly.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Live and learn right ?
> 
> But in that case you seem to be admitting that morality is subjective, ie it can vary with knowledge.




No, morality is not subjective, it is fixed, your Understanding of it is subjective though.

eg, the laws of physics are fixed, however our understanding of them is not, we learn more as we go along.

The laws of physics didn't change when man learned to fly, our understanding of the laws of physics and our opinions of what was possible based on the understanding changed, not the laws of physics themselves.

----------

I really can't see why your are struggling to see the difference between a fact that exists regardless of opinion, and a persons understanding of that fact.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I really can't see why your are struggling to see the difference between a fact that exists regardless of opinion, and a persons understanding of that fact.




Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.

You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong. 

You are one who really should know the difference as you were in the Army.

Do you believe that it is an objective morality that murder is wrong ? 

If so, then you should never have joined the Army because you could be expected to murder someone in the course of your duty.

But then you add ifs and buts that justify breaking an objectively moral rule. Your objective morality becomes subjective and therefore the objective morality most likely did not exist in the first place.

I refer you to the rationalwiki quote I posted before.


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> What you are describing of business is no different to people.
> 
> Pointing that Pirates exist, in no way suggests or proves that co-operative societies can't and don't exist or that its better for you to choose to be a pirate.
> 
> ...





Institutionalised Capitalism, aka Corporation, are all bad. Or at least insane. I know this because if you can point me to a morally upright corporation, I wouldn't be buying it. I'd give it an award and a sticker or something. And I can bet you all investors would do the same.

And it is not a case of a few bad apples; not even the case of a corrupt or greedy CEO or parasitic shareholders either.

The way a corporation is structured and endowed with its responsibilities and obligations of its directors... mean it will have to do things that very often results in very corrupt and immoral behaviour. Legal, sure... Right and good? Only some time.


In fact, the only time a corporation could do anything noble and good without strings attached would be when it is still controlled by its founder. But then not all the capitalist are benevolent either.

So we have Buffett - by all account a decent human being. He didn't get generous and kind in his business purchases... he only got to really be himself once he decided to give all the money he himself have away.

Same with Andrew Carnegie; J D Rockefeller. etc. etc.

All these more generous Capitalists break up unions, pay as little as they can and they can because they got friends in high places to make it possible... they exploit and gain for themselves and their shareholders as much as possible and as much as they can get away with from conditions they create to let them get away with - it's all "rational" and part of their innovation and legal obligations. 

So the system is screwed. 

A good example would be, say, any company were to hire me and out of my longterm thinking and strategic this and that, I'd decide to give everyone a 5% pay increase - happy and secured employee makes good quality products/services etc.; do right by the environment etc. etc.

If I or any CEO were to do that kind of stuff, they'd be out of a job for reason of insanity or negligence.

So Capitalism, in setting up incentives and obligations like these... well what do we expect from them?


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.
> 
> You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong.
> 
> ...




That's a bit unfair though.

VC and most soldiers are idealists... they joint to serve their country and protect its people and value. 

Just sometime, or often, such beliefs are taken advantage of by warmongers.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> That's a bit unfair though.
> 
> VC and most soldiers are idealists... they joint to serve their country and protect its people and value.
> 
> Just sometime, or often, such beliefs are taken advantage of by warmongers.




I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.
> 
> .




I never claimed you could reduce it to a formula, 



> You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong.




Yes we often do, but that doesn't change which actual option in a real life scenario would be the most moral




> You are one who really should know the difference as you were in the Army.




Those experience have informed my opinion to a large extent



> Do you believe that it is an objective morality that murder is wrong ?




I think you are confusing "Absolute morality" with "Objective Morality".

But yes, the things that we would put under the "Murder" label would be immoral, But no "Killing" is not always immoral.

Remember its the Religious folk that claim "Absolute" moral rules, not me.



> If so, then you should never have joined the Army because you could be expected to murder someone in the course of your duty.




No, Murder would never be classed as a lawful command.



> But then you add ifs and buts that justify breaking an objectively moral rule.




Again you are confusing Objective morality with Absolute morality.




> Your objective morality becomes subjective and therefore the objective morality most likely did not exist in the first place.




Nope, the most moral option always exists whether we understand it or not.


----------



## cynic (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.




I tend to agree that human understanding of morality is largely subjective and informed through the context of their life experience and/or ideologies.

To my understanding the existence of an objective morality, which can be articulated in absolute terms, remains unproven.

However, the absence of proof, cannot automatically be assumed to equate to proof of absence. 

Can morality be proven to only exist subjectively? Yet again, absence of proof doesn't equate to proof of absence.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

> Nope, the most moral option always exists whether we understand it or not.




If we don't understand it then it has no relevance to our current existence.



> But yes, the things that we would put under the "Murder" label would be immoral, But no "Killing" is not always immoral.




That is splitting hairs. Killing with intent to kill is what all armies do. The same as murder.

People make a value judgement that the enemy's lives are worth less than their own. Subjective.


----------



## Value Collector (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> If we don't understand it then it has no relevance to our current existence.
> 
> 
> .




the laws of physics were relevant long before we had a full understanding of them, and morality affects us and other thinking beings even when we don't understand it, so it's our job to do our best to make the best judgements and develop a moral code that brings us as close to the best objective moral outcomes we can get.

Invoking gods and old holy books is not a pathway to morality.



> That is splitting hairs. Killing with intent to kill is what all armies do. The same as murder.
> 
> People make a value judgement that the enemy's lives are worth less than their own. Subjective




Spoken like someone with no understanding of modern armies and modern soldiering.

When a police officer shoots and kills to defend himself or someone it is his duty to protect is it murder?
If a person killed another terminally ill person as part of a voluntary euthanasia situation would it be murder? 

No it wouldn't,

Intent doesn't determine murder, and not all killing is murder, that's absolute morality stuff, which I said I don't agree with.

There will be times when killing is the best moral choice.

By the way I am not saying there aren't situations where armies have killed immorally, just that not all killing is immoral and in general armies (especially the Australian army) cares a lot about who they kill and why.


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.




Where's Tisme?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Spoken like someone with no understanding of modern armies and modern soldiering.




True. I'm not denying that murder is sometimes justified, I'm saying that when you distinguish between when it is and when it isn't then you make a value judgement that makes the whole question subjective.



> When a police officer shoots and kills to defend himself or someone it is his duty to protect is it murder?
> If a person killed another terminally ill person as part of a voluntary euthanasia situation would it be murder?




Yes. Murder is killing with intent to kill. The above acts satisfy the criteria. 

People who have committed euthanasia have been charged with murder.

 The policeman commits legalised murder. Someone has made a subjective judgement that murder is legal in this circumstance, but he could still be prosecuted if found that he did not have sufficient justification. That's another subjective decision that someone has to make.


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

cynic said:


> I tend to agree that human understanding of morality is largely subjective and informed through the context of their life experience and/or ideologies.
> 
> To my understanding the existence of an objective morality, which can be articulated in absolute terms, remains unproven.
> 
> ...




I think all we need to know about morality and how to carry out lies in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you wish them done unto you.

That rule tend to have been held up by all religion and teachers as a virtue.

So there is no need to be objective or subjective - one simply ask... what I am doing to someone else, would I want that be done to me. 

Yes, even that rule will still cause harm since there are psychos and insane people out there who would kill themselves or wouldn't mind if others do it but they got there first etc.

---

To SirR's point... so we know what is moral and what is immoral... but can we say that a apathetic person, one who only looks out for number one, are they moral or immoral.

I'd probably go with Chomsky's definition of responsibility - that it depends on your position,your situation.

Say you are poor, you have to work hard and are busy to make ends meet. You do the right thing by yourself and your family and you help where you can, but rarely do you help. While here it cannot be said that you're only looking after yourself, but you are not helping anyone or anything else that isn't within your circle.

Are you then immoral or moral? I'd say moral.

But say that person is in a position of previledge, holds a lot of power and influence... and yet they do the same thing - only looking out for themselves. Still don't do any harm to anyone, but don't do any good for anyone else either (let's ignore for the moment the good that's being done through their corporations or business)... Is that person still moral?

I would say no. 

With great power come great responsibility, as Uncle Ben told us.


----------



## cynic (26 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think all we need to know about morality and how to carry out lies in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you wish them done unto you.
> 
> That rule tend to have been held up by all religion and teachers as a virtue.
> ...




Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.

Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.

If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.
> 
> Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.
> 
> If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.




It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?

VC seems to be destroying his own atheist principles. If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?

I'd be interested to hear an answer to that.


----------



## cynic (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?
> 
> VC seems to be destroying his own atheist principles. If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?
> 
> I'd be interested to hear an answer to that.




What is it about God that makes Her objective?

And how would this God be within Her moral rights to deny Her progeny freedom of choice?

And if God is truly objective, what if man is God?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 May 2016)

cynic said:


> What is it about God that makes Her objective?
> 
> And how would this God be within Her moral rights to deny Her progeny freedom of choice?
> 
> And if God is truly objective, what if man is God?




The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?

I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.


----------



## cynic (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?
> 
> I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.




If some authority determines the right moral action, then that moral action is subject to determination by that authority i.e. it becomes subjective.


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.
> 
> Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.
> 
> If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.




Too many sy la bles. Can we stick it to US presidential level please


----------



## luutzu (26 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?
> 
> I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.




Wouldn't that objective test be some sort of "reasonable man" test?

Like Cynic was saying, it can't be based on some "higher" authority because then the "objectiveness" of that moral compass is subject to the entity's moral code.

As my friend Lao Tzu said, the Way that can be defined is not The Way... hence, my other friend said, there is a right moral action, these are its examples, and that is that


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> True. I'm not denying that murder is sometimes justified, .




If it is Justified, it's not "Murder". Murder is a word that is used to describe a Killing that is Unlawful by our law, or more importantly I would describe it as a killing that was immoral.

Not all Killings are murder, if you are going to just use the term Murder to describe all situations where a person is killed by another person, you are confusing the issue, the term Murder isn't used in law or common usage to describe all deaths.

 I'm saying that when you distinguish between when it is and when it isn't then you make a value judgement that makes the whole question subjective.



. 



> People who have committed euthanasia have been charged with murder.




Yes, because in those states Euthanasia is illeagal, so the killing would be "Unlawful" and the legal term Murder can be used.

I personally don't think Euthanasia is Immoral, so I wouldn't use the term to describe that killing.



> Someone has made a subjective judgement that murder is legal in this circumstance,




Offcourse we have to make a subjective judgement, By our subjective judgement doesn't alter the facts of what is actually the best moral outcome based on the facts.

eg, If you fire a bullet, you have to make a judgement about where that bullet will land, But your opinion on where it will land doesn't alter the flight of the bullet, the bullets flight will be determined by the laws of physics whether you understand them or not.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?
> 
> .




No one, the most moral choice is the one that has the best outcome for the well being of the thinking creatures involved, It's not based on a command of a god.


I'm saying that when you distinguish between when it is and when it isn't then you make a value judgement that makes the whole question subjective.





SirRumpole said:


> The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?
> .




Remember I am not saying that there are absolute moral rules eg thy shalt not kill (that's a religious thing)

I am saying in any situation, you will have a whole host of different actions you can take, now out of all of those possible combinations, one of them will result in an outcome that is best for the well being of all those involved.

That's not based on a god commanding it, its based on physics its just how things are.

eg, if I pour acid all over you, I will reduce your wellbeing, so that is immoral to do regardless of my opinion.

But I am not saying there is a cosmic rule like "Thou shalt not pour battery acid on people", Because there may be situations where I can drip a small amount of acid on you to burn off a cancer, and increase your well being, in that situation the most moral choice would be to use the acid.

None of this is commanded by a god, or relies on opinion, its just how things work, in every situation some choices will be better morally than others.

------------------------------------------

Now offcourse whether a doctor decides to use acid or not will be based on his subjective opinion, But that opinion doesn't effect which choice is moral, he will just be right or wrong.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?
> 
> I.




A mans opinion of what is best for human well being, is subjective, different men come to different answers based on their experiences, knowledge etc etc, Some will be closer to the right answer than others.

But when is comes to Objective Morality, I am not talking about what Men think, I am just saying that in any given situation what action is best for the well being of those involved, is not based on opinion (of man or god) its based on what the actual outcome will be and the real world effects on the well being of those involved.

----------------------------------------

Picture Objective Morality as a light on a hill we should all be trying to move towards as we learn more, not a set of fixed rules.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No one, the most moral choice is the one that has the best outcome for the well being of the thinking creatures involved, It's not based on a command of a god.




The real point is, does any of this matter ?

There may be a best "moral" option in every case for all I know, but people will disagree what it is, so the objective moral option always reduces to a subjective one in real life.

If we can't all agree on what the objective morality is in a particular case then the concept is irrelevant.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Institutionalised Capitalism, aka Corporation, are all bad.




I don't agree, I think the average Corporation would have act morally about the same as the average person.

Some good some bad.

If I label a person as a good moral person, I don't mean to say that they have never done the wrong thing, and have lived a "sinless" life as the Christians would say.

I would say a person is of good moral character if in general they try to do the right thing by their fellow people.

I think I am a pretty good person, I go out of my way to make the best moral choices, But offcourse I am not perfect no person or corporation is, But if a persons actions in general add value to those around them and they go out of their way avoid immoral behaviour then I am happy to say they are a good moral person or company.

To judge a company or a person as Bad and Immoral because they aren't perfect is a bit off.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There may be a best "moral" option in every case for all I know, but people will disagree what it is, so the objective moral option always reduces to a subjective one in real life.
> 
> .




Yes people will always disagree, But we want society to move closer and closer to the right choices over time, and that comes through rational reasoned debate based on the reality of the various facts involved and a willingness to change ideas as the facts change , it doesn't come from the absolute rules of religion.

-----------------------------

Opinions on where a rifle bullet will land will vary, but through a rational debate of the facts, and a study of all the variables a sniper will be able to land his bullet very close to that light on the hill, much closer than a religious fanatic quoting old texts, and randomly shooting in the air.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yes people will always disagree, But we want society to move closer and closer to the right choices over time, and that comes through rational reasoned debate based on the reality of the various facts involved and a willingness to change ideas as the facts change , it doesn't come from the absolute rules of religion.
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> Opinions on where a rifle bullet will land will vary, but through a rational debate of the facts, and a study of all the variables a sniper will be able to land his bullet very close to that light on the hill, much closer than a religious fanatic quoting old texts, and randomly shooting in the air.




You are comparing apples with oranges. A bullet is driven by the laws of physics, it doesn't need a debate to know where it lands, one person can work it out knowing the variables, religious fanatic or not.

You keep on quoting the "absolute laws of religion", so I think your views come from your atheistic background. I don't see how anyone needs religion to make up their own minds on morality and not all atheists will agree on what the most moral option is so morals are therefore demonstrably subjective.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> A bullet is driven by the laws of physics,.




So are the factors that affect human well being. That's my point.



> (a Bullet) doesn't need a debate to know where it lands,




Exactly my point again, whether your actions have a negative or positive effect on human well being doesn't depend on a debate, your actions will either increase or decrease human well being based on real world outcomes including physics regardless of your opinion.





> one person can work it out knowing the variables, .




Same with morality, if we had all the variables, we can know whether something will increase or decrease well being of those involved and therefore whether it is moral or immoral.





> I don't see how anyone needs religion to make up their own minds on morality




Neither do I, but the religious folk say that without a god its impossible to know what is moral vs immoral, My whole point is that Morality has to come back to what is good for human well being, and that is based on real facts, not gods and not opinion.






> and not all atheists will agree on what the most moral option is so morals are therefore demonstrably subjective




Not all rifle men will agree where the Bullet will land, But that doesn't make the bullets flight subjective, it makes the persons opinion subjective and the opinion will be either right or wrong.

It's the same with morality, we might have different view points about which is the most moral option because we don't has access to all the variables, but the choice that leads to the outcome which is best for the well being of the individuals involved is not affect by opinion, and the outcome of the choice lands where it lands.

If I say I am going to pour acid on you, and 10 people agree that its the moral thing to do, their opinion will not change the facts of chemistry and biology and make it go for you, your well being will be affected by the facts, which are not subjective.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

Tink said:


> .
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




No Tink, Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, that's it.




> You can't sit here pointing fingers at Christianity, which is the base of this country and western culture, without accepting atheists own failures.




Tink "Atheism" and "Atheists" have no failures that are attributable to Atheism.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods, everything else is something else.

You can be an atheist and be a member of the liberal party or labor party, a meat eater or vegetarian, Communist or capitalist, fighter or pacifist etc etc 

Atheism is just one opinion on one topic, so you can't blame if for any of the other things, if a communist does horrible things, you have to look at the reasons he did it, no one decides to kill people just because they are not convinced a god exists, there must be a host of other opinions etc inspiring that though.

However someone that's been indoctrinated into a religion, can do horrible things based on belief in the religious texts.


----------



## cynic (27 May 2016)

It's funny how some fail to recognise that disbelief in the existence of something, is actually belief in that thing's non existence!

Religion, by its very definition, has more to do with being bound to a set of practices and/or beliefs than it does to questions about afterlives and deities. Some (not all) atheists behave in a very religious manner, and for those individuals, their subscription to atheism has indeed become their religion!


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't agree, I think the average Corporation would have act morally about the same as the average person.
> 
> Some good some bad.
> 
> ...




Nope.

If you ask most people what they want to be when they grow up; ask what give them meaning to their life... you'd get a wide range of answers... most of the answers wouldn't be about making profit and money.

Ask a corporation what is the purpose of their existence and they'll tell you it's for the good of humanity and innovation... oh wait... 

Corporations are there to make profit, true? It's enshrined in the law of most lands that a corporation must first and foremost look after the interests of its shareholders.

That alone does not bode well for moral value.

Yes, interests of shareholders are best gained when the company create more value - it create value when its employees are well rewarded; value when it innovate and be responsible etc. etc.

That, as was said before, might be true to some company... and most of those companies would be the small, young upstart mainly owned by only a handful or a couple of shareholders whose prestige and org.chart and hierarchies have yet to caught up with their cash and thinking yet.

There are many ways to make profit, and the easiest of them does not require innovation or competition or greater efficiency or taking care of employees and the community and environment.

Better and easier money are made by hindering competition, reducing innovation - or only innovate on the company's terms - by creating worker insecurity - so they'd work hard and won't be asking for "special" stuff like fair living wage and sick leaves.

Since these extra innovation and persuasion are more open (affordable) to large corporations with entrench position and large resources... the most innovative and most efficient companies, ones that change the world and provide most value... they tend to come from small upstart.

Take Henry Ford and his all black, one model line of car. Cheaper to make if it's all black and it's all just one model. Serve the same purpose anyway.

Innovation would have to pass his thinking - and his thinking is limited to what makes the most money for his company. 

So when DuPont came to him to sell different colour paint, he tells them where to go. 

Or that guy that invented the windscreen wiper... Ford stole his idea and bet that he won't fight against them in court. It cost the guy his marriage and most of his life to fight... 

Or take Disney... Walt and brother were innovative geniuses... change the film/entertainment industry in their time... 

Look what happen to the latest innovation in animation - CGI/3D... namely Pixar Studios. 

The people who found Pixar worked for Disney Animation. The lead guy was trying something new, his manager gave approval to do some tests... they showed it to the CEO and they promptly got fired before they got back to their desk.

It took the financing of an out of work Steve Jobs to fund Pixar... and they made their money from some commercial and some minor special effects, getting close to bankruptcy a couple times and would have gone down the tube if it weren't for Jobs. 

There are "rumours" that the fossil fuel industry bought a bunch of electric car/battery tech start ups and shelved it. There's conspiracy theories that GM trialled their electric car over two decades ago but figured the spare parts/after market business, the infrastructure and plants and know how they've set up... it just does not make economic sense to pursue a new risky venture... 

There's a bunch of examples, and I haven't read that many business bio. 

Yet it's these corporations that we all see as the epitome of Capitalism... And honestly, these are the nicer ones. There's the Opium trade and the war to force it down people's throat; the slave trade; child labour; sweat shops; tainted meat etc. etc.

So Capitalism as we like to believe - the big skyscrapers with worldwide networks... these are generally bad for society.

The good kind of capitalism - the entrepreneurial spirits, competition, fair dealing, value creation... these are found mostly in smaller cooperatives and mum and pop operations. And these are prevalent everywhere.

So while Capitalism as the Corporations might like to sell themselves as freedom and liberty and democracy and all that is good... Like most sales job, it's full of it.

I don't know what we'd call a good or ideal society, but it's not Capitalism.


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2016)

cynic said:


> It's funny how some fail to recognise that disbelief in the existence of something is actually belief in that thing's non existence!
> 
> Religion, by its very definition, has more to do with being bound to a set of practices and/or beliefs than it does to questions about afterlives and deities. Some (not all) atheists behave in a very religious manner and for those individuals their subscription to atheism has indeed become their religion!




Were you referring to VC? 

He's borderline what you're saying, but not really. 

I think he believes in people's right to practice religion, just he figured they're pretty immoral and idiotic. Maybe that's just me talking about myself


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I don't know what we'd call a good or ideal society, but it's not Capitalism.




This might be of interest to you and others.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/berg-greens'-innovation-plan/7439642


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> If you ask most people what they want to be when they grow up; ask what give them meaning to their life... you'd get a wide range of answers... most of the answers wouldn't be about making profit and money.
> 
> Ask a corporation what is the purpose of their existence and they'll tell you it's for the good of humanity and innovation... oh wait...
> 
> ...




Hang on, since when is making money immoral?

Ask the average guy on the street if they would be working at their job for free and I bet very few would actually work for free, its a matter of practicality.

You seem to have a warped view that, making a profit equals immorality, and that some how you can't be doing a good thing if you are making money.


A profit is just your share of the value that got created. 







> Or that guy that invented the windscreen wiper... Ford stole his idea and bet that he won't fight against them in court. It cost the guy his marriage and most of his life to fight...




That goes exactly along with my answer, the average company is probably as moral as the average person, in society you will have people that do immoral things from time to time, and some companies will do immoral things.

Some people will work for free, but most work for money, that doesn't mean they are immoral.



> Or take Disney... Walt and brother were innovative geniuses... change the film/entertainment industry in their time...
> 
> Look what happen to the latest innovation in animation - CGI/3D... namely Pixar Studios.
> 
> ...




The world is full of individuals and companies that miss opportunities, I don't think that makes them immoral.



> There are "rumours" that the fossil fuel industry bought a bunch of electric car/battery tech start ups and shelved it. There's conspiracy theories that GM trialled their electric car over two decades ago but figured the spare parts/after market business, the infrastructure and plants and know how they've set up... it just does not make economic sense to pursue a new risky venture...




Lets not get into conspiracy theories.


----------



## cynic (27 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Were you referring to VC?
> 
> He's borderline what you're saying, but not really.
> 
> I think he believes in people's right to practice religion, just he figured they're pretty immoral and idiotic. Maybe that's just me talking about myself




Let's not make this about a solitary poster. The behaviours I described are alarmingly common within society. Hence, it comes as no surprise to me, that those behaviours have been exhibited by various posters (past and present) across many threads within this forum.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Lets not get into conspiracy theories.




Even if they are true.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Some (not all) atheists behave in a very religious manner, and for those individuals, their subscription to atheism has indeed become their religion!




you have a very broad definition of religion, by your definition most here are part of the "not believing in vampires religion" and the "Not believing in Big foot religion"

The fact is we all have things we aren't convinced exist, that doesn't mean we have a religion, it just means we aren't convinced.

I am open to being convinced, so far I have never seen any good reason to believe, hence I am unconvinced so I am an atheist, no religion there.

-----------------------


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Even if they are true.



 he admitted he didn't know if they were true.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think he believes in people's right to practice religion, just he figured they're pretty immoral and idiotic. Maybe D




Spot on exactly, also I don't want them to force these silly beliefs onto the rest of us.

When it comes to Morality, If they want to instill a moral rule, they need secular reasoning say "But Gawd Said X" or "Jebus said" etc etc doen't cut it.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> you have a very broad definition of religion, by your definition most here are part of the "not believing in vampires religion" and the "Not believing in Big foot religion"




I think the propensity of some to frequent social media and act as evangelists for anti religion certainly shows that they behave in a similar way to religious zealots.

They have every right to do so of course.


----------



## cynic (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> you have a very broad definition of religion, by your definition most here are part of the "not believing in vampires religion" and the "Not believing in Big foot religion"
> 
> The fact is we all have things we aren't convinced exist, that doesn't mean we have a religion, it just means we aren't convinced.
> 
> ...




Again you display your complete misunderstanding of the word religion. 

Note the inclusion of the word "bound" in my post. So how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that anyone disbelieving a thing is somehow automatically bound to their disbelief!


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Hang on, since when is making money immoral?
> 
> Ask the average guy on the street if they would be working at their job for free and I bet very few would actually work for free, its a matter of practicality.
> 
> ...




I didn't say that making money is immoral; or that it is immoral to not work for free. Did not say that.

What I said was that if a person, or a corporation... if their main driver is to make money, then they will be forced into immoral act.


A person who want to do good, who want to contribute their talent and effort to society... they can decide what field they want to work in; what work they would do and what work would be out of the question - that certain things money just cannot buy.

You're saying, yea but corporations do all sort of things too. 

Maybe the upstart would choose and decide what area to get into; what industry they can do the most good and produce the most value to society and themselves... But larger corporations, in having already established their position, having already built that castle... they will do anything to defend it.

And defending castles and profitable positions often does not mean doing moral or innovative things; it often mean having to scuttle innovation and kick those upstart to the curb. That, then, mean corporations are often immoral.

The nicest thing you can say about them is that they're amoral.

So take the fossil fuel industry... 

If you're the CEO of the major players, owning all those assets and fields and knowhow... would you really, seriously, permit alternative sources? Would you make investment in alternative?

You might do it for PR purposes but the real money is in doing what you've done best and what you have the most. So if that mean the world may go the heck, that's another opportunity for another day.

---

I don't know the mind of psychopaths, but it's really strange... You can get a perfectly decent person, put them in a position where their responsibility is for the "greater good".. .and if that greater good mean cost cutting must be made, older workers could be replaced with machines or younger and cheaper graduates... you'd do it regardless of the consequences to other parties - these are what they call "externalities", or, other people's problem.

That why most politicians and business leaders look and sound pretty stupid. Not because they are, but because they think their role and responsibility mean they'd have to do certain things and so verbal and logical gymnastics have to be done to sell it to the public and to themselves.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Again you display your complete misunderstanding of the word religion.
> 
> Note the inclusion of the word "bound" in my post. So how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that anyone disbelieving a thing is somehow automatically bound to their disbelief!




To be honest I think your use of the word religion is a stretch, and not how most people would use it in common usage.

this is the definition most would like of.



> the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. a particular system of faith and worship.


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Spot on exactly, also I don't want them to force these silly beliefs onto the rest of us.
> 
> When it comes to Morality, If they want to instill a moral rule, they need secular reasoning say "But Gawd Said X" or "Jebus said" etc etc doen't cut it.




Yup.

My wife call be a bigot because I don't believe in religion and are amused by those who do.

To which I replied, I believe they are perfectly welcome to practice and pray to whatever god... So how am I intolerant? Just you can't seriously think that believing in god are just as rational as laughing at it.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I didn't say that making money is immoral; or that it is immoral to not work for free. Did not say that.
> 
> .




I thought that's what you were implying when you said "Corporations are there to make profit, true?"



> What I said was that if a person, or a corporation... if their main driver is to make money, then they will be forced into immoral act.




I don't think that is true, offcourse both people and companies can go astray, but its not anymore likely for the average company than it is for the average person.



> A person who want to do good, who want to contribute their talent and effort to society... they can decide what field they want to work in; what work they would do and what work would be out of the question - that certain things money just cannot buy.




Companies can decide which fields they want to enter also.




> But larger corporations, in having already established their position, having already built that castle... they will do anything to defend it.




 There is limits to that, and many of the main things that can be done to defend it are good, eg lower prices, better parking, better service etc etc



> If you're the CEO of the major players, owning all those assets and fields and knowhow... would you really, seriously, permit alternative sources? Would you make investment in alternative?




Many of the players are making investments in the alternatives, But I think you are buying to much into the conspiracy theories there.



> You might do it for PR purposes but the real money is in doing what you've done best and what you have the most. So if that mean the world may go the heck, that's another opportunity for another day



.

Yeah, because its still profitable and the world still relies on you, it would be immoral to shut down oil production tomorrow, we would all starve, but they aren't stopping companies like tesla, or the solar and wind generators etc.

---



> You can get a perfectly decent person, put them in a position where their responsibility is for the "greater good".. .and if that greater good mean cost cutting must be made, older workers could be replaced with machines or younger and cheaper graduates... you'd do it regardless of the consequences to other parties



- 

What's immoral about replacing people with machines?

That is probably one of the single biggest factors in the increase of living standards over the last 100years.

If we said that productivity and efficiency should be reduced in favour of more employees on every factory and farm, our living standards would be terrible, that's not good for human wellbeing

Could you imagine the man hours of back breaking labour it would have taken to harvest this corn field by hand??? Here its done in probably a day, by a couple of men sitting in air conditioned cabs earning more money than the guys with sickles.

 

.


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> This might be of interest to you and others.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/berg-greens'-innovation-plan/7439642




Na, that's just all PR electioneering fluff.

To have any hope of a better society we must learn from the (ancient) Chinese and de-emphasize merchants and corporations. We have to really put the people, the real heroes, on top of the social altar.

Merchants and corporations have no allegiance to any state or any people - they only have to serve themselves and their owners. 

To then put these "Captain of industries" and Masters of the universe up as role model... well we get the society we deserve doing that.

If we pay teachers so little, have little respect for them... well who in their right mind would want to be teachers? If we see scientists who dedicate their life to cure disease or map the climate and warn of potential disasters... if we see them being fired and their job and income security cut whenever other people feel like... all kids would grow up wanting to go into business and high finance, and even politics.


----------



## cynic (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> To be honest I think your use of the word religion is a stretch, and not how most people would use it in common usage.
> 
> this is the definition most would like of.




No stretching is required for those knowing the meaning of the latin word "ligare".


----------



## luutzu (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I thought that's what you were implying when you said "Corporations are there to make profit, true?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Solar technology has been around soon after the NASA space programme got started. Why hasn't the US been a leader in that clean and renewable energy?

Solar has only really taken off maybe past 15 years?

Tesla wouldn't have gotten off the ground if oil weren't so high, and if state and fed gov't didn't practically finance a big chunk of "his" vision for no equity ownership at all.

And the current oil crash... basically a play to stall investment into alternatives, fracking but also solar and electric vehicles.

----
Yea, profit as the sole motive and driver is the root of evil. 

A person who would do anything for money is also not a nice person either. I've met some... not good.

As the Joker said, if you're not at what you do, don't do it for free. So yea, get paid for your good work - that is only fair and is to be expected as it not only rewards but also encourage good, efficient work.

But when a corporation is big and influential enough, they could make profit by means that are not productive or innovative or good. And that's the root of their problem.

Then it becomes the root of all our problems when these corporations and their owners get rich enough they buy political influence and start financing universities and textbooks and media... all to present us with false choices.

Do we really need a new iPhone every year? Does trickle economic really work? Do we really only need electric cars? What about more efficient and more cost effective public transport systems? 

Saw a doco where Alfred P. Sloan of GM practically drove the cheap, cleaner, more efficient US Tram system off American streets. All so GM could sell more of their buses - and the parts and service that comes with it. Good business move for GM, bad for America.


----------



## Value Collector (27 May 2016)

cynic said:


> No stretching is required for those knowing the meaning of the latin word "ligare".




That's a stretch in itself.

Words are used to convey meaning and describe something, just as Rumpoles use of the word Murder to describe all killings regardless of the situation confuses the issue, so does you usage of the word religion,


----------



## cynic (27 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> That's a stretch in itself.
> 
> Words are used to convey meaning and describe something, just as Rumpoles use of the word Murder to describe all killings regardless of the situation confuses the issue, so does you usage of the word religion,




Where do you think the word religion originated?!Again no stretching required, just an english dictionary. The word "ligare" can be found mentioned in many english dictionaries when one actually takes the time to look up the word "religion"

Please do me the courtesy of investigating the actual facts before falsely accusing me of stretching definitions.


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Where do you think the word religion originated?!Again no stretching required, just an english dictionary. The word "ligare" can be found mentioned in many english dictionaries when one actually takes the time to look up the word "religion"
> 
> Please do me the courtesy of investigating the actual facts before falsely accusing me of stretching definitions.




As I said, when the vast majority of people are using a word to describe a certain thing, it's confusing to switch it around and inject an alternate meaning into the conversation, it's called bait and switch, or the ambiguity fallacy.

But either way as I mention months ago, I am not to interested in your word games, so I will leave it to you.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> As I said, when the vast majority of people are using a word to describe a certain thing, it's confusing to switch it around and inject an alternate meaning into the conversation, it's called bait and switch, or the ambiguity fallacy.
> 
> But either way as I mention months ago, I am not to interested in your word games, so I will leave it to you.




Thankyou for your perspective on this. I know just how uncomfortable some people become when confronted by the reality that their behaviour is largely indifferentiable from those they hastily accuse of same.


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Thankyou for your perspective on this. I know just how uncomfortable some people become when confronted by the reality that their behaviour is largely indifferentiable from those they hastily accuse of same.




No, I am just not interested in spending to much time discussing things with people that constantly retreat back to the same logical fallacies.

Your Favourite logical fallacy in called "The Ambiguity fallacy", I explain this to you months ago, and ended the dialogue with you, I am doing the same now.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity



> why are you being accused of Ambiguity fallacy?
> 
> You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
> 
> Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading



.


---------------------------------------------

Words often have multiple meanings, and are used to describe different things, if in a conversation you try and accuse a person of something by switching the usage of a word, you are guilty of the ambiguity fallacy.

For example the word faith a couple of meanings, It can mean

1, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof

2, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

If we are talking about religious faith, and I say I don't have any, and then you switch the conversation to the second meaning of faith and accuse me of lying because I have trust and confidence in some things based on evidence, you derailing the conversation and I am not interested in pursuing a dialogue as I see it as a dishonest thing, especially when its been explained to you multiple times.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> No, I am just not interested in spending to much time discussing things with people that constantly retreat back to the same logical fallacies.
> 
> Your Favourite logical fallacy in called "The Ambiguity fallacy", I explain this to you months ago, and ended the dialogue with you, I am doing the same now.
> 
> ...



Well, well! Look who's playing word games now!

It seems that some do indeed have strong faith in the doctrine of ambiguity fallacy!

And that's what makes it religious!


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

> What's immoral about replacing people with machines?




That's where morality is so malleable. I'm sure no company thinks it's immoral to replace people with machines because obviously it relieves those people of the tedium of doing repetitive work.

So who looks after the displaced people ? Not the company of course. They may never work again, but that's someone else's problem isn't it ?


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

VC, since you like that particular site, you might want to take a look at the "special pleading" fallacy. In particular note the use of the word "faith" in the accompanying example.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

That "yourlogicalphallacyis" site is very amusing. 

There's a very noticeable ""metaphysics is false" flavour permeating many of the examples it offers.

This leads me to suspect that it may have been constructed to serve as a tool kit for the purpose of disarming those arguing the merits of theism, metaphysics and/or complementary medicine. 

Upon stating this, one might choose to counter argue by accusing me of the commission of several "logical" fallacies, such as "ad hominem fallacy", "genetic faĺlacy", "tu quoque fallacy" and the "fallacy fallacy", all easily locatable within that one convenient website.

However, such action is ill advised for the simple reason that, anyone accusing so,  will suddenly find themselves guilty of some of those very same "fallacies"!

Edit: I forgot to mention, that site can be easily shown to have committed several of it's very own "logical fallacies"


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That's where morality is so malleable. I'm sure no company thinks it's immoral to replace people with machines because obviously it relieves those people of the tedium of doing repetitive work.
> 
> So who looks after the displaced people ? Not the company of course. They may never work again, but that's someone else's problem isn't it ?




machines have been steadily replacing human labour for at least 300 years, and it's created a more productive society, better working conditions and an increase in the standard of living.

It's better for society long term, I mean now 1 farmer is more productive than 100 farmers from 200 years ago, are you saying we should go back to old methods just to keep people employed?

-----------------

Generally the employment level will be maintained by an increase in jobs in other areas, but if we got to the stage where unemployment was really increasing due to automation, and huge areas of production were Completely automated, we could lower the retirement age, lower working hours etc.

I don't think we should resist productivity, I would love it if we got that advanced there was no need for human labour.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Generally the employment level will be maintained by an increase in jobs in other areas, but if we got to the stage where unemployment was really increasing due to automation, and huge areas of production were Completely automated, we could lower the retirement age, lower working hours etc.




That sounds like a complete cop out to me, unless you are suggesting that the corporate sector pay higher taxes in order to pay more pensions.



> I don't think we should resist productivity, I would love it if we got that advanced there was no need for human labour.




So would I , but it would probably mean no more private companies because the tax rates that they would have to pay in order to compensate for zero employment would be a disincentive to run businesses. They would have to be government owned with all the proceeds going into a general pension scheme.


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That sounds like a complete cop out to me, unless you are suggesting that the corporate sector pay higher taxes in order to pay more pensions.
> 
> 
> 
> So would I , but it would probably mean no more private companies because the tax rates that they would have to pay in order to compensate for zero employment would be a disincentive to run businesses. They would have to be government owned with all the proceeds going into a general pension scheme.




High taxes might have to be the case, if we really got to the stage where almost all the work was automated we might have to have almost everybody on the dole and to earn extra you have to invest and own a piece of the system.

No it wouldn't have to be government owned, you would just make the pension a really low based pension with the idea that most of society owns the productive economy, rather than teaching kids to think about what they want to 
do for a job, we would teach them to be investors.


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> That sounds like a complete cop out to me, unless you are suggesting that the corporate sector pay higher taxes in order to pay more pensions.
> 
> 
> 
> So would I , but it would probably mean no more private companies because the tax rates that they would have to pay in order to compensate for zero employment would be a disincentive to run businesses. They would have to be government owned with all the proceeds going into a general pension scheme.




Higher taxes might have to be the case, but companies should have more money to pay taxes because they aren't paying as many staff, if we really got to the stage where almost all the work was automated we might have to have almost everybody on the dole and to earn extra you have to invest and own a piece of the system.

There would be a push from both sides, eg the increased productivity of automation would flow through to other parts of society either through the ability to pay higher taxes to fund pensions while still earning a satisfactory return on investment, or lower prices and decreased cost of living, so pensions could be lower.

No it wouldn't have to be government owned, you would just make the pension a really low based pension with the idea that most of society owns the productive economy, rather than teaching kids to think about what they want to 
do for a job, we would teach them to be investors.


----------



## luutzu (28 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> machines have been steadily replacing human labour for at least 300 years, and it's created a more productive society, better working conditions and an increase in the standard of living.
> 
> It's better for society long term, I mean now 1 farmer is more productive than 100 farmers from 200 years ago, are you saying we should go back to old methods just to keep people employed?
> 
> ...




I think we're all for innovation and greater productivity. But it would be wrong to assume that greater innovation and productivity comes from the bigger companies - or that greater advances comes from, and thus need, large corporations - that is, economy of scales and argument along that line.

If you look at any period of greatest change and greatest innovation, it's always when there are no established, no dominant player. Once the less funded and less effective and least adopted of the start ups get weeded out and a few giant remains... the pace of competition and innovation also slowed then grind to a halt soon after.

Not saying that large corporations do not innovate or are no good at all... they do innovate, but innovation on their own terms and using the resources they already control. So it's not much of innovative break throughs, but merely incremental changes. 

Example... Apple is going to keep adding different shades to their iPhones and sizes to their iPads forever if no other upstart comes along. And so far, maybe SamSung is the only other guy of any match. But changes and greater innovation on these tablets and smart phone seem to be coming from smaller manufacturers or developers. Such as the simple torch app on all smart phones nowadays; the free text messaging and phone app you have to download.

So as great an innovation as the iPhone was, it's not going to allow free and cheap phone calls on its devices through internet connections - this despite the readily available tech. It's obvious why that is.

---

Take the corn harvester and mechanised farming you pointed to...

That kind of innovation are welcomed by all interested and powerful parties - the fact that it is also beneficial to most humans are just a bonus.

How?

For every two guys sitting in an airconditioned cabin harvesting, some 200 labourer are now free. Free to join the military and its Global Liberation Army - now readying for deloying in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Yemen, and soon the South China Sea, East China Sea and Eastern Europe. 

Drones now take some of the heavy lifting so some unemployed will use drugs - more excuse to renew that war on drugs and take out a few South American cartel and gov't. 

Then with the greater effiency in agriculture, there is greater need for Frankenseeds, non-organic fertilisers from fossil fuel industry, chemical pest controls and etc. etc. Good for business.

Greater efficiency with a lot of gov't financial backing mean American ag. can easily put less productive countries ag. out of business. Thereby weakening their economies with unemployed, drove off the farm farmers who will eventually join the foreign aid lines to get some food.

With that, the US and richer nations can use food as a tool in their foreign policy bag. 

So innovation and efficiency... but only when it serve the "national" and major vested interests.

One could argue that it is healthier to eat local. Cheaper and more efficient to eat from produce from your outback. Why must fruits and grain etc. have to be shipped from across the world? A whole bunch of chemicals must be use to keep it "fresh", a great deal of costs goes into transportation and distribution... 

If such system are subsidised long enough, the poorer countries with non-thinking leaders will give up their nation's food security and will literally live or die at the will of other people - and a lot of African and other poor countries have suffered from just that. I can point to an old doco.

That's not to mention the loss of farming jobs. And no, people in poor countries do not need robots and machines to replace them - there's farming or there's unemployment. There's very little opportunities in other industry just waiting for their skill  - and those opportunities are often taken up by sons and relatives of the ruling elite.

This is not to say that I'm against innovation and productivity... but it ought to come from within a more localised and indigenous population - not having "more productive" goods flood their market and drove them off their land and seek refuge and be exploited in alien land.

There is a place for large corporations, but not in an ideal world.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

Well it comes down to your moral system.

You are a CEO of a company. You have 10 loyal and productive workers that you can replace with one machine.

Do you have a moral responsibility to them ?


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well it comes down to your moral system.
> 
> You are a CEO of a company. You have 10 loyal and productive workers that you can replace with one machine.
> 
> Do you have a moral responsibility to them ?




Does that same CEO have a moral responsibility to shareholders to ensure the company remains sufficiently competitive to survive?


----------



## luutzu (28 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Higher taxes might have to be the case, but companies should have more money to pay taxes because they aren't paying as many staff, if we really got to the stage where almost all the work was automated we might have to have almost everybody on the dole and to earn extra you have to invest and own a piece of the system.
> 
> There would be a push from both sides, eg the increased productivity of automation would flow through to other parts of society either through the ability to pay higher taxes to fund pensions while still earning a satisfactory return on investment, or lower prices and decreased cost of living, so pensions could be lower.
> 
> ...




I caught a bit of an interview with some former McDonalds' CEO... and the old rich guy was saying how Sanders $15 an hour minimum wage will put millions out of work.

Why? Because he just went to some expo where there are machines that cost $35K and will do all the chips you ever need. 

So I'm guessing that workers will either have to "study hard" and move up from the "temporary" job at McDonalds or be replaced if they ask for a living wage.

I guess the same goes for all the workers at all the other US chicken corporations - either wear diapers or crap your pants or don't drink or eat while you're stuck to the production line... else we'll replace you with some other machine we'll surely come up with if you dare ask for a toilet break with your meal break.

----

To have people wanting to run their own business, be their own boss... you will have to reduce the size and influence of big corporations. 

If we allow corporations to dominate, and we are despite what we hear in the press, they will destroy jobs and communities.

Take the supermarket giants... where they open up smaller retailers will soon closed. And if it later prove that the area is not profitable enough, these retail giants will move the heck out of town and the local communities will better hope the family that used to run a local supermarket or bakery haven't kill themselves or forced into early and indefinite retirement from too much debt while they were at war with the big boys.


----------



## luutzu (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Does that same CEO have a moral responsibility to shareholders to ensure the company remains sufficiently competitive to survive?




Since when does management have any moral responsibility to shareholders? 

Just bigger bonuses and more perks with free investor capital


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Does that same CEO have a moral responsibility to shareholders to ensure the company remains sufficiently competitive to survive?




Of course yes, but imo a truly moral CEO would not consider shareholders his only moral responsibility.


----------



## luutzu (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course yes, but imo a truly moral CEO would not consider shareholders his only moral responsibility.




If the company is smaller, if the workers also own the business - and I don't mean a few hundred shares out of a billion shares - then all parties are better served, including the consumers.

Imagine Steve firing Joe down the street so he could get a bigger bonus and get that latest BMW. Or that Joe turn up and does the bare minimum he could get away with. Or the company they run could dump the waste onto the river and lakes they all bring their kids to on picnics.

The company these co-op would run might not be as "profitable" as the accounting system want, but that's because its profits are shared and doesn't just go to some idiot from far far away.


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well it comes down to your moral system.
> 
> You are a CEO of a company. You have 10 loyal and productive workers that you can replace with one machine.
> 
> Do you have a moral responsibility to them ?




I don't think companies are responsible to give people life time employment, you are generally hired to fill a role, and if that role becomes obselete and you are no longer needed, the company has no moral obligation to keep you especially in a country with social safety nets.

A responsible company would probably try to reallocate staff into other areas, if there are still tomany staff let the oldest staff retire, and give people plenty of notice and they should be fine. It really is every persons job to take care of them selves if you are living pay check to pay check after 20 years you need to look at your self.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think companies are responsible to give people life time employment, you are generally hired to fill a role, and if that role becomes obselete and you are no longer needed, the company has no moral obligation to keep you especially in a country with social safety nets.
> 
> A responsible company would probably try to reallocate staff into other areas, if there are still tomany staff let the oldest staff retire, and give people plenty of notice and they should be fine. It really is every persons job to take care of them selves if you are living pay check to pay check after 20 years you need to look at your self.




And you think you are a moral person crapping on about morals being to do with the well being of others ?

So your morals boil down to everyone for themselves ?

Glad we got down to the nitty gritty of your argument.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course yes, but imo a truly moral CEO would not consider shareholders his only moral responsibility.



So if the company were to fail by losing it's competitive edge, what would then happen to the company employees and the shareholders?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> So if the company were to fail by losing it's competitive edge, what would then happen to the company employees and the shareholders?




Lots of things could be done. Retraining and placement in other areas of the firm, getting the employees jobs elsewhere etc.

Are you are suggesting that morality has no place in business ?


----------



## luutzu (28 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think companies are responsible to give people life time employment, you are generally hired to fill a role, and if that role becomes obselete and you are no longer needed, the company has no moral obligation to keep you especially in a country with social safety nets.
> 
> A responsible company would probably try to reallocate staff into other areas, if there are still tomany staff let the oldest staff retire, and give people plenty of notice and they should be fine. It really is every persons job to take care of them selves if you are living pay check to pay check after 20 years you need to look at your self.


----------



## luutzu (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> So if the company were to fail by losing it's competitive edge, what would then happen to the company employees and the shareholders?




Why must greater efficiency comes at the costs of firing people?

First, don't hire too many people. Management are paid to plan ahead right?

Second, if times are tough, ask all in the company to make sacrifices. e.g. All take every second Friday off instead of firing 10% of the workforce in one hit. Maybe the CEO get a pay cut. 

Then as SirR was saying... retrain, put real effort into investment and innovation to expand markets and sales.

To hire then fire with every annual report to make the numbers may actually do more harm to the company's long term economic future. Morale will go; those who can will get the heck out; those who are better at pleasing the boss get to stay... Companies like that will sooner or later close or be taken over.

ey, I'm starting to feel like the ugly chick at an orgy. ha ha


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Lots of things could be done. Retraining and placement in other areas of the firm, getting the employees jobs elsewhere etc.
> 
> Are you are suggesting that morality has no place in business ?




What I am saying is that sometimes the moral decision isn't nearly so straightforward as some like to think. If the company goes down all employees and shareholders will be impacted.

Some years ago, I recall seeing a news report of an incident on a naval vessel where the captain had the unenviable task of making a difficult decision to prevent the ship from sinking. He commanded the requisite actions, knowing full well, that a number of sailors were certain to perish as a direct consequence.

Would those sailors have died alongside many others if the ship had been allowed to sink? If not, would a larger number of other sailors have perished instead? Or was the value of the ship generally seen as outweighing the lives of sailors?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> What I am saying is that sometimes the moral decision isn't nearly so straightforward as some like to think. If the company goes down all employees and shareholders will be impacted.
> 
> Some years ago, I recall seeing a news report of an incident on a naval vessel where the captain had the unenviable task of making a difficult decision to prevent the ship from sinking. He commanded the requisite actions, knowing full well, that a number of sailors were certain to perish as a direct consequence.
> 
> Would those sailors have died alongside many others if the ship had been allowed to sink? If not, would a larger number of other sailors have perished instead? Or was the value of the ship generally seen as outweighing the lives of sailors?





Running a company is not a matter of life and death. Let's not get sidetracked.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Why must greater efficiency comes at the costs of firing people?




My comments were in relation to another poster's questioning of the moral duty of a CEO in the hypothetical scenario where an opportunity to replace 10 employees with one machine is present!

Please consider them within that context.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Running a company is not a matter of life and death. Let's not get sidetracked.




It may be life and death to the careers of the staff, the wealth of the shareholders and the company itself!

Think of the ship as a company that needs to remain afloat in a competitive environment, the sailors are the staff, and the captain is the CEO!

Please do not pretend that you don't see some parrallels with moral dilemmas faced by captains/CEOs.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> It may be life and death to the careers of the staff, the wealth of the shareholders and the company itself!
> 
> Think of the ship as a company that needs to remain afloat in a competitive environment, the sailors are the staff, and the captain is the CEO!
> 
> Please do not pretend that you don't see some parrallels with moral dilemmas faced by captains/CEOs.




There are always parallels you can draw, but please don't pretend to equate letting people die with giving them the sack. If you do, then I have doubts about your sanity. 

As you said yourself, please keep it within the context originally discussed.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There are always parallels you can draw, but please don't pretend to equate letting people die with giving them the sack. If you do, then I have doubts about your sanity.




Whether it be loss of life or loss of employment, the key point is that the loss (and not the degree of severity) is simply one of several parallels in the analogy I presented. The difficult moral dilemma faced by the person in charge is another.

However, given that I recognise how unpalatable discussions pertaining to loss of life can be, let's take things down a couple of notches by pretending that the sailors only stood to have a bit of an unpleasant experience before losing their jobs.

Well we just made the captains job one heck of a lot easier! Now all that he has to do to save the ship is make a decision knowing that a few sailors will lose their jobs.

Was his decision morally correct?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Whether it be loss of life or loss of employment, the key point is that the loss (and not the degree of severity) is simply one of several parallels in the analogy I presented. The difficult moral dilemma faced by the person in charge is another.
> 
> However, given that I recognise how unpalatable discussions pertaining to loss of life can be, let's take things down a couple of notches by pretending that the sailors only stood to have a bit of an unpleasant experience before losing their jobs.
> 
> ...




I can't say unless I know what other options he had for the sailors other than to sack them. Company directors do have other options as I have said, which makes this comparison ridiculous.


----------



## cynic (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I can't say unless I know what other options he had for the sailors other than to sack them. Company directors do have other options as I have said, which makes this comparison ridiculous.




Those other options you mention typically require resources, (most notably time and money). Reckless expenditure of either, serves to diminish the efficiencies gained elsewhere. So much for retaining a competitive edge in the face of the changing tides of commerce!

The captain needs to act quickly! There may not be sufficient time to get those unfortunate sailors into a safer position before the entire ship goes past the point of redemption!


----------



## Value Collector (28 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> And you think you are a moral person crapping on about morals being to do with the well being of others ?
> 
> So your morals boil down to everyone for themselves ?
> 
> Glad we got down to the nitty gritty of your argument.




It works both ways, you are responsible for your own well being to, I did say I believe in having social safety nets, but yes you should be looking out for your self and your own future too. That's is Called being responsible, atleast having enough saving to last you 3 - 6 months, I can't see me saying that makes me immoral..


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Those other options you mention typically require resources, (most notably time and money). Reckless expenditure of either, serves to diminish the efficiencies gained elsewhere. So much for retaining a competitive edge in the face of the changing tides of commerce!
> 
> The captain needs to act quickly! There may not be sufficient time to get those unfortunate sailors into a safer position before the entire ship goes past the point of redemption!




Yea, but you're assuming that these captains of industry always need to sack people to save the sinking ship. That's not always the case, it is rarely the case.

It is true that there are good and well intended CEOs and business owners. I started out working for a small business owner who went broke and have to laid off people - it really really break his heart. I have also seen good executives who have to let a big chunk of his company go because the project is over.

So there are cases when certain cuts must be made.. but we all know companies does these for no other reason than merely to make more profit.

There are plenty of cases where older more senior employee are fired and younger graduate are brought in to replace them... all so that it save the company a few grands a year.

Plenty of cases where very profitable company firing people, ship jobs overseas to cheaper labour, then push to lower pay and less benefits to those they can't yet fire... all so that executives can get that bonus and shareholders their dividends.

Then there are cases of cutting on safety and quality... all in the calculus of chances of accidents, the costs of that accident or defect, and how much it would benefit the company until that happen.

For instance... GM decided to use some cheaper ignition switch, or a chip to it... saving maybe 20 cents per chip. They know it's defective and could cause death... but save the cash upfront, let the potenital victim sue and see where it goes.


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It works both ways, you are responsible for your own well being to, I did say I believe in having social safety nets, but yes you should be looking out for your self and your own future too. That's is Called being responsible, atleast having enough saving to last you 3 - 6 months, I can't see me saying that makes me immoral..









You're alright dude.


----------



## cynic (29 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Yea, but you're assuming that these captains of industry always need to sack people to save the sinking ship. That's not always the case, it is rarely the case.



Perhaps not always the case, but it does actually happen! From my personal experience, I am of a very different opinion to yourself regarding the frequency of such cases.

Either way, the parallels within the naval counter example, do serve to demonstrate that the questions regarding moral correctness of actions aren't necessarily as simple as they initially seem!


----------



## Value Collector (29 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> You're alright dude.





Lol, the Star Wars references are getting lost me.

maybe try a captain America reference.


----------



## Value Collector (29 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course yes, but imo a truly moral CEO would not consider shareholders his only moral responsibility.




Off course the Shareholders are not the only thing to be considered, they are one of the main ones though.

A ceo has the responsibility to run the assets for the best outcomes for the shareholders, the employees, debt holders, environment, suppliers and probably other stake holders I have missed.

But that doesn't mean it has the responsibility to over employ or to guarantee life time jobs for everyone, I don't see anything wrong with returning unused labour back to the labour pool so it can be used in other areas.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> But that doesn't mean it has the responsibility to over employ or to guarantee life time jobs for everyone, I don't see anything wrong with returning unused labour back to the labour pool so it can be used in other areas.





Yep, someone elses problem.

If those unused labour resources never work again that's not your worry is it ?


----------



## smallwolf (29 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Why must greater efficiency comes at the costs of firing people?




- hire in the up-turn of business, fire in the down-turn.

- move resources OS. it effects the bottom line (cause that has gotta be good *sarcasm*) and your (possible) dividends

- make it cheaper, sell it cheaper to the customer. customers generally (broad sweeping statement) pick the cheaper option in a supermarket environment.

it does not have to be that way, but just is...


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Lol, the Star Wars references are getting lost me.
> 
> maybe try a captain America reference.




Gone to the Dark side. Noooo...

Can't remember much about CA. Well, you might fit him... a straight up capitalist pig. ha ha


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Perhaps not always the case, but it does actually happen! From my personal experience, I am of a very different opinion to yourself regarding the frequency of such cases.
> 
> Either way, the parallels within the naval counter example, do serve to demonstrate that the questions regarding moral correctness of actions aren't necessarily as simple as they initially seem!




There's very little and very few parallels.

For one, it's often the Captain of Industry that cause the crash themselves, then fire the sailors.

Or they get rid of the sailors here because the sailors over there are cheaper and less whiny.

It would be a mistake to think that CEOs and corporate directors make decisions like normal human being. Even the nicest of them, once they are in that position will be "convinced" of the need to "serve the shareholders" by doing all they can to make the most profit and gain the most rewards possible - and the easiest way to do that is cutting costs. With costs meaning everything you have to pay for.

The bigger the corporations, the further the management is from their employees and the community affected. Not to mention the bigger their pay - and with bigger pay come bigger ego.

Add these two alone and you'd get people who earn millions a year and think they're being underpaid, yet at the same time would consider it too expensive to pay their people $x an hour  - whatever x is, it's too much (for the lower runk).


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> - hire in the up-turn of business, fire in the down-turn.
> 
> - move resources OS. it effects the bottom line (cause that has gotta be good *sarcasm*) and your (possible) dividends
> 
> ...




Corporation, and those who run it, as a whole are pretty stupid, and deadly.

They find ways to cut costs, and the highest costs are personnel... But if personnel/people aren't earning enough, who's going to buy the goods? 

Then some other corp. comes in with credit and debt offering... And knowing people are desperate, charge insane interest... How can people pay that extortion rate of interests? They'd go bankrupt. But then there are others who won't go bankrupt, yet. and on and on until there's no one around to exploit and extort. 

Then either revolution where the upper crust got their heads handed to them or the world goes to heck.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Corporation, and those who run it, as a whole are pretty stupid, and deadly.
> 
> They find ways to cut costs, and the highest costs are personnel... But if personnel/people aren't earning enough, who's going to buy the goods?
> 
> ...




What are you doing on this forum ?

You sound almost morally socialist !

It appears Canoz hasn't caught up with you yet.


----------



## cynic (29 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> There's very little and very few parallels.
> 
> For one, it's often the Captain of Industry that cause the crash themselves, then fire the sailors.
> 
> ...




My posts on this matter were intended to highlight that, the question of morality, when faced with a decision involving obsolescence of staff, isn't always as straightforward as it might at first seem!

I am not making general claims to altruism underlying the motivation behind CEO conduct in all matters!


----------



## Tisme (29 May 2016)

smallwolf said:


> - make it cheaper, sell it cheaper to the customer. customers generally (broad sweeping statement) pick the cheaper option in a supermarket environment.
> 
> ...




Of course it's little more complicated than just cheaper, but your use of the word option is a good one.

By way of future trends here, since he GFC brand loyalty globally has taken a hit with upto ~90% of shoppers not differentiating the branded versus plain packaging product enough to dictate a purchase. About 30% are mostly rusted on brand addicts, ~25% supersavers, similarly ~25% are bulk buyers and the rest are budget constrained to cheap by necessity. About 60% actively scout for specials.


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Of course it's little more complicated than just cheaper, but your use of the word option is a good one.
> 
> By way of future trends here, since he GFC brand loyalty globally has taken a hit with upto ~90% of shoppers not differentiating the branded versus plain packaging product enough to dictate a purchase. About 30% are mostly rusted on brand addicts, ~25% supersavers, similarly ~25% are bulk buyers and the rest are budget constrained to cheap by necessity. About 60% actively scout for specials.




Did you just pull those stats out of thin air or what?


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

cynic said:


> My posts on this matter were intended to highlight that, the question of morality, when faced with a decision involving obsolescence of staff, isn't always as straightforward as it might at first seem!
> 
> I am not making general claims to altruism underlying the motivation behind CEO conduct in all matters!




Nice try Matrix Monk. The only one whose multi-syllabic, proper sentence structure tendencies could help them getting away with murder is McTisme, and you ain't that drunk sounding. 

What were we on about?


----------



## luutzu (29 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What are you doing on this forum ?
> 
> You sound almost morally socialist !
> 
> It appears Canoz hasn't caught up with you yet.




I'm a lost Socialist? A confused Capitalist?

A mild Socialist in words but a deadly Capitalist in deed?

Ah dam it! I'm a Red. 

Well, I guess you can take the boy away from the Reds but you can't get the Red out of the boy.

Noco was on to me though... but then noco was onto a lot of people


----------



## Tisme (29 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Did you just pull those stats out of thin air or what?





Nope . one of my many disciplines


----------



## Tisme (29 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I'm a lost Socialist? A confused Capitalist?
> 
> A mild Socialist in words but a deadly Capitalist in deed?
> 
> ...





Just old school capitalism when entrepreneurs built business based on national pride, philanthropy and social ethics. bit like looking at Labor and Liberal and convincing yourself your are voting per your parent's moral politics.


----------



## Value Collector (29 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, someone elses problem.
> 
> If those unused labour resources never work again that's not your worry is it ?




It should fall back on society in general to look after people who are unemployable, why should it be a single companies problem? Hence the reason I said we need social safety nets.

First and formost it is your responsibility to look after yourself, and if you can't then we have safety nets, I can't see anything immoral with that. I mean part of being a moral person is to do your best not to be a burden on others.

Some of you guys think that morality is a one street, and it only comes from giving everything you have to those around you and sacrificing your self.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It should fall back on society in general to look after people who are unemployable, why should it be a single companies problem? Hence the reason I said we need social safety nets.
> 
> First and formost it is your responsibility to look after yourself, and if you can't then we have safety nets, I can't see anything immoral with that. I mean part of being a moral person is to do your best not to be a burden on others.
> 
> Some of you guys think that morality is a one street, and it only comes from giving everything you have to those around you and sacrificing your self.








It's all coming back to me now 

----

How can gov't, assuming they wanted to, provide safety nets if corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes?

Small, medium enterprises tend to pay proper rate of tax - large multinationals tend to have their ways with the law and law-makers. 

So when corporations convinced politicians that cutting tax on them will create more jobs; that to attract their capital and innovation, gov't must be "competitive" and remove red tapes like environmental wasteland, workers rights - making it easier to hire and fire without a second thought... 

Or when corporations fund political campaigns, but public and behind the scenes, to have certain leaders and political do gooders remove... or to fund their more understanding opponents... and results in bigger loopholes and lowering of non loopholes... where then do gov't get the fund to provide safety nets?

Tax the poor more because they're the ones who tend to use it anyway?

Increase GST; sell off public assets; cut services; cut education funding; privatise medical care; bring in US system of indebting university students etc. etc.

These are some of the innovative thinking corporations do, everywhere they operates. And they are getting away with it too.

So when gov't fund the roads and infrastructures, train the future employees, provide security and gunboats to kick azz and take names when assets are stolen or infringed... yet commission from corporations are not returned in kind... who then should fund it?


In the good old days, imperial armies would liberate a neighbour or two then get all its booties to the King's and Emperor's coffers.

In the more recent old days, liberation armies conquer and vanquish the barbarians, corporations and merchants move in to establish trades and the booties are shared with the sovereign. 

Nowadays, liberation armies take over barbaric states with lots of oil and strategic position to secure trade routes and opening markets... corporations moves in, profit from both their own gov't and the abandoned booties... but then bring the hoards back to some offshore haven.

How can a nation keep the plebs happy at home, keep the peace abroad with that kind of attitude?

Wait, are corporations for peace? That's their long game?


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> View attachment 66881
> 
> 
> It's all coming back to me now
> ...




I always thought their long game was survival. Squeeze as many golden eggs as possible without crippling or killing the geese laying them.

Failure to strike the correct balance, potentially condemns both the geese and their corporate farmers to a fate worse than Hades!

Another pearl of wisdom, proudly brought to you by your faithful matrix monk.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

Creating a fair global taxation system is something that needs to be done.

People always talk about multinational companies skipping tax etc, which offcourse happens, but in their defence, a certain amount of dodging has to be done just to avoid the cumulative effect of double or triple taxation as money is moved around, they will try and limit it to one taxation destination if the can, and offcourse that will be the lowest.


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well it comes down to your moral system.
> 
> You are a CEO of a company. You have 10 loyal and productive workers that you can replace with one machine.
> 
> Do you have a moral responsibility to them ?




It seems my earlier responses to this hypothetical may have been unjust.

New information, complete with a thoroughly detailed assessment of our current trajectory into the future, has just come to hand via the  Lofty vision of the Oracles of Conchordia:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QWDjLrIDLx4


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> It should fall back on society in general to look after people who are unemployable, why should it be a single companies problem? Hence the reason I said we need social safety nets.




Maybe people are "unemployable" because they worked their whole lives loyally for one company and have not acquired wider skills.

For a company to say tough luck mate thanks but no thanks to you any more is morally reprehensible as far as I'm concerned.

And maybe managers who complain about high staff turnover and no company loyalty are the ones only too willing to throw employees on the scrapheap when it suits them.


But it's been interesting to see how some people's so called morals crumble when making money is concerned.


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe people are "unemployable" because they worked their whole lives loyally for one company and have not acquired wider skills.
> 
> For a company to say tough luck mate thanks but no thanks to you any more is morally reprehensible as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> ...




Of course the lack of loyalty to employees is a hallmark of Marxism. If Generals ran the defence force like that we would be vulnerable to the yellow peril and beyond.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

cynic said:


> I always thought their long game was survival. Squeeze as many golden eggs as possible without crippling or killing the geese laying them.
> 
> Failure to strike the correct balance, potentially condemns both the geese and their corporate farmers to a fate worse than Hades!
> 
> Another pearl of wisdom, proudly brought to you by your faithful matrix monk.




Ummmm... true only if the company is small and mainly localised within national borders.

Let them rip across borders, which is the move these days with them free trade agreements and gov't drive to be "competitive"... and corporations have unlimited number of geese to pull eggs out off, then plug the feathers, then skinned, then gutted, then have the carcass sold, then have the two feet dipped in some sauce, steamed and sold for a buck each!

Some economist wrote a book about Capitalists killing the host. Much like Agent Smith telling Neo that humans are like a virus, move from one host to another until no more hosts.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe people are "unemployable" because they worked their whole lives loyally for one company and have not acquired wider skills.
> 
> For a company to say tough luck mate thanks but no thanks to you any more is morally reprehensible as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> ...




If they worked their "whole life" with one company under today's system they should have a decent super account and had plenty of time to generate other investments etc, regardless on how loyal you feel to a company, you should always be looking out for your own future to, I mean companies go bankrupt, industries die etc. 

To say you are only going to have one job at one company is pretty crazy, also I think being unemployable is a bit of a choice in most cases.

As I said though, if we are talking about people being replaced by machines, it will happen pretty slowly and probably wouldn't require that people get fired, just shuffled around and those at retirement age retired.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Creating a fair global taxation system is something that needs to be done.
> 
> People always talk about multinational companies skipping tax etc, which offcourse happens, but in their defence, a certain amount of dodging has to be done just to avoid the cumulative effect of double or triple taxation as money is moved around, they will try and limit it to one taxation destination if the can, and offcourse that will be the lowest.




That's being very generous there VC.

How do you explain GE paying zero income tax for at least the past decade? Or News Corp.?

List goes on. In most cases, the gov't actually have to pay these corporations a tax return. 

A recent TED talk by Yanus Varoufukus [that former Greek finance minister]... where he said there's now a mountain of debt in the world, and next to it a mountain of cash. The two does not mix together or hang out at the same party.

That is, corporations have so much cash now they don't know what to do with it - because the demand isn't there for them to invest much of it at all. So they're playing financial games to bring up the figures... not much real investments are being made into productive work that employ people. 

Maybe a death spiral until WW3 breaks out on all fronts.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> If they worked their "whole life" with one company under today's system they should have a decent super account and had plenty of time to generate other investments etc, regardless on how loyal you feel to a company, you should always be looking out for your own future to, I mean companies go bankrupt, industries die etc.




Their whole "working" life which might mean they get made redundant at 45. 

Not much chance of getting another job then, and most people aren't financial whizzes like you, they are too busy working for a living.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Their whole "working" life which might mean they get made redundant at 45.
> 
> Not much chance of getting another job then, and most people aren't financial whizzes like you, they are too busy working for a living.




If you consider yourself unemployable at 45, you are being pretty slack in my mind.

I don't really care how busy you are, you need to set aside a little bit of time and money to look after your self financially in the future. A company can only do so much, what are you expecting them to do, provide lifetime pensions for people?

----------------------------------

When it comes to cost cutting, the saying is " Costs are like finger nails, they grow everyday without you noticing, so you have to keep cutting them" and that's not immorral it's necessary, it there is a way for a company to lower its costs and make the organisation stronger and its products cheaper, it's actually a really bad thing to avoid doing that just so you don't have to retire a few staff.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> That's being very generous there VC.
> 
> How do you explain GE paying zero income tax for at least the past decade? Or News Corp.?
> 
> ...




I don't know the details of GE  or News Corp.

I don't agree that investments aren't being made, everywhere I look I see companies making real investments, and spending millions growing their businesses, maybe you are looking at the wrong companies, lol.

-------------

I think you are far to negative mate, how do you even make investments?

Have a Coke, listen to a Disney tune, find value and invest, the sun is shining and people are spending money everyday and companies are providing more and more goods and services, I don't have time for negativity, there is to much money to be made by looking at the bright side (which is the biggest side imo)

Here is your Disney tune for the day. this should put you in the right mind frame.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> If you consider yourself unemployable at 45, you are being pretty slack in my mind.
> 
> I don't really care how busy you are, you need to set aside a little bit of time and money to look after your self financially in the future. A company can only do so much, what are you expecting them to do, provide lifetime pensions for people?




Nope , just simple recognition of their value, experience and corporate knowledge.

Internal training schemes, job advancement within the company, personal development, it all helps breed a corporate culture that will encourage employee company loyalty and increase productivity.

If you can't recognise that good people with experience are essential for a good company performance then you would be a lousy manager as well as a moral hypocrite.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know the details of GE  or News Corp.
> 
> I don't agree that investments aren't being made, everywhere I look I see companies making real investments, and spending millions growing their businesses, maybe you are looking at the wrong companies, lol.




Not real investment, more like maintenance expenditure. To maintain their market position.

I've heard from a few economists now, saying that in general most corporations spend the vast majority of their capital towards share buybacks and other financial games to bring EPS up.

That TED lecture, Yanus gave a figure of, I think, some $4T being "invested" but there's some $13T of cash just sitting around in some tax haven.

But there's a practically zero-cost innovation that could save the world hundreds of billions a year: Simply make all mobile phones voice protocol over internet. 

People can just buy a $30 internet service with their phone, can make as much calls as they like through the internet.


If corporations are innovative and driven to save consumer money, that's what they would do. Since that ain't happening, maybe it's the profit over everyone else, I rub your back you rub mind and we screw the consumer mentality at work.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Nope , just simple recognition of their value, experience and corporate knowledge.
> 
> Internal training schemes, job advancement within the company, personal development, it all helps breed a corporate culture that will encourage employee company loyalty and increase productivity.
> 
> If you can't recognise that good people with experience are essential for a good company performance then you would be a lousy manager as well as a moral hypocrite.



I am obviously not against any of that.

I am talking about cutting Fat from an organisation that has grown inefficient , offcourse you don't want to cut muscle.

Remember we are talking about automation slowly taking over labour intensive jobs, eg a pallet loading machine taking the jobs of 30 guys who used to hand pack and wrap pallets, I don't know anyone who would want to work for 30+ years packing pallets.


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2016)

*Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical*


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know the details of GE  or News Corp.
> 
> I don't agree that investments aren't being made, everywhere I look I see companies making real investments, and spending millions growing their businesses, maybe you are looking at the wrong companies, lol.
> 
> ...






I think having a nose for BS and a fast decaying morality will serve me well as a capitalist 

There's no need to drink the cool-aid when you can just make money from it. Dam, this condition is worst than I thought. 

Serious though, it may make us better investors if we see things for how it is, not how the PR machine want us to believe. Watch and listen to critics, they paint a more realistic picture than any annual report ever could.

We all believe in corporation only surviving if it create real value, are fair and reasonable to its employees... I think that helps a great deal to avoid the big and bad corporations, direct us toward ones that are more innovative and fair dealing. 

Good for the investment return and good for the world.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> *Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical*




Religion: Capitalism, Socialism.
Science: profit, innovation, efficiency.
Scepticism: exploitation, monopoly, slavery.
Philosophy: thinking about these stuff?
Metaphysical: Money, is it real and can it buy you your soul.

See, right on topics.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Not real investment, more like maintenance expenditure. To maintain their market position.
> 
> I've heard from a few economists now, saying that in general most corporations spend the vast majority of their capital towards share buybacks and other financial games to bring EPS up.
> 
> .




I don't know what companies you look at, But I see plenty of companies expanding capacity, Look at Disney for example (while they are on my mind) They are opening Shanghai Disney in a few weeks, that's a $5Billion investment when you include the hotels and shopping district, there is also capacity expansions happening at their other parks, eg star wars land for instance, and expansions at animal kindom, their movie studios are making more high budget films than they ever have, and collecting more revenue than ever, they just started building 2 more Disney crusie ships, bringing their fleet to 6 ships once they are completed, and many more smaller things eg hotels and restaurant expansions etc.

Offcourse they are buying back stock too, but that's not bad, Buy backs are just a way to return capital back to investors so they can redeploy it into other areas.

I think stock buy backs are a good way to reduce a companies cash pile, a mature company like Disney will produce more cash than they can invest intelligently, so buying back stock returns it to investors who can redeploy it in other areas into un related companies.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I think having a nose for BS and a fast decaying morality will serve me well as a capitalist
> 
> .




I didn't make my way to financial independence by being gullible, But you have to see the positives that are clearly there, don't fool yourself, know the difference between being skeptical and being cynical.

Skepticism is a great tool, to much cynicism is lead in the saddle bags.




> Serious though, it may make us better investors if we see things for how it is, not how the PR machine want us to believe. Watch and listen to critics, they paint a more realistic picture than any annual report ever could.




yes listen to critics, not cynics. The sky is always falling to a cynic.

Look at Warren Buffet, he is very skeptical, cares about the facts, but he is not a perpetual cynic, he can see the bright side of things, and invests with a positive attitude even during the darkest days.

Keep in mind I am not saying be a Pollyanna, but just don't be chicken little, or the fox will eat you.



> We all believe in corporation only surviving if it create real value, are fair and reasonable to its employees... I think that helps a great deal to avoid the big and bad corporations, direct us toward ones that are more innovative and fair dealing.
> 
> Good for the investment return and good for the world




Plenty of them out there if you can see the wood for the trees.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I am obviously not against any of that.
> 
> I am talking about cutting Fat from an organisation that has grown inefficient , offcourse you don't want to cut muscle.




It's up to the managers to make sure the organisation doesn't get fat by doing the things I mentioned in my previous post.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It's up to the managers to make sure the organisation doesn't get fat by doing the things I mentioned in my previous post.




Yep, but just like people, some companies look down one day and relies they let themselves go, and need to get back into shape or they have a heart attack and realise they aren't going to survive on their current diet.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, but just like people, some companies look down one day and relies they let themselves go, and need to get back into shape or they have a heart attack and realise they aren't going to survive on their current diet.




So they take out their own incompetence on their employees ?

Since this is/was a discussion about morals do you think sacking employees is the objective moral response to managerial incompetence, or should it be the managers that leave ?


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I didn't make my way to financial independence by being gullible, But you have to see the positives that are clearly there, don't fool yourself, know the difference between being skeptical and being cynical.
> 
> Skepticism is a great tool, to much cynicism is lead in the saddle bags.
> 
> ...




I'm actually very optimistic given my chosen field and knowing what I know.

Capitalism as currently practised and encouraged - with bigger is better, "free trades" etc. - these has done more harm than good. Both to democratic principles of governance, as well as destruction of the planet and its people.

That's why Buffett gave all his money away to do good for humanity. He sees that capitalism and its drive for profit ain't doing any dam good for the world. Yes yes, he talks of higher standard of living nowadays compare to the Rockefella... If he actually believe that Corporations will bring well being to the world, he wouldn't be giving it away so that it'd do good.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So they take out their own incompetence on their employees ?
> 
> Since this is/was a discussion about morals do you think sacking employees is the objective moral response to managerial incompetence, or should it be the managers that leave ?




Good point.

Also, I don't know that many corporations inner workings, but it's not always the "fat" that gets cut. It's who's your daddy and if he's high up enough to do the sacking or being sack himself.


Have a family friend who did pretty well for himself working as a programme/coding manager at some firm. Bought a nice house, raising a nice family... and a few years later he was working as a bus driver because Microsoft and C# is now the standard language, his company got shut and bills have to be paid so any job will have to do before the bankers get really mad.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> So they take out their own incompetence on their employees ?
> 
> Since this is/was a discussion about morals do you think sacking employees is the objective moral response to managerial incompetence, or should it be the managers that leave ?




I don't think there is anything morally wrong with sacking staff if its done in the right way for the right reasons, we aren't feeding them to the wolves.

In certain situations it is morally correct to kill someone to achieve a positive outcome to the wellbeing of others, in some situations its morally correct to fire someone.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> and a few years later he was working as a bus driver .




Good for him.

The world changes, you have to be adaptable, no one owes you are life time job, he might find himself out of work again if driverless buses became a reality, no I don't think we should ban driverless buses to maintain employment of bus drivers.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> .
> 
> That's why Buffett gave all his money away to do good for humanity. He sees that capitalism and its drive for profit ain't doing any dam good for the world. Yes yes, he talks of higher standard of living nowadays compare to the Rockefella... If he actually believe that Corporations will bring well being to the world, he wouldn't be giving it away so that it'd do good.




No, he is giving his money away to help fight the big problems that are hard to fight in any other way.

I have never said all we need is business, we need charity and social systems also.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think there is anything morally wrong with sacking staff if its done in the right way for the right reasons, we aren't feeding them to the wolves.




What is the "right" way ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What is the "right" way ?




I have said this heaps of times.

Make sure staff have plenty of notice about the changes that are happening, do your best to reallocate people from the obsolete jobs into other areas, where you have to actually cut numbers offer severance packages to people who don't mind retiring or leaving or offer reduced hours etc, 

I said when a company hires staff, I don't think they are taking on a commitment to look after the person for life, and I don't think in generally people expect to work at the same company for life.

except those cushy "Union" jobs, where no one wants to leave because they having be raping the company for years and are all fat(Economically) and lazy, in that case I have no sympathy if a union buster gets in and you are replaced by a machine.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Good for him.
> 
> The world changes, you have to be adaptable, no one owes you are life time job, he might find himself out of work again if driverless buses became a reality, no I don't think we should ban driverless buses to maintain employment of bus drivers.




And nobody owes corporations and business owners their "intellectual" properties and assets either. Or we must all respect their rights but they owe us nothing?

No one is arguing that companies must never fire or sack people; and we're certainly not arguing that there shouldn't be any innovation and machineries to replace human labour. We're all for that.

But just as we all want and encourage companies and entreprenuers to innovate and change the world, we should, or they should themselves, be encouraged to understand and appreciate that it's not a one way street.

Roads, bridges, training academies for future employees and innovative workers; the power grids, the plumbing and clean water; security, trade policies politicians conduct on behalf of businesses but paid for by all tax payers... all these mean there is an expectation of those who benefits the most from it - corporations and billionaires... an expectation that they return the favour.

Yes, there are nice capitalists and generous business titans; there are companies and corporation that take their glossy stakeholders statement seriously. But for each one of them, there are thousands who feel no obligation to anyone or anything but themselves. 

So taken as a whole, Capitalism, because it put the profit motive above all other obligations, will end up gutting the very host that provide it its nourishment. 

This is not to say that corporations are evil... just saying that when, for some reason, you set up a system where the obligation of its officers are to make the most profit and assume that everything else will make it right... well that's a big assumption that hasn't bear any evidence.

Like we touched on before... value and profit are higher and more permanent if corporations and business people think long term, create real value, treat everyone fairly etc. etc.

That or they just cut corners, buy politicians, rigged the system and its tax and environmental codes etc. etc. 

Doing what you can to bring the most profit from the least of resources you need to spend... that's a moral duty. Just it is often the case that such objective could be met by other means other than fair play and innovative value creation.

This is why you see corporations, through a wink and a nudge, through their business councils and lobbyists... see why they push politicians for free trade deals that take care of their own interests at the expense of workers rights; why there's a deliberate attempt, one that's been incredibly successful, at causing greater worker insecurity.

Anyway, there must be a balance... and for the past few decades, at least, the balance has tilt towards Captains of Industry and their monopolies at the expense of both government, the governed, the environment and survival of the planet.

As an example, take the arms industry. 

We could all appreciate the need for national security and self defence. 

But look at what happen when the gov't permit these private interests to freely go after profit.

They sell the latest weapons system to third world dictators, come back and tell their gov't of the need for greater investment in more advanced systems because dictators are pretty advanced now; Or the push and influence of foreign policies into new "markets" to sell arms to.

Or take the energy sector... slow as heck having alternative sources of energy. Why? The technology is there; but the entrench interests doesn't want it. Too much risk to the bottom line - so the world will have to take what they want to sell and suffer or not accordingly.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> And nobody owes corporations and business owners their "intellectual" properties and assets either. Or we must all respect their rights but they owe us nothing?[/
> .




I can't see the link there.

You say you are all for innovation and investment, but it appears you don't want companies to have their innovations and investments in intellectual property protected.



> So taken as a whole, Capitalism, because it put the profit motive above all other obligations, will end up gutting the very host that provide it its nourishment




I don't accept the premise of that statement.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I can't see the link there.
> 
> You say you are all for innovation and investment, but it appears you don't want companies to have their innovations and investments in intellectual property protected.
> 
> ...




No, I said that their rights and intellectual and real assets should be protected. I was asking what about the rights of their workers and the corporation's responsibilities to the gov't that fund and protect all these rights?

---

Well, accept it or not, that's what is happening. And if it weren't happening, try and walk the logic of that set up to its conclusion and see if it will happen or not.

If a person or an organisation is only out for profit, and they have so much market power and so much cash that there aren't many rich enough to oppose them... Being only interested in money and profit, what do you think that entity would do?

Work hard and invest all their money to make the best product ever? Close down their less efficient and toxic operations to let the new leaner cleaner upstart have a go? Pay workers fair wages instead of lobbying for lower legal wage?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> except those cushy "Union" jobs, where no one wants to leave because they having be raping the company for years and are all fat(Economically) and lazy, in that case I have no sympathy if a union buster gets in and you are replaced by a machine.




There are a lot of "cushy" jobs in middle-upper management that never seem to get the sack unless accompanied by large golden handshakes.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I was asking what about the rights of their workers?




Which rights?


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> There are a lot of "cushy" jobs in middle-upper management that never seem to get the sack unless accompanied by large golden handshakes.




If the fat is located in Middle and upper management, I am happy to cut that also, I don't mind where the fat is cut from.

Keep in mind, Management up to and including the CEO are employees also, when I am saying its ok to sack employees, I am not talking just about at lower levels.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Which rights?




The rights to a living wage for one. I don't think Seven-Eleven workers are the only group being underpaid.

We talk of efficiency... well a big part of being efficient is to have workers doing the same thing over and over, and does it in front of a conveyor belt.

When people are merely trained to do that, then some new innovation comes along and they are no longer needed... was it really all their fault that they were trained and paid to do one narrow thing and now need to retrain again or get some other job else don't eat?

Look around and practically all jobs nowadays are mere production line type of work - from the high flying professional on down - it's all about "specialisation". 

Specialisation is fine when the industry see no need to upgrade; and industry won't see the need to upgrade if the workers keep their heads down and don't ask for too much. But even then, when change happen, it happens and it's all the lazy employees fault.

Come on mate.

A recent example of society's drive to please big business' aim of efficiency and subject matter expertise are at the universities. Sydney Uni cuts a bunch of their degrees... why? To focus on education that works and pays. More efficient to teach less subjects too... and more graduates going out into the work force knowing not much else besides their narrow field of expertise. 

Anyway, the good and noble kind of "capitalism" are not really capitalism as we're used to. It's the kind of entrepreneurship we all see through the ages.

While certain things are more efficient and better managed if it's standardized and operate on a big scale... most of that need are stables and utilities and infrastructure - they are not known for, and does not need, innovation much.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> If the fat is located in Middle and upper management, I am happy to cut that also, I don't mind where the fat is cut from.
> 
> Keep in mind, Management up to and including the CEO are employees also, when I am saying its ok to sack employees, I am not talking just about at lower levels.




When it comes to deciding where the fat is, who makes those decisions ?

Middle-upper management. And surprise, surprise, they never get cut.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> was it really all their fault that they were trained and paid to do one narrow thing and now need to retrain again or get some other job else don't eat?
> 
> .




I don't think its any ones "Fault", I think its just how things are in some industries.

But again what's wrong with learning to do a new job? 




> some other job else don't eat




Really, you think people are starving in this country.

We have plenty of people who live their entire lives on Centrelink payments, if some one losses their job they are hardly going to starve.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> When it comes to deciding where the fat is, who makes those decisions ?
> 
> Middle-upper management. And surprise, surprise, they never get cut.




If a company gets fat and inefficient, management can be thrown out, and it makes it open to a company like 3G capital to come along and cut out the fat including management fat.

3G capital did it at Heinz and are doing it now at Kraft,

If the fat is in Upper Management its up to investors and the board to put pressure on the company to cut the fat.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I don't think its any ones "Fault", I think its just how things are in some industries.
> 
> But again what's wrong with learning to do a new job?
> 
> ...




I didn't say Australians are starving, I said a living wage.

We're not as bad as the US, yet. But look at the policies and the rhetorics... we're heading that way in a real hurry.


----------



## bellenuit (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> To be honest I think your use of the word religion is a stretch, and not how most people would use it in common usage.
> 
> this is the definition most would like of.






SirRumpole said:


> When it comes to deciding where the fat is, who makes those decisions ?
> 
> Middle-upper management. And surprise, surprise, they never get cut.




My experience with large companies that I worked for or with companies we dealt with is that middle management is usually who is cut first and cut most. Just search Google on "cuts to middle management" and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Value Collector (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> I didn't say Australians are starving, I said a living wage.
> 
> .




I was referring to this statement.



> now need to retrain again or get some other job else don't eat?





We have unemployment benefits that will assure people can continue eating in between jobs, as I said we aren't feeding them to the wolves, they will be ok, so I don't think reducing numbers is a moral issue.


------------------------------

Anyway I am losing a bit of interest, I think I am getting repetitive and maybe I should be doing some reading rather than trying to talk you out of your cynical ways.

Have fun, and try to focus on all the bridges that work well every day, not just the one that made the paper because it fell down.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I was referring to this statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I read that it now takes 6 weeks or 3 months from date of application to then receive it. Something along that line?

Anyway, point is, we all must be responsible for our own and our fellow citizens well being... and being responsible for others, or thinking about their interests as well, does not fit in with the profit-only motive.


----------



## luutzu (30 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> I was referring to this statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Cynicism or Realism, hard to tell.

It's going to be pretty tough to convince people, cynical or not, that profit-driven corporations do not abuse their power and influence but are always doing good.


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Religion: Capitalism, Socialism.
> Science: profit, innovation, efficiency.
> Scepticism: exploitation, monopoly, slavery.
> Philosophy: thinking about these stuff?
> ...






Someone should start a thread where you pay 50 cents to wind up VC and watch him argue the toss.


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Someone should start a thread where you pay 50 cents to wind up VC and watch him argue the toss.




You are committing a multitude of logical fallacies when you say things like that!

Which one's you ask?!

Just give me a moment whilst I find a website page to explain them.


----------



## Ves (30 May 2016)

cynic said:


> You are committing a multitude of logical fallacies when you say things like that!



How can he commit a multitude of logical fallacies when he isn't making an argument to begin with?


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2016)

Ves said:


> How can he commit a multitude of logical fallacies when he isn't making an argument to begin with?




 At risk of setting myself up into a duh moment, it was a sarcastic swipe at a particular member


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

Ves said:


> How can he commit a multitude of logical fallacies when he isn't making an argument to begin with?




Congratulations Ves, you just committed the "personal incredulity", "loaded question" and "fallacy" fallacies!

Uh oh, I seem to have just committed the "tu quoque" fallacy, alongside several others!!

The following site tells all! Employ the logically bereft "wisdom" therein at one's own peril! Uh oh, I think I may have just committed several more logical fallacies (genetic, ad hominem and the fallacy fallacy)! Does it never end?! Oh no that's a fallacy also!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> At risk of setting myself up into a duh moment, it was a sarcastic swipe at a particular member




That's a logical fallacy!


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

cynic said:


> That's a logical fallacy!




"I always tell lies"

Now that's a logical fallacy.


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> "I always tell lies"
> 
> Now that's a logical fallacy.




Only the one?!


----------



## SirRumpole (30 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Only the one?!




One is enough !


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> One is enough !




Aha! Qualitative rather than quantitive!

Anyhow, let's get scientifically sceptical about the metaphysics underlying religious philosophy!

Who's up next?


----------



## Tisme (30 May 2016)

cynic said:


> Aha! Qualitative rather than quantitive!
> 
> Anyhow, let's get scientifically sceptical about the metaphysics underlying religious philosophy!
> 
> Who's up next?




Tautology?


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> Tautology?




The science of taut?


----------



## cynic (30 May 2016)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=J_qBIw7qyHU

"Consciousness without brain activity?"

(Yes! I did notice that Dr Greyson committed the grievous error of claiming supercession of Newtonian physics by relativity, thereby, marring an otherwise entertaining discourse).

So! Is it time to be scientific, sceptical or metaphysical!

Dr Greyson might perchance be indulging all three!

So do we dismiss the body of evidence, to which Dr Greyson refers, in an effort to shield our current religious beliefs?


----------



## Tisme (4 June 2016)

It was a Monster:

http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/298f95e1bf9136124592c8d4825a06fc.html


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2016)

Tisme said:


> It was a Monster:
> 
> http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/298f95e1bf9136124592c8d4825a06fc.html




Fascinating.


----------



## cynic (5 June 2016)

A friend drew my attention to this one years ago.

Given that the journalists are relatively unknown, and that the events shown could be easily fabricated, this won't pass the sceptic test. 

As I have been personally witness to some amazing, albeit smaller, demonstrations of the application of "chi energy" and as such am quite willing to entertain the possibility that this may be genuine. Although the excuse given, for termination of the filming, sounded just a little too convenient whilst I wore my sceptic hat (most certainly not tinfoil).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3F3ovb2kZ9Q


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 August 2016)

Knowing this planets evolutionary story and the nature of things is so interesting and mind opening. There is so much more known nowadays and so much more to learn. Religion is forever stuck with the stories of people who did not know.


----------



## Value Collector (1 August 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Knowing this planets evolutionary story and the nature of things is so interesting and mind opening. There is so much more known nowadays and so much more to learn. Religion is forever stuck with the stories of people who did not know.




Yes, the facts are certainly more awe inspiring than the religious texts. 

I think Hitch says it best.


----------



## luutzu (1 August 2016)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, the facts are certainly more awe inspiring than the religious texts.
> 
> I think Hitch says it best.






They updated their narration a bit me think. 

Hitchen is no match for our Russell


----------



## cynic (1 August 2016)

The usual scientific fallacy surrounding light speed and time distortion,  regurgitated yet again by the unquestioning faithful.

Nice piccies though!


----------



## SirRumpole (1 August 2016)

cynic said:


> The usual scientific fallacy surrounding light speed and time distortion,  regurgitated yet again by the unquestioning faithful.




What's your theory ?


----------



## cynic (1 August 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> What's your theory ?




There were unsound conclusions drawn from failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's assertions regarding universal speed limits and time dilation were built upon an inccorect conclusion from that aforementioned experiment.

Time doesn't slow down with acceleration of matter, and light does require a medium in order to travel!


----------



## smallwolf (2 August 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Knowing this planets evolutionary story and the nature of things is so interesting and mind opening. There is so much more known nowadays and so much more to learn. Religion is forever stuck with the stories of people who did not know.




Agree with most of what you say. however... the statement about religion assume that all people with a belief are fundamentalists and read Genesis accounts as literal truth (vs that it might have been borrowed from (say) Babylonian myths such as Enuma Elish and other near eastern myths or Israelite religious imagination.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 August 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Agree with most of what you say. however... the statement about religion *assume that all people with a belief are fundamentalists and read Genesis accounts as literal truth* (vs that it might have been borrowed from (say) Babylonian myths such as Enuma Elish and other near eastern myths or Israelite religious imagination.



If not literal then it is "might have been" or rendered, paraphrased, reworded, rephrased, recast, converted, deciphered, decoded, glossed, explained, unraveled, revealed, elucidated, expounded or clarified?


----------



## Value Collector (2 August 2016)

smallwolf said:


> Agree with most of what you say. however... the statement about religion assume that all people with a belief are fundamentalists and read Genesis accounts as literal truth (vs that it might have been borrowed from (say) Babylonian myths such as Enuma Elish and other near eastern myths or Israelite religious imagination.




Your god didn't create the earth in 6 days anymore than maui pulled New Zealand out of the ocean with a fishing hook, when you try and twist words, it sounds to me like you are saying "Well it wasn't a literal fishing hook, etc etc" put you bible down and move on.

If you agree that the genesis account is not a literal truth, In my opinion the whole concept of Christianity breaks down.

If there were no adam and eve, then there was no original sin, and the whole idea of jesus having to die for our sins is bunk.

You can twist the texts and try and reinterpret them as much as you like to try and make it fit into our current understanding of the universe and evolution of earth, but most of us here will see that as nothing but word games.

Your religion is fake, its claims are untrue, stop trying to twist it to try and make it stay relevant, leave the mythology as it is and let it take its place among the thousands of other creation stories. at least then they can make good camp fire stories without all the religious baggage you guys attach to them.


----------



## cynic (4 August 2016)

Problem: Evidence emerges that conflicts with a sacred belief.

Solution 1: invent some imaginary concept to explain away the anomalies.

Solution 2: revisit the basis for the belief with a view to reformulation and/or expulsion in light of the new evidence.

Why aren't the proponents of this "dark matter" bulldust, reexamining the formulae and questioning the universality of the purported gravitational constant?


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2016)

for those with facebook....not you Tink


https://www.facebook.com/blasfunny/


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2016)

Tisme said:


> for those with facebook....not you Tink
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/blasfunny/





Definitely not for Tink.

Don't do it Tink. There are things that once seen, can never be unseen.

You do not want to see the decadence and moral decay our generation has gone to.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Not only that, as I said it is an emergent property of the physical brain. Damage or change the physical Brain and the identity can change. you can lose the ability to feel certain emotions, you can lose memories etc.
> 
> To me this is a clear sign that personality is directly linked to the physical brain, the two are one in the same so to speak.




I think we have been through this before, but in my view consciousness is a combination of hardware, software and data.

Hardware - your physical body, brain, neurones etc
Data        - the world in which you live in and all the inputs you get from it
Software - your programming , how your brain is structured to deal with the data. 

If a few of your memory chips in the hardware malfunctions then your outputs will be changed, but that doesn't mean that your software changes, so we can deduce that software is independant of hardware.

So what is the human software ? Would human clones think, act and feel the same if brought up in an identical environment ? We haven't got an answer for this yet.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is the human software ?




Karma (ego-based actions) which create mental imprints in the subconscious.  At their most basic level, these imprints are all based in fear and desire.  Ego is the belief in individuality - an extremely sticky thought virus, but one which we are probably destined to evolve beyond.

In summary, we don't exist.  

[edited++]


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

> The brain is definitely not the mind. The brain is the hardware, the mind is the running software.




The "mind" is an emergent property of the physical brain, it can't exist independently of the brain.

and when you split a brain, you create a second mind.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> The "mind" is an emergent property of the physical brain, it can't exist independently of the brain.
> 
> and when you split a brain, you create a second mind.




That's a bit different.  Initially you said they were one and the same, but they're not.

It's true that the mind cannot exist without the brain, but the brain can and does exist without the mind.  Like when you're in deep sleep.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 August 2017)

I wonder why other life forms haven't evolved a mind?


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> That's a bit different.  Initially you said they were one and the same, but they're not.
> 
> It's true that the mind cannot exist without the brain, but the brain can and does exist without the mind.  Like when you're in deep sleep.




No, I have constantly been saying that the mind/personality/you (what ever words you want to use), Is an emergent property of the physical brain.

I also said that your mind can be put on pause, when your brain stops functioning in a way that is conducive with producing that emergent property, e.g. when you are unconscious either drug induced, damage or part of the maintaining cycle we call deep sleep, which as you mentioned can be confused with "death" however "death" is the state where it becomes impossible to bring the consciousness back.


----------



## Value Collector (22 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I wonder why other life forms haven't evolved a mind?




what do you mean? all sorts of animals have minds (to varying degrees)



Interesting experiment here, the conclusion is that in certain situations, chimps working memory is better than humans.

Our minds have evolved to be better at certain things, but not to be better at everything.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> what do you mean? all sorts of animals have minds (to varying degrees)



I am sure from my observations that you will not have the same definition of mind as I do but these are definitions of mind ...

mind
mʌɪnd/
_noun_
noun: *mind*; plural noun: *minds*
1.
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
2. a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.

In the chimpanzee video the chimp was being rewarded for responding correctly after some degree of repetition which we don't know. Stimulus -> respopnse. No food would likely equal poor response. Food being the number one priority. However what would be an example of a thinking mind would be if the animal was brought from the wild and placed in front of the screen then performed that action.

Palm, ditch, steal, load, simulation, misdirection, switch. 

I do see a higher level of intelligence there though when compared to a beche de mer. But hey, maybe a beche de mer  can be trained to do things too. Especially if it involves food.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 August 2017)

Additionally, if it were mind, then it would be compounding intelligence as mind does.


----------



## Value Collector (23 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I am sure from my observations that you will not have the same definition of mind as I do but these are definitions of mind ...
> 
> mind
> mʌɪnd/
> ...





So you don't think that other animals think or feel? or are aware of the world and their experiences?

I think you have a very human centric view.

chimps are capable of complex thought and problem solving, if you can't say they have a "mind" I think your human ego is to big.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 August 2017)

You would have seen the video of chimpanzees using a stick to extract ants from a hollow branch. Apes as you know have about 98% DNA as humans. Dolphins are seen as intelligent too. On this forum I have already questioned what internal communicatioons animals use to act upon. The mind isnt telling the brain with words as such like humans do. You would have seen this 17 minute utube explanation from Yuval Harari.


----------



## Value Collector (23 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> The mind isnt telling the brain with words as such like humans do.




If an animal can think and solve problems, can communicate using language, and especially if it has a sense of self, it has a mind, I am not sure why you can't see that.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 August 2017)

Value Collector said:


> If an animal can think and solve problems, can communicate using language, and especially if it has a sense of self, it has a mind, I am not sure why you can't see that.



I consider mind as being "analytical". You don't, so there is no further value for me in continuing this conversation.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 August 2017)

Last post word conversation meant to be exchange. Probably used that word because I communicate most of the time by talking rather than text. No Facebook/Twitter social accounts and mainly post on this Forum.


----------



## Value Collector (23 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> I consider mind as being "analytical". You don't, so there is no further value for me in continuing this conversation.




But only in a human sense? because ape problem solving is analytical in my opinion.


----------



## bellenuit (23 August 2017)

Interesting perspective on "so-called" after death experiences. Is it just the brain shutting down....

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight


----------



## cynic (24 August 2017)

Yes that one was quite interesting.

It is truly amazing how many vids of people, making various NDE claims, are to be found in cyberspace.

The reason I selected this one, out of the wide range available, is that it seems that there has been, at least partial, corroboration of this woman's recounted experience of the surgical operation she underwent.


----------



## cynic (2 September 2017)

A skeptic skeptic?!! Or is that Skeptic squared?!!

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Prescott_Randi.html

Let's see if such an events heralds the advent of the skeptic cubed!!!


----------



## cynic (2 September 2017)

Is ESP real?

It appears that Russel Targ is, in his view, more than remotely satisfied with the evidence for the existence of remote viewing.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 September 2017)

A little Autohotkey script.  Esc to exit. Edit as you want.  



L1 := "You're always trading profitably"
L2 := "You're finding profitable opportunities with ease"
L3 := "You take a loss when you need to"
Loop
{
   Random, var, 1, 3
   MsgBox, % L%var%
   Sleep, 10000
}

Esc::ExitApp


----------



## cynic (15 December 2017)

Delusions or science? Could it be a case of both?

Dr. Sheldrake has an interesting perspective:


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 December 2017)

Well his "morphic resonance" theory can be shot down easily with the example of Aboriginals existence. While Europe and the Middle East made technological leaps forward, the Aboriginals did not.  
Maybe he could change his name to Mandrake (the magician) or do a comedy routine as his presentation got plenty of laughs.


----------



## cynic (15 December 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well his "morphic resonance" theory can be shot down easily with the example of Aboriginals existence. While Europe and the Middle East made technological leaps forward, the Aboriginals did not.
> Maybe he could change his name to Mandrake (the magician) or do a comedy routine as his presentation got plenty of laughs.



I would be most interested to hear your alternative explanation, for the acceleration in learning of the rats when introduced to the water mazes.


----------



## Tisme (15 December 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well his "morphic resonance" theory can be shot down easily with the example of Aboriginals existence. While Europe and the Middle East made technological leaps forward, the Aboriginals did not.
> Maybe he could change his name to Mandrake (the magician) or do a comedy routine as his presentation got plenty of laughs.




Resonance eh!

Might explain why Aboriginals didn't have a bow and arrow technology, even though same predated their migration from Africa, where bow and arrows existed 60k years ago. Perhaps the lack of resonance devolves cultures?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 December 2017)

Pretty much the same as it ever was. Hear say, see say. Hear do, see do.


----------



## grah33 (23 December 2017)

Personally, I no longer subscribe to the millions of years belief. Haven't worked out where I stand yet, I just don't know. My knowledge is severely limited in this area, but why should we assume the universe constants were the same in the very beginning, from which calculations are made? By nature the beginning was a mysterious event.

Another view on the age of the Earth .  It's interesting alright...


----------



## Sean K (23 December 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well his "morphic resonance" theory can be shot down easily with the example of Aboriginals existence. While Europe and the Middle East made technological leaps forward, the Aboriginals did not.
> Maybe he could change his name to Mandrake (the magician) or do a comedy routine as his presentation got plenty of laughs.




Yes, Australian Aborigines invented a stick, that doesn't actually come back... Nothing more. Not even a wheel.

They didn't need a wheel, however.

Because there were so few of them.

The only reason Australian Aboriginal culture has a meaning is that they were so far behind the rest of the world, it's worth studying.

We should not honour this, but be critical of it.


----------



## Value Collector (24 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> Personally, I no longer subscribe to the millions of years belief. Haven't worked out where I stand yet, I just don't know. My knowledge is severely limited in this area, but why should we assume the universe constants were the same in the very beginning, from which calculations are made? By nature the beginning was a mysterious event.
> 
> Another view on the age of the Earth .  It's interesting alright...




Why would you assume so much of physics has changed just? I mean the hoops that the young earth people jump through to twist things to make them fit their story is embarassing.

The scientific theories explain some much, the religious stories explain nothing, and directly contradict the evidence we see.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 December 2017)

kennas said:


> The only reason Australian Aboriginal culture has a meaning is that they were so far behind the rest of the world, it's worth studying.
> 
> We should not honour this, but be critical of it.



I feel empathy for the true bloods.


----------



## grah33 (24 December 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Why would you assume so much of physics has changed just? I mean the hoops that the young earth people jump through to twist things to make them fit their story is embarassing.
> 
> The scientific theories explain some much, the religious stories explain nothing, and directly contradict the evidence we see.





I meant what the guy was saying made sense to me. Why assume carbon 14 etc was decomposing at the same rate in the very beginning. We just weren't there.

The Christian religion isn't meant to explain science, but a lot of people think that without it (including Milo) there wouldn't be much science at all. I think when you have proper values/morals in a society being practiced, it just becomes natural for technology to develop (a view of many people). I'm sure the other countries would be achieving just as much if they had the same values which we used to have (all people have same brains).  The Bible is pretty much about how those morals were spread everywhere, about the hope of human immortality, and some other things too.


----------



## luutzu (24 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> I meant what the guy was saying made sense to me. Why assume carbon 14 etc was decomposing at the same rate in the very beginning. We just weren't there.
> 
> The Christian religion isn't meant to explain science, but a lot of people think that without it (including Milo) there wouldn't be much science at all. I think when you have proper values/morals in a society being practiced, it just becomes natural for technology to develop (a view of many people). I'm sure the other countries would be achieving just as much if they had the same values which we used to have (all people have same brains).  The Bible is pretty much about how those morals were spread everywhere, about the hope of human immortality, and some other things too.




Some would say that Christianity (and practically all religion in general) pull science back and prevented human progress wherever they operate. 

Why wouldn't there be science without Christianity? The Greeks, the Romans, the Muslims, the Persians, the Chinese, Asians etc. etc.... have all made scientific discoveries long before Christ was born. In fact, the Romans perfected the scientific method of crucifying enemies of the empire. i.e. How do you kill some terrorist in the most painful way possible; how do you make examples out of them, warning other potential try-hards. You nail them at the wrists, not at the palms as they will just fall off, you nail their feet together over a block to keep them hanging just right... then you stand the cross up by the roads, let their moans and suffering be seen and heard etc. etc.

Science and morality don't necessarily go together. A scientist can invent the most horrifying weapons ever known, and be totally proud of their work as keeping the world safe and such. While a highly moral and intelligent person can be as illiterate as a typical carpenter back 2000 years ago. 

I recently had an encounter with a Parish Priest. He's an absolute Grade A prick if there's ever one. His church and its massive carpark is literally sharing the same fence with a Primary Catholic school. To get to the school gate, crossing the carpark is the easiest way... 

Yet the prick closed his carpark's gate around school time [8-10; 2:30-4:30]. Well, he left the gate just wide enough for a parent and child to walk through, so he's not a total dick. 

Anyway, I know all this because I have to drop a few document to the kids' new school. Parked in "his" carpark and left just 5 minutes after the gate closes. Can't drive out of course, so I wondered why... asked around and was pointed to go see him. He said he can't open it because it closes at etc.

So how do I get out? Wait until 4:30, he said. Are you for real (a hole?). Yes, because If I let you out others will ask to be let out too. I have to look after the safety of the children.

Well, it's 2:35pm, the kids are still in class, and you are asking me to wait until 4:30PM? It's my first time here and I didn't know the rules.

It's clearly written (on A4, laminated print out) on the gate. We must all learn to read the sign. And learn from our mistakes. 

Hmm... should I really be sending my kids to be this close to this prick. Shiet, what if he's the principal. Alright, thanks (a hole). 

[btw, if you really care for the children's safety, "father", shouldn't you be opening your gate so it's easier for the parents to drop their kids off inside rather than outside on the street? Maybe put on a vest and pick up that lollypop sign to go direct traffic.]

Christ would be very disappointed in a lot of his preachers. But happy birthday either way.


----------



## Value Collector (25 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> I meant what the guy was saying made sense to me. Why assume carbon 14 etc was decomposing at the same rate in the very beginning. We just weren't there.
> 
> The Christian religion isn't meant to explain science, but a lot of people think that without it (including Milo) there wouldn't be much science at all. I think when you have proper values/morals in a society being practiced, it just becomes natural for technology to develop (a view of many people). I'm sure the other countries would be achieving just as much if they had the same values which we used to have (all people have same brains).  The Bible is pretty much about how those morals were spread everywhere, about the hope of human immortality, and some other things too.



Have you bothered to read any of the reasons science has to explain why the physics behind radio active decay remain constant? 

The Bible is not a good source of morals, you need to have good moral before reading it, other wise how do you know which parts to ignore?

Eg, the Bible condones slavery, but you ignore that bit, and you ignore it because your morals are actually sourced from outside the Bible to begin with, and you just follow the parts you already agree with.


----------



## grah33 (26 December 2017)

luutzu said:


> Some would say that Christianity (and practically all religion in general) pull science back and prevented human progress wherever they operate.
> ...
> Christ would be very disappointed in a lot of his preachers. .




Well Luutzu, sounds like you had one of those whirlwind days...yeah, there would be a lot of religious hypocrites out there, and always has been. But you get the good ones too, and some are really good. The minority (including lay people of course) that literally lives with a clear conscience in everything , believe it or not.

True there has been science going on outside of Christianity. But there is a lot too from Christianity . Just my intuition that you need a society that is free so innovation can keep happening, a society that also has good living conditions, and therefore good people in government to ensure that. A democratic one seems to do the job, and that is known to be a Christian system. For instance, freedom of conscience (essential for a healthy democracy) is no doubt a christian thing, and stems from belief in a God (a christian God). but anyway...





Value Collector said:


> The Bible is not a good source of morals, you need to have good moral before reading it, other wise how do you know which parts to ignore?
> 
> Eg, the Bible condones slavery, but you ignore that bit, and you ignore it because your morals are actually sourced from outside the Bible to begin with, and you just follow the parts you already agree with.




Your understanding is incorrect. Christians follow the New Testament, simple as that. From memory the Old Testament might have laws about slavery, but that is known to be imperfect. The Judaic law of the Old T was intended for a society that lacked morality , as in those times, hence they stoned/harsh treatment . The new testament explains this well enough. And Jesus overwrites it all well enough with love your enemies and forgiveness. And that verse in the New Testament about slavery which politicians like to bring up, that's not what it means at all. 

“lover you enemies”, “to hate your brother is likened to murder”, “forgive 77 times “ “treat others as you would like to be treated”.+ a few more e.g. marriage fidelity... these are a good source of morals imo. Even if somebody kills your parents or child, you still shouldn't hate them.They also say something about the greatness of human dignity


----------



## Value Collector (26 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> Well Luutzu, sounds like you had one of those whirlwind days...yeah, there would be a lot of religious hypocrites out there, and always has been. But you get the good ones too, and some are really good. The minority (including lay people of course) that literally lives with a clear conscience in everything , believe it or not.
> 
> True there has been science going on outside of Christianity. But there is a lot too from Christianity . Just my intuition that you need a society that is free so innovation can keep happening, a society that also has good living conditions, and therefore good people in government to ensure that. A democratic one seems to do the job, and that is known to be a Christian system. For instance, freedom of conscience (essential for a healthy democracy) is no doubt a christian thing, and stems from belief in a God (a christian God). but anyway...
> 
> ...




There is immorality in the New Testament too, but are you saying slavery was moral back in the days if the Old Testament?


----------



## grah33 (26 December 2017)

Value Collector said:


> There is immorality in the New Testament too, but are you saying slavery was moral back in the days if the Old Testament?




Seems to me that God was giving them a law suitable for the times and rogue societies that existed back then. So he gave them instructions on how to fairly deal with slaves, even though slavery is outside of what he wanted. What he really wanted, in terms of morality, is revealed later on when the Son appears.

(New T) For the law (old testament law) was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious..... who kill their father or mother or commit other murders..

Perhaps stoning was the only way to control a people that were out of control. They lacked morality , so they weren't ready to receive the more perfect morals.  While punishing a murderer by killing them might seem just to some people, it's more morally correct to practice mercy.


----------



## luutzu (26 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> Well Luutzu, sounds like you had one of those whirlwind days...yeah, there would be a lot of religious hypocrites out there, and always has been. But you get the good ones too, and some are really good. The minority (including lay people of course) that literally lives with a clear conscience in everything , believe it or not.
> 
> True there has been science going on outside of Christianity. But there is a lot too from Christianity . Just my intuition that you need a society that is free so innovation can keep happening, a society that also has good living conditions, and therefore good people in government to ensure that. A democratic one seems to do the job, and that is known to be a Christian system. For instance, freedom of conscience (essential for a healthy democracy) is no doubt a christian thing, and stems from belief in a God (a christian God). but anyway...




Christianity is not the same as democracies and scientific methods etc. Just as a "Christian system" of government, or a Christian society/civilisation/value that such gov't came out of, us automatically great and generous. 

For one, Christian kingdoms [Western civilisations] has and still are killing each other practically forever. 

Right now, Western civilisation isn't fighting evil Islam as we're told. It's just the same old imperialism expanding its boots on land inhabited by the majority Muslims. that mean "Christian" Washington working with Muslim dictators and warlords... they could also work with other religion or people; or fight other religion or people just the same, as long as it serves their purpose.

An example of Christianity (and any religion in its place) holding back scientific discovery would be Charles Darwin censoring himself from publishing the Origin of Species. He stopped going to Church after his vogages, but still refused to publish his findings until pressured to do so by another scientist to say that if Darwin won't publish his findings then he will publish his same findings and conclusion.

There's the witch burning; the book burnings; slavery; genocide... Christians are up there with the best of them. And if we judge it by today's map and international standards, the Christians did a much better job at those things than other imperial powers.

Though I don't think such things are taught in the Bible; or are the value Christians in general cherished... Just state and religion are not the same. They might serve each other here and there, but what's acceptable Christian value might not be acceptable state policy. And vice versa.

--------------

Yea, I do know a fair amount of good Christians. Though I think they're just good people and that their faith is just another part of themselves. But they would say that they're nice people of their religion, though I know a few who claims to be Christians but are definitely not going to heaven that's for dam sure.

A clear conscience... it comes at a heavy price. It's a lot easier to just be a total a hole sometimes. Maybe not even an a-hole, just a legally binding, by the book kind of guy.


----------



## Tink (27 December 2017)

As I have mentioned before Luutzu -

The Pope, the President, and the Prime Minister.
Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher - that changed the direction of the World.

Pope John Paul II was shot by the Communists/Stalinists..
In the late 80s he came to Melbourne.
I wonder if he would be allowed back in our state - Melbourne.

He had seen his country invaded.

_Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's_

----------------------------

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/


----------



## grah33 (27 December 2017)

luutzu said:


> Christianity is not the same as democracies and scientific methods etc. Just as a "Christian system" of government, or a Christian society/civilisation/value that such gov't came out of, us automatically great and generous.
> 
> For one, Christian kingdoms [Western civilisations] has and still are killing each other practically forever.
> 
> Yea, I do know a fair amount of good Christians. Though I think they're just good people and that their faith is just another part of themselves. But they would say that they're nice people of their religion, though I know a few who claims to be Christians but are definitely not going to heaven that's for dam sure.





(merry Christmas to you too . Forgot to wish you one...)

Well, these countries and Australia obviously aren't christian anymore. The laws aren't in harmony with Christian morals as they used to be. If they were (and laws /policy are a product of the kind of people we are), I don't think there would be as much chaos as there is now on the planet. Usually bad society and bad laws and bad behavior all go together. But don't expect perfect behavior, nor a perfect track record of a 2000 year old Church.

Many of the really good Christians find they believe strongly as a result of some divine experience, or even miracle. e.g. Heard a story once from a credible source. This guy Barry had a bad back. Was bent over or something. Received a healing and was walking totally normal. Hospital took scans and there were 3 new discs there (they had taken them out before). 3 discs came out of nowhere...Hospital didn't want to give him the scans in case they get sued. That's what she told me. That's a special miracle since she herself could verify it by seeing a bent over guy become straight /normal in front of her eyes.


----------



## wayneL (27 December 2017)

Haven't really been following this thread because of the inevitable application of luutzu logic, but perhaps God was created in man's image (whatever iteration has been created by the various great religious tribes), irrelevant to what God actually is?

Shear pantheistic (nuanced meaning) speculation..... YMMV


----------



## explod (27 December 2017)

wayneL said:


> Haven't really been following this thread because of the inevitable application of luutzu logic, but perhaps God was created in man's image (whatever iteration has been created by the various great religious tribes), irrelevant to what God actually is?
> 
> Shear pantheistic (nuanced meaning) speculation..... YMMV



What is YMMV ole Pal ?

God is the corporate icon.  Witch Doctor lined the tribe up for the Chief.  Jesus ensured that Constantine kept all on their knees and in the fields.  Then we have the Queen, die for your country and if that's failing, the TAB, pokies, footy and the great game of cricket.  Just party, greed wins.


----------



## explod (27 December 2017)

Another interesting angle:-


----------



## Tink (27 December 2017)

All three, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John Paul II all survived assassination attempts, and brought down Soviet Communism


----------



## luutzu (27 December 2017)

Tink said:


> As I have mentioned before Luutzu -
> 
> The Pope, the President, and the Prime Minister.
> Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher - that changed the direction of the World.
> ...




Why wouldn't the Pope be allowed back into Melbourne?

Not all changes are good and welcomed though.

Reagan and Thatcher kicked neo-liberalism into high gear. The decline of Western standard of living has been the result of such policies. Decline for the average working slobs anyway. For the rich, it's been doing pretty dam well.

So if you look at such measure as income inequality, real wage growth vs corporate profit vs productivity; look at the systematic undoing of social safety net; the privatisation of major utilities - and the increased costs to consumers that follow... The Western World was changed... for better or worst we just have to look at how the average western citizen have been faring.

If we look back throughout all of Western civilisations, beside the post WW2 period to about the mid 1970s, the wellbeing of the average citizen in Western/Christian countries are pretty much the same as all other countries. There are the very, very rich at the top. They rule through some sort of devine right given to them and their ancestors by God or Heaven...

Under them are the Courtiers, the Mandarins... well trained, well educated, and very obedient in carrying out what the Majesty ordered.

So those two groups rule the land with absolute power.

The rest are peasants, soldiers, mercenaries, merchants and tradies... your basic working poor and landless peasants.

After WW2, there was some sense of idealism. The godless commies offer an alternative model to capitalistic imperialism... To prevent the population turning against the ruling elite, concessions were made to them. Some crumbs were given up. 

Such crumbs include worker's rights, safety regulation, safety net, universal healthcare in most Western countries, free education etc. etc. 

These are the policies that made Western civilisation the envy of the world. Just that it hasn't always been there.

Then came the Powell Memorandum [Robert Reiche, Noam Chomsky etc]... where a consultant to the chamber of American business summarise the "crisis of democracy" and what to do about it.

Crisis of democracy is caused by well fed, well educated, well paid population. These peasants actually think they own the place, seriously believe that their votes matter and it is their country, tey have equal rights to this and that nonsense.

So how do you prevent this crisis of democracy that's stopping imperialist wars across the world? That's demanding civil rights, equal pay, healthcare and education? 

Forget that such policies are good for the country and the majority of its people, that doesn't matter. What matter is that the peasants must know their place.

But since too much rights had been won, how can the "national interest" be served without causing a violent revolution.

That's when Carter, then Reagan and Thatcher comes in... That's when the likes of Murdoch, Packer and I'm sure other press barons and oligarchs comes together to take back what has always been theirs. 

But of course you can't do that openly, people wouldn't put up with it. So you have convenient targets; you paint ugly pictures of your target... welfare queen; lazy grannies scamming the system; illegals, Muslims, migrants, refugees, greenies and noisy activists standing in the way of jobs and progress in "clean coals" etc. etc.

Chris Hedges quoted some smart guys saying that a gov't rarely need to fear foreign invaders. Their first fear is their own citizens rising up against them.

How do you police that? Fight terrorism by spying on everyone, removing everyone's rights...


----------



## luutzu (27 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> (merry Christmas to you too . Forgot to wish you one...)
> 
> Well, these countries and Australia obviously aren't christian anymore. The laws aren't in harmony with Christian morals as they used to be. If they were (and laws /policy are a product of the kind of people we are), I don't think there would be as much chaos as there is now on the planet. Usually bad society and bad laws and bad behavior all go together. But don't expect perfect behavior, nor a perfect track record of a 2000 year old Church.
> 
> Many of the really good Christians find they believe strongly as a result of some divine experience, or even miracle. e.g. Heard a story once from a credible source. This guy Barry had a bad back. Was bent over or something. Received a healing and was walking totally normal. Hospital took scans and there were 3 new discs there (they had taken them out before). 3 discs came out of nowhere...Hospital didn't want to give him the scans in case they get sued. That's what she told me. That's a special miracle since she herself could verify it by seeing a bent over guy become straight /normal in front of her eyes.




Thanks Grah. Hope you and your love ones had a great Christmas too.

I think that as long as Australia, or any other country, has good laws, laws that benefit its citizens... it doesn't need to be a Christian or a Jewish or a Buddhist state. It's just a good state to live in, raise your family and contribute towards.

Australia is a better country because it is not a legally "Christian country". The majority of its people are Christians, it celebrates Christian holy days etc., But if it were to become a "Christian" state, the harm would far outweigh the benefit.

That's not because other religion would be better and such, it's just that a secular democracy is always better than a theocratic state.

For one, it welcome all citizens and their contributions. It make them feel at home. You don't really want fake pretend Christians; and you don't want social unrest from having to send out the Christian police with Bibles and rule on clothing or behaviours. 

Second, scientific advances, research and development... religion will prevent such progress. 

So I reckon a good country would have laws that actually benefits all of its citizens, not the selected few. Have that for a few generations and the country will be what Australia is.

Problem is... our policies seem to mimic that of the US. A country that, according to a recent UN rapporteur [?], says is top in being the richest and having the biggest military... but is pretty much down the list on every other international measure. Infant mortality; access to healthcare; wealth equality etc. etc.


----------



## Value Collector (28 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> Seems to me that God was giving them a law suitable for the times and rogue societies that existed back then. So he gave them instructions on how to fairly deal with slaves, even though slavery is outside of what he wanted. What he really wanted, in terms of morality, is revealed later on when the Son appears.
> 
> (New T) For the law (old testament law) was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious..... who kill their father or mother or commit other murders..
> 
> Perhaps stoning was the only way to control a people that were out of control. They lacked morality , so they weren't ready to receive the more perfect morals.  While punishing a murderer by killing them might seem just to some people, it's more morally correct to practice mercy.




So he was able to tell them not to eat pork or shell fish, yet didn’t have the guts to tell them not to own people? 

Seems like your god doesn’t have his priorities in order, or maybe the book was just written by men, and reflects their rules not he rules of a god.


----------



## Tink (28 December 2017)

Wayne, as you said, the more the left push, the more the right rise.

Mother Government is not Christianity, as Luutzu portrays.
I am a conservative.

Christianity is what our country was built on, our foundations, which includes the upcoming New Year.
Anno domini, the year of our Lord.


----------



## luutzu (28 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> ....
> 
> Many of the really good Christians find they believe strongly as a result of some divine experience, or even miracle. e.g. Heard a story once from a credible source. This guy Barry had a bad back. Was bent over or something. Received a healing and was walking totally normal. Hospital took scans and there were 3 new discs there (they had taken them out before). 3 discs came out of nowhere...Hospital didn't want to give him the scans in case they get sued. That's what she told me. That's a special miracle since she herself could verify it by seeing a bent over guy become straight /normal in front of her eyes.




Yea, I know of two Christian converts who did so because they were convinced they had witness a miracle, a divine experience. 

One was my maternal grandmother seeing Mother Maria standing in a glow behind a Church during mass. Grandma converted pretty much right away. I told my year 6 mass class and the old nun wasn't as impressed as I was. But yea, you don't want to sound sceptical about all these religion thing in front of her. 

the other was my parent in law. He had a stroke/aneurysm and his wife prayed to God that he would survived it. He did and they attend Church everyday since. 

But it's best to leave medicine and such to the scientists.


----------



## luutzu (28 December 2017)

Tink said:


> Wayne, as you said, the more the left push, the more the right rise.
> 
> Mother Government is not Christianity, as Luutzu portrays.
> I am a conservative.
> ...




I'm not sure why a conservative would like Trump or Reagan or Thatcher. I mean, on the political spectrum, yeah, maybe... on the Christian-value conservatism... none of their laws and policies scream of Christian kindness or morality. It's literally dog-eat-dog, go fark yourself, every rich men is by friend while every poverty-stricken mother should go get a job while their sick kid can go die somewhere because there ain't no money for healthcare.

There's plenty for endless wars; plenty more for tax cuts, but diddly for kids and their "healthcare".

I'm not exaggerating. Look up their policies and that's what it is.

Jesus would not approved.


----------



## grah33 (28 December 2017)

Value Collector said:


> So he was able to tell them not to eat pork or shell fish, yet didn’t have the guts to tell them not to own people?
> 
> Seems like your god doesn’t have his priorities in order, or maybe the book was just written by men, and reflects their rules not he rules of a god.





I can't give you a good answer for every single thing. I'm guessing it had something to do with the kind of society there was back then. People were sacrificing children, raping , they had intercourse with animals, polygamy and killing for convenience. (side comment: we're actually gravitating there but in a different way – convenience abortion (instead of child sacrifice), and we're sodomizing with the gay marriage thing...)

This answer though is good enough for me :

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . 
“

And we do that because of the greatness of human dignity. As I said before the Law was for a people that lacked morality, but the morals of Jesus are for a more sane society. And no Law was given in the Gospel , since this wouldn't be practical. Countries make their own laws, and if the laws are in harmony with Jesus's values, then it will be a good law. If not, I think that living conditions etc will go down, and, as we're seeing now, the arrival of Big Brother (after the vote).


----------



## Tisme (28 December 2017)

Tink said:


> Wayne, as you said, the more the left push, the more the right rise.
> 
> Mother Government is not Christianity, as Luutzu portrays.
> I am a conservative.
> ...




https://www.murdoch.edu.au/School-o...s/2014/Zimmermann---A-Christian-Commonwealth2


----------



## luutzu (28 December 2017)

Tisme said:


> https://www.murdoch.edu.au/School-o...s/2014/Zimmermann---A-Christian-Commonwealth2




Didn't read the entire piece but it's pretty silly. 

Obviously Australia, being colonised by White, English and Christian liberators, would have a whole lot of Christian influence and heritage. 

With convicts and lawmakers being predominantly English and Christian, of course the holy days and other excuses for drunkenness are based around Christianity.

But to then conclude that such and such heritage and tradition means Australia is a Christian, not a secular, democracy... that's just bad scholarship, not to mention failure to observe reality.

If Parkes and his pals wanted Australia to be a Christian state, they'd say so at Federation. Since they didn't, since they separate Church and State, permit freedom of religion... That's thinking far and wide, that's having imperial ambition, that's being practical about welcoming barbarians and coverting savages into taxpayers regardless of their race or religion. Priorities.

That and knowing how to celebrate and party. Imagine working hard all week and all you can do with your salt is give to your wife, some to the Church and spend the weekend either at Church or preparing for Church. No alcohol, no loose women, fish on Fridays... it'd be like a prison all over again.


----------



## Tisme (29 December 2017)

luutzu said:


> Didn't read the entire piece but it's pretty silly.
> 
> Obviously Australia, being colonised by White, English and Christian liberators, would have a whole lot of Christian influence and heritage.
> 
> ...





I don't think they could have perceived we would abandon our heritage and national pride so readily as we have. As is often the case, lofty principles of today are championed only by the very few who are dreamers without suitable proteges.


----------



## luutzu (29 December 2017)

Tisme said:


> I don't think they could have perceived we would abandon our heritage and national pride so readily as we have. As is often the case, lofty principles of today are championed only by the very few who are dreamers without suitable proteges.




Australians all celebrate Christmas and will celebrate all other Christian holy days. English is still the national language. The top of practically all organisation of any weight is run, owned by White people... White people haven't lost their empire down under, yet 

Imagine Christmas or holidays where every Australian takes days off. How will most of us eat out? Or have the rubbish taken away? Or weekend construction work being done? Or cash on hand transactions?

In all seriousness though, I don't think Australia would be a great place it is today if it were to remain strictly, legally enforced, Christian. It'd be the same oppressive, backward, highly racist country all other theocratic state would be.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 December 2017)

luutzu said:


> Australians all celebrate Christmas and will celebrate all other Christian holy days. English is still the national language. The top of practically all organisation of any weight is run, owned by White people... White people haven't lost their empire down under, yet




As it should be.


----------



## luutzu (29 December 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> As it should be.




Black, White, Brown, Yellow... we plebs will always be paying our taxes, watch it siphoned up then maybe see a trickle here and there.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 December 2017)

luutzu said:


> Imagine Christmas or holidays where every Australian takes days off. How will most of us eat out? Or have the rubbish taken away? Or weekend construction work being done? Or cash on hand transactions?




What is the point of this statement ?

Are you saying only the white people take holidays while the others do all the work ?

Holidays are not racially segregated.


----------



## luutzu (29 December 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> What is the point of this statement ?
> 
> Are you saying only the white people take holidays while the others do all the work ?
> 
> Holidays are not racially segregated.




No, only Christians takes Xmas off. Christians being people of any race worshipping Christ.

So on Xmas holidays you'd have most Asian businesses/restaurants opening; you'd have Muslim tradies taking a day or two of public holiday off but will be back at it after boxing day etc.

Same during the Lunar New Year.... Chinese and Asians take time off work. They go to businesses where the owner/operator do not celebrate Lunar New Year. 

Multiculturalism at work. One hand washes the other


----------



## grah33 (30 December 2017)

I thought I'd share this clip with everyone , perfect for a thread like this. Although I wasn't there, I'm confident it is what it appears to be, an extraordinary display of divine power in broad daylight before a crowd. I really believe signs and wonders do happen, and not just in this particular denomination.

miracle scenes:

6:24-6:56
3:43-4:24



“Unseen realities “ (as expressed by the apostle Paul) or “sky fairies” (ValueC's terminology), decide for yourself...  They say when the praises are strong, occasionally God likes to show up.

(note: it can get emotional at times)


----------



## bellenuit (30 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> I thought I'd share this clip with everyone , perfect for a thread like this. Although I wasn't there, I'm confident it is what it appears to be, an extraordinary display of divine power in broad daylight before a crowd. I really believe signs and wonders do happen, and not just in this particular denomination.
> 
> miracle scenes:
> 
> ...





Looked at the so called miracles at the time marks you gave. The explanation is simple. It's just the distortion that one normally gets when looking at the sun at sunset due to the low angle, particularly when just above a mountain range. The amount of "atmosphere" (which includes cloud cover) one is looking through at a low angle is considerably more than when looking directly up. Additionally, this amount increases dramatically over the last few degrees of the setting sun (or decreases dramatically over the first few degrees of the rising sun). Different density layers of the atmosphere causes magnification (+ and -) and cloud cover effects opacity. These are more pronounced at low angles (just as the virtual bend in a straight stick dipped in a river is more pronounced when looking from a side angle rather than directly above). So for the sun to appear dancing (which the video doesn't show) is simply the apparent size of the sun increasing and decreasing as its light passes through the extensive atmospheric density differences and cloud coverage differences when viewed at such low  angles.

The fact that thousands witnessed it and believed it was a miracle is just testimony to the gullibility of simple poorly educated masses. Remember, these are the same people who fall for the miracle incision free surgery trickery rampant in the Philippines, where fraudsters appear to put their hands into the chests of people suffering ailments and pull out the bad parts without any incision being made.


----------



## cynic (30 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> I thought I'd share this clip with everyone , perfect for a thread like this. Although I wasn't there, I'm confident it is what it appears to be, an extraordinary display of divine power in broad daylight before a crowd. I really believe signs and wonders do happen, and not just in this particular denomination.
> 
> miracle scenes:
> 
> ...




Whilst I happen to be very theistic in my views, and believe miracles to be an everpresent feature of existence, I do get somewhat concerned when readily explicable phenomena are hastily attributed to "supernatural" or "paranormal" causes.

You will undoubtedly, have just witnessed, for yourself, how quickly, and easily, this incident can be used to support an accusation of gullibility and poor education, on the part of those preferring the metaphysical interpretation.

I happen to believe that the antitheists have gotten it wrong (when it comes to the question of existence). So let's not do them a disservice by making it too easy for them to maintain confidence in their fallacious belief system.


----------



## cynic (30 December 2017)

On the topic of miracles, according to this news item, amongst the many medical miracles reported by visitors to Lourdes, 69 have purportedly been confirmed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26334964


----------



## Value Collector (30 December 2017)

cynic said:


> On the topic of miracles, according to this news item, amongst the many medical miracles reported by visitors to Lourdes, 69 have purportedly been confirmed.
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26334964



Let me know when god helps some one regrow a limb,


----------



## cynic (30 December 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Let me know when god helps some one regrow a limb,



By all means set the bar as impossibly high as you like! Try as you might, your approach is unlikely to alleviate personal insecurity surrounding the unanswered mystery of existence.

For what it's worth, whilst I happen to believe very firmly in the existence of one (or more) higher beings, I do not automatically attribute "paranormal" phenomena to the actions of such beings.

My perspective on the Lourdes miracles is that, these phenomena are more likely related to some people believing so strongly, that they are able to transcend limitations imposed by societal conditioning.


----------



## Tink (31 December 2017)

As has been mentioned, schools and hospitals started in monasteries.


----------



## Tisme (31 December 2017)

Value Collector said:


> Let me know when god helps some one regrow a limb,




or hair


----------



## Tisme (31 December 2017)

Tink said:


> As has been mentioned, schools and hospitals started in monasteries.




I think schools predate Monastic institutions Tink, but I'm guessing you mean the shape and form of modern establishments?


----------



## Tisme (31 December 2017)

cynic said:


> My perspective on the Lourdes miracles is that, these phenomena are more likely related to some people believing so strongly, that they are able to transcend limitations imposed by societal conditioning.




So you believe in self healing through thought?


----------



## Tisme (31 December 2017)

luutzu said:


> No, only Christians takes Xmas off. .........
> Multiculturalism at work. One hand washes the other




Tell that to the muslims, hindus, my would be chinese daughter, and even a south korean (whatever skyfairy she obeys) who celebrated Xmas with me and my own and have done for decades around my xmas table. I even have roman catholics join us.... !! This year we had one less viet = only three because one is in love, but one of the girls brought her chinese b/f.

It's hard being a racist and fart at the same time


----------



## cynic (31 December 2017)

Tisme said:


> So you believe in self healing through thought?



More than just self healing.

Mustard seed sized mountain moving beliefs!


----------



## Tisme (31 December 2017)

cynic said:


> More than just self healing.
> 
> Mustard seed sized mountain moving beliefs!




I like that attitude


----------



## grah33 (31 December 2017)

bellenuit said:


> Looked at the so called miracles at the time marks you gave. The explanation is simple. It's just the distortion that one normally gets when looking at the sun at sunset due to the low angle, particularly when just above a mountain range. The amount of "atmosphere" (which includes cloud cover) one is looking through at a low angle is considerably more than when looking directly up. Additionally, this amount increases dramatically over the last few degrees of the setting sun (or decreases dramatically over the first few degrees of the rising sun). Different density layers of the atmosphere causes magnification (+ and -) and cloud cover effects opacity. These are more pronounced at low angles (just as the virtual bend in a straight stick dipped in a river is more pronounced when looking from a side angle rather than directly above). So for the sun to appear dancing (which the video doesn't show) is simply the apparent size of the sun increasing and decreasing as its light passes through the extensive atmospheric density differences and cloud coverage differences when viewed at such low  angles.
> 
> The fact that thousands witnessed it and believed it was a miracle is just testimony to the gullibility of simple poorly educated masses. Remember, these are the same people who fall for the miracle incision free surgery trickery rampant in the Philippines, where fraudsters appear to put their hands into the chests of people suffering ailments and pull out the bad parts without any incision being made.





You're sort of in different views at the same time here, but I should say that your reasoning isn't sound in the second paragraph at all imo. If they witnessed it, and I think mobile phone could record it just fine, than the best explanation for it is that it is a miracle, since they're looking for miracles/God. The youtuber is claiming that the crowd is seeing a divine wonder unfold, and that it has been recorded.



cynic said:


> Whilst I happen to be very theistic in my views, and believe miracles to be an everpresent feature of existence, I do get somewhat concerned when readily explicable phenomena are hastily attributed to "supernatural" or "paranormal" causes.




Ha??? If it can be explained readily, then you should explain it to us. I don't mind looking silly in front of everyone.


----------



## cynic (31 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> ...
> 
> Ha??? If it can be explained readily, then you should explain it to us. I don't mind looking silly in front of everyone.



The ways in which light typically behaves, whilst travelling through mediums of variant densities, is an important consideration. One which ought not be hastily dismissed in favour of miraculous claims.

That's not to say that this event cannot possibly be a miracle. I just prefer to see that care is taken to eliminate more plausible explanations first, before gravitating to any paranormal conclusions.


----------



## bellenuit (31 December 2017)

grah33 said:


> You're sort of in different views at the same time here, but I should say that your reasoning isn't sound in the second paragraph at all imo. If they witnessed it, and I think mobile phone could record it just fine, than the best explanation for it is that it is a miracle, since they're looking for miracles/God. The youtuber is claiming that the crowd is seeing a divine wonder unfold, and that it has been recorded.




The worst explanation is, and has always been, that it is a miracle. Time and time again so called miracles have been shown to be either fraudulent or a natural event that the believer misunderstood or simply was uneducated enough to comprehend.

The fact that thousands thought that they were watching a miracle unfold when there was a simpler explanation is that they WANT to believe it. This is what has happened in Ireland with the "moving statues", that the Catholic Hierarchy, though initially welcoming the new found faith of the people, eventually had to admit was all nonsense when it got out of hand. To this very day, I know people from Ireland (my country of birth) who would swear that the statues were moving. In this case, video evidence would be far more convincing as we are not talking about looking at an intense light like the sun at a low angle. No such video evidence exists.

Going back to the video, where you claim that the mobile phone record is just fine. Just look at any scene through your mobile phone camera where there is a bright light somewhere in the picture that gets variable obscured (say the sun shining though moving foliage). As the light intensity from the source varies, the phone reacts by applying filters to stabilise the overall lighting. But these take time to react. So when a partly obscured sun becomes fully exposed, the additional filtration needed due to the more intense light will not immediately be applied, resulting in an short explosion of light, exactly as your video recorded.

The other thing in the video that was more obvious and which could be easily shown to be the case if it were true is the rainbow rising from the statues head. We heard oohs and awes when that happened. Yet I could clearly see the rainbow just passed behind the head at that camera angle as you could clearly see it above the right shoulder (of the statue) too. But considering that there were hundreds of people recording, why is there not one image on the net or included as part of the video that shows the rainbow rising from the head at that same time when viewed from a different angle? That would be difficult to explain, yet no attempt was made to get such convincing evidence which would have been so easy to get.

If you want to believe what was shown then that's your prerogative. But I see nothing in that video other than a crowd of gullible people wanting to believe something that has a far simpler explanation. And with regards to the rainbow "miracle", deliberate avoidance of including what could be convincing information which was readily obtainable.


----------



## grah33 (31 December 2017)

cynic said:


> The ways in which light typically behaves, whilst travelling through mediums of variant densities, is an important consideration. One which ought not be hastily dismissed in favour of miraculous claims.
> 
> That's not to say that this event cannot possibly be a miracle. I just prefer to see that care is taken to eliminate more plausible explanations first, before gravitating to any paranormal conclusions.






bellenuit said:


> The worst explanation is, and has always been, that it is a miracle. Time and time again so called miracles have been shown to be either fraudulent or a natural event that the believer misunderstood or simply was uneducated enough to comprehend.
> 
> The fact that thousands thought that they were watching a miracle unfold when there was a simpler explanation is that they WANT to believe it. This is what has happened in Ireland with the "moving statues", that the Catholic Hierarchy, though initially welcoming the new found faith of the people, eventually had to admit was all nonsense when it got out of hand. To this very day, I know people from Ireland (my country of birth) who would swear that the statues were moving. In this case, video evidence would be far more convincing as we are not talking about looking at an intense light like the sun at a low angle. No such video evidence exists.
> 
> ...




Regards statue miracles i'm not a big fan of them either . But don't be too discouraged by that. If God does work miracles, I'm sure there will always be plenty of dodgy ones that people come up with.

Regard the rainbow, I didn't really find that interesting. Best to stick to the portions I outlined (they gotta be watched from the start to the end of them too).

Then bell u think that it may have happened in front of the witnesses, as reported by the youtuber, but it's sky/light doing something unusual due to weather conditions, fooling them. Fair enough. And on top of that the camera isn't recording it properly, giving us the dramatic look we see. Key point for me is that you guys think that the witnesses may indeed have saw something , but it was the sky/light reacting , that's all. Ultimately though we weren't there and that's no doubt an important factor for us.


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> By all means set the bar as impossibly high as you like! Try as you might, your approach is unlikely to alleviate personal insecurity surrounding the unanswered mystery of existence.
> 
> For what it's worth, whilst I happen to believe very firmly in the existence of one (or more) higher beings, I do not automatically attribute "paranormal" phenomena to the actions of such beings.
> 
> My perspective on the Lourdes miracles is that, these phenomena are more likely related to some people believing so strongly, that they are able to transcend limitations imposed by societal conditioning.



Why would simply regrowing a persons limb be impossibly high for a god?

Surely that would be easy, and it would be a much clearer demonstration than all the other claimed medical miracles, which can often be put down to natural causes.


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

Tink said:


> As has been mentioned, schools and hospitals started in monasteries.



Maybe, but they became a lot more effective when they dumped the religious stuff and focused on the scientific approach.

It’s like you are trying to condone nuclear weapons, because their research lead to nuclear medicine.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why would simply regrowing a persons limb be impossibly high for a god?
> 
> Surely that would be easy, and it would be a much clearer demonstration than all the other claimed medical miracles, which can often be put down to natural causes.



According to that news article I posted, at least 69 of those claimed medical miracles remain unexplained.

Anyway, you have misunderstood the intended meaning of my post. I was most certainly not saying that the bar was impossibly high for a divine being.

Please do  not even pretend that the regrowing of a limb would ever be sufficient to persuade you to alter your antitheistic viewpoint.

What sort of a god would jump through hoops in a vain effort to persuade somebody like you?

The god that I believe in, certainly isn't that stupid!


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> According to that news article I posted, at least 69 of those claimed medical miracles remain unexplained.
> 
> Anyway, you have misunderstood the intended meaning of my post. I was most certainly not saying that the bar was impossibly high for a divine being.
> 
> ...




Maybe the god you believe in can just do it to relieve the suffering, no need to demo it to prove a point.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why would simply regrowing a persons limb be impossibly high for a god?
> 
> Surely that would be easy, and it would be a much clearer demonstration than all the other claimed medical miracles, which can often be put down to natural causes.




Or God can just make an appearance in the sky. Give a big speech. That's it.

"It's me, God. I don't like what you idiots have done to the place. I can see where this is going and I need you to stop it. 

I'll give you five years. If the place isn't cleaned up. If there are still homeless and impoverished people while a handful of you have so much money you don't know what to do with _after_ your mega mansions and super yachts... all while your leadership spend billions on war machines...

If I come back and all these aren't fixed, I'll do another flood. And Noah ain't going to return for this sequel.

Again, just so you don't think I'm kidding. When I return and don't like what I see, I'll crack open the Earth and march all the leadership and oligarchs straight to hell. Then I'll close it up. Clean house.

We clear? Good."

God doesn't know how to use his power at all.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Maybe the god you believe in can just do it to relieve the suffering, no need to demo it to prove a point.



Maybe the god I believe in, recognises the importance and value of the full spectrum of human experience!


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Maybe the god I believe in, recognises the importance and value of the full spectrum of human experience!




Then your god is a psychopath.

If you have the power, would you sit back and let your seriously ill child "experience" the full spectrum of human experience? Would any sane person?


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Or God can just make an appearance in the sky. Give a big speech. That's it.
> 
> "It's me, God. I don't like what you idiots have done to the place. I can see where this is going and I need you to stop it.
> 
> ...



Why would you say that? What purpose would such uses of power, as you have outlined, achieve?


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Then your god is a psychopath.
> 
> If you have the power, would you sit back and let your seriously ill child "experience" the full spectrum of human experience? Would any sane person?



Is there such a thing, as a sane person, in your purportedly godless existence?


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Why would you say that? What purpose would such uses of power, as you have outlined, achieve?




World peace. 

After some 5,000 years since Noah and the place is still stuffed... A caring God might want to step in and intervene a bit. Do it openly. No more mysterious nonsense, no more "miracles" no one can explain.

What kind of a God would say... yea, do whatever you want. Steal, kill, rape, pillage, enslave and enjoy. Then on judgement day, I'll sort out who's good and who's naughty. 

What the heck is that?


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Is there such a thing, as a sane person, in your purportedly godless existence?




I'm pretty sane. I'm sure there are plenty of others too. And in my world, there's no God.

Even a greedy GP would subscribe some pill to relieve a patient's suffering.. .all for a few bucks. God can end all the suffering with a wave of His hand... but nope. Let them experience the full spectrum, let them "choose". 

He's worst than the Republicans and their "liberty" and "choice" bs.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> World peace.
> 
> After some 5,000 years since Noah and the place is still stuffed... A caring God might want to step in and intervene a bit. Do it openly. No more mysterious nonsense, no more "miracles" no one can explain.
> 
> ...



In order to maintain the lofty state of world peace, mankind would surely first require the wisdom to achieve, maintain, and appreciate the value of such a high ideal.

What makes you so certain that the experiences and freedom of choice, with their attendant consequences, aren't an essential part of the attainment of such a harmonious state.

Why would any sane person expect to be able to automatically win the prize fight, without first enduring the requisite training?

What sort of god would do such a thing, as to raise a spoilt child, pandering to every whim, whilst denying that child the opportunity to earn rewards, and own behavioural consequences?

Perhaps an irresponsible god might do such things. Fortunately, the god I believe in, recognises the importance of things such as responsibility and experiential wisdom.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> In order to maintain the lofty state of world peace, mankind would surely first require the wisdom to achieve, maintain, and appreciate the value of such a high ideal.
> 
> What makes you so certain that the experiences and freedom of choice, with their attendant consequences, aren't an essential part of the attainment of such a harmonious state.
> 
> ...




Cool.

I just hope your parenting style aren't the same as your belief in what a heavenly father ought to do.

Most parents, being irresponsible as you say, would not let their kids play with knives or nuclear weapons.

Most parents would teach their kids to share their toys, love each other. Not let 'em at it to toughen themselves up and the strongest win out.

But let's not spoilt most of humanity. We all must learn how to not be poor, learn to see what it's like to have a sick member of the family who must slowly suffer and die for lack of a few dollars for medicine.

If it kills you, it'll make you stronger. Trust me. - God.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I'm pretty sane. I'm sure there are plenty of others too. And in my world, there's no God.
> 
> Even a greedy GP would subscribe some pill to relieve a patient's suffering.. .all for a few bucks. God can end all the suffering with a wave of His hand... but nope. Let them experience the full spectrum, let them "choose".
> 
> He's worst than the Republicans and their "liberty" and "choice" bs.



Please explain to me why you believe suffering is wrong!

Please also explain to me why you chose to bring people into the world, knowing that they would at times, unavoidably,  end up having to endure at least some suffering.

If the children you parented are only going to die at some future time, and forever after cease to be, where is the rationality in your choice?

In light of your decision, how can you claim to be sane?


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Please explain to me why you believe suffering is wrong!
> 
> Please also explain to me why you chose to bring people into the world, knowing that they would at times, unavoidably,  end up having to endure at least some suffering.
> 
> ...




Why is suffering wrong? Seriously?

We all raise our children hoping that they wouldn't suffer. Hoping they can live healthy and productive lives etc. etc. Then at the end of the day, when they die after a long life, they would look back and see the good and great deeds they've done and be proud of it. So that's not suffering.

Now, if each of us parent have the power of God... or have lotsa money, we would use it to ease any suffering our children runs into. Wouldn't we?

So why is the almighty god exempt from that and still be seen as a good "father"?

Say a parent whose kids ran into trouble... should the parent just ignore it? Saying... I told you not to do so and so; you didn't listen and follow my commandment... then suffer the consequences. Learn to live with your mistake, or die of it... either way, it's a valuable lesson.

There are religious people who follow such logic... they tend to also be aholes. I've met a few of them in my life... all religious on the outside but inside it's just screwed up logic and excuses, being cruel to be kind bs.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Why is suffering wrong? Seriously?
> 
> We all raise our children hoping that they wouldn't suffer. Hoping they can live healthy and productive lives etc. etc. Then at the end of the day, when they die after a long life, they would look back and see the good and great deeds they've done and be proud of it. So that's not suffering.
> 
> ...



Before I respond, I need to be clear on a few things about what you believe.

Firstly can you confirm, whether or not, you are saying that suffering is wrong?

Secondly, in a temporal existence where deeds are done, what is your definition of a good deed?

Thirdly, how are such deeds good, and what purpose is served by those good deeds?


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Before I respond, I need to be clear on a few things about what you believe.
> 
> Firstly can you confirm, whether or not, you are saying that suffering is wrong?
> 
> ...




Yes, suffering is wrong. It's totally screwed for a God to stand by and watch people suffer when he could just end it. 

"good deeds" are deeds that does not harm anyone and help or benefit them and yourself.

What purpose does it serve? Maybe a gold medal or a sticker?


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yes, suffering is wrong. It's totally screwed for a God to stand by and watch people suffer when he could just end it.
> 
> "good deeds" are deeds that does not harm anyone and help or benefit them and yourself.
> 
> What purpose does it serve? Maybe a gold medal or a sticker?



Okay, based upon your response, I can see that you fail to recognise the importance of suffering!
Which leads me to the confident assertion that you are guiltier, than that god you've chosen to condemn, for intentionally bringing more human suffering into the world via your offspring!

And what about pain? Is that not a form of suffering? Does it not serve a valuable purpose in communicating something useful?

When the obstetrician smacks the bottom of the new born infant, is he committing a sin by inflicting suffering?

When a brain screams that there is pain in a hand accidentally placed on a hot plate, is the brain wrong to convey a message of suffering?

As to your definition of good deeds, how is that useful, if everyone alive today is going to be dead forevermore some time in the future? What possible value could those deeds have, when it would be far easier for everyone to self extinguish and thereby eliminate all future suffering?

Given your stance on the wrongness of suffering, how is your decision to continue living, knowing that some future suffering is certainly entailed, rational?

Where is the sanity in your philosophy?


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> According to that news article I posted, at least 69 of those claimed medical miracles remain unexplained.
> 
> Anyway, you have misunderstood the intended meaning of my post. I was most certainly not saying that the bar was impossibly high for a divine being.
> 
> ...




So because it is unexplained, you think it’s best to just make up an explanation?

What I am saying is that the medical claims about miracles always seem to be trivial things, nothing major as I said like regrowing a limb or surviving a beheading etc, that would  be more impressive.


----------



## grah33 (1 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> The fact that thousands witnessed it and believed it was a miracle is just testimony to the gullibility of simple poorly educated masses. Remember, these are the same people who fall for the miracle incision free surgery trickery rampant in the Philippines, where fraudsters appear to put their hands into the chests of people suffering ailments and pull out the bad parts without any incision being made.






cynic said:


> Whilst I happen to be very theistic in my views, and believe miracles to be an everpresent feature of existence, I do get somewhat concerned when readily explicable phenomena are hastily attributed to "supernatural" or "paranormal" causes.





you know, I think our reasoning is slightly floored ... Cynic (bell too), can u explain a possible interpretation of it for me? It doesn't seem so easy to explain. You see, when I saw that clip, like Bell I made the assumption that the youtuber/s wasn't lying. This means that the crowd saw something spectacular, and the mobile phone recording was good enough to convey what they saw . Thus trying to explain how a phone can erroneously record a light source is pointless now since the crowd actually saw something that was impressive enough ( it would be more lovelier in real life ). What i'm saying is, explaining the potential for an illusion on the mobile phone is a pointless exercise.


Or the youtuber/s are lying. Then it's a different ball game of course.

Many of the atheists are actually focusing on case 1 from what i've seen online– trying to explain the sky/elements bending the light. As far as I know, know such natural phenomena exists, that looks like that. Back to what I said before, if one assumes the youtuber isn't lying, then the best explanation would seem to be a miracle, since God is what they're looking for up there.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So because it is unexplained, you think it’s best to just make up an explanation?
> ...



No. I think it's best to continue seeking to expand human understanding of any seemingly incomprehensible phenomena.


> What I am saying is that the medical claims about miracles always seem to be trivial things, nothing major as I said like regrowing a limb or surviving a beheading etc, that would  be more impressive.



A trivial thing should ideally be readily explicable. The purported 69 miracles were not, since they defied medical explanation. As such they cannot currently be readily dismissed as trivial.

Your continued efforts to justify your philosophical stance are becoming increasingly amusing.

What gives you the right to dictate how a deity should behave?

If there is some event, the occurrence of which, would convince you of the existence of one or more higher beings, I'd be interested to hear of it.

So far you just seem to be trotting out the fashionable arguments, currently circulating throughout the anti-theist community.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Okay, based upon your response, I can see that you fail to recognise the importance of suffering!
> Which leads me to the confident assertion that you are guiltier, than that god you've chosen to condemn, for intentionally bringing more human suffering into the world via your offspring!
> 
> And what about pain? Is that not a form of suffering? Does it not serve a valuable purpose in communicating something useful?
> ...




Now you're just being an idiot.

Yes I know, pain sensors help the "sufferer" avoid greater danger. A doctor's slap on the bum to make the newborn cry for their first breath help with live...

Are such thing to same as God watching the pain of, say, famine from wars or "natural" catastrophes?

Good deeds would prevent certain suffering or death. Often make life better for those the deeds was directed at. So how is it the same as mass suicide?

Dude, I'm not God... So I can't prevent suffering to myself or others. Your logic there only make sense if I both hate suffering, have the power to cure it, but refuses to and chose to continue life.

That and I plan to be Bruce Wayne where my superpower is being extremely rich   To fight bad guys, start a club of super heroes and all that.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> you know, I think our reasoning is slightly floored ... Cynic (bell too), can u explain a possible interpretation of it for me? It doesn't seem so easy to explain. You see, when I saw that clip, like Bell I made the assumption that the youtuber/s wasn't lying. This means that the crowd saw something spectacular, and the mobile phone recording was good enough to convey what they saw . Thus trying to explain how a phone can erroneously record a light source is pointless now since the crowd actually saw something that was impressive enough ( it would be more lovelier in real life ). What i'm saying is, explaining the potential for an illusion on the mobile phone is a pointless exercise.
> 
> 
> Or the youtuber/s are lying. Then it's a different ball game of course.
> ...




I have little doubt that many of those witnessing the event saw something that was not aligned with their ordinary everyday experience. Whilst I happen to believe very much in miracles, I do not happen to share your interpretation of this particular event.

Before gravitating to a supernatural interpretation of any phenomena, I believe it is important to take some time to consider the possibility of natural causation.

Nothing I saw struck me as being so exceptional, that it defied explanation by anything beyond an unusual confluence of natural events. That's not to say that it couldn't have been a miracle! (I just happen to be doubtful that it was).

Out of interest, to the best of your knowledge, has this event been duly investigated by any scientists to see if it could be naturally explained?


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Now you're just being an idiot.
> 
> Yes I know, pain sensors help the "sufferer" avoid greater danger. A doctor's slap on the bum to make the newborn cry for their first breath help with live...
> 
> ...



Okay, so now you can recognise that suffering is not necessarily wrong! I think we've made some progress!

Now, did the newborn infant understand why the surgeon smacked its bottom?


----------



## grah33 (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> That and I plan to be Bruce Wayne where my superpower is being extremely rich   To fight bad guys, start a club of super heroes and all that.



The answers to many of your questions are actually found in the scriptures. There is also the well known story of Job. Even after suffering a great deal, he is found to be at fault for complaining to God.

Regards healings, I think many more would occur if people had better characters. If a person doesn't live the life (many ask God for things but don't listen to him) , they get nothing. Not everybody can be trusted with good things.

I recall a friend once. His health (anxiety problem ) improved significantly and he attributed it to God. Then he was gone (shacked up with a girlfriend, no more church) and then he got sick again.  He was jumping in and out of the church actually.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Okay, so now you can recognise that suffering is not necessarily wrong! I think we've made some progress!
> 
> Now, did the newborn infant understand why the surgeon smacked its bottom?




Yea dude, a light tap on the bum to encourage breathing is the same as a mudslide that suffocates people in their sleep.

That reminds me of a priest I met recently. He's a jackazz.


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> No. I think it's best to continue seeking to expand human understanding of any seemingly incomprehensible phenomena.
> 
> A trivial thing should ideally be readily explicable. The purported 69 miracles were not, since they defied medical explanation. As such they cannot currently be readily dismissed as trivial.
> 
> ...




If a god or god’s existed, they would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince me, the fact that I remain unconvinced means that either these gods don’t care whether I believe, or they don’t exist.

When I say trivial, I mean there are countless claims of gods healing cataracts, arthritis and other such minor aliments, but they never seem to do anything substantial such as regrowing limbs or healing the victims of beheading etc,

So why is it that they never heal beheading victims? Or regrow limbs? And only seem to operate on the fringes of medical cures?


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yea dude, a light tap on the bum to encourage breathing is the same as a mudslide that suffocates people in their sleep.
> 
> That reminds me of a priest I met recently. He's a jackazz.



Would it be fair of me to say that the infant had no idea why the surgeon inflicted such pain, but that despite such ignorance, the painful experience was still necessary and beneficial?

And if so, would it be fair of me to argue that humans are not always capable of recognising the necessity and benevolence of their personal suffering?

And if the aforesaid is fair, then how can anyone confidently assert that the existence of human suffering is evidence against the case for the existence of god?


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The answers to many of your questions are actually found in the scriptures. There is also the well known story of Job. Even after suffering a great deal, he is found to be at fault for complaining to God.
> 
> Regards healings, I think many more would occur if people had better characters. If a person doesn't live the life (many ask God for things but don't listen to him) , they get nothing. Not everybody can be trusted with good things.
> 
> I recall a friend once. His health (anxiety problem ) improved significantly and he attributed it to God. Then he was gone (shacked up with a girlfriend, no more church) and then he got sick again.  He was jumping in and out of the church actually.




Plenty of people does not live the life God instructed, yet they have everything, and then some.

Soooo religiousness, piousness or whatever... it doesn't affect God's gifts or wrath. I mean, children with cancer? wtf? What crime could a kid possibly commit to get that sentence? 

If believing in God makes a person happier, live better lives, then by all means. Just I think it's a bit much to blame people's mis/fortune on whether or not God likes them and their behaviour.

My grandma recently told my mum to go back to Church and be closer to God again. Saying that it's because she abandoned God from her life that her children don't listen to her anymore. 

I mean, maybe I'm the exception but my siblings are great kids. Just sometimes there are wishes that cannot be followed and obeyed. That doesn't make them bad kids, just morally strong people who also know what's right for them.


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The answers to many of your questions are actually found in the scriptures. There is also the well known story of Job. Even after suffering a great deal, he is found to be at fault for complaining to God.
> 
> Regards healings, I think many more would occur if people had better characters. If a person doesn't live the life (many ask God for things but don't listen to him) , they get nothing. Not everybody can be trusted with good things.
> 
> I recall a friend once. His health (anxiety problem ) improved significantly and he attributed it to God. Then he was gone (shacked up with a girlfriend, no more church) and then he got sick again.  He was jumping in and out of the church actually.




Again, can you show me an example of a person who regrew their limb or limbs? Or have a decapitated head reattached? 

If not why not? If miracles happen, why don’t they happen in cases that would be truly impressive.

Do Christians suffer cancer at lower rates than the rest of society? I don’t think so.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If a god or god’s existed, they would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince me, the fact that I remain unconvinced means that either these gods don’t care whether I believe, or they don’t exist.
> 
> When I say trivial, I mean there are countless claims of gods healing cataracts, arthritis and other such minor aliments, but they never seem to do anything substantial such as regrowing limbs or healing the victims of beheading etc,
> 
> So why is it that they never heal beheading victims? Or regrow limbs? And only seem to operate on the fringes of medical cures?



Why should god do those things anyway? What would be the point? And who the heck is this god in which you have chosen to disbelieve?

Is he/she/it some sort of stage magician like the amazing Randi?


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Why should god do those things anyway? What would be the point? And who the heck is this god in which you have chosen to disbelieve?
> 
> Is he/she/it some sort of stage magician like the amazing Randi?




So far I remain unconvinced any god exist, but I leave defining “god” up to the person making the claim it exists.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Would it be fair of me to say that the infant had no idea why the surgeon inflicted such pain, but that despite such ignorance, the painful experience was still necessary and beneficial?
> 
> And if so, would it be fair of me to argue that humans are not always capable of recognising the necessity and benevolence of their personal suffering?
> 
> And if the aforesaid is fair, then how can anyone confidently assert that the existence of human suffering is evidence against the case for the existence of god?




I didn't say human suffering is evidence against the existence of God.

I said that given the vast amount of humans and their sufferings, if there is a God, he's a psychotic prick.

Why don't you try to explain why some 1 billions of God's children on Earth not having access to clean drinking water is "necessary and beneficial"? Why mudslides that kills everything in its path is God's way of being kind to those victims. etc. etc.

Suffering here is not personal mistakes encouraging lessons for future success; or a sprained ankle because you didn't wear NikeAir Max when going jogging. It's watching your infant son coughing his lung out and die because a recent war mean you cannot afford $1 of medicine that would have saved his life. 

But sure, God has His own reasons for which we do not comprehend. He has a Plan for all of us... plans like most of humanity suffer


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I didn't say human suffering is evidence against the existence of God.
> 
> I said that given the vast amount of humans and their sufferings, if there is a God, he's a psychotic prick.
> 
> ...



Is it possible for a human to experience, necessary and beneficial, suffering, whilst being ignorant to that fact?

Your own answer to this question, as demonstrated by your responses to the newborn infant bottom smacking analogy, is clearly yes!

So when translating that analogy to the relationship between an omniscient being and human subjects of limited knowledge experience and wisdom, the possibility that all suffering may potentially have a valid purpose, the understanding of which lies beyond humanity's current level of awareness, is quite easy to entertain and difficult to entirely dismiss.

So unless you have a better argument, I shall ask you again why you choose to live and propagate, when, according to your very own perceptions, you do indeed have the power to reduce the amount of future human suffering by simply choosing to self terminate?

How is your decision to propagate the species, and continue to live, acts that clearly result in further experience of human suffering, rational and justifiable in your philosophy?


----------



## grah33 (1 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Again, can you show me an example of a person who regrew their limb or limbs? Or have a decapitated head reattached?
> 
> If not why not? If miracles happen, why don’t they happen in cases that would be truly impressive.
> 
> .




i did give an example remember. was it about a week ago? Search barry...   this guy barry with the 3 new discs that came from nowhere.  The woman saw him with a bent over back, then straightened and made normal. the guy was in great pain as well before. she gave me more details about a particular healing  service where it happened.  That's a special case (people around him that knew him saw him change).  And the doctors didn't want to give him the scans (showing the 3 new discs that appeared, they were taken out before) , as they said they could get sued.  I also recently uncovered more information about him (for my own interest). In that time he was attending a certain prayer meeting where I know some of those people. And they know the story well, and I know one of them who tells that story doesn't lie. Before he got cured though, from what i've learnt, he was reforming himself to be a better person. It's obviously not gonna happen to someone who can't even be bothered showing up to church once a week.  side comment: i'm sure there have been many people going to these kinds of events, and finding themselves to believe readily enough after some experience, yet ditching it.  i guess it's hard living the  way God requires.  Even the Israelites  after seeing divine glory (the one off miracles in biblical history ) were very quick to ditch the covenant God made to them through Moses.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Is it possible for a human to experience, necessary and beneficial, suffering, whilst being ignorant to that fact?
> 
> Your own answer to this question, as demonstrated by your responses to the newborn infant bottom smacking analogy, is clearly yes!
> 
> ...




Already answered all your questions before dude.

But yes, like Nietzsche says, what kills you makes you stronger and God more benevolent.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Already answered all your questions before dude.
> 
> But yes, like Nietzsche says, what kills you makes you stronger and God more benevolent.



Ahem. Really! So you have given me a rational explanation for your willingness to endure a life that will of necessity entail some suffering and confer same on the children you chose to parent?

I cannot seem to find anything remotely resembling an answer amongst your various posted responses.

However, that is a matter I find unsurprising. My efforts to find rationality in the voluntary continuation of an (at times uncomfortable) temporal existence,  have yet to yield a meaningful result, so I would have been genuinely surprised if the answer didn't prove elusive to you also.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Ahem. Really! So you have given me a rational explanation for your willingness to endure a life that will of necessity entail some suffering and confer same on the children you chose to parent?
> 
> I cannot seem to find anything remotely resembling an answer amongst your various posted responses.
> 
> However, that is a matter I find unsurprising. My efforts to find rationality in the voluntary continuation of an (at times uncomfortable) temporal existence,  have yet to yield a meaningful result, so I would have been genuinely surprised if the answer didn't prove elusive to you also.




Wot?

I did say that if I have God's power to end all suffering, I would use it. You know, not being a psycho who can save people from miseries but instead chose to sit back and watch them "grow" from their pain or death.

Since I have no godly power to prevent suffering to myself, or to others, how is it not rational for me to go on living knowing that there will be suffering? Not when the little good I do might help other ease their suffering; or the hardwork and lottery play may one day lead to fortunes where I could extend life, cure cancer and end world hunger... all the while fighting the Joker, Two-Face and their gangs.

There's no such thing as "rationality" in you, or anyone else... well, maybe it'd be rational for you, to suffer at times. But why must there be any rational explanation for anyone's suffering? Sometimes shiet just happen, even to good or God-fearing people.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Wot?
> 
> I did say that if I have God's power to end all suffering, I would use it. You know, not being a psycho who can save people from miseries but instead chose to sit back and watch them "grow" from their pain or death.
> 
> ...



As I have already pointed out to you, you already have the power to reduce human suffering! And you are to be commended for having demonstrated wisdom in choosing not to exercise that power!


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> As I have already pointed out to you, you already have the power to reduce human suffering! And you are to be commended for having demonstrated wisdom in choosing not to exercise that power!




You can't end suffering by committing murder dude. A few criminals tried that, the Judge didn't buy it.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> You can't end suffering by committing murder dude. A few criminals tried that, the Judge didn't buy it.



How can you fault the logic? Fewer humans means there are fewer humans suffering!


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How can you fault the logic? Fewer humans means fewer humans suffering!




That logic is a fallacy. For it to be true, it must mean that being humans always mean being made to suffer. That's not true now is it?

Not all human suffer. Some are luckier than others.

So to remove the cause of such suffering is the only way to ensure less suffering. Not reducing the number of "sufferers". You can test by, say, getting rid of those we "know" to not suffer at all. Less humans, still the same amount of suffering.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> That logic is a fallacy. For it to be true, it must mean that being humans always mean being made to suffer. That's not true now is it?
> 
> Not all human suffer. Some are luckier than others.
> 
> So to remove the cause of such suffering is the only way to ensure less suffering. Not reducing the number of "sufferers". You can test by, say, getting rid of those we "know" to not suffer at all. Less humans, still the same amount of suffering.



Wrong!!!

Pain is something that causes suffering!

How long do you believe that anyone (with the possible exception of a human vegetable) can survive if you eliminate pain?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Not all human suffer. Some are luckier than others.




Ever heard of Karma ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Ever heard of Karma?



If you believe in these religions then it may ring true. There is so much 'believe this' going around in the world to accomodate all types. 



> With origins in ancient India, karma is a key concept in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikkism and Taoism.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Wrong!!!
> 
> Pain is something that causes suffering!
> 
> How long do you believe that anyone (with the possible exception of a human vegetable) can survive if you eliminate pain?




Back to earlier posts, I already define what I meant by human suffering.

You're trying to define it as some sort of sensory, neuron signalling mechanism. Dude, we're talking about war, famine, incurable diseases, easily curable diseases but no money to get treatment. 

It's ridiculous to compare personal pain or heartbreak to the plights of most of humanity. So unless you reckon that a mudslide is god's way of killing off people and rejuvenate the soil...


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Ever heard of Karma ?




Karma might eventually happen. Just I know quite a few bastards and they tend to live long and prospers. 

Then there are some who do right by people but ends up not having any money or assets and be seen as some sort of beggar.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Karma might eventually happen. Just I know quite a few bastards and they tend to live long and prospers.
> 
> Then there are some who do right by people but ends up not having any money or assets and be seen as some sort of beggar.



No question humanity is not fair and considerate. If the a/holes can roll an old lady for a few bucks they do it. Then at the upper levels of power the pain and suffering a few elite cause is allowed to pass. Don't expect fairness in the world. I pray (to something) that the a/holes in the world suffer horribly.


----------



## luutzu (1 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> No question humanity is not fair and considerate. If the a/holes can roll an old lady for a few bucks they do it. Then at the upper levels of power the pain and suffering a few elite cause is allowed to pass. Don't expect fairness in the world. I pray (to something) that the a/holes in the world suffer horribly.




Yea, hope so too. 

Some people are amazing pieces of work. Man, they don't just steal and screw strangers, they actually turn around and screw people who literally go out of their way to help them. 

I like to think they will end up getting their just desert [deserve?]. But they often live too long and enjoy life too much it make me question the existence of God and maybe He ought to stop perving on kids masturbating and punish the real villains.


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> i did give an example remember. was it about a week ago? Search barry...   this guy barry with the 3 new discs that came from nowhere.  The woman saw him with a bent over back, then straightened and made normal. the guy was in great pain as well before. she gave me more details about a particular healing  service where it happened.  That's a special case (people around him that knew him saw him change).  And the doctors didn't want to give him the scans (showing the 3 new discs that appeared, they were taken out before) , as they said they could get sued.  I also recently uncovered more information about him (for my own interest). In that time he was attending a certain prayer meeting where I know some of those people. And they know the story well, and I know one of them who tells that story doesn't lie. Before he got cured though, from what i've learnt, he was reforming himself to be a better person. It's obviously not gonna happen to someone who can't even be bothered showing up to church once a week.  side comment: i'm sure there have been many people going to these kinds of events, and finding themselves to believe readily enough after some experience, yet ditching it.  i guess it's hard living the  way God requires.  Even the Israelites  after seeing divine glory (the one off miracles in biblical history ) were very quick to ditch the covenant God made to them through Moses.



Can you post some more details about this “Barry” guy, some before and after X-rays to prove he regrew discs,

But why aren’t devotees regrowing arms and legs?

I think this song sums up your claims the best


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Back to earlier posts, I already define what I meant by human suffering.
> 
> You're trying to define it as some sort of sensory, neuron signalling mechanism. Dude, we're talking about war, famine, incurable diseases, easily curable diseases but no money to get treatment.
> 
> It's ridiculous to compare personal pain or heartbreak to the plights of most of humanity. So unless you reckon that a mudslide is god's way of killing off people and rejuvenate the soil...



I am talking about the possibility that every event, which you deem to be undesirable, having a valid purpose, lying beyond the comprehension of mankind's current level of knowledge and wisdom.

The newborn infant bottom smack analogy, demonstrates the potential existence of incomprehensible, yet necessary, suffering.

I have further highlighted the incongruences between your espoused life philosophy and life choices.

You are yet to satisfy me that you are operating according to anything with so much as the remotest semblance to logic, and yet despite your limited comprehension of your own psychology, you somehow presume to be able to ascribe psychotic behaviour to divinity!


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> He ought to stop perving on kids masturbating and punish the real villains.



I want you to tell the police if you know of someone doing this. Seriously, you do it.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Can you post some more details about this “Barry” guy, some before and after X-rays to prove he regrew discs,
> 
> But why aren’t devotees regrowing arms and legs?
> 
> I think this song sums up your claims the best




Seriously VC. You aren't fooling anyone with this line. Both you and I know, all too well, that no amount of xrays is ever going to change your mind.

Even if a decapitee were to somehow resurrect right in front of your very own eyes, you'd still be playing the same tune, just at a more elevated pitch!

Although you chose not to make any personal disclosures in this regard, I do happen to know of one or more events that may serve to change your mind.

I know that you, currently, have no intention, whatsoever, of doing this, but it would be a good idea for you, to pray to that god, in whom you so strongly disbelieve, expressing your appreciation for the life and freedoms that you currently enjoy, and further expressing your desire not to have a belief altering event visited upon you.


----------



## Value Collector (1 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Seriously VC. You aren't fooling anyone with this line. Both you and I know, all too well, that no amount of xrays is ever going to change your mind.
> 
> Even if a decapitee were to somehow resurrect right in front of your very own eyes, you'd still be playing the same tune, just at a more elevated pitch!
> 
> ...




The question isn’t about whether I would believe it or not, it’s about why haven’t such things happened.

Eg why is god healing cateracts and discs, and not things like regrowing limbs or beheaded people?

He only seems to focus on things that  are generally by mid level health care insurance and seems to operate at levels equal to random chance.


----------



## Sean K (1 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> I feel empathy for the true bloods.



Wysiwyg, I don’t think you can, unless you’re a true blood.

Why are Australian Aboriginals part of the small minority of cultures to still not accept science to explain the world?

Why hang on to pagan or any modern religious beliefs to explain your existence? 

The Aboroginal ‘dream time’ myths are a laughing stock to any modern human.


----------



## notting (1 January 2018)

If you want to really talk someone out of their moronic belief tell them to have more faith in their God.  'No really, really you really should have much more faith and worthip you great God more, go to church all the time,  do so much, much more.'  They will find it as repulsive as you do, because they know it's shi7 deep down too.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The question isn’t about whether I would believe it or not, it’s about why haven’t such things happened.
> 
> Eg why is god healing cateracts and discs, and not things like regrowing limbs or beheaded people?
> 
> He only seems to focus on things that  are generally by mid level health care insurance and seems to operate at levels equal to random chance.



On the contrary, you are the one demanding Xrays and explanations!
If you thought these things, which you ascribe to "random chance", were unworthy of consideration, you wouldn't be insisting on "before and after" X-ray evidence in your efforts to challenge the veracity of the claimed event. You and I, both know, that you do not anticipate receipt of evidence, acceptable by your standards, in response to this request.

If you are more happy, than not, with the way your life is at present, then I strongly suggest that you be very careful what you wish for!

If the god that I happen to believe in, should ever decide to take your persistent requests for evidence seriously, you may come to have regrets about the life changing experiences that ensue.

Some things once seen, can never be unseen. Some things once heard, can never be unheard. Some things once felt, can never be unfelt etc.

It's not that I would ever expect you to believe my theistic claims anyway, but at least I can live content, in the knowledge, that I made, at least two, token efforts to caution you about the potential for your persistent endeavours to precipitate an unanticipated and discomforting outcome.


----------



## cynic (1 January 2018)

kennas said:


> Wysiwyg, I don’t think you can, unless you’re a true blood.
> 
> Why are Australian Aboriginals part of the small minority of cultures to still not accept science to explain the world?
> 
> ...



Well then, either I am not a modern human, or your statement is quite untrue!


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> I want you to tell the police if you know of someone doing this. Seriously, you do it.




I was referring to old grannies tales to kids about it being sinful if they have sexual thoughts and touch themselves. You know, God's watching.


----------



## Sean K (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Well then, either I am not a modern human, or your statement is quite untrue!



Obviously I have no idea of where you are on the evolutionary scale.

Perhaps you are in transition. 

Or, you will fade away or be wiped out by those who are adapting and being selected to continue into the future world. 

I am expecting to be wiped out by our stupidity.


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

kennas said:


> Obviously I have no idea of where you are on the evolutionary scale.
> 
> Perhaps you are in transition.
> 
> ...



Based upon your expressed perspective, I  find your confession to being in possession of stupidity, unsurprising.

On second thoughts, when I witness statements, professing to the stupidity of others, I usually find that those very same professors are somehow oblivious to their own stupidity!

Basically, some people are too stupid too realise how stupid they actually are, and then compound their error by accusing others (sometimes those of greater intelligence than themselves) of being stupid!


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

Seeking the truth, if you have not already worked it out fully, is most meaningful.  However you will never find it until you are brutally honest with yourself.
At first that may seem painful and confronting, but in the end it will be unendingly awesome!
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/har...e.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar


----------



## Tisme (2 January 2018)

kennas said:


> I am expecting to be wiped out by our stupidity.




You are obviously being rhetorical, because no way am I stupid......  a few of the others for sure, but not me. I'm so clever I even impress myself.


----------



## Tisme (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> Seeking the truth, if you have not already worked it out fully, is most meaningful.  However you will never find it until you are brutally honest with yourself.
> At first that may seem painful and confronting, but in the end it will be unending awesome!
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/har...e.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar





I think it's pretty well established that for a long life you need to have endured a childhood illness, followed by a well exercised brain, a lifetime of steady aerobic activity, denial of post teenage maturation,ambivalence and bacon....bacon is the means that transports natural lard into the body which must be good because God wouldn't have invented it otherwise.


----------



## Tink (2 January 2018)




----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

The only music you will hear from God is silence.


----------



## Value Collector (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> On the contrary, you are the one demanding Xrays and explanations!
> If you thought these things, which you ascribe to "random chance", were unworthy of consideration, you wouldn't be insisting on "before and after" X-ray evidence in your efforts to challenge the veracity of the claimed event. You and I, both know, that you do not anticipate receipt of evidence, acceptable by your standards, in response to this request.
> 
> If you are more happy, than not, with the way your life is at present, then I strongly suggest that you be very careful what you wish for!
> ...




I would like to see before and after X-rays to confirm that he did in fact regrow discs, only then once we have confirmed the discs did regrow could we discuss the cause.

It is quite possible that the discs didn’t regrow at all, and the claims are totally fiction. 

As far as I know there is no cases in medical history of discs regrowing, so that first part of the claim needs to be proven before we can use the claim as evidence of a god.


----------



## Value Collector (2 January 2018)

kennas said:


> The Aboroginal ‘dream time’ myths are a laughing stock to any modern human.




No more so than the biblical stories.

It’s embarrassing that so called “modern humans” still believe the Bible’s stories.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It’s embarrassing that so called “modern humans” still believe the Bible’s stories.




Do "modern" aborigines still believe the Dreamtime myths ? I think some are desperately hanging on to the old ways to avoid their culture being subsumed by white man's science.


----------



## Value Collector (2 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Do "modern" aborigines still believe the Dreamtime myths ? I think some are desperately hanging on to the old ways to avoid their culture being subsumed by white man's science.




I don’t know, but you could say the same about most religions eg Islam, Christianity, Judaism they all have their fundamentalists scrambling to Hold on to their outdated culture.


----------



## Value Collector (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If you are more happy, than not, with the way your life is at present, then I strongly suggest that you be very careful what you wish for!
> 
> If the god that I happen to believe in, should ever decide to take your persistent requests for evidence seriously, you may come to have regrets about the life changing experiences that ensue.
> 
> ...




If your god exists he is scared of me.

When some people lose their keys, they ask god to help them find them, then when they do find them they thank their god, thinking the god helped them find their keys.

So to test the system, I started threatening the god saying “ if you don’t give me my keys now I will punch you in the face “, and every time so far I have promptly found my keys, so I am basically bulling your god if it exists.

I have also done the opposite test, where I have asked the god if it does exist to hide my keys forever, again I have found my keys every time. 

So he either doesn’t exist or is scared of me, I think he doesn’t exist.


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

How to pray to God ........effectively


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I would like to see before and after X-rays to confirm that he did in fact regrow discs, only then once we have confirmed the discs did regrow could we discuss the cause.
> 
> It is quite possible that the discs didn’t regrow at all, and the claims are totally fiction.
> 
> As far as I know there is no cases in medical history of discs regrowing, so that first part of the claim needs to be proven before we can use the claim as evidence of a god.



If you cannot be honest with yourself about your true motives, why should anyone else take your assertions seriously?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So he either doesn’t exist or is scared of me, I think he doesn’t exist.




 Or he just knows how childish you are and is waiting for you to grow up.


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Do "modern" aborigines still believe the Dreamtime myths ? I think some are desperately hanging on to the old ways to avoid their culture being subsumed by white man's science.




Israel just "discovered" a seal of the Biblical (Jewish) Mayor or overlord, but definitely original owner and occupier, of Jerusalem. 

Look at all the places of worship around Australia alone... they aren't all for the lesser culture you know. Plenty of Churches and Synagogues welcoming perfectly normal and intelligent people into an hour long session of praying and singing to some Arabs


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If your god exists he is scared of me.
> 
> When some people lose their keys, they ask god to help them find them, then when they do find them they thank their god, thinking the god helped them find their keys.
> 
> ...



The funny thing is, VC, that everything about the demeanour of the anti-theist betrays their personal insecurity.
You say that if my god exists that she fears you!

A (comparatively) omniscient, omniptotent and eternal being, is somehow in fear of a mortal anti-theist?!!

My, my! Somebody does have delusions of grandeur!

There seems to me, to be a glaringly obvious hypocrisy in such an assertion!

It is the zealous anti-theist who is deeply afraid, terrified of the possibility that the theists' beliefs might be correct!

It is fears, such as these, founded on deep personal insecurities, that give rise to the zealous compulsion, to convince, or convert, as many people as possible, in the vain hope that surrounding oneself with agreement will somehow allay the fear.

You don't need to be afraid of God, VC!

In fact, fear, is probably your worst enemy in this matter, for the simple reason of fear's tendency to induce irrational thoughts.

Irrational thoughts can give rise to illogical decisions.

Illogical decisions can give rise to unsound behaviours.

Some unsound behaviours are unsafe.

Why would any sane person, choose to take such unnecessary risks?


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The funny thing is, VC, that everything about the demeanour of the anti-theist betrays their personal insecurity.
> You say that if my god exists that she fears you!
> 
> A (comparatively) omniscient, omniptotent and eternal being, is somehow in fear of a mortal anti-theist?!!
> ...





hmmmh? Make sense, you do not.


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> hmmmh? Make sense, you do not.
> 
> View attachment 85450



May the force be with you too!


----------



## Value Collector (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The funny thing is, VC, that everything about the demeanour of the anti-theist betrays their personal insecurity.
> You say that if my god exists that she fears you!
> 
> A (comparatively) omniscient, omniptotent and eternal being, is somehow in fear of a mortal anti-theist?!!
> ...




What I am saying is your god doesn’t exist, and you shouldn’t be scared of it, so your threats that I should be worried about it are silly.

All that you said about the god changing my life if I questioned to much is no different to the threats made by Christians and Muslims, it’s quite weak really


----------



## Value Collector (2 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Or he just knows how childish you are and is waiting for you to grow up.



Maybe, but I think believing in imaginary friends and being afraid of imagined things under the bed is more childish, lol. Who is the childish one, the person asking an imaginary friend to help find their keys, or the one trying show the imaginary doesn’t exist or doesn’t actually give a crap about what you say.

Cynic sounds like he is scared of the dark, and is saying the bogey man will get me if I to don’t be afraid of the darkness too.


----------



## Value Collector (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If you cannot be honest with yourself about your true motives, why should anyone else take your assertions seriously?




My only motive is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.

you can’t stand the fact that your extraordinary claims might need evidence before people believe them, that’s your problem, not ours


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Maybe, but I think believing in imaginary friends and being afraid of imagined things under the bed is more childish, lol. Who is the childish one, the person asking an imaginary friend to help find their keys, or the one trying show the imaginary doesn’t exist or doesn’t actually give a crap about what you say.
> 
> Cynic sounds like he is scared of the dark, and is saying the bogey man will get me if I to don’t be afraid of the darkness too.



If the bogey man exists then, yes! 
Why take unnecessary risks, VC? 

Why are you so determined to assert the non existence of god?

What is it about the god concept, that makes you so determined to refute and ridicule theism and theists alike?

If your system of disbelief is so superior, why the insecurity? Why do you need to be constantly on the attack?


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> My only motive is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
> 
> you can’t stand the fact that your extraordinary claims might need evidence before people believe them, that’s your problem, not ours



Really?!!

So how is it that you have come to convince yourself of this blatant falsehood that you are telling yourself? (i.e. about your "only motive")


----------



## Tisme (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> My only motive is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
> 
> you can’t stand the fact that your extraordinary claims might need evidence before people believe them, that’s your problem, not ours





Unfortunately belief in purpose is an innate teleological embrace that children rely on to explain things. It lays the foundation for religious overlay. Like Aboriginal base thinking, children tend towards application of objects rather focus on the object for objects sake and pronouns.

So it's an easy transition to agree with godstuff when application/purpose can't be applied to certain phenomena....e.g. how we came into existence.

This is why most people simply don't believe it when denialists try to use science to counter intuition. They are merely viewed as attention seekers and contrary.


----------



## grah33 (2 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Plenty of people does not live the life God instructed, yet they have everything, and then some.
> 
> Soooo religiousness, piousness or whatever... it doesn't affect God's gifts or wrath. I mean, children with cancer? wtf? What crime could a kid possibly commit to get that sentence?
> 
> ...




You've elaborated quite a bit on the common question “why is there suffering if there is a God?”. The New Testament has quite a few good answers. It also reveals some of God's plan in the grand scheme of things. You might like to take a look at this:

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
(Romans, Paul)

There is also a verse which says that God is patiently waiting and putting up with evil so more people can be brought to repentance and saved through the Gospel.

I don't find Christianity on par with other religions or ancient dream-time stories. The morals that Jesus taught revolutionized the world too much, and they're too good. The right religion would have perfect morals. And anyone who practices them gets noticed and questioned, even in today's secular times.


----------



## grah33 (2 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Can you post some more details about this “Barry” guy, some before and after X-rays to prove he regrew discs,
> 
> But why aren’t devotees regrowing arms and legs?



The story is mentioned in a book as well, which i realized recently I have a copy of (although when i got it I didn't pay too much attention to the story).  I'll take a look at it and  tell you more about it soon.
regards people regrowing limbs  i don't know of any full grown limb stories, but i may have heard one body part growing or something (really vague though...not worth mentioning).  however, there would probably be few people with e.g. one limb showing up (they are a small percentage) for one thing. And then out of those (or any group ) how many get cured and how many have the kind of faith (and character) needed?  I would think though that there  are other people in the community i know, not me though, who might know about other special miracles.  in any case, 4 discs appearing from nowhere is still a pretty good miracle.


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You've elaborated quite a bit on the common question “why is there suffering if there is a God?”. The New Testament has quite a few good answers. It also reveals some of God's plan in the grand scheme of things. You might like to take a look at this:
> 
> For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
> (Romans, Paul)
> ...




yeahhhh, no. I don't buy it.

It'd be like a father who ran away from his responsibilities, neglectful to wife and child... then some guy come along saying that the Father is actually a very good man, He just wanted his wife and kid to suffer because, you know, suffering make them stronger. And if the suffering were to kill them, then it's even better because they'll be in a better place.

Wait, did you say that God puts up with suffering and evil so that humans can be saved if they follow the Gospel?

That's a bit convenient. Thank God there's a Bible to save people from their miseries, the Bible to protect them from other people's cruelties. 

I don't know the Bible in any detail, just quotes here and there. But the morality and those good bits... I find the same in The Analect of Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, even Sun Tzu's the Art of War. 

Confucianism is, or was, a state religion much like Christianity was/is among the latter Roman colonies since Constantine. 

As Lao Tzu would say, there is no such thing as "perfect morals". The moment you define something as perfect, you automatically define its reverse. Who's to say that what is defined is the "right" Way? 

So you'll find one religion, or one culture, laughing at the idiocy of another religion or culture. Why? Because they define "their" religion as perfect in all its essence... meaning that religion or culture that doesn't believe God created the world in six days, take a rest on the seventh then bugger off after Eve upsets him; not really buggering off but watching the children of Adam and Eve ruining his Creation so decided to flood them all the death. 

But yea, we all want to believe in something. And if our belief doesn't harm anyone but give us peace and hope... why not. Just that it can annoy people if those believers start to force their belief on others or poke fun at whose Gods is bigger and better, then go to war to prove the point.


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

Grah33, in your experience have you encountered many people whom insist on all manner of evidence, despite the fact that their demeanour, clearly indicates that no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling, will ever truly satisfy them?

Have you noticed that, in this game which VC is inviting you to play, on his (undisclosed) terms, he hasn't even extended you the courtesy of informing you about the location of the goal posts?

What is to stop him reinventing the rules, i.e. coming up with new excuses every time you successfully hurdle his most recent objections?

How do you ever expect to score any points, in a game that is clearly designed,from the very outset, to ensure that you don't have a prayer of winning?

It's a good thing that you believe in miracles, because that is exactly what it would take, for you to score any points, in a game where the deck has been so heavily stacked against your favour!


----------



## grah33 (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Grah33, in your experience have you encountered many people whom insist on all manner of evidence, despite the fact that their demeanour, clearly indicates that no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling, will ever truly satisfy them?
> 
> Have you noticed that, in this game which VC is inviting you to play, on his (undisclosed) terms, he hasn't even extended you the courtesy of informing you about the location of the goal posts?
> 
> ...




Probably not. Quite a few posts were made, didn't follow every single one...

I think some of VC's atheistic views though aren't the best choice for an atheist to have. About the New Testament being immoral (that's a far cry for people who are very familiar with it), and Jesus not existing (another far cry) given his teachings changed the world so much. If I was an atheist I would drop these views.

I think I'm in a good position actually with this local miracle – the 4 discs... And I also know another guy who (should confirm details though) knew Barry before and after. I think Barry went to the same meetings. And this guy is a rational, sensible person, who wouldn't lie. Either it's real or the community is being cleverly deluded.   But as a more distant observer I should obviously look into it myself to be totally sure (if I really needed to know). I can understand VC being naturally curious about this incident.  For obvious reasons, it's a  game changer. 


With Luutzu though, I'm just getting endless philosophy about how the Christian God is cruel , and there not being much sense to it all, or something like that ... You get this at the pro debating level as well (e.g. Hitchens), and it never speaks to me, since the New Testament has endless wonder and beauty.  And makes a lot of sense for many people.  It certainly isn't shallow as touted by the leading atheists of the world.  


In the early Church there was debating too. Here's what Paul had to say about it :

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power.
(Paul, Corinthians)
It obviously made sense for them to believe.


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Probably not. Quite a few posts were made, didn't follow every single one...
> 
> I think some of VC's atheistic views though aren't the best choice for an atheist to have. About the New Testament being immoral (that's a far cry for people who are very familiar with it), and Jesus not existing (another far cry) given his teachings changed the world so much. If I was an atheist I would drop these views.
> 
> ...




All god/s/deities are cruel.


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

Debating someone who genuinely believes in God is an oxymoron.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> Debating someone who genuinely believes in God is an oxymoron.




So is debating someone who fervently believes he doesn't.


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So is debating someone who fervently believes he doesn't.



Why?


----------



## luutzu (2 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So is debating someone who fervently believes he doesn't.




Yes, Why?

I mean, VC can be a bit much sometime but...


----------



## SirRumpole (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> Why?




Because no evidence would be good enough for them without them arguing that it's a rare but natural phenomena or some sort of magic trick that they don't know how it's done.


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

If there is clear and conclusive evidence of God, show it.


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> If there is clear and conclusive evidence of God, show it.



First define what evidence you would consider acceptable?

Would a scientifically inexplicable phenomenon do?


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Would a scientifically inexplicable phenomenon do?



That is no more attributable to God than to the 'Magic White Dolphin.'
Further just because science cannot explain something, yet, does not establish the 'Mega Amoeba' in the sky who must have done it, nor any other thing you want to invent and say it must be that.

What would be acceptable evidence would be if God appeared and said, 'yep I did it, I created the world too and you are all a result of my demented art,' and did a few more things to prove it irrefutably.


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> That is no more attributable to God than to the 'Magic White Dolphin.'
> Further just because science cannot explain something, yet, does not establish the Mega Amoeba in the sky or any other thing you want to invent and say it must be that.
> 
> What would be acceptable evidence would be if God appeared and said yep I did it, I created the world and you are all a result of my demented art and did few more things to prove it irrefutably.




Wow!
So you want to invent sky fairies?

Tell me why would the god that I believe in (or any god for that matter) even bother to manifest in the manner you have described? What would be the point of such an exercise?

Surely you can see that you have presented a very lame justification for your stance of disbelief!

Do you think you could maybe use that god given brain of yours to come up with a more intelligent reply?


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

Nothing has been invented. I do not wish to invent a thing, that's your position, your God and anything else you care to imagine are all equally ridiculously untenable.
Never the less you have no way of establishing that anything inexplicable that happens is any more attributable to God, than the 'Magic White Dolphin,'  or even the 'omniscient maggot.'


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> Nothing has been invented, they are all equally invalid and imagined.



How did our universe come into being? Was it imagined also?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> If there is clear and conclusive evidence of God, show it.




It's all around you. Life, the Universe, everything. It didn't all come from nothing.


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How did our universe come into being? Was it imagined also?



When did it come into being exactly?  Your assuming it started somehow or at some point.  You have no valid basis or evidence for such  an erroneous presumption, another untenable imagining.


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's all around you. Life, the Universe, everything. It didn't all come from nothing.



  That is not evidence establishing the 'Magic White Dolphin' or any other idea or thing to believe in like the 'All Omnipotent Golden Rooster' or 'God.'


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> When did it come into being exactly?  Your assuming it started somehow or at some point.  You have no valid basis or evidence for such  an erroneous presumption, another untenable imagining.



Please do me the courtesy of not presuming to know what I may or may not have been assuming!
Rather than falsely pretending to know my mind, how about just answering the questions that I posed so that I can understand where you are coming from?

Edit: and please note that I asked "how" not "when"


----------



## cynic (2 January 2018)

notting said:


> That is not evidence establishing the 'Magic White Dolphin' or any other idea or thing to believe in like the 'All Potent Golden Rooster' or 'God.'



It is evidence of an extroardinary mystery! Namely the mystery of existence!


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Please do me the courtesy of not presuming to know what I may or may not have been assuming!
> Rather than falsely pretending to know my mind, how about just answering the questions that I posed so that I can understand where you are coming from?



Read it a few times over the answer is clear. There's nothing more for you if you can't understand even that much.....


----------



## notting (2 January 2018)

cynic said:


> It is evidence of an extroardinary mystery! Namely the mystery of existence!



 Well then we can agree that it is not evidence of God.  Evidence of a  mystery that is yet to be fully apprehended by many? 
Well OK, sure.  
Well said!
Keep an open mind keep seeking the truth if you really want that you will find it.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

notting said:


> Well then we can agree that it is not evidence of God.  Evidence of a  mystery that is yet to be fully apprehended by many? Well OK, sure.  Well said.



If it is evidence of an inexplicable mystery, how can we conclude that it isn't evidence of the existence of an inexplicable creative force? Isn't that what people mean when they talk about god?


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If the bogey man exists then, yes!
> Why take unnecessary risks, VC?
> 
> Why are you so determined to assert the non existence of god?
> ...



The fact that it remains unproven.


----------



## notting (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If it is evidence of an inexplicable mystery, how can we conclude that it isn't evidence of the existence of an inexplicable creative force? Isn't that what people mean when they talk about god?



No we agreed on a mystery that remains for many.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The fact that it remains unproven.



Okay then. So do you spend this much time protesting against beliefs in other factually unproven concepts?


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Grah33, in your experience have you encountered many people whom insist on all manner of evidence, despite the fact that their demeanour, clearly indicates that no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling, will ever truly satisfy them?
> 
> Have you noticed that, in this game which VC is inviting you to play, on his (undisclosed) terms, he hasn't even extended you the courtesy of informing you about the location of the goal posts?
> 
> ...




Cynic the fact that I do believe many things that have shown to be true via evidence disproves your claim that I simply wouldn’t believe you no matter what evidence you show.

The simple fact is that if you backed up your claims with sound evidence I wouldn’t have a problem with them, and not would most people.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

notting said:


> No we agreed on a mystery that remains for many.



How about you describe this god in whose existence you have chosen to disbelieve  so that I can actually understand what it is that you are objecting to?


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Because no evidence would be good enough for them without them arguing that it's a rare but natural phenomena or some sort of magic trick that they don't know how it's done.




That’s not true at all

You have to realize though that proving a god would be a server all stage process.

The first stage would be proving the details of the said miracle happened in the first place.

Eg price these discs did regrow.

Since that claim has not been confirmed, how the hell am I supposed to be convinced that 1, that happened and 2, it was a god that did it?

But I believe if there was a god going around interacting in the physical universe, we would be able to have a lot more evidence than the weak claims made.


----------



## notting (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How about you describe this god in whose existence you have chosen to disbelieve  so that I can actually understand what it is that you are objecting to?




I'm not objecting to anything.
I am simply refuting the notion that there is any evidence suggestive of 'God' or the 'Awesome Overarching Albatross.'
It is not for me to define what 'your imagining of God' might or might not be.
That would be as foolish as trying to establish whether or not  a barren women's' child is male or female.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How about you describe this god in whose existence you have chosen to disbelieve  so that I can actually understand what it is that you are objecting to?




That’s completely backward.

You need to define the god you claim exist, then we will decide whether we accept that claim based on the evidence for it.

I could define 1000’s of potential gods and give reasons why I don’t accept each ones existence, but that would be pointless, because non of them would be the god you claim exists.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Cynic the fact that I do believe many things that have shown to be true via evidence disproves your claim that I simply wouldn’t believe you no matter what evidence you show.
> 
> The simple fact is that if you backed up your claims with sound evidence I wouldn’t have a problem with them, and not would most people.



The sad thing VC, is that I know that you have somehow actually come to believe these lies that you keep telling yourself!

 I know from your demeanour that you are determined to deny any possibility of any kind supernatural being, phenomena or faculty irrespective of the quality of any presented evidence.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Okay then. So do you spend this much time protesting against beliefs in other factually unproven concepts?



Yes, when I feel certain beliefs are harmful or have an impact in the freedoms of others.

Eg anti vaccination and psychic’s  I have had many a conversation to try and get people to provide evidence for psychics.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The sad thing VC, is that I know that you have somehow actually come to believe these lies that you keep telling yourself!
> 
> I know from your demeanour that you are determined to deny any possibility of any kind supernatural being, phenomena or faculty irrespective of the quality of any presented evidence.




No, I simply ask you to provide evidence, I only “deny” the existence when the evidence is not provided.

Take the theory of evolution for example, I accept that because of the  mountains of evidence for it, even though at first glance it would seem unlikely.

If your claims had evidence, I would accept them, it all comes back to the evidence, and you don’t have any, simple as that, if you had it, it would be different.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> That’s completely backward.
> 
> You need to define the god you claim exist, then we will decide whether we accept that claim based on the evidence for it.
> 
> I could define 1000’s of potential gods and give reasons why I don’t accept each ones existence, but that would be pointless, because non of them would be the god you claim exists.



Of course you could!
And as you have correctly observed, my god would probably be nowhere to be found in that crowd! From what I can discern, your god concepts seem to be limited to stage magician like genies that materialise and resurrect decapitees upon command.

This is why it is important for the progress of this discussion that those raising the challenge, define what it actually is, that they are challenging!


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, when I feel certain beliefs are harmful or have an impact in the freedoms of others.
> 
> Eg anti vaccination and psychic’s  I have had many a conversation to try and get people to provide evidence for psychics.



And if your beliefs turn out to be wrong and others are harmed by your intrusion into their life decisions? What then?

Or do you believe yourself to be incapable of error, and therefore entitled to dictate the behaviour of others?


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, I simply ask you to provide evidence, I only “deny” the existence when the evidence is not provided.
> 
> Take the theory of evolution for example, I accept that because of the  mountains of evidence for it, even though at first glance it would seem unlikely.
> 
> If your claims had evidence, I would accept them, it all comes back to the evidence, and you don’t have any, simple as that, if you had it, it would be different.



No you don’t simply ask for evidence!
You put in a concerted effort to dismiss any claim with which you are personally uncomfortable!
The evidence of this is readily discernible from the content and demeanour of your many postings to this thread. And I know that you won't agree with me here, for the simple reason that you refuse to accept evidence of anything with which you are personally uncomfortable!

The very examples that you have presented in this post demonstrate that bias is present, and that there has been a departure from objective evidence assessment, in the formulation of your beliefs.

VC, as I have said before, you might have convinced yourself of these lies you keep telling yourself, but I am not fooled!
What you ask for, and what you actually want are two entirely separate things!

You certainly do not want the evidence that you are asking for!
That is the very last thing you want in these discussions!

I know this, because, I understand you well enough to know, that when you encounter a body of evidence, sufficient to withstand all refutation, you are not going to be at all happy about it!

Ps:Whilst I do happen to be a fan of the concept of evolution, I must say that those few pieces of interesting shaped rocks, unearthed and creatively interpreted, are a long way short of "mountains of evidence".


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Of course you could!
> And as you have correctly observed, my god would probably be nowhere to be found in that crowd! From what I can discern, your god concepts seem to be limited to stage magician like genies that materialise and resurrect decapitees upon command.
> 
> This is why it is important for the progress of this discussion that those raising the challenge, define what it actually is, that they are challenging!



I am not in the business of defining gods.

If you think one exists, you define it, then provide your supporting evidence.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not in the business of defining gods.
> 
> If you think one exists, you define it, then provide your supporting evidence.



VC you have just made the resolution of this matter terribly easy!

YOU are a god!

Do you require me to present you with any further evidence of your own existence?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not in the business of defining gods.
> 
> If you think one exists, you define it, then provide your supporting evidence.




It's not my job to convince you that God exists, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but what evidence do you have to prove that one does NOT exist ?


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> VC you have just made the resolution of this matter terribly easy!
> 
> YOU are a god!
> 
> Do you require me to present you with any further evidence of your own existence?




If your definition of a god is me, then I would have to say yes by that definition of god then a god does exist, 

but this is no different to people that say “god is love, you believe in love don’t you”, I find his defining god into existence quite unimpressive, because the neither “I” nor “love” have any of the attributes they were pinning in the god before our discussion.

Eg, I am clearly not the god you have been referring to, and playing a word game  doesn’t get you any closer to proving your actual definition of a god exists


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not my job to convince you that God exists, you are entitled to your own beliefs, but what evidence do you have to prove that one does NOT exist ?



 The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, eg it’s not up to skeptics to disprove the existence of Big Foot (or gods) it’s up to those making the claims to prove Big foot exists.

Eg.
Can you prove I don’t own an Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Off course you can’t, but it’s not up to you to prove I don’t have a unicorn, it up to me to prove I do.


----------



## Tisme (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The burden of proof is on the one making the claim,




but you are always the one who's contrary on any historical social construct, but you (and bas) never carry the burden of proof about your claims? Both of you are rarely able to provide the concrete evidence of the subjects at hand to prove your points, rather you deflect to black slaves as being example of the need for cultural vandalism.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The burden of proof is on the one making the claim,




Yes, and you are claiming god does not exist, so prove it.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> and you are claiming god does not exist, so prove it.




No, I am not claiming that no god exists.
Saying “I don’t believe in Bigfoot” is not the same thing as saying “I know big foot doesn’t exist”

My position is that I don’t currently hold a belief that a god exists, eg I am unconvinced of any of the god claims that have been presented to me

I do not claim to know that no gods exist.

I have explained it here before, my position is called an “Agnostic Atheist” this is the position of most Atheists eg “don’t know for sure, but don’t currently believe”


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I have explained it here before, my position is called an “Agnostic Atheist” this is the position of most Atheists eg “don’t know for sure, but don’t currently believe”




OK fair enough. I thought your position was hard core atheist ie you deny that any god exists, but if you have an open mind on it given enough evidence, then that's fine as long as you define what evidence you want or would accept.

eg if you don't accept the existence of the Universe as evidence of a god then you have to put forward a counter proposition and prove that actually happened if you want to prove there is no god.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, I am not claiming that no god exists.
> Saying “I don’t believe in Bigfoot” is not the same thing as saying “I know big foot doesn’t exist”
> 
> My position is that I don’t currently hold a belief that a god exists, eg I am unconvinced of any of the god claims that have been presented to me
> ...



If you truly don't know for sure, how is it that you have attained such confidence in claiming the non existence of god?


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> eg if you don't accept the existence of the Universe as evidence of a god then you have to put forward a counter proposition and prove that actually happened if you want to prove there is no god.




Why would the existence of the universe be evidence of a god?

Wouldn’t the most logical thing be to just say “I don’t know” until we find out the answer? And that makes “agnostic atheism” the most logical position until evidence either way is found.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why would the existence of the universe be evidence of a god?




Because matter and energy don't create themselves.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If you truly don't know for sure, how is it that you have attained such confidence in claiming the non existence of god?



I don’t claim the non existence of a god. 

I say I don’t believe in any of the current gods being claimed that I know about.

And I don’t believe in them because so far I haven’t seen any evidence that would justify me moving away from the default position, agnostic atheism.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Because matter and energy don't create themselves.




How do you know that there aren’t circumstances which they could?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> How do you know that there aren’t circumstances which they could?




So tell me what they are.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So tell me what they are.




I am not claiming that I know what they are, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, but I would think it silly to rule out a natural “non god” cause.

But you are claiming that 

1, no natural circumstances could exist to create matter or energy.

2, so a god must exist

I am just saying you have leaped a few steps ahead of the logic there and made to many assumptions.

Both 1 and 2 are claims that would need proving, but both are claims that I am happy to say “I don’t know yet, but we may one day find out”


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> OK fair enough. I thought your position was hard core atheist ie you deny that any god exists, but if you have an open mind on it given enough evidence, then that's fine as long as you define what evidence you want or would accept.
> 
> eg if you don't accept the existence of the Universe as evidence of a god then you have to put forward a counter proposition and prove that actually happened if you want to prove there is no god.



Sirr, it is very kind of you to take VC at his word, and formulate a rational proposal. 
I believe you may have already noticed this, but just in case you haven't, the problem here is, that despite his claims to the contrary, VC, is not in any way shape or form agnostic! 
However, whether he identifies with it or not, he is most definitely an anti-theist, (a sub set of the atheist population, intolerant of theism and theists alike).
This is amply demonstrated by his repeated insistence that theists have an obligation to provide him proof upon demand, or accept his admonishment of theistic beliefs. 
He does true agnosticism a terrible injustice by dishonestly trying to claim its presence in his position.

I cannot see this difference of views being resolved until VC opens up, and acknowledges, to himself at least, his true reason/s for having such a huge problem with other people choosing to believe in supernatural phenomena.

Why would any truly agnostic person feel the need to attack and ridicule other people, for naught more than choosing to hold a supernatural belief?

How does the holder of the attacked belief, come to be seen as such a threat, that he/she must always be attacked and ridiculed?

Where is agnosticism to be found in such behaviours?


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I don’t claim the non existence of a god.
> 
> I say I don’t believe in any of the current gods being claimed that I know about.
> 
> And I don’t believe in them because so far I haven’t seen any evidence that would justify me moving away from the default position, agnostic atheism.



I am unable to discern the presence of any semblance of agnosticism, whatsoever, in your postings. So how about you show agnosticism a little bit of respect and desist from laying false claims to its presence in your philosophy.

The non existence of god, has been asserted by you, on more than one occasion!

I am of the strong opinion, that the truly agnostic do not deserve, in any way shape or form, to be associated with your chosen anti-theistic position.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Sirr, it is very kind of you to take VC at his word, and formulate a rational proposal.
> I believe you may have already noticed this, but just in case you haven't, the problem here is, that despite his claims to the contrary, VC, is not in any way shape or form agnostic!
> However, whether he identifies with it or not, he is most definitely an anti-theist, (a sub set of the atheist population, intolerant of theism and theists alike).
> This is amply demonstrated by his repeated insistence that theists have an obligation to provide him proof upon demand, or accept his admonishment of theistic beliefs.
> ...




I am kind of anti theist, but that is a separate topic from my stated claim of being an “agnostic atheist”

I think you might be mixing up terms.

Let me assist you in the following definitions.

Agnostic - doesn’t know for sure
Gnostic - knows for sure

Atheist - doesn’t believe in a god
Theist - does believe in a god.

So I am an “Agnostic atheist” - there are four possible combinations

Agnostic atheist
Agnostic theist
Gnostic atheist
Gnostic theist

In terms of anti theist, that’s not part of that scale, that is about being against religion, and an anti theist can be any of those 4 options, antitheists aren’t just atheists.

In a world where religion causes so much harm It’s quite rational to be against it, and therefore I am an antitheist, however I guess I am a weak one because I do believe in freedom of religion, and wouldn’t seek to ban it.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I am unable to discern the presence of any semblance of agnosticism, whatsoever, in your postings. So how about you show agnosticism a little bit of respect and desist from laying false claims to its presence in your philosophy.
> 
> The non existence of god, has been asserted by you, on more than one occasion!
> 
> I am of the strong opinion, that the truly agnostic do not deserve, in any way shape or form, to be associated with your chosen anti-theistic position.



Read my post above, I think you are confused about what the term agnostic / atheism / antitheist mean


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Read my post above, I think you are confused about what the term agnostic / atheism / antitheist mean



On the contrary, it is you, who is confused! 
How can a person be agnostic and "know" that there is no god?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> In terms of anti theist, that’s not part of that scale, that is about being against religion, and an anti theist can be any of those 4 options, antitheists aren’t just atheists.




I would define myself as an agnostic theist in your spectrum but I don't particularly like religion. I'm not anti theist because I believe in god (not I know there is one).

If you are antitheist you are attacking the notion of god therefore you must be an atheist, but it's reasonable to separate god from religion because it is illogical to think that a god who created all life would take the side of one tribe or another.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not claiming that I know what they are, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, but I would think it silly to rule out a natural “non god” cause.
> 
> But you are claiming that
> 
> ...



So what are your thoughts on the "kalam cosmological argument" for the existence of god?


----------



## grah33 (3 January 2018)

I think proving God is actually a simple thing, and always has been. But one has to have it in them to want to look for him. I think God tends to manifest himself in some way often enough, but only to people who look for him.

Jesus only worked miracles in the towns that had faith. So only the believer gets confirmation, and that's obviously good for him because they will believe even more. We also have a conscience too that seems to have a play in the discovery of God. It leads us as to what we should be doing. For example, a long time ago , I felt within myself that I should be going to certain church events and acting differently (much better). I was also lucky enough (not everyone is) to be surrounded by some new family friends who were, unintentionally, preaching to me.

According to the Old T. God showed himself miraculously and powerfully to all the Israelites in the time of Moses. Despite that many of them ditched the covenant shortly after. So even if he decided to show himself, it doesn't mean the planet would change. And he prefers people to come of their own free will.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I think proving God is actually a simple thing, and always has been. But one has to have it in them to want to look for him. I think God tends to manifest himself in some way often enough, but only to people who look for him.
> 
> Jesus only worked miracles in the towns that had faith. So only the believer gets confirmation, and that's obviously good for him because they will believe even more. We also have a conscience too that seems to have a play in the discovery of God. It leads us as to what we should be doing. For example, a long time ago , I felt within myself that I should be going to certain church events and acting differently (much better). I was also lucky enough (not everyone is) to be surrounded by some new family friends who were, unintentionally, preaching to me.
> 
> According to the Old T. God showed himself miraculously and powerfully to all the Israelites in the time of Moses. Despite that many of them ditched the covenant shortly after. So even if he decided to show himself, it doesn't mean the planet would change. And he prefers people to come of their own free will.



A "you will see it when you believe it" style approach, no matter how true, isn't likely to impress any ardent sceptics anytime soon.

However, I agree that it has a beautiful simplicity that cannot be automatically dismissed.

i.e the sceptic says "I don't believe because I cannot see the evidence" and the mystic replies "the reason you cannot see the evidence, is because you do not believe".


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If you are antitheist you are attacking the notion of god therefore you must be an atheist, but it's reasonable to separate god from religion because it is illogical to think that a god who created all life would take the side of one tribe or another.






No, I am using the term antitheist to describe being against religions, maybe it’s the wrong word to use.

But my “anti-theism” (if that’s the right word) is directed not at the general concept of a god existing, but at the theist groups that want to enforce their laws and thinking on the rest of us.

As you would know from our other discussions, I stand up for religious freedom, I don’t stop anyone practicing their faith in private, it’s only when they want to discuss facts publicly I ask questions, or when they try and force religion on us.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> So what are your thoughts on the "kalam cosmological argument" for the existence of god?




Even if you accept all the premises, (which I don’t) The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t prove a god exists.

All it says is that the universe had a cause, theists then inject their god as the cause, while also forgetting that the said god would need a cause


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> On the contrary, it is you, who is confused!
> How can a person be agnostic and "know" that there is no god?




Read my post again.

An agnostic atheists position is -

I don’t hold a belief in a god (that’s the atheist part) but i don’t claim to know for sure ( that’s the agnostic part)

Read and try to understand the four possible positions I listed above,

Atheism is not the claim that no gods exist, it’s a statement of belief.


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I think proving God is actually a simple thing, and always has been. But one has to have it in them to want to look for him. I think God tends to manifest himself in some way often enough, but only to people who look for him.
> 
> Jesus only worked miracles in the towns that had faith. So only the believer gets confirmation, and that's obviously good for him because they will believe even more. We also have a conscience too that seems to have a play in the discovery of God. It leads us as to what we should be doing. For example, a long time ago , I felt within myself that I should be going to certain church events and acting differently (much better). I was also lucky enough (not everyone is) to be surrounded by some new family friends who were, unintentionally, preaching to me.
> 
> According to the Old T. God showed himself miraculously and powerfully to all the Israelites in the time of Moses. Despite that many of them ditched the covenant shortly after. So even if he decided to show himself, it doesn't mean the planet would change. And he prefers people to come of their own free will.




Muslims use similar arguments

Eg, if only you can convince yourself to believe, then you will believe.

Quite illogical really, and you will probably delude yourself.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Even if you accept all the premises, (which I don’t) The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t prove a god exists.
> 
> All it says is that the universe had a cause, theists then inject their god as the cause, while also forgetting that the said god would need a cause



You have clearly misunderstood the content of the argument!

The argument logically demonstrates that an uncaused causer must exist!

Here's a link to a video, in which Dr. Craig explains this, along with several other arguments for the existence of god:


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Muslims use similar arguments
> 
> Eg, if only you can convince yourself to believe, then you will believe.
> 
> Quite illogical really, and you will probably delude yourself.



If it is so illogical VC, why do you keep doing it?


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Read my post again.
> 
> An agnostic atheists position is -
> 
> ...



I already understand your definitions of those four positions, and I can easily see that you most certainly do not belong to the agnostic atheist category!


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> You have clearly misunderstood the content of the argument!
> 
> The argument logically demonstrates that an uncaused causer must exist!
> 
> Here's a link to a video, in which Dr. Craig explains this, along with several other arguments for the existence of god:





Craig is a joke, I am not watching a 40 min video,

Why don’t you lay out the argument succinctly in your own words and I will point out the failures of it.


----------



## wayneL (3 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I'm pretty sane. I'm sure there are plenty of others too. And in my world, there's no God.



Probably sane, but with a whole spectrum of cognitive biases, fallacious argument, and linear thinking. This is what you cannot conceive of God  anything but in the perception certain humans created. 

The prima facea case for my argument,  follows:



> a greedy GP would subscribe some pill to relieve a patient's suffering.. .all for a few bucks. God can end all the suffering with a wave of His hand... but nope. Let them experience the full spectrum, let them "choose".
> 
> He's worst than the Republicans and their "liberty" and "choice" bs.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Craig is a joke, I am not watching a 40 min video,
> 
> Why don’t you lay out the argument succinctly in your own words and I will point out the failures of it.



Your esteemed prophet Dawkins is afraid to debate him! But you somehow conclude that he is a joke!

Can you point me to any debates between Dr. Craig, and prominent atheists, where Dr. Craig wasn't successful in arguing the logical merits for his stance on theism?


----------



## Value Collector (3 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Your esteemed prophet Dawkins is afraid to debate him! But you somehow conclude that he is a joke!
> 
> Can you point me to any debates between Dr. Craig, and prominent atheists, where Dr. Craig wasn't successful in arguing the logical merits for his stance on theism?




Dawkins is a biologist, Craig makes a living being a religious apologist that plays word games.

I would say there had never been a debate where Craig has been successful is arguing the logical merits for theism, because his whole stance is based on the kalam, which is flawed, and doesn’t even suggest a god exists.

For the benefit of others reading this thread, why don’t you lay out the three premises of the kalam, and I will point out where the special pleading is and the other flawed logic.


----------



## luutzu (3 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> Probably sane, but with a whole spectrum of cognitive biases, fallacious argument, and linear thinking. This is what you cannot conceive of God  anything but in the perception certain humans created.
> 
> The prima facea case for my argument,  follows:




So God does not follow a generally accepted definition, logic, argument etc. of what "good" is?

Common sense morality does not apply to God?

Must be, that's why countless of "his children" needlessly die each day and he just shrugs. 

I'm mysterious boys. Can't save everyone in the world. Well... I can, just don't want to because.... because I have bigger plans and have my own reasons. Now shut up before I send you to Hell for eternity.


----------



## cynic (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Dawkins is a biologist, Craig makes a living being a religious apologist that plays word games.
> 
> I would say there had never been a debate where Craig has been successful is arguing the logical merits for theism, because his whole stance is based on the kalam, which is flawed, and doesn’t even suggest a god exists.
> 
> For the benefit of others reading this thread, why don’t you lay out the three premises of the kalam, and I will point out where the special pleading is and the other flawed logic.



I have already posted a video amply covering this topic. Others, like yourself, are perfectly free to view it, should they so choose! 

So how about you take the time to acquaint yourself with the argument first, so that we can then proceed to discuss any objections, you may have, from an informed (as opposed to misinformed) position.


----------



## wayneL (3 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> So God does not follow a generally accepted definition, logic, argument etc. of what "good" is?
> 
> Common sense morality does not apply to God?
> 
> ...




You are still stuck in a human created paradigm, Grasshopper. You are thinking of God as an individual, with a personality.

**Perhaps** God is nothing like that at all? 

It is counter-productive and futile to be angry at a specific Deity that exists only in dogma.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> You are still stuck in a human created paradigm, Grasshopper. You are thinking of God as an individual, with a personality.
> 
> **Perhaps** God is nothing like that at all?
> 
> It is counter-productive and futile to be angry at a specific Deity that exists only in dogma.




Indeed so. It was* people *that attributed all manner of good and evil to their Deity as a means of frightening both their own people into submission and their enemies into dread of the great and powerful being on the other side.

If god exists he may well have a plan that simply can not be fathomed by lesser beings such as ourselves.


----------



## grah33 (3 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> flawed logic.






luutzu said:


> I'm mysterious boys. Can't save everyone in the world.






cynic said:


> I have already




just getting back to you all...

Regards the miracle had a quick read of it (a few pages). If you really want I can scan the page and put it up, but only if you're serious of course (got stuff to do). Inbox me for the exact title of the book as I don't want my posts becoming searchable by people I know. The book in general is about the Catholic Charismatic (meaning charism/gift) Renewal, a supernatural phenomenon which started in the Church decades ago. Healings and other “action of the Holy Spirit” started happening, and still do within this movement. It's a unique movement within the Church, which started a few decades ago. It all started happening in the last 100 years to the wonder and surprise and delight of a few denominations. What was lost for centuries had returned to the Church ... And may have a role to play in the future as things get worse with increasing immorality everywhere.  The western world (custodians of Christianity) are regressing  to the habits of their ancient ancestors.

Imo a key thing is having it in oneself to seek God, if one wants to find Him. But many people wouldn't want him anyway, so they won't get any proof.


Regard the back healing and discs, I gave you the main details. But just to add Barry went to a healing service done by a priest called Fr Robert De Grandis (deceased )about 1992 , and the Lord revealed to him that a man Barry had the condition for 18 years. He spoke this in public in front of everyone, and they prayed for Barry, and amazingly enough Barry started walking. And scans were done later showing new discs coming from nowhere. Personally speaking, I know the author (a local speaker who also writes books ) and the woman who told me about it.   Both witnessed it and the author knew him personally , and their witness to me is very credible.


----------



## notting (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If god exists he may well have a plan that simply can not be fathomed by lesser beings such as ourselves.




So even if the retarded notion of 'God' was in any way attributed to something that existed, it would thus remain irrelevant, for that very reason quoted above.

This, sadly is the bottom line - the last resort - for the utterly exhausted and confused, for those desperately trying to hold on to their sense of 'Daddy is still looking after me' - needy - I don't want to grow up - affliction.

A person espousing the 'Super Self Adulating Dung Beetle above'  would have no idea of what they are referring to, even if they were referring to something, because the 'Terrific Toad-fish in the sky,' is unfathomable to lesser beings such as irrational needy humans.

There for, taking any position on the 'Monstrous Megalomaniacal Mud Flapper'  can only be wasting your own and everyone's time because - even if you have convinced yourself that you believe in the  'All Creating Cockroach,' you have no idea or means of knowing what it is, does or would do in any circumstance, as it's  beyond your apprehension, so any notion you have of it can only be wrong!!!!

So why even entertain a seconds thought on the imaginary "Ever Attentive Antelope."  That you, by your own admission, cannot apprehend even if it did exist?

Hence, remain bereft of plausibility on all possible counts, because clearly it's not your thing, and please continue the awkwardness of holding that as the beacon of your self worth.

Surely there is nothing better awaiting you, if you finally had the courage to let that incomplete, ever energy losing, thought bubble go?


----------



## luutzu (3 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> You are still stuck in a human created paradigm, Grasshopper. You are thinking of God as an individual, with a personality.
> 
> **Perhaps** God is nothing like that at all?
> 
> It is counter-productive and futile to be angry at a specific Deity that exists only in dogma.




Dont know about that Master Sifu. I thought God says He created Man in His image. Gave him his moral law and religious theatre.

So if human morality and reason is not from God; or from God but He has a different standard, then how can human be judged by God as having done good or evil? 

i.e. human's own judgement of good and evil is taught by God, used by God and accepted everywhere.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2018)

notting said:


> So why even entertain a seconds thought on the imaginary "Ever Attentive Antelope." That you, by your own admission, cannot apprehend even if it did exist?




So you are saying that everything we don't understand doesn't exist ?

We don't understand the conflict between quantum theory and gravity but it's still there. We may understand it one day, or perhaps solving that problem will introduce more problems.

If you think that this discussion is a waste of time then I suggest you do something else instead of wasting your finger muscles for nothing.


----------



## notting (3 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you are saying that everything we don't understand doesn't exist ?




No that is neither said nor implied.
Wishing something exists, that makes no sense at all, may be wishful thinking on your part however.


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I have already posted a video amply covering this topic. Others, like yourself, are perfectly free to view it, should they so choose!
> 
> So how about you take the time to acquaint yourself with the argument first, so that we can then proceed to discuss any objections, you may have, from an informed (as opposed to misinformed) position.



Lol I know the arguement well, and it it in no way proves a god, it’s a silly arguement to make if you are trying to prove your god


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> just getting back to you all...
> 
> Regards the miracle had a quick read of it (a few pages). If you really want I can scan the page and put it up, but only if you're serious of course (got stuff to do). Inbox me for the exact title of the book as I don't want my posts becoming searchable by people I know. The book in general is about the Catholic Charismatic (meaning charism/gift) Renewal, a supernatural phenomenon which started in the Church decades ago. Healings and other “action of the Holy Spirit” started happening, and still do within this movement. It's a unique movement within the Church, which started a few decades ago. It all started happening in the last 100 years to the wonder and surprise and delight of a few denominations. What was lost for centuries had returned to the Church ... And may have a role to play in the future as things get worse with increasing immorality everywhere.  The western world (custodians of Christianity) are regressing  to the habits of their ancient ancestors.
> 
> ...



If I scanned a few pages of Spider-Man comic, would you believe in Spider-Man?

What work have you done to independently verify the claims made in your book?

You are suffering from confirmation bias, you simply look for things to prove your pre existing ideas, and don’t fact check them.


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> You are still stuck in a human created paradigm, Grasshopper. You are thinking of God as an individual, with a personality.
> 
> **Perhaps** God is nothing like that at all?
> 
> It is counter-productive and futile to be angry at a specific Deity that exists only in dogma.



 Actually a few of us have been asking the believers to define their god, and then provide evidence for its existence.

Why don’t you define your god by telling us what you believe and why you believe it?


----------



## Tisme (4 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why don’t you define your god by telling us what you believe and why you believe it?




That's easy:- it's the same one who thought bubbles you when you need to bounce issues around, the same one that stops you from going a bridge too far with moral and ethical issues, the same one who progresses you through life with self worth, wonder, shame, dread and self preservation. 

We all have the God gene and many fight it, but they can't win because the inner argument is the dilemma between the superficial antipathy to being answerable to one's own conscience and the deep rooted spiritual kernal. Everytime we mentally pat ourselves on the back for  e.g. posting irrefutable contrary dogma about another poster's input we are are talking to ourselves and that kernal.

Organised religion is another issue, but I am of the belief that none of us can honestly deny we do have thoughts of alternate consciousness, transwotever, higher purpose, etc and most importantly a non dimensional fairy that goes with us wherever we go to give us the comfort that we always have someone to talk to and provide company in times of need.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why don’t you define your god by telling us what you believe and why you believe it?




This has all been done before, so why bother to do it again ?

I don't think it's my job to convince you by providing proof that you simply dismiss, it doesn't matter to me whether you think there is a god or not but it seems to matter to you that other people shouldn't believe that there is a god, so why don't you give you evidence for non existence ?


----------



## notting (4 January 2018)

Any way.
I woke up this morning feeling a bit sick.
I thought, 'what is the point of destroying someones belief in something if you leave them with nothing as an alternative, bereft of meaning and hope so to speak.'  That would be a horrible thing to do even if your position is rationally correct.
So then I thought well I should offer up something that hopefully may fill any vacuums left by my mean spiritedness -


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Lol I know the arguement well, and it it in no way proves a god, it’s a silly arguement to make if you are trying to prove your god



From your responses to this argument, I sincerely doubt your claim to knowing "the arguement well".

But if you truly believe that it is silly, then how about you explain to me how it is that you arrived at this silliness conclusion!


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> This has all been done before, so why bother to do it again ?
> 
> I don't think it's my job to convince you by providing proof that you simply dismiss, it doesn't matter to me whether you think there is a god or not but it seems to matter to you that other people shouldn't believe that there is a god, so why don't you give you evidence for non existence ?




I don’t think Wayne has defined his god, unless I missed it.

No it’s not your job, but this is a discussion forum, if you don’t want to discuss it, why are you here?


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> But if you truly believe that it is silly, then how about you explain to me how it is that you arrived at this silliness conclusion!




Quite happy to do that for you, just lay out the premises so every one is on the same page, and I will show you where the problem is

But I have never met someone who was convinced to become a theist by the kalam, it’s just an arguement that people that already believe put forward to try an justify their pre existing belief. 

But maybe you are different, was the kalam the thing that convinced you? If not what was? And why aren’t you leading with that instead of defeating to the kalam?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No it’s not your job, but this is a discussion forum, if you don’t want to discuss it, why are you here?




I've been here a long time, and said it all before, but it still hasn't sunk in to some people.


----------



## Value Collector (4 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I've been here a long time, and said it all before, but it still hasn't sunk in to some people.




My question was to wayne though, I wasn’t asking you what you believe, you have explained it to me before.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> My question was to wayne though, I wasn’t asking you what you believe, you have explained it to me before.




Sorry, I thought it was a general question.


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Quite happy to do that for you, just lay out the premises so every one is on the same page, and I will show you where the problem is
> 
> But I have never met someone who was convinced to become a theist by the kalam, it’s just an arguement that people that already believe put forward to try an justify their pre existing belief.
> 
> But maybe you are different, was the kalam the thing that convinced you? If not what was? And why aren’t you leading with that instead of defeating to the kalam?



The argument has already been covered by Dr Craig, in the video I linked in an earlier post.

If you are doubtful of the validity, of any of the premises, and/or the integrity of the logic, used to derive the uncaused causer conclusion, from those premises, I would be genuinely interested in seeing your logical basis (if any) for contesting the integrity of the argument and its conclusion.

I have strongly believed in the existence of God since a specific event which occured approximately 30 years ago. I had neither seen nor examined any philosophical arguments, of this nature, beyond my own personal contemplations of questions surrounding the mysterious and seemingly paradoxical nature of material existence. Interestingly enough, the kalam cosmological argument seems to operate along similar lines to my personal ruminations.

My observations weren't sufficient to dispel my lingering doubts around the question of the existence of a god, or perhaps gods.

What finally convinced me of the existence of God was God!

It was during one of the darker periods of my life, when I had an urgent need, for an answer, to a very important question about life. My true position at the time could fairly be described as lying somewhere between agnosticism and atheism.

Upon posing the question, it was answered, within seconds, when a small bird, broke an exit sign, right in front of me. (Sometimes I like to describe this event as God sending a winged messenger to deliver me a sign.)

Since that moment, I have never had cause to doubt in the existence of a potent higher intelligence. Nor do I have any reason to doubt, that we are here by design(not accident) and our existence does have purpose.


----------



## grah33 (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> My observations weren't sufficient to dispel my lingering doubts around the question of the existence of a god, or perhaps gods.
> .



 "perhaps Gods"?  You believe in one God or more, i don't understand.


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The argument has already been covered by Dr Craig, in the video I linked in an earlier post.
> 
> If you are doubtful of the validity, of any of the premises, and/or the integrity of the logic, used to derive the uncaused causer conclusion, from those premises, I would be genuinely interested in seeing your logical basis (if any) for contesting the integrity of the argument and its conclusion.
> 
> ...



Late correction to an error in this post : the event I described happened approximately 20 (not 30) years ago. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this erroneous detail may have caused.


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> "perhaps Gods"?  You believe in one God or more, i don't understand.



I am convinced that at least one god must exist, but am unable at present to logically conclude, or exclude, the possibility of multiple deities.

However, for the present, I am content to believe in the one that answered my question.


----------



## luutzu (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The argument has already been covered by Dr Craig, in the video I linked in an earlier post.
> 
> If you are doubtful of the validity, of any of the premises, and/or the integrity of the logic, used to derive the uncaused causer conclusion, from those premises, I would be genuinely interested in seeing your logical basis (if any) for contesting the integrity of the argument and its conclusion.
> 
> ...




So a bird breaking an exit sign convinced you God exists?

It was still a pretty confusing sign to give though. I mean, breaking an Exit sign... does that mean He tells you to NOT Exit, i.e. don't think of exiting because the option is broken so don't do it. OR, exit, exit hard, so hard it breaks the sign. 

Just realised that it was a dark period so exit now have a different meaning. So just in case, don't exit dude, the forum is more fun with you. [see, I could also talk both ways, like God and other Oracles ]


----------



## grah33 (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I am convinced that at least one god must exist, but am unable at present to logically conclude, or exclude, the possibility of multiple deities.
> 
> However, for the present, I am content to believe in the one that answered my question.



which type of God do you believe in, and which do you think may also exist?


----------



## grah33 (4 January 2018)

Just to be more clear, my view is that perhaps God wants to and often does “prove “ himself to people who in sincerity of heart actually look for him, or are following him in the proper manner, but not to people who don't want him in their life. It's a bit like when Jesus spoke in parables – deliberately so they (who weren't keeping his messages) were not able to understand them.  The privilege wasn't granted. But to those who practiced his teachings , he explained/revealed much...Jesus also said something along these lines in the Gospel, about mystical experiences only coming to those who do the "will of God".  Perhaps it all really is under everyone's nose (ie the Truth)


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> which type of God do you believe in, and which do you think may also exist?



If I said that the name of the type of God I believe in, is sometimes referred to as the "tetragrammaton" (if only this device I am posting from would allow me to type the name out correctly in aramaic), then I would hope that you recognise, that whilst our religious philosophies do have some variances in biblical interpretation, that we are both still, very much believers in the same God.


----------



## luutzu (4 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Just to be more clear, my view is that perhaps God wants to and often does “prove “ himself to people who in sincerity of heart actually look for him, or are following him in the proper manner, but not to people who don't want him in their life. It's a bit like when Jesus spoke in parables – deliberately so they (who weren't keeping his messages) were not able to understand them.  The privilege wasn't granted. But to those who practiced his teachings , he explained/revealed much...Jesus also said something along these lines in the Gospel, about mystical experiences only coming to those who do the "will of God".  Perhaps it all really is under everyone's nose (ie the Truth)




I was looking for God in my HS years. I joined a Church Youth Group and all that. Yea, alright, looking for girls and maybe god too, but if God was there I'd be cool with it 

I think it's best to do right by yourself and by other people. Just treat them fairly and be honest (not too honest, but fair enough honest) in your dealings. 

Do that and if there's a God he'll like you; if there isn't a God, good people around will tend to feel sorry for you and tap your back a bit so you'd feel better after being screwed by someone you were good and honest to.


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> So a bird breaking an exit sign convinced you God exists?
> 
> It was still a pretty confusing sign to give though. I mean, breaking an Exit sign... does that mean He tells you to NOT Exit, i.e. don't think of exiting because the option is broken so don't do it. OR, exit, exit hard, so hard it breaks the sign.
> 
> Just realised that it was a dark period so exit now have a different meaning. So just in case, don't exit dude, the forum is more fun with you. [see, I could also talk both ways, like God and other Oracles ]



I was asking if it was possible for me to cease to exist, i.e. exit my current life and cease to be forevermore. The answer was very easy to interpret, when the word exit lay shattered into several pieces on the road in front of me.
Sceptics will undoubtedly put it down to a confluence of coincidental events all of which can be easily explained with physics. The reality I am faced with is, that, I had never before, and never since, witnessed this specific event, and consider the timing of it (mere seconds after asking the question) to be too highly improbable to dismiss as mere coincidence.


----------



## luutzu (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If I said that the name of the type of God I believe in, is sometimes referred to as the "tetragrammaton" (if only this device I am posting from would allow me to type the name out correctly in aramaic), then I would hope that you recognise, that whilst our religious philosophies do have some variances in biblical interpretation, that we are both still, very much believers in the same God.




Is tetragammon a Scientology god? Or David Smith's Mormon's god God?


----------



## luutzu (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I was asking if it was possible for me to cease to exist, i.e. exit my current life and cease to be forevermore. The answer was very easy to interpret, when the word exit lay shattered into several pieces on the road in front of me.
> Sceptics will undoubtedly put it down to a confluence of coincidental events all of which can be easily explained with physics. The reality I am faced with is, that, I had never before, and never since, witnessed this specific event, and consider the timing of it (mere seconds after asking the question) to be too highly improbable to dismiss as mere coincidence.




Don't know what to say so will just shut it. 

But it's good that you didn't exit and are still with us.


----------



## grah33 (4 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I am convinced that at least one god must exist, but am unable at present to logically conclude, or exclude, the possibility of multiple deities.
> 
> However, for the present, I am content to believe in the one that answered my question.



Thanks for sharing your story.  Are u Christian or a follower of Judaism or something else?  Just curious do you believe that Jesus is God?  U seem to maybe have a different belief that isn't common ?


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Is tetragammon a Scientology god? Or David Smith's Mormon's god God?



It is said to be the aramaic spelling of the name that the Hebrew God gave when he spoke to Moses, and also said to have sounded similar to the aramaic expression: "I am who I am".

I haven't studied the book of mormon and like to keep some distance between myself and scientology, so I do not consider myself qualified to make specific claims about their perspective on god.

What I can say is that this god is present in any religion that includes the book of exodus as part of their doctrine.
I could also logically argue, that it is the god of any religion that includes the book of genesis, on account of the reference to the kabala (tree of knowledge) contained therein.


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Thanks for sharing your story.  Are u Christian or a follower of Judaism or something else?  Just curious do you believe that Jesus is God?  U seem to maybe have a different belief that isn't common ?



The name Jesus in aramaic is almost identical to the tetragrammaton. The insertion of a fifth aramaic letter, to make the name Jesus, changes the name for God, to a name meaning God incarnate.

I am very much a believer in the wisdom of many of the teachings of Christ, but prefer not to be asked to commit to a belief in everything that is claimed about him.
To me the wisdom of the message is what is most important, and whether he was an enlightened man, or god incarnate, isn't of great importance to me, because in my mind it doesn't alter the validity of the evident wisdom of many of his teachings. In fact, I am of the opinion, that questions of divine parenthood, virgin births, and veracity of miracles, fascinating as they can be,  tend to distract people from the content of the teachings.

Edit: just noticed that I neglected to answer your question about my beliefs, they are a blend of components taken from a variety of theistic philosophies. I prefer not to surrender my volition to any single established religion for the reason that I very much subscribe to the belief in the saying that "there is no religion higher than truth", and do not believe that any of the current day philosophies can rightly claim to hold the monopoly on truth, divinity, salvation etc.


----------



## explod (4 January 2018)

I wonder if humankind will ever learn equally and to be equal. 

Like the Chiefs of the tribes created the witch doctor to keep fear in the tribe and thereby control so too did the wealthy promote and prosper religion to control the masses. 

Of course as I may well have expressed previously we now have the cricket, footy and the races.


----------



## wayneL (4 January 2018)

explod said:


> I wonder if humankind will ever learn equally and to be equal.
> 
> Like the Chiefs of the tribes created the witch doctor to keep fear in the tribe and thereby control so too did the wealthy promote and prosper religion to control the masses.
> 
> Of course as I may well have expressed previously we now have the cricket, footy and the races.



It's true. 

We see the very same thing with climate alarmism.


----------



## explod (4 January 2018)

Not sure the establishment have joined your take of alarmism yet Wayne,  Trump certainly has a long way to go in my view.


----------



## wayneL (4 January 2018)

explod said:


> Not sure the establishment have joined your take of alarmism yet Wayne,  Trump certainly has a long way to go in my view.



Yep,  the mistake they made was messing wirh science.   They forgot about the falsification step and that at least some people still have the faculty of critical thinking.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yep,  the mistake they made was messing wirh science.   They forgot about the falsification step and that at least some people still have the faculty of critical thinking.




What falsification step ?


----------



## cynic (4 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What falsification step ?



Spoken like a true Carbon Cardinal (a.k.a climate scientist)!


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Spoken like a true Carbon Cardinal (a.k.a climate scientist)!




You are welcome to provide some detail on that pejorative.


----------



## Value Collector (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The argument has already been covered by Dr Craig, in the video I linked in an earlier post.
> 
> If you are doubtful of the validity, of any of the premises, and/or the integrity of the logic, used to derive the uncaused causer conclusion, from those premises, I would be genuinely interested in seeing your logical basis (if any) for contesting the integrity of the argument and its conclusion.
> 
> ...




The argument in no way states he “uncaused cause” must be a god, that’s where thrust leap frog the logic and start injecting their god in.

Also, it’s could be possible the universe is infinite which renders the whole arguement bunk.

Theists then go on to claim the universe can’t be infinite, and must have begun, yet they then assume their god is infinite, which is special pleading, if they are willing to accept some things are infinite eg god, how can hey rule out the universe itself being infinite.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The argument in no way states he “uncaused cause” must be a god, that’s where thrust leap frog the logic and start injecting their god in.
> 
> Also, it’s could be possible the universe is infinite which renders the whole arguement bunk.
> 
> Theists then go on to claim the universe can’t be infinite, and must have begun, yet they then assume their god is infinite, which is special pleading, if they are willing to accept some things are infinite eg god, how can hey rule out the universe itself being infinite.




I happen to be a theist whom considers the argument, about whether or not the universe had a beginning, to be a redundant and needless premise in the kalam argument (apart from justifying use of the word cosmological in its label) for the following reason:

If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself, would of necessity be the uncaused cause!

So even if I accept the possibility of the universe being infinite (and it just so happens that I do), the premise that anything which begins to exist, needing to have been caused to exist, is still sufficient to support the logical deduction that there must exist an uncaused cause!

So if there is an uncaused cause, one need only ask oneself what the attributes, or qualities, an uncaused cause, would, of necessity, possess, in order to be an uncaused cause. Amongst other things, it would, at the very minimum, have to be eternal, powerful and creative! These three qualities are often attributed to the God concept espoused in a number of belief systems. Have there been any concepts, other than God, throughout history, credited with all three of those qualities (i.e. potency, creativity, and timelessness)?

If you'd prefer to label it as something else, that is your prerogative. But do take care to resist the temptation to apply, any labels, already assigned to completely different concepts, such as purple unicorns, planet orbitting teapots or pure nonsense.

Because to do such a thing, would be tantamount to indulgence in the Dawkins delusion, and I really do want to believe that you are intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than to parrot the mistakes of that logic bereft moron.


----------



## grah33 (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I
> Because to do such a thing, would be tantamount to indulgence in the Dawkins delusion, and I really do want to believe that you are intelligent enough to think for yourself, rather than to parrot the mistakes of that logic bereft moron.




Dawkins (should check though) may not believe there is consciousness.  If I was an atheist I think I'd drop that view as well .  How things become living (creature life) is another mystery too.


----------



## explod (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I happen to be a theist whom considers the argument, about whether or not the universe had a beginning, to be a redundant and needless premise in the kalam argument (apart from justifying use of the word cosmological in its label) for the following reason:
> 
> If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself, would of necessity be the uncaused cause!
> 
> ...



Dawkins merely expresses with facts the inconsistencies of belief. 

To believe is not to know and to know is not asserted either.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

explod said:


> Dawkins merely expresses with facts the inconsistencies of belief.
> 
> To believe is not to know and to know is not asserted either.



What facts does he use to justify his anti theistic assertions?

Don't tell me! Let me guess! The "fact" of evolution perhaps!


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

And another Dawkins classic:


----------



## bellenuit (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> What facts does he use to justify his anti theistic assertions?
> 
> Don't tell me! Let me guess! The "fact" of evolution perhaps!





I'm surprised you used that video, because it actually shows the lengths creationists will go to to discredit Dawkins. This video was actually used by Dawkins himself to show the tricks Creationists use. Check this out from the 13 minute Mark or even a bit earlier for other examples.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I'm surprised you used that video, because it actually shows the lengths creationists will go to to discredit Dawkins. This video was actually used by Dawkins himself to show the tricks Creationists use. Check this out from the 13 minute Mark or even a bit earlier for other examples.




Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Out of interest, has Dawkins furnished a plausible answer to the question?

Edit: It is a pity that anyone would make the error of engaging deceit to support their position, particularly when the opponent to their position is already doing such a great job of discrediting himself.


----------



## luutzu (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> It is said to be the aramaic spelling of the name that the Hebrew God gave when he spoke to Moses, and also said to have sounded similar to the aramaic expression: "I am who I am".
> 
> I haven't studied the book of mormon and like to keep some distance between myself and scientology, so I do not consider myself qualified to make specific claims about their perspective on god.
> 
> ...




I am who I am sounds like a bad Jackie Chan movie. OK, most of his latter films are pretty bad...

I think we all agree that if belief in God/s makes you happy, find peace and all that... that's a good thing. 

As to trying to prove that such a God exists, for real, I give you VC


----------



## explod (5 January 2018)

The questions as posed to Dawkins are not answerable and were deliberately so.   Dawkins (as I intimated earlier) merely and clearly identifies the inconsistencies and clear contradictions of the different bibles and church teachings over the ages.  His book "The God Delusion"  is well worth the read and bet those who can this angle of scrutiny neither understand nor have read it.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2018)

explod said:


> The questions as posed to Dawkins are not answerable and were deliberately so.   Dawkins (as I intimated earlier) merely and clearly identifies the inconsistencies and clear contradictions of the different bibles and church teachings over the ages.  His book "The God Delusion"  is well worth the read and bet those who can this angle of scrutiny neither understand nor have read it.




Just because people cannot correctly comprehend or interpret a subject or thing does not mean it does not exist.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

explod said:


> The questions as posed to Dawkins are not answerable and were deliberately so.   Dawkins (as I intimated earlier) merely and clearly identifies the inconsistencies and clear contradictions of the different bibles and church teachings over the ages.  His book "The God Delusion"  is well worth the read and bet those who can this angle of scrutiny neither understand nor have read it.



Are you willing to quote some of, what you'd consider to be, his better arguments, so that I can assess the true merit (oor absence thereof) of your endorsement of Dawkins book?

The reason I ask, is that I have had the experience of having ant-theists confidently presenting me with faulty arguments which I strongly suspect tp have been sourced from that book. It has become the anti theists gospel!

So, please, hit me with the best of his arguments!


----------



## explod (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Are you willing to quote some of, what you'd consider to be, his better arguments, so that I can assess the true merit (oor absence thereof) of your endorsement of Dawkins book?
> 
> The reason I ask, is that I have had the experience of having ant-theists confidently presenting me with faulty arguments which I strongly suspect tp have been sourced from that book. It has become the anti theists gospel!
> 
> ...




He does not present arguments,  as a biologist he presents facts.   However there is considerable material ( writings)  to the examinations of these facts.  You need to read the book and form your own view of his presentations. 

I read it in 2010 however I'd formed my own (and a similar view to Dawkins)  when I was at Uni in 1986 from the psychology of art history.   Pictures tell many tales. 

I am not declaring that there is no God,  I just do not know.   Many believe there is a God and that belief is strong and good for them.   However this does not prove there is a God nor can a mountain of bibles do it either.   In fact there are mountains of contradictions within the respective bible accounts which are covered in great detail by Dawkins.   But open objective reading of Dawkins work and " The Golden Bough"  by James Frazer is another very good text on findings of anthropologists


----------



## explod (5 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Just because people cannot correctly comprehend or interpret a subject or thing does not mean it does not exist.



Absolutely agree,  but we don't know.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

explod said:


> He does not present arguments,  as a biologist he presents facts.   However there is considerable material ( writings)  to the examinations of these facts.  You need to read the book and form your own view of his presentations.
> 
> I read it in 2010 however I'd formed my own (and a similar view to Dawkins)  when I was at Uni in 1986 from the psychology of art history.   Pictures tell many tales.
> 
> I am not declaring that there is no God,  I just do not know.   Many believe there is a God and that belief is strong and good for them.   However this does not prove there is a God nor can a mountain of bibles do it either.   In fact there are mountains of contradictions within the respective bible accounts which are covered in great detail by Dawkins.   But open objective reading of Dawkins work and " The Golden Bough"  by James Frazer is another very good text on findings of anthropologists



Therein lies a serious problem with Dawkins approach.
The existence of contradictions, in the writings of those believing in a thing, do not prove its non existence. If it were otherwise, I would, long ago, have ceased to exist!
Some time ago, I viewed an hour long discussion, between Dawkins and a creationist, in which Dawkins mounted such a poor argument against the case for creationism that he ended up in tears!

Evolution deserves a far more capable representative than Richard Dawkins. Likewise, atheism, also deserves far better representation.


----------



## explod (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Therein lies a serious problem with Dawkins approach.
> The existence of contradictions, in the writings of those believing in a thing, do not prove its non existence. If it were otherwise, I would, long ago, have ceased to exist!
> Some time ago, I viewed an hour long discussion, between Dawkins and a creationist, in which Dawkins mounted such a poor argument against the case for creationism that he ended up in tears!
> 
> Evolution deserves a far more capable representative than Richard Dawkins. Likewise, atheism, also deserves far better representation.



I did not say that it did and nor does Dawkins.   This is where you fall down,  God may exist but we do not actually know that.  People have the feeling within them and that he speaks within them but that does not prove actual existence.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 January 2018)

explod said:


> In fact there are mountains of contradictions within the respective bible accounts which are covered in great detail by Dawkins. But open objective reading of Dawkins work and " The Golden Bough" by James Frazer is another very good text on findings of anthropologists




In my view, if Dawkins is using Biblical contradictions to dismiss the idea of a God, then he's barking up the wrong tree. Various tribes sought to claim god for themselves over history, the Bible and Koran are human interpretations of what each tribe would *like *their god to be. 

What god really is may be not remotely like what religious people believe him to be, so the Bible and Koran are irrelevant in forming an understanding of God.

Physics and mathematics may ultimately prove to be much better indicators of "the mind of God".


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

explod said:


> I did not say that it did and nor does Dawkins.   This is where you fall down,  God may exist but we do not actually know that.  People have the feeling within them and that he speaks within them but that does not prove actual existence.



If that is true, then why has Dawkins embarked on a crusade against theism and theists alike?

And are you truly trying to suggest to me, that his efforts to highlight the existence of contradictions in scripture, aren’t motivated by his desire to shore up a body of evidence, in support of his case, against theism?


----------



## explod (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If that is true, then why has Dawkins embarked on a crusade against theism and theists alike?
> 
> And are you truly trying to suggest to me, that his efforts to highlight the existence of contradictions in scripture, aren’t motivated by his desire to shore up a body of evidence, in support of his case, against theism?



He hasn't,  its those opposed to his findings that say he is motivated in this way.   Its obvious that few understand intellectual methods of writing or statements backed up by annotations.  I can try to explain till black in the face but it will not work till there is acceptance of the actual meanings of the words in the context of our discussion in "believe"  versus "know"  THIS IS THE CRUX OF MY ARRIVING IN THIS DISCUSSION. 

I was heading to Catholic priesthood as a youngster and gained a good idea of metaphysics back then.  This has provided a good view of the wider picture I believe.   It cannot be argued till both sides have read the book and its too complex for it to be read to you in understandable terms.  For example a conclusion at the end of a chapter is made only after many pages of sifting over all of the facts from all sides and views.   Yes he has a lot of critics and an insight into his research exposes the lopsided bias of those,  particularly theologian's.   Of course many of the ordinary public are fearful of possible truths so avoid a proper look and understanding of all the sides.   And I do understand that many need to believe in God for personal welfare as its been ingrained from childhood as a mental support.


----------



## bellenuit (5 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> In my view, if Dawkins is using Biblical contradictions to dismiss the idea of a God, then he's barking up the wrong tree.




I don't believe I have ever heard him use Biblical contradictions as a means to dismiss the idea of a God. But he has used them to question the belief *many* hold that those who wrote the Bible were being guided by the hand of God; that the Bible is God's work. Since that God (the Abrahamic God) is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing, one would expect the Bible to be contradiction and error free, which it definitely is not.


----------



## cynic (5 January 2018)

explod said:


> He hasn't,  its those opposed to his findings that say he is motivated in this way.   Its obvious that few understand intellectual methods of writing or statements backed up by annotations.  I can try to explain till black in the face but it will not work till there is acceptance of the actual meanings of the words in the context of our discussion in "believe"  versus "know"  THIS IS THE CRUX OF MY ARRIVING IN THIS DISCUSSION.
> 
> I was heading to Catholic priesthood as a youngster and gained a good idea of metaphysics back then.  This has provided a good view of the wider picture I believe.   It cannot be argued till both sides have read the book and its too complex for it to be read to you in understandable terms.  For example a conclusion at the end of a chapter is made only after many pages of sifting over all of the facts from all sides and views.   Yes he has a lot of critics and an insight into his research exposes the lopsided bias of those,  particularly theologian's.   Of course many of the ordinary public are fearful of possible truths so avoid a proper look and understanding of all the sides.   And I do understand that many need to believe in God for personal welfare as its been ingrained from childhood as a mental support.



Well it seems that Richard Dawkins himself, is in disagreement with you:
https://www.richarddawkins.net/aboutus/

Do I really need to read the entire contents of his antitheistic book, when I have already seen footage of him publicly expressing his opposition to theism?


----------



## grah33 (5 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Well it seems that Richard Dawkins himself, is in disagreement with you:
> https://www.richarddawkins.net/aboutus/
> 
> Do I really need to read the entire contents of his antitheistic book, when I have already seen footage of him publicly expressing his opposition to theism?





Although those goals seem good to many people, he seems to be another commie at heart, wanting to force his atheistic beliefs and virtues on everyone. He would also remove freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.


----------



## grah33 (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> I did not say that it did and nor does Dawkins.   This is where you fall down,  God may exist but we do not actually know that.  People have the feeling within them and that he speaks within them but that does not prove actual existence.




If there is a God, it's possible that He chooses to manifest only to some people, but not everyone. In that case, some people not only believe , but know truth as well.


----------



## notting (6 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Physics and mathematics may ultimately prove to be much better indicators of "the mind of God".




Well that's novel.  Looks like this God is one only you know of.  Maybe you should use another word for it like, my mind, my idea.  It would make it less confusing.


----------



## Joules MM1 (6 January 2018)

from an effective thinker, allowing you to think.....further

*"NS:* You brought up the word God… what does that word mean to you these days?

*Werner: *First I have to tell you what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean all the things you know it doesn’t mean, like it’s not a white guy with white hair and white robes sitting on a white throne. Nor is it any thing but it’s not not any thing. By that I mean that you can’t say that God is not the chair. You can’t say God is there and the chair’s over here. But you can’t say that God is the chair, because that would imply that God’s here and not over there. So what I would say about God is first of all that anything I say about God has got to be inaccurate because you’ve asked me to say something about the infinite and all sayings, are finite. But I think it’s possible for me to talk, about it in a way that a person is left with an apprehension of God for him or herself, not from what I’ve said, but perhaps standing on what I’ve said. So, God is the context of contexts; that would mean that God is contextuality. You have a content. You have a process which devolves to the content. You have a context in which the process devolving to the content occurs. And then there are many contexts and the context for contexts is contextuality. Just as you’re an individual, and I’m an individual, but you wouldn’t be an individual and I wouldn’t be an individual without the context of individuality. There wouldn’t be any word individual without individuality; there wouldn’t be any such thing as an individual without the context of individuality.
When you show a primitive tribesman a photograph he sees black and white splotches because he has no context of picture. Once he gets the notion that he can be represented on a flat plane, he instantly sees his picture. You and I have had experiences like that, where you don’t know what you’re looking for and you can’t see it, and somebody tells you what you’re looking for and suddenly you see it. And now you can’t not see it. So, you and I would not notice that we were individuals if it were not for the context of individ¬uality. You would have no individual expressions if it were not for the context of individuality. Individuality is the context, you are the process, the content is you as an individual. Then there is a context of contexts. It’s like a set and elements. What is the set of all sets? God could be said to be the set of all sets. The problem with that is that it gets into an infinite regression for most people.

*NS: *Because then you need the set of the set of all sets.

*Werner:* Yes. Precisely. Except that the resolution to that is not an infinite regression…

*NS:* The context contains the infinite regression?

*Werner:* Yeah, that’s good, but it’s not complete if you say it that way. I can give you another way of looking at it. All of these things are approximations because we’re trying to say everything, so anything you say has to be an approximation. So this is just another approximation and that is that the second dimension is contained within the third dimension and if you’ve got three dimensions you’ve got to have four dimensions because the three dimensions have got to be contained in something. So that’s the fourth dimension Which means there has to be a fifth dimen¬sion, and so on, except that it isn’t necessary to have an infinite regression. What you can have is a shift from dimen¬sion to dimensionality, and that which can contain any number of dimensions is dimensionality, and it would not require an infinite regression.
So the way I would talk about God that I thought was useful—that is to say, something on which people could stand and see for themselves—was a conversation that would involve the things we’ve just talked about. I would talk about God as wholeness, or completeness. I would talk about God as everything/ nothing. I would talk about God as the context of all contexts. I would talk about God as contextuality itself. But that would certainly not exclude anything, but, also not be anything to the exclusion of anything else.
If what I just told you isn’t mind-boggling, it isn’t accurate, because anything you say about God that will fit into your mental system you can be sure is illusionary. That’s a nice word for bull****. And we all want something that will fit in our mind when in fact what is useful to us is something which will not fit in our mind. The description of God that won’t fit in our mind isn’t mindboggling just for the sake of being mindboggling–that would be gibberish or jargon—it’s mindboggling because it is that way in nature. The mind is not big enough to contain God, because the mind deals in symbols and God, when represented, is no longer God. It isn’t even accurately represented; any representation of everything is a thing and everything and a thing are two different orders of thing. Therefore, God doesn’t fit into our system of things because God is not a thing. In the Hebrew tradition they don’t let people use the word God, which is not a bad idea actually, because then you don’t bull**** yourself about it. I mean you’re stuck with your apprehension of it rather than your symbols of it.

*NS:* In the Hindu tradition there seems to be a personal devotional relationship to God. I understand that to simply be a vehicle for the mind to relate with that which is bigger than it…

*Werner: *Almost all religions have attempted to bring God into the scope of “the people.” I have a sense that that’s, a little demeaning to people. I have a sense that it is possible to relate to people in such a way that they will expand to be able to know God. I’ve got to be a little poetic here, but for me it is clear that the Self is the only vessel which can hold God. That’s a little too poetic for me, so maybe I want to say that the Self is that which has the ability to know God, because it is God. My personal preference, and that which I see as workable, is rather than to reduce the thing to something palatable, I’d rather ask people to increase their capacity, and I find that people are better served by that. But I think that comparisons are bull****, and I don’t want to get into a comparison about the way Hinduism approaches the notion of God. Hinduism is perfect for Hindus and all those people who are Hindus should practice Hinduism as long as they do. That is to say, while they’re Hindus they should practice Hinduism.

http://www.erhardseminarstraining.com/?page_id=935


----------



## SirRumpole (6 January 2018)

notting said:


> It would make it less confusing.




To you perhaps.


----------



## explod (6 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Well it seems that Richard Dawkins himself, is in disagreement with you:
> https://www.richarddawkins.net/aboutus/
> 
> Do I really need to read the entire contents of his antitheistic book, when I have already seen footage of him publicly expressing his opposition to theism?



So you will not consider the other side of the argument.

Of course Dawkins is a atheist as I am myself.   Yet again you avoid the black and white opposites of "to know"(science) or  "to believe"(religion)

However,  having been there,  indoctrinated in my youth, I sympathise.   My prime interest is that religion inhibits free individual education and thinking.


----------



## Macquack (6 January 2018)

If there is a God, "a la" the Christian version, he has a duty of care to pop in a bit more regularly. After 2000 odd years, even the believers are losing interest. Hope I don't get struck down for saying that.


----------



## grah33 (6 January 2018)

Macquack said:


> If there is a God, "a la" the Christian version, he has a duty of care to pop in a bit more regularly. After 2000 odd years, even the believers are losing interest. Hope I don't get struck down for saying that.



Maybe God is only interested in popping in peoples lives if He thinks He would get something back in return.  

They are losing interest (in recent times) as you say, but history has shown me that things change quickly enough.


----------



## grah33 (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> Another interesting angle:-



Very misguided actually. Jesus taught morals which can be applied to everything. The role of the Church is to work things out.


----------



## notting (6 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> To you perhaps.



No because  it's a word that is claimed by traditional religions and you are using for your own invented mind/idea.
A bit like calling a mutating flea larvae an elephant.
It's not really the way language is supposed to be used. With language we agree on a label for conventionally accepted thing then apply it.  It's how we communicate and identify objects that function as they do.
Perhaps you should start a new church called the the Church of Runpole where people come to worship your inconceivable and incomplete thought bubble with a great sense of faith.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 January 2018)

notting said:


> No because  it's a word that is claimed by traditional religions and you are using for your own mind/idea.  A bit like calling a mutated flea larvae an elephant.  It's not really the way language is supposed to be used.
> Then again it is all God ever was in reality.




If you would like to present a scientific view of how the universe was created without external influence and prove this was the only way it could have happened then I will believe there is no god.

Untill then...


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> So you will not consider the other side of the argument.
> 
> Of course Dawkins is a atheist as I am myself.   Yet again you avoid the black and white opposites of "to know"(science) or  "to believe"(religion)
> 
> However,  having been there,  indoctrinated in my youth, I sympathise.   My prime interest is that religion inhibits free individual education and thinking.



You seem to be accusing me of your very own crimes here!

I would have hoped that by now, you would have realised, that the meaning of the word "religion", is derived from its latin root "ligare"! (The meaning of which is "to bind").

I do not object to anyone having the freedom to choose whichever religious philosophy, they consider to be most appropriate for their personal lives, whether that religion be: atheism, agnosticism, theism, science, a blend of several, or perhaps even, "none of the above".

What I do object to, is, religious zealots making the error, of deluding themselves into believing, that their chosen philosophy is the one true religion, and, therefore, the only religion that anyone is entitled to embrace.

It is this, aforementioned mentality, that precipitates harmful "crusades". The cited excuses of "God, the truth, science, or the facts, are on my side!" is naught more than a false justification, for the real reason, for declaration of a holy war!

Richard Dawkins is just one, of many classic examples I could give, of how easily a person can delude themselves into believing that their "crusade" is  somehow justified.
Please note, that I do not blame atheism for Dawkins evident state of self delusion, for the very same reason that I do not blame theism for the Spanish Inquisition.
Atheism was simply, the style of music, Richard happened to be listening to, when he decided to allow, his, over inflated ego, to take him for a ride down fallacy lane.


----------



## notting (6 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If you would like to present a scientific view of how the universe was created without external influence and prove this was the only way it could have happened then I will believe there is no god.
> 
> Untill then...



I have already debunked that notion on two counts.  One it makes the devastatingly simplistic assumption that 'the world' 'must have been created' based on nothing but your own prejudiced thinking that assumes imagines and fantasizes that 'if things exist, they must be created.'  So it's not a scientific question science doesn't deal in the sphere of 'en devouring to establish incoherent propositions.' 
But if you insist on the notion that 'if something exists, it must have been created.'  Then the infinite regression argument suggested above also applies to your creator god.  

How did he come into being?
  Well according to your insistence he like all things can only exist if he was created.  So he must have been created by a creator god and that god, if it exists must also have been created by a creator god......


----------



## SirRumpole (6 January 2018)

notting said:


> So he must have been created by a creator god and that god, if it exists must also have been created by a creator god......




Only if god is subject to time. If god is timeless then it has existed forever. If a god created the matter and energy of a universe it would have created time along with it.


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> If there is a God, it's possible that He chooses to manifest only to some people, but not everyone. In that case, some people not only believe , but know truth as well.




And different gods seem to manifest to different people, and different people both believe equally that different gods exist.

They can’t both be right, but they could both be wrong.


----------



## explod (6 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Very misguided actually. Jesus taught morals which can be applied to everything. The role of the Church is to work things out.



Nobody really knows that,  the writings and the bibles have been re written,  revised and altered to suit changing regimes for 2000 years.


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Only if god is subject to time. If god is timeless then it has existed forever. If a god created the matter and energy of a universe it would have created time along with it.




That’s a lot of “ifs”, 

Do we have any evidence that anything can exist outside of space and time?

And those ifs don’t get around the fact that you still need to solve the problem of who created god.


----------



## explod (6 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Richard Dawkins is just one, of many classic examples I could give, of how easily a person can delude themselves into believing that their "crusade" is  somehow justified.
> Please note, that I do not blame atheism for Dawkins evident state of self delusion, for the very same reason that I do not blame theism for the Spanish Inquisition.
> Atheism was simply, the style of music, Richard happened to be listening to, when he decided to allow, his, over inflated ego, to take him for a ride down fallacy lane.




You cannot push such comments or know unless you have read Dawkins works.   He's written about 11 books on varying subjects,  and I might add only the one directly about religion.   

One I've recently read is "The Ancestor's Tale"  about our four billion year evolution.  Again a factual gathering together of the findings of anthopologist work over the ages.   He is a leading academic and university researcher and if they made up stories they'd be straight out the door so quick the boot would be caught.


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> You cannot push such comments or know unless you have read Dawkins works.   He's written about 11 books on varying subjects,  and I might add only the one directly about religion.
> 
> One I've recently read is "The Ancestor's Tale"  about our four billion year evolution.  Again a factual gathering together of the findings of anthopologist work over the ages.   He is a leading academic and university researcher and if they made up stories they'd be straight out the door so quick the boot would be caught.



On the contrary! I do not need to read every word written, nor hear every word spoken, to arrive at the conclusion that the author/orator, is engaged in a crusade, intitiated consequent to their own self delusion. A small sampling of his stated philosophy, has provided ample supportive evidence for my conclusion

Did you, perchance, read every available, theistic scripture, prior to choosing atheism as your philosophy?

Have I ever exploited, your, less than exhaustive, research, to contest the integrity of your decision, to accept atheism as your religious philosophy?

By what possible reason, other than pure hypocrisy, can you accuse me, of your very own, self described failing?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> And those ifs don’t get around the fact that you still need to solve the problem of who created god.




Creation is dependent on time. If time does not exist or something is not subject to it, then creation is irrelevant.


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> That’s a lot of “ifs”,
> 
> Do we have any evidence that anything can exist outside of space and time?
> 
> And those ifs don’t get around the fact that you still need to solve the problem of who created god.



Can you see how these two objections are logically incompatible? (i.e. it is impossible for both objections to be concurrently valid!)

Do you see what I see? If not, why not?

Interestingly enough, a certain argument, answering your questions and objections, has already been presented and explained.

I have, as yet, not received, any logically sound rebuttals, to that argument, from yourself, or anyone else, for that matter.


----------



## explod (6 January 2018)

cynic said:


> On the contrary! I do not need to read every word written, nor hear every word spoken, to arrive at the conclusion that the author/orator, is engaged in a crusade, intitiated consequent to their own self delusion. A small sampling of his stated philosophy, has provided ample supportive evidence for my conclusion
> 
> Did you, perchance, read every available, theistic scripture, prior to choosing atheism as your philosophy?
> 
> ...



As a youngster I read the bible prolifically and as I began my journey towards the priesthood got a good understanding of metaphysics,  which in arguing the potential of a rock its a bit like our chatting here.   Later at University I felt something did not add up.   In fact as a ten year old I argued with our priest the components of the holy trinity,  in the end he told me to just accept it and move on (SHUT UP)   So yes I do have a fair grasp and lifelong jnterest. 

Please tell where is my failing and my hypocrisy.   Is it because I want to know and will not accept the pie in the sky of BELIEF.   

However if you can produce a god and I can shake his hand on parting the river for our path from ASF headquarters, then I'll know.   Untill then your just dreaming ole pal.


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I have, as yet, not received, any logically sound rebuttals, to that argument, from yourself, or anyone else, for that matter.




Which arguement are you talking about?


----------



## Value Collector (6 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Creation is dependent on time. If time does not exist or something is not subject to it, then creation is irrelevant.




I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Sounds like word games to me.

Can you give me an example of something that exists, but isn’t subject to time?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Can you give me an example of something that exists, but isn’t subject to time?




Not in the physical universe, but that's the whole point of a god, to be eternal and not subject to physical constraints.


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> As a youngster I read the bible prolifically and as I began my journey towards the priesthood got a good understanding of metaphysics,  which in arguing the potential of a rock its a bit like our chatting here.   Later at University I felt something did not add up.   In fact as a ten year old I argued with our priest the components of the holy trinity,  in the end he told me to just accept it and move on (SHUT UP)   So yes I do have a fair grasp and lifelong jnterest.
> 
> Please tell where is my failing and my hypocrisy.   Is it because I want to know and will not accept the pie in the sky of BELIEF.
> 
> However if you can produce a god and I can shake his hand on parting the river for our path from ASF headquarters, then I'll know.   Untill then your just dreaming ole pal.



You seem to repeatedly mistake my meaning! You clearly have not read every theistic scripture, nor have I, for that matter! The Roman Catholic Church, like many other religions, does not hold the monopoly on theism!

You asserted that I cannot make comment, or know, until I have read Dawkins works!

I maintain that I can, and already have, presented sufficient evidence, of Dawkins expressed sentiments and fallacious beliefs, to substantiate the validity of my criticisms of him.

He is an anti-theist.

He does do the reputation of atheism, and atheists alike a serious injustice.

He is unable to recognise his own contradictory statements and/or assertions.

He regularly proclaims unproven theories to be established facts, and often presents arguments founded on faulty logic and/or untrue premises.

He often makes the error, of only taking sufficient time, to form a convenient misunderstanding of things he has prejudged to be fiction.

He often uses unsound analogies to refute theistic concepts, and yet he fails to treat similarly uncertain atheist concepts in the same fashion.

He fails to notice that a number of his expressed beliefs, are hypocritical and/or contradictory.

And above all, he is most definitely too self deluded to even recognise, or acknowledge the existence of any of his above mentioned personal failings!

There has already been enough evidence posted to the religious threads of this forum, demonstrating the truth of the majority of my criticisms of Richard Dawkins, and his crusade against all theistic religions.


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Which arguement are you talking about?



My abridged version, of the kalam argument for the existence of god. You know! The one that logically demonstrates, the necessary existence, of a potent,eternal uncreated creator!


----------



## explod (6 January 2018)

Ok,  lets move on from Richard. 

There is no physical evidence that there is a living God.   God is a belief formed in the (conditioned) mind. 

So I invite you to prove me wrong with fact cynic. 

Actually your trips in circles is reminiscent of Thomas Aquenas


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> Ok,  lets move on from Richard.
> 
> There is no physical evidence that there is a living God.   God is a belief formed in the (conditioned) mind.
> 
> ...



Whilst I am most definitely opposed to anti-theism, I am most definitely not seeking to prove atheism wrong!

I do not claim to be able to conclusively, prove or disprove, the existence of divinity. However, I do claim that there exist, sound reasons for arriving at the conclusion, that there exists a great mystery, which must either be, or contain, at minimum, a potent creative force.

I do not see how any non-theist, can justify boldly insisting that theists are wrong, for the simple reasons that non-theists are currently unable to furnish a sound explanation for material existence, nor are they able to conclusively disprove the existence of all possible deities.

You have identified as atheist! That's wonderful! Truly! Because it means that you spent some time considering the question, and arrived at a decision about what you do and do not believe!

But does your satisfaction, and confidence, in your chosen beliefs and disbeliefs, entitle you to presume that those whom chose differently, must be wrong?


----------



## explod (6 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Whilst I am most definitely opposed to anti-theism, I am most definitely not seeking to prove atheism wrong!
> 
> I do not claim to be able to conclusively, prove or disprove, the existence of divinity. However, I do claim that there exist, sound reasons for arriving at the conclusion, that there exists a great mystery, which must either be, or contain, at minimum, a potent creative force.
> 
> ...



I am not saying you are wrong.  You are so rigid that you do not see the argument.   And why do assert that I seek satisfaction in our argument.   I only seek understanding so as to learn.   It is clear that matter we see and feel before us is a fact and has been around probably according to the latest science always.   No beginning and no end.  I believe (but I don't know)  this. 

However there is no evidence at all that some magical being had anything at all to do with it apart from some fairy tales as we find contained in the bibles and scriptures. 

Again it goes back to the two points put forward from yesterday. 

In God there is "belief"  and, 

In science we "know"


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> ...
> In God there is "belief"  and,



How have you come to know this?
And... 


> In science we "know"



How have you come to believe this?


----------



## explod (6 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How have you come to know this?
> And...
> 
> How have you come to believe this?



Science is observation,  people believed the earth was flat,  observation (ie. science)  proved it was round. 

With God I (BELIEVE) we are both situated where the people were when it was thought the earth was flat and so contend that we do not know.


----------



## cynic (6 January 2018)

explod said:


> Science is observation,  people believed the earth was flat,  observation (ie. science)  proved it was round.
> 
> With God I (BELIEVE) we are both situated where the people were when it was thought the earth was flat and so contend that we do not know.



This is why we are having difficulty progressing this discussion. 

Your argument seems to be founded on your faith in your personal conception of science, coupled with your doubt in your personal conception of God.

Until you find within yourself, the capability and willingness, to offer me a blank slate, devoid of your personal beliefs in already "knowing", it will be nigh on impossible for you to accept, into consideration, the alternative viewpoint that I might otherwise have been able to offer.

So, in the interests of doing some preliminary foundational work, in preparation for my presentation of an alternative view on reality, can you give me your understanding, of my reasons for saying, what I have said in this post?


----------



## grah33 (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Nobody really knows that,  the writings and the bibles have been re written,  revised and altered to suit changing regimes for 2000 years.



To suite regimes... In what way ?


----------



## grah33 (7 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> And different gods seem to manifest to different people, and different people both believe equally that different gods exist.
> 
> They can’t both be right, but they could both be wrong.





There could be many possibilities when you think about it...Even so, a claim like this still doesn't disprove the Bible God which seems to be the chief reason for debating here in recent times.


Also, the Christian morals seem more superior to other faiths (to me anyway), and seem to promote the fullness of human dignity. For example, which is better , polygamy or one male/female marriage? (I'm just saying, no need to answer.)  The other 2 faiths have polygamy in their moral instruction books and both (not totally sure though) may regard it as morally acceptable.  This doesn't prove the Christian God, but  I'd like to think that human beings wouldn't have invented something seemingly much better that God didn't already intend. Another example is "eye for an eye" vs forgiveness.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Not in the physical universe, but that's the whole point of a god, to be eternal and not subject to physical constraints.




Why invent a god to explain that eternal part? We haven’t ruled out that the universe itself could be eternal.

But also if the god lived outside the universe in some other demension, even though he is outside of time in this universe, wouldn’t that demension have its own time? And doesn’t that demension require a creator.

Eventually you have to get to a point where you either accept something is just infinite and eternal, or it can infect pop out of nothing.

And saying only a god can be eternal is just special pleading, because we haven’t yet proven 1. Gods exist or are possible of existing 2. We haven’t ruled out that the universe is infinite and eternal itself.


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> My abridged version, of the kalam argument for the existence of god. You know! The one that logically demonstrates, the necessary existence, of a potent,eternal uncreated creator!




Did you lay that out for me? I must have missed it.

Last post I saw was you just referring me to a 40min video and refusing to explaining the arguement


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> There could be many possibilities when you think about it...Even so, a claim like this still doesn't disprove the Bible God which seems to be the chief reason for debating here in recent times.
> 
> 
> Also, the Christian morals seem more superior to other faiths (to me anyway), and seem to promote the fullness of human dignity. For example, which is better , polygamy or one male/female marriage? (I'm just saying, no need to answer.)  The other 2 faiths have polygamy in their moral instruction books and both (not totally sure though) may regard it as morally acceptable.  This doesn't prove the Christian God, but  I'd like to think that human beings wouldn't have invented something seemingly much better that God didn't already intend. Another example is "eye for an eye" vs forgiveness.




There are many things about Christian faith that are immoral.

Secular morality is far superior.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

Does this post jog your failing memory VC?
Could it be that you are suffering from an acute case of selective amnesia?



cynic said:


> I happen to be a theist whom considers the argument, about whether or not the universe had a beginning, to be a redundant and needless premise in the kalam argument (apart from justifying use of the word cosmological in its label) for the following reason:
> 
> If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself, would of necessity be the uncaused cause!
> 
> ...


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There are many things about Christian faith that are immoral.
> 
> Secular morality is far superior.



How did you arrive at that particular conclusion?


----------



## Value Collector (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How did you arrive at that particular conclusion?




Which “particular” conclusion, you quoted two of my conclusions.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Which “particular” conclusion, you quoted two of my conclusions.



The claim to superiority of secular morality.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> And saying only a god can be eternal is just special pleading, because we haven’t yet proven 1. Gods exist or are possible of existing 2. We haven’t ruled out that the universe is infinite and eternal itself.




Anything that changes over time (like universes)  must have a beginning. It's a breach of the laws of physics to say that physical properties like mass and energy always existed. A god would be outside the laws of physics because the god would have created those laws in the first place.


----------



## grah33 (7 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There are many things about Christian faith that are immoral.
> 
> Secular morality is far superior.





Don't know how morality actually applies in atheism. It's like saying a fox (we're like animals) is immoral for killing 50 rabbits on an island ,even if it weren't hungry.  That is why secularism allows for e..g killing an 8 month unborn baby by stabbing it in the head (very gruesome). We certainly have less human dignity in secularism.


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> However if you can produce a god and I can shake his hand on parting the river for our path from ASF headquarters, then I'll know.   Untill then your just dreaming ole pal.



Ever seen an atom, or a black hole, or dark matter Plod?


----------



## luutzu (7 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Don't know how morality actually applies in atheism. It's like saying a fox (we're like animals) is immoral for killing 50 rabbits on an island ,even if it weren't hungry.  That is why secularism allows for e..g killing an 8 month unborn baby by stabbing it in the head (very gruesome). We certainly have less human dignity in secularism.




Maybe the prospect of eternal Hell or Heaven would sway some people towards doing "good" i.e. do what the Bible says, or if they haven't read, do as told by their preacher/priests/Pope. And those "fathers" are obviously good and righteous people.

But for those who's off the scale crazy; or off the scale "good natured", they'd do what they'd do regardless of what God might think about it. 

There are many examples of religious people, following the teachings (as they were told) of the good books... then do nasty crap because of it.

Take Pope John Paul II... He banned the use of condoms in Africa during the AIDS crisis. It's how God would've liked it. A few million of God's children died from AIDS because of it.

The current Pope is a whole lot more sensible and permit contraception in areas affected by the Zika Virus.


----------



## luutzu (7 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ever seen an atom, or a black hole, or dark matter Plod?




You ever seen God, Sifu?

And yes, we've all seen atoms. Scientists have observed Black Holes. They've also verified that the Earth rotate around the Sun; discovered galaxies and planets God forgot to mention in the Bible. Not to mention they've estimated the age of the Earth (it's not some 5,000 years God)... and have also discovered dinosaurs - God's earlier project he, I'm guessing, either forgot to mention or just completely wiped out and don't want to know about it.


----------



## wayneL (7 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> You ever seen God, Sifu?
> 
> And yes, we've all seen atoms. Scientists have observed Black Holes. They've also verified that the Earth rotate around the Sun; discovered galaxies and planets God forgot to mention in the Bible. Not to mention they've estimated the age of the Earth (it's not some 5,000 years God)... and have also discovered dinosaurs - God's earlier project he, I'm guessing, either forgot to mention or just completely wiped out and don't want to know about it.



You're still stuck there Grasshopper,  aren't you. 

You should think a bit more deeply about that answer,  you are falling straight into my trap


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

It appears that there is considerable consensus herein that we cannot believe the concluded, annotated findings through observation,  dissections etc.  of our scientists. 

When you awake from your dreamland cynic we may be able to discuss reality


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> You're still stuck there Grasshopper,  aren't you.
> 
> You should think a bit more deeply about that answer,  you are falling straight into my trap



"Grasshopper" is a term used by the wise.   The wise speak plain language, 

Explanation on what you are driving at here Wayne


----------



## luutzu (7 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> You're still stuck there Grasshopper,  aren't you.
> 
> You should think a bit more deeply about that answer,  you are falling straight into my trap




I don't see any trap. So it must therefore exist


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> It appears that there is considerable consensus herein that we cannot believe the concluded, annotated findings through observation,  dissections etc.  of our scientists.
> 
> When you awake from your dreamland cynic we may be able to discuss reality



Our experience of reality is a dream, doomed to dissolve upon our awakening!

But by all means, do enjoy your dream explod.


----------



## luutzu (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Our experience of reality is a dream, doomed to dissolve upon our awakening!
> 
> But by all means, do enjoy your dream explod.




So our dreams are actually dream within a dream? 

Woah! Neo. Next you're going to tell me Hugo Weaving has our real self all plugged into a cocoon to harness renewable energies from.


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Our experience of reality is a dream, doomed to dissolve upon our awakening!
> 
> But by all means, do enjoy your dream explod.



Does this mean you cannot introduce me to God cynic.   Thought that by your vehement assertions you could do a lot better than that.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> So our dreams are actually dream within a dream?



Yes!
It gets even better! There are multiple layers of dreams within dreams that are within dreams etc.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Does this mean you cannot introduce me to God cynic.   Thought that by your vehement assertions you could do a lot better than that.



Why would any introduction be required, when you have already met?


----------



## luutzu (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Yes!
> It gets even better! There are multiple layers of dreams within dreams that are within dreams etc.




No. The two sequels weren't better.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> No. The two sequels weren't better.



I trust that you realise that I wasn't talking about the moving pictures.

Are you able to prove to yourself that you are awake?

Are you able to disprove to yourself, that you are dreaming?


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Why would any introduction be required, when you have already met?



Are you joking,  in dreamland as a kid but like Santa I found it was cr.p

You need to mature ole Pal


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Are you joking,  in dreamland as a kid but like Santa I found it was cr.p
> 
> You need to mature ole Pal



How is it that an intelligent person like yourself, continues to presume, that those in disagreement with your chosen perception of reality, must be wrong?

Why is it that you are so reluctant to entertain the possibilities I have suggested, that you must instead opt for derogatory conclusions about my character?


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How is it that an intelligent person like yourself, continues to presume, that those in disagreement with your chosen perception of reality, must be wrong?
> 
> Why is it that you are so reluctant to entertain the possibilities I have suggested, that you must instead opt for derogatory conclusions about my character?



My reality is not a perception in my view.   I sit here,  see, feel and hear as I've always done. 

I am not being derogatory I just need you to produce your God before me to touch and speak to before I am convinced of your take on reality. 

So go for it and prove yourself correct.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> My reality is not a perception in my view.   I sit here,  see, feel and hear as I've always done.



How is what you have described here not perception?


> I am not being derogatory I just need you to produce your God before me to touch and speak to before I am convinced of your take on reality.
> 
> So go for it and prove yourself correct.



You seem to misunderstand my intentions! I am not here to prove the correctness of my view, I am defending my right to hold that view!

I put it to you, that you yourself, have just confessed to having seen, heard and felt the mystery of God, and it is you who has decided that God is absent from your perception of reality.

Before asking for proof of the existence of your personal conception of a God, or gods, in whom you have chosen to invest your disbelief, would it not be reasonable, to first ask the question : "What is God?" ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 January 2018)

notting said:


> How did he come into being?
> Well according to your insistence he like all things can only exist if he was created.  So he must have been created by a creator god and that god, if it exists must also have been created by a creator god......



Religion brings people together with a similar belief but it does not know what happened. So much time spent on postulation.


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How is what you have described here not perception?
> 
> You seem to misunderstand my intentions! I am not here to prove the correctness of my view, I am defending my right to hold that view!
> 
> ...



Where for goodness sake did I attest to feeling the presence of God.  In fact from a child I challenged the priest to explain the holy trinity and in my feeling of it he could not.  As much as I tried to follow the beliefs of my family and peers I could not and is why I did not pursue that career. 

You do seem reluctant in my view to explain clearly your thoughts,  I've tried hard so:

Ok,  what is your God?


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Where for goodness sake did I attest to feeling the presence of God.  In fact from a child I challenged the priest to explain the holy trinity and in my feeling of it he could not.  As much as I tried to follow the beliefs of my family and peers I could not and is why I did not pursue that career.
> 
> You do seem reluctant in my view to explain clearly your thoughts,  I've tried hard so:
> 
> Ok,  what is your God?



Is it that you are trying hard to understand what I am saying? Or are you trying hard to misunderstand what I am saying?

From the contents of your response, I must say that it appears to be very much the latter.

Read the contents of my post again, carefully, and you will see that I did not accuse you of attesting, to having felt the presence of God. Nor did I suggest that you ask what my God is.

If you truly believe yourself to be trying, I suggest that you question yourself about your true motivation for continuing this dialogue. i.e. What is it that you are seeking to achieve?


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Is it that you are trying hard to understand what I am saying? Or are you trying hard to misunderstand what I am saying?
> 
> From the contents of your response, I must say that it appears to be very much the latter.
> 
> ...



Because I can't believe that anyone with half a brain can believe in something that does not exist.

I also find it interesting that you will not describe your God.   Should be a simple one to tell by your account so I'll press till you can answer.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Because I can't believe that anyone with half a brain can believe in something that does not exist.



Thankyou for your honesty!


----------



## SirRumpole (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> that does not exist.




What is your proof of that ?


----------



## Joules MM1 (7 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> So our dreams are actually dream within a dream?
> 
> Woah! Neo. Next you're going to tell me Hugo Weaving has our real self all plugged into a cocoon to harness renewable energies from.




pretty sure you've confused the idea with bitcoin ....yep....

or maybe a replicant dreaming of unicorns.....gunna retire me some nexus 8's

https://news.bitcoin.com/these-dutch-researchers-are-mining-cryptocurrencies-with-body-heat/

jest, ok, jest !


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What is your proof of that ?



Because of a lack of physical evidence. 

Existing in people's minds is not physical


----------



## SirRumpole (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Because of a lack of physical evidence.
> 
> Existing in people's minds is not physical




We do live in a physical world, but we are seriously limited in what we can observe. eg we can only see three dimensions but scientists are now saying there may be up to 11. Theoretically there is no reason why there could not be an infinite number of dimensions but we are still limited to seeing only three. We have no way of knowing what lies in these other dimensions, so just because we can't see things in those dimensions doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

A few of my ruminations, surrounding the meaning and application, of some words, that somebody was wise enough to to draw my attention to recently:

If something is untrue or false, it can only truly be "known" as untrue (or false). i.e. the untrue thing cannot be "known" to be true, it can only be "known" to be false, otherwise it would have to be true.

So what is happening when two people meet, each claiming to "know" something incompatible with the other?

For one thing, there now appears to be disagreement over what is true.

How is the rightness or wrongness of these incompatible "knowings" to be resolved?

Is it possible to resolve this matter by direct observation through the physical senses?

Is it possible to resolve this matter by the application of logic?

Is it possible to resolve this matter via intuition?

Or perhaps by some combination of the above?

Or could these people, simply acknowledge, that perhaps they are only "believing" themselves to "know" as distinct from "knowing"?

Or will they, instead, become engaged in a crusade, each claiming righteousness in their personal "knowing" that the "truth" (a.k.a. facts, mountains of evidence, science, God etc.) is on their side?


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Because of a lack of physical evidence.
> 
> Existing in people's minds is not physical



Where does your perceived awareness of this physical evidence reside? Does your awareness sit externally, or internally to your mind?


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Because I can't believe that anyone with half a brain can believe in something that does not exist.
> 
> I also find it interesting that you will not describe your God.   Should be a simple one to tell by your account so I'll press till you can answer.



Been there! Done that! Look over my past week's postings to this thread.


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> We do live in a physical world, but we are seriously limited in what we can observe. eg we can only see three dimensions but scientists are now saying there may be up to 11. Theoretically there is no reason why there could not be an infinite number of dimensions but we are still limited to seeing only three. We have no way of knowing what lies in these other dimensions, so just because we can't see things in those dimensions doesn't mean they don't exist.



I have a nephew in the science dept at Monash uni and what can be seen now is almost unbelievable,  in fact an atom is now a large object compared to the bits we can pare down to now. 

And theoretically yes, but actually no at this time, in my view


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Been there! Done that! Look over my past week's postings to this thread.



Surely you you can summarize it (what's you God) in a few words that are easy to for a simpleton as myself to understand.


----------



## explod (7 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Where does your perceived awareness of this physical evidence reside? Does your awareness sit externally, or internally to your mind?



Awareness is when God and I can meet in the street and shake each others hand.   At my request he will produce above us a clear image of Ourlady.


----------



## cynic (7 January 2018)

explod said:


> Awareness is when God and I can meet in the street and shake each others hand.   At my request he will produce above us a clear image of Ourlady.



This does not answer the question posed. But that's okay, I am able to readily recognise the concertion of your efforts to  misunderstand.


> Surely you you can summarize it (what's you God) in a few words that are easy to for a simpleton as myself to understand.



IS


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> We have no way of knowing what lies in these other dimensions, so just because we can't see things in those dimensions doesn't mean they don't exist.



Agree. The mind is still in its infancy evolution wise. Bit of a faster growth period starting now.


----------



## wayneL (8 January 2018)

explod said:


> Awareness is when God and I can meet in the street and shake each others hand.   At my request he will produce above us a clear image of Ourlady.



So only a classical artists representation of the Catholic God will convince you?

Like luu, you are stuck on a paradigm indoctrinated into you.

It could be you've already shaken hands with God but have not realised it.


----------



## explod (8 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Agree. The mind is still in its infancy evolution wise. Bit of a faster growth period starting now.



Agreed,  but we don't know


----------



## explod (8 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> So only a classical artists representation of the Catholic God will convince you?
> 
> Like luu, you are stuck on a paradigm indoctrinated into you.
> 
> It could be you've already shaken hands with God but have not realised it.



I'm pretty sure I've not met anyone who can part the river or have a coffee upside down a foot off the ground just yet. 

But if yous say so I'll be watching out.


----------



## Tisme (8 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> We do live in a physical world, but we are seriously limited in what we can observe. eg we can only see three dimensions but scientists are now saying there may be up to 11. Theoretically there is no reason why there could not be an infinite number of dimensions but we are still limited to seeing only three. We have no way of knowing what lies in these other dimensions, so just because we can't see things in those dimensions doesn't mean they don't exist.




Imagine if we had 11 eyes! 

Rules of balance

A-B=C, A-B-C=0

A =Matter 
B= Antimatter 
C= God stuff


----------



## explod (8 January 2018)

cynic said:


> This does not answer the question posed. But that's okay, I am able to readily recognise the concertion of your efforts to  misunderstand.
> 
> IS



Struth the Islamic State.  I'd better not show my head,  you'll have it knocked off


----------



## wayneL (8 January 2018)

explod said:


> I'm pretty sure I've not met anyone who can part the river or have a coffee upside down a foot off the ground just yet.
> 
> But if yous say so I'll be watching out.



Well I can create chaos from order, if that helps.


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

explod said:


> Struth the Islamic State.  I'd better not show my head,  you'll have it knocked off



Just as I thought! Brimming with the determination to misunderstand.


----------



## explod (8 January 2018)

wayneL said:


> Well I can create chaos from order, if that helps.



Top post,  tick


----------



## explod (8 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Just as I thought! Brimming with the determination to misunderstand.



How can one understand a riddler. 

So what do you mean by "IS"


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

explod said:


> How can one understand a riddler.
> 
> So what do you mean by "IS"



Existence in its entirety.


----------



## grah33 (8 January 2018)

Great posting Cynic. You're dong a good job cross examining everyone.

Some other good posts too from other people...


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Great posting Cynic. You're dong a good job cross examining everyone.
> 
> Some other good posts too from other people...



Thanks for your encouragement, but, in fairness to those in disagreement with my chosen philosophy, I cannot lay claim to impartiality in any of my postings. There have been some recognisably great posts, from pretty much every participant (even those with whom I disagree) in this debate.


----------



## notting (8 January 2018)

cynic said:


> my chosen philosophy, I cannot lay claim to impartiality in any of my postings.  (even those with whom I disagree) in this debate.




Philosophies aren’t ‘chosen,’ they are arrived at via logic - debate was something that was utterly devoid in every post you made.  
Your morbidly mind numbing blind faith was what you adhered to at every turn.  Your chosen twaddle is as far away from philosophy and genuine debate as a thing can be.

Your view unflinchingly remained devoid of understanding and insight into what ever was said. 
For those bothering to reply to what you, only found that they may as well have been trying to explain something to a chipmunk. 

Your still here -


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

notting said:


> Philosophies aren’t ‘chosen,’ they are arrived at via logic - debate was something that was utterly devoid in every post you made.
> Your morbidly mind numbing blind faith was what you adhered to at every turn.  Your chosen twaddle is as far away from philosophy and genuine debate as a thing can be.
> 
> Your view unflinchingly remained devoid of understanding and insight into what ever was said.
> ...



Do you truly believe all that you have said here?


----------



## notting (8 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Do you truly believe all that you have said here?



Perhaps, I missed something as most of it was unbearable to read.  So I have no evidence to the contrary.


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

notting said:


> Perhaps, I missed something as most of it was unbearable to read.  So I have no evidence to the contrary.



What do you think it was, about my postings, that rendered them "unbearable to read"?


----------



## notting (8 January 2018)

Usually the way they began,  I wouldn't get much further.
I hope you are young.


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

notting said:


> Usually the way they began,  I wouldn't get much further.
> I hope you are young.



I am glad that I am not!


----------



## notting (8 January 2018)

Why?


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

notting said:


> Why?



Because I understood so much less when I was younger.


----------



## notting (8 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Because I understood so much less when I was younger.




If only you were a comic


----------



## cynic (8 January 2018)

notting said:


> If only you were a comic


----------



## grah33 (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


>




That was hilarious Cynic.  I had quite a few loud laughs this week actually...


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The claim to superiority of secular morality.




That’s easy, over time humans have become more and more moral, where as the religious texts remain unchanged for 100’s or 1,000’d of years.

In fact without their secular values, religious people tend to go and commit all sorts of nasty acts which their texts condone.

The only reason less of he bad biblical instructions are followed is because most modern religious people use their secular morals to interpret their texts.


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Anything that changes over time (like universes)  must have a beginning. It's a breach of the laws of physics to say that physical properties like mass and energy always existed. A god would be outside the laws of physics because the god would have created those laws in the first place.




1, but why does the “beginning” require s god

2, wouldn’t this god still exist in its own demension, subject to that demensions laws of physics, and wouldn’t that demension require a beginning and therefore a god?


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Don't know how morality actually applies in atheism. It's like saying a fox (we're like animals) is immoral for killing 50 rabbits on an island ,even if it weren't hungry.  That is why secularism allows for e..g killing an 8 month unborn baby by stabbing it in the head (very gruesome). We certainly have less human dignity in secularism.




Our morals evolved with us, as social species we developed a code of conduct over time to allow us to live together, no need for a god.

Who allows the killing of an 8 month unborn baby?

You don’t need religion to have morals, you need empathy, and an understanding that your actions affect others and the way they treat you.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> 1, but why does the “beginning” require s god




Nobody knows what the beginning required. You have said you don't know, I am saying that intelligent creation is a possibility, but you seem to have ruled this out.



> 2, wouldn’t this god still exist in its own demension, subject to that demensions laws of physics, and wouldn’t that demension require a beginning and therefore a god?




A god would probably exist in all dimensions, but laws of physics only apply to physical objects, and a god is not likely to be physical.


----------



## cynic (9 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There are many things about Christian faith that are immoral.
> 
> Secular morality is far superior.





Value Collector said:


> That’s easy, over time humans have become more and more moral, where as the religious texts remain unchanged for 100’s or 1,000’d of years.
> 
> In fact without their secular values, religious people tend to go and commit all sorts of nasty acts which their texts condone.
> 
> The only reason less of he bad biblical instructions are followed is because most modern religious people use their secular morals to interpret their texts.



If those "modern religious people" interpreting their texts, are theists, from whence could they possibly have acquired these "secular morals"? i.e. how could such people, come to be possessed, of any kind of secular morality?

Can secular morality be objectively defined?

And how could any true Christian, other than a masochist, commit "all sorts of nasty acts" when their religious doctrine instructs them to treat everyone the way they themselves would like to be treated. 

In light of this, where within your perception of secular morality, may one find an instruction so lofty, as to warrant claims to the moral superiority of secular wisdom?


----------



## luutzu (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Nobody knows what the beginning required. You have said you don't know, I am saying that intelligent creation is a possibility, but you seem to have ruled this out.
> 
> A god would probably exist in all dimensions, but laws of physics only apply to physical objects, and a god is not likely to be physical.




Earth is so insignificant in the scale of the universe, heck, even within our own solar system, that if there is a Creator (of the Universe), we apes are definitely not created from His image. 

There are countless stars and planets and galaxies in the known universe. It takes, I don't know... millions or billions of light year to cross from one end to the other. A God that created that universe wouldn't know, or care, if we Earthlings existed or not. 

Oh wait, maybe that does prove there is a God and He's forgotten about us


----------



## luutzu (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If those "modern religious people" interpreting their texts, are theists, from whence could they possibly have acquired these "secular morals"? i.e. how could such people, come to be possessed, of any kind of secular morality?
> 
> Can secular morality be objectively defined?
> 
> ...




I think religious texts have them exception clauses. 

Treat everyone as you would like to be treated... except for the gays, the this and the that. And oh, convert non-believers... how and by what means is up to the guy I chose as my representative. 


Maybe through evolution, and through socialisation, people come to do "good" and be moral without having to read the good book.


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I am saying that intelligent creation is a possibility,




How do you know it’s a possibility?

This isn’t just a word game, I am pointing out a real issue with your arguement, no one has proven it’s possible for a god to exist, so I think if you are going to say god is a possibility, that’s s claim that requires evidence.

If I a black pouch with an unknown number of dice in it, you might think it’s possible for me to roll a 37.

But if in fact there is only 3 dice the most I could roll would be 18, so anyone going round saying “anything is possible off course he can roll 37” would be wrong.

The correct position would be to say “I don’t know if he can roll a 37” not “it’s a possibility”


----------



## Value Collector (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If those "modern religious people" interpreting their texts, are theists, from whence could they possibly have acquired these "secular morals"? i.e. how could such people, come to be possessed, of any kind of secular morality?
> 
> Can secular morality be objectively defined?
> 
> ...




Voting to deny marriage rights to same sex couples is a recent example of a nasty thing a religious Christian might do.

The Bible says not to suffer a witch to live? Hence some Christians kill witches/innocent people accused of being witches.

Secular morality is the morals most of us live by, that would cause a person to not want to kill an accused witch even though they my be some where on the religious spectrum.

If a Christian is willing to support the use of condoms to help fight aids, that’s some secular morality leaking into their thought process, and causing them to ignore some Christian doctrines in favor of doing actual good


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> How do you know it’s a possibility?




How do you know an infinite universe is a possibility ?


----------



## tech/a (9 January 2018)

Because I'm talking to you.
The chances of that happening is in the Trillions to 1

I see no evidence of a finite universe---nor does anyone else.


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> SirRumpole said: ↑
> I am saying that intelligent creation is a possibility,



If you make a statement like that and someone asks you for a reason, then you have to back it up with a reason.  You can't just ask another unrelated question like-


SirRumpole said:


> How do you know an infinite universe is a possibility ?



It makes the discussion ludicrous.  If you can't back up your assertion with a *valid reason* it's considered by those who understand debate as defeated, debunked and not even believed in by you, because you have no ability to provide a *valid basis* for the assertion and are running away from addressing it by diverting to another question!


----------



## cynic (9 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Voting to deny marriage rights to same sex couples is a recent example of a nasty thing a religious Christian might do.
> 
> The Bible says not to suffer a witch to live? Hence some Christians kill witches/innocent people accused of being witches.
> 
> ...




Tell me, where in the bible did Christ forbid the use of birth control? 

Where in the bible did Christ promote the persecution of homosexuals?

Where in the bible did Christ demand the killing of witches?

And in light of your answers to the above, how do you justify your continued insistence in the superiority of secular morality, when you haven't even managed to define morality in an objective context.


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


> morality in an objective context.



To assume the 'beliefs' in 'God's' creates an objective context for moral law, is far more stupid and subjective than say, democracy, science or civil law which are tried and tested objective evolving structures that humans have prospered under and managed to cooperate with each other, far better than the madness of 'man imagined' 'Gods' law.


----------



## cynic (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> To assume the 'beliefs' in 'God's' creates an objective context for moral law, is far more stupid and subjective than say, democracy, science or civil law which are tried and tested objective evolving structures that humans have prospered under, far better than the madness of 'man imagined' 'Gods' law.



Firstly, the assumption, you stated, isn't being made-it has already been logically deduced. Without intent/purpose to the existence of life, none of life's behaviour/s can truly be defined as aberrant.

But since you attest to the presence of stupidity, perhaps you might like to present a logical counterargument, demonstrating the existence and/or genesis of secular morality (presuming such an argument even exists)?


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


> perhaps you might like to present a logical counterargument, demonstrating the existence and/or genesis of secular morality (presuming such an argument even exists)?




Your asking me to present a 'counterargument' to the existence of common law, science and democracy?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> Because I'm talking to you.
> The chances of that happening is in the Trillions to 1
> 
> I see no evidence of a finite universe---nor does anyone else.




Nobody knows whether the universe is finite or infinite, and what does that have to do with the existence of god anyway ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...the-universe-finite-or-infinite/#10a937e14967


----------



## cynic (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> Your asking me to present a 'counterargument' to the existence of common law, science and democracy?



No! You misunderstand me. Perhaps it might have been better if I had simply asked for you to present your best argument for the existence and/or genesis of secular morality.


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


> No! You misunderstand me. Perhaps it might have been better if I had simply asked for you to present your best argument for the existence and/or genesis of secular morality.



I just did -  democracy, common law and science.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> It makes the discussion ludicrous. If you can't back up your assertion with a *valid reason* it's considered by those who understand debate as defeated, debunked and not even believed in by you, because you have no ability to provide a *valid basis* for the assertion and are running away from addressing it by diverting to another question!




You are talking gibberish. VC asserts that an infinite universe is a possibility with the same lack of knowledge that he ascribes to me by stating intelligent creation is a possibility ! 

IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN, THEN WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE FOR SAYING IT WAS *NOT *DESIGNED ?

Show me your proof of that.


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN, THEN WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE FOR SAYING IT WAS *NOT *DESIGNED ?



You are yet to establish that the universe began. (Just for starters)


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> You are yet to establish that the universe began. (Just for starters)




You can establish that it did NOT begin ?


----------



## cynic (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> I just did -  democracy, common law and science.



You do yourself an injustice when you do this.  None of those things are answers to my question.


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You can establish that it did NOT begin ?



You made the assertion that '*the universe began'* adding another assertion that it began by your creator god creating it and are making arguments based on those invalidated assertions.
If you have no pervasive reason that validates your assertions you cannot then decide that it began or something began it.
If you're, now, happy to say that you have no valid basis for your random assumption that the universe began or is created by something living in an inherently independent sphere (another untenable notion) then we can address what I may assert.


----------



## tech/a (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Nobody knows whether the universe is finite or infinite, and what does that have to do with the existence of god anyway ?
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...the-universe-finite-or-infinite/#10a937e14967




That being the case it will remain infinite until proven otherwise.

God?
What are you talking about.
There is no god 

God/s are human delusions 
For the weak needing something to explain that which they cannot.
Used to evoke fear to maintain control of the masses.

Don’t need to prove anything
Being an atheist it is my own view.
Just as valid as those with other conflicting views.

Amen!


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

cynic said:


> You do yourself an injustice when you do this.  None of those things are answers to my question.



They are answers to your questions because science, democracy and common laws are established, tested and implemented paradigms out of which and upon which we can and have based our notions and laws around what is good and bad behavior relative to the consequences on society.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> You made the assertion that '*the universe began'* adding another assertion that it began by your creator god creating it and are making arguments based on those invalidated assertions.
> If you have no pervasive reason that validates your assertions you cannot then decide that it began or something began it.
> If you're, now, happy to say that you have no valid basis for your random assumption that the universe began or is created by something living in an inherently independent sphere (another untenable notion) then we can address what I may assert.




I suggest you read this, it outlines the current possibilities.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/universe/


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> God?
> What are you talking about.
> There is no god




Please don't state your opinion as fact.


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I suggest you read this, it outlines the current possibilities.



Another diversion.

Why would I resort to speculative articles recommended by those proving to be proponents of irrationality.
There is no confusion in my view. I'm not asserting ridiculous baloney.
You just need to stick to the point. When you realise it's invalid then you have to implement the courage and self honesty/respect to drop it.
You don't go on a path of never ending research to justify what was a mad notion to begin with.  That will never end nor provide you with insight or deliverance unto certainty and clarity regarding what it is to 'be' - the truth.
Truth starts with 'honesty with thy self'


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> You don't need to resort to speculative articles




Everything is speculative about the existence of the universe ,including your own opinion.


----------



## cynic (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> They are answers to your questions because science, democracy and common laws are established, tested and implemented paradigms out of which and upon which we can and have based our notions and laws around what is good and bad behavior relative to the consequences on society.



On the contrary, they are most certainly not!

How can any consequence to society, be defined as good or bad, from a purely secular perspective?


----------



## tech/a (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Please don't state your opinion as fact.




It is to me.
My opinion should be of no consequence to you
Or anyone else just as your opinion is of no consequence 
To me. You are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

tech/a said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.




Thanks, at last someone who understands .


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Everything is speculative about the existence of the universe ,including your own opinion.




Great!  So you have shifted from anything being known for sure.
You have caught up to Socrates, who was a brilliant logician (I also think he was a mystic) and concluded that he knew nothing.
This may at first seem like a position of pointless despair.  But it can also be profound.
Once you stop eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge - Who knows?  A whole paradise of unknowing may open up for you as you let go of conceptualization all together and dwell in the profundity of unlimited knowing.
Perhaps then the right words would be '*Oh my God*'


----------



## SirRumpole (9 January 2018)

notting said:


> Great!  So you have shifted from anything being known for sure.
> You have caught up to Socrates, who was a brilliant logician (I also think he was a mystic) and concluded that he knew nothing.
> This may at first seem like a position of pointless despair.  But is can also be profound.
> Once you stop eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge - Who knows?  A whole paradise of unknowing may open up for you as you let go of conceptualization all together and dwell in the profundity of unlimited knowing.
> Perhaps then the right words would be Oh my God




Now that you have resorted to gibberish, I will take that as an admission of defeat.


----------



## notting (9 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Everything is speculative about the existence of the universe ,including your own opinion.



That is a shift from creationism and god.
What is defeated is wrong views.
Defeating wrong views is what I was batting for.



SirRumpole said:


> Now that you have resorted to gibberish, I will take that as an admission of defeat.



Yes, god and creationism was wholly invalidated.
The victory is - seeing more clearly and 'being' ever more happily.  For the truth sets you free......................


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> How do you know an infinite universe is a possibility ?



I haven’t claimed it is.

In fact I have stated many times that my opinion on these unsolved issues is “I don’t know”.

When we have evidence I will move away from the “I don’t know” catergory.


----------



## grah33 (10 January 2018)

Combining a few things above, I think many religious people who know some science find this verse makes a lot of sense:

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
(John 1:3)
This was probably a 'revelation ' given to the apostle. Even back then they rejected the idea of an eternal world. Interestingly enough science took the same view only a few decades ago.

And regarding the bigger picture , or God's plan (just a little bit of it here), since some ask:
“
He has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
“
(2 Timothy 1:9)
So the plan to send Christ to die on the cross was known before time existed.

This is the Christian belief.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Tell me, where in the bible did Christ forbid the use of birth control?
> 
> Where in the bible did Christ promote the persecution of homosexuals?
> 
> ...



I am not about to do a bible study with you, you can google the Bible passages yourself.

But if you are trying to claim that many Christian religions don’t ban birth control and homosexuality as part of their “Christian morals” then you are living under a rock, likewise if you don’t think Christians have had s long history of burning witches.

By the way it’s not just about things christ is claimed to have said, for example the 10 commandments was written 100’s of years before Christ, yet graph and other Christians would claim that’s a foundation for their morality.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Combining a few things above, I think many religious people who know some science find this verse makes a lot of sense:
> 
> “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”
> (John 1:3)
> ...




Yeah but other people believed Moui created the world, and pulled up islands with his fish hook,

So what you really should be saying is “thank you” to moui.


----------



## notting (10 January 2018)

Would you agree that if the universe were limited then everything in the universe would have to be limited?
Seems pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not about to do a bible study with you, you can google the Bible passages yourself.
> 
> But if you are trying to claim that many Christian religions don’t ban birth control and homosexuality as part of their “Christian morals” then you are living under a rock, likewise if you don’t think Christians have had s long history of burning witches.
> 
> By the way it’s not just about things christ is claimed to have said, for example the 10 commandments was written 100’s of years before Christ, yet graph and other Christians would claim that’s a foundation for their morality.



Christianity is about the teachings of Jesus Christ. Departures from those teachings are not Christianity!

So it would appear, that your claim to the superiority of secular morality, is founded on your personal misconceptions of Christianity!


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

notting said:


> Would you agree that if the universe were limited then everything in the universe would have to be limited?
> Seems pretty straight forward to me.



Ahh!

But where is the universal limit to be found. And if mankind were to ever discover an outer limit to our universe, what question might naturally arise? Perhaps, the question "what lies beyong this universal limit?"

These questions do not seem at all straightforward to me.


----------



## notting (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Ahh!
> 
> But where is the universal limit to be found. And if mankind were to ever discover an outer limit to our universe, what question might naturally arise? Perhaps, the question "what lies beyong this universal limit?"
> 
> These questions do not seem at all straightforward to me.



It's a leading question.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Christianity is about the teachings of Jesus Christ. Departures from those teachings are not Christianity!
> 
> So it would appear, that your claim to the superiority of secular morality, is founded on your personal misconceptions of Christianity!



So the Ten Commandments aren’t part of Christianity?

Jesus himself said he didn’t come to change any of the old laws, so I guess you are saying Christians who ignore the Old Testament aren’t real Christians? And that all the immorral Old Testament stuff is part of Christianity, which proves my point, that if modern Christians can ignore it, then they aren’t being biblical, and they are instead using secular values.

If you want to argue what Christian values do that with the Christians because many of them teach anti gay stuff as we have seen recently.


----------



## notting (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> These questions do not seem at all straightforward to me.




Here's a simple one - How many times can you divide something by 2?


----------



## Tink (10 January 2018)

Happy New Year, VC, the year of our Lord.
_Anno Domini (Latin : "In the year of (our) Lord"),[1] shortened as AD or A.D., is used to refer to the years after the birth of Jesus.A.D._

Faith
Family
Truth
Freedom

As I have said, homosexuals are ladies and gentlemen, same as heterosexuals.

Where did the scientific method start, in monasteries.

------------------------------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/_


----------



## Tisme (10 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Thanks, at last someone who understands .




Did both of you pass that attitude through the forum gatekeepers to make sure it didn't offend minority groups?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> Did both of you pass that attitude through the forum gatekeepers to make sure it didn't offend minority groups?




No complaints under 18C so far.


----------



## Tisme (10 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So the Ten Commandments aren’t part of Christianity?
> 
> Jesus himself said he didn’t come to change any of the old laws, so I guess you are saying Christians who ignore the Old Testament aren’t real Christians? And that all the immorral Old Testament stuff is part of Christianity, which proves my point, that if modern Christians can ignore it, then they aren’t being biblical, and they are instead using secular values.
> 
> If you want to argue what Christian values do that with the Christians because many of them teach anti gay stuff as we have seen recently.




I'm sure you had enough Sunday School to know you're pretty close to breaking a few of those "laws" the way you show contempt for their meaning and those who choose to embrace them. You seem to misunderstand the differences between the "law" and the various psalms, etc.

Jesus certainly changed the ceremonial rules that Moses put in place in relation to the law. This didn't change the actual ten commandments, but he is quoted as saying he will show believers how to interpret and embrace them as God intended, not as the Jews and ASF members had twisted them over time.

Mosaic laws are God's moral laws and apparently he was so strongly hellbent on them being taken seriously that he bypassed the usual props, dream telekinesis and thrill kills to write his only memo to an earthling. If that doesn't tell you not to mess with the word .........


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

notting said:


> Here's a simple one - How many times can you divide something by 2?



An infinite number of times!
How many times can you divide that same something by (2-2)?


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not about to do a bible study with you, you can google the Bible passages yourself.
> 
> But if you are trying to claim that many Christian religions don’t ban birth control and homosexuality as part of their “Christian morals” then you are living under a rock, likewise if you don’t think Christians have had s long history of burning witches.
> 
> By the way it’s not just about things christ is claimed to have said, for example the 10 commandments was written 100’s of years before Christ, yet graph and other Christians would claim that’s a foundation for their morality.



A person claiming the Christian label, doing a particular thing, is not what makes that particular thing, a Christian thing to do! What does make a person's actions Christian, is adherence to Christ's teachings!

Acts in violation of those teachings are not Christianity!

Here's a passage from the New Testament in which Christ speaks of the basis of all laws:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kj...k=Matthew&chapno=22&startverse=34&endverse=40

Here's a passage from the Old Testament in which the decalogue features:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=304502

So Mr. "My beliefs are evidence based and the only rational choice" (or words to that effect)

Show me where in Christ's commandments, or teachings, the killing of witches is allowed?
Show me where in Christ's commandments, or teachings, the persecution of homosexuals is allowed?
Show me where in Christ's commandments, or teachings, the prohibition of birth control is to be found?

In light of the dishonesty shown in your persistent misrepresentations of Christianity, how can you justly claim to the superiority of your imagined secular morality?


----------



## grah33 (10 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Jesus himself said he didn’t come to change any of the old laws, so I guess you are saying Christians who ignore the Old Testament aren’t real Christians? And that all the immorral Old Testament stuff is part of Christianity, which proves my point, that if modern Christians can ignore it, then they aren’t being biblical, and they are instead using secular values.
> 
> .





That's a common play used by muslims actually. I doubt all of Christianity would have missed it.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

And yet shortly after He speaks of the new improved morals/modifications , so He obviously wasn't contradicting Himself. There are a few more verses too, but it would get complicated posting here.

You're trying hard to find something immoral in Christianity but so far you haven't done it. Maybe it's a concern you have, since the perfection found in Christian morals attests to the existence of God.  So you plug away trying to find something faulty.  The pro debaters also do this.


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2018)

Tink said:


> Happy New Year, VC, the year of our Lord.
> _Anno Domini (Latin : "In the year of (our) Lord"),[1] shortened as AD or A.D., is used to refer to the years after the birth of Jesus.A.D._
> 
> Faith
> ...




The scientific community changed that now.

It's no longer AD, it's CE - the Common Era.

BC was Before Christ. It's now BCE - Before Christ Existed, jk.  Before the Common Era.

Christians still get to have the "common era" starting from their Lord's birth year though. 

I noticed the Buddhist also have their own year. Just to show the world that Buddha was over 500 years before Christ.


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> That's a common play used by muslims actually. I doubt all of Christianity would have missed it.
> 
> "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
> 
> ...




What is "Christianity"? 

Is it something Jesus said? What's in the old and new testament. Is it what has been done by all Christian state since Constantine adopted Christianity as a state religion. 

The teachings that's attributed to Jesus... maybe all, or most, of what Jesus preached might be good moral code. 

But if you define the actions of what has been done by Christian state/kingdom; by the Church; define Christianity by some of the stuff in the Bible... you'd probably find greater moral philosophy in a typical fortune cookie.

I mean, a person would have to ignore a whole lot of bad that's been done since Christ was adopted as the head mascot to say that Christianity is pure and perfect morality.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> That's a common play used by muslims actually. I doubt all of Christianity would have missed it.
> 
> "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
> 
> ...




As I said, denying rights to gay couples is an example of Christian immorality, but the fact that you are brain washed into the culture means you probably can’t see it.

Also the very foundation of Christianity is based on scape goating, I happen to find that immorral.

If Christ were being killed in front of me I would do everything in my power to stop it, you however would take joy in his sacrifice and think it a good thing, then stand around and pretend to end his flesh and drink his blood.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

Tink said:


> Happy New Year, VC, the year of our Lord.
> _._




My year starts on the 1st of July Tink,  but happy half year to you. Lol.


----------



## bellenuit (10 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> ....since the perfection found in Christian morals attests to the existence of God.  So you plug away trying to find something faulty.




As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "_do unto others as you would like them to do unto you_". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "_love thy neighbour as thyself_" is encompassed.

And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> My year starts on the 1st of July Tink,  but happy half year to you. Lol.




hey, that's funny.


----------



## notting (10 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Also the very foundation of Christianity is based on scape goating, I happen to find that immorral.



The Church actually came up with that most successful marketing campaign centuries later.  'If you accept Jesus as your savior, then he takes away all your sins.'  So I guess it's a foundation of modern Christianity.
The deal maker for most of them, then and now, seems to be that he was reportedly - a zombie for a day! 
Frankly even if that happened, you know he actually took 3 days to die like most on the cross, not 9hrs, I was more impressed with what said, like 'God, forgive them, for they know not what they do."  Whilst they were hammering nails into him.  That was pretty cool!


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "_do unto others as you would like them to do unto you_". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "_love thy neighbour as thyself_" is encompassed.
> 
> And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?



I agree that Christianity cannot rightly claim to hold the monopoly over morality, on account of its presence in teachings that predated the birth of Christ.

But where did you get the idea that the Christian morality, or its earlier incarnations, was of secular origin?

How can a secular perspective, claim the existence of rightful or wrongful actions, in a material world/universe that, by merit of secularist belief, is an accidental outcome of a chaotic maelstrom of matter, and therefore devoid of any intent or purpose?


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I agree that Christianity cannot rightly claim to hold the monopoly over morality, on account of its presence in teachings that predated the birth of Christ.
> 
> But where did you get the idea that the Christian morality, or its earlier incarnations, was of secular origin?
> 
> How can a secular perspective, claim the existence of rightful or wrongful actions, in a material world/universe that, by merit of secularist belief, is an accidental outcome of a chaotic maelstrom of matter, and therefore devoid of any intent or purpose?




Jesus could just be one of the better teachers during the period. 

Maybe being in the desert and under Roman occupation give him more cache if he claims to be the son of God. 

Confucius and Lao Tzu were just mere mortals. They do not believe in the gods... but there are temples built for them, and Taoism has a bunch of fairies and magic.

So maybe, just maybe, all the magical fairy stuff Christian believes in... were just made up too. 

Either way, probably better to do what Thomas Jefferson did with the Bible: take all the miracles, witchhunts and fairytales out... then simply record the moral teachings.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Jesus could just be one of the better teachers during the period.
> 
> Maybe being in the desert and under Roman occupation give him more cache if he claims to be the son of God.
> 
> ...



How does any of what you have said here, answer the questions raised in my post?


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How does any of what you have said here, answer the questions raised in my post?




You ask: But where did you get the idea that the Christian morality, or its earlier incarnations, was of secular origin?

So... take that Golden Rule. One of the pillars of Christian morality. 
It's practically universal across all cultures and religion. 

Take other teachings and moral philosophies... universal. 

So yes, no religion or culture can claim to have a monopoly on awesomeness.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> You ask: But where did you get the idea that the Christian morality, or its earlier incarnations, was of secular origin?
> 
> So... take that Golden Rule. One of the pillars of Christian morality.
> It's practically universal across all cultures and religion.
> ...



I ask again, how does any of what you have said here, answer the questions raised in my post?


----------



## bellenuit (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I agree that Christianity cannot rightly claim to hold the monopoly over morality, on account of its presence in teachings that predated the birth of Christ.
> 
> But where did you get the idea that the Christian morality, or its earlier incarnations, was of secular origin?




Where else did it come from? If you suggest some divine intervention, then on what basis do you hold that? If a divine intervention, when on our evolutionary scale did it happen if it predated Christianity? And if the result of divine intervention, why has it changed over time?  



> How can a secular perspective, claim the existence of rightful or wrongful actions, in a material world/universe that, by merit of secularist belief, is an accidental outcome of a chaotic maelstrom of matter, and therefore devoid of any intent or purpose?




As has been explained by VC on numerous occasions, morality as has been honed throughout the ages is entirely consistent with other aspects of our evolution that allowed to to reach where we currently are in our evolutionary path. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you is far more likely to allow groups to survive than a selfish free for all. As societies evolved, those social attitudes that helped the species survive and reproduce were, by natural selection, also those attitudes that were going to be passed on.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you is far more likely to allow groups to survive than a selfish free for all.




That hardly explains the behaviour of banks and other financial institutions here and around the world does it ?


----------



## notting (10 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That hardly explains the behaviour of banks and other financial institutions here and around the world does it ?




Most of whom, especially in the US, probably profess to believe in God!!!!!

Even when Hitler's assassination failed, cause he left the room when the bomb went off, Adolf took that as divine intervention and an endorsement the path he was on by the Lord! After all the Jews did kill his son!


----------



## Tisme (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> As has been explained by VC on numerous occasions, morality as has been honed throughout the ages is entirely consistent with other aspects of our evolution that allowed to to reach where we currently are in our evolutionary path. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you is far more likely to allow groups to survive .




Shame some of the members here, who resort to personal insults when they are losing an argument, don't live by that rule.

If morality and ethics were the be all and end all that existed since god was a boy, why is there a persistent need for the social conscience warriors to keep pushing their agenda for the outcast few and in the process causing discomfort for the docile silent majority who are the survival group ?

Morality and ethics are a core foundation of the Jews and their faith, that predates Chinese philosophers and other barbarians


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Where else did it come from? If you suggest some divine intervention, then on what basis do you hold that? If a divine intervention, when on our evolutionary scale did it happen if it predated Christianity? And if the result of divine intervention, why has it changed over time?
> 
> 
> 
> As has been explained by VC on numerous occasions, morality as has been honed throughout the ages is entirely consistent with other aspects of our evolution that allowed to to reach where we currently are in our evolutionary path. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you is far more likely to allow groups to survive than a selfish free for all. As societies evolved, those social attitudes that helped the species survive and reproduce were, by natural selection, also those attitudes that were going to be passed on.




This still isn't answering my questions.

If survival of the species is "good" as opposed to "not good" (i.e. "neutral or bad") , how was this logically determined from a secular viewpoint?


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Perhaps, the question "what lies beyong this universal limit?"



If time is infinite then space must also be. It is hard to believe time began at some point. Events unfolding from nothing is highly unlikely. There can only be no beginning and no end.


----------



## luutzu (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> This still isn't answering my questions.
> 
> If survival of the species is "good" as opposed to "not good" (i.e. "neutral or bad") , how was this logically determined from a secular viewpoint?




Sometime I swear you're just trolling. But having read your other debates, you're not kidding at all.


----------



## bellenuit (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> This still isn't answering my questions.
> 
> If survival of the species is "good" as opposed to "not good" (i.e. "neutral or bad") , how was this logically determined from a secular viewpoint?




It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised. 

In a way one cannot say that this evolved morality is either good or bad as our evolved concept of good and bad is likely determined by the same evolutionary mechanics and thus that which we see as morally good is that which helps our survival as a species.That would also account for changes in morality over time as that which was beneficial previously may not be so today.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised.
> 
> In a way one cannot say that this evolved morality is either good or bad as our evolved concept of good and bad is likely determined by the same evolutionary mechanics and thus that which we see as morally good is that which helps our survival as a species.That would also account for changes in morality over time as that which was beneficial previously may not be so today.



You are still failing to answer the question!

What you are describing here is an evolved behaviour or behavioural trait, that cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" from  a purely secular perspective.


----------



## bellenuit (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> You are still failing to answer the question!
> 
> What you are describing here is an evolved behaviour or behavioural trait, that cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" from  a purely secular perspective.




No. That is not what I said. Our understanding of "good" or "bad" is very likely an evolved understanding and it is based on what behaviours have led to the success of the survival of our species. It is in a sense tautological. Certain behaviours have resulted in the successful survival of our species and are thus labelled "good". 

Whether there is an absolute "good" or "bad" is probably beyond our ability to determine as we cannot judge outside of our evolutionary constraints. But those who claim that a theistic determined morality is absolute would need to reconcile lots of inconsistencies across religions and even within the same religion. When you asked why I think Christian morality is based on secular morality the answer is simply that there is really no other morality than secular morality. The Bible is essentially a man made product and of course the morality of the Bible will then be congruent with the secular morality of the time. And that is why as secular morality evolves, the morality of the Bible, since it is a snapshot of the times in which it was written, gets left behind. 

But it is you who haven't answered many of my questions. If our morality is not secular and the product of our evolution, where does it come from? If imbedded in our consciousness by a deity, when did this occur and was it across all of mankind simultaneously? If it came from reading scriptures or "good" books, why is that morality similar to what was accepted by society at that time and since the morality of the many religious scriptures is different in some fundamentals, which is right? 

The evolution of the secular morality and the secular concept of "good" and "bad" makes sense from my point of view even though I am a layman in terms of the "science" involved. But alternative explanations, particularly those based on divine intervention of some sort, seem to be full of inconsistencies and leave so many fundamental questions unanswered. But feel free to educate us on what you think it correct.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> No. That is not what I said. Our understanding of "good" or "bad" is very likely an evolved understanding and it is based on what behaviours have led to the success of the survival of our species. It is in a sense tautological. Certain behaviours have resulted in the successful survival of our species and are thus labelled "good".
> 
> Whether there is an absolute "good" or "bad" is probably beyond our ability to determine as we cannot judge outside of our evolutionary constraints. But those who claim that a theistic determined morality is absolute would need to reconcile lots of inconsistencies across religions and even within the same religion. When you asked why I think Christian morality is based on secular morality the answer is simply that there is really no other morality than secular morality. The Bible is essentially a man made product and of course the morality of the Bible will then be congruent with the secular morality of the time. And that is why as secular morality evolves, the morality of the Bible, since it is a snapshot of the times in which it was written, gets left behind.
> 
> ...



My apologies if I misinterpreted your response, but please be aware that you are still misunderstanding the point that my question is raising.

(Perhaps I haven't expressed myself as clearly as I had hoped!).

How can anyone deviate from a plan, when no plan exists?


----------



## bellenuit (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How can anyone deviate from a plan, when no plan exists?




But evolution isn't a plan nor is morality. 

Animals have different characteristics that help them survive, reproduce and pass on their genes better than others. Ancestors of the cheetah were probably cat like creatures that had different running capabilities. Those that could run faster might have had a survival edge over the others in that they were better able to hunt prey. They were they ones most likely to survive and reproduce. So overtime, the gene pool became dominated by those within the species whose genes enabled faster running and the cheetah evolved from animals within that gene pool. This is natural selection. Although the mutations in the gene that cause variations in animals capabilities is random, natural selection isn't. There may be a random chance that an animal is born sickly or healthy, but survival probability (and thus ability to reproduce) is not the same for both.

So the cheetahs ancestors didn't plan to evolve into cheetahs and become the fastest land animal. It was the outcome of natural selection. We regard certain behavioural traits as morally good because evolution caused us to assess behaviour that promotes the success of our species as morally good. If we had evolved differently, our morality (what is regarded as good) could be quite different. It is quite probable that the morality of our early ancestors might have condoned the murder of those in other tribes that competed for the limited resources needed for survival. But over time, if cooperating with the other tribes were to prove more productive, then murder would start to be shunned and eventually seen as immoral.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But evolution isn't a plan nor is morality.
> ....



I quite agree!
But you are still missing the point!

In order for something to be truly wrong, it must surely be out of accord with a purpose, intent or design, otherwise it could not be objectively deemed to be wrong, aberrant, sinful, or in any way incorrect!

In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?


----------



## bellenuit (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I quite agree!
> But you are still missing the point!
> 
> In order for something to be truly wrong, it must surely be out of accord with a purpose, intent or design, otherwise it could not be objectively deemed to be wrong, aberrant, sinful, or in any way incorrect!
> ...




But nothing is truly wrong as our morality is not the product of a purpose, intent or design. Things are only relatively wrong with reference to our currently accepted morality, which is the product of our evolution (both physical and cultural) which arguably is without purpose, intent or design. That is why I said that murder (of people from other tribes) was quite possibly morally acceptable to our ancestors in earlier times, but is not accepted by most societies today.

I'm still awaiting your answers regarding morality that I posed this evening.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

cynic said:


> In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?




Morality doesn’t need to have a purpose or design, it’s just another thing we have discovered, and are learning more about as we go along.

The leading factor of morality is harm, and that is objective.

If you are just following instructions from a religious text or church leader you can’t really call yourself moral, you are Amoral at best, and if those instructions are immoral then you are acting immorally regardless of whether you follow the rules or not.


----------



## sptrawler (10 January 2018)

I guess it all boils back to the old belief, that if you do the right thing are honest and help others, the favour will be repaid.
I think that fable has been well and truly squashed, in most facets of life.
In the old days, you would stop to pick up a hitch hiker.
In the old days, you would let anyone into your house, to give them a cup of tea.
In the old days, you would leave your back door unlocked.
In the old days, you would expect not to be attacked, if you were old.
In the old days, you would stand up on public transport, to give a seat to someone more needy.
In the old days, you wouldn't swear in front of a Lady or in public.

Oh well get over it, times are changing, no one has time to talk about the old times.
This is the here and now, we don't need to be told, we know and if we don't know, we can facebook it.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But nothing is truly wrong as our morality is not the product of a purpose, intent or design. Things are only relatively wrong with reference to our currently accepted morality, which is the product of our evolution (both physical and cultural) which arguably is without purpose, intent or design. That is why I said that murder (of people from other tribes) was quite possibly morally acceptable to our ancestors in earlier times, but is not accepted by most societies today.
> 
> I'm still awaiting your answers regarding morality that I posed this evening.




I would say the ancient tribesman thought they were acting morally when they murdered, but that was only because their understanding of objective morals wasn’t there yet.

Just like the laws of physics, the objective morality exists even if people don’t understand it, it’s something we are discovering over time, not something that is decided by a tribe or a god.


----------



## Value Collector (10 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I guess it all boils back to the old belief, that if you do the right thing are honest and help others, the favour will be repaid.
> I think that fable has been well and truly squashed, in most facets of life.
> In the old days, you would stop to pick up a hitch hiker.
> In the old days, you would let anyone into your house, to give them a cup of tea.
> ...




Things are getting better, sure some trivial things are changing but in general things are better.

For every small trivial thing that’s changed for the bad there are huge changes for the good.

Watch this short video.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "_do unto others as you would like them to do unto you_". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "_love thy neighbour as thyself_" is encompassed.
> 
> And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?



I am quite unable to recognise the validity of any question that presumes the existence of a non-existent thing.
As I am extremely doubtful of the possibility of morality, of any form, to be supportable from a purely secular viewpoint, the best I can currently offer in partial response to your question is, that I recognise, the presence of Christian morality, to be discernible, in other philosophies and religious belief systems, and also recognise that a number of such philosophies, predated the birth of Christ. I do not consider any of these incarnations of morality, to be truly secular, by reason of the absence of account, for the requisite purpose,intent or design, in our contemporary secular viewpoint.


----------



## cynic (10 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Where else did it come from? If you suggest some divine intervention, then on what basis do you hold that? If a divine intervention, when on our evolutionary scale did it happen if it predated Christianity? And if the result of divine intervention, why has it changed over time?
> 
> 
> 
> As has been explained by VC on numerous occasions, morality as has been honed throughout the ages is entirely consistent with other aspects of our evolution that allowed to to reach where we currently are in our evolutionary path. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you is far more likely to allow groups to survive than a selfish free for all. As societies evolved, those social attitudes that helped the species survive and reproduce were, by natural selection, also those attitudes that were going to be passed on.



I maintain that the existence of morality demands the presence of purpose, intent or design, else morality cannot truly be said to exist!
If an intelligent agent creates a thing, then that thing has inherited purpose from its creator!
Once a thing has purpose, its behaviour, can be deemed to be accordant, or discordant, via reference to its purpose! 
Without purpose intent or design, how can anyone objectively lay claim to the accordance, or discordance, of any behaviour?


----------



## sptrawler (11 January 2018)

Very uplifting, but from a personal perspective, having lived in Australia for most of my life.

I don't see a better life, I agree some things may be seen as trivial, but to me respect and honesty is far more important than how many people get sick.

Sickness can always be repaired, social degradation is much harder to repair.

Just because you have more people surviving, doesn't in itself mean things are getting better, when those who survive have less respect for those preceding them.

Yes child mortality in third World countries is reducing, but the incidence of machette attacks in Victoria is increasing.
Some may say, it isn't due to refugees from third world countries, but machette use as a weapon is relatively new in Australia.
The weapon was always available, from army surplus stores, it just wasn't a part of our psyche.
So IMO, you can put lipstick on it, but it doesn't change it.
Just my opinion.


----------



## grah33 (11 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> As I said, denying rights to gay couples is an example of Christian immorality, but the fact that you are brain washed into the culture means you probably can’t see it.
> 
> Also the very foundation of Christianity is based on scape goating, I happen to find that immorral.
> 
> If Christ were being killed in front of me I would do everything in my power to stop it, you however would take joy in his sacrifice and think it a good thing, then stand around and pretend to end his flesh and drink his blood.





As stated before in 1000s of posts, you were not able to prove that it's normal behavior. God is into legislating equality for normal things. Anyone can understand that if they want to. And what of those who will have future employment problems? Your side never said anything . They don't seem to care about anyone but their own side.  I guess it's good from an evolution stand point.


“ but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. “

(Cor)

So, the Christian faith may seem like nonsense to many people, but to those who believe , whether a toilet cleaner or a doctor, it makes good sense.


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Just like the laws of physics, the objective morality exists even if people don’t understand it, it’s something we are discovering over time, not something that is decided by a tribe or a god.




......



> The leading factor of morality is harm, and that is objective




I know that is very much the opinion of Sam Harris, but I still think he is basing his criteria for classifying what morality is objective based very much on the relative morality of where we currently are in our evolutionary progress. He has this vague notion of actions that cause the least harm being a criterium for objective good. I am not using the word vague as a criticism, but just as an acceptance that his ideas on this are still in the embryonic stage.

But having escaped (at least in the developed world) from subsistence living, we have the luxury to exclude actions that are harmful because not only are they they are not needed for our survival currently but excluding them assists in our survival. 

But, in a way agreeing with Cynic, what is the criteria for determining objective morality. Survival of our species? Would morality that leads to a pain-free death of our species be morally good objectively if objectively morally bad actions would have ensured survival?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised.




Except that our morality also involves committing large amounts of resources looking after the old and weak instead of applying those resources to helping the fit and strong achieve higher results which would contribute more to the advancement of society. 

It also involves caring about animal welfare where the the survival of other species has little effect on the advancement of humankind, so what is the evolutionary imperative for this type of caring morality ?


----------



## grah33 (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "_do unto others as you would like them to do unto you_". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "_love thy neighbour as thyself_" is encompassed.
> 
> And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?



Part of what you say I agree with. After all, morality is built into us. We have a conscience. But we needed Jesus to get us there, since some morals aren't obvious enough (we can't see clearly), and some we wouldn't follow unless He taught.

Also, all this debating is about the Bible God, it seems to me ? Why is that God the only one people here are so concerned about, given all the game playing? Maybe that is the likely candidate for God they think if there is one, because His morals are true (and confronting). If it were Zeus, or even a deceiving anti-Christ preaching a flexible secular morality, I think many people might be siding with Cynic's arguments, as they do make sense.

Furthermore, secular morals aren't that good when compared to Christian alternatives. e.g. 'freedom to choose' abortion, and other things too.

And I don't think you can say atheism has morals. Morals don't change imv. Some of you seem to disagree with that, trying to explain it away, but it's a good point that comes up in the pro debating world.  It obviously makes sense to many people. There is the right thing and the wrong thing, but it often isn't clear to us. We're 'blinded' , because of our sins (Christian view).

I heard something interesting. There is a story about Stalin, the communist ( atheist) who killed millions. Just before he died, he raised his fist up at God...


----------



## luutzu (11 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Part of what you say I agree with. After all, morality is built into us. We have a conscience. But we needed Jesus to get us there, since some morals aren't obvious enough (we can't see clearly), and some we wouldn't follow unless He taught.
> 
> Also, all this debating is about the Bible God, it seems to me ? Why is that God the only one people here are so concerned about, given all the game playing? Maybe that is the likely candidate for God they think if there is one, because His morals are true (and confronting). If it were Zeus, or even a deceiving anti-Christ preaching a flexible secular morality, I think many people might be siding with Cynic's arguments, as they do make sense.
> 
> ...




People like Stalin don't believe in God so why would he raised his fist to God? He probably think that he himself is God.

As to morality and any religion. Let us say that religion is Christianity. 

Whatever moral code Christianity and its Bible preaches... forget for a moment it being "good" or "bad" morals... whatever that code is, it only applies to Christians. Or the good moral code as Christian sees it.

In a free society, Christians can practised their, or their God's, version of what is moral and virtuous (just as long as it doesn't harm or harrass anyone one else). 

But to then go a few steps further and claim that Christian morals are the best and most objective; that without Jesus and his teachings there is no good moral code. Well, that's going to raise a few fists in other people who believe just as strongly in their own moral code, or in their own God's moral teachings. 

So a Christian might ask "what would Jesus do". What Jesus would do... that's often based on the teachings and biases of preachers and the person themselves. So it might not even be what Jesus would actually do... I mean, Jesus wouldn't waste his life making all the money in the world but lose his soul, would he? Freaking Trump and "good Christian" like him does.

What would an Atheist ask when they face a moral dilemma? First, can I get away with it. Second, who's paying for this, and I it be blamed on someone else.


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But, in a way agreeing with Cynic, what is the criteria for determining objective morality. Survival of our species? Would morality that leads to a pain-free death of our species be morally good objectively if objectively morally bad actions would have ensured survival?




In any given situation there would be an action which would be the most moral action as defined by objective outcomes.

Now I am not saying that it’s possible to know what that action would be, or that’s it’s possible to Create a world where only those moral choices are made, but it is true that in any given situation the most moral action exists.

Individual humans can be right or wrong in their opinions on what is moral, but again that doesn’t change what the actual objective morality is any more than an opinion on the number of jelly beans in a jar changes the actual number.

But we can use logic to try and get as close as possible to the best moral outcomes in the situations we are presented, and that will give us better outcomes than just differing to an old book of absolute rules.


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2018)

Here is a talk on the superiority of secular morality for those interested.


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> And what of those who will have future employment problems? Your side never said anything . They don't seem to care about anyone but their own side.  I guess it's good from an evolution stand point.




What side are you talking about?

And when have I ever said I wouldn’t want to help people with employment problems?

In fact in the automation thread I laid out my belief that eventually society would have to provide a base living wage for everyone once automation reduces he need for most human labor.

I have also said that social safety net are important, and that I am in favor of public education, health care, foreign aid etc etc

But again what is this “side” you think I am on?


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Very uplifting, but from a personal perspective, having lived in Australia for most of my life.
> 
> I don't see a better life, I agree some things may be seen as trivial, but to me respect and honesty is far more important than how many people get sick.
> 
> ...




So you are upset because less people stand up on the bus, but yet we now give women equal pay and don’t tolerate sexual harassment.

Racism is reducing
Gays are now more accepted
Women have more rights
Violent crimes and murders are reducing
We haven’t had any world wars

So many things are improving, I wouldn’t get hung up on the “good ole days” because if you truly look back, they weren’t that good for a lot of people.


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> In any given situation there would be an action which would be the most moral action as defined by objective outcomes.




You are assuming that there are objective outcomes to begin with. IMO, what we regard as moral is relative to where we currently are in our evolutionary progress.

The laws of physics as far as we know apply everywhere in the universe and have been unchanging since the beginning of the universe (save perhaps for the first few microseconds). This we know by observation as we can see and measure things that are far away and things, by nature of the time needed for light to reach us, that are in the distant past.

But there is no basis for assuming morality is similar. What is moral has changed over time and is different in different parts of the world. Every attempt by Harris and Delahunty to define an objective morality is simply an interpretation of morality as viewed in the here and now in the context of a Western philosophy in an advanced non-subsistence society. What they define as moral may not be when viewed through a different lens. 

This doesn't mean that we cannot develop a moral framework that would help us as a means of regulating society. It just means that like as has been since recorded history, it would be based on the "best" morality of the time.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Here is a talk on the superiority of secular morality for those interested.




Rather than reiterating my reasons for disbelief in the existence of secular morality, I have attached a video, showing an excerpt from a debate, where a theist elucidates upon the key reason, underlying my stance on this topic:


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> Just because you have more people surviving, doesn't in itself mean things are getting better, when those who survive have less respect for those preceding them.



The takers are breeding two to one to the givers. Bad stock breeding more bad stock.I imagine a family of six on the dole would pull in a couple of thousand per fortnight.


----------



## Tisme (11 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Part of what you say I agree with. After all, morality is built into us. ...




Unless a religion or a survival tribe instructs obedience to its idea of benevolent morality, individually it is really a luxury that affords itself once food, family, health and safety needs are met.

We see evidence of guilt driven morality by peer groups such as the Greens. The new Labor Party has also redirected itself from being the voice of the white working class, with it's fair go moral compass now firmly pointing to social litter rather than it's austral/anglo foundations of solidarity by numbers.


----------



## explod (11 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> Unless a religion or a survival tribe instructs obedience to its idea of benevolent morality, individually it is really a luxury that affords itself once food, family, health and safety needs are met.
> 
> We see evidence of guilt driven morality by peer groups such as the Greens. The new Labor Party has also redirected itself from being the voice of the white working class, with it's fair go moral compass now firmly pointing to social litter rather than it's austral/anglo foundations of solidarity by numbers.



"Guilt driven morality... " of the Greens.   Would like to know your reason.   

The Green membership numbers have been growing considerably in the last couple of years,  40% being female between 20 to 40 years and the majority,  School Teachers, nurses and post graduates.   The age group that will have a big impact on their own children also.   And why,  because they are worried for the future for thier offspring.   Not sure about the religion bit.


----------



## sptrawler (11 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So you are upset because less people stand up on the bus, but yet we now give women equal pay and don’t tolerate sexual harassment.
> 
> Racism is reducing
> Gays are now more accepted
> ...




What you are talking about, are social change that have been forced on society by implementing laws, or Government intervention.

What I'm talking about, is moral belief and behaviour that was a part of our social structure, when children were brought up to show restrain and respect.

http://www.educatoronline.com.au/news/whats-behind-the-rise-in-assaults-on-teachers-216504.aspx


----------



## Value Collector (11 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> What you are talking about, are social change that have been forced on society by implementing laws, or Government intervention.
> 
> What I'm talking about, is moral belief and behaviour that was a part of our social structure, when children were brought up to show restrain and respect.
> 
> http://www.educatoronline.com.au/news/whats-behind-the-rise-in-assaults-on-teachers-216504.aspx



Social change has happened because society has wanted it, which means society as a whole is getting better.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Social change has happened because society has wanted it, which means society as a whole is getting better.




If you like social morality the you must be a Lefty !


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?




Well it's funny that a lot of so called Christians don't like the idea of giving shelter to refugees while other Christians go out of their way to help them.

There is a Left and Right in the church apparently.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?



"Do unto others..."
Is to me, the over arching principle.

I do also have some admiration for the following:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
"He who draws the sword, dies by the sword."
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God, that which is God's."

And although it may not necessarily be specifically a moral teaching, the mustard seed sized, mountain moving belief, is one that speaks strongly to me, of the metaphysical aspect of our existence.


----------



## grah33 (11 January 2018)

sptrawler said:


> I guess it all boils back to the old belief, that if you do the right thing are honest and help others, the favour will be repaid.
> I think that fable has been well and truly squashed, in most facets of life.
> In the old days, you would stop to pick up a hitch hiker.
> In the old days, you would let anyone into your house, to give them a cup of tea.
> ...



From my life experience, it seems those who have a standard / morals (both religious and non religious) , have a smoother path in this life, and less problems come their way. And in social groups, whoever acts nobly tends to get respected by everyone , and people want to be their friend.  There's something attractive in being self-effacing.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2018)

Just wondering what our staunch Catholics, Anglican et think should be done about the refugee issue, and what biblical teachings guide you to your feelings on this matter ?


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

cynic said:


> "Do unto others..."
> Is to me, the over arching principle.




There are various interpretations of this rule but it is more commonly stated as:  _"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"_

But why should we say that is a key expression of Christian morality when the same sentiment was expressed by many others prior to Christ (if he existed)?

_"Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do"_. This is from the The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, from Ancient Egypt about 2000 BC.

_"That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self"._ This is from Zoroastrianism, a pre-Islamic Persian religion and is dated from 600 BC.

"_Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful_". Buddhism, 500 BC

"_What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others_". Confucianism, 500 BC

"_Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others_". Socrates 400 BC

Some of the above are religious based and some are secular based. But I would think that the "do unto others" sentiment is something that we as a species would easily have come to see as a good moral principle to live by, purely through our empathy with others. I think VC has on many occasions explained that empathy is the main driver of morality.

As I have said in a previous post, religious morality as expressed in their "good books" is just the secular morality of the day. Christian morality is no different. And as secular morality changes with our understanding of ourselves, so too does religious morality, reflecting the secular change. One only need read the passages in the Old Testament where God demands the killing of chieftain because the latter spared the *good* people of a tribe that God had ordered to be slaughtered. Compare this to the New Testament and we certainly are not dealing with an unchanging Judaeo/Christian morality as some suggest.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I think VC has on many occasions explained that empathy is the main driver of morality.




So what is the driver of empathy ? Psychopaths can become very successful people while having virtually no empathy for others. Don Burke for example didn't seem to give a rats about how anyone else felt and he led one of the highest rating tv shows in Australian history. 

Empathy is not a pre requisite for success, in fact it may be a barrier in some cases.


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is the driver of empathy ? Psychopaths can become very successful people while having virtually no empathy for others. Don Burke for example didn't seem to give a rats about how anyone else felt and he led one of the highest rating tv shows in Australian history.
> 
> Empathy is not a pre requisite for success, in fact it may be a barrier in some cases.




Empathy has nothing to do with success, though it may be an advantage in some professions. Empathy does likely have a positive influence on the evolution of our species (prevents us killing each other for example), so those with strong empathy were likely to survive longer and successfully reproduce, thus strengthening the gene pool with the genes of those more inclined to show empathy.

The characteristics that allow species to survive and hence have greater chance of being able to reproduce do not necessarily have any correlation to business success or, if talking about the animal kingdom, have any correlation to status within the herd.

Evolution is about natural selection favouring those traits that allow the species to successfully reproduce. Cockroaches did and dinosaurs didn't.


----------



## grah33 (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?



Put simply, and on a practical level, it is to do the right thing (whatever that is) in everything, and nothing less. It is an objective morality.

“
... that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,
so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless ...
“
(Phil)

As you can see from this verse (Craig Lane mentions it using a different translation), in more obscure cases the right thing to do isn't always clear to us. It is some correct action/decision (objective morality), whatever it may be. Paul's view is that they would automatically know within themselves how they should act in everything, or what they should do/say, if they developed more virtue.

If there is a God and an objective morality, what is this objective morality like? Which moralities of those offered is the best, and is it correct and true? If so, that might be God's preferred religion. Unless He has set things up to confuse us. So you will see debaters often trying to find flaws in the morals of various religions they debate against.

Cynic summed them up well enough, but I also like some other ones too. Like treating your enemies nicely, and then watching them treat you differently. Or what about never worrying? I won't explain this. And some are peculiar to secular people regarding relationships, but we won't go there. In all of them though, it's about doing the right thing/objective morality, rather than following rules.


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Put simply, and on a practical level, it is to do the right thing (whatever that is) in everything, and nothing less. It is an objective morality.
> 
> “
> ... that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,
> ...




But we see little to no differences between this Christian morality and secular morality at the conceptual level. Every secularist would say that it is morally correct to do the right thing and additionally concur that it is not always easy to know what the right thing is. But we do know from current observation that those countries that are more secular are also the most moral, which really shows that religion is more likely to direct people to do the wrong thing, hence it is greatly inferior to secular morality. And the reason it directs people to do the wrong thing is because even though it may have been congruent with the secular morality of the time it was conceptualised, it has remained stagnant since. Secular morality, which is constantly evolving with our understanding, can adapt and be relevant to our current situation.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> There are various interpretations of this rule but it is more commonly stated as:  _"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"_
> 
> But why should we say that is a key expression of Christian morality when the same sentiment was expressed by many others prior to Christ (if he existed)?
> 
> ...



First up, there is an important distinction to be made here:

Morality, and its interpretation, are two distinctly different things/concepts.

Hopefully the abovementioned distinction, should be sufficient to dispel any confusion caused by improper conflation of the following distinctly different concepts:
Morality
Moral understanding
Moral expression
Moral behaviour
Moral interpretation

When I write my descriptions of contemporary, morally correct, behaviour/s, I am expressing my interpretation of what morally correct behaviour is, in our current day environment, in accordance with my personal understanding of morality.

A point worth noting here, is that, my current understanding of morality,  despite my best efforts, may or may not be in accordance with objective morality. Hence, my understanding of what objective morality actually is, may be subject to change!

Even objective morality, will at times, demand changed behaviours in response to changed environmental and/or sociopolitical conditions, from its subscribers.

Can you see how my understanding, of the morality concept, requires of me, a very different approach to scriptural interpretation?

I note that you are persisting with claims to the existence of this "secular morality" which, for reasons already stated, is logically incompatible with one of the key secular beliefs. If the secularists were to turn out to be correct, then objective morality cannot ever have truly existed!


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I note that you are persisting with claims to the existence of this "secular morality" which, for reasons already stated, is logically incompatible with one of the key secular beliefs. If the secularists were to turn out to be correct, then objective morality cannot ever have truly existed!




But unlike VC, I do not accept that there is objective morality. Morality is relative to where we are in our evolutionary progression and religious morality (at least that which is codified, such as the 10 commandments) is just a snapshot of secular morality at the time it was written with some nonsense added in to placate their God.


----------



## cynic (11 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But unlike VC, I do not accept that there is objective morality. Morality is relative to where we are in our evolutionary progression and religious morality (at least that which is codified, such as the 10 commandments) is just a snapshot of secular morality at the time it was written with some nonsense added in to placate their God.



You do not believe in the existence of objective morality, and I do not believe in the existence of relative morality.

A moral adherent, may at times, need to alter customary behaviours in response to changed conditions. The behaviour required for adherence to the moral code has changed, but the moral code remains intact.

An example of this would be a moral code that places importance on a particular medical practice that does a small amount of immediate harm, in order to enhance the longer term survival prospects of members of the species. Environmental and technological progress may later render the lesser harm practice redundant, making a practice that was once morally correct, morally incorrect, consequent to it now being needlessly harmful, but the moral criterion that first demanded, and then later prohibited that practice, remained intact!


----------



## bellenuit (11 January 2018)

cynic said:


> You do not believe in the existence of objective morality, and I do not believe in the existence of relative morality.
> 
> A moral adherent, may at times, need to alter customary behaviours in response to changed conditions. The behaviour required for adherence to the moral code has changed, but the moral code remains intact.
> 
> An example of this would be a moral code that places importance on a particular medical practice that does a small amount of immediate harm, in order to enhance the longer term survival prospects of members of the species. Environmental and technological progress may later render the lesser harm practice redundant, making a practice that was once morally correct, morally incorrect, consequent to it now being needlessly harmful, but the moral criterion that first demanded, and then later prohibited that practice, remained intact!




But is the moral criterion that you say remains intact *that which enhances*_* the longer term survival prospect of the species*_ or is it _*not inflicting needless harm*_? If the latter, what determines needless harm? Obviously using obsolete medical practices is an easy one. But would torturing a terrorist that has planted a dirty bomb in a city in order to find out its whereabouts be needless harm?


----------



## cynic (12 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But is the moral criterion that you say remains intact *that which enhances*_* the longer term survival prospect of the species*_ or is it _*not inflicting needless harm*_? If the latter, what determines needless harm? Obviously using obsolete medical practices is an easy one. But would torturing a terrorist that has planted a dirty bomb in a city in order to find out its whereabouts be needless harm?



A good example of what could be considered a moral dilemma.

Presuming that the moral imperative is survival, then harm minimisation is an immediate consequence of this imperative. Reference to the harm minimisation criterion, would prohibit needless infliction of harm, but would allow the harming of the terrorist, provided, that there were no less offensive way, of preventing his prior activity (i.e. planting a bomb), from causing devastation to many.


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2018)

cynic said:


> A good example of what could be considered a moral dilemma.
> 
> Presuming that the moral imperative is survival, then harm minimisation is an immediate consequence of this imperative. Reference to the harm minimisation criterion, would prohibit needless infliction of harm, but would allow the harming of the terrorist, provided, that there were no less offensive way, of preventing his prior activity (i.e. planting a bomb), from causing devastation to many.




If the moral imperative is survival (I assume that to mean survival of the species if taken to the extreme), then to me that is a moving target. Objective morality may seem fixed and firmly bolted to the floor, but it is to the floor of a moving carriage (not the best analogy I know, but it is all I can come up with right now). That is why I say morality is relative to where we are in our evolutionary progress. Survival of the species may appear to be an objective moral imperative that hasn't changed since the beginning of life, but what it means in practice certainly is different dependent on where we are on that timeline. 

If religious morality (and specifically Christian morality) was objective, codifying it in lists like the 10 Commandments would presumably provide a set of criteria suitable for all circumstances. But we can see that simple commandments like "Thy shalt not kill" would be unsuitable to cover every circumstance while complying with the higher imperative of species survival. It would need pages and pages of footnotes to allow exceptions, which would need to be added to ad infinitum as we evolve.


----------



## cynic (12 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> If the moral imperative is survival (I assume that to mean survival of the species if taken to the extreme), then to me that is a moving target. Objective morality may seem fixed and firmly bolted to the floor, but it is to the floor of a moving carriage (not the best analogy I know, but it is all I can come up with right now). That is why I say morality is relative to where we are in our evolutionary progress. Survival of the species may appear to be an objective moral imperative that hasn't changed since the beginning of life, but what it means in practice certainly is different dependent on where we are on that timeline.
> 
> If religious morality (and specifically Christian morality) was objective, codifying it in lists like the 10 Commandments would presumably provide a set of criteria suitable for all circumstances. But we can see that simple commandments like "Thy shalt not kill" would be unsuitable to cover every circumstance while complying with the higher imperative of species survival. It would need pages and pages of footnotes to allow exceptions, which would need to be added to ad infinitum as we evolve.



One point that I believe needs to be clarified, is that I do not personally believe, survival of our species, to be the true objective morality, but rather one outcome, of the true objective morality.

I believe there is, at least one, important need, that required the creation of life, as part (if not all) of that need's remedy. It is from the existence of that underlying need, that life as (at least part of) the remedy, derives its purpose, thereby acquiring importance and value.

Without the objective morality, to which I allude, survival of our species would be rendered irrelevant, due to the absence of any meaningful purpose. Life would be needless, devoid of any useful meaning, and morality could not exist in any true sense of the word.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Evolution is about natural selection favouring those traits that allow the species to successfully reproduce. Cockroaches did and dinosaurs didn't.




What, so you are saying that cockroaches have empathy and dinosaurs didn't ? Dinosaurs would still be walking the earth if not for a catastrophic event that had nothing to do with evolution, and there are many species that have survived much longer than man without any evidence that they have empathy for their own species or others. Sure, species cooperate among themselves towards survival, but that is different to having concern for others.

It's interesting that the only species that has overall contempt for its natural habitat appears to be the one with the most empathy; ie the human race.


----------



## Tink (12 January 2018)

Great posts, Cynic, and everyone else.

Rumpole, separation of Church and State is right there.
People need to do their own research on our history.

I have always said that we have a Christian culture and it reflects on our public holidays.
Even Dawkins said he was a cultural Christian.

As I said -

Faith
Family
Truth
Freedom.

This is my view.


----------



## grah33 (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Just wondering what our staunch Catholics, Anglican et think should be done about the refugee issue, and what biblical teachings guide you to your feelings on this matter ?




Let them in. It's particularly grievous to turn one's face away from someone in desperate need (it's a backward type of sin actually). There would be many Biblical teachings about the need to help and alleviate people's suffering. Also, ever since Christianity came, this duty of helping people also came along with it. It's part of that objective morality. And also can be derived without any religious influence.

The thing is, if we were doing this (helping refugees) , it likely that we'd also be executing justice in other areas as well, equals less problems for everyone. But when you have this, you will also have other bad legislation and abuses, and more problems of course.

I wouldn't worry too much about them. I doubt letting them in will change the existing downtrend too much.


----------



## grah33 (12 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But we see little to no differences between this Christian morality and secular morality at the conceptual level. Every secularist would say that it is morally correct to do the right thing and additionally concur that it is not always easy to know what the right thing is. But we do know from current observation that those countries that are more secular are also the most moral, which really shows that religion is more likely to direct people to do the wrong thing, hence it is greatly inferior to secular morality. And the reason it directs people to do the wrong thing is because even though it may have been congruent with the secular morality of the time it was conceptualised, it has remained stagnant since. Secular morality, which is constantly evolving with our understanding, can adapt and be relevant to our current situation.




Yes, there are similarities in both moralities, since basic morality is ingrained in us. And some or much of it has been derived in other non-christian places in history as you say. In this case, they were able to find out what that objective morality was through reason, as probably also did some of the Jews b4 Christ came. Afaik though, they didn't have all of it. Consider some of the prime revelations in the Bible:

A man shall no lie with a man (not aiming this at gay people, just an example)

And Jesus' revelation on marriage: one man and female, lifetime.

If not for these we may have had gender-less marriage long ago. And if those names you quoted had discovered these truths in objective morality, then that's impressive. But even then, they weren't inventing anything, but through reason discovering the nature of this objective morality.

You're other comment is your opinion. Many people believe that it was because of Christianity that those countries had good conditions. And living conditions seem to be getting worse (but that is subjective in this thread).


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> If you like social morality the you must be a Lefty !




Pretty much left on some things right on others, I think I am rationally down the middle.

I want to have all the safety nets, and maximum freedoms, while also encouraging private investment Etc


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Pretty much left on some things right on others, I think I am rationally down the middle.
> 
> I want to have all the safety nets, and maximum freedoms, while also encouraging private investment Etc




You seem to be socially Left but economically right, whereas I think I tend to the reverse. Makes for some good discussions !


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is the driver of empathy ? Psychopaths can become very successful people while having virtually no empathy for others. Don Burke for example didn't seem to give a rats about how anyone else felt and he led one of the highest rating tv shows in Australian history.
> 
> Empathy is not a pre requisite for success, in fact it may be a barrier in some cases.




Society can live with a certain number of psychopaths, but it can’t survive if psychopath was the general rule.

In fact a society without psychopaths is evolutionary unstable in the long term,

Richard explains it here.


----------



## Value Collector (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You seem to be socially Left but economically right, whereas I think I tend to the reverse. Makes for some good discussions !




Yeah I think that about dimes it up,

Except I think we agree on the safety nets


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What, so you are saying that cockroaches have empathy and dinosaurs didn't ? Dinosaurs would still be walking the earth if not for a catastrophic event that had nothing to do with evolution, and there are many species that have survived much longer than man without any evidence that they have empathy for their own species or others. Sure, species cooperate among themselves towards survival, but that is different to having concern for others.
> 
> It's interesting that the only species that has overall contempt for its natural habitat appears to be the one with the most empathy; ie the human race.




No I am not saying that. You have completely misunderstood. My discussion on empathy was entirely in the context of humans (and our close previous ancestors) and human morality. With regards to cockroaches and dinosaurs, they both lived at the same time as the catastrophic event. Cockroaches had characteristics that allowed them to survive that event. Dinosaurs had different characteristics, which didn't help them. The reason one survived and the other didn't has everything to do with evolution, although in some cases it may have been just bad luck. Since the formation of the earth when it was a cauldron of gases and liquids to today, there have been myriads of events (floods, fires, ice ages, meteor strikes, etc) that had the potential to destroy ever living organism. Some survived because the event was local and only effected a small portion of that species' population allowing the rest to continue reproducing. Others survived because the event caused a complete destruction of a food source that that species was not dependent on, but other species were. Birds, by nature of their evolution, with their ability to fly would have been able to survive events that land bound creatures may not have been able to. And of course there is pure luck. Some species may have been wiped out by a local meteor strike because that species only existed in that locale.



> It's interesting that the only species that has overall contempt for its natural habitat appears to be the one with the most empathy; ie the human race.



.

Unfortunate, but true to an extent, But it is likely that those humans with the most empathy are more caring for their natural habitat. I would, for instance, think that one who has a high degree of empathy to fellow humans would not be the type to go shooting lions in Africa.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2018)

> Unfortunate, but true to an extent, But it is likely that those humans with the most empathy are more caring for their natural habitat. I would, for instance, think that one who has a high degree of empathy to fellow humans would not be the type to go shooting lions in Africa.




All I'm saying is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary driver for empathy as a lot of species do fine without it including cockroaches. I think it is something that is acquired when a brain reaches a certain level of development and starts growing bits that tap into an emotional consciousness. But necessary for survival ? No.


----------



## Tisme (12 January 2018)

And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

That's science right there, second paragraph in and the big bang is explained without any fuss and wheelchairs.


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2018)

Y


SirRumpole said:


> All I'm saying is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary driver for empathy as a lot of species do fine without it including cockroaches. I think it is something that is acquired when a brain reaches a certain level of development and starts growing bits that tap into an emotional consciousness. But necessary for survival ? No.




But I didn’t ever say that empathy as something that offered an evolutionary advantage related to species other than humans and recent primates.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Y
> 
> 
> But I didn’t ever say that empathy as something that offered an evolutionary advantage related to species other than humans and recent primates.




That would imply that the "laws" of evolution differ from species to species. Why is it evolutionarilly advantageous for us to care about species that are not necessary for our survival ? Species have become extinct throughout history without affecting our development, so why should we care about the night parrot or the thylacine ?


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That would imply that the "laws" of evolution differ from species to species. Why is it evolutionarilly advantageous for us to care about species that are not necessary for our survival ? Species have become extinct throughout history without affecting our development, so why should we care about the night parrot or the thylacine ?




No it doesn't. What is advantageous for one species isn't necessarily advantageous for another.

On the second point, compared to other species we have acquired a highly developed brain that allows us to rationalise beyond our immediate survival as we are predominantly now living in a non-subsistence environment. We understand things like pain and can understand that not is it only something that we would not wish on others of our species, but also not on (most) other species necessarily. Our empathy to the suffering of animals is not evenly spread among animals. We tend to accept pain inflicted on the animals that are a food source, which is probably a throwback to our prior subsistence level existence where such niceties did not come into play, but are unaccepting of pain inflicted on animals we relate to in a social (probably not the right word) context, such as pets and working animals. But we can still see our evolvement in that respect. We may still accept pain inflicted on those animals that are a source of food, but we nowadays demand the killing be done as humanely as possible. It is likely even that will not be acceptable in the future and that is apparent in the trend to vegetarianism. However, like animals used for food, there is another group of animals that we have little empathy with when it comes to pain and again that is probably related to their ability to damage our species. Few have any qualms on killing or injuring poisonous or disease spreading insects like mosquitoes or **** roaches, etc.

From what I have read we, the human species, are on the cusp of freeing ourselves from the constraints of evolution. We can now alter our gene structure to overcome defects caused by gene mutation or to even introduce new genes that we think would be beneficial. Because of direct intervention in our gene pool, we can bypass the slow progress of evolution by natural selection which required generations to cause alterations


----------



## notting (12 January 2018)

I wonder what exactly the person was thinking when he wrote "Let there be light" as the first act of god.
God knows what the f god was doing for eternal time prior to that. I mean how long does it take a guy to get off his arse and start doing some shi7.   And how long does it take you to decide that now is a good time to act on a really bad idea.  Why is any point in time better than any other to decide to make yourself a geate dictator who's dick everyone has to suck.
But any way,  it kind of implies that there was light and god was letting it be.  Maybe some dude was just going over getting up in the morning.  He didn't say,  "I now create light" and there was light.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> From what I have read we, the human species, are on the cusp of freeing ourselves from the constraints of evolution. We can now alter our gene structure to overcome defects caused by gene mutation or to even introduce new genes that we think would be beneficial. Because of direct intervention in our gene pool, we can bypass the slow progress of evolution by natural selection which required generations to cause alterations




Yes, and that's a concern. Who decides what genes are beneficial or not ? It's pretty clear that eradicating disease causing genes would be beneficial, but what about designing characteristics like blue eyes, blond hair, physical strength, beauty etc. Will we all eventually become clones of a master copy of the "perfect human" ? 

I'm both sorry and glad that I won't be around to see it.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> We understand things like pain and can understand that not is it only something that we would not wish on others of our species, but also not on (most) other species necessarily. Our empathy to the suffering of animals is not evenly spread among animals. We tend to accept pain inflicted on the animals that are a food source, which is probably a throwback to our prior subsistence level existence where such niceties did not come into play, but are unaccepting of pain inflicted on animals we relate to in a social (probably not the right word) context, such as pets and working animals. But we can still see our evolvement in that respect. We may still accept pain inflicted on those animals that are a source of food, but we nowadays demand the killing be done as humanely as possible. It is likely even that will not be acceptable in the future and that is apparent in the trend to vegetarianism. However, like animals used for food, there is another group of animals that we have little empathy with when it comes to pain and again that is probably related to their ability to damage our species. Few have any qualms on killing or injuring poisonous or disease spreading insects like mosquitoes or **** roaches, etc.




It's not just about infliction of pain. It's about species survival being threatened by human activities. 

Evolution may dictate that we do what is necessary for our own survival and advancement and yet empathetic people don't like the idea that we are eradicating whole species. There seems to be a contradiction there.


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not just about infliction of pain. It's about species survival being threatened by human activities.
> 
> Evolution may dictate that we do what is necessary for our own survival and advancement and yet empathetic people don't like the idea that we are eradicating whole species. There seems to be a contradiction there.




I don't really see a contradiction. We do not need to eradicate whole species for our survival. 

Also, evolution doesn't dictate that we do anything. It doesn't dictate that we as humans must develop strong empathy to survive and reproduce. It may turn out that empathy has been beneficial in that respect up to now, hence strong empathy is becoming predominant in our gene pool. But that might not always be the case. It may turn out that empathy hinders us doing certain things that are necessary for our survival and we end up becoming extinct. For example, a group of people may develop some life threatening virus, for which there is no immunisation, and which can spread from within any isolation chamber. The only known way to kill the virus is to incinerate the carriers at extreme temperature. However, our sense of empathy with the carrier humans makes us hesitant to take that necessary action allowing the virus to spread.

One of the traits of evolution is that it has no purpose, just the simple mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. Giraffes didn't grow long necks in order to survive. That implies a purpose. It is just that a mutation in the gene of some ancestors to the giraffe caused their necks to grow longer than normal. That may not mean much, except that in a time of food scarcity at ground level, they had the advantage of being able to reach higher foliage. Even if that only changed the odds in favour of survival and getting to being able to reproduce from 50/50 compared to the others to say 51/49 compared to the others, those odds over a long period of time lead to that species being dominated with those who had that gene. We eventually ended up with the giraffe, with all members of the species now carrying that gene.


----------



## bellenuit (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm both sorry and glad that I won't be around to see it.




My fear is that they may eventually be able to recreate us from our DNA, whether we (the dead people) like it or not.


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> All I'm saying is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary driver for empathy as a lot of species do fine without it including cockroaches. I think it is something that is acquired when a brain reaches a certain level of development and starts growing bits that tap into an emotional consciousness. But necessary for survival ? No.




There is a strong evolutionary driver for empathy among animals that have evolved to live in a social group.

Don’t you think a group of early humans living on the savanah that had the ability to feel empathy towards each other would survive as a group better than a group that was made up of pirate not caring for each other.

I think empathy is a key factor to making a social group of intelligent individuals strong.

Cockroach’s opererate in an entirely different niche.


----------



## notting (13 January 2018)

Ants carry the eggs of their own in times of crisis even as it slows down their own ability to flee.
Humans have an extremely arrogant presumptive attitude toward the other beings.
If you watch footage of the Japanese Tsunami and whatch the cars running away like ants from water.
The fool would say, 'oh it's just instinct.'


----------



## Value Collector (13 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and that's a concern. Who decides what genes are beneficial or not ? It's pretty clear that eradicating disease causing genes would be beneficial, but what about designing characteristics like blue eyes, blond hair, physical strength, beauty etc. Will we all eventually become clones of a master copy of the "perfect human" ?
> 
> I'm both sorry and glad that I won't be around to see it.




No “being” decided, natural selection decides.

Dawkins said something like - Natural selection is the non random selection of randomly appearing replicators.

Read that a couple of times to let understand it.

Basically it’s saying genes mutate and appear randomly, but the process of choosing which hang around and which fade away is not random, natural selection will choose the genes that best suit the environment over time, and that doesn’t require intelligence or forethought, it’s simply the less suited genes don’t replicate as successfully and fade away.

Penn quotes Darwin beautifully here


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No “being” decided, natural selection decides.




You misunderstood. My statement about "who decides" was in the context of mankind being able to manipulate our own genes using technology and thereby bypassing the evolutionary process.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Don’t you think a group of early humans living on the savanah that had the ability to feel empathy towards each other would survive as a group better than a group that was made up of pirate not caring for each other.




You have missed the distinction between cooperation and empathy. Of course social groups who cooperate have a better chance of survival that ones who don't but that doesn't necessarily involve caring for the old and weak who are not going to make much contribution to the group. That is where empathy may slow down the advancement process.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, and that's a concern. Who decides what genes are beneficial or not ? It's pretty clear that eradicating disease causing genes would be beneficial, but what about designing characteristics like blue eyes, blond hair, physical strength, beauty etc. Will we all eventually become clones of a master copy of the "perfect human" ?
> 
> I'm both sorry and glad that I won't be around to see it.




So long as they hands off my Scots green eyes.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> So long as they hands off my Scots green eyes.




And all your other amazing attributes as well.


----------



## Tisme (13 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And all your other amazing attributes as well.




Modesty prevents me from expressing the true grandeur of my being.


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You have missed the distinction between cooperation and empathy. Of course social groups who cooperate have a better chance of survival that ones who don't but that doesn't necessarily involve caring for the old and weak who are not going to make much contribution to the group. That is where empathy may slow down the advancement process.




Empathy in general would enhance cooperation, and create tight groups, any possible drawback would be minor compared with the benefit, so it would increase the survival of the group.

Also just because an individual might be physically weak, that doesn’t mean they don’t enhance the survival of the group in other ways.

Eg. A group that keeps and protects its elders might benefit from their accumulated knowledge, they might not be able to hunt, but they could give good advice on hunting, etc


----------



## grah33 (14 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Empathy in general would enhance cooperation, and create tight groups, any possible drawback would be minor compared with the benefit, so it would increase the survival of the group.
> 
> Also just because an individual might be physically weak, that doesn’t mean they don’t enhance the survival of the group in other ways.
> 
> Eg. A group that keeps and protects its elders might benefit from their accumulated knowledge, they might not be able to hunt, but they could give good advice on hunting, etc



The thing is, evolution can't explain where 'creature life' (another great mystery) comes from , as well as molecular life, so i'd think there'd be little point in going  in these directions (explaining how something like empathy gets kept).


----------



## grah33 (14 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No “being” decided, natural selection decides.
> 
> Dawkins said something like - Natural selection is the non random selection of randomly appearing replicators.
> 
> ...




Funny clip VC.

Dawkins is a bit of a moralist ...


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The thing is, evolution can't explain where 'creature life' (another great mystery) comes from , as well as molecular life, so i'd think there'd be little point in going  in these directions (explaining how something like empathy gets kept).




Evolution isn’t about explaining how first life came about, it’s about explaining how that life has changed from simple to complex creatures over time.

The scientific study about where first life came from is called “abiogenesis”, not to be confused with evolution.

There was a time when people couldn’t explain the origin of lighting, but that wouldn’t have meant studying its effects was pointless, nor would it mean saying “god does it” was a valid answer

Here is a bit on abiogenesis


----------



## Value Collector (14 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Funny clip VC.
> 
> Dawkins is a bit of a moralist ...




Why do you even care about morals?

Does society having “good” morals effect you?


----------



## grah33 (14 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why do you even care about morals?
> 
> Does society having “good” morals effect you?



The more I learn about the Morality Argument the more fearful I am about an atheistic world.  Millions of examples.  But without morals, a government can do whatever it wants, for one thing.


----------



## luutzu (14 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The more I learn about the Morality Argument the more fearful I am about an atheistic world.  Millions of examples.  But without morals, a government can do whatever it wants, for one thing.




It is with religion that a government can do whatever it wants: it simply say that this is what "god" wanted. This is how it was written; what was told to the PM, the King, the head honcho by that "god".

So a more moral country would not follow any religion for its policies. This include the religion of Communism, Capitalism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc. etc. 

By not putting anyone, any ideology, or any deity as beyond reason and logic, a country soon make law that's more beneficial and more just for its people.

For example... The current argument in the western capitalist society is that capitalism is good, free market is great. Why? How? Why just look at the stock market.

But what about the average working Joe whose wages hasn't gone anywhere but living expenses and previous jobs has gone up and out? Well... it's good for him and for her, eventually. Because it's the market and freedom. You don't like freedom or what?

Take Israel... It's the land God promised the Hebrews. Are you going to against God's wishes?

But Bibi and other racist warmongers... maybe stick to International Law and be happy with what the world gave you. That and stop freaking killing defenceless people on the occasional "mowing the lawn" "war" and making their live a living hell during "peace". 

But this is what God would've wanted. Why else would He told whoever who told whoever who told Moses... oh look, there are other bad actors over there, why not go tell them off and leave us to our God you racist hippy. 


You probably think I'm kidding but you should read, or watch lectures, on world history a bit more before committing to religion too heavily. 

I mean I know people who benefited greatly from their faith in this or that god, and because of such faith they have done great community work. Well, maybe they'd do it anyway because they're nice people but since they attribute it all to God's morality, I guess I shouldn't argue with it. 

ANyway, careful of religion, especially organised ones. The cult leaders aren't always nice people who lead lost sheeps back to the way of righteousness. Often they just take money and volunteered time out of them.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why do you even care about morals?
> 
> Does society having “good” morals effect you?




Of course it does. Good morals is not cheating on your partner, breaking up your marriage, possibly putting kids at risk which has to be corrected by taxpayers money.


----------



## bellenuit (14 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The more I learn about the Morality Argument the more fearful I am about an atheistic world.  Millions of examples.  But without morals, a government can do whatever it wants, for one thing.




Atheists have morals too. There is nothing to suggest that free secular societies are less moral that their religious counterparts. Most of Northern Europe are run by people with secular values and I would feel a lot less fearful about them than those that are predominantly run by religious people; US, Muslim countries, strong Catholic countries etc.

I do not include communist countries as secular, as they do not act according to secular morality but in accordance with their communist ideology.


----------



## grah33 (15 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Atheists have morals too. There is nothing to suggest that free secular societies are less moral that their religious counterparts. Most of Northern Europe are run by people with secular values and I would feel a lot less fearful about them than those that are predominantly run by religious people; US, Muslim countries, strong Catholic countries etc.
> 
> I do not include communist countries as secular, as they do not act according to secular morality but in accordance with their communist ideology.





Are u sure??? When you don't have morality then everything is open. Like a fox killing all the rabbits on an island (it's not immoral). You can see killing and conquering as being skillful. You can view Stalin's achievements in a positive way. You know what males are like, priding themselves on exploiting multiple women, and it's okay for them since there is no God, or everyone else does it.

And when you talk about e.g. Catholic countries/groups violating morality, they're acting without morality. We shouldn't be surprised, as everyone can choose to not be morally good. Some modern day examples that demonstrate that secular morality is inferior would be having an abortion, and changing marriage partners for convenience as Rumple pointed out. These things are no big deal that everyone does in today's time of secular morality. No doubt the Christian morals are better, and perfect too imo. And that's a good argument for the Christian God as being true imv, since if there is a God and an objective morality, the correct religion must have true morals. Luutzu, if you read this, plz remain calm (don't chuck a spaz).


Islam is different imo. It doesn't have the same morality as Christianity. My sense is that controlling freedom of speech (a human right in Christianity), and e.g. forcing religious conversion is seen as a good act as it preserves the religion in people (note, added: Obama Hillary doing this forcing religious institution to comply ...). With Christianity though, it's morally right to allow another person of another religion to follow the religion in their heart (or not be religious), in accordance with Jesus's mercy teachings/human dignity (and those teachings aren't an invention, just reveal what IS). And that has obviously gone away now with the Dean Smith (gay marriage ) bill. It's actually similar to Islam and communism (compelling other people). For example, the State would have a religious cake baker violate the law within his heart, so they would have to serve a customer.  It's obvious enough for me that it morally correct to not compel such people, since they would be experiencing conflict from 2 laws in competition with one another. Plus the refugees. Without God, seems that the flexibility to do whatever gets bigger. And with these kinds of violations occurring, one would expect the government to take our money more.



Although what I can say is I believe people with good morals tend to feel more 'rounded' within themselves, and people without morals or little standard tend to feel agitated and yuckier within.  And yes, secular people can practice them and feel good too.


----------



## grah33 (15 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> It is with religion that a government can do whatever it wants: it simply say that this is what "god" wanted. This is how it was written; what was told to the PM, the King, the head honcho by that "god".
> 
> So a more moral country would not follow any religion for its policies. This include the religion of Communism, Capitalism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc. etc.
> 
> ...




Well Luutzu, i think the main problem with secular morality, is that there is no morality (technically).  There is no absolute standard.  You define it as you like and do whatever you like.  Another example on top of those i gave to Bell: terminating deformed/down syndrome babies.


----------



## bellenuit (15 January 2018)

Religious inspired morality.....


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The more I learn about the Morality Argument the more fearful I am about an atheistic world.  Millions of examples.  But without morals, a government can do whatever it wants, for one thing.



For thousands of years religious leaders have done what they want, burning witches, hanging people for religious crimes etc, our morals are much better now that they aren’t religious based.

But my question was to you.

Why do you care about society having good morals?


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Of course it does. Good morals is not cheating on your partner, breaking up your marriage, possibly putting kids at risk which has to be corrected by taxpayers money.




But why do you care about any of that happening?


----------



## luutzu (15 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Well Luutzu, i think the main problem with secular morality, is that there is no morality (technically).  There is no absolute standard.  You define it as you like and do whatever you like.  Another example on top of those i gave to Bell: terminating deformed/down syndrome babies.





Secular morality, defined as non-religious based morality, do exist. Just they do not rely on a God or a Lord or an ideology to measure against. Rather, they rely on reason and logic, and put nothing but the truth [so to speak] above all men and masters.

For example. Gay marriage... why the heck can't gay people legally married each other? 

Ask a religious people who's against it and they'd tell you it's because it's unholy, God forbid it, it's against God's nature (even though God apparently created all things, he hate the gays).

Ask a secular person and if they're against gay marriage they'd just tell you it's because they're prejudiced and a bit of a prick themselves. I mean they wouldn't put it that way, but you get the idea.

So to debate the issue of gay marriage would point to the harm it would cause. Beside hurting religious people's feelings and upsetting God, are there other reasons? Does gay marriage harm anyone in society? Will the children need saving if gays were allowed to get married?

As such, secular morality is far superior to any religious based ideology. That's not to say that all things religion are bad... just religion by its nature is strict and rigid and depends on what some drunk or schizo says God told him, and we should all believe it, or else.

Further, secular morality rarely permit itself to be used by politicians and empire builders.

Take gay marriage again. If the people are pro-gay having equal rights, what reason would they have against other human being also having equal rights? None. 

Religion permit inequality among the sexes - men are better than women etc. One skin tone is superior over the other etc. etc.; It could be used to lead people to venture overseas, convert or expel the natives, take their gold and natural resources... all for God, King and country. Money too of course but that's what God would have wanted it.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> But why do you care about any of that happening?




Because it's money out of taxpayers pockets that could be better spent elsewhere. The burden on social welfare of neglected kids is enormous.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Because it's money out of taxpayers pockets that could be better spent elsewhere. The burden on social welfare of neglected kids is enormous.




Notice you didn’t mention any gods, the reasons you care about morality are real world reasons, and their effect on you in the real world.

Religious people tend to always say without god morals don’t make sense, but when asked why they want society to have good morals they tend to list real world reasons and don’t mention gods.


----------



## Tisme (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> But why do you care about any of that happening?




Because he has an inculcated Australian christian morality...same as you. You're on the inside looking out and trying look back in with a determined negative view, but keeping the good bits as some kind of innate awareness.


----------



## grah33 (15 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Religious inspired morality.....
> 
> View attachment 85690



Still not a human being though.  And not too many of these stories occur, when compared to the millions of abortions per year


----------



## grah33 (15 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Secular morality, defined as non-religious based morality, do exist. Just they do not rely on a God or a Lord or an ideology to measure against. Rather, they rely on reason and logic, and put nothing but the truth [so to speak] above all men and masters.
> 
> For example. Gay marriage... why the heck can't gay people legally married each other?
> 
> ...




You're still in the same place. We're talking about compelling someone to do something against their own 'interior law' that is within themselves. If you reflect on this enough, I hope that you would realize that this isn't morally right, even if, according to you, that person's religion is false. Christian morality accepts this, since it's true and right, but not secular morality (or Islam or communism). And secular morality is really one type of secular morality, with the good bits in it. In an atheistic world you'd expect other forms of wicked morality to form, since morals don't exist.


----------



## Junior (15 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> Because he has an inculcated Australian christian morality...same as you. You're on the inside looking out and trying look back in with a determined negative view, but keeping the good bits as some kind of innate awareness.




Have you spent much time out of Australia?  They are folks with good morals all over the world, not just in countries with Christianity in their history.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> In an atheistic world you'd expect other forms of wicked morality to form, since morals don't exist.




You say that as if wicked theistic morality hasn't and doesn't exist.

What I would prefer is for moral systems to be based on facts and rationality not the religious texts.

Richard Dawkins sums it up perfectly here.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Religious inspired morality.....
> 
> View attachment 85690



https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/191614159122576671/?autologin=true


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> You say that as if wicked theistic morality hasn't and doesn't exist.
> 
> What I would prefer is for moral systems to be based on facts and rationality not the religious texts.
> 
> Richard Dawkins sums it up perfectly here.




Summed what up exactly?

Perhaps, his ability to dodge a question, by cherry picking religious writings in pursuance of his own anti theistic agenda, and at the same time hypocritically accusing theists of that very same damnable behaviour!


----------



## bellenuit (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/191614159122576671/?autologin=true




But those are the beliefs of some atheists, which is not the same as secular morality. Secular morality is what is described in that video of Dawkins at Q&A. The beliefs of some atheists can be transgressions of secular morality just as the beliefs of some Christian are transgression of Christian morality. I regard murder as a core transgression of Christian morality, but many Christians believe that it is OK to murder, for instance, staff at abortion clinics.

The problem with secular morality is that it is not codified in one place as the  religious morality (of a particular sect) is. We know what is right and wrong, but haven't a set of written rules to follow or an imaginary deity who is going to punish us for not obeying. The closest we come to codifying secular morality is through the secular laws we have developed over time, which bans murder, slavery, inequality of women (mostly) etc. It is currently in the throes of ensuring equality for those who do not fit the straight male/female roles. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is all another attempt at defining secular morality.


----------



## Tisme (15 January 2018)

Junior said:


> Have you spent much time out of Australia?  They are folks with good morals all over the world, not just in countries with Christianity in their history.




I have indeed.  Most them have been touched by the British Empire or their political and legal systems.

Not arguing that morality, ethics and guilt are patented by Christianity, just being pragmatic enough to accept our culture  is grounded in it and our secularism pivots around it.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But those are the beliefs of some atheists, which is not the same as secular morality. Secular morality is what is described in that video of Dawkins at Q&A. The beliefs of some atheists can be transgressions of secular morality just as the beliefs of some Christian are transgression of Christian morality. I regard murder as a core transgression of Christian morality, but many Christians believe that it is OK to murder, for instance, staff at abortion clinics.
> 
> The problem with secular morality is that it is not codified in one place as the  religious morality (of a particular sect) is. We know what is right and wrong, but haven't a set of written rules to follow or an imaginary deity who is going to punish us for not obeying. The closest we come to codifying secular morality is through the secular laws we have developed over time, which bans murder, slavery, inequality of women (mostly) etc. It is currently in the throes of ensuring equality for those who do not fit the straight male/female roles. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is all another attempt at defining secular morality.




So, let me see if I understand what you are saying here!

It is okay, for anti theists (like Dawkins) to criticise theistic morality, by cherry picking historical instances of theists claiming entitlement (via belief in God) to the commission of needlessly harmful acts.
 And it is also okay, for the anti theist, to flatly refuse entertainment of any rational objections, presented by theists, in defence of theism.
Each and every theist, is expected to wear the anti theistic condemnation, of any misbehaviours, of any theist, found anywhere in human history!

However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and an atheist is guilty of similar (or perhaps even worse), it seems an entirely different code applies!

It is somehow, okay, for the anti theist to disavow the needlessly harmful actions of any professed atheist! The anti theist, unlike the theist,finds that excuses for disavowal of all atheist dictators, brutes, serial murderers, etcetera are somehow acceptable!

In summary, the anti theists', fantasy of the existence of superior "secular morality", is naught more than an exercise in logically bereft hypocrisy, of a very high order!


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Summed what up exactly?
> 
> !




That a moral code that is based on rationality and reason is better than one pulled from absolute rules in religious texts.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> That a moral code that is based on rationality and reason is better than one pulled from absolute rules in religious texts.



Well, since you failed to notice, he failed dismally on that score as well!

It is high time, that the anti theists of the world, caught up with the inconvenient fact, that morality, is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> inconvenient fact, that morality, is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint.




How so?


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> How so?



Already answered in numerous of my previous posts:


cynic said:


> I agree that Christianity cannot rightly claim to hold the monopoly over morality, on account of its presence in teachings that predated the birth of Christ.
> 
> But where did you get the idea that the Christian morality, or its earlier incarnations, was of secular origin?
> 
> How can a secular perspective, claim the existence of rightful or wrongful actions, in a material world/universe that, by merit of secularist belief, is an accidental outcome of a chaotic maelstrom of matter, and therefore devoid of any intent or purpose?






cynic said:


> My apologies if I misinterpreted your response, but please be aware that you are still misunderstanding the point that my question is raising.
> 
> (Perhaps I haven't expressed myself as clearly as I had hoped!).
> 
> How can anyone deviate from a plan, when no plan exists?






cynic said:


> I quite agree!
> But you are still missing the point!
> 
> In order for something to be truly wrong, it must surely be out of accord with a purpose, intent or design, otherwise it could not be objectively deemed to be wrong, aberrant, sinful, or in any way incorrect!
> ...





cynic said:


> You are still failing to answer the question!
> 
> What you are describing here is an evolved behaviour or behavioural trait, that cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" from  a purely secular perspective.






cynic said:


> I maintain that the existence of morality demands the presence of purpose, intent or design, else morality cannot truly be said to exist!
> If an intelligent agent creates a thing, then that thing has inherited purpose from its creator!
> Once a thing has purpose, its behaviour, can be deemed to be accordant, or discordant, via reference to its purpose!
> Without purpose intent or design, how can anyone objectively lay claim to the accordance, or discordance, of any behaviour?






cynic said:


> Rather than reiterating my reasons for disbelief in the existence of secular morality, I have attached a video, showing an excerpt from a debate, where a theist elucidates upon the key reason, underlying my stance on this topic:


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> How so?




So what do you see as some things that are legal but morally wrong ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Already answered in numerous of my previous posts:



Actually you haven’t 

How is morality incompatible with a secular viewpoint?


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So what do you see as some things that are legal but morally wrong ?




I am not sure what that has to do with my question you quoted.

I am asking cynic to explain how a secular view point is incompatible with morality.

So I am not sure why you are asking me this question, why are you asking me that question?


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Actually you haven’t
> 
> How is morality incompatible with a secular viewpoint?



On the contrary! I have already articulated that it is logically impossible for objective morality to exist in the absence of purpose. The contemporary secular viewpoint, attests to all life having originated from a chaotic event, totally devoid of intelligence and purpose.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So I am not sure why you are asking me this question, why are you asking me that question?




Because I'm interested in exactly what "secular morality" is and how it's formed.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I have already articulated that it is logically impossible for objective morality to exist in the absence of purpose.




Where did you do that?

The “purpose” doesn’t have to be a god.

The “purpose” can just be that we want to live well and enjoy our lives.

And it is totally logical and rational that for us to live well and enjoy our lives, we need society to recognize our rights and in turn we need to recognize theirs etc.

I ask you the same question I ask graph? (Which he avoided) why do you care about morality?

I bet the real practice reasons you care about morality have nothing to do with gods, but are about being able to live well while you are alive.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So what do you see as some things that are legal but morally wrong ?




Ok,

Laws and morality are two different things.

Laws are blunt instruments and are general in nature, where as morality is situational.

Religions tend to see morality as obeying absolute laws written in their texts,

Where as secular morality isn’t so much about obeying absolute unchanging laws, but rather working out what the best solution is for all those involved in any given situation.

The laws of a secular nation should be adjusted over time to get as close as possible to be good guides of what is moral, and then judges and juries etc need to do their best to look at cases in the grey areas to make situational decisions.

A religious law might be “thy shalt not kill”, but there may be situations where the best objective moral outcome is achieved by killing someone, and not killing some one might be totally immoral.

So any religious person following the absolute morality of their text, might find them selves enforcing immoral laws, when a rational secular debate of the facts might see that changing the law creates better outcomes.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Where did you do that?
> 
> The “purpose” doesn’t have to be a god.
> 
> ...



What you are talking about here is not morality!

Morality is defined as "the practice of what is right".

How can anything, that any human does to another, be deemed to be right, or not right, when the secular belief, is that, all life originated from an unintended event, and is therefore devoid of any purpose against which rightness and wrongness of behaviour, may be measured?

Objective morality cannot be defined from within the purely secular viewpoint.

As such "secular morality" cannot truly exist!


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> A religious law might be “thy shalt not kill”, but there may be situations where the best objective moral outcome is achieved by killing someone, and not killing some one might be totally immoral.




So this is all subjective, it varies from person to person as to what they believe achieves the best outcome ?

btw , laws allow killing in certain circumstances like self defence so there is an objective morality for you, although people still have to make a subjective decision as to whether the killer was actually threatened to the point that they had no choice but to kill.

My view is that "secular morality" is just a wrapper that atheists put around religious morality in order to deny that religious morality is the basis of our moral system as ingrained into Anglo Saxon society by thousands of years of Church influence.


----------



## bellenuit (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> So, let me see if I understand what you are saying here!
> 
> It is okay, for anti theists (like Dawkins) to criticise theistic morality, by cherry picking historical instances of theists claiming entitlement (via belief in God) to the commission of needlessly harmful acts.




Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.



> And it is also okay, for the anti theist, to flatly refuse entertainment of any rational objections, presented by theists, in defence of theism.




Yes, there is no compulsion on anyone to *agree* with the arguments presented by theists  in defence of theism. However, *flatly refuse* is not the same thing. That implies (to me at least) refusing to even listen to the theists' arguments. That is a closed mind IMO and I certainly do not see Dawkins as having a closed mind.



> Each and every theist, is expected to wear the anti theistic condemnation, of any misbehaviours, of any theist, found anywhere in human history!




Not at all. It is just those theists that insist their holy book is the word of God and unerring, while at the same time those holy books contain exhortations to commit morally repugnant acts. You cannot on the one hand claim that the books were written (or inspired) by God, are a moral blueprint, are unerring and represent an absolute unchanging morality, then insist large chunks of it are not relevant to society today. That is hypocrisy. Absolute morality, unchanging, but at the same time not applicable to current society simply do not go together. I am (and Dawkins is too AFAIK) quite willing to accept that many Christian theists do not regard much of the Bible (particularly OT) as a moral blue print for modern society, but then to retain credibility they need to stop using terms that the morality they get from their religion is absolute and unchanging. They cannot have it both ways.



> However, when the shoe is on the other foot, and an atheist is guilty of similar (or perhaps even worse), it seems an entirely different code applies!




We are talking about secular morality not the actions of some atheists. One can be of a religious persuasion and still subscribe to the tenets of secular morality and even find them superior to those prescribed by their own religion. As I said perviously, secular morality is really what modern society deems to be good and beneficial. There is no single source that codifies what secular morality is, apart from what encompasses many of the laws enacted in *free* secular states. We have seen that the golden rule pre-existed Christianity and that is the main driving force of what constitutes secular morality.



> It is somehow, okay, for the anti theist to disavow the needlessly harmful actions of any professed atheist! The anti theist, unlike the theist,finds that excuses for disavowal of all atheist dictators, brutes, serial murderers, etcetera are somehow acceptable!




Yes, because those actions are not in accordance with secular morality and in a free society would be punishable.



> In summary, the anti theists', fantasy of the existence of superior "secular morality", is naught more than an exercise in logically bereft hypocrisy, of a very high order!




Again your summary is based on a misunderstanding of secular morality.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So this is all subjective, it varies from person to person as to what they believe achieves the best outcome ?
> 
> btw , laws allow killing in certain circumstances like self defence so there is an objective morality for you, although people still have to make a subjective decision as to whether the killer was actually threatened to the point that they had no choice but to kill.
> 
> My view is that "secular morality" is just a wrapper that atheists put around religious morality in order to deny that religious morality is the basis of our moral system as ingrained into Anglo Saxon society by thousands of years of Church influence.




In any situation, whether the people are aware of it or not, there is an action that would be create the best outcome for those involved based on objective facts, that is objective morality.

 now opinions on what that most moral action is may vary, due to subjective reasons and the people’s knowledge of the facts, but that doesn’t take away the fact that the objective moral option still exists.

So the question is, how do find out what he most moral action is?

Do we just follow absolute religious laws? Or do we try and figure out the facts and use logic to decide the best moral outcome based on rational reasoning?

If you don’t want secular morality, which morality do you want? Which brand of religious morality do you want?


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> What you are talking about here is not morality!
> 
> Morality is defined as "the practice of what is right".
> 
> ...




Why does it matter how we got here?

The fact is we are here, and want to live enjoyable lives.

We can measure an actions rightness or wrongness based on its outcomes, we don’t need a Devine purpose.


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

Watch this video from the 1.20 mark to get a good description of objective morality



Sam Harris does a good job explaining it here also


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is there to misunderstand? There is no such thing as secular morality!

The hypocrisy of Dawkins and anti theists of his ilk, is difficult to overlook!

You have somehow managed to overlook the hypocrisy of Dawkins' cherry picking of religious scripture, shortly followed by his condemnation of same, in that Q & A segment.

In fact it seems to me, that in the anti theistic ravings of Dawkins, you have found a religion to zealously defend!


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why does it matter how we got here?
> 
> The fact is we are here, and want to live enjoyable lives.
> 
> We can measure an actions rightness or wrongness based on its outcomes, we don’t need a Devine purpose.



No! We cannot measure rightness or wrongness on outcomes alone!
We need to measure those outcomes against the intended goal!
Without purpose, their is no goal!
And that's why it does matter how we got here!


----------



## Value Collector (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> No! We cannot measure rightness or wrongness on outcomes alone!
> We need to measure those outcomes against the intended goal!
> Without purpose, their is no goal!
> And that's why it does matter how we got here!




The goal can be to maximize the wellbeing of humans and other thinking creatures.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The goal can be to maximize the wellbeing of humans and other thinking creatures.



Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?


----------



## luutzu (15 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You're still in the same place. We're talking about compelling someone to do something against their own 'interior law' that is within themselves. If you reflect on this enough, I hope that you would realize that this isn't morally right, even if, according to you, that person's religion is false. Christian morality accepts this, since it's true and right, but not secular morality (or Islam or communism). And secular morality is really one type of secular morality, with the good bits in it. In an atheistic world you'd expect other forms of wicked morality to form, since morals don't exist.




Secular morality doesn't depend on the person and what they think about their own behaviour. It's being as objective as possible on any given behaviour. Being objective in a sense of using reason and logic. 

I mean, if you ask any psycho what they think of their own rampage they'll tell you it's good, for a good cause, the other people deserve it etc. etc. Hence, you don't ask people to judge their own behaviour.

Likewise, you don't depend on a religious text to interpret its followers morality because if it's written in the book it is moral. And you can't argue with that. Can't reason with it.

And no, Islam or Communism is not secular. Commies don't pray to a dead deity, but they do pray and worship their own brand of deities, and those who disagree, or not agree strongly enough, gets it.

Religion is just a brand. At least it is to politicians and other leaders. They pretend to pray, attend Church, Mosques, Temples... whereever and whatever that is. The people see that and assume, as we all do, that the guy must be good and honest, God-fearing and what not. 

Anyway, religious people should seriously stick to their own belief and ignore other people. But they tend to think that their beliefs are Truth and Good, so why wouldn't anyone follow it. 

Then they take it too far and pizzed off those around them, make their loved ones life miserable, then asked God why people around them don't like them so much. 

Religion is a lot like Feng Shui. It starts from a somewhat sensible idea then got all magical and mythical. Ends up costing their believers time, money, lost opportunities and false sense of good fortune and happily ever after.


----------



## luutzu (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?




Are we? 

It's not written so the future can be changed, no?

There are certain religious people who refuse to believe in Climate Change science because, ready? Because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again. 

Yah. Let's put humanity on that promise.


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Are we?
> 
> It's not written so the future can be changed, no?
> 
> ...



I am still patiently waiting to see if anyone succeeds in breaking one of the longest trends in history.
I heard a rumour, that Walt Disney, intended to take a shot at the immortality title, via cryogenic suspension, but I haven't seen him in a very long time.


----------



## luutzu (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I am still patiently waiting to see if anyone succeeds in breaking one of the longest trends in history.
> I heard a rumour, that Walt Disney, intended to take a shot at the immortality title, via cryogenic suspension, but I haven't seen him in a very long time.




Maybe you don't know the secret password. 

That and just because a person is never seen doesn't mean they don't exist. Does it?


----------



## cynic (15 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Maybe you don't know the secret password.
> 
> That and just because a person is never seen doesn't mean they don't exist. Does it?



Sooo true! You know, I have heard similar things said about God!


----------



## grah33 (15 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Secular morality doesn't depend on the person and what they think about their own behavior.



Yes, and is therefore not good.  In this case, it is wrong to compel a person to go against their deeply held belief, regardless of what it is.


----------



## grah33 (15 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I ask you the same question I ask graph? (Which he avoided) why do you care about morality?
> 
> .



Since morals are a law to stop people from harming other people


----------



## luutzu (15 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Sooo true! You know, I have heard similar things said about God!




I know. But you probably haven't heard of sarcasm.


----------



## luutzu (15 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Yes, and is therefore not good.  In this case, it is wrong to compel a person to go against their deeply held belief, regardless of what it is.




How is that not good? 

To ask a criminal whether what they've done is good or bad... who does that? That's like asking a mother whether or not their child is the best in the world... heck yea! So you don't ask mothers what they think of their kid, you ask judges at beauty pageants. 

If a person's deeply held belief harm other people, the court will probably compel them to cut it out. And they'd be more serious than Hillary Clinton telling Wall St to cut it out or else don't be with her.


----------



## grah33 (15 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






It seems like you're trying to find fault with the Christina faith again, as a way of strengthening your position. If there is a God and an objective morality, then the right religion should teach true morals, and Christianity demonstrates perfect morals, so this becomes a problem. And even then, Jesus was merely revealing what IS, rather than inventing something.

On a practical level, and this is Paul's view, a person should develop wisdom to know how they should act in everything (implies objective morality), so no codifying or anything like that. I believe many great names have come along in history with this wisdom: St Patrick, Mary Mackillop, the New Testament writers, St Frances, Augustine, Cardinal Newman (who came up with the related conscience argument for God's existence), Ambrose, and Catherine of Sienna. The list is bigger, spanning 2000 years of history. These were once ordinary people , who were perfected through suffering and trials. They fully became what they were meant to be, changing the world for the better. I believe some cured the sick, others changed lands for the better, while others knew people's secrets.

Regards the Old Testament, as I explained to VC, the brutality of the Judaic Law was designed for a society that lacked morality. This is all explained in the New Testament very well, which Richard Dawkins obviously knows nothing about, or he might, but pretends he doesn't. I hope you can see that. 
“
the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
“
(Timothy)


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Regards the Old Testament, as I explained to VC, the brutality of the Judaic Law was designed for a society that lacked morality.




Most of the laws of the OT were immoral in themselves and you cannot fight immorality with immorality. You can explain it away as much as you like because you cannot come to terms with that fact, but any rational person know that the OT was advocating immoral acts.


----------



## luutzu (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> It seems like you're trying to find fault with the Christina faith again, as a way of strengthening your position. If there is a God and an objective morality, then the right religion should teach true morals, and Christianity demonstrates perfect morals, so this becomes a problem. And even then, Jesus was merely revealing what IS, rather than inventing something.
> 
> On a practical level, and this is Paul's view, a person should develop wisdom to know how they should act in everything (implies objective morality), so no codifying or anything like that. I believe many great names have come along in history with this wisdom: St Patrick, Mary Mackillop, the New Testament writers, St Frances, Augustine, Cardinal Newman (who came up with the related conscience argument for God's existence), Ambrose, and Catherine of Sienna. The list is bigger, spanning 2000 years of history. These were once ordinary people , who were perfected through suffering and trials. They fully became what they were meant to be, changing the world for the better. I believe some cured the sick, others changed lands for the better, while others knew people's secrets.
> 
> ...




Are societies today more moral than they were since history began? 

Are people, in general, more moral than they were since the time of Christ, Buddha etc.? 

Yes. Yes.

Are people and societies today more religious or more secular?

The world today is a whole lot more civilised than just a century ago. Heck, just 50 years ago. 

Chart such measures against Church or Temple attendance and you will see that religion don't make people more moral. It just make them more of a pain in the azz.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Since morals are a law to stop people from harming other people




Yes, so since it’s about people not harming people, why would we need to believe in a god?

We can figure out what is going to harm or is harming other people just by looking at the real world evidence.

You might say, with out a god telling us we have no reason to care about others, but that is BS,


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?



The fact that I am doomed to perish doesn’t mean I don’t care about my wellbeing today.

Eg, if you buy a new car, and I hit it with a sledge hammer a few times, do you say “oh well, it was heading to the scrap yard in 15 years anyway” off course you don’t, because the fact that he vehicle has a limited life doesn’t mean you don’t care about it and want to enjoy it while it’s in good order.

That fact that we are all going to die doesn’t reduce the benefit of having a moral society.


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The fact that I am doomed to perish doesn’t mean I don’t care about my wellbeing today.
> 
> Eg, if you buy a new car, and I hit it with a sledge hammer a few times, do you say “oh well, it was heading to the scrap yard in 15 years anyway” off course you don’t, because the fact that he vehicle has a limited life doesn’t mean you don’t care about it and want to enjoy it while it’s in good order.
> 
> That fact that we are all going to die doesn’t reduce the benefit of having a moral society.



You still haven't quite caught onto the problem of "secular moral" definition though, have you?
How is maintaining the wellbeing of anything, whatsoever, morally correct in an accidental universe?
How can the wellbeing of any accident, be deemed to be correct?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If you don’t want secular morality, which morality do you want? Which brand of religious morality do you want?




It's not a matter of want I want, I'm just saying that so called secular morality derived from religious morality, but atheists don't want to acknowledge that so they made up their own version.


----------



## Tisme (16 January 2018)

I have a distinct suspicion there are couple of recidivist contrary posters who compulsively plagiarise dialogue form youtube videos, then use the same videos to support their contrived argument as if to give legitimacy to the fallacies.


----------



## Tisme (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> My view is that "secular morality" is just a wrapper that atheists put around religious morality in order to deny that religious morality is the basis of our moral system as ingrained into Anglo Saxon society by thousands of years of Church influence.




Perhaps what we are witnessing from some of these posters are children from migrant parents who don't have the advantage of Anglo heritage and therefore don't appreciate how traditional Australian secularism manifested itself.

My argument would be that Austral Anglo society inherited an British antagonism to rabid religious control as witnessed by the vanguard to the uptake of protestant reform and stable rule of law, whereas Europeans had archaic ecclesiastical and canon laws to guide their morality and ethics, Asians brutality and starvation, Muslims subservience to Mullahs and Caliphs, etc.

Australia enshrined secularism, but also implicitly enshrined the Christian church (biased to the Anglican compatibility to the crown) through separation of powers.

I suspect, e,g the leader of the Greens, we are seeing 1st/2nd gens who are delighted with their freedom from religious and cultural dogma that pervaded their prior family generations and are going over the top making a mess of the home like a kid with water pistol. Multiculturalism means they just ignore the foundation rules and norms.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> I suspect, e,g the leader of the Greens, we are seeing 1st/2nd gens who are delighted with their freedom from religious and cultural dogma that pervaded their prior family generations and are going over the top making a mess of the home like a kid with water pistol. Multiculturalism means they just ignore the foundation rules and norms.




I heard the leader of the Greens bleating on about Australia Day and how it should be changed to please 2% of the population. Christmas, Easter and Anzac day will be next, whitewashing (or should I say multicultural washing) history and tradition.

I wish the Greens would concentrate on their core business, environmentalism, renewable energy and keeping the other bastards honest, otherwise they are in danger of turning themselves into a 2% fringe group rather than a 10% fringe group.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> You still haven't quite caught onto the problem of "secular moral" definition though, have you?
> How is maintaining the wellbeing of anything, whatsoever, morally correct in an accidental universe?
> How can the wellbeing of any accident, be deemed to be correct?




Because we are thinking creatures that have evolved to care about our own wellbeing and he well being of others.

The very fact that everyone has answered my question about why they care about morality has given real world reasons about protecting themselves and protecting others shows this.

What you haven’t caught onto is that following instructions from a religious text doesn’t make you moral, it makes you amoral.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not a matter of want I want, I'm just saying that so called secular morality derived from religious morality, but atheists don't want to acknowledge that so they made up their own version.



How is it derived from religious morality, when secular morality has been the driving force to reduce the immorality of the religious teachings.

Religions didn’t invent morality, they highjacked it for their own purposes.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

Let me ask he question this way.

is there any immoral act that you think can only be shown to be immoral with religion?

Eg it has no secular reasoning against it and therefore requires religion.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> How is it derived from religious morality, when secular morality has been the driving force to reduce the immorality of the religious teachings.




So what religious teachings do you consider immoral ?

(Excluding Acts of God).


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Let me ask he question this way.
> 
> is there any immoral act that you think can only be shown to be immoral with religion?
> 
> Eg it has no secular reasoning against it and therefore requires religion.




Do you consider adultery to be immoral ? Why ?


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Because we are thinking creatures that have evolved to care about our own wellbeing and he well being of others.
> 
> The very fact that everyone has answered my question about why they care about morality has given real world reasons about protecting themselves and protecting others shows this.
> 
> What you haven’t caught onto is that following instructions from a religious text doesn’t make you moral, it makes you amoral.



Firstly, I have most certainly not conflated scriptural instructions with morality! If you had taken the time to not only read, but to also understand what I have been posting, you would already know this!

Secondly, you continually fail to address the problem, namely that of objectively defining correct behaviour in an accidental existence!


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Firstly, I have most certainly not conflated scriptural instructions with morality! If you had taken the time to not only read, but to also understand what I have been posting, you would already know this!
> 
> Secondly, you continually fail to address the problem, namely that of objectively defining correct behaviour in an accidental existence!




So how do you define what is right and wrong if you say it can only be right or wrong if a god says so, but you aren't reading scriptures or instructions from any said god?

I don't buy into your whole concept of morality requiring a god, it is clear to me that morality is a concept that has been created or discovered by humans because we care about the well being of ourselves and others, but even though it was created or discovered by humans, it is not subjective, becasue our well being is derived from the physical universe eg, poison will kill you, so will fire etc these things are not subjective.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So what religious teachings do you consider immoral ?
> 
> (Excluding Acts of God).




Killing, torturing or threatening non believers is immoral. (don't you agree?)

freedom of and from religion is a secular concept. the separation of church and state  etc.


----------



## Tisme (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> How is it derived from religious morality, when secular morality has been the driving force to reduce the immorality of the religious teachings.
> 
> Religions didn’t invent morality, they highjacked it for their own purposes.




Religion enshrined certain ethics (objective).  Morals are a personal (subjective) opinion that may or may not be predicated on cherry picking ethics.

e.g. I find it morally indefensible for a member trying to bully another member by calling them a liar, but my ethics says I think he has the right to make a fool of himself


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you consider adultery to be immoral ? Why ?




I only consider adultery immoral if it involves lying or breaking a promise/contract with your partner.

If both partners are consenting to the situation I don't think it is immoral.

this goes back to what I was saying about morality being situational rather than based on absolute rules put forth by a religion.

There are guys out there that get a real kick out of watching their wife have sex with a stranger, if both the husband, the wife and the stranger are all having a good time, why would it be immoral?


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So how do you define what is right and wrong if you say it can only be right or wrong if a god says so, but you aren't reading scriptures or instructions from any said god?
> 
> I don't buy into your whole concept of morality requiring a god, it is clear to me that morality is a concept that has been created or discovered by humans because we care about the well being of ourselves and others, but even though it was created or discovered by humans, it is not subjective, becasue our well being is derived from the physical universe eg, whether poison will kill you, so will fire etc these things are not subjective.



Again you are misunderstanding what I am saying! Deities and/or scriptural writings about same, needn't be referenced in this argument.

(i)Morality, by its very definition, cannot exist in the absence of purpose, intent or design!
(ii)Hence, if the secular viewpoint is correct, there can be no morality!

Now where in the above two statements (i)-(ii), can one find reference to deities,or scriptures of same?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There are guys out there that get a real kick out of watching their wife have sex with a stranger, if both the husband, the wife and the stranger are all having a good time, why would it be immoral?




Distraction. That may be 0.001% of adultery cases, the vast majority are behind a partners back. But surely the question of morality is irrelevant anyway if there is no penalty attached to it ? Why not make adultery illegal if we consider it immoral ? Why is an atheist even considering the question of morality ?


----------



## grah33 (16 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Most of the laws of the OT were immoral in themselves and you cannot fight immorality with immorality. You can explain it away as much as you like because you cannot come to terms with that fact, but any rational person know that the OT was advocating immoral acts.



Well, if you are talking about the Law itself, than that verse I quoted (plus some others ) explain it well enough. The Law of ancient Israel which had harsh penalties was designed for a people that lacked morality. We're talking about people who killed their parents, had intercourse with animals, traded slaves. I suppose without it, in there time there would have been chaos everywhere. Side comment: with less and less sexual values , we'd expect more raping and violence to occur (it won't get better).

In any case Jesus himself brings out the new standard and overwrites all the harsh stuff in several places. e.g. now I saw to you, love your enemies..forgiveness... etc . Also, take his teaching on marriage. What did He say when the apostles thought it was too hard? He explained that what He taught was in the beginning. That Moses gave them flexibility since it was too hard for them to follow. So the morals were always there, but God does what He has to do. It does make sense.


“
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
“
(Rom)
So none of the harsh justice in the Old Testament applies in Christianity.

Side comment: Muslims actually like to bring up these issues, since for their religion to be true, they have to prove that Jesus is in harmony with Islamic principles (harsh justice) .


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

Do you think Adultery is immoral? if so why?



SirRumpole said:


> Distraction. That may be 0.001% of adultery cases, the vast majority are behind a partners back.




Then as I said I would be against it.


> But surely the question of morality is irrelevant anyway if there is no penalty attached to it ?




There is a penalty in that you may lose your current partner, access to kids etc home life destroyed, your standing with your family and peers maybe be reduced.

But as for a criminal penalty, it is probably not that serious an offence to justify jail (or stoning)





> Why not make adultery illegal if we consider it immoral ?




Because as I said it is not always immoral, and its a civil matter more than a state matter, its more a kin to contract law than criminal law.



> Why is an atheist even considering the question of morality ?




Why wouldn't I. I live In this world.

As I pointed out before, even the non atheists among us pointed out that the reason they care about morality is due to real world outcomes.

My whole argument is that morality is not depended on any gods, but was invented/discovered by humans, and is based around maximising human well being.

I am a human and want to live an enjoyable life, and to live an enjoyable life I need to live in a moral society (not religious morality, but real world secular morality based on human well being)


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> (i)Morality, by its very definition, cannot exist in the absence of purpose, intent or design!





why must it be designed?

why could it not evolve?

or if it must be designed, why can it not be designed by humans? using logic?


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> why must it be designed?
> 
> why could it not evolve?
> 
> or if it must be designed, why can it not be designed by humans? using logic?



Morality is a consequence of the existence of purpose! Morality is therefore impossible in the accidental existence to which the secularist subscribes!


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am a human and want to live an enjoyable life, and to live an enjoyable life I need to live in a moral society (not religious morality, but real world secular morality based on human well being)




That depends on your concept of morality. Wholly amoral people can live an enjoyable life by their own standards, but at least you have a concept of morality which is good but I don't think that you can ignore the fact that it has religious roots.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Morality is a consequence of the existence of purpose! Morality is therefore impossible in the accidental existence to which the secularist subscribes!




So you keep saying, but what makes you think that? where is evidence to support that claim?

What is stopping morality from being an emergent property of an intelligent species?


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That depends on your concept of morality. Wholly amoral people can live an enjoyable life by their own standards, but at least you have a concept of morality which is good but I don't think that you can ignore the fact that it has religious roots.




I think morality existed before religions, and despite religions.

If anything religions tend to corrupt morality by trying to reduce it down to absolute rules, they totally ignore that morality is situational and what is immoral in one situation can be moral in another.

-----------

I am not sure you answered my earlier questions.

1, is there any immoral act that you think can only be shown to be immoral with religion?

2, Do you think Adultery is immoral? if so why?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I think morality existed before religions, and despite religions.
> 
> If anything religions tend to corrupt morality by trying to reduce it down to absolute rules, they totally ignore that morality is situational and what is immoral in one situation can be moral in another.
> 
> ...




1. Don't know.

2. Yes if it hurts someone who means something to me.

I'm not going into an argument about secular and religious morality, all I'm saying is that religious morality is woven into our culture and can't be undone from our moral and legal codes.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not going into an argument about secular and religious morality, all I'm saying is that religious morality is woven into our culture and can't be undone from our moral and legal codes.




If you only argument is that religions have historically influenced our culture then I agree with you, of course they have, I don't doubt that.

What I do doubt is the claims that they offer the best morality, or are the only sources of morality.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Wholly amoral people can live an enjoyable life by their own standards,




The church are proof of that, most religions don't preach morality, they preach amorality, they want participants to avoid using logic to work out what is moral, but to instead follow absolute rules.

Following absolute rules doesn't make you moral, it makes you an unthinking robot only concerned with following the rules without thought as to whether the rule is justified, and thats Amoral eg neither moral non immoral, just a robot.


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So you keep saying, but what makes you think that? where is evidence to support that claim?



From the very definition of the word morality, it is evident that morality cannot be defined without reference to purpose.


> What is stopping morality from being an emergent property of an intelligent species?



In the case of the secular account for intelligent existence, the absence of a purpose for that existence, removes any possibility of objectively defining morality.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> From the very definition of the word morality, it is evident that morality cannot be defined without reference to purpose.




What definition are you using?

As I said before the reference point can simply be the well being of human and other thinking creatures, why does it need to be more than that?




> In the case of the secular account for intelligent existence, the absence of a purpose for that existence, removes any possibility of objectively defining morality.




I don't see that it does, the things that will either increase or decrease our well being are objective things, we can use these to define morality. 

Why can morality not be an emergent property/evolved trait of intelligent existence of a social species?


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

VC, I have already posted the answers to your recent questions:


cynic said:


> What you are talking about here is not morality!
> 
> Morality is defined as "the practice of what is right".
> 
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How can anything, that any human does to another, be deemed to be right, or not right, when the secular belief, is that, all life originated from an unintended event, and is therefore devoid of any purpose against which rightness and wrongness of behaviour, may be measured?/QUOTE]




It can be deemed to be right or not right based on the outcomes of the action and how they affect the well being of those involved.

If you think the well being of humans has nothing to do with morality, how do you decide what is moral and what is not?


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The Law of ancient Israel which had harsh penalties was designed for a people that lacked morality. We're talking about people who killed their parents, had intercourse with animals, traded slaves. I suppose without it, in there time there would have been chaos everywhere. Side comment: with less and less sexual values , we'd expect more raping and violence to occur (it won't get better).




I am not talking about the harsh penalties outlawed in the OT. I am talking about the God of the OT exhorting and commanding followers to ravage and murder others, many innocent, including children. To capture virgins from another tribe and rape them. Plus lots more.

This is God demanding of his believers that they carry out despicable immoral acts that even ISIS might find repugnant. So your harsh penalties for people who lacked morality is nothing but bull. Your God, the one and only God according to your theology, demanded his people to act immorally. You do not stop a people acting immorally by requiring them to act immorally. 

Your perfect and absolute morality is just a nonsense.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If you think the well being of humans has nothing to do with morality, how do you decide what is moral and what is not?




Well, we can consider a lot of things as immoral on the grounds of people's well being - pornography which leads to promiscuity, teenage pregnancy and possibly neglected children for example. Are you going to go on a crusade against the immorality of pornography because by your standards it affects the well being of other people ?

Not to mention the immorality of alcohol abuse that ruins so many lives. Going to turn teetotal ?


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It can be deemed to be right or not right based on the outcomes of the action and how they affect the well being of those involved.



No! Objective morality cannot be determined that way.

How did you determine that "the well being of those involved" was a correct outcome or goal, against which to measure correctness of behaviour, in an accidental existence?


> If you think the well being of humans has nothing to do with morality, how do you decide what is moral and what is not?



No! I do not think that.
As stated in an earlier post:


cynic said:


> One point that I believe needs to be clarified, is that I do not personally believe, survival of our species, to be the true objective morality, but rather one outcome, of the true objective morality.
> 
> I believe there is, at least one, important need, that required the creation of life, as part (if not all) of that need's remedy. It is from the existence of that underlying need, that life as (at least part of) the remedy, derives its purpose, thereby acquiring importance and value.
> 
> Without the objective morality, to which I allude, survival of our species would be rendered irrelevant, due to the absence of any meaningful purpose. Life would be needless, devoid of any useful meaning, and morality could not exist in any true sense of the word.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you going to go on a crusade against the immorality of pornography because by your standards it affects the well being of other people ?




Well it would have to be proven that pornography with consenting actors and willing viewers is negative enough to outweigh the positives people find in it before you take away peoples freedom to make it and view it.

Personal freedom is a big part of well being.

If people want to be promiscuous they have that right, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

the best way to combat teenage pregnancy is with sex education.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> How did you determine that "the well being of those involved" was a correct outcome or goal, against which to measure correctness of behaviour, in an accidental existence?
> 
> :





Can you think of anything that is immoral that doesn't have something to do with the wellbeing of humans or other thinking creatures?

how does Cynic decide what is moral and what is not?

Whether or not we were accidental is irrelevant, we are here now and that is what counts, and the only reason to have morality at all is if you do care about the well being of other people," Morality is for us by us " so to speak


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Can you think of anything that is immoral that doesn't have something to do with the wellbeing of humans or other thinking creatures?
> 
> how does Cynic decide what is moral and what is not?
> 
> Whether or not we were accidental is irrelevant, we are here now and that is what counts, and the only reason to have morality at all is if you do care about the well being of other people," Morality is for us by us " so to speak



Again, you are totally missing the point that was made. How I do, or do not determine  morally correct behaviour, has no bearing on what I am highlighting - namely, that the existence of objective morality is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint!

I know that this revelation happens to be decidedly inconvenient, particularly for those anti theists so eagerly proclaiming their philosophy to be the superior choice. But, like it or lump it, it is what it is!


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Again, you are totally missing the point that was made. How I do, or do not determine  morally correct behaviour, has no bearing on what I am highlighting - namely, that the existence of objective morality is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint!
> 
> I know that this revelation happens to be decidedly inconvenient, particularly for those anti theists so eagerly proclaiming their philosophy to be the superior choice. But, like it or lump it, it is what it is!




Every one here has agreed, including you, wellbeing is at least a major component of morality, you are just adding a god into it and saying only a god can give it purpose, because for some reason the well being of humans isn't a good enough reason in your opinion.

you keep repeating yourself saying morals can't exist without the purpose or design given by a god, I just think that is totally bunk, and there is probably no need for me to continue discussing it with you unless you can prove that 

a) this god exists
b) he is needed for morality 

I think you need to provide an example of something which is immoral, that has no secularly reasoning behind it before you can say secular morality doesn't exist, eg something that can only be shown to be immoral by non secular standards.

any way, if morals rely on a god, but no one can talk to this god and his thoughts are unknowable, what is the point?


----------



## cynic (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Every one here has agreed, including you, wellbeing is at least a major component of morality, you are just adding a god into it and saying only a god can give it purpose, because for some reason the well being of humans isn't a good enough reason in your opinion.
> 
> you keep repeating yourself saying morals can't exist without the purpose or design given by a god, I just think that is totally bunk, and there is probably no need for me to continue discussing it with you unless you can prove that
> 
> ...



Please desist from misconstruing what I have been saying on this matter.


cynic said:


> Again you are misunderstanding what I am saying! Deities and/or scriptural writings about same, needn't be referenced in this argument.
> 
> (i)Morality, by its very definition, cannot exist in the absence of purpose, intent or design!
> (ii)Hence, if the secular viewpoint is correct, there can be no morality!
> ...






cynic said:


> From the very definition of the word morality, it is evident that morality cannot be defined without reference to purpose.
> 
> In the case of the secular account for intelligent existence, the absence of a purpose for that existence, removes any possibility of objectively defining morality.




Furthermore, despite your misrepresentation of my argument, I fail to recognise any need, on my part, to do any of the things that you suggest!

"Secular morality" for reasons already stated, numerous times now, cannot logically exist.


----------



## grah33 (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Well it would have to be proven that pornography with consenting actors and willing viewers is negative enough to outweigh the positives people find in it before you take away peoples freedom to make it and view it.
> 
> Personal freedom is a big part of well being.
> 
> ...



These kinds of sexual things are also against that objective morality, imv. They represent a misuse of sexuality, since it isn't open to life (part of God's purpose for it). And they tend to go against nature. Also, I believe they take away that inner tranquility we're meant to feel within.


----------



## grah33 (16 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I am not talking about the harsh penalties outlawed in the OT. I am talking about the God of the OT exhorting and commanding followers to ravage and murder others, many innocent, including children. To capture virgins from another tribe and rape them. Plus lots more.
> 
> This is God demanding of his believers that they carry out despicable immoral acts that even ISIS might find repugnant. So your harsh penalties for people who lacked morality is nothing but bull. Your God, the one and only God according to your theology, demanded his people to act immorally. You do not stop a people acting immorally by requiring them to act immorally.
> 
> Your perfect and absolute morality is just a nonsense.




I don't recall instruction where God tells them to rape. But regards the 'genocides', technically they're not genocides. I'm not going to try to explain why God did that since I don't know everything, but they were highly evil.

If you need another take on it:



Anyway, my morality is based on Jesus's teachings.  They do seem perfect, and reveal the greatness of human dignity, in contrast to being an animal.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> These kinds of sexual things are also against that objective morality, imv. They represent a misuse of sexuality, since it isn't open to life (part of God's purpose for it). And they tend to go against nature. Also, I believe they take away that inner tranquility we're meant to feel within.



you are mistaking terms there,

the are against your absolute morality of your church, but no necessarily immoral in tregards to objective morality.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I don't recall instruction where God tells them to rape.





why else would they be instructed to kill the men and boys and non virgin women, but keep the virgin women?


----------



## grah33 (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> you are mistaking terms there,
> 
> the are against your absolute morality of your church, but no necessarily immoral in tregards to objective morality.



Yes they are (immoral) in regards to objective morality.  Objective morality is founded on God , so it's wrong.  As I explained before, whole point of sexual activity is not just pleasure but reproduction as well (must be open to life).  So it's a misuse of sexuality, and causes problems (e.g. perversion makes people enjoy intercourse less, so they do unnatural things for fun, or become addicted etc).  I'm just explaining.  And it makes sense, because if you're God, then you designed sexual activity not just for pleasure.  The culture has changed now, but don't get sucked in thinking it's any good for you.


----------



## grah33 (16 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> why else would they be instructed to kill the men and boys and non virgin women, but keep the virgin women?



u know where that verse is, so i can see?


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> u know where that verse is, so i can see?




 (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

_They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves._


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> But regards the 'genocides', technically they're not genocides. I'm not going to try to explain why God did that since I don't know everything, but they were highly evil




They were highly evil, you say?

_*Make ready to slaughter his sons* for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants._ (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

_“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  *Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.*  But do not touch anyone with the mark.  Begin your task right here at the Temple.”  So they began by killing the seventy leaders.  “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded.  “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill!  Go!”  So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)_
_
“You are my battle-ax and sword,” says the LORD.  “With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms.  With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer.  With you I will shatter *men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens.*" (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and *their wives raped by the attacking hordes*.  *For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.*(Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

This is what the Lord of  hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.  Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban.  Do not spare him, *but kill men and women, children and infants*, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)_


I could give you hundreds of more quotes from The Bible where God exhorts and commands his followers to murder and rape innocents. I am surprised you are not aware of these. Saying you follow Jesus is a cop out, because we know that the God of the OT is one and the same as Jesus according to Christianity. Your perfect morality is a farce. 

I am sure (but I do not have time to check back now) that you also claimed homosexuality is immoral (at least the practice of) because of what God has said. Yet all the quotes re homosexuality come from the OT, so it is a bit hypocritical to pick those quotes as the source of your morality but reject the notion that God is profoundly immoral based on the Bible.


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> u know where that verse is, so i can see?



Numbers 31.15-18

And Moses said unto them, have you saved all the women alive?... now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep them alive for yourselves.


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Objective morality is founded on God




Some more of your God's objective morality...

Rape:
_Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)_

Rape and Slavery
_*When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are*.  *If she does not please the man* who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)_

More Rape
_“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
_
Rape of other mens' wives and murder of innocents.
_Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  *He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.*  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”  Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  *But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.*”(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

_
This is the God upon whom your objective morality is founded. Maybe you should read the Bible rather than listen to apologists like William Craig. I can't recall who said it, but it goes like: _if you want to make someone an atheist, ask them to read the bible. _


----------



## Value Collector (16 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Yes they are (immoral) in regards to objective morality.  Objective morality is founded on God , so it's wrong.  As I explained before, whole point of sexual activity is not just pleasure but reproduction as well (must be open to life).  So it's a misuse of sexuality, and causes problems (e.g. perversion makes people enjoy intercourse less, so they do unnatural things for fun, or become addicted etc).  I'm just explaining.  And it makes sense, because if you're God, then you designed sexual activity not just for pleasure.  The culture has changed now, but don't get sucked in thinking it's any good for you.



You are describing absolute morality here, not objective morality.


----------



## bellenuit (16 January 2018)

Regarding the bible, this is an apt quote from Mark Twain and illustrates the absurdity of referring to it as a source of objective morality, not to mention perfect morality:

_The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes...The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession- and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.....There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain._


----------



## luutzu (16 January 2018)

I think the Bible just bashes back


----------



## Tisme (16 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I think the Bible just bashes back




with the counter boredom?


----------



## luutzu (16 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> with the counter boredom?




Wikipedia says otherwise.

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


----------



## luutzu (16 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> with the counter boredom?




Please explain.


----------



## grah33 (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Regarding the bible, this is an apt quote from Mark Twain and illustrates the absurdity of referring to it as a source of objective morality, not to mention perfect morality:
> 
> _The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes...The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession- and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
> Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.....There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain._



I'll take a look at some of those verses and get back. I don't know everything about the OT. Just musing though, consider the verse in the NT, “..let he who is without sin cast the first stone..”. So God is able to punish it would seem to me if He wants to, since He is without sin. He has the right to kill. This would seem immoral to you, but I think that is because your morality, as others have pointed out, is based on Christian morality (being merciful). But you also mentioned cases where innocents are punished, so I'll take a look.

And no, like other Christians I've never been phased too much by the violence in the OT since the NT is very peaceful and that is our guide. e.g. love your enemies, forgive 77 times etc. You kept quoting the OT, which isn't my guide.

I don't know the answer to everything. I'm sure it's the same with evolution.

Regards gay relationships, there are NT verses from Paul. Furthermore, Jesus went on to reveal an important virtue to mankind, the value of sexual restraint or purity, using a parable about 'looking'. From that other kinds of right sexual behavior may be derived, it seems tome. Without this virtue in society, I think we would be as our ancestors were (OT people), wild and unrestrained. We seem to be gravitating back there.

In the meantime, some inspiring words on what the Christian/Jesus morality is really about:

“

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no Law...

”

“
. 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs.… 6Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, enduresall things. 8Love never fails.

“ (ignore formatting)

aren't all these things perfect enough for you?


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

The following chapter, says pretty much all that I feel needs to be said, about the witchhunting antics, permeating the last couple of pages of postings to this thread:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:1-7&version=KJV


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The following chapter, says pretty much all that I feel needs to be said, about the witchhunting antics, permeating the last couple of pages of postings to this thread:
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:1-7&version=KJV




Nothing Christians hate more than having the Bible quoted to them.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Nothing Christians hate more than having the Bible quoted to them.



Really!
I love the fact that anti theists feel compelled to refer to scripture in pursuance of their agenda! It is the ultimate irony!

What is even more comical, is that those same anti-theists, regularly cite passages detailing brutal behaviours that are at complete odds to Christ's teachings, thereby undermining their very own argument/s against Christianity!


----------



## grah33 (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
> 
> _They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
> 
> Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves._



I wouldn't be too phased by this OT one.  It's something to do with the times, and they were executing justice to some extent as well, and they were a barbarous people.  will scoop some of those other verses soon enough.


----------



## grah33 (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Some more of your God's objective morality...
> 
> Rape:
> _Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, *women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)_
> ...




I had a look and I don't see it that way at all. There were a few examples where the context was different but I won't explain those (no time). As for the other examples u mentioned, it was again about punishing people. And there are no instructions from God to rape. Rather it happens as part of the violence. And the king David example , where his wives get raped, shall we then say that God forced Absalom against his own will to do the raping? I wouldn't interpret the verse that way. But instead , think of this “..we reap what we sow..”.

Just a thought but seems to me that in the OT God punishes immorality and accepts 'sin sacrifices ' to atone for sins, and gets involved in the current day system to best handle slaves concubines etc. However all the while intending to change it in the future. In the NT Jesus is the sin sacrifice so God doesn't need to punish anyone anymore. Immorality is dealt with, but through Jesus. Regards the innocent babies, well, I don't like it too, and it's unfortunate that they're in the middle of the road.  

As Cynic said, we can't judge God as we don't know everything, and all motivation behind it.  And the NT is what you want to focus on.

Haven't read this but it's got some stuff about rape in the Old T, if you're interested :

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Really!
> I love the fact that anti theists feel compelled to refer to scripture in pursuance of their agenda! It is the ultimate irony!




How so? And there was no compulsion, just responding to Grah's request to show those passages where God exhorted that virgins should be raped and also countering his suggestions that God only ordered the genocide of vile people.[/quote]



> What is even more comical, is that those same anti-theists, regularly cite passages detailing brutal behaviours that are at complete odds to Christ's teachings, thereby undermining their very own argument/s against Christianity!




My agenda was to show that Christianity doesn't provide a moral compass that we should follow and specifically does not indicate an objective and perfect morality.

Jesus = God. There is only one God. These were exhortations to do brutal behaviour by God. On a par with ISIS.

If Christian leaders were to be forthright and say that the OT was not inspired by God and was simply a collection of stories and myths, and that the God mentioned in the OT was not in fact the God they worship and was certainly not the God who is the father of Jesus (and also one and the same as Jesus, due to the Trinity), then they would have some credibility. But no, they trip over themselves trying to pretend that the morality of the OT is no longer applicable, which proves that their morality isn't absolute, isn't objective and isn't prefect.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But no, they [Christians] trip over themselves trying to pretend that the morality of the OT is no longer applicable, which proves that their morality isn't absolute, isn't objective and isn't prefect.




Well , maybe you should be attacking Judaism, because the OT is it's Bible, not the NT. Christianity revolves around the NT , and it doesn't mention the so called horrors of God. Jesus being a Jew was not likely to reject the OT in his day or he would have been lynched, but he made only a passing reference to it and branched off in another direction.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I wouldn't be too phased by this OT one.  It's something to do with the times, and they were executing justice to some extent as well, and they were a barbarous people.  will scoop some of those other verses soon enough.




Justice?

How can killing all the male children and raping the virgin females be Justice.

Man, you are a perfect example of how religion corrupts your view of what is moral


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well , maybe you should be attacking Judaism, because the OT is it's Bible, not the NT. Christianity revolves around the NT , and it doesn't mention the so called horrors of God. Jesus being a Jew was not likely to reject the OT in his day or he would have been lynched, but he made only a passing reference to it and branched off in another direction.




Without the OT, Christianity falls apart, they cherry pick from the OT, they use the Ten Commandments for example, the only time they distance themselves is when you quote the clearly immoral stuff


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> How so? And there was no compulsion, just responding to Grah's request to show those passages where God exhorted that virgins should be raped and also countering his suggestions that God only ordered the genocide of vile people.



No compulsion?! Do you seriously expect me to believe, that someone with the strength of your convictions, and desire to publicly declare same, could just as easily, have decided to sit back, and allow those postings to pass by unchallenged?


> My agenda was to show that Christianity doesn't provide a moral compass that we should follow and specifically does not indicate an objective and perfect morality.
> 
> Jesus = God. There is only one God. These were exhortations to do brutal behaviour by God. On a par with ISIS.
> 
> If Christian leaders were to be forthright and say that the OT was not inspired by God and was simply a collection of stories and myths, and that the God mentioned in the OT was not in fact the God they worship and was certainly not the God who is the father of Jesus (and also one and the same as Jesus, due to the Trinity), then they would have some credibility. But no, they trip over themselves trying to pretend that the morality of the OT is no longer applicable, which proves that their morality isn't absolute, isn't objective and isn't prefect.



Firstly, given that neither you, nor I, can truly claim to know what "absolute morality" is, how did you determine, that such a concept, could somehow be discerned from scriptural writings in the first place?

Secondly, how does your argument detract from the value of Christ's teachings?

Thirdly, why are you so determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater?


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well , maybe you should be attacking Judaism, because the OT is it's Bible, not the NT. Christianity revolves around the NT , and it doesn't mention the so called horrors of God. Jesus being a Jew was not likely to reject the OT in his day or he would have been lynched, but he made only a passing reference to it and branched off in another direction.




He got crucified. And if we follow the Mel Gibson version of it, the Jews did it.

Claiming to be the Son of God did ya. Telling the bankers not to make money. Can't have that. Better be armed when you claimed to be a prophet.


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> No compulsion?! Do you seriously expect me to believe, that someone with the strength of your convictions, and desire to publicly declare same, could just as easily, have decided to sit back, and allow those postings to pass by unchallenged?




I have done so in respect of many of your postings? Not a problem for me.



> Firstly, given that neither you, nor I, can truly claim to know what "absolute morality" is, how did you determine, that such a concept, could somehow be discerned from scriptural writings in the first place?




It is the Christians (not all) that make that claim. I just show that it is nonsense.



> Secondly, how does your argument detract from the value of Christ's teachings?




Only to the extent Christ is God and it was God speaking in the OT. It is just as relevant as pointing out that the morality shown and commanded by Mohammad pre Medina is almost entirely inconsistent of the same post Medina. The problem with Islam is that the good stuff was pre Medina. And Islam has the same problem as Christianity. They try to play down the post Medina teachings, instead of rejecting and condemning them outright.



> Thirdly, why are you so determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater?




I threw the bathwater out because it is so polluted. It is the Christians that want to keep the bathwater but pretend to everyone that it isn't dirty and foul. I didn't throw out Christ but even if he existed his teachings are just regurgitations of the good secular morality of that time. The golden rule in its various forms preceded Christ by up to 2,000 years, just as the history of Christ is just a regurgitation of deity myths that were common in the preceding millennia (virgin birth, trinity etc.)


----------



## grah33 (17 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Justice?
> 
> How can killing all the male children and raping the virgin females be Justice.
> 
> Man, you are a perfect example of how religion corrupts your view of what is moral






I don't believe you really mean that. You and Bell subscribe to secular morality, so think it's ok to terminate unborn innocent children. So why would it be a big issue for you if , in the OT, God destroyed races that were highly immoral (not innocent), that made the planet a worse place? Think of UN population culling plans, which is worse.

Suppose there was some other justifiable reason as to also taking the lives of the innocent children, alongside the highly wicked. Could there be a good reason that we don't know about at present?  You seem to out-rule this possibility.

Most Christian people don't even care since they just care about the NT. You seem way too concerned about the OT, and needing to understand God's mind perfectly.

And regards rape, there were no scriptures where God told them to rape, so you shouldn't make this claim. None mentioned were worthy to consider. In fact, if you browse that link, the OT condemns raping.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I don't believe you really mean that. You and Bell subscribe to secular morality, so think it's ok to terminate unborn innocent children. So why would it be a big issue for you if , in the OT, God destroyed races that were highly immoral (not innocent), that made the planet a worse place? Think of UN population culling plans, which is worse.
> 
> .




It's laughable the lengths you go to justify the god characters immorality.

Really? you can't see a difference between murdering or raping an actual child, and aborting a zygote.



> Suppose there was some other justifiable reason as to also taking the lives of the innocent children, alongside the highly wicked. Could there be a good reason that we don't know about at present?  You seem to out-rule this possibility.




How do you know the people are wicked, there could have just believed in a different god, and Moses wanted an excuse to take their land and rape their daughters.




> And regards rape, there were no scriptures where God told them to rape, so you shouldn't make this claim.




Oh, ok so when he commanded to kill the boys but keep the virgin girls for themselves he didn't have raping them in mind, he just wanted them to take the girls away and play board games with them????


*Is there anything your god could do the you would think is immoral? or is any action he does regardless of the harm it cause ok, because he is god??? *


----------



## grah33 (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
> 
> _They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
> 
> Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves._




Secular morality allows for abortions (innocent children) and population culling ideas. So you shouldn't be too phased by God destroying highly immoral races in the OT, in order to make the planet better off (as some of those verses explain). You seem to genuinely think God's actions were evil, even by your own standard of secular morality.

Secondly, regarding the innocent people destroyed alongside the highly vile, I think it's reasonable to be entirely open to the possibility that there was some acceptable reason for also taking their lives. With evolution, you don't know everything, but you know enough to take it on board.

Also, the view in the NT scriptures is that God wanted to send Christ earlier but was waiting for the right time to change the existing morality, among other things. You seem to think that this is an impossibility. That it couldn't have been part of God's plan to act like this.  Again, I don't think many people will agree with you on this.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I have done so in respect of many of your postings? Not a problem for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet again, you exploit departures from Christ's teachings, to justify your condemnation of Christianity.

Also, in reference to your argument about the preexistence of the golden rule etc., if a person has chosen to believe in something, that happens to be true, why would the source, from whence that truth was obtained, matter?


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Yet again, you exploit departures from Christ's teachings, to justify your condemnation of Christianity.
> 
> Also, in reference to your argument about the preexistence of the golden rule etc., if a person has chosen to believe in something, that happens to be true, why would the source, from whence that truth was obtained, matter?




Kerry Packer's Golden Rule: Those with the gold get to make the rule. 

True story.


----------



## grah33 (17 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> 1)))How do you know the people are wicked, there could have just believed in a different god, and Moses wanted an excuse to take their land and rape their daughters.
> 
> 
> 2)))Oh, ok so when he commanded to kill the boys but keep the virgin girls for themselves he didn't have raping them in mind, he just wanted them to take the girls away and play board games with them????




1))
God killing the wicked then isn't a problem for you, it isn't immoral, so you question the verse. We've made progress. You don't think killing the highly immoral (detrimental to the planet) races makes Him immoral.

Regards rape in the Bible, check out that link. It offers an explanation. God told them to marry those virgins. Also, God was acting with the times, planning to bring a better morality in the future (NT view). Entirely a possibility imv, and accepted by many people.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> 1))
> God killing the wicked then isn't a problem for you, it isn't immoral, so you question the verse. We've made progress. You don't think killing the highly immoral (detrimental to the planet) races makes Him immoral.
> 
> Regards rape in the Bible, check out that link. It offers an explanation. God told them to marry those virgins. Also, God was acting with the times, planning to bring a better morality in the future (NT view). Entirely a possibility imv, and accepted by many people.




I asked you this?


*Is there anything your god could do that you would think is immoral? or is any action he does regardless of the harm it causes ok, because he is god???*
*

*
To be honest dude, you sound like one of the North Korean puppets praising the dear leader, anything he does is amazing and perfectly moral.

You are not a moral person, you are amoral, you exercise zero brain power to try and work out what is moral, you just accept what ever your dear leader says, even justifying killing children, it’s shocking.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Kerry Packer's Golden Rule: Those with the gold get to make the rule.
> 
> True story.



That rule didn't work out too well for the creators of the golden calf!


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Also, the view in the NT scriptures is that God wanted to send Christ earlier but was waiting for the right time to change the existing morality, among other things. You seem to think that this is an impossibility. That it couldn't have been part of God's plan to act like this.  Again, I don't think many people will agree with you on this.




Hadn’t god already wiped out earths population once to fix morality issues when he flooded the earth and only saved Noah and co??

Your god seems to mess up his plans a lot.

Secondly, why wouldn’t god just wipe out these “wicked people” himself, why send Moses to do it, 

It always seems all powerful gods need humans to carry out the actions for some reason.

If these events actually happened, I think Moses and his gang just wanted to take land and rape little girls.

And the fact you justify the killing of kids is disgusting.


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Yet again, you exploit departures from Christ's teachings, to justify your condemnation of Christianity.




So you accept that God exhorted and commanded acts that were not in accordance with the morality his son was later going to preach to the world? That’s my very point. The morality of Christianity is not absolute, objective and is far from perfect. 



> Also, in reference to your argument about the preexistence of the golden rule etc., if a person has chosen to believe in something, that happens to be true, why would the source, from whence that truth was obtained, matter?




Only if claims are made that the morality in question could only be religiously inspired and specifically, in this case, could only have come from Christianity. This is what VC and I have been arguing. We do not need a God to be moral.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> So you accept that God exhorted and commanded acts that were not in accordance with the morality his son was later going to preach to the world? That’s my very point. The morality of Christianity is not absolute, objective and is far from perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if claims are made that the morality in question could only be religiously inspired and specifically, in this case, could only have come from Christianity. This is what VC and I have been arguing. We do not need a God to be moral.



If a manufacturer of a wonder drug, issued its products in bottles of pills, labelled with clear warnings of dangers from overdosing, accompanied by clear instructions that exactly one pill is to be taken every six hours, would one then be justified in blaming that manufacturer, when some people suffered ill health, after mistakenly taking six pills every hour?

Would it now be fair to declare the drug toxic ,irrespective of the potentially beneficial results, that one may derive from correct usage?

Is the manufacturer to be perpetually held to blame for the misunderstandings of its patrons?

Can you see how strongly this analogy relates to the key anti theistic arguments?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> This is what VC and I have been arguing. We do not need a God to be moral.




No you don't, but morality seems to be a moveable feast for a lot of people.

So what do consider to be immoral  that is not illegal ? Sex shops ? Excessive alcohol consumption inducing road carnage ? Stranding refugees in camps with no hope of a better life ? Letting kids sleep on the street instead of giving them good homes ? Nuclear weapons ? Corrupt bank lending ?

It's all very well to profess morality and then turn blind eye to all sorts of practices that many consider would consider immoral. In fact you need to define what your morality is and then look at the world around you and make judgements on other people's actions and your own that you consider immoral, otherwise you are just pi$$ing in the wind.

Morality means nothing without judgements and action, and I don't think I'm any better than anyone else in that regard either.


----------



## luutzu (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> That rule didn't work out too well for the creators of the golden calf!




Can't win them all man.


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> If a manufacturer of a wonder drug, issued its products in bottles of pills, labelled with clear warnings of dangers from overdosing, accompanied by clear instructions that exactly one pill is to be taken every six hours, would one then be justified in blaming that manufacturer, when some people suffered ill health, after mistakenly taking six pills every hour?
> 
> Would it now be fair to declare the drug toxic ,irrespective of the potentially beneficial results, that one may derive from correct usage?
> 
> ...




Really poor analogy. We are talking about God demanding the killing of innocents including infants. 

And why are you defending such actions (also Grah)? Is it not clear to you that those actions are no better than what ISIS would do? So it is all OK so long as you can invoke some Deity as an excuse. Again exactly what ISIS does to justify its barbaric acts. The morality you regard as objective and Grah regards as perfect, is deeply flawed. And I can judge it because I have a brain and can see what the consequences of such actions are and would be.

And of course secular morality isn’t perfect and no one claims it to be. But it is arrived at by people trying to judge what actions are good and right based on their experiences. Any one person can have a deeply flawed moral compass, but collectively, when arrived at freely, they tend to get it generally right.  But it takes religion for people to collectively decide that abhorrent actions are ok. Steven Weinberg has a quote that brilliantly encapsulates that fact, a quote which you are aware of no doubt.


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> but morality seems to be a moveable feast for a lot of people.




Yes, for the religious it is,

As you have just witnessed gods perfect morality can ban killing in one breath then in the next send his boys to go wipe out a rival tribe and rape their daughters.


As for your morality question, as I said before, it’s situational, laws are blunt instruments to try and regulate behavior, you still need a good moral frame work to know when to follow them and when to break them.

No system off laws will ever be able to represent perfect morality, so yes it is possible to act immorally while not breaking any laws.

As warren Buffett says, you shouldn’t choose your actions based on what is legal, but whether you would be happy for a front page news article to appear written about it by a smart but unfriendly news reporter, for your friends and family to read.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No system off laws will ever be able to represent perfect morality, so yes it is possible to act immorally while not breaking any laws.




You still haven't defined your own morality. What actions of others do you consider immoral ?



> As for your morality question, as I said before, it’s situational, laws are blunt instruments to try and regulate behavior, you still need a good moral frame work to know when to follow them and when to break them.




As I said, a moveable feast.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Really poor analogy. We are talking about God demanding the killing of innocents including infants.
> 
> And why are you defending such actions (also Grah)? Is it not clear to you that those actions are no better than what ISIS would do? So it is all OK so long as you can invoke some Deity as an excuse. Again exactly what ISIS does to justify its barbaric acts. The morality you regard as objective and Grah regards as perfect, is deeply flawed. And I can judge it because I have a brain and can see what the consequences of such actions are and would be.
> 
> And of course secular morality isn’t perfect and no one claims it to be. But it is arrived at by people trying to judge what actions are good and right based on their experiences. Any one person can have a deeply flawed moral compass, but collectively, when arrived at freely, they tend to get it generally right.  But it takes religion for people to collectively decide that abhorrent actions are ok. Steven Weinberg has a quote that brilliantly encapsulates that fact, a quote which you are aware of no doubt.



The analogy is not nearly so poor as you might choose to believe.

You just cannot see it can you?

You are very much a part of a competing religion!

On the subject of human atrocities, there happens to be a very specific religion, that has, regretfully, been blindly practised, individually, and at other times, collectively, by many self deluded members of the human populace.

The practice of the religion to which I allude, is solely responsible for the vast majority of the atrocities that have been repeatedly (and mistakenly)  attributed to other religious philosophies.

Closer examination of the reasoning and justifications, given by the initiators of the many atrocities, typically attributed to one or more religions, reveals that the true culprit is a single specific religion.

The aptly  named "HolierThanThouism" religion, is the common denominator in the vast majority of humanly perpetrated atrocities.

So if you sincerely believe that assailing religious philosophy, is justifiable by reason of altruism, then the aforementioned religion, is the only one truly deserving of such assault!

So why are anti theists picking on Christianity and Islam, when there is clearly a much more heinous and insidious culprit, dangerously close at hand?


----------



## Value Collector (17 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> You still haven't defined your own morality.
> 
> 
> .




Not sure I could define it in a forum post. But basically its as I have described, I use the well being of humans and thinking creatures as the foundation, make decisions depending on the situations present.

But once you decide the premises of what is good for well being eg, freedom is preferable to being unfree, health is preferable to being unhealthy, life is preferable to death, being pain free is preferable to pain etc etc you can form decisions on what the correct moral action would be.

But it doesn’t lend it’s self to absolute rules, because there are to many factors.


> What actions of others do you consider immoral ?




Killing someone for not believe it in your god?

Perhaps you might get a better idea of how I work out moral questions by you putting up a scenario and I will tell you how I would work through it.



> As I said, a moveable feast




How is it movable? As I said morality is objective it’s not relative, so it’s not movable.

In any situation there would be an action that is the most moral action for all those involved.

But just because you can’t pin it down to absolute laws doesn’t mean it’s movable, it’s just means there is to many moving parts.

Eg thy shalt not kill, is an absolute law, but because it is absolute it means it can’t be moral in all situations, because in some situations the most moral thing to do is to kill some one, eg a mercy killing of a terminal cancer patient that wants to die


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Perhaps you might get a better idea of how I work out moral questions by you putting up a scenario and I will tell you how I would work through it.




I did give a few examples before, but how about

- use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima

- allowing people to sleep on the streets instead of providing affordable housing

- dodgy bank lending practices that take people's entire savings or giving loans that people can never afford

- keeping refugees imprisoned without change of rehabilitation


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The analogy is not nearly so poor as you might choose to believe.
> 
> You just cannot see it can you?
> 
> ...




Presumably you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot and more. Almost all free thinking secularists, have condemned them right from the beginning. They were pursuing a communist agenda and were just as ruthless against secularists as against religious people. Their dogma was the communist manifesto not secular morality as it had evolved to that point.

Atheism, as you should know by now, makes no statement other than they do not accept any proof that has been provided to date that there is a God (although willing to change their view should evidence to the contrary be forthcoming). Some atheists go farther and say there is no God. However, that's it, nothing more, even if you erroneously want to ascribe other beliefs to it.  What views atheists have on other topics, including morality, is of no consequence, as it is individual to each atheist and inconsequential to the position that they do not accept that the existence of a God has been proven.

I have no problem condemning the atrocities of communist dictators, whether they be atheists or not. Their actions were and are repugnant and are absolutely immoral according to my moral values.

It astounds me that you should still refer to atheism as a religion as if it had tenets beyond that of a statement on God's existence. It seems that having now established that you are quite willing to absolve your religions of morally repugnant acts, you think by bring up the old atheism bogey you can turn the tables. Nope, that doesn't work. No problem from my end condemning morally repugnant acts, no matter who does them. If Stalin did not accept the existence of God for the same reasons as I do not accept God's existence, that doesn't in any way lead me to try and defend his actions. 

Conflating secular morality with atheism shows me that you have lost the argument. If you think Stalin was trying to follow the secular morality that had been  developed and espoused by say the Founding Fathers of the US (many who were religious but opted for a secular system of government based on secular principles) or by great thinkers like Bertrand Russell, then that is quite preposterous.

Religion is like the various channels on a TV. Atheism is simply the off button. It is not another channel.


----------



## cynic (17 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Presumably you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot and more. Almost all free thinking secularists, have condemned them right from the beginning. They were pursuing a communist agenda and were just as ruthless against secularists as against religious people. Their dogma was the communist manifesto not secular morality as it had evolved to that point.
> 
> Atheism, as you should know by now, makes no statement other than they do not accept any proof that has been provided to date that there is a God (although willing to change their view should evidence to the contrary be forthcoming). Some atheists go farther and say there is no God. However, that's it, nothing more, even if you erroneously want to ascribe other beliefs to it.  What views atheists have on other topics, including morality, is of no consequence, as it is individual to each atheist and inconsequential to the position that they do not accept that the existence of a God has been proven.
> 
> ...



No! You have almost completely misunderstood my post, and are arguing points that were never raised.

My argument against the existence of "secular morality" is not based upon my theistic views, it is derived from the observation, that by its very definition alone, morality simply cannot exist in an accidental or unintended universe!

My reason for mentioning and condemning the prevalent practice of the "HolierThanThouism" religion, was my effort to alert yourself, and those of your ilk, to the reason I believe that the anti theist's enmity for Christianity, Islam, and theism generally, is misdirected.

I have witnessed the all too prevalent, practice, of "HolierThanThouism",  by numerous people, including some Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, "agnostic atheists",anti theists, socialists, capitalists, communists, scientists, humanists, naturalists and "none of the above"ians, just to mention a few!

And its practice, is almost certainly the common denominator, in almost every, human dictated, atrocity, including those that "HolierThanThouists", gleefully cite when condemning somebody else's religion!

I agree that a position of doubt, or even conviction, in the nonexistence of deities, does not make atheism a religion. However, many atheists, by their own choices and behaviours, have made atheism their religion! Do you understand the distinction I am making here, (it strikes to the heart of the true definition of religion)?

To use the television off button is not a channel analogy:
Having the button in the "Off" position does not make one an "OffButtonist", however, obsessing about the fact that the button is being left in the "Off" position, does make one a member of the "OffButtonist" religion!


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2018)

cynic said:


> No! You have almost completely misunderstood my post, and are arguing points that were never raised.
> 
> My argument against the existence of "secular morality" is not based upon my theistic views, it is derived from the observation, that by its very definition alone, morality simply cannot exist in an accidental or unintended universe!




You have used that argument before and my view on it differs from VC.

I hold the view that morality is a human construct and has evolved in parallel with our evolution as a species. Thus it can exist in an accidental universe. As I said previously. I do not hold morality as something objective, independent of the human (and probably later primate) species.

Morality to me is subjective and will be different from that of others, as it is determined by everything that has gone into making me what I am today, which includes culture, survival needs, education etc. People in the same socio-economic and cultural circumstances will tend to have a similar set of moral values. However, though recognising that there are cultures (used as an all inclusive word here) that are so vastly different to mine that they will have moral values very different to mine does not mean I believe in moral relativism (that we should not criticise anything we view as morally reprehensible in other cultures). I believe that as we advance from subsistence living we are able to extend our sense of empathy to others in our species beyond our immediate family and tribe to other humans and to other species.  Science in particular and education in general enhances our morality by also adding respect for the planet we live on.

There is a convergence of morality across nations and cultures today as many countries have risen above subsistence living, have high standards of education and cross pollination of ideas due to our communication advances. The difference between what is regarded as moral by someone living in China is not that different to that from someone in the US (though there may be huge political differences). However, this convergence, IMO, is not representative of some objective morality being discovered slowly. It is just a reflection of the fact that most have now reached a similar level in their evolutionary progression.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that should intelligent machines take over and our species becomes extinct, that the morality that might likely develop among intelligent machines, if it does develop, would be vastly different to ours. Pain, which is a huge determinant in our sense of empathy and hence morality, might be of zero significance in an intelligent machine world. Should they develop morality, having a completely different evolutionary path to ours (not based on random mutations and natural selection), it is very likely that their morality would not have any resemblance to ours. That is why I see human morality as a human construct and not objective in a universal sense.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I hold the view that morality is a human construct and has evolved in parallel with our evolution as a species. Thus it can exist in an accidental universe. As I said previously. I do not hold morality as something objective, independent of the human (and probably later primate) species.
> 
> Morality to me is subjective and will be different from that of others, as it is determined by everything that has gone into making me what I am




I agree morality is an emergent property of our evolution.

But where I say it is objective rather than subjective is where it relates to the facts of the universe.

Eg once we decide it is about the well being of humans, then it becomes objective, because the facts about what will increase or decrease that well being are subject.

But again this is not a claim that absolute rules can be made, it’s just recognizing that the affect of pouring acid on some ones face against their will is not subjective, the results will be objectively immoral, it’s as objective as the laws of physics


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> -1- use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima
> 
> -2- allowing people to sleep on the streets instead of providing affordable housing
> 
> ...




1- I don’t have enough information, it may have been moral from a self Defence position, but I could be wrong since my decision doesn’t include all the facts

2- from a personal stand point, I have no moral obligation to provide housing to anyone except people I have entered into a contract with, 

3- i would need more information, but if it involved deception it’s probably immoral.

4- keeping them detained for longer than a reasonable amount of time to process them would be immoral, they should always have the right to leave processing and return to their homeland, it should be their choice to stay and continue processing or not.


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I agree morality is an emergent property of our evolution.
> 
> But where I say it is objective rather than subjective is where it relates to the facts of the universe.



Surely an "emergent property" by its very definition, would have to be subjective.


> Eg once we decide it is about the well being of humans, then it becomes objective, because the facts about what will increase or decrease that well being are subject.



So all it takes is a simple decision to transmute the subjective into objective?! Isn't the decision making process itself subjective? And then by deciding that it is about a specific thing, does that not render it dependent upon (i.e. subject to) that particular thing?


> But again this is not a claim that absolute rules can be made, it’s just recognizing that the affect of pouring acid on some ones face against their will is not subjective, the results will be objectively immoral, it’s as objective as the laws of physics



You do seem to like plagiarising other people's work, don't you?

As it happens, the person uttering these words, thinking himself clever, happens to have unwittingly contradicted himself!

Congratulations on your assumption of a fellow atheists' mistake!


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> You have used that argument before and my view on it differs from VC.
> 
> I hold the view that morality is a human construct and has evolved in parallel with our evolution as a species. Thus it can exist in an accidental universe. As I said previously. I do not hold morality as something objective, independent of the human (and probably later primate) species.
> 
> ...



Surely this international, intercultural "convergence of morality", that you mention, is in truth, just a convergence of agreement about desirable and undesirable behaviours, and as such, is at best, an expression of those cultures/nations perception of morally correct behaviour, as opposed to morality itself?


----------



## bellenuit (18 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Surely this international, intercultural "convergence of morality", that you mention, is in truth, just a convergence of agreement about desirable and undesirable behaviours, and as such, is at best, an expression of those cultures/nations perception of morally correct behaviour, as opposed to morality itself?




That is what morality is. It is subjective perceptions of what is the correct thing to do and primarily based on the golden rule. The "others" in the golden rule has expanded from family to tribe to one's nation to everybody and to also include animals to a varying degree. There is only "we" to judge what is right. Suggestions of a theistic inspired objective morality is just a belief whose veracity is completely dependent on the existence of a deity of sorts, something for which many find evidence lacking.


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> That is what morality is. It is subjective perceptions of what is the correct thing to do and primarily based on the golden rule. The "others" in the golden rule has expanded from family to tribe to one's nation to everybody and to also include animals to a varying degree. There is only "we" to judge what is right. Suggestions of a theistic inspired objective morality is just a belief whose veracity is completely dependent on the existence of a deity of sorts, something for which many find evidence lacking.



Well I can see that on this matter, we are clearly not on the same page of the dictionary.

So I think I will simply have to leave you with your belief in your subjectively perceived morality concept.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> 1- I don’t have enough information, it may have been moral from a self Defence position, but I could be wrong since my decision doesn’t include all the facts
> 
> 2- from a personal stand point, I have no moral obligation to provide housing to anyone except people I have entered into a contract with,
> 
> ...




1. You were in the Army, doesn't your code say you should not kill civilians ? They are non combatants and are not in a position to threaten troops. Again this principle seems to be moveable to enable you to mollify your own conscience and convince you that any horror is justifiable.  Any other country that murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians would be bought to account, but not it seems when that country are the winners.

2. You are part of a society that is supposed to care for people (remember empathy ?), run by a government that you elect funded by taxes that you pay, but still you find it convenient to wipe your hands of any responsibility and go on your way. Why not write to your government urging that they provide more social housing and vote for the other side the government doesn't take action ? I know Christians who do such things and it seems to me that they have a better sense of right and wrong than you and I who are thinking of our own hip pockets. 

It seems to me therefore that your morality is one of convenience in order to evade responsibility and provide a convenient escape in times where your conscience (the true morality imo) might tell you that something is wrong. Maybe I prefer some hard and fast rules that draw a line over which one should not step in preference to a mish mash of excuses and avoidance.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> 1. You were in the Army, doesn't your code say you should not kill civilians ? They are non combatants and are not in a position to threaten troops. Again this principle seems to be moveable to enable you to mollify your own conscience and convince you that any horror is justifiable.  Any other country that murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians would be bought to account, but not it seems when that country are the winners.
> 
> .




the Geneva convention signed after world war 2 brought in heaps of rules that didn't exist prior. I am not sure what the rules were before that, but that is irrelevant to morality, because morality is not about laws.

But to me a life is a life a civilians life isn't worth more than a soldiers, the Australian and American and even most Japanese soldiers were innocent and if dropping the 2 nuclear weapons ended the war earlier and reduced the total number of lives lost, especially lives on our side, there is an argument for it in my opinion, there was already a devastating bombing campaign going on killing civilians every day, the nukes ended that.



> 2. You are part of a society that is supposed to care for people (remember empathy ?), run by a government that you elect funded by taxes that you pay, but still you find it convenient to wipe your hands of any responsibility and go on your way. Why not write to your government urging that they provide more social housing and vote for the other side the government doesn't take action ? I know Christians who do such things and it seems to me that they have a better sense of right and wrong than you and I who are thinking of our own hip pockets.




I didn't say people shouldn't help if they want to, I just said people have no obligation eg they shouldn't be forced to, from a personal standpoint. eg giving blood helps people, but it would be morally wrong to force people to give blood. 



> Maybe I prefer some hard and fast rules that draw a line over which one should not step in preference to a mish mash of excuses and avoidance




Lots of people prefer absolute rules, but in most cases these don't lead to a moral system, they simplify it tomuch.

eg, you might like a rule that says "thy shalt not kill" but as I pointed out, following that rule or enforcing that rule can end up leading you to do immoral things.

There is a reason why the Australian law has pages and pages legal documents about what types of killings are crimes, degrees of murder, etc etc. and then even then murder trials drag out.  

If your mother or partner were dying of cancer, and couldn't drink was in severe pain and was due to die in a few days, but was begging just to be let go, would you get comfort with the absolute rule "thy shalt not kill" just because you didn't have to think and it made your decision for you, or would you prefer to make your decision based on the situation and the logical moral guidelines I laid out above.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I didn't say people shouldn't help if they want to, I just said people have no obligation eg they shouldn't be forced to,




It's not about other people's morals, it's about yours and you have made it pretty clear that you don't care if people are living on the streets, it's not your problem. Some morality.



> But to me a life is a life a civilians life isn't worth more than a soldiers, the Australian and American and even most Japanese soldiers were innocent and if dropping the 2 nuclear weapons ended the war earlier and reduced the total number of lives lost, especially lives on our side, there is an argument for it in my opinion, there was already a devastating bombing campaign going on killing civilians every day, the nukes ended that.




How can you equate a civilians life against two soldiers ? You have no way of knowing if this comparison is even valid and besides civilians were not the people doing the killing, but again that doesn't matter to you. 

Killing innocent people is just a means to an end. If that is secular morality, then it's screwed.


----------



## grah33 (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Presumably you are referring to Stalin, Pol Pot and more. Almost all free thinking secularists, have condemned them right from the beginning. They were pursuing a communist agenda and were just as ruthless against secularists as against religious people. Their dogma was the communist manifesto not secular morality as it had evolved to that point.
> 
> Atheism, as you should know by now, makes no statement other than they do not accept any proof that has been provided to date that there is a God (although willing to change their view should evidence to the contrary be forthcoming). Some atheists go farther and say there is no God. However, that's it, nothing more, even if you erroneously want to ascribe other beliefs to it.  What views atheists have on other topics, including morality, is of no consequence, as it is individual to each atheist and inconsequential to the position that they do not accept that the existence of a God has been proven.
> 
> ...




Personally I think you're a little too hung up on the innocent lives God takes away in the OT (alongside the vile). Followers of the NT tend not to make a big deal out of that.

I believe that the morality revealed in the NT is for the human race, and that it fits in nicely with the Morality Argument, and our conscience.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> it's about yours and you have made it pretty clear that you don't care if people are living on the streets, it's not your problem. Some morality.




Where did I say I didn't care if people lived on the streets, I have said many times I like social safety nets.

you don't get nuance do you?

I was pointing out that on a personal level a person shouldn't be forced to help, because that is a breach of their personal freedoms.





> How can you equate a civilians life against two soldiers ?




I think a soldiers life and a civilian life are of equal value, I don't think a 19 year old life suddenly becomes expendable because he put on a uniform to defend his country whether the uniform was Australian, American or Japanese.



> besides civilians were not the people doing the killing, but again that doesn't matter to you.




Did you know that on average 22,000 civilians died per day as a result of ww2? thats about 55,000,000 civilians during the whole war, only 150,000 died in Hiroshima and 75,000 in Nagasaki nuclear attacks. So yes I think ending the war earlier might have been moral.

In the whole War, about 5 civilians died for every 1 soldier. 


Japanese Civilians were already being killed by the daily carpet bombing and nightly fire bombing campaigns, As I said if the nukes ended the killing early the may have ben justified.



> Killing innocent people is just a means to an end. If that is secular morality, then it's screwed.




innocent people were already dying, and inline to die.

I just finished reading a book about the Australian 2/6 commandos fighting the Japs in WW2, that one unit took 41 casualties in the last month of the war, the fighting was still very intense, and would have continued.

----------------------


Picture this situation.

An out of control train is heading down a line that has 3 children on it, and you can do nothing except you have a chance to push a button that switch the track so the train goes onto a second line with only 1 child on it.

what is the moral thing to do?

Its a sheet situation either way I know, but if someone chose to switch the track to save the 3 and let the 1 die, I can't say it was immoral.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I was pointing out that on a personal level a person shouldn't be forced to help, because that is a breach of their personal freedoms.




I never mentioned people "being forced to help", you brought that up as one of your distractions. We were discussing YOUR morals, since you are claiming a moral superiority over Christians, and I was pointing out that many Christians actually HELP homeless people via the Salvos, St Vincent de Paul, voting for parties committed to providing social housing etc, while you wash your hands and say it's not your problem.

Never mind nuance , it's cold hard reality, your "moral superiority" means nothing when it comes to the real world and it's problems.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I never mentioned people "being forced to help", you brought that up as one of your distractions. We were discussing YOUR morals,




you said - allowing people to sleep on the streets instead of providing affordable housing

Now as I have already discussed that I supported social safety nets, I thought you were saying "allowing" in terms of should we legislate that people are made to help. 





> was pointing out that many Christians actually HELP homeless people via the Salvos, St Vincent de Paul,




so do many atheist and secular organisations, whats your point? 

not to mention that secular charities tend to be the most effective, donating money to a church is one of the more wasteful ways to contribute, very little ends up getting to where its needed.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> you said - allowing people to sleep on the streets instead of providing affordable housing
> 
> Now as I have already discussed that I supported social safety nets, I thought you were saying "allowing" in terms of should we legislate that people are made to help.




By "people" made to help, you mean our governments being forced to provide a safety net ? Well that is what they are there for as I think we both agree. What should we do if they don't provide that net ?



> An out of control train is heading down a line that has 3 children on it, and you can do nothing except you have a chance to push a button that switch the track so the train goes onto a second line with only 1 child on it.
> 
> what is the moral thing to do?




Theoretical and not likely to arise in real life.

So do you think it would have been more or less moral to nuke 100,000 soldiers instead of civilians if it achieved the same result ?


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Never mind nuance , it's cold hard reality, your "moral superiority" means nothing when it comes to the real world and it's problems.




Did you see these stats I mentioned?


> On average 22,000 civilians died per day as a result of ww2?
> thats about 55,000,000 civilians during the whole war, only 150,000 died in Hiroshima and 75,000 in Nagasaki nuclear attacks. So yes I think ending the war earlier might have been moral. In the whole War, about 5 civilians died for every 1 soldier.




Do they factor into your thinking about whether using Nukes to end the war was justified?

I what about this scenario I gave



> Picture this situation.
> 
> An out of control train is heading down a line that has 3 children on it, and you can do nothing except you have a chance to push a button that switch the track so the train goes onto a second line with only 1 child on it.
> 
> what is the moral thing to do?




I don't think some one that chooses to sit back and just watch the 3 kids get run over is automatically more moral that the guy that chose to switch tracks,


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> By "people" made to help, you mean our governments being forced to provide a safety net ? Well that is what they are there for as I think we both agree. What should we do if they don't provide that net ?




No, I mean an individual.

I think the government does has a social contract to help, I am saying it wouldn't be moral to "force" an individual to help outside his obligation to pay taxes etc.

It is honourable for him to decide to help, but he shouldn't be forced.





> So do you think it would have been more or less moral to nuke 100,000 soldiers instead of civilians if it achieved the same result ?




100,000 soldiers are still people.

But where can you nuke 100,000 soldiers without hitting civilians?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It is honourable for him to decide to help, but he shouldn't be forced.




*I NEVER SAID THEY SHOULD !!!*


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> *I NEVER SAID THEY SHOULD !!!*



I know that now, but as I said thats what I thought you were saying, because I had already explained I am happy with government safety nets etc, and they already exist, so your 1 sentence was easily misinterpreted. 

But as I said, from in individual stand point its honourable if a person puts in extra to help, but its not immoral if they don't.

Think of it like donating a kidney.

There are plenty of people that need kidneys right now.

Is it Immoral to not donate one of your kidneys to them? I don't think so, off course if you did it would be honourable, but not doing it isn't immoral, no one has the right to demand your kidney, unless if maybe you are the reason theirs needs replacing.

What would be Immoral is doing something to damage a persons kidney.


----------



## bellenuit (18 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Well I can see that on this matter, we are clearly not on the same page of the dictionary.
> 
> So I think I will simply have to leave you with your belief in your subjectively perceived morality concept.




Well you could convince me otherwise if you were to provide evidence to support your view on morality. You have left VC and I explain as best as we can what we believe constitutes morality, but you have just provided a fuzzy "invisible magic man" explanation to support your view.

What is morality?
From where do we get it in your view?
What evidence so you have to support your view?
If it is theistic inspired, which particular deity is doing the inspiring?
Does you defence of the God of the OT yesterday indicate that those were moral acts by God.

As much information as you care to give so that we can assess its merits.

Knowing you, you will probably retort that it is all in your posts and to go and read them. No it isn't and even if it were, there is no reason you couldn't supply a summary post that is a definitive explanation so there is no misunderstanding.


----------



## bellenuit (18 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Personally I think you're a little too hung up on the innocent lives God takes away in the OT (alongside the vile). Followers of the NT tend not to make a big deal out of that.




And it is patently obvious why. They either must condone (as you tried to do) the abhorrent acts of the God of the OT or they must reject the OT in its entirety. However, they can't do the latter as the OT is the basis and justification upon which much of the NT stands. Without the OT, the NT is just a story of another good man and his philosophy. So rather than face that choice, they avoid the issue.



> I believe that the morality revealed in the NT is for the human race, and that it fits in nicely with the Morality Argument, and our conscience.




What did the morality of the NT reveal that wasn't already known?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> But where can you nuke 100,000 soldiers without hitting civilians?




Army, Navy, Airforce bases. Military targets could have been hit instead of civilian ones.


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Well you could convince me otherwise if you were to provide evidence to support your view on morality. You have left VC and I explain as best as we can what we believe constitutes morality, but you have just provided a fuzzy "invisible magic man" explanation to support your view.
> 
> What is morality?
> From where do we get it in your view?
> ...



Firstly, I have no intention of bringing theism into this argument.

I reiterate that I was pointing out a quite straightforward observation, that morality by the very definition of the word (which I have already posted to this thread) cannot exist in the absence of purpose, and that the secular viewpoint deprives the universe of this essential property. Hence the purported existence of "secular morality" is a fallacy.

One can argue, as much as one likes, about consensus agreements of subjective perceptions of behaviour. But that still fails to address the problem of correct, and incorrect, being objectively (as opposed to subjectively) determinable qualities.

Edit: An important point that I feel needs to be emphasized is that this is not a claim that people preferring the secular viewpoint are devoid of a moral compass. What I am saying is , if the secular viewpoint is correct, no morality can ever have existed for anyone, irrespective of whether or not their chosen philosopy is theoretically able to support the moral concept!


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Army, Navy, Airforce bases. Military targets could have been hit instead of civilian ones.




And you don’t think they would be surrounded by civilians, and have civilians working there?

What I don’t think you understand was that Japanese cities were already being bombed, he nuke was just an extension of that.


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> ...
> Does you defence of the God of the OT yesterday indicate that those were moral acts by God.
> ...



Now seeing something like this, from an intelligent person, has got me a trifle confused! I strongly suspect that you have misinterpreted some of the contents of my posts.

Could you please clarify what you are saying here, by answering the following:

What exactly is it, that you are accusing me of having defended?
 and
Where in my posts did you get that impression?


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> And you don’t think they would be surrounded by civilians, and have civilians working there?
> 
> What I don’t think you understand was that Japanese cities were already being bombed, he nuke was just an extension of that.



Quite true!

I have also heard that some cultures, deliberately situate schools and hospitals, in close proximity to military establishments, in the hope that this may deter invaders from ballistic assault on same.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> What I don’t think you understand was that Japanese cities were already being bombed, he nuke was just an extension of that.




It happened , so it was moral ? Is that your reasoning ?


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It happened , so it was moral ? Is that your reasoning ?




No my reasoning is that civilians were dying everyday from the exisiting bombing campaign, the two nukes ended that.

It’s not like the situation was ok for civilians and no one was dying until the nukes dropped, the war was killing people everyday day already, Our soldiers their soldiers, friendly civilians and Japanese civilians were all being killed every day.

You only want to focus on the civilians that died in the nukes, and not the ones that were saved by ending the war.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No my reasoning is that civilians were dying everyday from the exisiting bombing campaign, the two nukes ended that.




It would have been ended if the nukes were dropped on other than civilians. The Japanese had no defence and would have surrendered. Hundreds of thousands need not have died. But again your reasoning shows little of the morality you claim to possess. Killing civilians is fine, that is just warped.


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It would have been ended if the nukes were dropped on other than civilians. The Japanese had no defence and would have surrendered. Hundreds of thousands need not have died. But again your reasoning shows little of the morality you claim to possess. Killing civilians is fine, that is just warped.




Keep in mind my position was this


> 1- I don’t have enough information, it may have been moral from a self Defence position, but I could be wrong since my decision doesn’t include all the facts




I am not claiming it was moral, but that it may have been, depending on the situation.

Also I am not sure why you consider the lives of the “other than civilians” catergory as less important.

To me all lives matter, and I would choose the option that did the least amount of damage, which may have been the nukes, who knows as I said I don’t have all the information.

But military leaders will normally choose the option that minimizes the harm to their forces.


----------



## bellenuit (18 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Now seeing something like this, from an intelligent person, has got me a trifle confused! I strongly suspect that you have misinterpreted some of the contents of my posts.
> 
> Could you please clarify what you are saying here, by answering the following:
> 
> ...




I had posted the following: _So you accept that God exhorted and commanded acts that were not in accordance with the morality his son was later going to preach to the world? That’s my very point. The morality of Christianity is not absolute, objective and is far from perfect._

You responded with your drug manufacture analogy, which seemed very much like a justification of those vile acts to me. You responded:

_If a manufacturer of a wonder drug, issued its products in bottles of pills, labelled with clear warnings of dangers from overdosing, accompanied by clear instructions that exactly one pill is to be taken every six hours, would one then be justified in blaming that manufacturer, when some people suffered ill health, after mistakenly taking six pills every hour?

Would it now be fair to declare the drug toxic ,irrespective of the potentially beneficial results, that one may derive from correct usage?

Is the manufacturer to be perpetually held to blame for the misunderstandings of its patrons?

Can you see how strongly this analogy relates to the key anti theistic arguments?_


----------



## bellenuit (18 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Firstly, I have no intention of bringing theism into this argument.
> 
> I reiterate that I was pointing out a quite straightforward observation, that morality by the very definition of the word (which I have already posted to this thread) cannot exist in the absence of purpose, and that the secular viewpoint deprives the universe of this essential property. Hence the purported existence of "secular morality" is a fallacy.




Is your definition so long and complex that you couldn't have posted it here again to save us perusing through pages of posts. I certainly do not recall you posting your definition. However, this is a definition from my dictionary: _principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. 
_
Although evolution does not have purpose, we can have purpose in our daily existence. For instance, we may wish to create an environment where we can live without fear. We can develop moral principles to help us achieve that goal. That is all within a secular framework.



> One can argue, as much as one likes, about consensus agreements of subjective perceptions of behaviour. But that still fails to address the problem of correct, and incorrect, being objectively (as opposed to subjectively) determinable qualities.




As I said, I am happy to maintain that our morality is subjective. 

However, you still have failed to explain your views of morality. What is your definition? Where does the morality you espouse come from? How is it objective and how do we determine it is objective?[/QUOTE]


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I had posted the following: _So you accept that God exhorted and commanded acts that were not in accordance with the morality his son was later going to preach to the world? That’s my very point. The morality of Christianity is not absolute, objective and is far from perfect._
> 
> You responded with your drug manufacture analogy, which seemed very much like a justification of those vile acts to me. You responded:
> 
> ...



Bellenuit, please, please, please, use the immense intelligence that I know you possess, and consider more carefully the implications of the question:
"Is the manufacturer to be perpetually held to blame for the misunderstandings of its patrons?"


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Also I am not sure why you consider the lives of the “other than civilians” catergory as less important.




So would you consider it moral for Muslim extremists to break into your house and murder your wife and family while you were abseiling down on their comrades in Afghanistan ?


----------



## cynic (18 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Is your definition so long and complex that you couldn't have posted it here again to save us perusing through pages of posts. I certainly do not recall you posting your definition. However, this is a definition from my dictionary: _principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
> _
> Although evolution does not have purpose, we can have purpose in our daily existence. For instance, we may wish to create an environment where we can live without fear. We can develop moral principles to help us achieve that goal. That is all within a secular framework.
> 
> ...



And you are perfectly entitled to do so. I have even known of people choosing to believe in the existence of female bulls!


> However, you still have failed to explain your views of morality. What is your definition? Where does the morality you espouse come from? How is it objective and how do we determine it is objective?



On the contrary, it is only the very last of your questions that one might be able to reasonably argue wasn't fully answered, as is demonstrated by the following of my earlier posts:



cynic said:


> What you are talking about here is not morality!
> 
> Morality is defined as "the practice of what is right".
> 
> ...






cynic said:


> One point that I believe needs to be clarified, is that I do not personally believe, survival of our species, to be the true objective morality, but rather one outcome, of the true objective morality.
> 
> I believe there is, at least one, important need, that required the creation of life, as part (if not all) of that need's remedy. It is from the existence of that underlying need, that life as (at least part of) the remedy, derives its purpose, thereby acquiring importance and value.
> 
> Without the objective morality, to which I allude, survival of our species would be rendered irrelevant, due to the absence of any meaningful purpose. Life would be needless, devoid of any useful meaning, and morality could not exist in any true sense of the word.






cynic said:


> I maintain that the existence of morality demands the presence of purpose, intent or design, else morality cannot truly be said to exist!
> If an intelligent agent creates a thing, then that thing has inherited purpose from its creator!
> Once a thing has purpose, its behaviour, can be deemed to be accordant, or discordant, via reference to its purpose!
> Without purpose intent or design, how can anyone objectively lay claim to the accordance, or discordance, of any behaviour?


----------



## Value Collector (18 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So would you consider it moral for Muslim extremists to break into your house and murder your wife and family while you were abseiling down on their comrades in Afghanistan ?




You are a bit backwards in your understanding here.

The moral action is to end the war in the least damaging way possible, do you agree?

Now the Japanese and the Muslim terrorists are the aggressors, they can easily end the war, by just surrendering or giving up.

If they give or surrender, the war ends and we no longer fight them, so for them the moral action is to give up, not continue to fight or kill my family.

In WW2, the only way to end the war was to force the Japanese to surrender, simply being passive wouldn’t have ended the war, hostilities and deaths would have continued.

Now, in my opinion dropping the nukes may have been the fasted, least over all damage way to bring about a Japanese surrender, but I could be wrong I don’t have all the facts.


----------



## bellenuit (18 January 2018)

cynic said:


> And you are perfectly entitled to do so. I have even known of people choosing to believe in the existence of female bulls!
> 
> On the contrary, it is only the very last of your questions that one might be able to reasonably argue wasn't fully answered, as is demonstrated by the following of my earlier posts:




So you hold that an intelligent agent created life and gave us morality? When did that happen? What is your evidence for that assertion? Who is the intelligent agent and what is the purpose in our creation?

Is this objective morality revealed anywhere so that we can act in accordance with it? If yes, where?


----------



## cynic (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> So you hold that an intelligent agent created life and gave us morality? When did that happen? What is your evidence for that assertion? Who is the intelligent agent and what is the purpose in our creation?
> 
> Is this objective morality revealed anywhere so that we can act in accordance with it? If yes, where?



Whilst I do happen to subscribe to theism, the validity (or absence thereof) of my (or anyone else's) theistic beliefs, doesn't have any bearing on the validity and integrity of the argument against the existence of "secular morality". (I respectfully ask, that readers of this post, do me the courtesy, of bearing the aforesaid in mind, when reading my attempts at answering bellenuit's questions about my theistic beliefs.)

In answer to the first question, not quite!
When an intelligent agent, intentionally creates "something", that "something" inherits, from the creator, its purpose for having been created in the first place. Morality for that "something" can then be objectively defined via reference to that purpose.

"When did that happen?"! It happened when "when" was a meaningless concept due to the non existence of time!

The evidencing of my assertion/s is via logical arguments, largely founded upon literary definitions and widely accepted (i.e. seldom, if ever, disputed) factual premises, and may be found throughout those recently requoted posts, along with the following:


cynic said:


> I happen to be a theist whom considers the argument, about whether or not the universe had a beginning, to be a redundant and needless premise in the kalam argument (apart from justifying use of the word cosmological in its label) for the following reason:
> 
> If the universe is infinite, then the universe itself, would of necessity be the uncaused cause!
> 
> ...




"Who is the intelligent agent"

Who is it! Who am I!  Who are you! Who are we! Who is everyone! Who is no one! Who is nothing! Who is everything!!

"and what is the purpose in our creation?"

Crikey bellenuit! Do you truly expect to be handed "nirvana" on a silver platter?!

I do happen to have a strong opinion, on what I believe, to be the more likely answer to this question. However, I see no benefit in sharing this on a public forum, largely on account of the misunderstandings, and arguments founded upon same, that would inevitably ensue.

One book I can confidently recommend, due to having personally studied its contents for a number of years, is "Concentration" by Mouni Sadhu. Those willing to make a concerted, and disciplined effort, to read and follow its instructions (i.e. performance of the prescribed exercises) will discover,for themselves, the truth of many things formerly doubted.


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2018)

cynic said:


> the validity and integrity of the argument against the existence of "secular morality"




Well I think we need not proceed further on this point. Your argument against secular morality doesn't hold up as secular morality is subjective for the reasons I have outlined previously. I think it is something you need to work out with VC, as he has a different opinion on it. 

Your designing agent is simply a theistic belief system and has no evidence to support it.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Well I think we need not proceed further on this point. Your argument against secular morality doesn't hold up as secular morality is subjective for the reasons I have outlined previously. I think it is something you need to work out with VC, as he has a different opinion on it.
> 
> Your designing agent is simply a theistic belief system and has no evidence to support it.



Were you able to find any faults in either, the logic, or the premise, of the presented argument, for the existence of an "uncaused cause"?

If not, then I strongly suggest you seriously reexamine your reasons for respecting secularism, and disrespecting theism.

I would also caution against any "no evidence" assertions against any belief system! I am surprised that someone of your intelligence would make such a careless error!

I am sincerely doubtful about your claims regarding the possible existence of subjective moralities (I am presuming that you have realised that, by merit of the subjective quality, more than one morality, will most assuredly emerge from our diverse human populace). I perceive such "moralities", by reason of word definitions alone, as logically akin to belief in the existence of female bulls.

Anyhow, watch what happens when conflicts arise between these subjective moralities! Secular crusades: coming soon to a society near you!


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I think it is something you need to work out with VC, as he has a different opinion on it.




I take you are talking to cynic, I have put him on ignore so can’t see his posts.

But just wanted to clarify my position for you and others.

My position is that what is moral is not subjective.

Once you decide that morality is about the “well being of thinking creatures” (I guess that part might be subjective), the subjectivity ends and it becomes objective, because he things that affect the well being of thinking creatures in no longer a subjective issue, it’s based on facts of reality.

Eg, if morality is about wellbeing, then whether forcing battery acid down your neck is moral is not subjective, the facts of chemistry are objective and we know that will reduce your well being, our opinions on it don’t change the morality.

————

So the only part of morality that can be claimed to be subjective is what the foundation point of it is, eg I might say wellbeing others might say gods feelings, but I would probably say that even that is not subjective, because either god exists of it doesn’t, so it’s only the opinion that is subjective, not the facts.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> You are a bit backwards in your understanding here.
> 
> The moral action is to end the war in the least damaging way possible, do you agree?




Yes I do agree with the principle but I have big arguments as to whether the deaths of 300,000 civilians is the least damaging way.

But once you start on one course of action like bombing civilians you make it justifiable for everyone, as we have sen with terrorism around the world. The terrorists probably think its moral for them to do that, as they have little other choice as they don't possess the resources of their enemies. So the example has been set and now there are no holds barred.



> and the Muslim terrorists are the aggressors, they can easily end the war, by just surrendering or giving up.




Try telling them that, the US and Russia invaded Afghanistan, not the other way around.


----------



## Tisme (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes I do agree with the principle but I have big arguments as to whether the deaths of 300,000 civilians is the least damaging way.
> 
> But once you start on one course of action like bombing civilians you make it justifiable for everyone, as we have sen with terrorism around the world. The terrorists probably think its moral for them to do that, as they have little other choice as they don't possess the resources of their enemies. So the example has been set and now there are no holds barred.
> 
> ...





You willingly enroll in the armed forces without knowing that you may well be asked to take another person's life. Morals are swapped for national ethics.


----------



## basilio (19 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> You willingly enroll in the armed forces without knowing that you may well be asked to take another person's life. Morals are swapped for national ethics.




Armed forces have  their own rules of engagement.  A soldier fights other soldiers. Civilians are (theoritically) not supposed to be targeted. The armed forces are there for defense of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement


----------



## Tisme (19 January 2018)

basilio said:


> Armed forces have  their own rules of engagement.  A soldier fights other soldiers. Civilians are (theoritically) not supposed to be targeted. The armed forces are there for defense of the country.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement




Yeah right, soldiers aren't people they are some kind of exotic sacrificial animal. Thanks for the link ... here's another that is equally relavent to my commentary:


----------



## basilio (19 January 2018)

_"Tisme, post: 971268, member: 60573"]Yeah right, soldiers aren't people they are some kind of exotic sacrificial animal. Thanks for the link ... here's another that is equally relavent to my commentary_


Are you awake Tisme ?  Where did you get that weird xhit from ?  The conversation (I thought)  is about the morality of soldiers killing people. There is nothing unusual about armed foces having their own rules on how to behave even in war situations.

How well are they kept ? Obviously debatable.  The discussion was around the decision by the US to drop two atomic bonbs on Japanese cities to hasten the end of WW2. Effectively how morally justified was the death of 300,000 civilians.

It becomes particularly relevent in 2018 when we have the current President openly talking about destroying North Korea if they don't give up their nuclear weapons.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> My position is that what is moral is not subjective.




Really ? If morality was not subjective then you and I would agree about nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

The fact that we don't indicates that we have our own ideas about what is moral and what is not.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes I do agree with the principle but I have big arguments as to whether the deaths of 300,000 civilians is the least damaging way.
> 
> But once you start on one course of action like bombing civilians you make it justifiable for everyone, as we have sen with terrorism around the world. The terrorists probably think its moral for them to do that, as they have little other choice as they don't possess the resources of their enemies. So the example has been set and now there are no holds barred.
> 
> ...




300,000 civilians weren't killed in the nuclear attacks, but even if it were, that number is dwarfed by the 50,000,000 that had been killed during the war, 

The USA entered Afghanistan after the world trade centres were attacked, and have attempted to leave multiple times, the war is in Afghanistan, but it's not against Afghanistan, we are not "at war with Afghanistan"  

taliban groups can lay down their weapons any time, and re enter society and work with local governments, however if US forces surrenders to taliban, they would be beheaded.

As I said the taliban can end the violence when ever they want, and just go about their other business.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Really ? If morality was not subjective then you and I would agree about nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> The fact that we don't indicates that we have our own ideas about what is moral and what is not.




Nope, you are wrong, people having different opinions doesn't make something subjective.

Take the god question, a god either does or doesn't exist, it's not subjective, whether the god exists or not is an objective fact about the universe right.

But you may say it exists and I might say it doesn't, that doesn't mean the correct answer is subjective, it just means one of us is wrong, the objective fact exists even though you might not believe it.

We can have our own ideas and opinions about what is moral, but that doesn't make it subjective, one of us can just be wrong.


----------



## basilio (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The USA entered Afghanistan after the world trade centres were attacked, and have attempted to leave multiple times, the war is in Afghanistan, but it's not against Afghanistan, we are not "at war with Afghanistan"
> 
> taliban groups can lay down their weapons any time, and re enter society and work with local governments, however if US forces surrenders to taliban, they would be beheaded.




VC I suggest the history of US involvement in Afganisation is a bit more complex than your suggesting.  For what its worth the article I attached on the Narco State gives a more meat to teh topic.

Cheers


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> taliban groups can lay down their weapons any time, and re enter society and work with local governments, however if US forces surrenders to taliban, they would be beheaded.
> 
> As I said the taliban can end the violence when ever they want, and just go about their other business.




And the US can simply walk away and end the violence. it's not their country.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The USA entered Afghanistan after the world trade centres were attacked, and have attempted to leave multiple times, the war is in Afghanistan, but it's not against Afghanistan, we are not "at war with Afghanistan"




Most of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre were Saudis. Why isn't the US at war with Saudi Arabia ?


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre were Saudis. Why isn't the US at war with Saudi Arabia ?




Why attack a country whose noble King already handed over all the country's wealth and will do as they're told? 

Afghanistan holds trillions of gold, copper, lithium etc. etc. If the US isn't there, the terrorists will win


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And the US can simply walk away and end the violence. it's not their country.




A US general recently said that if the US retreat from Afghanistan, the Chinese will just march in. 

So I guess it's there to fight both Muslim terrorists and Communism. 

It's like a Cold War sequel. Bigger, badder, longer, more deadly, more villains. 

I think the US is on the verge of losing Pakistan to the Chinese. My guess is that the Pakistani military didn't like what Obama did when he made public that killing of bin Laden on Pakistani soil, right next to its elite military compound.

I mean bin Laden deserve what he got. Those Pakistani generals believe so too... or at least they don't mind. So they permitted the US to take him out, with the promise of keeping it quiet. But being a showman with an election coming up, Obama couldn't help himself but rub the generals face in their apparent inability to keep the country secure from foreigners.

that and the Chinese have been buying assets, investing in a new major port, rail and other infrastructure in Pakistan. 

Giving some jobs to the locals, have a new rail line or two to show them... That's a bit better than droning them whenever they feel like it.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

> Giving some jobs to the locals, have a new rail line or two to show them... That's a bit better than droning them whenever they feel like it.




A bit of soft diplomacy never hurts. I wonder if Trump recognises that , or if he still believes that the gun is mightier than the yuan.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> A bit of soft diplomacy never hurts. I wonder if Trump recognises that , or if he still believes that the gun is mightier than the yuan.




Mightier than the Yuan. Good one.

The US just withheld some $100M (or three) in aids to Pakistan because it "supports terrorism".

Maybe they're hoping that the cut in those (mostly) military aids will get a few colonels riled up to want to "stop supporting terrorism".

It might go that way. Or the Chinese can bring over a few freight of Yuans they have no record of ever losing.


Trump's also cutting aids to the Palestinians. This is proper aid, as in food and medicine aids to starving people.

It's cut because for some reason the Palestinians don't want to negotiate peace when their future capital, what was left of it anyway, just got handed over to Trump's son in law's uncle.

Heard that there's a proposed capital for that eventual Palestinian state. This was floated decades ago but was rejected.

It's since been used as a literal rubbish landfill. 

I guess they can just send in a few bulldozers, give it a good wash and got themselve a capital city. But Arabs being greedy and all Muslims didn't like the idea. So they and their kids will have to starve.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And the US can simply walk away and end the violence. it's not their country.




The USA walking away wouldn't end the violence, it would increase the violence.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre were Saudis. Why isn't the US at war with Saudi Arabia ?



As I said it's not about countries, it's about groups. USA is fighting terrorist groups all over the world.


----------



## grah33 (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> And it is patently obvious why. They either must condone (as you tried to do) the abhorrent acts of the God of the OT or they must reject the OT in its entirety. However, they can't do the latter as the OT is the basis and justification upon which much of the NT stands. Without the OT, the NT is just a story of another good man and his philosophy. So rather than face that choice, they avoid the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> What did the morality of the NT reveal that wasn't already known?





That's not true at all, and you probably know that. If anything it's more that they don't care that much about the issue. Maybe you care a lot about it since a problem you have, as I've pointed out, is that the Christian morals are too good, seemingly out of this world.

I don't think you read my post 2293 which answers your question. I doubt the Chinese came up with all of those things, and even if they did, none have ever offered immortality. And Jesus said that some of His morals were actually practiced in the very beginning, such as marriage (lifetime commitment, 2 people).  So the morality was always the same, it doesn't change, but it took ages to be fully discovered and spread far and wide. God was acting as best as He could in times past (NT view).

You're not open minded to any possible explanations for the brutality in the OT. Or even Cynic's explanations from what I read in the last few posts that he wrote. I just hope that you can be honest with yourself. Maybe you're really an agnostic but you don't know it.


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You're not open minded to any possible explanations for the brutality in the OT. Or even Cynic's explanations from what I read in the last few posts that he wrote. I just hope that you can be honest with yourself. Maybe you're really an agnostic but you don't know it.




It's not that I am not open to the explanations. I simply do not accept the explanations, probably because my "imperfect morality" is far superior to the perfect morality that you believe comes with your religion.

I am honest with myself. But I do not think that applies to most Christians. I'll give you an example. Let's say that there was no OT, but someone today discovers some ancient texts that are identical in every way to what is in the OT and further analysis shows those texts belong to some ancient now defunct religion. You can be sure without any doubt that Christians would condemn those texts and say that the people that held that religion followed the wrong God as his actions are more akin to that of Satan. There would be parallels drawn to the atrocities of ISIS. They would highlight how different the God of those texts is to the God that Christians worship. There wouldn't be one Christian, William Lane Craig included, who would try to defend the God of those texts and that God would simply be condemned as a false God and outright evil. If anyone were to suggest that the God of those texts was in fact Jesus, they would be accused of blasphemy and excommunicated. 

That is why Christians aren't being honest with themselves. They are hypocritical for not disassociating themselves from the God of the OT. That is why they do not want to talk about the OT. It forces them to confront their own dishonesty.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> the Christian morals are too good, seemingly out of this world.




Can you give me an example of a Christian moral that is good and couldn’t have been thought of by humans for secular reasons?


----------



## cynic (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> It's not that I am not open to the explanations. I simply do not accept the explanations, probably because my "imperfect morality" is far superior to the perfect morality that you believe comes with your religion.
> 
> I am honest with myself. But I do not think that applies to most Christians. I'll give you an example. Let's say that there was no OT, but someone today discovers some ancient texts that are identical in every way to what is in the OT and further analysis shows those texts belong to some ancient now defunct religion. You can be sure without any doubt that Christians would condemn those texts and say that the people that held that religion followed the wrong God as his actions are more akin to that of Satan. There would be parallels drawn to the atrocities of ISIS. They would highlight how different the God of those texts is to the God that Christians worship. There wouldn't be one Christian, William Lane Craig included, who would try to defend the God of those texts and that God would simply be condemned as a false God and outright evil. If anyone were to suggest that the God of those texts was in fact Jesus, they would be accused of blasphemy and excommunicated.
> 
> That is why Christians aren't being honest with themselves. They are hypocritical for not disassociating themselves from the God of the OT. That is why they do not want to talk about the OT. It forces them to confront their own dishonesty.



Thankyou for offering your own personal example, of the, all too prevalent, and insidious, practice of the "HolierThanThouism" religion. 

I would normally recommend the instructional teachings, from chapter 7 of the gospel according to Saint Matthew, as a useful remedy for the aforementioned malady.

However, whilst I do not respect irrational contempt, I do respect the rights of others to seek out their own remedies, for the diseases with which they have become personally afflicted.

After all, unlike some people, I do not personally believe that any human religious, or other philosophical belief system, can rightly claim to hold the monopoly over truth.

So if one believes the same truth, or similar, can be sourced from another philosophy, of one's own personal choosing (or creation), then by all means use that truth to "Heal thyself" of one's obsessive desire to persecute theism and theists alike.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> You willingly enroll in the armed forces without knowing that you may well be asked to take another person's life. Morals are swapped for national ethics.




Well I suppose a soldier would have to ask himself if he was in a field somewhere and saw an unarmed woman and child reaping crops or whatever, would he just walk up and shoot them ?

The fact that it happens unseen from an aircraft at 30,000 feet does not alter the morality of the situation at all.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Maybe you're really an agnostic but you don't know it.



 I often have similar thoughts when encountering ardent anti theists. However, I usually suspect "closet theism" consequent to theistic terror, to be the more likely cause of zealously anti theistic behaviours. 

There is a classic teaching, courtesy of the prophet Shakespeare, that is relatable to the observation we are making here:
https://m.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://g.co/kgs/aCmJmL


----------



## grah33 (19 January 2018)

cynic said:


> I often have similar thoughts when encountering ardent anti theists. However, I usually suspect "closet theism" consequent to theistic terror, to be the more likely cause of zealously anti theistic behaviours.
> 
> There is a classic teaching, courtesy of the prophet Shakespeare, that is relatable to the observation we are making here:
> https://m.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://g.co/kgs/aCmJmL



I've had similar thoughts as well.  Back to your medicine example...


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Thankyou for offering your own personal example, of the, all too prevalent, and insidious, practice of the "HolierThanThouism" religion.
> 
> I would normally recommend the instructional teachings, from chapter 7 of the gospel according to Saint Matthew, as a useful remedy for the aforementioned malady.




Far better you read a book called “How to recognise irony”


----------



## grah33 (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> It's not that I am not open to the explanations. I simply do not accept the explanations, probably because my "imperfect morality" is far superior to the perfect morality that you believe comes with your religion.
> 
> I am honest with myself. But I do not think that applies to most Christians. I'll give you an example. Let's say that there was no OT, but someone today discovers some ancient texts that are identical in every way to what is in the OT and further analysis shows those texts belong to some ancient now defunct religion. You can be sure without any doubt that Christians would condemn those texts and say that the people that held that religion followed the wrong God as his actions are more akin to that of Satan. There would be parallels drawn to the atrocities of ISIS. They would highlight how different the God of those texts is to the God that Christians worship. There wouldn't be one Christian, William Lane Craig included, who would try to defend the God of those texts and that God would simply be condemned as a false God and outright evil. If anyone were to suggest that the God of those texts was in fact Jesus, they would be accused of blasphemy and excommunicated.
> 
> That is why Christians aren't being honest with themselves. They are hypocritical for not disassociating themselves from the God of the OT. That is why they do not want to talk about the OT. It forces them to confront their own dishonesty.




You're really complicating this. The NT is based on the OT. If you read it, you will constantly see cross referencing back to the OT. In fact Paul actually does some commentating on some of the harsh bits in there. And then talks about Christ's love etc, so no problem reconciling both testaments. I think the problem here is you know very little about the Bible itself.

I'm unclear on what aspect of those stories in particular bother you? Is it:
God destroying some races e.g. Sodom/Gomorah/Amalek?
Or is it because He also took away the innocent (babies/children) as well?
Or you think this extermination act is incompatible with the morals laid out by Jesus in the NT? If so, maybe you could be a bit more specific about the conflict with Jesus's teachings.

Also, the OT isn't just about brutality. It's full of wonder and beauty, to those who have the patience to discover it.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I suppose a soldier would have to ask himself if he was in a field somewhere and saw an unarmed woman and child reaping crops or whatever, would he just walk up and shoot them ?
> 
> The fact that it happens unseen from an aircraft at 30,000 feet does not alter the morality of the situation at all.




mate do you even know why Hiroshima was chosen as a target?

It was a military town, that was targeted because it had soldiers, war factories and large stock piles of equipment, 20,000 of those killed were soldiers, many of the “civilians” were working for the war effort in factories.

No allied force goes after civilians for the sake of it, the civilians were collateral damage, not the target.


> Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military, but it also had large stockpiles of military supplies.[115] The city was also a communications center, a key port for shipping and an assembly area for troops.[76] It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns; children were shown how to construct and hurl gasoline bombs and the wheelchair-bound and bedridden were assembling booby traps to be planted in the beaches of Kyushu. A new slogan appeared on the walls of Hiroshima: "FORGET SELF! ALL OUT FOR YOUR COUNTRY!"[116] It was also the second largest city in Japan after Kyoto that was still undamaged by air raids,[117] due to the fact that it lacked the aircraft manufacturing industry that was the XXI Bomber Command's priority target. On July 3, the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed it off limits to bombers, along with Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto.[118]


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I suppose a soldier would have to ask himself if he was in a field somewhere and saw an unarmed woman and child reaping crops or whatever, would he just walk up and shoot them ?
> 
> The fact that it happens unseen from an aircraft at 30,000 feet does not alter the morality of the situation at all.



Another statistic of note.

The American bombing campaign that was operating for 5 months before it was stopped due to the nuclear weapons, killed nearly 5 times the amount of people killed by the nuclear weapons.

So if the war had dragged on for just 1 extra month, the losses due to the conventional bombing campaign added to the losses from both sides in battle would have out weighed the losses from the nukes.

Check out this short video explaining how devastating the American bombing campaign was even though it wasn’t “nuclear”


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No allied force goes after civilians for the sake of it, the civilians were collateral damage, not the target.




So, kill one soldier and 10 civilians are collateral damage ? What sort of ratio is acceptable ? 

And if you are going to quote something, kindly provide a link so we can decide if it's propaganda or not.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Far better you read a book called “How to recognise irony”



By the way, I do wish to extend you my heartfelt gratitude for not placing me on ignore.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So, kill one soldier and 10 civilians are collateral damage ? What sort of ratio is acceptable ?
> 
> And if you are going to quote something, kindly provide a link so we can decide if it's propaganda or not.



a large amount of the “civilians” were also working for the war effort, in factories etc.

So you think killing soldiers is ok, 

but killing a civilan is totally wrong, 


but what about if that civilian is part of the war effort, and just happens to be sitting in an a factory making rifles when we bomb the factory? 


Here is the link, it’s from Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Here is one report on the target rationale. Kyoto was proposed but rejected because one of the U.S. generals had been there on his honeymoon. FFS if these idiots used that sort of reasoning you have to wonder about their ability to make any sort of rational decision.



> Edwin O. Reischauer, a Japan expert for the U.S. Army Intelligence Service, was incorrectly said to have prevented the bombing of Kyoto.[73] In his autobiography, Reischauer specifically refuted this claim:
> 
> ... the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier.[74][75]
> 
> On May 30, Stimson asked Groves to remove Kyoto from the target list due to its historical, religious and cultural significance, but Groves pointed to its military and industrial significance.[76] Stimson then approached President Harry S. Truman about the matter. Truman agreed with Stimson, and Kyoto was temporarily removed from the target list.[77] Groves attempted to restore Kyoto to the target list in July, but Stimson remained adamant.[78][79] On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto.[79]




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


----------



## grah33 (19 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> It's not that I am not open to the explanations. I simply do not accept the explanations, probably because my "imperfect morality" is far superior to the perfect morality that you believe comes with your religion.
> 
> I am honest with myself. But I do not think that applies to most Christians. I'll give you an example. Let's say that there was no OT, but someone today discovers some ancient texts that are identical in every way to what is in the OT and further analysis shows those texts belong to some ancient now defunct religion. You can be sure without any doubt that Christians would condemn those texts and say that the people that held that religion followed the wrong God as his actions are more akin to that of Satan. There would be parallels drawn to the atrocities of ISIS. They would highlight how different the God of those texts is to the God that Christians worship. There wouldn't be one Christian, William Lane Craig included, who would try to defend the God of those texts and that God would simply be condemned as a false God and outright evil. If anyone were to suggest that the God of those texts was in fact Jesus, they would be accused of blasphemy and excommunicated.
> 
> That is why Christians aren't being honest with themselves. They are hypocritical for not disassociating themselves from the God of the OT. That is why they do not want to talk about the OT. It forces them to confront their own dishonesty.




In addition to my last post, I should say that even in today's time many religious people see God in the same way as the OT. As an example, you would have seen on TV overseas some politicians warning about God's retribution, as a result of OT type moralities.  I don't support all their views, but I'm just making the point to you that God is the same.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So you think killing soldiers is ok,




I don't think killing anyone is ok but you have to have some rules.

Anyway this has been discussed before. The US was worried that Russia would move into Japan and they didn't want to leave anything for them so they got in first.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't think killing anyone is ok but you have to have some rules.
> 
> .




I agree, and my rule would be to limited the total number of deaths to the smallest number possible.

I don’t see soldiers as being any more expendable than anyone else involved in the war effort, 

In fact I would probably rank our soldiers as being more “innocent” than a women on a production line making bombs for the aggressor nation.

But all that being said, my whole point is just the daily events of the war were devasting and their cumulative effect was greater than the nukes short term impact.

So the nukes “May” have been justified, noticed I said may, I have never claim they were justified just that they may have been


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Here is one report on the target rationale. Kyoto was proposed but rejected because one of the U.S. generals had been there on his honeymoon. FFS if these idiots used that sort of reasoning you have to wonder about their ability to make any sort of rational decision.
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki




Certain places in Europe were off limits due to cultural and religious reasons also.

I couldn’t have seen them agreeing to bomb the Vatican for example.


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You're really complicating this. The NT is based on the OT. If you read it, you will constantly see cross referencing back to the OT. In fact Paul actually does some commentating on some of the harsh bits in there. And then talks about Christ's love etc, so no problem reconciling both testaments. I think the problem here is you know very little about the Bible itself.
> 
> I'm unclear on what aspect of those stories in particular bother you? Is it:
> God destroying some races e.g. Sodom/Gomorah/Amalek?
> ...




Isn't it obvious. All of my comments that had extracts from the OT highlighted in bold those parts that described the rape of young virgins and the slaughter of innocents, particularly infants.


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I think the problem here is you know very little about the Bible itself.




You were the one that asked for examples of rape in the bible and stated that God only slaughtered vile people?

Perhaps it is because I do know the Bible but approach it with the scepticism it deserves.


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2018)

cynic said:


> By the way, I do wish to extend you my heartfelt gratitude for not placing me on ignore.




Why would I? And miss your input on the Problems and Puzzles thread


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Another statistic of note.
> 
> The American bombing campaign that was operating for 5 months before it was stopped due to the nuclear weapons, killed nearly 5 times the amount of people killed by the nuclear weapons.
> 
> ...





I just did a bit of math, comparing the nuclear weapons damage to that done by the daily/nightly conventional bombing campaign which had been going for 5 months,

Basically each Nuclear weapon did about as much damage as 2 weeks of conventional bombing.

So it was a lot of damage in a short period, but had the war not ended, an equal amount of damage would have been done soon afterwards.

—————————-

Apparently Hiroshima’s civilian population not working for he war effort had been greatly reduced due to evacuations to the rural areas, so the “innocent” deaths would not have been as high as one would imagine.


----------



## bellenuit (19 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You're really complicating this. The NT is based on the OT. If you read it, you will constantly see cross referencing back to the OT.




Yes, I am well aware of that. My point really concerned why Christians preferred not to talk about the OT but do not reject it out of hand. The reason for the former is because it has large sections where it describes a God who does vile things, but the latter is because the NT and the 'raison d'être' for Jesus depends upon it. So they are in a bind. 

It's like a house of cards, with the supporting cards being the OT. Take away even one of the cards from the OT and the whole house collapses.


----------



## cynic (19 January 2018)

When analysing a nuclear event death tally, it is important to remember that there were subsequent deaths due to the effects of radiatioactive contamination.
http://hiroshima.australiandoctor.com.au/


----------



## SirRumpole (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I just did a bit of math, comparing the nuclear weapons damage to that done by the daily/nightly conventional bombing campaign which had been going for 5 months,




The actual method of destruction is not the point. The point is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Obviously there are grey areas like munitions factories etc but there is evidence that some of the bombing was a "shock and awe" tactic that targeted civilians either for revenge or to break the will of the population.

Those tactics have legitimised targeting innocents and have been copied by militant terrorists who justify it by saying "the West started it in WW2".

As ye sow , so shall ye reap. Don't know if that is secular in origin or not, but it's true.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> mate do you even know why Hiroshima was chosen as a target?
> 
> It was a military town, that was targeted because it had soldiers, war factories and large stock piles of equipment, 20,000 of those killed were soldiers, many of the “civilians” were working for the war effort in factories.
> 
> No allied force goes after civilians for the sake of it, the civilians were collateral damage, not the target.




Weren't one of the ultimate target was chosen because the other city targeted was too cloudy?

I mean, how serious were the military target when it's cloudy so you go for a city nearby.


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Weren't one of the ultimate target was chosen because the other city targeted was too cloudy?
> 
> I mean, how serious were the military target when it's cloudy so you go for a city nearby.




They didn’t just randomly pick Nagasaki on the fly, it would have all been preplanned, they would have primary and secondary targets.

In fact Nagasaki has been bombed 5 times in the conventional bombing missions.

As Sir Rump’s post suggested, they had lists of target cities they wanted to hit.

There can be all sorts of reasons a bomber can’t make it to a target, eg weather, enemy fighters, anti aircraft guns etc, so they pre plan multiple targets, there is no point in returning with a payload of bombs.

I remember watching a documentary about the bombers working over germany, even the fighters escorting the bombers didn’t want to return with ammo left over, so after the mission was done and the bombers headed home the fighters would hang around looking for targets to shoot up, flying along train tracks etc


----------



## Value Collector (19 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The actual method of destruction is not the point. The point is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Obviously there are grey areas like munitions factories etc but there is evidence that some of the bombing was a "shock and awe" tactic that targeted civilians either for revenge or to break the will of the population.
> 
> Those tactics have legitimised targeting innocents and have been copied by militant terrorists who justify it by saying "the West started it in WW2".
> 
> As ye sow , so shall ye reap. Don't know if that is secular in origin or not, but it's true.




Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima where towns important to the war effort, no military commander is going to waste a new powerful weapon on civilians.


----------



## luutzu (19 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima where towns important to the war effort, no military commander is going to waste a new powerful weapon on civilians.




Imperial Japan was at war so I'm pretty sure every city's industry is contributing to the war effort. 

But the nukes would have been used either way. Too much money and effort have been put into it for it not to be used. And using it on Japan would force it to surrender quickly before Stalin managed to send his troops across Siberia and into Japan/Korea.

If Stalin managed to do that, the US would have to then divvy up Japan and Korea with the Soviets and that would ruin their entire post-war plan to contain Russia and China. 

The dropping of the nukes have nothing, or very little, to do with saving the US troops. Japan at the time no longer have any floating carrier. Its fuel supplies and practically all imports have stopped. That kind of blockade would render its military/civilian army useless in a matter of weeks or months. 

Once Stalin announced his intention to send the Soviets east, Japan will just surrender or face total destruction and having its islands annexed between two powers. 

But yea, wars, the never ending story.


----------



## bellenuit (20 January 2018)

Hot off the press, from the February 2018 issue of Scientific American.....

*Our Actions Don't Matter in a Cosmic Sense—But That Doesn't Mean They Don't Matter*

*https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-mdash-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/*


----------



## cynic (20 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Hot off the press, from the February 2018 issue of Scientific American.....
> 
> *Our Actions Don't Matter in a Cosmic Sense—But That Doesn't Mean They Don't Matter*
> 
> *https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-mdash-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-dont-matter/*



Another pro securalism article that somehow fails to recognise that it has logically undermined its own logical basis for belief!
Will the entertainment never cease?!

How many more of these comedies are out there, just waiting for somebody to proudly post them?!

Since that article was heavily centred around criticism of Dr Craig, I have attached a video in which Dr Craig gets an opportunity to express some views, which call the reasoning, of many of his secularist critics, into question:


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I agree, and my rule would be to limited the total number of deaths to the smallest number possible.




The trouble with that is that it is only your opinion of what is the "smallest number possible". What is your evidence that nuking two cities is the least possible damage ?

If the bombs were dropped over uninhabited but observable parts of the country Japan may still have surrendered and the war would be over with minimal deaths from the nukes. It would have been worth a try.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The trouble with that is that it is only your opinion of what is the "smallest number possible". What is your evidence that nuking two cities is the least possible damage ?
> 
> .




Of course it's my opinion, as I said right at the start of this conversation I don't know for sure, but the nukes *May have been the moral option. *I have never claimed that the were the moral option.

My whole point on objective morality is that in any given situation there is an objective moral action, however without knowing all the information it's not always possible to work out what that action is, but we should always do our best to work out what that correct moral action is, even though obviously die to lack of information we will sometimes be wrong.

As far as two people having different opinions on what is moral, its just like having a different opinion on how many jelly beans are in a jar, the opinions don't change the facts about jelly bean in the jar, the people are either right of wrong in their opinions.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> My whole point on objective morality is that in any given situation there is an objective moral action, however without knowing all the information it's not always possible to work out what that action is, but we should always do our best to work out what that correct moral action is, even though obviously die to lack of information we will sometimes be wrong.




In that case I suppose the only way to find out the objective moral action is to ask God.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> The dropping of the nukes have nothing, or very little, to do with saving the US troops. .




Official American estimates of allied troops losses in an invasion of Japan ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000.

So even the most conservative estimates of likely allied losses outnumbered the actual losses of Japanese from the nukes, add the that the Japanese losses, I really think it would have been a blood bath, 

I know you think the Japanese only surrendered because of the soviets, but do you really think the soviets with their rifles are scarier than nuclear weapons? If the Japanese truly weren't phased by the nukes, why would they be phased by the soviets?


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> In that case I suppose the only way to find out the objective moral action is to ask God.




So far he is MIA,

But, as I have said the best way is to figure out some logical things to base it on eg wellbeing as I have explained, and then use logic and reasoning to figure out the best likely out comes.

Religious people like to claim they don't use logic and reasoning to figure out their opinions, but they do, they just use the faulty premise of biblical teachings and what they think their god wants, rather than actually thinking about the well being of humans and other thinking creatures.

Some of them actually preach that suffering is good, Mother teresa was seen as a good person, even though she let sick people suffer and denied basic medical treatment, because she believed allowing the people in her care to suffer brought them closer to god


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Official American estimates of allied troops losses in an invasion of Japan ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000.




That assumes that an invasion of Japan was the only option. Containment by embargoes, naval blockades etc could have been effective with much less casualties on either side. But by then the Yanks had blood in their eyes and were only interested in revenge.


----------



## cynic (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> In that case I suppose the only way to find out the objective moral action is to ask God.



Whilst wearing my theist cap, I might be tempted to agree, but my critical thinking cap, is compelling me to disagree.

Your presumably "tongue in cheek" assertion, if taken literally, would be dangerously akin, to certain anti theists' claims, regarding the "only rational" choice of belief/disbelief system.

However, rest assured, I have not overlooked the emoticons, and my theistic side is quite amused by the cute way in which your suggestion was presented.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That assumes that an invasion of Japan was the only option. Containment by embargoes, naval blockades etc could have been effective with much less casualties on either side. But by then the Yanks had blood in their eyes and were only interested in revenge.




Do you understand that Australian soldiers were being killed in New Guinea right up until the surrender ? in fact Australia units had casualties after the surrender, The book I just finished reading about just 1 commando unit listed 15 casualties after the Japanese government had surrendered, and this was even though the Australian units had been told to stop all advancement and just sit in defence positions.

So to think that the Japanese were all nicely penned up, and the war was ending regardless is a fallacy in my opinion, do you really think Germany would have surrendered if we stopped at the border of France and just yelled across the river "Give up, you are surrounded" of course not, neither would have Japan.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2018)

> o you really think Germany would have surrendered if we stopped at the border of France and just yelled across the river "Give up, you are surrounded" of course not, neither would have Japan.




Who knows, but it would have been worth a try to avoid casualties. But as I said, revenge is a certainly a motive for destruction.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Who knows, but it would have been worth a try to avoid casualties. But as I said, revenge is a certainly a motive for destruction.




It would have given them time to rebuild build, rearm and boost morale of their people.


----------



## Tisme (20 January 2018)

Fascinating that professed atheists enter into an ontological argument by creating a God persona in their own minds as a basis to discredit and refute that same fictional God. Bootstrap antagonism or wot!!

Debating the existence of the non existence either has to have a lie in there somewhere or insanity is in play.


----------



## bellenuit (20 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Another pro securalism article that somehow fails to recognise that it has logically undermined its own logical basis for belief!
> Will the entertainment never cease?!




Actually, the more I read what you write, the more obvious it is that you are stuck in a fallacious paradox of your own creation.

You rightly are aware that evolution as espoused by secularists does not have a purpose and you are even right to suggest that without purpose we cannot have morality and cannot judge right from wrong. But your argument is fallacious because even though there may be no purpose to our evolutionary existence in a cosmological time frame, that doesn't mean there can be no purpose in our daily existence and struggle for survival.

I expressed how we can have purpose before when I gave one simple example of "wanting to live life without fear" and the morality of the golden rule (a secular construct) would be the best way of achieving that goal, and determining whether actions were right or wrong would be based on whether they complied with the golden rule or not. The Scientific American article gave another example, which you simply laughed off. In reference to William Lane Craig's assertion that non-believers living in a universe without purpose and which will eventually end should not care that there is torture in this world, the response from his debating opponent was: _“This strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest. It doesn't really matter? Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured. It doesn't require that this make some cosmic difference to the eternal significance of the universe for it to matter whether a human being is tortured. It matters to them, it matters to their family, and it matters to us.”
_
You are trapped in a fallacious paradox, just like Zeno and his Dichotomy Paradox (infinite number of halved distances). You are like Zeno arguing with his fellow philosophers that it is impossible for them to walk from their homes to the temple because of the Dichotomy Paradox. His fellow philosophers laugh in bemused amusement, because they have just done that this morning and have done it every morning for the past several years.

You see secularists do have morality and do know how to differentiate right from wrong. It is a fact. The morality of secularism is there in the writings of the great philosophers and humanists. Your claims of the impossibility of that is absurd, just like Zeno's claim.

But what we haven't seen is any example of non secular morality. Grah suggested that it is revealed to us through prayer (or words to that effect). Yet we have not seen any example of this morality that differs from the secular morality of the time. The morality of those who pray is no different to those who do not pray as far as I can see. The popes and church leaders involved in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the torture and burning of so-called witches no doubt prayed, but still managed to commit vile acts. They reason they could do such acts is not because they had some special morality revealed to them, but because they used examples from the OT Scriptures as a guide rather than their own secular morality and humanity. We see the same within Islam. The justification for atrocities is based on the writings of Mohammed.

You see there is only secular morality. That which we as humans have developed over our evolutionary existence. Imperfect, but we are always striving to perfect it. We have purpose in our own lives and so do not need to invent some designing agent to imbue us with purpose. We have seen no new morality emanating from those who claim there is a designing agent. All they have ever given us is a regurgitation of what we already know to be morally correct.

I am really done arguing this issue. You can act like Zeno and insist that what we actually have and demonstrate on a daily basis is impossible for us to have. Until you free yourself from that fallacious paradox argument is pointless.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

Interesting conversation between a vegan and a Christian, kind of shows how theism can be a road block in a conversation about morality, rather than trying to use logic to defend his position the theist just digs his heels in on a bible verse.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Interesting conversation between a vegan and a Christian, kind of shows how theism can be a road block in a conversation about morality, rather than trying to use logic to defend his position the theist just digs his heels in on a bible verse.





People's morality can be warped by a lot of things, their religion, military indoctrination, loyalty to comrades, patriotism, devotion to a profession, all sorts of environmental , cultural and professional factors can distort a person's inane sense of what is right and wrong.

Atheists who ridicule religious people (rightly in some cases) just aren't aware that their own indoctrinated  biases are distorting their moral systems in favour of what they are trained to see as a greater good; military victory for example.

People who have these biases  have lost the ability to judge the morality of their actions, or those of their kind, because the whole point of military training is to remove morality and replace it with discipline, unthinking obedience and loyalty  to their superiors.

Rather like a religion really.


----------



## grah33 (20 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Isn't it obvious. All of my comments that had extracts from the OT highlighted in bold those parts that described the rape of young virgins and the slaughter of innocents, particularly infants.







http://biblehub.com/jonah/4-11.htm


There you go. I got this from googling a little. A verse where God expresses compassion and reluctance to kill infants in the same kind of event (Nineveh). You're wrong about God.


Suppose God was aborting all those children (something condemned by the NT and OT). Are you going to say He acted against His morality, or committed a war crime? All commentators agree that this doesn't apply to God, and for good reasons. As an example, if I aborted e.g. baby dogs in a pound (inferior life forms to me), nobody would call me a murderer. So if the Eternal chooses to take lives that aren't equal to Him (created by Him), then He can do that if He wants to.


Again, think of a rodent infestation. I'm obviously a superior life form, and I have understanding about their effect on the world. I decide to exterminate them since it's better not to have them around. I also destroy their babies. Nobody would call me immoral for doing that, and this is because they aren't equal to me.


Regards the rapes, i've dealt with that, and there is a little more but I think it's a waste of time. You seem too sure in your understandings of the OT.


And yes, Christians and Jews find the God of the OT to be the same today. When there is no morality, we  are concerned that destruction may come. There may be quite a few people of various backgrounds that are delighted to see secular morality on the rise.  They think it leads to getting conquered (from what I saw on the net)


----------



## cynic (20 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Actually, the more I read what you write, the more obvious it is that you are stuck in a fallacious paradox of your own creation.
> 
> You rightly are aware that evolution as espoused by secularists does not have a purpose and you are even right to suggest that without purpose we cannot have morality and cannot judge right from wrong. But your argument is fallacious because even though there may be no purpose to our evolutionary existence in a cosmological time frame, that doesn't mean there can be no purpose in our daily existence and struggle for survival.
> 
> ...



When someone creates arguments against misconstruances, or misunderstandings, of another's arguments, one does both, oneself and the author of the misrepresented material, a serious injustice.

I do recognise, the existence of paradoxes, in arguments presented by, both myself, and my opponents,past and present, in this debate.

What I do not recognise, is the existence, of the particular paradox of which I am currently accused. It also seems that, in addition to the fallacious "fallacious paradox" accusation, there are yet further arguments, throughout the subsequent paragraphs, against claims that were never actually made. (The future practice of quoting the various posts that one is contesting, would be helpful in the accounting, and resolution, of  any misunderstandings that may have occurred.)

The Zeno analogy has now been offered, in support of an argument, against a point, that was certainly never made. (Despite having, on at least one prior occasion, made a genuine effort, to draw attention to the existence of an important distinction, of a, comparatively complemental, argument, it seems my efforts, in that regard, may have been in vain.)

Purpose, as a noun is defined as: "intention"
Accident, as a noun is defined as: "a mishap"   
By the very definition of the words themselves, accidents of existence, being unintended, cannot be rightly said to possess purpose!

I reiterate, in the seemingly vain hope of resolving a persistent misunderstanding, that the contemporary secular viewpoint, if true, deprives our universe of purpose, and therefore morality cannot truly, and objectively, exist due to the impossibility of objectively deeming the correctness (or lack thereof) of any behaviours of any of the inherently accidental outcomes. Morality, by the very definition of the word cannot be truly said to be subjective. Even if I were to entertain the notion of arbitrarily derived morality, due to its subjective nature, it would invite the possibility of multiple conflicting moralities! 

How can it be moral to design a subjective "pseudo morality" knowing that the pursuance of same, will,almost certainly, give rise to the emergence of multiple "pseudo moral" crusades?
Please, please,please, understand that this is most definitely not saying, that subscription to secularism excludes the secularist from the moral populace!
What it is saying, is that, if the contemporary secular viewpoint turns out to be true, then morality cannot truly exist for any member of the human populace, irrespective of chosen system of belief or disbelief! Either, everybody has the availability of morality (in the event contemporary secular belief is incorrect) or nobody has such availability (in the event that contemporary secular belief is correct). 

In the interests of being clear, I am most certainly saying that, belief in the existence of morality is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint. 
However, I most certainly am not saying that, subscribers to the contemporary secular viewpoint, are devoid of morality! 

The irony, of a publication labelled "Scientific American", featuring a highly prejudiced article, centering around a scant few "cherry picked" quotes, from a 90+ minutes debate, seems to have escaped your attention!

Those willing to attentively, and objectively, view the full debate, will likely recognise that there were reasonably good arguments, presented by both parties, to that debate, and that neither party could rightly claim, to have delivered a perfect, "error free" performance. 

In his closing summation, Kagan, himself, (correctly in my opinion), acknowledged that the question around which the debate centred, hadn't been settled in that debate, and he further opined that it was a topic that couldn't be settled within that debate's time constraints (i.e. 90 minutes).

So before making the error of committing to belief, in a "Subjective" American, opinion piece, (presumably by reason of one's intense desire for the published opinion to be true), at the very least do oneself some justice, by performing some fact checking prior to proudly presenting, aforementioned, highly prejudiced, opinion piece, as evidence supportive of one's chosen religion.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> because the whole point of military training is to remove morality and replace it with discipline, unthinking obedience and loyalty  to their superiors.




Have you ever served in the military?

I can’t say any training I ever did was to remove morality.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Have you ever served in the military?
> 
> I can’t say any training I ever did was to remove morality.




They teach you to kill without remorse don't they ?


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> They teach you to kill without remorse don't they ?




Saying that the army teaches you to kill without remorse, is like saying a school of karate teaches you to bash people up.

Obviously anyone that said some thing like “a school of karate just trains people to go beat people up” probably has no idea about what actually goes on in a school of karate, I see your comment as being similar to that.


----------



## luutzu (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Official American estimates of allied troops losses in an invasion of Japan ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000.
> 
> So even the most conservative estimates of likely allied losses outnumbered the actual losses of Japanese from the nukes, add the that the Japanese losses, I really think it would have been a blood bath,
> 
> I know you think the Japanese only surrendered because of the soviets, but do you really think the soviets with their rifles are scarier than nuclear weapons? If the Japanese truly weren't phased by the nukes, why would they be phased by the soviets?




Official estimates on such matters are made to serve the state. i.e. justify its heroic deeds and noble intentions. 

The Nazi surrendered to the Soviets and the Allied right? No nukes where needed for Hitler to fall.

Since the Soviets were first into Berlin, half of Germany became theirs. So did everything East of Berlin. That and a few truckloads of German's best scientists and engineers. 

The US and Allied got the other half. 

So as not to repeat that mistake and get the entire colony all unto itself, a couple of cities will have to be sacrificed. Everything else afterwards are justification.

I mean, Japan is an archipelago of islands. It was then an impressive, dominant, technological centre of Asia. One capable of kicking practically all of the old European powers out of Asia. Sure it weren't all Imperial Japan's doing as the natives also fight against their colonial masters, but Imperial Japan was on par with other world powers.

So within that there would be a few technical genius like that of Nazi Germany. 

To take Japan (and Korea) whole serves a lot of strategic motives. The world hate imperial Japan for its war crimes so nobody is going to question the legal or morality of a nuke or two. 

It was a perfect target on all measure. Except the moral one. But that's what certain historians, Hollywood and the press are for.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Official estimates on such matters are made to serve the state. i.e. justify its heroic deeds and noble intentions.
> 
> The Nazi surrendered to the Soviets and the Allied right? No nukes where needed for Hitler to fall.
> 
> ...




Dude germany is a perfect example.

Over 400,000 people died on both sides during operation overlord, that was the D-day landings and the initial push forward over the next 2 months.

And that was just the western front, the Soviet’s lost over a million pushing forward on the eastern front.

Hundreds of thousands died in the operations after overlord, over 100,000 died in the battle of Berlin alone.


----------



## luutzu (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> They teach you to kill without remorse don't they ?




They can't teach anyone that. People are quite humane and can't be taught to go against their human nature. Well there are exceptions but...

What they'd do is what our politicians and most news media does to us. Tell the troops how evil the enemy is; show examples of their evil deeds; sometimes without context, sometimes just an honest viewing. 

Then the soldiers' own patriotism will take care of the rest. 

But to make sure that things get done when patriotism and news clipping isn't enough, they're pushed into situations where there's no other choice really.


----------



## luutzu (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Dude germany is a perfect example.
> 
> Over 400,000 people died on both sides during operation overlord, that was the D-day landings and the initial push forward over the next 2 months.
> 
> ...




That's a good point. 

There could be a "but" in there somewhere though. I'm sure there was a few buts, but it's been a while and I'm getting too old to remember


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> There could be a "but" in there somewhere though. I'm sure there was a few buts, but it's been a while and I'm getting too old to remember




Here is the but,
_*
But *_you also have to add the millions of civilians that died during the invasion of France and Germany, those huge numbers I listed above were just the military losses, civilian deaths far outnumbered military deaths.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> They can't teach anyone that. People are quite humane and can't be taught to go against their human nature. Well there are exceptions but...
> 
> What they'd do is what our politicians and most news media does to us. Tell the troops how evil the enemy is; show examples of their evil deeds; sometimes without context, sometimes just an honest viewing.
> 
> ...




In a conflict like Afganistan, our troops are working more like police officers, searching for gang members. 

Is not about going and killing people, it’s about searching out certain people and arresting them, of course in that you run into a lot of people that would rather kill you, so it becomes a kill or capture type thing.

But as I said before, any enemy soldier can always just put there hands up and come in to be questioned, we don’t kill people that aren’t threats.

If you haven’t seen it this is a good documentary. You will see its more like you would imagine a police swat team, than a bunch of “unthinking” rambos.

At the 1.50 mark you will see my old unit the IRR (incident response regiment) later renamed SOER.


----------



## luutzu (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Here is the but,
> _*
> But *_you also have to add the millions of civilians that died during the invasion of France and Germany, those huge numbers I listed above were just the military losses, civilian deaths far outnumbered military deaths.




The situation in Japan at the time was quite different to Hitler's though. 

From memory, Japan was willing to surrender before the nukes were dropped. Hitler was willing to drag the entire German people down with him.

So in Germany, they were prepared to fight to the last man, or old men or child. At least that's what the order was, and some did took it.

In Japan, all hope was lost because it's an island being blockaded with no way out and two powers are on its way - the same ones that knocked Nazi Germany out. So they know what's ahead for them.

That and they do not want the Royal Family to be hanged. What with being living Gods and stuff.

That and the generals, and here I'm guessing, see this not as an end but a temporary set back they can, eventually they reckon, find a way to win back the empire.

So if Stalin was to march in, Japan as a historical entity would be gone. Separated and the Emperor and his family will suffer the same fate the Czars did 3 decades ago under the reds. 

The analogy of Japan being nuke or else the casualties and suffering will be similar to that of Europe/Germany would make it understanding. But that's if it's true. I remember a couple of historians saying what I just repeated up there - that the circumstances weren't the same with Japan's will to fight to the last man. Not at that late stage anyway.


----------



## luutzu (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> In a conflict like Afganistan, our troops are working more like police officers, searching for gang members.
> 
> Is not about going and killing people, it’s about searching out certain people and arresting them, of course in that you run into a lot of people that would rather kill you, so it becomes a kill or capture type thing.
> 
> ...





The Alliance of the Willing would do police duty, the Yanks have other jobs though right? As in, they kick azz and chew gum, and they're always out of gum.

I'll watch that doco soon. 

Strange how life takes us all over the place. I was going to join the Army back then... the letter never came for the physical. I am guessing my parents got to it. 

I played paintball during one of those uni outings. Got shot right in the head about a minute into the first game. Came out of nowhere.

I know it's rubbish compare to what you've been through.. no kidding. Not trying to compare war stories, just it's pretty random and senseless and I'd probably wouldn't live to realise it within hours of the first tour.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Saying that the army teaches you to kill without remorse, is like saying a school of karate teaches you to bash people up.
> 
> Obviously anyone that said some thing like “a school of karate just trains people to go beat people up” probably has no idea about what actually goes on in a school of karate, I see your comment as being similar to that.




Whatever, but the similarity between the military and religion is quite obvious to those who have not been indoctrinated in either.


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Whatever, but the similarity between the military and religion is quite obvious to those who have not been indoctrinated in either.




Do I sound like some one who has been indoctrinated into being an unthinking killer?

Not sure why you would single out the military, so you think police and fire fighters are indoctrinated like a religion also?


----------



## Value Collector (20 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I'd probably wouldn't live to realise it within hours of the first tour.




Put a helmet on and you’ll be right mate.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 January 2018)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Not sure why you would single out the military, so you think police and fire fighters are indoctrinated like a religion also?




To a certain extent they are. They need to be trained to deal with trauma and to become desensitised to it, otherwise they couldn't do their job properly.

And especially in the police force there is an indoctrinated sense of loyalty to their peers over their public duty. There are plenly of instances of police covering up the corruption or unlawful acts of their colleagues .


----------



## Value Collector (21 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> To a certain extent they are. They need to be trained to deal with trauma and to become desensitised to it, otherwise they couldn't do their job properly.
> 
> And especially in the police force there is an indoctrinated sense of loyalty to their peers over their public duty. There are plenly of instances of police covering up the corruption or unlawful acts of their colleagues .




That’s not the same thing, indoctrination is being taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, I can’t say that is how the military works,


----------



## SirRumpole (21 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> That’s not the same thing, indoctrination is being taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, I can’t say that is how the military works,




Aren't you taught to follow orders without question ?

Don't you have faith in the ability of your commanders that their decisions will always be correct ?

How would you deal with a subordinate who refused to follow your orders on the basis of a moral belief ?


----------



## Tisme (21 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Do I sound like some one who has been indoctrinated into being an unthinking killer?
> 
> Not sure why you would single out the military, so you think police and fire fighters are indoctrinated like a religion also?




Now we are going to defame coppers and fireries?


----------



## Value Collector (21 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> 1. Aren't you taught to follow orders without question ?
> 
> 2. Don't you have faith in the ability of your commanders that their decisions will always be correct ?
> 
> 3. How would you deal with a subordinate who refused to follow your orders on the basis of a moral belief ?




1. No, You are taught to follow lawful orders, you can certainly refuse an order you think is unlawful.

2. No, you have s reasonable expectation that commanders will do their absolute best to make good decisions, but I would call it faith, and I wouldn’t say anyone believes they will always be corrrect.

3. Can you give me an example of what you mean? We don’t really go around ordering people to act immorally, what sort of immoral order are you talking about.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> 3. Can you give me an example of what you mean? We don’t really go around ordering people to act immorally, what sort of immoral order are you talking about.




You have said it's justified to kill women and children as long as they are "collateral damage". There is a terrorist hiding in a house with civilians and you order a rocket attack on the house. What if the person holding the rocket launcher doesn't want to kill the civilians so he disobeys a direct order. Does he get court martialled for disobedience ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 January 2018)

plenty of strikes get aborted to avoid harming an innocent. No one would have a problem with that.

Soldiers aren’t monsters.

Watch this short video, you here a crew about to do a rocket strike abort because believed innocent people enter the rockets danger area.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> plenty of strikes get aborted to avoid harming an innocent. No one would have a problem with that.
> 
> Soldiers aren’t monsters.
> 
> Watch this short video, you here a crew about to do a rocket strike abort because believed innocent people enter the rockets danger area.





That's good, but I suggest we only see the "good" stuff.

Remember the cover up of the rocket attack on journalists in Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

I'm not saying that soldiers are monsters (some may be but the majority are not). I understand that mistakes are sometimes made and that decisions are taken under high pressure at short notice and also that morality sometimes gets blurred.

What I'm really arguing is your assertion that you have a superior morality because of your atheism. I can't see anything in your arguments that support that because secular morality can be used to justify virtually any horror if* in someone's opinion* it provides some benefit to a certain number of people. There are too many shadows in that argument to say that objective morality has been served.


----------



## Value Collector (21 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's good, but I suggest we only see the "good" stuff.
> 
> Remember the cover up of the rocket attack on journalists in Iraq.
> 
> ...




I never said I have superior morality because of atheism.

I said secular morality is superior to theistic morality.

(Secular and atheist are synonyms, for example Australia is a secular country, but maybe only 10% describe them selves as atheist)

The reason secular morality is superior, is because it is not based on absolute rules, rather it is based on logic and reasoning.

If something is proved to be immoral s secular moral system can adjust and adapt much quicker than one based on Devine command and absolute rules.


----------



## bellenuit (21 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> http://biblehub.com/jonah/4-11.htm
> 
> 
> There you go. I got this from googling a little. A verse where God expresses compassion and reluctance to kill infants in the same kind of event (Nineveh). You're wrong about God.
> ...




There you go again. Yes God said some good things , we know that, but also did and ordered others to do some vile things.

You continue to be apologetic to these vile actions. _Again, think of a rodent infestation. I'm obviously a superior life form, and I have understanding about their effect on the world. I decide to exterminate them since it's better not to have them around. I also destroy their babies.
_
Humanity is now a rodent infestation.

_All commentators agree that this doesn't apply to God, and for good reasons._

Yes, we know the good reason. They only way they can reconcile God committing or ordering others to commit vile acts with their own morality is to say their morality doesn't apply to God. It's the house of cards fear I dealt with before.


----------



## Value Collector (21 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> (Secular and atheist are synonyms, for example Australia is a secular country, but maybe only 10% describe them selves as atheist)
> 
> .




I meant to say *aren’t* synonyms.

Atheist and secular are two different things.


----------



## fiftyeight (21 January 2018)

I loosely follow this thread, it is good to see Value Collector and SirRumple have a pretty in-depth discussion with strongly opposing views and keep it relatively civil. (Not sure if there was previously a slanging match haha)


----------



## SirRumpole (21 January 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I loosely follow this thread, it is good to see Value Collector and SirRumple have a pretty in-depth discussion with strongly opposing views and keep it relatively civil. (Not sure if there was previously a slanging match haha)




I don't think we slang each other off, in fact I enjoy the discussions we have had over a number of topics. It's never got personal as far as I can remember.


----------



## grah33 (21 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Actually, the more I read what you write, the more obvious it is that you are stuck in a fallacious paradox of your own creation.
> 
> You rightly are aware that evolution as espoused by secularists does not have a purpose and you are even right to suggest that without purpose we cannot have morality and cannot judge right from wrong. But your argument is fallacious because even though there may be no purpose to our evolutionary existence in a cosmological time frame, that doesn't mean there can be no purpose in our daily existence and struggle for survival.
> 
> ...





bellenuit said:


> There you go again. Yes God said some good things , we know that, but also did and ordered others to do some vile things.
> 
> You continue to be apologetic to these vile actions. _Again, think of a rodent infestation. I'm obviously a superior life form, and I have understanding about their effect on the world. I decide to exterminate them since it's better not to have them around. I also destroy their babies.
> _
> ...




God was bringing justice, not acting wicked as you say. If they continued to live, they would torture themselves. If you can understand the idea behind population culling then this shouldn't be a problem for you.   We do not agree here.  I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.

And I do kill rodents for various reasons. They're of a lower life form than me, so no qualms doing what I have to do.


----------



## bellenuit (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> God was bringing justice, not acting wicked as you say. If they continued to live, they would torture themselves. If you can understand the idea behind population culling then this shouldn't be a problem for you.   We do not agree here.  I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.
> 
> And I do kill rodents for various reasons. They're of a lower life form than me, so no qualms doing what I have to do.




Let's make sure I get this correctly. You are justifying God killing innocent infants based on some supposition, with no evidence to support it, that if they continued to live they would torture themselves. 

So based on the Christian teachings we are told that God created man in his own image. That God shows *unconditional infinite love and forgiveness* for his creation. But then decides to cull them for population control, killing many innocents and for those who may have sinned, showing no forgiveness. Slaughter and torture is what he has in store for them.

Unconditional infinite love, unconditional infinite forgiveness, torture, murder, slaughter of innocents.  Seems your Church may be a bit like Humpty Dumpty. _“When I use a *word*,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it *means* just what I choose it to *mean*—neither more nor less.” 
_


----------



## cynic (22 January 2018)

Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.

Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.
> 
> .




It seems to me that religious people just assume anything their god character does must be good, he can do the most vile things and it is good by definition because he did it.

Seems silly to me.


----------



## cynic (22 January 2018)

The aforedesribed character, sounds a heck of a lot like Deacon Dick Dawkins.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> And I do kill rodents for various reasons. *They're of a lower life form than me*, so no qualms doing what I have to do.



Is thinking oneself as 'superior' man optimal for natural balance? A better explanation for you killing rodents is they present a risk to your health. We have enough people believing they are 'superior' in the world and to its detriment already.


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2018)

Crazy Cartoon, designed to scare people into becoming Jehovah witness.


----------



## grah33 (22 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Is thinking oneself as 'superior' man optimal for natural balance? A better explanation for you killing rodents is they present a risk to your health. We have enough people believing they are 'superior' in the world and to its detriment already.




I never said I'm more superior than other human beings. I'm equal to other human beings , but I'm not equal to God. My point is that if God creates life, He can take it, if there is a good reason to do so.


----------



## grah33 (22 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Let's make sure I get this correctly. You are justifying God killing innocent infants based on some supposition, with no evidence to support it, that if they continued to live they would torture themselves.
> 
> So based on the Christian teachings we are told that God created man in his own image. That God shows *unconditional infinite love and forgiveness* for his creation. But then decides to cull them for population control, killing many innocents and for those who may have sinned, showing no forgiveness. Slaughter and torture is what he has in store for them.
> 
> Unconditional infinite love, unconditional infinite forgiveness, torture, murder, slaughter of innocents.  Seems your Church may be a bit like Humpty Dumpty. _“When I use a *word*,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it *means* just what I choose it to *mean*—neither more nor less.” _






Value Collector said:


> It seems to me that religious people just assume anything their god character does must be good, he can do the most vile things and it is good by definition because he did it.
> 
> Seems silly to me.




I didn't say God was doing population control. My point is that if secular moralists understand population control and abortion and the death penalty (the purpose of each), then you shouldn't have any problem with these stories.

Jesus mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood, and yet the love of God. St Paul mentioned some of those harsh stories too, but also the love of Christ. So we would go on forever disagreeing with each other.

You skepticism leads you to this conclusion. While my faith leads me to my views. We simply disagree with each other in our views here, so let's peacefully do that. You'll find atheists will have your feelings about it, while believers will have similar feelings to mine. But I understand where you are coming from, as those stories aren't pretty.

That aside, the OT is very important to the NT. Jesus pointed out quite a few verses about Himself in the OT. Also, related to this, He warned of another devastation that would occur in the future, after morality collapses altogether.

Not trying to do battle against you in any way. I see this as a discussion.


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> My point is that if God creates life, He can take it, .




He can take it, but would that be moral?

I mean simply creating life wouldn't give you the right to kill or torture that life just because you created it.

I mean if I discovered some scientific way of creating the equivalent of a human in a lab, once it was alive and talking and independent, would I have the right to torture it or kill it and its family?


----------



## grah33 (22 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.
> 
> Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.



is that one or 2 people now?  Haven't read all your posts but you seem respectful enough.  No one is perfect of course.  does the ignore button apply to all threads and forums?   Hopefully they can deactivate it.  I might be careful not to prolong my discussions with people.  In case it gets people frustrated or something like that.  or they feel addicted to posting at the expense of other commitments in their life.


----------



## grah33 (22 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> He can take it, but would that be moral?
> 
> I mean simply creating life wouldn't give you the right to kill or torture that life just because you created it.



Why not VC?  Take an abortion.  You think that is morally okay (including late term abortions).


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Why not VC?  Take an abortion.  You think that is morally okay (including late term abortions).




you seemed to have missed the value of this sentence "once it was alive and talking and independent, would I have the right to torture it or kill it and its family?"


--------------

When have I ever said late term abortions are ok?

But two reasons I think abortions in early pregnancy abortions are ok.

1, There is a big difference between a zygote and fully formed human baby, eg I don't consider either sperm or eggs to be human, neither do I think they become human the moment they combine, I think your human rights start to kick in when you are much further down the line in terms of development.

2, Every one has the right to their own body, and can decide how its used and what risks they want to take. A 20 year old guy doesn't have the right to demand his mother give him a kidney, even if he needs a kidney to survive and will die without out it, in the same way an unborn baby doesn't have the right to use his mothers body even though it will die without the use of that body.

If a girl decides she doesn't want an embryo growing inside her, then technically that embryo has no right to be there.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If a girl decides she doesn't want an embryo growing inside her, then technically that embryo has no right to be there.




Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk. This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk.




Saying yes to sex, is not the same as yes to pregnancy.

Pregnancy may be a risk involved with sex, but simply having sex is not a commitment to have a baby.



> This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.




People go and get sporting injuries fixed at hospital too.

Saying yes to a game of football isn't a commitment to live with an open wound for ever. you will go to the emergency room and get that stitched up, you will get an antibiotic shot to prevent further complications etc.


----------



## cynic (22 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk. This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.



In the case of rape, whilst do I recognise that the woman isn't to blame for the pregnancy, the foetus is also an innocent party to the situation!


----------



## bellenuit (22 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.
> 
> Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.




If referring to me, you are not on ignore. Just as I said in my previous response to you, I find it pointless to further argue with you on the morality issue as you have defined morality as only possible if one has purpose, but then ignore any possibility of purpose other than in the cosmological sense. I do not buy that argument, but cannot argue with you so long as your thinking is constrained by the parameters you have set. As I said, I do know right from wrong and I do have morality, so end of discussion from me with you on this topic.


----------



## cynic (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> is that one or 2 people now?  Haven't read all your posts but you seem respectful enough.  No one is perfect of course.  does the ignore button apply to all threads and forums?   Hopefully they can deactivate it.  I might be careful not to prolong my discussions with people.  In case it gets people frustrated or something like that.  or they feel addicted to posting at the expense of other commitments in their life.



One has openly declared it,but, I would be very surprised if others haven't decided that they'd prefer to exclude my posts from view. For example, devotees of Deacon Dick Dawkins have been known to react strongly to anyone expressing their contempt for him and his antitheist sermons.
(Strangely enough, it seems that one such person, had no problem (unfairly in my opinion) levelling an accusation of unseemly behaviour, at a (sadly now deceased) member of the Catholic religion, who was so highly respected for her charitable works, that she had been awarded the Nobel Peace prize.)

As to the functioning of the ignore facility, I cannot advise on the scope, and/or reversibility, of its effects, as my preference has always been to never use it, irrespective of how disagreeable and unsavoury, some viewpoints may seem.


----------



## bellenuit (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I didn't say God was doing population control. My point is that if secular moralists understand population control and abortion and the death penalty (the purpose of each), then you shouldn't have any problem with these stories.




Not so. Population control should be undertaken by encouraging people to not conceive in the first place. Not by slaughtering people after they have been born. I certainly do not regard late term pregnancies as warranted other than if it necessary to save the life of the mother. In general I am opposed to abortion if it is purely used as a means of birth control, when other means are available. I don't believe in the death penalty.



> Jesus mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood, and yet the love of God. St Paul mentioned some of those harsh stories too, but also the love of Christ. So we would go on forever disagreeing with each other.




So what. Eva Braun mentioned the love Hitler had shown her and to many others. 



> You skepticism leads you to this conclusion. While my faith leads me to my views.




And this is the crux of the matter. I really would have had no issue with what you have contributed except when you insisted that Christianity showed *perfect* morality. It should be now obvious that it doesn't and it is simple to prove. Christian morality *that doesn't condone* vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality *that does condone* vile acts of God. Thus the latter cannot be perfect.

You do realise that if Hitler had said he had been spoken to by God (just like many others in the Christian church claim - Pat Robertson for example) and had acted on God's instructions, every single atrocity that he had committed could be justified on the basis that similar actions had previously been condoned by God.  

That is why Steven Weinberg opined: _Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion._

So true.


----------



## cynic (22 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> If referring to me, you are not on ignore. Just as I said in my previous response to you, I find it pointless to further argue with you on the morality issue as you have defined morality as only possible if one has purpose, but then ignore any possibility of purpose other than in the cosmological sense. I do not buy that argument, but cannot argue with you so long as your thinking is constrained by the parameters you have set. As I said, I do know right from wrong and I do have morality, so end of discussion from me with you on this topic.



Thanks for chiming in bellenuit, and I am quite glad that you haven't placed me on ignore. 

Unfortunately, as too often occurs, in discussions about controversial topics, misunderstandings can easily arise. Particularly if ambiguous statements happen to be present.

If you are saying that I have said that you are not in possession of morality, or moral capacity, then my postings have been seriously misunderstood by either:

(i) myself or 
(ii)yourself or
(iii) both of us

I have tried on several occasions now (unsuccessfully it seems), to correct just one persistent misunderstanding, (which, I now suspect to have arisen from a potential ambiguity, in a certain sentence/phrase, featuring in a number of my posts). However, if one chooses not to take the time, to quote the post/s, from which one's understandings have been derived, then the author has little opportunity to identify and correct any defects in communicative expression, and/or any faulty understandings of same.

Whilst you have every right to discontinue any discussion you choose, and are certainly under no obligation to offer any justification for doing so, I do feel entitled to say that, since you have chosen to offer a justification for termination of discussion, it appears that your reason has been founded upon, at least one, serious misunderstanding, of that which I have been attempting to communicate.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> My point is that _*if God creates life*_, He can take it, if there is a good reason to do so.



I don't believe in a god and  the "ifs" in your sentence tell me you are still not sure.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> As I said, I do know right from wrong and I do have morality, so end of discussion from me with you on this topic.




We all think we know right from wrong, but two genuine people can have different opinions on the same moral subject, both thinking they are right, so is there an ultimate moral judge or is it just down to personal preference ?


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> so is there an ultimate moral judge or is it just down to personal preference ?




does having an “ultimate moral judge”, get you past the personal preference part? or would it just make it the personal preference of that judge?


I think your question is a false dichotomy, 

As explained I think there is a third option, being that what is morally correct is defined not by any person or being, but by the outcomes as judged against whether they improve or decrease the well being of those involved.

Of course opinions may vary on what that morally correct outcome would be, but it exists regardless, and the only way to find out what it is, is to use logic and reasoning.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> does having an “ultimate moral judge”, get you past the personal preference part? or would it just make it the personal preference of that judge?




I have a feeling that we will be going around in circles again, but to answer your question, if there is a god then he/she/it is the ultimate moral judge, but you don't believe that so there is little use labouring the point.



> As explained I think there is a third option, being that what is morally correct is defined not by any person or being, but by the outcomes as judged against whether they improve or decrease the well being of those involved.
> 
> Of course opinions may vary on what that morally correct outcome would be, but it exists regardless, and the only way to find out what it is, is to use logic and reasoning.




Logic and reasoning rely on making proper assumptions. eg on the abortion issue, when does life begin ? at conception, at 2 months, 3 months, 6 months, whatever it's really a matter of what you and other people want to believe, in order to attain the ends you want to attain. So you are prepared to abort a living person in order to increase the wellbeing of the mother (and father) by relieving them of the guilt of their own actions and you can rationalise this by believing that life does not begin untill a certain point. Now if there was an ultimate moral judge then they would know the answer to this question, but if we can't contact him then people go with what suits them best.


----------



## Value Collector (22 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> if there is a god then he/she/it is the ultimate moral judge,




Why? and as I said doesn't that reduce it to opinion



> Now if there was an ultimate moral judge then they would know the answer to this question, but if we can't contact him then people go with what suits them best.




Yes, and I would say that is less likely to get you to a good moral system than one which makes its choices based a rational and logically study of the facts and how they affect well being.



> eg on the abortion issue, when does life begin ? at conception, at 2 months, 3 months, 6 months,




you don't need to know a persons exact weight to know if they are obese.

But as I have said in other discussions, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, so a foetus without a developed brain is not at the point where they can be considered to a person yet, we can figure out the likely times consciousness forms by studying brain development, then set rules with a margin of safety.



> So you are prepared to abort a living person in order to increase the wellbeing of the mother (and father) by relieving them of the guilt of their own actions and you can rationalise this by believing that life does not begin untill a certain point.




If as part of an IVF program, 8 embryos were created but only four were used? does the mother of those embryos have a moral duty to keep having children till all 8 of embryos are used?

or is it ok for her to just have 3 children and discard the unwanted embryos? 

If you are ok with discarding embryos from the IVF example, I can't see what the difference is to removing one from the womb and discarding it.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If you are ok with discarding embryos from the IVF example, I can't see what the difference is to removing one from the womb and discarding it.




I'm not OK with IVF at all, I think it should be banned.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 January 2018)

Since morality has been mentioned a lot. Why is it broadly acceptable to kill an ant but killing an elephant is frowned upon? They are both creatures so is morality a matter of perception and therefore morality is in the eye of the beholdr and the more agreeable beholders the more something is morally right (or wrong)?


----------



## cynic (22 January 2018)

Stealing food, spoiling picnics, polygamy, incest, and sometimes engaging in cannibalism by eating their relatives, are a few possibilities that come to mind, but do these "crimes" warrant the death penalty?
and 
Why wasn't a jury of peers allowed to attend the trial?


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 January 2018)

I have been on the receiving end of a long term physical, mental and emotional beating approved and handed down by ordinary people and self proclaimed judges and jurors for a *non criminal social act.* A kangaroo court arrangement. I have apologised, forgiven, pleaded and fought for freedom. 

My mantra is:
I forgive eveyone, I forgive myself,
I forgive all past experience,
Forgiving everyone, forgiving myself,
I am free - I am free.

From a recording I enjoyed many years ago though forgot the author's name.


----------



## grah33 (23 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> And this is the crux of the matter. I really would have had no issue with what you have contributed except when you insisted that Christianity showed *perfect* morality. It should be now obvious that it doesn't and it is simple to prove. Christian morality *that doesn't condone* vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality *that does condone* vile acts of God. Thus the latter cannot be perfect.
> 
> That is why Steven Weinberg opined: _Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion._
> 
> So true.



You haven't proved anything related to this issue. And I just hope you realize this. Maybe you're just writing on an impulse. You asked qs, and I gave answers. With this kind of posting, it doesn't bring out the best in a thread. This also seems to happen at the pro debating level too. 


Weinberg is talking rubbish. I know people in real life that help the poor, and give alms.  It's because they believe in God, that they devote so much of their time, not getting paid for it.  But they have a peace and other good things.  To them it's worth it and they get back from it.  They're nice people in real life too. You're judging again.


----------



## grah33 (23 January 2018)

cynic said:


> One has openly declared it,but, I would be very surprised if others haven't decided that they'd prefer to exclude my posts from view. For example, devotees of Deacon Dick Dawkins have been known to react strongly to anyone expressing their contempt for him and his antitheist sermons.
> (Strangely enough, it seems that one such person, had no problem (unfairly in my opinion) levelling an accusation of unseemly behaviour, at a (sadly now deceased) member of the Catholic religion, who was so highly respected for her charitable works, that she had been awarded the Nobel Peace prize.)
> 
> As to the functioning of the ignore facility, I cannot advise on the scope, and/or reversibility, of its effects, as my preference has always been to never use it, irrespective of how disagreeable and unsavoury, some viewpoints may seem.



Oh well, don't worry about it.

From the posts I read, you wrote some good stuff. And the way you create analogies for common sense principles. Hilarious...


----------



## grah33 (23 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't believe in a god and  the "ifs" in your sentence tell me you are still not sure.



Actually I do believe a fair bit. I don't doubt. Seems like on this thread, a few people don't doubt much about God's existence, from what I came across in earlier posting. I also know people personally who, at some point in their life, have gone looking for God, and say they have found something special. I think that's a big thing in all of this, about whether a person has it in them to look for the Deity.  If I look back on my past, I knew I should have done it long ago, but I didn't want any of it. I suspect it's the same with many people.

From your other comment, you still do believe in something , which I think is good. From my own life experiences, I think having morals (applies to everyone) leads to avoiding painful experiences. Hopefully your situation will get better. Regarding reconciliation, I have a similar mantra I guess. I should probably add that when I've done something seriously wrong I own up to the effected person, and if it's really embarrassing to do that, usually the matter is more serious and needs confrontation between the people. A great parable about that actually...


----------



## grah33 (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> you seemed to have missed the value of this sentence "once it was alive and talking and independent, would I have the right to torture it or kill it and its family?"
> 
> 
> --------------
> ...



continuing our little discussion, what age is the cutoff you think for abortion to be acceptable, roughly?


----------



## cynic (23 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> ...
> Weinberg is talking rubbish...



The funny thing about Weinberg, like so terribly many ardent critics of religion, is that he is completely oblivious to his own religiosity. It is really quite comical!

I am of the view that he was initially on the right track but was blinded (by his personal prejudice), to the existence of some important distinctions, resulting in his somewhat erroneous conclusion. (I say that it takes one very specific religion, namely "HolierThanThouism", for good people to do evil things.)

Like those whom proudly quote him, he chooses not to recognise the full true meaning of the word religion, thereby disavowing its presence in his own psyche, and maintaining his personal fantasy of freedom from hypocrisy.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm not OK with IVF at all, I think it should be banned.




you dodged the question,

I know you have issue with people not knowing their biological parents, but if it is a husband and wife just getting help to fall pregnant and both will be biological parents do you still have a problem with it?

And as with my original question, do you think they should be forced to keep having kids till all viable  embryos are used?


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> continuing our little discussion, what age is the cutoff you think for abortion to be acceptable, roughly?




I am not an embryologist, but it would be far enough along that the baby has developed enough that it's brain its functional and it has consciousness, and as I said if you were making a rule of law, you would give some safety margin and make the cut off a bit earlier.

that would cover point 1 that I mentioned.

there is still the issue of the mothers rights to her body though, technically no matter how old the baby is, it doesn't have the right to live inside its mother if she doesn't want it in there.

However, given the fact the mother can terminate during early stages, I would be ok with the law requiring her to keep it once it gets to late, unless there is a really terrible heath consequence for the mother, eg a good chance both her and the baby with die unless its aborted.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Since morality has been mentioned a lot. Why is it broadly acceptable to kill an ant but killing an elephant is frowned upon? They are both creatures so is morality a matter of perception and therefore morality is in the eye of the beholdr and the more agreeable beholders the more something is morally right (or wrong)?




I would use the example of a human and a robot.

It's ok to cut the head off a robot, but its not ok to cut the head of a human.

The difference is the entity's ability to feel pain, and have conscious awareness etc.

We know Humans and some other higher animals have the brain function to have a sense of self, feel pain, morn loss etc etc, but ants are probably more like robots running the unthinking software of instinct. 

So the higher up the spectrum of consciousness the more rights will will probably give the animal.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> you dodged the question,




No, I have made a moral decision that I don't believe that IVF should be allowed because I think it creates more problems than it solves.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No, I have made a moral decision that I don't believe that IVF should be allowed because I think it creates more problems than it solves.




my question was about whether you felt a few cells like this, have full human rights.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> my question was about whether you felt a few cells like this, have full human rights.



And my answer is concerned with what ivf does to the children in their adult lives , especially if donors are anonymous. I know a family who have an ivf child who contracted systic fibrosis through a donor. Once money comes into the equation, standards fall very quickly.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And my answer is concerned with what ivf does to the children in their adult lives ,




Which has nothing to do with the question I asked, as I said you are dodging the question.

So let me ask again.

Ignoring any other moral issues with the IVF system.

If a man and a women went to IVF do help conceive their own biological child.

and in the process, 8 fertilised eggs are formed but they only want 2 children, Is it morally wrong to discard the unwanted/needed embryos? given that they look like the picture I added, eg no brain or anything simply a lump of a few cells.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So the higher up the spectrum of consciousness the more rights will will probably give the animal.



Possibly the number and size of creatures is considered when determining acceptable or not. You are right typing people care less about living things with lower consciousness.

Passing rant:
Reduction of carbon emitting substances aside, the rapid rate of planetary destruction by humans is acceptable at present. Pockets of nature are being preserved yes but this allows deforestation and pollutants right up to the zone. It is not natural, human nature. 
99 out of 100 people will walk past a plastic bottle laying in the footpath gutter later to be swept into a stormwater drain then into a river. Thinking someone else will pick it up or they feel embarrased doing so. Maybe it's the social order of things where human waste is the lower order peoples responsibility. Maybe there is fear the plastic bottle has infectious disease attached.

4th March is Clean Up Australia Day but everday in some way is good. A Create Less Waste program installed in everyones mind would be helpful.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Ignoring any other moral issues with the IVF system.




Why ignore "other moral issues", they are a fact and form part of the whole.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Why ignore "other moral issues", they are a fact and form part of the whole.




Your problem is around donor sperm/eggs isn't it? so in my example that problem doesn't exist.

But I am not actually trying to gauge your opinion on IVF, but rather your opinion on where the human rights start, eg do you consider the lump of cells to be human yet.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Your problem is around donor sperm/eggs isn't it? so in my example that problem doesn't exist.
> 
> But I am not actually trying to gauge your opinion on IVF, but rather your opinion on where the human rights start, eg do you consider the lump of cells to be human yet.




Do you consider the foundations of a house to be an integral part of the house ?


----------



## grah33 (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not an embryologist, but it would be far enough along that the baby has developed enough that it's brain its functional and it has consciousness, and as I said if you were making a rule of law, you would give some safety margin and make the cut off a bit earlier.
> 
> that would cover point 1 that I mentioned.
> 
> ...




Fair enough. You feel it better abortions occur early on, so it doesn't get uglier than what it is already. And, related to my argument, you also said you can understand the need for late term abortions. You agree that the mother has the authority to choose whether it will continue to live (a common view many people have).

I will apply my argument to late term abortions since you said you understand the woman's right to abort no matter how old the unborn child is.

Now , if you agree that a human, who is in this case perhaps almost equal or equal to another human (8 month old), can abort the child, that it isn't wrong, then my argument is this:

God can also perform an abortion if He thinks there is a worthy reason, and even more so, since He isn't equal to human beings, but a more superior life form. Also, that God is particularly capable of doing it because of His understanding of the situation at hand. So one can apply this to the innocent babies in e.g. Sodom/gomorah and other examples.

I use the analogy of a chicken farmer now since it makes it even clearer. Nobody would call a farmer immoral for aborting his baby chickens, if he/she felt it would be better to end their lives, since we regard the farmer as a more superior life form than the chicken.

I'm applying this example to late term abortions since you said the woman has rights even in these situations.

Now do you understand my point of view?


----------



## grah33 (23 January 2018)

cynic said:


> The funny thing about Weinberg, like so terribly many ardent critics of religion, is that he is completely oblivious to his own religiosity. It is really quite comical!
> 
> I am of the view that he was initially on the right track but was blinded (by his personal prejudice), to the existence of some important distinctions, resulting in his somewhat erroneous conclusion. (I say that it takes one very specific religion, namely "HolierThanThouism", for good people to do evil things.)
> 
> Like those whom proudly quote him, he chooses not to recognise the full true meaning of the word religion, thereby disavowing its presence in his own psyche, and maintaining his personal fantasy of freedom from hypocrisy.



I think when I saw Dawkins creating children's books  about myths, with Christ alongside Medusa, that's when I thought he should use his time more productively elsewhere.  Anybody who studies enough knows the effect of Christ's influence on mankind, and in particular the formerly Christian based countries.


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you consider the foundations of a house to be an integral part of the house ?



Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question?




I think I just gave you an answer you don't like.


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You haven't proved anything related to this issue. And I just hope you realize this. Maybe you're just writing on an impulse. You asked qs, and I gave answers. With this kind of posting, it doesn't bring out the best in a thread. This also seems to happen at the pro debating level too.




But I have. By not accepting that Christian morality *that doesn't condone *vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality *that does condone* vile acts of God you are clearly asserting that condoning vile acts of God is morally of no consequences.



> Weinberg is talking rubbish. I know people in real life that help the poor, and give alms.  It's because they believe in God, that they devote so much of their time, not getting paid for it.  But they have a peace and other good things.  To them it's worth it and they get back from it.  They're nice people in real life too. You're judging again.




We are all aware that there many good people in the world, some religious, some not. And just as you are saying, he is also saying that with or without religion good people will do good things. But we also know good people do bad things even though they know those things are bad, but because their minds are warped by religion they justify it. One need not go though all the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by people who believed they were doing the right thing or go through some of the vile acts being committed by some other groups in the world today to prove that point. It should be self evident.


----------



## grah33 (23 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But I have. By not accepting that Christian morality *that doesn't condone *vile acts of God is clearly better than Christian morality *that does condone* vile acts of God you are clearly asserting that condoning vile acts of God is morally of no consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> We are all aware that there many good people in the world, some religious, some not. And just as you are saying, he is also saying that with or without religion good people will do good things. But we also know good people do bad things even though they know those things are bad, but because their minds are warped by religion they justify it. One need not go though all the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by people who believed they were doing the right thing or go through some of the vile acts being committed by some other groups in the world today to prove that point. It should be self evident.



Listen to yourself in your first paragraph.  It's as though i never gave an answer.  A lot of people won't buy that.  I won't repeat explanations. 

And no, believe me, the people I know do good because they believe in God.  There are many such people out there. 

I don't understand why you're reacting like this.  Maybe there is something you're fighting, i don't know. You did say that one of your parents nags? you to get back on the right path, or something similar?  If that is the case, I can relate to it (many years back).  Maybe you feel like you're fighting something, or you got to justify your departure from the faith (really don't know, wild guess).


----------



## Value Collector (23 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think I just gave you an answer you don't like.



No, I really have no idea what you mean, you just seem to be dodging the question?

Edit-

Unless you are saying that a that fertilized egg is like the foundation of the house?

But would you call a concrete slab a house? I don’t think so, nor would I call a lump of a few cells a human.


----------



## bellenuit (23 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Listen to yourself in your first paragraph.  It's as though i never gave an answer.  A lot of people won't buy that.  I won't repeat explanations.
> 
> And no, believe me, the people I know do good because they believe in God.  There are many such people out there.
> 
> I don't understand why you're reacting like this.  Maybe there is something you're fighting, i don't know. You did say that one of your parents nags? you to get back on the right path, or something similar?  If that is the case, I can relate to it (many years back).  Maybe you feel like you're fighting something, or you got to justify your departure from the faith (really don't know, wild guess).




Must be someone else. Certainly not me. I have no gripes with religion as such, people can believe what they want. But I will call out those who claim their religion offers perfect morality and in the same breath justify the slaughter of innocents in the name of said religion. 

Anyway, I won't continue to argue with you. You have stated your position on God committing vile acts and you have no issue with it.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, I really have no idea what you mean, you just seem to be dodging the question?
> 
> Edit-
> 
> ...




The point is that you can't have a house without foundations and you can't have a human without those cells. Destroy the cells and you destroy the human.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But I will call out those who claim their religion offers perfect morality and in the same breath justify the slaughter of innocents in the name of said religion.




That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".


----------



## grah33 (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".



I didn't catch the VC's argument with all the posting...

Some differences:
God regarded the nations as detestable  and causing harm to the planet/themselves  (unlike WW2 people)

There is a BIG difference between God killing humans, and humans killing themselves.  It's like a farmer killing his chickens (not immoral) vs chickens killing chickens (assuming they had  morals ).  A Creator of life would be in a better position to do it, while it's particularly grievous when equal lives kill each other.

Regards moral superiority, the morality of the New Testament (not the Law in the OT) is better than secular morality.  I gave some examples such as abortion and marriage.  An atheist responded with an example of an animal getting killed to argue their point against me. And by morality, we are talking about what kind of morals we follow, rather than Bible stories.


----------



## grah33 (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".



Oh okay, now I understand.  Yeah, good point.  Amazes me how Bell has been rolling over this idea on and on.
edit: I misread your line.  I thought you said " no difference between the arg. that Bell was proposing when compared to Hiroshima..." ie in both cases (Soddom and Hiroshima, innocents were killed...).  Sorry to confuse everyone  .


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is that you can't have a house without foundations and you can't have a human without those cells. Destroy the cells and you destroy the human.




Yes, but foundations by itself is not yet a house. 

By your logic you have destroyed human life every time you have masturbated in the shower, because you can’t have the foundation without the sperm and you let you sorry fo down the drain.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".



When have I claimed to have perfect morality? 

I never claimed dropping the nukes was the best moral option, just that it may have been.

I am simply recognizing that people dying doesn’t automatically make it immoral.

Eg, when that shooter in Las Vegas was firing from the window and killed 58 people, 

If some one could have fired a rocket at him killed him 1 minute into his spree saving 45 people firing the rocket would be the moral thing to do, even if an innocent person in the hotel room next door died.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Oh okay, now I understand.  Yeah, good point.  Amazes me how Bell has been rolling over this idea on and on.
> edit: I misread your line.  I thought you said " no difference between the arg. that Bell was proposing when compared to Hiroshima..." ie in both cases (Soddom and Hiroshima, innocents were killed...).  Sorry to confuse everyone  .




After America dropped the nukes, they didn’t then go and rape all he virgin daughters and kill all he surving sons.

It’s totally different, the god in the Bible ordered survivors to be executed or raped, that is not justified.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, but foundations by itself is not yet a house.




But it will be.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> When have I claimed to have perfect morality?




I never said you claimed "perfect" morality , but you have claimed "superior" morality to that of religions. I'm saying that there is not a lot of difference.

I find it a bit ridiculous that some people deny that anything in the Bible is true, but then go to great lengths to try and argue that it is wrong anyway.

Did Sodom and Gomorah really exist ? If not then the tales about their destruction never happened and the stories are simply allegorical. So why waste time debating non events ? There are plenty of moral decisions that people have to take today that we should be thinking about.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I never said you claimed "perfect" morality , but you have claimed "superior" morality to that of religions.
> .




No I claimed secular morality is superior in general, not that I am personally more moral. 

Think about, there is nothing stopping secular morality taking on all the good that any religion might have, but it is free to ignore the baggage that comes with that religion, that alone makes it superior.


> I'm saying that there is not a lot of difference.




Having absolute rules makes a huge difference, it means you are not free to good things because they contradict an absolute rule.



> I find it a bit ridiculous that some people deny that anything in the Bible is true,




I haven't seen anyone here say that, I think you building a straw man there.





> Did Sodom and Gomorah really exist ?




Probably not.



> If not then the tales about their destruction never happened and the stories are simply allegorical.




we can still have a discussion about whether such a thing would be morally right.

eg. If you say Darth Vader is the source of morality and 100% moral in all situations, I might quote parts of the Star Wars story where he was acting immorally, the fact that it is fiction is irrelevant.






> So why waste time debating non events ?




I would much rather debate facts, But the religious often try to use moral arguments as some sort of proof their god exists, through twisted logic.

eg. Morality can't exist without god, but we are moral, so therefore god exists

That is one of the whole reasons we are even discussing morality, the religious have claimed only they can be moral, and therefore we started talking about morality, which as you have seen is a rabbit hole.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> But it will be.




So what? when it is we will call it that, until then its not.

do you think sperm have human rights?


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I will apply my argument to late term abortions since you said you understand the woman's right to abort no matter how old the unborn child is.




whats the point of doing that, I have already said I would be fine with banning late term abortions except in cases where the mother and baby will probably die.

Now , if you agree that a human, who is in this case perhaps almost equal or equal to another human (8 month old), can abort the child, that it isn't wrong, then my argument is this:



> God can also perform an abortion if He thinks there is a worthy reason, and even more so, since He isn't equal to human beings, but a more superior life form. Also, that God is particularly capable of doing it because of His understanding of the situation at hand. So one can apply this to the innocent babies in e.g. Sodom/gomorah and other examples.




ok, if you think executing innocent boys and raping their sisters is the same as aborting a pregnancy that is doomed to fail anyway to save a mothers life you are a creep in my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So what? when it is we will call it that, until then its not.
> 
> do you think sperm have human rights?




No because they need to be fertilised to produce a human, but once this is done, a human is on it's way.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So what? when it is we will call it that, until then its not.




Another example of moral malleability. You can call something whatever you like, that doesn't make you right.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I haven't seen anyone here say that, I think you building a straw man there.




So tell us what parts of the Bible you think are true.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No because they need to be fertilised to produce a human, but once this is done, a human is on it's way.




they also need to grow for a couple of months, until they have grown they aren't a human.



> Another example of moral malleability. You can call something whatever you like, that doesn't make you right.




It is not about labels, it's about whether something is or isn't actually some thing.



> So tell us what parts of the Bible you think are true.




Egypt existed and had pharaohs, maybe some of the characters existed or were at least based on people that existed.

It's a big book (trilogy actually) , why don't you give me an example and I will tell you if I think its true.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It's a big book (trilogy actually) , why don't you give me an example and I will tell you if I think its true.




That Jesus existed and the events of his life are essentially true.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> they also need to grow for a couple of months, until they have grown they aren't a human.




That's your opinion only. Others have a right to a different opinion.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That Jesus existed and the events of his life are essentially true.




of course I don't believe any of the super natural claims are true, eg walking on water, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin etc etc.

So if some one asks me if Jesus existed, I would say no because I think they would be referring to the bible character with all the bells and whistles.

If they asked whether its possible the character could have been based on a real person, I would say that if it was the story has been grossly embellished, but there isn't enough evidence for me to believe a real guy existed, but maybe he did, no one knows.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> of course I don't believe any of the super natural claims are true, eg walking on water, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin etc etc.
> 
> So if some one asks me if Jesus existed, I would say no because I think they would be referring to the bible character with all the bells and whistles.
> 
> If they asked whether its possible the character could have been based on a real person, I would say that if it was the story has been grossly embellished, but there isn't enough evidence for me to believe a real guy existed, but maybe he did, no one knows.




But , like Darth Vader you are still able to make a decision on the morality of what he is reported to have said ?

So where do you think he went wrong ?


----------



## grah33 (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> whats the point of doing that, I have already said I would be fine with banning late term abortions except in cases where the mother and baby will probably die.
> 
> Now , if you agree that a human, who is in this case perhaps almost equal or equal to another human (8 month old), can abort the child, that it isn't wrong, then my argument is this:
> 
> ...




Yes but you did say that you understand how a woman still has a choice even in late term situations (you certainly didn't oppose this kind of secular morality). If you can understand that ,I think you can understand my argument. Also, from what I just read, many late term abortions are for convenience sake.

I think a 6-8 month year old baby can feel pain, and has limbs, and looks similar enough to a newborn baby. Do you not agree? I think you do agree that an 8 month old baby looks similar enough, but a woman still has the right to choose. My argument is that a Creator (not someone equal to another life) has far more rights. Just like a farmer can end the life of his chickens if he has a good reason to do so.

Have I convinced you now?

(we'll leave rape alone for now)


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Yes but you did say that you understand how a woman still has a choice even in late term situations (you certainly didn't oppose this kind of secular morality).




I said "Technically" a women has the right to her body, and I don't think anyone not even a baby has the right to live inside another human against their will, However I would be ok with denying her rights to a late term pregnancy for the benefit of the child, as long as she had the right to an earlier term pregnancy. 

This is vastly different from slaughtering people in another tribe, executing their male children and raping their female children.

Again if you can't understand that then you are a creep, IMO




> Have I convinced you now?




No.


----------



## Tink (24 January 2018)

I agree with Pro Life - Pro Family.



Not Pro Death, like the Greens


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> But , like Darth Vader you are still able to make a decision on the morality of what he is reported to have said ?




Some of the stuff he said was good some of it was not, I have never said I disagree with every thing the Jesus character said or did.




> So where do you think he went wrong ?




the way he preached the breaking up of families is a bit off, from personal experience I know the Jehovah witnesses quote this verse to make their flock feel better about ditching family not in the church.

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.

Luke 12:53
They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Matthew 10:36
A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Matthew 10:35
For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

Matthew 19:29
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

Matthew 23:9
Call no man your ‘father’ upon the earth


----------



## grah33 (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I said "Technically" a women has the right to her body, and I don't think anyone not even a baby has the right to live inside another human against their will, However I would be ok with denying her rights to a late term pregnancy for the benefit of the child, as long as she had the right to an earlier term pregnancy.
> 
> This is vastly different from slaughtering people in another tribe, executing their male children and raping their female children.
> 
> ...



Again, you just said that technically a woman has the right, and you are applying this to late term abortions.  You're "ok" with restricting late term abortions, but you haven't said they are immoral.  Why not just be upfront about it, since it is after all, secular morality (although not all secularists subscribe to it).  You won't condemn late term abortions.  And don't think of rape, as many late term abortions aren't for that at all.

How is a late term baby (say 8 months) vastly different from a newborn (few days)?
If a woman has a right to abort her child, why doesn't a Creator have the right to abort life shortly after birth, since they are similarly equal?

You've called me creep twice, but am I going to get answers to my questions?


----------



## bellenuit (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> 
> I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".




There is one big difference. You and VC argued about whether the nuke bombing was morally correct. You both had a different perspective and were both presumably using your own moral criteria and the information available to base your decision on. In regards to the bible, that *doesn't* come into play for many. Because certain actions were ordered or committed by God, then that is OK, full stop, no need for discussion, even though the actions were the opposite to what Jesus preached.

It is this acceptance of OT stories as being true and as a source of moral guidance that is a huge danger. Even though much of the OT has no basis in fact (the creation story etc., even Cardinal Pell rejected the idea that Adam and Eve existed), some people will not let go of other parts. The atrocities in the OT, those that may have been historically true, were likely the stories as told by the war lords and they would have invoked God as having being on their side, no matter how immoral their actions were. One need look no further than the US today, to see how often God is invoked as agreeing with one side of politics and when it comes to ISIS, God (Allah) is constantly invoked. They all think that they are acting on the will of God.

It is not that one morality is superior to the other. Christian morality as espoused by Jesus is pretty much the same as secular morality and that is because, IMO, there is only secular morality and religions have merely adopted the secular morality of the time. Christianity, unlike Islam, has managed to keep up with secular morality since the time of Jesus, usually with some degree of resistance, but eventually getting there on most issues.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Again, you just said that technically a woman has the right, and you are applying this to late term abortions.  You're "ok" with restricting late term abortions, but you haven't said they are immoral.




Because to be honest I am not sure it is moral to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

As I said the only reason I am ok with putting restrictions on later term abortions is because women do the have the right to early term ones, so in the interest of trying to find some middle ground between a babies right to life and a woman right to her body, I think we should restrict late term but allow early term, so that if a women really does not want the pregnancy she is encouraged to do it earlier rather than later.



> How is a late term baby (say 8 months) vastly different from a newborn (few days)?




they aren't that different, I haven't said they are?




> If a woman has a right to abort her child, why doesn't a Creator have the right to abort life shortly after birth, since they are similarly equal?




You are missing the whole point, The mother doesn't have the right to kill the baby, its just the baby doesn't have the right to be in the mothers womb if she doesn't want it there, the fact that the baby does without a womb to live in is just a fact of nature.

*Answer me these 2 questions.

If a 21 year old man suffers kidney failure, and is going to die without a kidney, is it immoral for a mother to refuse to donate a kidney to him? *

*Should we legislate that mothers need to provide their bodies as needed to keep their children alive?*


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Christian morality as espoused by Jesus is pretty much the same as secular morality and that is because, IMO, there is only secular morality and religions have merely adopted the secular morality of the time. Christianity, unlike Islam, has managed to keep up with secular morality since the time of Jesus, usually with some degree of resistance, but eventually getting there on most issues.




I partially agree, I still think Christian morality lags behind secular morality and simply plays catch up once they are clearly shown to be on the wrong side of history.

The reason is that religious folk cling to absolute rules.

Eg. they will protest euthanasia because the bible says "thy shalt not kill", even when a rational person weighing up the facts from a non religious perspective could easily see that allowing a terminally ill person to die on their terms is probably the best moral outcome.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> There is one big difference. You and VC argued about whether the nuke bombing was morally correct. You both had a different perspective and were both presumably using your own moral criteria and the information available to base your decision on. In regards to the bible, that *doesn't* come into play for many. Because certain actions *were* ordered or committed by God, then that is OK, full stop, no need for discussion, even though the actions were the opposite to what Jesus preached.




The point is that these actions that God committed or ordered are in the past and are not a basis for what happens today. Sure there may be cranks who equate modern day Las Vegas to Sodom and Gomarah, but do we really think the majority of Christians believe they should be destroyed ?  I haven't heard any Christians calling for the nuking of what Christians generally regard as a pretty immoral place.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is that these actions that God committed or ordered are in the past and are not a basis for what happens today. Sure there may be cranks who equate modern day Las Vegas to Sodom and Gomarah, but do we really think the majority of Christians believe they should be destroyed ?  I haven't heard any Christians calling for the nuking of what Christians generally regard as a pretty immoral place.




Modern day Christians still say the Bible is the source of morality, Hence why we pointed out the immorality in it.

If Christians weren't claiming the Bible is the foundation for what is moral and what isn't, we wouldn't be talking about it.

I am quite happy to let the bible sit there as a book of old stories that had some cultural influence on our society, it's only when people say we should be basing our laws and our lives on it today that I will point out how silly it is, and how there is a bunch of terrible things in it.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am quite happy to let the bible sit there as a book of old stories that had some cultural influence on our society, it's only when people say we should be basing our laws and our lives on it today that I will point out how silly it is, and how there is a bunch of terrible things in it.




I'd be less concerned about Christianity than Islam. You can leave Christianity, but if you leave Islam you are condemned to death.

But that's another thread.

The Ten Commandments aren't perfect, but they are the basis of our laws. Without them anarchy and tryanny would have reigned for much longer than it has.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The Ten Commandments aren't perfect, but they are the basis of our laws. Without them anarchy and tryanny would have reigned for much longer than it has.




just about anyone could write a better list of 10 rules than the Ten Commandments, they are hardly divine.

The Ten Commandments is a pretty rubbish list, and they aren't the basis of our laws, and plenty of societies exist without them that aren't in "Anarchy or tyranny".

sure there is a couple of the commandments that are ok, but those are common sense that pretty much all societies live by.


----------



## luutzu (24 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd be less concerned about Christianity than Islam. You can leave Christianity, but if you leave Islam you are condemned to death.
> 
> But that's another thread.
> 
> The Ten Commandments aren't perfect, but they are the basis of our laws. Without them anarchy and tryanny would have reigned for much longer than it has.




Try leaving any religion is there'll be some idiot among them who would take it as a personal insult, or insult against their religion, and do nasty stuff to you. 

So while there are circumstances among some Muslim clerics and other idiots who would commit murder when one of their flock leave the faith, it's a myth that it's a universal Muslim practice.


----------



## Value Collector (24 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> just about anyone could write a better list of 10 rules than the Ten Commandments, they are hardly divine.
> 
> The Ten Commandments is a pretty rubbish list, and they aren't the basis of our laws, and plenty of societies exist without them that aren't in "Anarchy or tyranny".
> 
> sure there is a couple of the commandments that are ok, but those are common sense that pretty much all societies live by.




This list is not the foundation of our society, and as I said above, I think any person here given 1 hour of thinking time, could write a much better list.


> 1, You shall have no other gods before Me.
> 
> 2, You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.
> 
> ...




1, 2, 3, 4, are complete BS

5 is meh

6, 7, 8, 9, are ok, but are pretty universal among societies due to the common sense nature, and due to the absolute nature can cause immoral actions.

10 is meh


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The Ten Commandments is a pretty rubbish list, and they aren't the basis of our laws, and *plenty of societies exist without them *that aren't in "Anarchy or tyranny".
> 
> .




If they aren't tyrannical, chances are they have adopted western value and rule of law systems that are definitely predicated on the protestant new testament and the 10 Mosaic laws.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> If they aren't tyrannical, chances are they have adopted western value and rule of law systems that are definitely predicated on the protestant new testament and the 10 Mosaic laws.




As I said there is only 4 of the 10 that are really any good, and those 4 are just commonsense and were existed before the 10 commandments, it's not hard to figure out that if we are going to live together effectively we should avoiding killing each other, stealing from each other, lying about each other and trying to have sex with each others wives.

the only 4 rules from the 10 that are any good are pretty much universal among human societies, whether they are western or not

as I said, hardly a divine list, a high schooler could put together a better list in 20mins.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> As I said there is only 4 of the 10 that are really any good, and those 4 are just commonsense and were existed before the 10 commandments, it's not hard to figure out that if we are going to live together effectively we should avoiding killing each other, stealing from each other, lying about each other and trying to have sex with each others wives.
> 
> the only 4 rules from the 10 that are any good are pretty much universal among human societies, whether they are western or not
> 
> as I said, hardly a divine list, a high schooler could put together a better list in 20mins.




Regardless what you think of the TC's they are the basis of our laws, and the basis of the laws of most democracies, even though some countries have secularised their constitutions to separate church and State, which is a good idea.

Ask yourself if you would prefer to live in a democracy or in a place like China where they have tried very hard to eliminate religion and the people are virtually required to worship one man, or Muslim countries where they would flog your gay mates and stick their religious noses into your personal life.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> So while there are circumstances among some Muslim clerics and other idiots who would commit murder when one of their flock leave the faith, it's a myth that it's a universal Muslim practice.




I never said it was "universal", but it is prevalent in Muslim communities and in other faiths to a lesser extent.

https://thedebrief.co.uk/news/politics/uk-honour-killings/

*"Leaving their religion is equally comes fraught with risks and by no means an easy decision to make. While Alya ‘came out’ to her family, she no longer feels safe in her predominantly Asian, Muslim area: “I have been told (by ex-friends and acquaintances) that I'm disgraceful, that apostates should be killed and that I'm going to hell.”"*


----------



## SuperGlue (25 January 2018)

They work in mysterious ways up there.

German far-right AfD politician converts to Islam

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42804202


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Regardless what you think of the TC's they are the basis of our laws, and the basis of the laws of most democracies, even though some countries have secularised their constitutions to separate church and State, which is a good idea.




Really, you think our society is based on all 10 of the commandments? please explain how 1,2,3 or 4 have anything to do with our society



> Ask yourself if you would prefer to live in a democracy




Do you think the 10 commandments is about democracy? number 1 and number 10 are basically creating "thought crimes", making it a crime to think about certain things.




> in a place like China where they have tried very hard to eliminate religion and the people are virtually required to worship one man




that is the goal of the 10 commandments it outlaws other religions also, thats what rules 1, 2, and 3 are about, making you worship one man, which by the way you can't see, so you will just have to follow those "holy men"





> or Muslim countries where they would flog your gay mates and stick their religious noses into your personal life.



What are you talking about? the muslims have the same ten commandments


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Really, you think our society is based on all 10 of the commandments?




No, because separation of church and State does away with the religious loyalty stuff.



> What are you talking about? the muslims have the same ten commandments.




Oh come on, you don't read the news ?

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2017/10/29/indonesia-aceh-sharia-law-flogging/


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No, because separation of church and State does away with the religious loyalty stuff.




So you admit the first 4 of 10 are useless? thats reduced it down a bit, 

What about how number 10 is about thought crime? does thought crime have anything to do with democracy? 


> Oh come on, you don't read the news ?
> 
> https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2017/10/29/indonesia-aceh-sharia-law-flogging/




the 10 commandments doesn't outlaw the beating of gays, as I said a high schooler could right a better list.

In fact the bible chapters that come after the 10 commandments, instruct that gays should be stoned to death.

So beating gays as they are in the article you posted doesn't go against either the 10 commandments or the Bible.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> In fact the bible chapters that come after the 10 commandments, instruct that gays should be stoned to death.




The fact is that democracies don't flog gays, Muslim countries do. How does that stand on your morality scale ?

You are making a big noise about little that is relevant in this country today and ignoring institutionalised human rights abuses of other religions. 

I think you need a better sense of perspective.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I never said it was "universal", but it is prevalent in Muslim communities and in other faiths to a lesser extent.
> 
> https://thedebrief.co.uk/news/politics/uk-honour-killings/
> 
> *"Leaving their religion is equally comes fraught with risks and by no means an easy decision to make. While Alya ‘came out’ to her family, she no longer feels safe in her predominantly Asian, Muslim area: “I have been told (by ex-friends and acquaintances) that I'm disgraceful, that apostates should be killed and that I'm going to hell.”"*




That just shows any extreme religious group, or person, will do crazy stuff. 

If, say, Western democracies still permit Christians to do what their Bible or group leader said, there would still be witch burning. Not to mention no alcohol, no pr0n, no condoms, no sex. And forget about the gays thinking they ought to be permitted to get married, they'd be right next on the stake after the witch fireworks.

That doesn't mean the average Christian would condone or want such things done. It's just a reminder that all religion are crazy, with a few real nutjobs among them.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

> That doesn't mean the average Christian would condone or want such things done. It's just a reminder that all religion are crazy, with a few real nutjobs among them.




The gays who were flogged in Indonesia were dragged and and turned over to the authorities by their local community, "average Muslims".

People who make such a big deal about Christian influence are ignoring the real problem.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact is that democracies don't flog gays, Muslim countries do. How does that stand on your morality scale ?




Dude, that is because modern democracies have become more secular, and hence more moral, that has been my point all along, the more religious a government is the more likely it is to breach human rights.

When western countries were more religious and less secular (most of their history), they did flog gays and burn heathens etc. for 80% of christian history, all sorts of things were common place that you find immoral, its only recently we have been moving away from that, and the is due to secularism.

What you don't seem to understand is that the majority of the stuff you love about our modern democracies has only come about as we have gradually become less and less religious.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The gays who were flogged in Indonesia were dragged and and turned over to the authorities by their local community, "average Muslims".
> 
> People who make such a big deal about Christian influence are ignoring the real problem.




But you claimed that wouldn't happen if they followed the 10 commandments,

But where in the 10 commandments does it outlaw beating gays?


----------



## grah33 (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Because to be honest I am not sure it is moral to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.
> 
> As I said the only reason I am ok with putting restrictions on later term abortions is because women do the have the right to early term ones, so in the interest of trying to find some middle ground between a babies right to life and a woman right to her body, I think we should restrict late term but allow early term, so that if a women really does not want the pregnancy she is encouraged to do it earlier rather than later.
> 
> ...




I understand where you are coming from, since I had similar thoughts a long time ago. And from what you're saying, I still feel that you are okay with late term abortions, as you understand the basis for them . Your ability to understand this, relates to my argument very much, since I believe you will also have no problem understanding my point of view.

I feel you're merely expressing “the mothers right to choose” in different ways and words, and I could also do the same. If you think a mother has such rights, then God (Creator, and a higher life form) truly has even more rights. Or, using different words similar to you, the infants don't have the right to be there if God doesn't want them there. 

Can you see the similarity now between your argument and mine, justifying God's right to take away life (applying it to infants)?

(answers to your questions:No it's not immoral. No we shouldn't legislate.)


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> What you don't seem to understand is that the majority of the stuff you love about our modern democracies has only come about as we have gradually become less and less religious.




So what is your problem ?

I have no problems about being "less" religious without being totally amoral, I'm just saying that the religious ideas of Christianity , peace, love, tolerance and all that molded our society into what it is today, a basically generous, tolerant, pluralistic and multicultural society, contrasted by countries where there is an absence of religion (eg China), or competing theocracies eg Muslim countries where human rights abuses and intolerance are widespread.

Sure you can go on about the Spanish Inquisition or other such stuff that happened centuries ago, but I'm concerned about what is happening today and I'm basically glad I live in this country rather than a China or a primitive Muslim country.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So what is your problem ?
> 
> .




I have no problem, as I said I am happy we are becoming more secular over time, because secular morality is superior to religious morality.


> I have no problems about being "less" religious without being totally amoral, I'm just saying that the religious ideas of Christianity , peace, love, tolerance all that molded our society into what it is today, a basically generous, tolerant, pluralistic and multicultural society, contrasted by countries where there is an absence of religion (eg China), or competing theocracies eg Muslim countries where human rights abuses and intolerance are widespread.




Well you specifically named the 10 commandments, which as I pointed out 

A. it doesn't out law the human rights abuses you have named.

B. Its is part of the Islamic faith which you have named as being a particular problem



> Sure you can go on about the Spanish Inquisition or other such stuff that happened centuries ago,




Yes, and that happened under christian theocracies, who believed in the 10 commandments. as I said the more religious you are the more human rights abuses.



> but I'm concerned about what is happening today and I'm basically glad I live in this country rather than a China or a primitive Muslim country




I am glad you enjoy living in our secular nation, just don't that the religions for what secularism provides.


> religious ideas of Christianity , peace, love, tolerance




thats just Humanism, not Christianity, if you want to cherry pick the nice parts of christianity, just ditch it and go straight to humanism.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I understand where you are coming from, since I had similar thoughts a long time ago. And from what you're saying, I still feel that you are okay with late term abortions, as you understand the basis for them . Your ability to understand this, relates to my argument very much, since I believe you will also have no problem understanding my point of view.
> )




I am not going to discuss late term abortions since I have already said I am fine restricting them.



> If you think a mother has such rights, then God (Creator, and a higher life form) truly has even more rights. Or, using different words similar to you, the infants don't have the right to be there if God doesn't want them there.
> 
> Can you see the similarity now between your argument and mine, justifying God's right to take away life (applying it to infants)?




Thats where you get creepy, because their is no evidence the god you speak of exists, it turns out that its just religious people such as yourself saying that their opinions over rule every one else's, and they won't accept logic because they know the mind of god.



> (answers to your questions:No it's not immoral. No we shouldn't legislate.




So if it's morally ok for a mother to deny using her body to keep a 21 year old alive, why is it wrong for her to deny using her body to keep a zygote of blastocyst alive?

If you are not going to legislate that a mother must donate blood or a kidney to her children to keep them alive, why would you want to legislate she had to donate her entire body for the period of the pregnancy.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> thats just Humanism, not Christianity, if you want to cherry pick the nice parts of christianity, just ditch it and go straight to humanism.




There is not a lot of evidence for humanism (as a movement rather than idea) before Christianity, so it could be said that Christianity influenced humanism.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The gays who were flogged in Indonesia were dragged and and turned over to the authorities by their local community, "average Muslims".
> 
> People who make such a big deal about Christian influence are ignoring the real problem.




Trump banned recruitment of transgender into the military. It was only a couple of years ago that homosexuals can get married in some states in the US. We OZ just kinda permit it.


SirRumpole said:


> So what is your problem ?
> 
> I have no problems about being "less" religious without being totally amoral, I'm just saying that the religious ideas of Christianity , peace, love, tolerance and all that molded our society into what it is today, a basically generous, tolerant, pluralistic and multicultural society, contrasted by countries where there is an absence of religion (eg China), or competing theocracies eg Muslim countries where human rights abuses and intolerance are widespread.
> 
> Sure you can go on about the Spanish Inquisition or other such stuff that happened centuries ago, but I'm concerned about what is happening today and I'm basically glad I live in this country rather than a China or a primitive Muslim country.




A country is "primitive", aka "shiethole", has a lot to do with things other than its religion or culture or people. 

For most of its history, the Christian West was a real shiet hole with peasants living in rock huts and the gentry throwing raw sewage over their balconies each morning. 

Were those due to its Christian values?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> For most of its history, the Christian West was a real shiet hole with peasants living in rock huts and the gentry throwing raw sewage over their balconies each morning.




That's not a religious issue, it's a matter of resources available for sewerage works.


----------



## grah33 (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not going to discuss late term abortions since I have already said I am fine restricting them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're fine with restricting late term abortions, that's great.  But do you condemn late term abortions as being immoral?  If not my argument applies.

And just assume God does exist, for the sake of the argument.  Does my view now make sense?

(It's not about the kidney though, or even me condemning abortion.  It's about you saying God's actions are wrong, so that is why I inquire from you.  Although with pregnancy (unlike the kidney situation), the woman doesn't lose any body parts, she just performs a female function she is designed for)


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> There is not a lot of evidence for humanism (as a movement rather than idea) before Christianity, so it could be said that Christianity influenced humanism.




I would say the things you like about humanism and Christianity, are pretty universal, and have always been part of the human condition. I mean its hard to exist for long as a social group without a basic understanding that we are going to look after each other, and avoid killing each other.

I mean, the idea to not kill each other and not steal each others stuff would have been pretty much universal across all human societies for at least 40,000 years before the bible or Jesus, other wise societies would never have formed.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's not a religious issue, it's a matter of resources available for sewerage works.




Exactly. 

Same can be said of Muslim countries, African and all other under-developed countries. It starts with not having any economic power among the plebs... then without money there's no chance of an education, no voice to be heard so they often turn to their country's favourite religion and pray for fortunes and good health. 

With poverty come desperation for help from above. Those fathers and bishops then grant favours, send hope and prayers... at a steep price.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I mean, the idea to not kill each other and not steal each others stuff would have been pretty much universal across all human societies for at least 40,000 years before the bible or Jesus, other wise societies would never have formed.




The Egyptians had slaves, the Romans invaded other cultures and enslaved them. Not very humanist ?


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You're fine with restricting late term abortions, that's great.  But do you condemn late term abortions as being immoral?  If not my argument applies.




To be honest I am not 100%, its hard to know where the line between I woman right to her body over rules a foetuses life, but as I said I am fine with combating that by just restrict the abortions to early terms.


> And just assume God does exist, for the sake of the argument.  Does my view now make sense?




No, because even if god existed, it doesn't mean everything he did would automatically be moral.



> It's about you saying God's actions are wrong, so that is why I inquire from you.




Dude, I don't even believe your god exists, the "God's actions" are normally carried out by psycho men with voices in their heads.



> Although with pregnancy (unlike the kidney situation), the woman doesn't lose any body parts, she just performs a female function she is designed for)




pregnancy has all sorts of risks, including death.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The Egyptians had slaves,




so did the christians. 

The 10 commandments doesn't outlaw slavery, the bible condones it, and Jesus said "slaves obey your master".



> the Romans invaded other cultures and enslaved them




So did the christians or are you forgetting the slavery in the the USA and Europe?



> Not very humanist ?




I am not saying all actions were 100% humanist, just that the basics of not killing your neighbour etc have always been there, humans have mostly been ok with invading and conquering in the past whether they were christian or not.

No society has been perfect so far, but the best one have been secular.

and saying the good stuff came from christianity is silly, because the good stuff has  always been there, even if it gets pushed aside sometimes, its ben growing in the background despite religion not because of it.


----------



## grah33 (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> To be honest I am not 100%, its hard to know where the line between I woman right to her body over rules a foetuses life, but as I said I am fine with combating that by just restrict the abortions to early terms.
> 
> 
> No, because even if god existed, it doesn't mean everything he did would automatically be moral.
> ...



Well, if you're not 100 percent, then you're still not saying that late term abortions are immoral. So you shouldn't say God is immoral too , for doing a similar thing .  Judaic context, scripture, and commentary all suggest God was performing a type of abortion (same too with Sodom and Gomorah) on the innocent that were in the way of things.

In both cases you have babies of similar age (I'm comparing to late term abortion), and one person that has or may have a right.  If you disagree, then you're saying God doesn't have a right but people do, which is ridiculous dude.


----------



## cynic (25 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Same can be said of Muslim countries, African and all other under-developed countries. It starts with not having any economic power among the plebs... then without money there's no chance of an education, no voice to be heard so they often turn to their country's favourite religion and pray for fortunes and good health.
> 
> With poverty come desperation for help from above. Those fathers and bishops then grant favours, send hope and prayers... at a steep price.



And guess what happens after those prayers for help are answered!

Many, thereafter, cease to recognise any desperately urgent need for continued prayer!

It's so terribly easy to forget, or abandon, the practice/s that aided crisis survival, once the crisis is over!


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> and saying the good stuff came from christianity is silly, because the good stuff has always been there, even if it gets pushed aside sometimes, its ben growing in the background despite religion not because of it.




When you start actively condemning the two biggest evils in the world today; ie radical Islam and totalitarianism then I'll believe that you have a sense of perspective, but right now I think you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Well, if you're not 100 percent, then you're still not saying that late term abortions are immoral. So you shouldn't say God is immoral too , for doing a similar thing.




But if you reverse that argument, saying late term abortions are immoral as you do, then you should be saying that God is immoral. But you don't. I have no problem saying late term abortions are wrong, except when it is to save the life of the mother (and perhaps a few other circumstances that don't come to mind at the moment) and I can unequivocally say that the actions portrayed in some of the OT are also morally wrong. 



> Judaic context, scripture, and commentary all suggest God was performing a type of abortion (same too with Sodom and Gomorah) on the innocent that were in the way of things.




You are the first I ever heard say that and it certainly is not in the scriptures. Some commentators may have said it, that I am unaware of, but there are many apologists out there when it comes to condoning vile acts of the OT.

Why don't you simply accept that most of the OT is just a collection of stories from the time, some mythical and some loosely based on actual events, but in all cases with God being erroneously included as a participant or provoker. I presume you do not stand behind the Creation story so why stand behind those other stories? Then you can condemn those acts as immoral, without condemning your God.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> So you shouldn't say God is immoral too , for doing a similar thing .




There you go with the creepy comments again. Look if you can't admit raping virgin girls is immoral then there is not much point in having a moral discussion with you.

I don't think there is anything your god could do that you would admit he is immoral, your like a twisted North Korean peasant praising the dear leader no matter what he does, because everything he does is automatically moral, because he is the dear leader.

Me saying a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, is not the same as god instructing an army to raid a tribe killing everyone except the virgin girls which are to be kept for themselves.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> When you start actively condemning the two biggest evils in the world today; ie radical Islam and totalitarianism then I'll believe that you have a sense of perspective, but right now I think you are barking up the wrong tree.




Islam is a religion, and I condemn all religions, I thought I have made that pretty clear.

Everyone here already accepts heaps of immorality comes from islam, there is no need for me to discuss it, because everyone here already agrees, no point trying to convince people ISIS is bad, because everyone here knows this, that would just be preaching to the choir.

The only reason we are discussing christianity is because you are saying its different and is some sort of shinning light, So I have been pointing out that in fact its not, its very similar to islam and everything you say is good about our modern society is from a growing movement towards secularism not christianity.

The way to fix the evils of islam is not to try and get them to accept the Bible, they already accept the bible mostly, the way to fix it is to get muslims to become less religious and accept secularism.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

> The way to fix the evils of islam is not to try and get them to accept the Bible, they already accept the bible mostly, the way to fix it is to get muslims to become less religious and accept secularism.




And you can start by criticising Islam as much as you criticise Christianity and Christians. Don't just go for the soft targets.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

There are even New Testament verse ISIS could use to justify their killing.

In Luke 19:27 Jesus says - "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Now its part of a story Jesus is telling, but the moral of the story isn't that doing that would be wrong, he is tells the story in a way that it sounds like he thinks the action was justified, he doesn't say its immoral.

Of course any Modern Christian that wants to think Jesus only says and does nice things will explain it away some how, but I can't help but think the various popes over the years would have used such verse's to justify the various crusades, inquisitions and the killing of heathens, jews and pagans etc.


----------



## Value Collector (25 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And you can start by criticising Islam as much as you criticise Christianity and Christians. Don't just go for the soft targets.




there is no one here providing arguments for islam, so as I said, what is the point?

bring a muslim into the forum, get him to say what he believes and why and I will pull his arguments apart too.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

cynic said:


> And guess what happens after those prayers for help are answered!
> 
> Many, thereafter, cease to recognise any desperately urgent need for continued prayer!
> 
> It's so terribly easy to forget, or abandon, the practice/s that aided crisis survival, once the crisis is over!




For some people, maybe. For others, once their prayers are answered, or so it seem, they became lifelong converts.


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> there is no one here providing arguments for islam, so as I said, what is the point?
> 
> bring a muslim into the forum, get him to say what he believes and why and I will pull his arguments apart too.




Or push the ignore button when it goes pear shaped


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> as I said, hardly a divine list, a high schooler could put together a better list in 20mins.




Only with the benefit of hindsight and cultural norms where the chicken came before the egg. Your perspective is an ingrained view with a christian society bedrock.

Empire and the USofA have made trade and military pacts based on partner countries adopting Christian ethics (that is not to say Christianity) in regard to rule of law and human rights. Not many other cultures have managed to force barbarian attitudes on civilised nations successfully and maintain human dignity.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> Only with the benefit of hindsight and cultural norms where the chicken came before the egg. Your perspective is an ingrained view with a christian society bedrock.
> 
> Empire and the USofA have made trade and military pacts based on partner countries adopting Christian ethics (that is not to say Christianity) in regard to rule of law and human rights. Not many other cultures have managed to force barbarian attitudes on civilised nations successfully and maintain human dignity.




I didn't know Saudi Arabia is Christian Well alright, maybe they have similar religious background and ethics to the olde Christian value. Same with the UAE, Qatar; Neither was Indonesia; South Korea, Japan. Definitely not Israel... and until recently, one of the ally is Turkey - a remnant of that old Muslim empire. 

Seems the only common value shared among partners is anything but religious, or value. Just money, trade, strategic convenience and arms deals.


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> I didn't know Saudi Arabia is Christian Well alright, maybe they have similar religious background and ethics to the olde Christian value. Same with the UAE, Qatar; Neither was Indonesia; South Korea, Japan. Definitely not Israel... and until recently, one of the ally is Turkey - a remnant of that old Muslim empire.
> 
> Seems the only common value shared among partners is anything but religious, or value. Just money, trade, strategic convenience and arms deals.





Did you actually read what I wrote or go straight into tangential mode


----------



## grah33 (25 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There you go with the creepy comments again. Look if you can't admit raping virgin girls is immoral then there is not much point in having a moral discussion with you.
> 
> I don't think there is anything your god could do that you would admit he is immoral, your like a twisted North Korean peasant praising the dear leader no matter what he does, because everything he does is automatically moral, because he is the dear leader.
> 
> Me saying a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, is not the same as god instructing an army to raid a tribe killing everyone except the virgin girls which are to be kept for themselves.



I see we're also going in circles, and yes I agree, there's no point to that. I won't continue.

I've given you reasons and you haven't countered them. Instead you call me creepy, based on the premise that I supported something (in an exceptional context) that you support (in an everyday context). Someone else might call you a creep based on your own criteria here, but you don't seem to realize this.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> Did you actually read what I wrote or go straight into tangential mode




I did at first. Then correct it with my own tangent trap


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I see we're also going in circles, and yes I agree, there's no point to that. I won't continue.
> 
> I've given you reasons and you haven't countered them. Instead you call me creepy, based on the premise that I supported something (in an exceptional context) that you support (in an everyday context). Someone else might call you a creep based on your own criteria here, but you don't seem to realize this.




To be fair, calling what someone does creepy isn't the same as calling them a creepy person. We all do creepy stuff now and then, not me but you get the idea.


----------



## grah33 (25 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But if you reverse that argument, saying late term abortions are immoral as you do, then you should be saying that God is immoral. But you don't. I have no problem saying late term abortions are wrong, except when it is to save the life of the mother (and perhaps a few other circumstances that don't come to mind at the moment) and I can unequivocally say that the actions portrayed in some of the OT are also morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You've condemned secular morality now (changed your mind), saying it's morally wrong to perform late term abortions for convenience sake (many of them are done for convenience).  So no point in ranting on previously about how secular morality is much better than Christian morality. At the very least, in the practice of abortion, you agree then that it is better. Your conscience makes you feel compassion for the late term child that would be aborted.  I'm glad you spoke your mind, as these are important discussions. And when we talk about morality, we're talking about what morals people follow (not Bible stories you like to mention, or whether God is immoral). 

I used the word abortion , yes, to describe the aborting of infants that are already out of the womb. In other words, destroying human life for some perceived good cause.  In any case, even if I don't use the word abortion, the example still holds for my argument. We're talking about the authority one person or God has to destroy another human life (5-8 month is quite similar to a newborn).  And VC was fairly strong in his belief in a woman having a right to choose no matter how old the child is.

Regards the interpretation of certain stories, Jesus taught a little on Sodom and Gomorrah.  This story is the same kind of story as the Amalek one you mentioned, so I think it makes sense to take them literally.


----------



## grah33 (25 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> To be fair, calling what someone does creepy isn't the same as calling them a creepy person. We all do creepy stuff now and then, not me but you get the idea.



From memory VC did call me a creep in an earlier post  and he's using the term often enough.


----------



## luutzu (25 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> From memory VC did call me a creep in an earlier post  and he's using the term often enough.




Gotta excuse and forgive VC. He was brought up, I'm guessing, by religious people and they all creep him out. That and he knows way too much about religion and its texts it's a miracle he still talk to people who holds the words of the Bible to be factual. 

Wouldn't you be creeped out by people who talks to "no one" upstairs? Goes to group meetings where they eat their lord's flesh and drink his blood, then sing and chant in front of images of his torture and hanging?

I better stop before I upset a lot more people


----------



## grah33 (25 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Gotta excuse and forgive VC. He was brought up, I'm guessing, by religious people and they all creep him out. That and he knows way too much about religion and its texts it's a miracle he still talk to people who holds the words of the Bible to be factual.
> 
> I better stop before I upset a lot more people



What kind of experiences are you talking about?  Christian, Islam , Hindu or what?  Wanna tell us VC?  If it's personal though than you don't have too.


----------



## bellenuit (25 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You've condemned secular morality now (changed your mind), saying it's morally wrong to perform late term abortions for convenience sake (many of them are done for convenience).




I haven't condemned secular morality as you are confusing the absolutist position of religious ordained morality with the worked out positions of secular morality. I don't agree with that particular issue and I also don't hold that late term abortions for pure convenience are accepted by all or even a majority of secularists as moral either. Some maybe, but they would tend to be on the feminist fringe who aren't necessarily in accordance with mainstream opinion. The important thing is that these issues are open for discussion and people make their decisions on facts or issues that may be important to them. Someone forced to carry an unwanted baby is not going to view that issue the same way as a male and though I disagree with them, I am not going to condemn them as I haven't walked in their shoes.



> At the very least, in the practice of abortion, you agree then that it is better. Your conscience makes you feel compassion for the late term child that would be aborted.




Wrong again. I do not agree that it is better, even in respect to late term abortions, as the church's position is to let the mother die if there are complications and only one can be saved. 

The rest of what you wrote is rubbish.


----------



## cynic (25 January 2018)

An excerpt: Ravi responds to an audience member's projection of a deterministic concept:


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 January 2018)

If the order was reversed so scientific evidence came before the bible then the bible would not have been constructed. The bible dedicates are still holding onto something people knew nothing about thousands of years ago. So unbelievable.


----------



## Tisme (26 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> If the order was reversed so scientific evidence came before the bible then the bible would not have been constructed. The bible dedicates are still holding onto something people knew nothing about thousands of years ago. So unbelievable.





The bible is fairly advanced for its time. e,g, the world's first car is mentioned: when Moses burned up the desert with his hot rod, Arithmetic is in there where e.g. God said "come fourth".  It's a wealth of the knowledge


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> The bible is fairly advanced for its time. e,g, the world's first car is mentioned: when Moses burned up the desert with his hot rod, Arithmetic is in there where e.g. God said "come fourth".  It's a wealth of the knowledge




And he taught his flock to multiply and he divided the Red Sea.


----------



## luutzu (26 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> And he taught his flock to multiply and he divided the Red Sea.




Learn about cleaning and starting all over again too. 

If they don't give you what you want, you can ask the big man to turn their water red [poison them], bring in pests to eat their crop [famine them], kill their children; give them diseases. 

If all that fail, fire and fury. Or flood them all and start all over again.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Learn about cleaning and starting all over again too.
> 
> If they don't give you what you want, you can ask the big man to turn their water red [poison them], bring in pests to eat their crop [famine them], kill their children; give them diseases.
> 
> If all that fail, fire and fury. Or flood them all and start all over again.




They should make a movie about it.


----------



## grah33 (26 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There are even New Testament verse ISIS could use to justify their killing.
> 
> In Luke 19:27 Jesus says - "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"
> 
> ...



You've quoted a whole bunch of parables.  I'm betting you already know that but you're playing games.  There is some hard-line stuff in the NT though, I wont deny, but that's about Hell and Judgement.  I won't say that aspect is peaceful , but it has nothing to do with the morals He taught.  

You've brought up quite a few arguments muslims use when debating Christianity,  so I'll say a few things.  For Islam to hold true, Jesus mustn't have advocated certain morals, which condemn  some of Mohamed's teachings.  In their defense, they will say the scriptures (Christian) are corrupted.  When something is corrupted, it's worse.  So we ask ourselves which teachings are worse:  
Polygamy vs one man/woman marriage  
vengeance/punishment by death vs forgiveness and doing good to your enemies.  
(there are more)

Islam is similar to OT, based on harsh justice.  As I explained b4, using scriptures from the NT, the Law of ancient Israel is designed for people who lacked morality.  So that's my argument when comparing Islam with Christianity.  The Christian morals are better, and in line with human dignity, so they can't be corrupted.  Unless you think (and some muslims do) that e.g. polygamy is more suitable for the human race.  And, as someone else pointed out, it seems the secularists get their morality from Christianity (the merciful components with abundant sexual freedom).   Not to offend atheists, but I think without Christianity, we'll naturally gravitate to some kind of dictatorship with different sexual relationships and kids all over the place.

I'll read the other posts later...


----------



## luutzu (26 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> They should make a movie about it.




They have, it's called The Godfather


----------



## grah33 (26 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I haven't condemned secular morality as you are confusing the absolutist position of religious ordained morality with the worked out positions of secular morality. I don't agree with that particular issue and I also don't hold that late term abortions for pure convenience are accepted by all or even a majority of secularists as moral either. Some maybe, but they would tend to be on the feminist fringe who aren't necessarily in accordance with mainstream opinion. The important thing is that these issues are open for discussion and people make their decisions on facts or issues that may be important to them. Someone forced to carry an unwanted baby is not going to view that issue the same way as a male and though I disagree with them, I am not going to condemn them as I haven't walked in their shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm getting the same pattern here: ask me questions, I give answers, poster can't respond so puts it down to being a load of rubbish. Your views won't be considered worthy by people if you use this approach all the time.  Especially when you ask the same questions over and over, get an answer, and never respond.

You still however did use the word wrong to say that late term abortions are immoral. And another poster was fairly strong in asserting a woman's right, so I'm not too sure of your claims. Is this not what secular morality is about? It's a sloppy morality where one has the flexibility to do things they think are morally wrong.


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I'm getting the same pattern here: ask me questions, I give answers, poster can't respond so puts it down to being a load of rubbish. Your views won't be considered worthy by people if you use this approach all the time.  Especially when you ask the same questions over and over, get an answer, and never respond.




Answers are not questions, so do not need a response. However, I have given my opinion of your answers several times. I see them as you just being hypocritical in your morality by trying to justify immorality as being OK.

And what you said in that last paragraph is a load of rubbish. Let me remind you.. _*I used the word abortion , yes, to describe the aborting of infants that are already out of the womb*. In other words, destroying human life for some perceived good cause. In any case, even if I don't use the word abortion, the example still holds for my argument._

Clear up you thinking first 



> Is this not what secular morality is about? It's a sloppy morality where one has the flexibility to do things they think are morally wrong.




Of course people can do things they think are morally wrong. They are called immoral acts. But on some issues, what one person may think is immoral, another may hold a different view. This is not sloppiness but a reflection on how our morality evolves. 

If you think Christian morality is different in that respect then you are clearly unaware of how Christian morality has changed over the years.


----------



## Tink (27 January 2018)

Yes, bellenuit, just look at Melbourne how much it has changed with secular morality.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The reason is that religious folk cling to absolute rules.




Is there a military rule about not torturing terrorists for information ?

What is your view on that ?


----------



## grah33 (27 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Answers are not questions, so do not need a response. However, I have given my opinion of your answers several times. I see them as you just being hypocritical in your morality by trying to justify immorality as being OK.
> 
> And what you said in that last paragraph is a load of rubbish. Let me remind you.. _*I used the word abortion , yes, to describe the aborting of infants that are already out of the womb*. In other words, destroying human life for some perceived good cause. In any case, even if I don't use the word abortion, the example still holds for my argument._
> 
> ...




I need to clean up my understanding, really? As a pro-lifer it's funny getting that from someone who is okay with killing unborn babies. Normally when the debater brings up abortion for this argument, your side goes quite, but not you.

Let me guess, it's all good so long as it's in the womb?  I'm literally laughing right now, the way you're making me out to be warped or evil, it's quite funny. Thank you for that.


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I need to clean up my understanding, really? As a pro-lifer it's funny getting that from someone who is okay with killing unborn babies. Normally when the debater brings up abortion for this argument, your side goes quite, but not you.




I said clear up your thinking not clean up your understanding. The sentence I highlighted was rubbish and non-sensical.



> Let me guess, it's all good so long as it's in the womb?  I'm literally laughing right now, the way you're making me out to be warped or evil, it's quite funny. Thank you for that.




You don't have to guess. I already stated my position on abortion and I didn't say it's all good so long as it is in the womb.

I also didn't say you were warped and evil. I said you were hypocritical.

If you want to argue what I said, at least get what I said right.


----------



## grah33 (27 January 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I said clear up your thinking not clean up your understanding. The sentence I highlighted was rubbish and non-sensical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I already have argued against your view, so I definitely won't be going around in circles.  We simply don't agree on something in the end.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> You've quoted a whole bunch of parables.  ..




I quoted a story that was told by Jesus, I said it was a story bringing told by Jesus in my post.

But as I said in my post the moral of the story doesn't seen to be that it was bad, it seemed Jesus supported it.

What is your take on that parable?, do you think Jesus is saying it was wrong or right?


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Is there a military rule about not torturing terrorists for information ?
> 
> What is your view on that ?




There is certainly absolute rules on that, But as I said absolute rules are not a way to lead you to morality in all situations, it has to be situational.

A think there would be cases where it was moral to torture a terrorist.

eg, Imagine if the September 11 attack could have been prevented by putting pressure on a captured terrorist to get information about what the attack was going to be prior to it happening.

I think making a criminal temporarily uncomfortable to stop the 4000 people dying in the attacks, and perhaps preventing a 17 year long war might have been the morally correct thing to do.

But its very hard to judge that, and as I said its not always possible for us to know what the morally correct choice is.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

Tink said:


> Yes, bellenuit, just look at Melbourne how much it has changed with secular morality.




What is the worst change you have seen?

Because a lot of good things have happened. of course you look at the past with rose coloured glasses, forgetting the massive triumphs for womens rights, children rights, racial equality, etc etc.

You religious folk state that you care about babies so much, but for most of our past you guys wanted to steal babies away from young mothers.


> It seems that religious and welfare bodies agreed that the solution to illegitimate babies was adoption by a married woman who was “fit” to mother. From the 1950s to the 1970s, these organisations established homes across Australian to support and protect young, single pregnant women. But many of these women now have revealed the suffering they experienced at the hands of these institutions.
> 
> In many cases, the signed legal paperwork appears to show the birth mother’s consent for adoption. However, it’s common for women whose children were lost to them through closed adoptions between the 1940s and 1980s to recount traumatic stories of immense emotional pressure and coercion to sign.
> 
> Birth mothers were silenced when it came to speaking out about their hidden pregnancies, their treatment during the birth – which was frightening and traumatic – and their grief after losing their child. Their pain was seen as punishment for their immorality because of falling pregnant




http://theconversation.com/re-writing-australias-history-of-forced-adoption-5142


They would say young unmarried mothers wouldn't manage, But that just goes back to the fact women at the time didn't have equal rights or equal pay, and women weren't considered able to survive without a man.
.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Gotta excuse and forgive VC. He was brought up, I'm guessing, by religious people and they all creep him out. That and he knows way too much about religion and its texts it's a miracle he still talk to people who holds the words of the Bible to be factual.




Nah, it was extended family that were religious, I saw how much crap why cousins went through growing up, and how easy it has been for their parents to turn their backs on their children and grand children, very disgusting, not to mention September 11 and poisoned the well on religion for me forever.

If religious thinking can convince a person that the right thing to do is to fly a plane into a building, I think religious thinking should be resisted, and instead sceptical, rational thinking should be pursued. Any one that says faith is a virtue is just wrong, faith leads you to making wrong decisions.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> If the order was reversed so scientific evidence came before the bible then the bible would not have been constructed. The bible dedicates are still holding onto something people knew nothing about thousands of years ago. So unbelievable.




The best way to describe it is this.

If all the teachings of christianity were totally erased and forgotten, they would never regrow as they are, some other religion might form but christianity would be gone for ever.

However, If the teachings of science were totally erased and forgotten, they would regrow, and we would relearn everything as it is today.


----------



## grah33 (29 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I quoted a story that was told by Jesus, I said it was a story bringing told by Jesus in my post.
> 
> But as I said in my post the moral of the story doesn't seen to be that it was bad, it seemed Jesus supported it.
> 
> What is your take on that parable?, do you think Jesus is saying it was wrong or right?




Common man, it's a parable!


----------



## grah33 (29 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I quoted a story that was told by Jesus, I said it was a story bringing told by Jesus in my post.
> 
> But as I said in my post the moral of the story doesn't seen to be that it was bad, it seemed Jesus supported it.
> 
> What is your take on that parable?, do you think Jesus is saying it was wrong or right?



And if you want to talk about scriptures or the OT for that matter (to actually talk about something worthwhile for a change), you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel.  I like the way my Bible has these little footnotes written in it , referring to Alexander the Great and Antiochus (b4 they ever existed).  I hear that's a throwback for you atheists...


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> Common man, it's a parable!




exactly, which is -

parable definition - a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels

So my question is what is the moral of the story, I am confused, it doesn't seem to be that the killing would be bad.


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> And if you want to talk about scriptures or the OT for that matter (to actually talk about something worthwhile for a change),




No, that quote is from the NT



> you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel.




Such as,

Can you provide the verses, and how they 'accurately foretold' anything


----------



## grah33 (29 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, that quote is from the NT
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll get the verses regarding history soon, but for now, regards the parable, you must see this(go to 0:54 mark):




(your example is worse than the OT scripture before.  Definitely hung up on the Bible imo...side comment: Regards Islam, muslims encounter enormous difficulty defending.  One has to prove Jesus had a kind of holy jihadist type of morality, or they can't say Jesus's teachings are in harmony with  Islam.  very hard to do...)


----------



## Value Collector (29 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> I'll get the verses regarding history soon, but for now, regards the parable, you must see this(go to 0:54 mark):




Cool, I am waiting



> (your example is worse than the OT scripture before.  Definitely hung up on the Bible imo...side comment: Regards Islam, muslims encounter enormous difficulty defending.  One has to prove Jesus had a kind of holy jihadist type of morality, or they can't say Jesus's teachings are in harmony with  Islam.  very hard to do...)





firstly that video does nothing to answer my question, which was "does Jesus condone the actions in the story or not?"

secondly it proves my point exactly, I said "There are even New Testament verse ISIS could use to justify their killing"

and then you post a video of a muslim justifying actions of muslims using that verse, HAHAHA, do you even read your own responses?

Your video shows exactly what I said could happen



> One has to prove Jesus had a kind of holy jihadist type of morality




not hard when he said things like 



> King James Bible Matthew 10:34
> Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.




But of course you just skip that due to the secular morality that has creeped into your subconscious, But not everyone skips that during their cherry picking.

As I said the Bible is the big book of multiple choice, what every you want to do you can do it, just cherry pick the right verse, So you need a morality that comes from outside of the religion, eg secular morality.


----------



## Tink (30 January 2018)

VC, I have said on many occasions how much Melbourne has deteriorated with those pro death Greens.

*If we ever forget that we are One nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.*

-- Ronald Reagan.

We are all ladies and gentlemen, no matter if you are black or white.


----------



## Tisme (30 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> King James Bible Matthew 10:34
> Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword..




I'm guessing you are just throwing this stuff out there for effect? If you had attended Sunday school you would know in what context this is and it isn't about putting peoples physical being to the sword.


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'm guessing you are just throwing this stuff out there for effect? If you had attended Sunday school you would know in what context this is and it isn't about putting peoples physical being to the sword.




So you are sure every religious nut that picks up the book will get the same interpretation as your brand of Sunday school? 

you will find many christians justify carrying guns and the death penalty by quoting Jesus.


----------



## cynic (30 January 2018)

For the benefit of those who flunked Sunday school, I believe the following verse, makes Christ's teaching, on the bearing of weapons, very clear:

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew 26:52


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2018)

cynic said:


> For the benefit of those who flunked Sunday school, I believe the following verse, makes Christ's teaching, on the bearing of weapons, very clear:
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew 26:52




Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

Are you saying that Jesus taught people they should get into an arms race?


----------



## cynic (30 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> 
> Are you saying that Jesus taught people they should get into an arms race?



Sometimes luutzu, I seriously wonder about your ability to comprehend written English.

Did you happen to purchase your translator from this mob?:


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2018)

cynic said:


> Sometimes luutzu, I seriously wonder about your ability to comprehend written English.
> 
> Did you happen to purchase your translator from this mob?:







It's actually quite funny when you read deep into what I said.


----------



## Tisme (30 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So you are sure every religious nut that picks up the book will get the same interpretation as your brand of Sunday school?
> 
> you will find many christians justify carrying guns and the death penalty by quoting Jesus.





True, but I expect more from you


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> Live by the sword, die by the sword.
> 
> Are you saying that Jesus taught people they should get into an arms race?




thispreacher explains Jesus wasn't asking Peter to be a pacifist, just telling him to not fight the authorities or take the law into his own hands.


this preacher also has an interpretation


----------



## grah33 (30 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Cool, I am waiting
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The whole point of that clip was to show you how ridiculous your interpretations are. The guy was laughing uncontrollably. And yet you are still asking for an explanation. It has not been granted.


So what if you've managed to find some nutties online that take Jesus's parables literally.  You seem to be relying on a few cousins of Strawman too often.

Unfortunately though, in Islam Jesus is viewed like this. It seems to me that a problem with Islam is that Jesus taught things that aren't in harmony with Mohamed's teachings. And this is an issue , since one can't have a religion where 2 prophets disagree with each other. Some blunted examples are Jesus condemning polygamy, stoning punishments, divorce by 3 , and the brutality of the OT Law. And as I said b4, the view of the NT is that the OT Law was designed for a people who lacked morality (killers). Yes, they are still inclined to think that its standard (similar to Islam) is good enough for modern humanity.  So I feel that muslims believe in many lies.


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> thispreacher explains Jesus wasn't asking Peter to be a pacifist, just telling him to not fight the authorities or take the law into his own hands.
> 
> 
> this preacher also has an interpretation





Jesus probably regretted that when the Roman takes him in for a whipping, then a hanging.


----------



## luutzu (30 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> ...  So I feel that muslims believe in many lies.




A big call to make for a person who believe there's only one God and Jesus is his only son. All because Jesus says so, and because his disciples wrote it down in a pretty book.

btw, aren't you guys all believe in the same God/Allah? 

Come on man, you three religion gotta sit down and talk things over. There's very little difference between your deities. 

It's not like one believe in God and the other in the Jade Emperor.


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2018)

grah33 said:


> The whole point of that clip was to show you how ridiculous your interpretations are. The guy was laughing uncontrollably.
> .




Yet he didn't provide an answer, I think the laughing guy was shocked to see the verse, at first he was laughing thinking it was a mis quote, then he was dumbfounded.

But I still ask the question, what is the moral of that story?



> And yet you are still asking for an explanation. It has not been granted.




Because I don't think you actually know the answer




> So what if you've managed to find some nutties online that take Jesus's parables literally.




its entire churches.



> since one can't have a religion where 2 prophets disagree with each other. Some blunted examples are Jesus condemning polygamy,




was Abraham a prophet? because he disagreed with Jesus on polygamy.


----------



## grah33 (30 January 2018)

luutzu said:


> A big call to make for a person who believe there's only one God and Jesus is his only son. All because Jesus says so, and because his disciples wrote it down in a pretty book.
> 
> btw, aren't you guys all believe in the same God/Allah?
> 
> ...



You're right, my language was a little too strong with that last line. You know how it is, expressing oneself online...  And there is still some basic important things in common as you say.


----------



## grah33 (30 January 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yet he didn't provide an answer, I think the laughing guy was shocked to see the verse, at first he was laughing thinking it was a mis quote, then he was dumbfounded.
> 
> But I still ask the question, what is the moral of that story?
> 
> ...




Yes Abraham was a man of God, but that proves nothing at all. 

Abraham was a good man that listened to God's voice, and an ordinary man for that time , that God picked. In any case, if your read the story , having 2 wives caused problems. As the NT explains well enough, polygamy/rampant divorce was given to a society that lacked morality. In that time, the Jews and there morality (when they followed it) were a light to the world. But in this time, a society practicing such morals wouldn't even be noticed, but in fact ridiculed. The secular moralists would even frown upon it.


----------



## Value Collector (30 January 2018)

Still waiting on the verses you promised.



grah33 said:


> Yes Abraham was a man of God, but that proves nothing at all.
> 
> Abraham was a good man that listened to God's voice, and an ordinary man for that time , that God picked. In any case, if your read the story , having 2 wives caused problems. As the NT explains well enough, polygamy/rampant divorce was given to a society that lacked morality. In that time, the Jews and there morality (when they followed it) were a light to the world. .




But given that The NT prophet (Jesus) can disagree with the OT prophet (Abraham), Doesn't that make your example of Mohammed disagreeing with Jesus meaningless?

I am just following your rules here, 

You say you can't have a religion where two prophets disagree, and you use an example of Mohamed disagreeing with an earlier prophet (Jesus), but Jesus himself disagrees with multiple earlier prophets,  



> But in this time, a society practicing such morals wouldn't even be noticed, but in fact ridiculed, secular moralists would even frown upon it.




yes, we would frown upon a man willing to kill his child because the voice in his head told him too.

In fact I think we would rightfully jail him in a looney bin, and I hope not even you would disagree we should.


----------



## Tink (1 February 2018)

As was mentioned in the American thread --
https://www.whitehouse.gov/

_In America, we know that 
FAITH AND FAMILY, 
not government and bureaucracy, 
are the center of American life. 

Our motto is: IN GOD WE TRUST._
--------

Why do they have -- In God we trust.

As we have in our preamble -- Almighty God.


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2018)

Tink said:


> --------
> 
> Why do they have -- In God we trust.
> 
> As we have in our preamble -- Almighty God.




it was added in 1956, because of an irrational fear of "Godless communists",


from wikipedia.


> A law passed in a Joint Resolution by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower on *July 30, 1956*, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency.




under god was also added to the pledge of allegiance around the same time, again out of fear of communists,


----------



## PZ99 (1 February 2018)

Superannuation is creating a Godless society. LOL

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ont-need-god/9378128?WT.ac=localnews_brisbane


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2018)

grah33 said:


> you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel.  I like the way my Bible has these little footnotes written in it , referring to Alexander the Great and Antiochus (b4 they ever existed).  I hear that's a throwback for you atheists...




Still waiting for these bible verses


----------



## Tink (1 February 2018)

So back to Ronald Reagan -
*
If you we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, we will be a nation gone under.*

-----------
_During the Cold War era, the government of the United States sought to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism and thus implemented antireligious legislation.[12] The 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States". The law was signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956.[13] The United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, now states: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."

The same day, the President signed into law[14] a requirement that "In God We Trust" be printed on all U.S. currency and coins. On paper currency, it first appeared on the silver certificate in 1957, followed by other certificates. Federal Reserve Notes and United States Notes were circulated with the motto starting from 1964 to 1966, depending on the denomination.[8][15] (Of these, only Federal Reserve Notes are still circulated.)

Representative Charles Edward Bennett of Florida cited the Cold War when he introduced the bill in the House, saying "In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continually look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom". [16]_

---------------

https://www.whitehouse.gov/


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2018)

Tink said:


> _During the Cold War era, the government of the United States sought to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism and thus implemented antireligious legislation.[12] _/




The Opposite of "Antireligious legislation" is "religious freedom legislation", any legislation that promotes one religion is actually still anti religious, because its suppressing all the other religions.

The United States was founded as a secular state, because they could see the dangers to personal freedom created by the European theocracies from which its people had fled looking for freedom.

the hysteria of the 1950's was used by the religious to try and attach their religion to the Nationalism that existed, and it has worked.

But the USA is definitely a secular nation, and has been since founding.

As I have said before, the words "Bible, Jesus, Christianity etc" do not appear in any founding documents, feel free to look.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> As I have said before, the words "Bible, Jesus, Christianity etc" do not appear in any founding documents, feel free to look.




Nevertheless US politicians find it hard to get elected if they are declared atheists, and most of them try to appeal to the religious Right (for money), or the religious Left (for the sympathy vote).


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Nevertheless US politicians find it hard to get elected if they are declared atheists, and most of them try to appeal to the religious Right (for money), or the religious Left (for the sympathy vote).




Thats because a lot of US citizens are religious, and are indoctrinated to think atheists are bad people.

But it doesn't really matter which religion you belong to, as it would in a theocracy. I mean the Islamic religions have a bad rap at the moment, But you could be elected whether you are catholic, Baptist, Mormon, methodist, any sort of Jew or even if you are just into Oprah style Woo.

As long as you say you believe in something, you seem to be ok, thats a sure sign of a secular nation, rather than a theocratic government.


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Thats because a lot of US citizens are religious, and are indoctrinated to think atheists are bad people.
> 
> .




a lot of religious talking heads on US tv and radio actively preach against atheists, as if we are the enemy.


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2018)

you can also see how Tink constantly tries to equate me with Stalin and communism, she has obviously been brain washed to think anyone that is simply unconvinced a god exists, is some how a communist. She seems to think that only a belief in a god can make a person good, I disagree.


----------



## grah33 (1 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Still waiting on the verses you promised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm currently resting my eyes for a short while so will limit posting here for a couple of days.

For now though a few things: It's not about the NT disagreeing with the OT, since there are ample explanations in it for things such as circumcision and unclean foods. It's all fully explained. But in Islam, we just get one claim about NT scriptures being corrupted, and given that Jesus's teachings and morals make so much sense to us, it's only natural to think it the other way around. Jews will also not accept Islam's view of Jesus.

Paul in the NT talks a little about Abraham. Later on in life after becoming holy, he was declared to be a righteous person, and a friend of God. Yet when this was said about him, he was still uncircumcised. Moral of the story: circumcision has nothing to do with sanctity and having morals, and a person can be morally acceptable without it. So the Christians, being part of the second covenant, made with bread and wine, have no need for it. Christ also explained some of these things. And this makes a lot of sense to me, since, when you're about to spread the biggest religion on the planet, you only want to demand the important stuff from people, ie proper morals and sound living. If it's not essential, get rid of it.

It's an unusual story but it's inspiring too. He held nothing back, and so was rewarded by becoming the father of an enduring nation. It's because of the greatness of their ancestor that they have forever remained.


----------



## Value Collector (1 February 2018)

grah33 said:


> Jews will also not accept Islam's view of Jesus.
> 
> .




They don't accept the christian view either.



> and a person can be morally acceptable without it.




Can a person be willing to slaughter their own child on an alter and still be moral?



> given that Jesus's teachings and morals make so much sense to us,




when you only cherry pick the good stuff, and ignore the inconvenient bit that Mohamed's teachings make more sense to the muslims.


----------



## luutzu (1 February 2018)

Tink said:


> So back to Ronald Reagan -
> *
> If you we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, we will be a nation gone under.*
> 
> ...




You miss out the second sentence.

"In God we Trust. Everybody else pay cash."


----------



## luutzu (1 February 2018)

grah33 said:


> I'm currently resting my eyes for a short while so will limit posting here for a couple of days.
> 
> For now though a few things: It's not about the NT disagreeing with the OT, since there are ample explanations in it for things such as circumcision and unclean foods. It's all fully explained. But in Islam, we just get one claim about NT scriptures being corrupted, and given that Jesus's teachings and morals make so much sense to us, it's only natural to think it the other way around. Jews will also not accept Islam's view of Jesus.
> 
> ...




You sure you're just resting your eyes and not taking up drinking? Don't hit the bottle too hard, I don't blame you 'cause a long debate with VC could do that to a religious person


----------



## bellenuit (2 February 2018)

grah33 said:


> And if you want to talk about scriptures or the OT for that matter (to actually talk about something worthwhile for a change), you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel.  I like the way my Bible has these little footnotes written in it , referring to Alexander the Great and Antiochus (b4 they ever existed).  I hear that's a throwback for you atheists...




Grah, to save you looking, these are the verses that supposedly foretold Alexander The Great and Antiochus.

_In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me—to me, Daniel—after the one that appeared to me the first time. I saw in the vision, and it so happened while I was looking, that I was in Shushan, the citadel, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision that I was by the River Ulai. Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great. And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand. Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed” (Daniel 8:1-14)._

After narrating what he saw in the vision, Daniel wondered what the dream meant. While in this state of contemplation, the angel Gabriel approached Daniel to explain the dream. Gabriel proceeded to offer an accurate interpretation of the events that Daniel saw:

_The ram which you saw, having the two horns—they are the kings of Media and Persia. And the male goat is the kingdomof Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise, having fierce features, who understands sinister schemes. His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; he shall destroy fearfully, and shall prosper and thrive; he shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people. Through his cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule;and he shall exalt himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human means.And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future (Daniel 8:20-26).
_
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4224

This is a rebuttal of those prophesies....

https://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html


----------



## Tisme (4 February 2018)

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/03/4141760.htm



> *Good without God? Morality's Foundations Crumble in the Absence of Christianity*
> Peter HitchensABC Religion and Ethics3 Dec 201
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PZ99 (4 February 2018)

Is it a property of metaphysics when you have a lunar eclipse of a super blue blood moon followed a 666 point fall in the Dow Jones ?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 February 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Is it a property of metaphysics when you have a lunar eclipse of a super blue blood moon followed a 666 point fall in the Dow Jones ?




I think we are in the realm of Nostradamus or Revelations, as in "the end of days".


----------



## Tisme (5 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think we are in the realm of Nostradamus or Revelations, as in "the end of days".




Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim and Bela. Even after Mr Circumcision Abraham Jewishly negotiated God down from 50 to 10 righteous people and apart from the three freeloading, rent avoiding angels, in the end there was Lot, his salty wife and two drink spiking daughters.

I think it's still four more people than parliament has at present.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim and Bela. Even after Mr Circumcision Abraham Jewishly negotiated God down from 50 to 10 righteous people and apart from the three freeloading, rent avoiding angels, in the end there was Lot, his salty wife and two drink spiking daughters.
> 
> I think it's still four more people than parliament has at present.




I'm sure Cory is righteous, and soon he'll have company.


----------



## Tisme (5 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm sure Cory is righteous, and soon he'll have company.




Do bog Oirish Micks count?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 February 2018)

Tisme said:


> Do bog Oirish Micks count?




Yes, but not very well.

After about the third child they lose count.


----------



## Tisme (5 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, but not very well.
> 
> After about the third child they lose count.




Cue Monty Python:


----------



## Value Collector (5 February 2018)

luutzu said:


> You sure you're just resting your eyes and not taking up drinking? Don't hit the bottle too hard, I don't blame you 'cause a long debate with VC could do that to a religious person




I think it is because he has realised his big claims about Bible Prophecy can't be backed up, its quite common for christians to just believe their preachers when the preacher says the bible predicts this or that, so they go around making big claims, but then when some one says "Such as?", they find them selves holding an empty sack.


----------



## Value Collector (5 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think we are in the realm of Nostradamus or Revelations, as in "the end of days".




Apparently we have bee there for nearly 2000 years?

Check out this rather long list of predicted apocalyptic events, 

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


----------



## luutzu (5 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I think it is because he has realised his big claims about Bible Prophecy can't be backed up, its quite common for christians to just believe their preachers when the preacher says the bible predicts this or that, so they go around making big claims, but then when some one says "Such as?", they find them selves holding an empty sack.




Of course the Bible's Prophecies can be backed up. It's in the Bible. Full stop


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 February 2018)

I really liked The Omen series. Little did I know Damien Thorn was actually a North Korean.


----------



## Value Collector (6 February 2018)

luutzu said:


> Of course the Bible's Prophecies can be backed up. It's in the Bible. Full stop




The funniest part is when they say the bible stories in the New Testament Prove the prophecies of the Old Testament,

Then when asked if its possible the authors of the New Testament had read the Old testament and simply  written fan fiction stories fulfilling the prophecy,  they manage to keep a straight face and say "No, thats not possible" hahaha.

I wonder if they believe Harry Potter is real, because the later books "fulfil prophecies" made in the earlier books.


----------



## grah33 (6 February 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Grah, to save you looking, these are the verses that supposedly foretold Alexander The Great and Antiochus.
> 
> _In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me—to me, Daniel—after the one that appeared to me the first time. I saw in the vision, and it so happened while I was looking, that I was in Shushan, the citadel, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision that I was by the River Ulai. Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great. And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand. Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed” (Daniel 8:1-14)._
> 
> ...



I had a quick look (not much though, sore eyes). Seems the first link is a rebuttal to the rebuttal itself.

As you probably know, the book is mentioned all over the place and by historians well before the date the atheists have used. Daniel is also mentioned in other OT books. Christ also ascribed Himself to be one of the main characters in some of those future flashes that Daniel received. And even if you use their date (was it 100 bc or something like that?) , it still predicts in advance the coming of the Messiah (70 weeks of years , another nice little footnote in the Bible for that actually), and has some nice images of the Christian mystery b4 it even takes place (Christian perspective here, as Jews don't believe in Jesus).

I like the way it predicted the destruction of the sanctuary. This was the second temple, where the Jews made sin offerings for mankind and themselves. Some Jews and Christians might not like the fact that a famous mosque stands there now, but I actually think it works well for Christianity. If it were not there, the Jews would again be sacrificing for sins (side comment: they are seeking to build a temple for this ...). From a Christian perspective, it's not meant to be, since Christ is the sacrifice. So it was fitting that all sin sacrifices would stop after Christ died. And this idea - the need for a better and human sacrifice – is also laid out in the OT well before it happens (see the Suffering Servant oracles of Isaiah). Jesus ascribed Isaiah's verses about Himself. They are (to Christians anyway) a prophecy describing the suffering of a special person, suffering for everyone's sins. It's mystical and powerful.


----------



## grah33 (6 February 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I think we are in the realm of Nostradamus or Revelations, as in "the end of days".



If Daniel predicted past empires so well, will his future predictions also come true? Many people watch the land of Israel, since all the oracles are supposed to happen there. After forming a state after 2000 years, they think now is the time to watch. They see the Jews returning as the beginning of a final phase in history.   We'll see what happens.  

Regarding prophecies, Christ was certain that all of them would be fulfilled.


----------



## grah33 (6 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Still waiting for these bible verses



u got em now.


----------



## Value Collector (6 February 2018)

grah33 said:


> u got em now.



No, where did you post the verses?

You made a specific claim eg. you said "you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel"

I asked you to provide the verse's where Daniel accurately foretold the history of several empires.

So far you have provided nothing but some unintelligible ramblings about your interpretation of unidentified parts of bible stories.



> If Daniel predicted past empires so well, will his future predictions also come true?




again, which verses were these predictions in? 

and what exactly did they "predict so well"?


----------



## luutzu (7 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The funniest part is when they say the bible stories in the New Testament Prove the prophecies of the Old Testament,
> 
> Then when asked if its possible the authors of the New Testament had read the Old testament and simply  written fan fiction stories fulfilling the prophecy,  they manage to keep a straight face and say "No, thats not possible" hahaha.
> 
> I wonder if they believe Harry Potter is real, because the later books "fulfil prophecies" made in the earlier books.




Some religious people wouldn't believe you if you tell them the Church banned certain (scientific) books or put under house arrest scientists who questioned the Bible's version of the rotation of the solar system. Serious. They think you're making it up to insult the Church and their religion.

Impossible to argue with religious beliefs. Which is fine and fair enough when it doesn't affect you personally but when it does, it's really messed up. There's just no way out, no reason or logic can change their decision. So you either have to accept what they say or go elsewhere. 

Anyway, to hold some books as absolute truth... then force it on other people through your own beliefs as taught in the book. Imagine there's no religion ey.


----------



## noirua (7 February 2018)

I suppose we should first look at the limitations of the human brain.  A calculator or computer can beat humans at most things. Does that mean that thinking is the only difference between us and animals as far as death is concerned - in the longer term that is. Few animals mourn that long whilst it can linger until life's end in humans.


----------



## Value Collector (7 February 2018)

noirua said:


> I suppose we should first look at the limitations of the human brain.  A calculator or computer can beat humans at most things. Does that mean that thinking is the only difference between us and animals as far as death is concerned - in the longer term that is. Few animals mourn that long whilst it can linger until life's end in humans.




I think having conscious thought is a big determining factor on whether its ok treat other life forms in certain ways, I mean even a vegan is ok with biting into a living plant or bacteria, however animals etc have a much higher level of consciousness and ability to feel pain, fear, stress etc, so should be treated differently.


----------



## tech/a (7 February 2018)

What they don't have is a sense of self.
We know what we are.
We know of a beginning middle and end.

A monkey doesn't know he is a monkey.
However Ducks know they are Ducks.


----------



## Value Collector (7 February 2018)

tech/a said:


> What they don't have is a sense of self.
> We know what we are.
> We know of a beginning middle and end.
> 
> .




Sense of self is not the only factor, eg if it could be proven that a dog had no sense of self, it still doesn't mean that its ok to torture it, because it still has the ability to feel pain, stress and fear etc.

I think there are animals across the whole spectrum of consciousness . Some animals would be no more than robots running software, however humans are obviously much higher on the spectrum of consciousness.

The other species of apes and potentially other animals are not to different from us (after all we are apes) in terms of consciousness, so we shouldn't treat them poorly.

eg a prawn may be no more than a biological robot, but a chimpanzee certainly isn't, and other animals like elephants, Whales etc might be not far behind.


----------



## grah33 (8 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, where did you post the verses?
> 
> You made a specific claim eg. you said "you gotta deal with the fact that the history of several empires was accurately foretold by Daniel"
> 
> ...




it's all in there.  the 4 empires ending in rome (babylon, persian, greek,rome) , including Alexander the Great , splitting into 4 kingdoms , and antiochus persecuting the Jews and destroying the temple.


also the 70 weeks of years before Messiah comes (to think Christ is so accurately predicted )...

just some other stuff i got off the net... talks about after rome , how other empires couldn't put themselves together. and how in the end, we'll see a forming of another empire from the formerly roman ?? 

Here is chapter 8 (different empires) and 9 (coming of Messiah).  it's a commentary on the scriptures, with commentary on left and scriptures on right. if you use Ctrl-F and search for antiochus/alexander/ christ , the verses you seek will come up.  why not read the commentary a little and see what you think.  It's exciting for someone who never knew it.

chapter 8 (the empires i history)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id317.html

chapter 9 (coming of Messiah)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id318.html


The point of course is that it's all there before it happens...


----------



## Value Collector (8 February 2018)

grah33 said:


> it's all in there.  the 4 empires ending in rome (babylon, persian, greek,rome) , including Alexander the Great , splitting into 4 kingdoms , and antiochus persecuting the Jews and destroying the temple.
> 
> 
> also the 70 weeks of years before Messiah comes (to think Christ is so accurately predicted )...
> ...




Bible verses Please.

I want to read what the bible verse actually says, not just here what your interpretation of it is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 February 2018)

noirua said:


> Does that mean that thinking is the only difference between us and animals as far as death is concerned - in the longer term that is. Few animals mourn that long whilst it can linger until life's end in humans.



Everyone processes loss differently in regard to time and emotional content. Add to that all other people involved with the loss and their reactions then life can be turbulent.
Dealing with loss starts at an early age and we deal with loss throughout our lives. Greater emotional connection prior to any loss is seemingly harder to process. People with a less emotional personality, i.e. put little emotion into a situation or toward a person, take loss easily. Acceptance can be a real test of inner strength. *MUST get up, people need our help to get up too.*


----------



## grah33 (8 February 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Bible verses Please.
> 
> I want to read what the bible verse actually says, not just here what your interpretation of it is.



Chapters 8 and 9. what I just gave you.  all of it.  one verse by itself is pointless. the commentary will help you.  it spells history.  you have to be familiar with history of course.  the commentary will help


----------



## Tisme (8 February 2018)

grah33 said:


> Chapters 8 and 9. what I just gave you.  all of it.  one verse by itself is pointless. the commentary will help you.  it spells history.  you have to be familiar with history of course.  the commentary will help




The one we have to worry about is the s4itfight when all the combatants show their hands over Jerusalem and Jebus enters the room to sort the wheat from the chaff. I bags the back seats!


----------



## Tink (9 February 2018)

As was mentioned in the American thread, VC

Our founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence.
Our currency declares “IN GOD WE TRUST.”
We recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proclaim that we are “One Nation Under God.”

--------------------

_https://www.whitehouse.gov/

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...hings-metaphysical.27938/page-140#post-972455_


----------



## grah33 (9 February 2018)

Tink said:


> As was mentioned in the American thread, VC
> 
> Our founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence.
> Our currency declares “IN GOD WE TRUST.”
> ...






I think, as you say , there are a few Stalinists here, but they just don't know it. They think it's good to control religious people, while at the same time thinking it's not cool to be a communist 

Hillary and Obama were actually forcing religious organizations to do things against their belief in the past. When we see this, it's a great outrage to us, but we have to put up with it. In the end though, I'm convinced that what comes around also goes around to everyone else.

That parable that VC quoted relates to all this. My memory of it is scratchy, but Christ was basically saying that His morals would be non-negotiable, and to keep them , would lead them to getting killed, and many of them did die for it. But in doing so, they took out the Roman empire (as was foretold by Daniel). When someone is willing to die for their faith, this kind of activism is much more powerful than any other. We haven't really seen such conflict here, since traditionally we've always been Christian, but that has changed. You saw the supreme court case in the US, with the cake baker... You'd think the amendment would have had him covered, but he had to go through all of that.


----------



## Tink (7 March 2018)

Shrove Tuesday is Christian.

_Shrove Tuesday is the day before Lent starts on Ash Wednesday. The name Shrove comes from the old middle English word 'Shriven' meaning to go to confession to say sorry for the wrong things you've done. Lent always starts on a Wednesday, so people went to confessions on the day before. This became known as Shriven Tuesday and then Shrove Tuesday.

The other name for this day, Pancake Day, comes from the old English custom of using up all the fattening ingredients in the house before Lent, so that people were ready to fast during Lent. The fattening ingredients that most people had in their houses in those days were eggs and milk. A very simple recipe to use up these ingredients was to combine them with some flour and make pancakes!_


----------



## SirRumpole (7 March 2018)

grah33 said:


> Hillary and Obama were actually forcing religious organizations to do things against their belief in the past. When we see this, it's a great outrage to us, but we have to put up with it. In the end though, I'm convinced that what comes around also goes around to everyone else.




Examples ?


----------



## Tisme (7 March 2018)

Tink said:


> Shrove Tuesday is Christian.
> 
> _Shrove Tuesday is the day before Lent starts on Ash Wednesday. The name Shrove comes from the old middle English word 'Shriven' meaning to go to confession to say sorry for the wrong things you've done. Lent always starts on a Wednesday, so people went to confessions on the day before. This became known as Shriven Tuesday and then Shrove Tuesday.
> 
> The other name for this day, Pancake Day, comes from the old English custom of using up all the fattening ingredients in the house before Lent, so that people were ready to fast during Lent. The fattening ingredients that most people had in their houses in those days were eggs and milk. A very simple recipe to use up these ingredients was to combine them with some flour and make pancakes!_





Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday:- french)  is an alternative name for Shrove Tuesday too. 

Seems quite satisfactory that an abomination to Christianity should wear the same name as the day before the observance of the 40 days the Christ wandered around the spring desert getting heat stroke, empty stomache and dehydration.


----------



## Tink (7 March 2018)

I have put this up before.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-champion-religious-freedom/

---------------------

_Faith breathes life and hope into our world. We must diligently guard, preserve, and cherish this unalienable right.

President Donald J. Trump

STANDING UP FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: 

In his first year in office, President Trump has taken strong action to restore the foundational link between freedom and faith in the United States of America.

    On May 4, 2017, the President signed an executive order to greatly enhance religious freedom and freedom of speech:
        taking action to ensure that religious institutions may freely exercise their First Amendment right to support and advocate for candidates and causes in line with their values; and
        ensuring that religious Americans and their organizations, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, would not be forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs by complying with Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate or shutting their doors.
    The President has announced a reversal of the Obama administration’s policy denying disaster aid to houses of worship, allowing houses of worship to receive crucial aid in times of crisis.
    The Trump administration has taken a stand on behalf of religious liberty in the courts:
        supported students declared ineligible for a scholarship because they attended a religious school;
        supported the Archdiocese of Washington in its effort to buy ads for the holidays on public transportation; and
        supported baker Jack Phillips’s right to operate his bakery in accordance with his religious beliefs.
    In January 2018, the Trump administration took a stand for international religious freedom by placing Pakistan on a “Special Watch List” for severe violations of religious freedom and designated 10 others as countries of particular concern.
    The President declared January 18, 2018 to be Religious Freedom Day to “celebrate the many faiths that make up our country.”

PRIORITIZING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE ADMINISTRATION: 

President Trump has issued new policies to ensure religious freedom is a priority throughout the Federal Government.

    In October 2017, the Department of Justice issued twenty principles of religious liberty to guide the Administration’s litigation strategy to protect religious freedom.
    In January 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced three major policy changes to protect freedom of religion:
        forming a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, providing HHS with the focus it needs to more vigorously and effectively enforce existing laws protecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom; and
        proposing to more vigorously enforce 25 existing statutory conscience protections for Americans involved in HHS programs, protecting Americans who have religious or moral convictions related to certain health care services.

PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE: 

President Trump has stopped the attack on pro-life policies, implementing policies to enshrine sanctity of life as an American value.

    Within a week of taking office, President Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, which protects $9 billion in foreign aid from being used to fund the global abortion industry and its advocates.
    President Trump cut off taxpayer funding for the U.N. Population Fund.
    President Trump signed H.J. Res. 43 into law, overturning a midnight regulation by the Obama Administration, which prohibited States from defunding certain abortion facilities in their Federally funded family planning programs.
    President Trump expressed strong support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have stopped late-term abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy—the point at which science tells us that an unborn child can experience pain.
    President Trump’s Administration issued guidance to enforce the requirement that taxpayer dollars not support abortion coverage in Obamacare exchange plans.
    President Trump rescinded an Obama-era policy that hindered States in their efforts to direct Medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violate the law or fail to meet relevant standards of care.

BRINGING RELIGIOUS GROUPS BACK INTO THE FOLD: 

President Trump has made a consistent effort to reach out to religious groups and partners to bring them back into the policy making process.

    On February 2, 2017, just two weeks into his first term in office, President Trump spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast.
    On June 8, 2017, President Trump spoke at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference.
    On October 13, 2017, President Trump spoke at the Value Voters Summit.
    On January 19, 2018, President Trump became the first President to address the March for Life rally live via satellite.
        Vice President Mike Pence addressed the March for Life in 2017, becoming the first sitting Vice President to do so in person._


----------



## Value Collector (7 March 2018)

Tink said:


> As was mentioned in the American thread, VC
> 
> Our founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> --------------------



So what?
Are you American?

the more important document is the constitution, and it lays out secularism very clearly.






> Our currency declares “IN GOD WE TRUST.”




that was added in the 50's 


> We recite the Pledge of Allegiance and proclaim that we are “One Nation Under God.”



Again that was added in the 50's


----------



## Value Collector (7 March 2018)

grah33 said:


> Chapters 8 and 9. what I just gave you.  all of it.  one verse by itself is pointless. the commentary will help you.  it spells history.  you have to be familiar with history of course.  the commentary will help




So I read those chapters (against my better judgement), and the claims that they accurately predict the future empires is just false, the discriptions are so generic.


----------



## Tink (10 March 2018)

No, I am not an American.

I stood up for Margaret Court, Family and our Christian heritage.
Faith - Family - Truth - Freedom.

As I have said, our constitution has Almighty God.

One Nation Under God.

This is my view

_Ladies and Gentlemen._


----------



## SirRumpole (10 March 2018)

Tink said:


> our Christian heritage.




A "Christian" heritage that had people transported to the ends of the earth for stealing a loaf of bread and children abused in Catholic churches.


----------



## luutzu (10 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> A "Christian" heritage that had people transported to the ends of the earth for stealing a loaf of bread and children abused in Catholic churches.




It's called tough love. Or rape and abuse, depends on who you're asking.


----------



## luutzu (10 March 2018)

Tink said:


> I have put this up before.
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-champion-religious-freedom/
> 
> ...




Contraception, bad!

Food for hungry kids from poor family, also bad! 

Abortion is terrible under all circumstances. Life is sacred!

Gun control, please sir. No! Guns are good, shootout are also good. 

meh...


----------



## Value Collector (10 March 2018)

Tink said:


> One Nation Under God.
> _._




And let me guess, you want it to be you brand of god?

Before you get to far ahead of yourself, how about proving a god exists, then once you have established that, then you can start a discussion about which god it is and whether or not we should put our nation under him.

Because even if you could prove a god exists, it in no way is automatic that he should be part of our political system.


----------



## brty (10 March 2018)

VC,  I very much agree with you in your above comments. IMHO religion has no place in politics/constitutions etc (nor for that matter on investment forums).



Value Collector said:


> Before you get to far ahead of yourself, how about proving a god exists




Yes, when having some time to kill, I've let some Jehovah's Witnesses into the house for a cuppa and let them try to convince me. They have never been close to proving anything.


----------



## grah33 (12 April 2018)

brty said:


> VC,  I very much agree with you in your above comments. IMHO religion has no place in politics/constitutions etc (nor for that matter on investment forums).
> .





SirRumpole said:


> Examples ?



A little late here but anyway... just something I read about how the nuns in the US had to sell contraception or something at hospitals, or not get their wages. The past view was to be grateful to get free health services in the first place (Church provides massive free health care). Not we're gonna make you do things against your religion and get free services from you.


----------



## grah33 (12 April 2018)

luutzu said:


> Contraception, bad!
> 
> Food for hungry kids from poor family, also bad!
> 
> ...



In light of a Creator using contraception is regarded as a misuse of sexuality (same with masturbation). Sexual things are good but when directed to their proper end. Otherwise you get problems. A few days ago someone actually told me it wrecks marriages. Indeed, divorce rates have increased with contraceptive innovation in recent times.

I believe it can also change sexual desire and make it less sound. Think of food. A person that is always thinking about it enjoys it in a confusing manner. He may even begin to disdain good food if he becomes very attached to his hobby of eating. Sexual desires can also morph and become less natural, and less sound.


----------



## satanoperca (12 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Because even if you could prove a god exists, it in no way is automatic that he should be part of our political system.




Interesting comment.

Lets just say it can be proved, tick

But who is to say god is good? What metric is used to determine whether he/she/it is of a positive value to society?
It is just assumed that God is good and the devil is bad?

Maybe the story of God being good and the devil being bad was the first case of fake news in history.


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2018)

satanoperca said:


> Interesting comment.
> 
> Lets just say it can be proved, tick
> 
> ...




exactly, we know hitler existed but that doesn't men we should worship him, and giving him political power was a mistake.

Also, say we could prove a god exists, but still have no way of communicating with this god in real time, do we just automatically assume the religious folk know the gods mind and put them in power, No bloody way, we wouldn't even no which brand to select.


----------



## luutzu (12 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> In light of a Creator using contraception is regarded as a misuse of sexuality (same with masturbation). Sexual things are good but when directed to their proper end. Otherwise you get problems. A few days ago someone actually told me it wrecks marriages. Indeed, divorce rates have increased with contraceptive innovation in recent times.
> 
> I believe it can also change sexual desire and make it less sound. Think of food. A person that is always thinking about it enjoys it in a confusing manner. He may even begin to disdain good food if he becomes very attached to his hobby of eating. Sexual desires can also morph and become less natural, and less sound.




I think God's scribes' version of proper use of sex is just for procreation. That's fine and good for those who don't care for sex, for most people having kids from sex is more often than not an accident.

I think there should be a balance... some people take sex too liberally and would sleep with anyone. Some takes it too Biblical and sleep with their relatives, oh wait that's too far back 

Having sex just to procreate... so a married couple would do it twice in a marriage? Mate, with modern info-tech and fancy apps, women are pretty good at timing their cycle... trying for two kids might very well mean doing it like 4 times. 

And the Bible also want to take away pr0n and masturbation? 

I'm surprised religion ever got more than a dozen followers.


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2018)

Remember the story from about 8 years ago. It was all a fake. Here is an update...

*Subject of Fake “Heaven” Book Sues Christian Publisher for Never Paying Him*

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...her-for-never-paying-him/#LALBjPJhdOHGPMCE.99


----------



## Tisme (13 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Remember the story from about 8 years ago. It was all a fake. Here is an update...
> 
> *Subject of Fake “Heaven” Book Sues Christian Publisher for Never Paying Him*
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...her-for-never-paying-him/#LALBjPJhdOHGPMCE.99





Do you think the gate guardian skyfairies got to him and pressured him to recant his story; what happens in heaven stays in heaven?


----------



## Tink (13 April 2018)

As I mentioned in the tennis thread, regarding Margaret Court and the Margaret Court Arena, in Melbourne.

_https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa...ean-kings-transgender-criticism-ng-b88713610z_

-------------------------

_https://jordanbpeterson.com/_


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> Do you think the gate guardian skyfairies got to him and pressured him to recant his story; what happens in heaven stays in heaven?




No.


----------



## grah33 (13 April 2018)

luutzu said:


> I think God's scribes' version of proper use of sex is just for procreation. That's fine and good for those who don't care for sex, for most people having kids from sex is more often than not an accident.
> 
> I think there should be a balance... some people take sex too liberally and would sleep with anyone. Some takes it too Biblical and sleep with their relatives, oh wait that's too far back
> 
> ...





From memory the Bible doesn't mention masturbation (or pr0n) but there is Jesus's teaching on purity (the parable about a man gazing excessively at women), a somewhat new thing for its time. The Church often applies the morals to various circumstances. Masturbation is quite common, and I think many people get addicted to it, and I think many marriage partners have to compete with their partner's issues. I believe that when a person starts to develop sanctity many disordered carnal desires (not just sexual ) melt away and a more fuller and happier feeling starts to reside inside the person.


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> From memory the Bible doesn't mention masturbation.




No, but it does give you some tips on how to clean up afterwards, hahaha

Turns out god invented the entire universe just to watch you masturbate and then make sure you bathed after.

It’s at this point one must remember the book was written by goat hearders not a god.

Eg.

_*Leviticus 15:16-17
'Now if a man has a seminal emission, he shall bathe all his body in water and be unclean until evening. 'As for any garment or any leather on which there is seminal emission, it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening.


*_


----------



## lindsayf (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, but it does give you some tips on how to clean up afterwards, hahaha
> 
> Turns out god invented the entire universe just to watch you masturbate and then make sure you bathed after.
> 
> ...



Leather?
Seminal emissions?
What were those goat herders up to?


----------



## grah33 (14 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It’s at this point one must remember the book was written by goat hearders not a god.



Ok, there are some peculiarities, but seriously, thanks to you guys showing me more of the OT , it seems even more real to me now than before. I mean, you got an entire law designed by a deity, and recorded  in detail. And it really does sound like a God. Figure that out...amazing....

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster... “


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Ok, there are some peculiarities, but seriously, thanks to you guys showing me more of the OT , it seems even more real to me now than before. I mean, you got an entire law designed by a deity, and recorded  in detail. And it really does sound like a God. Figure that out...amazing....
> 
> “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster... “




Already wrong on the 1st sentence. Darkness is the absence of light and is thus not created. But herdsman of the time didn't know that. They thought darkness was a "thing" in its own right.

And this crass ignorance to you sounds like a God!


----------



## SirRumpole (14 April 2018)

> And this crass ignorance to you sounds like a God!




E=mc^2 is a bit harder to explain.


----------



## Tisme (14 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Already wrong on the 1st sentence. Darkness is the absence of light and is thus not created. But herdsman of the time didn't know that. They thought darkness was a "thing" in its own right.
> 
> And this crass ignorance to you sounds like a God!




I thought darkness was visible light brightness turned down. The light spectrum is very wide and visible light is a tiny fraction sitting somewhere between Y Rays and bigarsed radio waves, all of which are electromagnetic radiation, thus quantifiable....... the shepherds were fu$5in' genius astro physicists it  seems


----------



## cynic (14 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Already wrong on the 1st sentence. Darkness is the absence of light and is thus not created. But herdsman of the time didn't know that. They thought darkness was a "thing" in its own right.
> 
> And this crass ignorance to you sounds like a God!



Based upon my scientific understanding of light, I might have been tempted to agree. 

However, there was a period in my earlier life, where encounters with a darkness, which somehow seemed to radiate in a way, that it actually seemed to be smothering light, left me with little choice other than the investigation of metaphysical avenues in my search for explanations for this phenomenon.

What I will say is that ardent secularists may be thankful to not have shared this experience, as it would be nigh on impossible for them to remain so resolute in their current beliefs and demeanour.

It is also important to remember that theistic scripture does not typically limit itself to contemporary scientific understandings, (nor should it be expected to do so!!)

Mankind's grasp of science, as wonderful as it may seem, is only able to explain mere fractions of existence within the perceived universe.


----------



## cynic (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> E=mc^2 is a bit harder to explain.



Einstein's accidental plagiarisation of Newton's formula for kinetic energy, namely :
one half times mass times velocity squared.
Funny how the scientific community failed to notice!


----------



## grah33 (14 April 2018)

The line fills me with some wonder actually.  Very God-like


----------



## noirua (14 April 2018)

Many a god religion is really a dog religion. Most religions are very expensive to run and use up valuable property space.  People contribute even when very poor and get even poorer. Did any God or Prophet really mean this to happen? If they did they were certainly no God or Prophet.


----------



## cynic (14 April 2018)

noirua said:


> Many a god religion is really a dog religion. Most religions are very expensive to run and use up valuable property space.  People contribute even when very poor and get even poorer. Did any God or Prophet really mean this to happen? If they did they were certainly no God or Prophet.



I think I can recall reading some scriptural passages that, amongst other things, extolled the virtue of judging trees by the fruit born,  cautioned wariness about the presence of false prophets etc.


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> E=mc^2 is a bit harder to explain.




Ah but if that equation were in the first paragraph of Genesis with the subtext that the reason why will be revealed over time as man comes to better understand God's creation, wouldn't that have gone a long way to proving the Bible was the word of God. Instead we get stories of talking snakes and burning bushes, proving beyond doubt that it was the work of simple herdsmen lacking any understanding of pretty much everything.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

lindsayf said:


> Leather?
> Seminal emissions?
> What were those goat herders up to?




Ask any woman with a fifty shades of grey book, they will tell you... Hahahaha


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Ok, there are some peculiarities, but seriously, thanks to you guys showing me more of the OT , it seems even more real to me now than before. I mean, you got an entire law designed by a deity, and recorded  in detail. And it really does sound like a God. Figure that out...amazing....
> 
> “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster... “




So the creator of the universe cares about whether you have cleaned your Jizz of your leather??? Riiiight...

I will leave you to that, personally I think it is more likely it came from tribal laws of some paranoid goat hearders, nothing say “deity” to me.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> E=mc^2 is a bit harder to explain.



Surely not for a god, 

Wouldn’t a god know exactly how to explain absolutely any concept to anyone?


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> The line fills me with some wonder actually.  Very God-like




Which part is god like?

I have read better descriptions by Stephen hawking.

If you want some real explainations of how simple it is to explain how things really work, what this video, and see better explanations than anything written in the Bible, and even some light comedy, no god required.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Ah but if that equation were in the first paragraph of Genesis with the subtext that the reason why will be revealed over time as man comes to better understand God's creation, wouldn't that have gone a long way to proving the Bible was the word of God. Instead we get stories of talking snakes and burning bushes, proving beyond doubt that it was the work of simple herdsmen lacking any understanding of pretty much everything.



How could the equation for kinetic energy, have any relevance to a material existence, prior to the manifestation of that existence? 

Surely the manifestation of the material world, would need to occur, prior to delineation of such physical laws.

Just because contemporary science is yet to grasp the phenomenon giving rise to material existence, doesn't entitle disavowal and ridicule of symbolic references to the manifestation, and/or transformation, of consciousness/spirit, into matter, accordant to Kabbalistic principles.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> How could the equation for kinetic energy, have any relevance to a material existence, prior to the manifestation of that existence?



"If *a tree* falls in a *forest* and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The correct answer is no for physiology. The vibrations are emitted irrespective of human presence but if there is no one there to 'receive' them then the wave of vibrations through the air is all that took place. No sound.

The correct answer is yes for physics. The audible waves took place and a tape recorder could verify this.

"If *a tree* falls in a *forest* and no one is around to hear it, does it emit a vibration" would cover both as yes.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> "If *a tree* falls in a *forest* and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
> 
> The correct answer is no for physiology. The vibrations are emitted irrespective of human presence but if there is no one there to 'receive' them then the wave of vibrations through the air is all that took place. No sound.
> 
> ...



That's great Wysiwyg.

How is this, relevant absent the existence of trees, forest, air, or matter of any form?

Are you suggesting that the attendant physical laws, predated the origination of the physical matter they now govern?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> That's great Wysiwyg.
> 
> How is this, relevant absent the existence of trees, forest, air, or matter of any form?



No sound? One would have to listen to all that internal dialogue. Let's pray the tapes are all optimistic.  



> Are you suggesting that the attendant physical laws, predated the origination of the physical matter they now govern?



Have yet to see an egg appear without a chicken.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> No sound? One would have to listen to all that internal dialogue. Let's pray the tapes are all optimistic.
> 
> 
> Have yet to see an egg appear without a chicken.



So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?



You would need to ask any one of the many gods available. I am but a simple being with a conditioned mind.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?



It may have been a slow evolutionary event beginning with micro organisms that evolved differently to each other pending location on the planet (temperatures, pressures and other environmental differences). Over millions of years, the originals reproduced and materialised into vastly different appearances. The first chicken would have looked nothing like those of today. It is not like they simply appeared out of thin air but evolved from the original life sources.

Evolution will happen in any part of the Universe given the necessary ingredients.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> It may have been a slow evolutionary event beginning with micro organisms that evolved differently to each other pending location on the planet (temperatures, pressures and other environmental differences). Over millions of years, the originals reproduced and materialised into vastly different appearances. The first chicken would have looked nothing like those of today. It is not like they simply appeared out of thin air but evolved from the original life sources.



Again that's great, but of course the origin of the originators, remains cloaked in mystery, suggesting your chosen line of enquiry to be infinitely regressive.

So, in the absence of a conclusively sound scientific explanation, where is the harm in spending time considering the merits of explanations offered by alternative philosophies?

The book of Genesis symbolically touches on at least a few profoundly insightful concepts, and it continues to amaze me just how quickly some of its critics have gravitated to erroneous conclusions about the relevance and meaning of its content.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Again that's great, but of course the origin of the originators, remains cloaked in mystery, suggesting your chosen line of enquiry to be infinitely regressive.



There is also the possibility that seeds were always present, there was no first seed like there was no beginning of time.


> The book of Genesis symbolically touches on at least a few profoundly insightful concepts, and it continues to amaze me just how quickly some of its critics have gravitated to erroneous conclusions about the relevance and meaning of its content.



In my opinion (lol) the bible authors made a critical error in naming a god as the source of all things sensed and not sensed. It is blatantly obvious that a presence so able would not allow human being (mind) to have destructive capability. As we observe in nature there is a balance where one does not proliferate and consume unchecked. No godly presence evident with the programmed balance of nature.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> In my opinion (lol) the bible authors made a critical error in naming a god as the source of all things sensed and not sensed. It is blatantly obvious that a presence so able would not allow human being (mind) to have destructive capability. As we observe in nature there is a balance where one does not proliferate and consume unchecked. No godly presence evident with the programmed balance of nature.



Perhaps if you take the time and effort to understand (as opposed to misunderstand) the meaning of certain content contained within the first three chapters in the book of Genesis, maybe you'll come to realise that the critical error is more likely an imagining, pursuant to your opinion, rather than a perpetration of the authors, whom, to my understanding, have provided a reasonably sound and logical explanation for the source of mankind's ills.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Perhaps if you take the time and effort to understand (as opposed to misunderstand) the meaning of certain content contained within the first three chapters in the book of Genesis, maybe you'll come to realise that the critical error is more likely an imagining, pursuant to your opinion, rather than a perpetration of the authors, whom, to my understanding, have provided a reasonably sound and logical explanation for the source of mankind's ills.



Pass on the perhaps and maybe and please don't attempt conversion again. "To my understanding" (lol) it is nonsense perpetuated ad infinitum.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Pass on the perhaps and maybe and please don't attempt conversion again. "To my understanding" (lol) it is nonsense perpetuated ad infinitum.



I am not out to convert you, nor anyone else for that matter, to any particular religion, and voice my objection to any suggestion to the contrary. 

My understanding is that many (such as Richard Dawkins, along with multitudes of his zealous acolytes) have, rather than making a sincere effort to more fully digest scriptural content for the purposes of better understanding that which was actually being espoused, deliberately chosen to gravitate to the easiest available opportunities for misunderstanding.

As you are probably already aware, my patience with those engaging in such behaviour, is somewhat limited. Especially when I witness such individuals hastily rubbishing the unknown authors of writings which were/are indicative of an intellect far superior to that of the modern man!!!


----------



## Tisme (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> How could the equation for kinetic energy, have any relevance to a material existence, prior to the manifestation of that existence?
> 
> Surely the manifestation of the material world, would need to occur, prior to delineation of such physical laws.
> 
> Just because contemporary science is yet to grasp the phenomenon giving rise to material existence, doesn't entitle disavowal and ridicule of symbolic references to the manifestation, and/or transformation, of consciousness/spirit, into matter, accordant to Kabbalistic principles.





Well there is that and the fact that Bibles outsell scientific journals for a reason. It's not like Newtonian physics is the guide to life's lessons, however the Bible was the spiritual map of choice for people like Kelvin, Marconi, Buridan, Pasteur, Newton, Bacon, Galileo, Lavoisier, Ampere, Faraday etc and including Mr Nuclear physics himself Rutherford.

The Bible never killed anyone, people do? And not only that, but Christians are just like anyone else and failing the need for a plebiscite and a 60% approval rating they deserve to be treated compassionately equally and allowed to marry too.


----------



## Value Collector (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> So from which egg, did the world's first hen emerge? And likewise, from which egg, emerged the first rooster?




From the egg of it’s mother, which if you go back far enough down the evolutionary line eventually wouldn’t be considered a hen.


----------



## cynic (15 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> From the egg of it’s mother, which if you go back far enough down the evolutionary line eventually wouldn’t be considered a hen.



And I am tempted to agree that may well have been the case.

However, our grasp of science isn't yet sufficiently evolved for 100% confidence, which is one of the several reasons, I, with just a little reticence, choose to allow creationism, and its advocates, a modicum of space for pursuit of their chosen line of enquiry.


----------



## grah33 (15 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Which part is god like?



Yes, a lot of it does resemble a God and is very original. It also seems to be copied by all the top films. Take Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark film. Just so you know I believe in that Biblical story, that there really was an ark, covered in gold, with the tablets and jar of manna, and other historical items the Jews carried for centuries before it was placed in the temple Solomon built. It seems to me that it is still looked for today. This would be the greatest archaeological find ever.  Before the Babylonians destroyed that temple, Jeremiah collected the ark and hid it somewhere. They have tried to find it, unsuccessfully. I also felt very excited when on holiday in Israel and the tour guide pointed out to me the potential location of the 'Holy of Hollies ' chamber where that yearly sin sacrifice once took place. It was fascinating to ponder what once took place there. The psalms in the Bible seem to have many songs based on what it was like visiting and worshiping in that glorious temple. The blessings that came from there, and the experience of God's presence was a reality for those people of the OT. Amazingly enough the Jewish people already have detailed plans for building another temple (worship here is critical for their religion and identity), which happens to be next door to the Islamic mosque... So yes, although I follow the NT, I'm intrigued very much by the OT.


----------



## bellenuit (15 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Yes, a lot of it does resemble a God and is very original.




A lot of the Old Testament is just a rehash of myths that had being part of other religions before that, that Christians then and now say were false religions.

To name a few:

The story of the Garden of Eden
Heaven and Hell
The virgin birth.
The Holy Trinity (God being in 3 parts)
The Flood (Noah)
Parts of the Book of Proverbs
Angels and Demons and their hierarchy.


----------



## Value Collector (15 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Yes, a lot of it does resemble a God and is very original. It also seems to be copied by all the top films. Take Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark film. Just so you know I believe in that Biblical story, that there really was an ark, covered in gold, with the tablets and jar of manna, and other historical items the Jews carried for centuries before it was placed in the temple Solomon built. It seems to me that it is still looked for today. This would be the greatest archaeological find ever.  Before the Babylonians destroyed that temple, Jeremiah collected the ark and hid it somewhere. They have tried to find it, unsuccessfully. I also felt very excited when on holiday in Israel and the tour guide pointed out to me the potential location of the 'Holy of Hollies ' chamber where that yearly sin sacrifice once took place. It was fascinating to ponder what once took place there. The psalms in the Bible seem to have many songs based on what it was like visiting and worshiping in that glorious temple. The blessings that came from there, and the experience of God's presence was a reality for those people of the OT. Amazingly enough the Jewish people already have detailed plans for building another temple (worship here is critical for their religion and identity), which happens to be next door to the Islamic mosque... So yes, although I follow the NT, I'm intrigued very much by the OT.



What about it couldn’t have been written by a man? It doesn’t seem special to me


----------



## Value Collector (15 April 2018)

cynic said:


> And I am tempted to agree that may well have been the case.
> 
> However, our grasp of science isn't yet sufficiently evolved for 100% confidence, which is one of the several reasons, I, with just a little reticence, choose to allow creationism, and its advocates, a modicum of space for pursuit of their chosen line of enquiry.



None of the evidence points towards any of the creation stories.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> None of the evidence points towards any of the creation stories.



That's quite a courageous claim!

None of what evidence?!!

I don't know if you've ever seen that film entitled : "The Atheist Delusion"

It featured a creationist interviewing various people, many of whom identified as atheists. The creationist challenged their current beliefs about evolution, by posing a series of simple questions which ultimately stumped them. (As a cynic, I would of course be interested to see any footage that ended up on the cutting room floor!)

Needless to say it was apparent, from the approach taken, that the film was made for the purpose of conveying a message validating creationism, whilst at the same time invalidating atheist opposition to same.

From my recollection the presented argument, essentially favouring creationism over evolution, did hold some logical merit, and didn't strike me as the sort of thing one could readily dismiss without further enquiry.

Anyhow, evidence is a fascinating concept, and worthy of discussion in its own right.

So I suppose it might be helpful to define what the word evidence is understood to actually mean when people invoke it!

I have witnessed many an anti-theist, boldly declaring the absence of any evidence for the existence of God! And yet, as a theist, I am encountering evidence (not proof) virtually everywhere I go, every single day!

A creationist could rightly argue that they consider written historical testimony as evidence (not proof) for their chosen belief system. Whilst I do not share all of their literal (as opposed to symbolic) interpretations of certain biblical passages, I try to respect their right to pursue their chosen avenue of enquiry.

Records of an event, could be argued to constitute evidence (although not proof) granting some support to the notion of the existence of the event. Whether those records are sufficiently dependable to make a confident determination of the veracity, or lack thereof, of the event so recorded, is another matter, rendering their acceptance as very much subject to the opinion of their examiner.

Some examples might be, a book about a boy wizard, known to be a work of fiction, told for the purposes of entertaining children whilst conveying some allegorical moral themes.
Or a tome on medical procedures, intended for instructive use when written, but subsequently rendered obsolescent due to advances in biological understanding. (Would the examiner have sufficient experience to employ the necessary considerations when assessing the merits of these works? Some may, others may not!)

The "Bible" is not a single book, but essentially a library of books, each of which has its very own context!
Some questions one might choose to consider when perusing its contents are:

(i)Who authored the book?

(ii)What was the purpose for which the book was written?

(iii)Who was the intended audience?

(iv)Was the intended message being conveyed literally, allegorically, symbolically, (something else entirely!!)?

(v) When and in what language was it first written, and what was its subsequent history of translation/s?

(vi) What was the environment,(political,cultural, technological), at the time of writing?

Understandably, conflicting understandings of the intention behind, and/or reliability, of some of the passages, found therein, are to be expected.

Anyhow getting back to the concept of evidence, if people are discussing a thing (even if that thing hasn't been proven to truly exist) the discussion alone counts as a form of evidence(although not proof)!

Whatever belief system one may happen to prefer, they cannot rightly claim the total absence of evidence for anything that has been recorded or discussed!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

Seems ridiculous someone would turn up claiming to be a son of something that created life on this planet. We know what happens to those people nowadays with so much more knowledge about this planet.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Seems ridiculous someone would turn up claiming to be a son of something that created life on this planet. We know what happens to those people nowadays with so much more knowledge about this planet.



Did someone actually do that? 
When? 
Where?


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Did someone actually do that?
> When?
> Where?



So the story goes.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

noirua said:


> Jesus Christ sacrificed himself as well...



To no avail.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah 53:5

Flesh and blood, the striving for survival, that's all, no one or no thing else.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> So the story goes.



Which story? Who authored it?


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> A lot of the Old Testament is just a rehash of myths that had being part of other religions before that, that Christians then and now say were false religions.
> 
> To name a few:
> 
> ...



Some (not all) Christians are known to disavow everything external to their chosen flavour of theism.
Personally, I don't believe that any religion can rightly claim a monopoly over truth. 
The corroboration of some beliefs with earlier belief systems, might just as easily be celebrated, rather than condemned, for its offering of intercultural credence to those holding analogous beliefs.


----------



## noirua (16 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> To no avail.
> 
> But he was pierced for our transgressions,
> he was crushed for our iniquities;
> ...




But he was burn't for our transgressions,
he died to save humanity,
so our future might bring us peace,
and from his suffering we shall not destroy life.
noirua 1:1


----------



## noirua (16 April 2018)

Quotations from the Bible or Koran can easily be fabricated as they are but poetry by scribes. You may well find you can do as well as those who wrote all these passages and those who translated them later.


----------



## Tisme (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> The corroboration of some beliefs with earlier belief systems, might just as easily be celebrated, rather than condemned, for its offering of intercultural credence to those holding analogous beliefs.




I was lectured by a twenty something Chinese National once that we owe them for Western religion. Is there nothing new in the occidental that hasn't already set in the oriental?


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Seems ridiculous someone would turn up claiming to be a son of something that created life on this planet. We know what happens to those people nowadays with so much more knowledge about this planet.



There is still heaps of people making a good living from claims like that, all over the world.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There is still heaps of people making a good living from claims like that, all over the world.





That's because the gullible still fall for it.

When I see him walk on water and prove that it's not magic, then I might believe him.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2018)

The Lord's Prayer in Parliament.

_Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. 
Amen._

As I said, our preamble is

Almighty God.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

Tink said:


> The Lord's Prayer in Parliament.
> 
> _Our Father, who art in heaven,
> hallowed be thy Name,
> ...




And other governments pray to other gods, what’s your point?

That only shows that those who started that tradition were fooled just like those followers in the video I just linked.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> When I see him walk on water and prove that it's not magic, then I might believe him.




The crazy thing is people believe the Bible story of walking on water etc without seeing any evidence, just reading a story from a book.


----------



## Tink (16 April 2018)

Who do you pray to, the state?
Kim Jong-un

It is called - Freedom.


----------



## Tisme (16 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's because the gullible still fall for it.
> 
> When I see him walk on water and prove that it's not magic, then I might believe him.




That's at core of Christianty = faith, hope and charity.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> That's at core of Christianty = faith, hope and charity.




Charity is fine. Faith and hope seem to deny the ability of humans to control their own destiny.


----------



## Tisme (16 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Charity is fine. Faith and hope seem to deny the ability of humans to control their own destiny.




I live by the expanded version : "Faith , Hope , Charity & Rat Cunning".


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

Tink said:


> Who do you pray to, the state?



No one.



> It is called - Freedom.




If you have read my posts, thats what I am all about, freedom of and from religion.

By the way, you mob forcing your religion unto the rest of us is not freedom.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Charity is fine.




Unfortunately alot of religious "Charity" just helps the preachers live rich.

Even the "good" religious charities tend to be some of the least efficient.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> I live by the expanded version : "Faith , Hope , Charity & Rat Cunning".



Religious preachers use Rat Cunning, to take advantage of those with faith and hope, and take their charity.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is somebody forcing your participation in this thread?!!


----------



## Tisme (16 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Religious preachers use Rat Cunning, to take advantage of those with faith and hope, and take their charity.





You preaching to me? 

I found myself in old surroundings the other week and lo and behold if I wasn't startled by a huge new building with expansive carpark and a cross crowning it. I was one of those 2000 plus auditorium seated evangelical christian rock setups run by the Baptist Church.

I think the protestants are on the march to Jesus in a big way.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Is somebody forcing your participation in this thread?!!




No, I was talking about saying the lords prayer in parliament and Tink's opinion that her religion should be taught in schools.

She doesn't seem to get that forcing her religion into the public schools isn't "religious freedom", it's the opposite, it goes against peoples right to religious freedom.

I am 100% with people having a religion, and building churches, and praying etc etc, They just don't have the right to get public funding for any of it, or to force their brand of faith on the public schools or government.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

Tisme said:


> You preaching to me?
> 
> I found myself in old surroundings the other week and lo and behold if I wasn't startled by a huge new building with expansive carpark and a cross crowning it. I was one of those 2000 plus auditorium seated evangelical christian rock setups run by the Baptist Church.




Such things make milking the sheep easier, they are the ones paying for it all, and as I said, its not real charity.


----------



## noirua (16 April 2018)

Tink said:


> The Lord's Prayer in Parliament.
> 
> _Our Father, who art in heaven,
> hallowed be thy Name,
> ...




_'And lead us not into temptation,'

The wording is due to be changed as it supposes god leads you into temptation and people ask not to be.

Possible new wording, 'And please lead us away from temptation'

Just one of hundreds of wrongly translated passages.  The best translation was said to be by The Blessed Bede in the 13th century. It was destroyed after his death by unknown persons. Some are thought to have not approved that the peasants should understand it.  It was a direct translation and not through other languages, and being a direct translation, showed Jesus never said 'I am the son of god' or 'my father in heaven' - that was made up by scribes translating to keep the peasants under the thumb._


----------



## Tink (16 April 2018)

I have already said our foundations are Christian.

New Year's Day (Anno Domini, the Year of Our Lord)

As well as the rest of the public holidays.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> No, I was talking about saying the lords prayer in parliament and Tink's opinion that her religion should be taught in schools.
> 
> She doesn't seem to get that forcing her religion into the public schools isn't "religious freedom", it's the opposite, it goes against peoples right to religious freedom.
> 
> I am 100% with people having a religion, and building churches, and praying etc etc, They just don't have the right to get public funding for any of it, or to force their brand of faith on the public schools or government.



I may not be on quite the same page of the hymn book here.

I presume you aren't talking about the observations of certain traditional practices that have flowed through to recent times from our society's Christian heritage.

I also presume you aren't talking about provision of public funding to private sector institutions, in recognition of their contribution to society via alleviatoin of the load placed upon their public equivalents, such as schools, hospitals, community welfare services etc.

As to religion being forced into schools, I cannot say that I have noticed anything other than things like that insidious "anti bullying" programme, which appeared to have been a poorly disguised attempt at indoctrination of preadolescent children into the exploration and acceptance of LGBT sexual themes.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> I also presume you aren't talking about provision of public funding to private sector institutions, in recognition of their contribution to society via alleviatoin of the load placed upon their public equivalents, such as schools, hospitals, community welfare services etc.




Important point. Why should public funds go to private schools ? Some may say it takes the load of public schools same as private hospitals taking load off the public system.

In my view the government contribution per student should be the same for public and private schools and let the parents pay extra for private schools if they wish.



> As to religion being forced into schools, I cannot say that I have noticed anything other than things like that insidious "anti bullying" programme, which appeared to have been a poorly disguised attempt at indoctrination of preadolescent children into the exploration and acceptance of LGBT sexual themes.




Fortunately some governments have seen the error of their ways and are abolishing this scheme and replacing it with ones with a more mainsteram focus.

However there was the school chaplain fiasco which was an attempt to get religion into schools. I think
this has now also disappeared.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

Tink said:


> I have already said our foundations are Christian.
> .




Yeah I know thats your go to answer, But you have never been able to find anything about christianity in the constitution, and no doubt you would be against a different brand of christian stuff being taught.

eg. you would be against Jehovah witnesses or Mormans taking over schools, you only want your specific Sub sect of your specific brand taught.

yet you fail to realise that just as you don't want other brands forced on you we don't want your brands forced on us.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> In my view the government contribution per student should be the same for public and private schools and let the parents pay extra for private schools if they wish.




I guess it depends on what they are teaching, Tink probably loves the Idea of Catholic schools getting funding, but bristles at the idea of Muslim schools getting funding.

Its a hard question because a certain portion of religious schools might be quite crazy, and how do we know the kids are being taught properly.


----------



## grah33 (16 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> A lot of the Old Testament is just a rehash of myths that had being part of other religions before that, that Christians then and now say were false religions.
> 
> To name a few:
> 
> ...




The simple reason my friends and acquaintances firmly believe is that they are convinced that they have encountered the power of the Holy Spirit, in its various forms. If that is true, then I would think that you would agree their religion is likely to be the correct one.  


" ..My message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith would not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's..."  (NT, Corinthians)
This verse makes it clear that all discussions, debates and so on are inferior to experiences of God's power (which isn't restricted to just miracles).


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Its a hard question because a certain portion of religious schools might be quite crazy, and how do we know the kids are being taught properly.




True , which means you have to monitor them, which probably was why that Muslim school lost it's funding.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-21/canberra-islamic-school-loses-funding/8461298


----------



## bellenuit (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> The corroboration of some beliefs with earlier belief systems, might just as easily be celebrated, rather than condemned, for its offering of intercultural credence to those holding analogous beliefs.




Except it wasn't corroboration, just the same stories with different characters and at different times. For example, the great flood.

So rather than confirming the validity of such stories, it just exposes the plagiarism of the authors and the lack of theistic authority to the writings.


----------



## bellenuit (16 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> The simple reason my friends and acquaintances firmly believe is that they are convinced that they have encountered the power of the Holy Spirit, in its various forms. If that is true, then I would think that you would agree their religion is likely to be the correct one.




But if they had been born in another religious culture they would equally think that their religion is likely to be the correct one.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> ...
> Fortunately some governments have seen the error of their ways and are abolishing this scheme and replacing it with ones with a more mainsteram focus.



Actually I think they simply recognised that their attempt was premature, and that a thinner wedge was required at this juncture. Hence the advent of the "respectful relationships" curriculum, the content of which, based upon a brief perusal of certain guidance materials,appears to be founded upon the perception that perpetration of violence and discrimination, is the sole domain of the heterosexual male, with all other members of the community being the victims.


> However there was the school chaplain fiasco which was an attempt to get religion into schools. I think
> this has now also disappeared.



That would surely depend, upon whether or not, injecting theistic religion was the agenda.
Do we still have hospital, prison and military chaplains?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> appears to be founded upon the perception that perpetration of violence and discrimination, is the sole domain of the heterosexual male, with all other members of the community being the victims.




Women especially adolescent girls can be even more bitchy and vicious than young males with a number of that cohort driven to suicide by bullying, cyber or otherwise.



> That would surely depend, upon whether or not, injecting theistic religion was the agenda.
> Do we still have hospital, prison and military chaplains?




Prisoners and hospital patients don't get the opportunity to visit their own churches, and in the cases of Muslims imprisoned for jihad activities, visits from their clerics would be unwise.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But if they had been born in another religious culture they would equally think that their religion is likely to be the correct one.



That observation could be rightly made of many cultures including our own!
Have you spotted areas in which yourself, or your friends, might themselves have become indoctrinated by contemporary Western customs and/or values?

A few topics that may merit consideration:

Pharmacology
Anti theism
Genetics
Environmentalism
Sociology

Have you noticed how our society is being bombarded with values pursuant to these ideologies and that a number of them have now been, to some extent, legally mandated.


----------



## grah33 (16 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> But if they had been born in another religious culture they would equally think that their religion is likely to be the correct one.



That's irrelevant.  I would think that you would agree with my previous statement.  Your position would be that we are deluded, which is  interesting for someone like me (and my acquaintances ) to consider


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Except it wasn't corroboration, just the same stories with different characters and at different times. For example, the great flood.
> 
> So rather than confirming the validity of such stories, it just exposes the plagiarism of the authors and the lack of theistic authority to the writings.



This is a classic example of how differing sets of beliefs can give rise to alternate interpretations of the same data! 
I can see evidence of corroboration of symbolically expressed themes, you can see plagiarism and falsehood.

It is truly amazing how incredibly alike we are!

Each of us has allowed our personal religious convictions to influence our interpretation of the evidence!


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> The simple reason my friends and acquaintances firmly believe is that they are convinced that they have encountered the power of the Holy Spirit, in its various forms. If that is true, then I would think that you would agree their religion is likely to be the correct one.
> 
> 
> " ..My message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith would not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's..."  (NT, Corinthians)
> This verse makes it clear that all discussions, debates and so on are inferior to experiences of God's power (which isn't restricted to just miracles).




I might agree that, provided their claims are correct, their chosen religion is serving them well and could be considered a correct choice for themselves.

I believe that the passage you have quoted expresses a transcendant concept, rising above any of humankind's constructs.

Namely, that belief in truth ideally should be based upon the actuality of truth, rather than humanity's conceptions about what truth may or may not be.


----------



## bellenuit (16 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> That's irrelevant.  I would think that you would agree with my previous statement.  Your position would be that we are deluded, which is  interesting for someone like me (and my acquaintances ) to consider




Deluded. Absolutely.


----------



## bellenuit (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> This is a classic example of how differing sets of beliefs can give rise to alternate interpretations of the same data!
> I can see evidence of corroboration of symbolically expressed themes, you can see plagiarism and falsehood.
> 
> It is truly amazing how incredibly alike we are!
> ...




Belief is not evidence.


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Belief is not evidence.



Any expressed account (i.e. written, oral, semaphored, etc.) can be claimed as a form of evidence of that which was espoused.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Any expressed account (i.e. written, oral, semaphored, etc.) can be claimed as a form of evidence of that which was espoused.




Most of the evidence was written, in the case of Jesus, about 50 years after his death.

As for the OT , God only knows who wrote that (tee hee).


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

noirua said:


> But he was burn't for our transgressions,
> he died to save humanity,
> so our future might bring us peace,
> and from his suffering we shall not destroy life.
> noirua 1:1



Thou shalt amass great following via Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Deluded. Absolutely.



The word of choice to ward off nay sayers is 'blasphemer'. Take no prisoners.  Ridiculous and imaginative claims are ridiculed in my books.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

There is obviously a drive that keeps life reproducing. Does it really need an explanation?


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> There is obviously a drive that keeps life reproducing. Does it really need an explanation?



The answer would likely differ, depending who is asked.
I shall resist the temptation to present the sorts of crass answers one might anticipate from today's demographic.


Wysiwyg said:


> The word of choice to ward off nay sayers is 'blasphemer'. Take no prisoners.  Ridiculous and imaginative claims are ridiculed in my books.



A few decades ago, I met a young man who recounted to me an occasion when he had communicated with aliens.

He went on to say that, during those communications, a time and location had been agreed upon, for the aliens to collect him, taking him into their spacecraft, where he could then undergo an initiation.

Anyway, he ended his accounting to me, of the overall experience, by expressing his frustration at being "stood up" by them!

Despite him having waited patiently for several hours, at the appointed time and place, those dastardly aliens, never showed!

I didn't feel inclined to ridicule this person at the time. To the best of my recollection, the two main reasons for my abstention from mockery were:

(i) Whilst I strongly suspected this person's perceptions to be departures from reality, and likely the product of some form of hallucination, in the absence of rigorous proof one way or the other, the possibility of mendacious extraterrestials could not be conclusively excluded. So it seemed that granting the benefit of a miniscule sliver of doubt, was the fairer response.

(ii) The person clearly believed in his understanding (or lack thereof) of his experience, and would be unlikely to understand the reason he was being ridiculed, because, as far as he was concerned, he was simply speaking the truth.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

cynic said:


> (ii) The person clearly believed in his understanding (or lack thereof) of his experience, and would be unlikely to understand the reason he was being ridiculed, because, as far as he was concerned, he was simply speaking the truth.



The mind does not always work "In accordance with fact or reality". Cults have been developed using the mind's susceptibility to believe anything.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 April 2018)

Just to add, the miracles of modern times were performed by Fred Hollows (restoring vision) and Graeme Milbourne Clark (restoring hearing).


----------



## cynic (16 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> The mind does not always work "In accordance with fact or reality". Cults have been developed using the mind's susceptibility to believe anything.



In your experience, who benefits from the ridiculing of those with the mental susceptibility to which you refer?


Wysiwyg said:


> Just to add, the miracles of modern times were performed by Fred Hollows (restoring vision) and Graeme Milbourne Clark (restoring hearing).



Those might well be considered miracles. 

Your choice of wording seems to imply that there were none other. 

Was that your intention?


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> That's irrelevant.  I would think that you would agree with my previous statement.  Your position would be that we are deluded, which is  interesting for someone like me (and my acquaintances ) to consider



All religions have people that make super natural claims.

There are people that claim they have seen big foot, is that evidence of big foot?

There are people that claim to have been abducted by aliens, is that evidence of aliens?

There are people that claim they have seen ghosts, is that evidence of ghosts?

There is people that claim to speak to the dead, is that evidence of physics?


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of the evidence was written, in the case of Jesus, about 50 years after his death.
> 
> As for the OT , God only knows who wrote that (tee hee).



Actually a lot more than 50 years after.


----------



## Value Collector (16 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> There is obviously a drive that keeps life reproducing. Does it really need an explanation?



The only explanation is that those that didn’t have it died out.

Of course those that have some urge to reproduce do and those that don’t won’t.

But natural selection will obviously pass the genes along of those that have urges to reproduce, and we are all the product of an unbroken chain.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 April 2018)

cynic said:


> In your experience, who benefits from the ridiculing of those with the mental susceptibility to which you refer?



Depends on the sanity of the individual. Some contemplate their beliefs, some get angry their belief is questioned for fact, some raise their consciousness and return to using their senses and some just keep on believing.  



> Those might well be considered miracles.
> Your choice of wording seems to imply that there were none other.
> Was that your intention?



You're right. I could have included 'some of'.


----------



## cynic (17 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> All religions have people that make super natural claims.
> 
> There are people that claim they have seen big foot, is that evidence of big foot?
> 
> ...




I am sure you are already well aware of this particular type of evidence:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdotal-evidence


----------



## cynic (17 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Depends on the sanity of the individual. Some contemplate their beliefs, some get angry their belief is questioned for fact, some raise their consciousness and return to using their senses and some just keep on believing.
> ...



I suppose another thing one might choose to consider, is that sometimes people are subconsciously seeking their own life lessons in order to catalyse the evolution of their consciousness. When somebody judges another's choices, as sufficiently lacking in wisdom, as to warrant intervention, there is the possibility, that the intervention itself is hampering the subject's progress in unforeseen ways.

And then there is also the possibility, that the judge might unknowingly be holding incorrect beliefs, rendering their judgment of others unsound and needlessly disruptive!


----------



## noirua (17 April 2018)

Jesus said, translate the Bible accurately,
and do not change or add anything,
do not use the Bible to build large religions,
and make money via the coming TV or internet.
noirua 1:2


----------



## Tink (17 April 2018)

----------------

_https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/postmodernism-marxism-pc-modern-ideological-poison.33852/_


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

noirua said:


> Jesus said, translate the Bible accurately,
> and do not change or add anything,
> do not use the Bible to build large religions,
> and make money via the coming TV or internet.
> noirua 1:2




We don't actually know what he said, or even if he existed.

I mean the bible stories are full of claims of things "Jesus" is said to have done, We would be silly to believe the claim extraordinary claims of walking on water etc, So that puts even the mediocre claims in doubt, 

The earliest writings we have about him date to 100 years after he died, anyone that has played Chinese whispers, or seen rumours spread knows it takes less than 5 minutes for stories passed by word of mouth to change, So everything that "Jesus" said or did in the bible is unlikely to represent actual happenings, he might not have even existed at all as represented in the bible.


----------



## Tisme (17 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> We don't actually know what he said, or even if he existed.
> 
> I mean the bible stories are full of claims of things "Jesus" is said to have done, We would be silly to believe the claim extraordinary claims of walking on water etc, So that puts even the mediocre claims in doubt,
> 
> The earliest writings we have about him date to 100 years after he died, anyone that has played Chinese whispers, or seen rumours spread knows it takes less than 5 minutes for stories passed by word of mouth to change, So everything that "Jesus" said or did in the bible is unlikely to represent actual happenings, he might not have even existed at all as represented in the bible.




But then again he may well have existed and he may well have been a Richard Dawkins or Peterson of his time. He might even have been a dna descendant of David and he might actually have been an immaculate conception. That he is the one and only means we don't have any yardsticks to compare him with.

If we throw out any of the new testament as fallacious, the question becomes whose belief system is correct ; the advocates or the antagonists? Without absolute proofs each consider themselves righteous, except the advocates have the added advantage of consenting faith.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> We don't actually know what he said, or even if he existed.




It's accepted by most historians that Jesus was a historical person, not a myth or a legend like King Arthur, whatever else you choose to believe about him.


----------



## cynic (17 April 2018)

noirua said:


> Jesus said, translate the Bible accurately,
> and do not change or add anything,
> do not use the Bible to build large religions,
> and make money via the coming TV or internet.
> noirua 1:2



But then, how are we to expand it to include the NEWER Testament, complete with the recently discovered gospel according to noirua?


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 April 2018)

cynic said:


> I suppose another thing one might choose to consider, is that sometimes people are subconsciously seeking their own life lessons in order to catalyse the evolution of their consciousness. When somebody judges another's choices, as sufficiently lacking in wisdom, as to warrant intervention, there is the possibility, that the intervention itself is hampering the subject's progress in unforeseen ways.
> 
> And then there is also the possibility, that the judge might unknowingly be holding incorrect beliefs, rendering their judgment of others unsound and needlessly disruptive!



You're right. People should mind their own bees wax.


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> It's accepted by most historians that Jesus was a historical person, not a myth or a legend like King Arthur, whatever else you choose to believe about him.




Yes but the evidence is very, very weak, unbelieveably weak actually they just sort of accept for the sake of it, because they don't have any real evidence for or against. Try looking it up and see if you can find any evidence for him, out side the bible there is none.

and as I have said before, they don't accept the actual character from the bible, just that there may have been some guy that inspired the legend, the actually Jesus character from the bible is a myth.

I have used the example of St Nicholas vs Santa,

Santa (North Pole, reindeer etc) is a myth just like the Jesus character in the bible that Walks on water etc.

But was there a historical Jesus like there was a historical St Nicholas, who knows, but there is no real evidence for it, so why believe it? Not even the historians have evidence for it.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2018)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cal-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died




If you actually looked up the claims you would see they are very weak.

For example where the article says this.


> The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. *Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime*,




Do you see any problem with that? 

there is no evidence produced during his life,

 eg. nothing written by him, nothing written about him, no artworks made, nothing from during his life, the earliest writings were written by people that were born after he died, decades after. 




> he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings.




I have read those writings from those historians and they are weak, go and read them and you will see.

Don't just post an article making a claim that evidence exists, look up the source material and you will see how weak it is.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Don't just post an article making a claim that evidence exists, look up the source material and you will see how weak it is.




So you expect a band of itinerant tribesmen on the run from oppressors to maintain libraries of important historical information ?

The Roman historian Josephus referred to him in his writings. It would be unlikely that he wrote articles about a myth.

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


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you expect a band of itinerant tribesmen on the run from oppressors to maintain libraries of important historical information ?




I expect something to have survived, even something written by his enemies would be good, for such an important figure to not have anything appear for 60 years is crazy.


> The Roman historian Josephus referred to him in his writings.




His writings were written 60 years after Jesus died, he wasn't even born when Jesus lived.



> It would be unlikely that he wrote articles about a myth.




Why? 60 years is a long time, thats more than enough time for stories to be conflated and fabricated.

What did he write that is so convincing to you? can you provide a quote from him that you think is proof of Jesus?

why is Jesus missing from the historians writings of his day?


----------



## grah33 (17 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Deluded. Absolutely.




I don't think so. It's 'in my face' so to speak. Also, the NT has good accounts of the action of the Holy Spirit. It's the same today. You need to give it a go and then you can really see for yourself.

Don't be surprised that God should act in the Church and among ordinary people. The Church has a view that God acted in the past (Bible) and still acts today.


----------



## grah33 (17 April 2018)

cynic said:


> I might agree that, provided their claims are correct, their chosen religion is serving them well and could be considered a correct choice for themselves.
> 
> I believe that the passage you have quoted expresses a transcendant concept, rising above any of humankind's constructs.
> 
> Namely, that belief in truth ideally should be based upon the actuality of truth, rather than humanity's conceptions about what truth may or may not be.



Should one believe if they saw Paul work those wonders or Jesus rise from the dead, or should they just pick another religion?


----------



## grah33 (17 April 2018)

cynic said:


> I believe that the passage you have quoted expresses a transcendant concept, rising above any of humankind's constructs.
> 
> Namely, that belief in truth ideally should be based upon the actuality of truth, rather than humanity's conceptions about what truth may or may not be.



U got it man


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Should one believe if they saw Paul work those wonders or Jesus rise from the dead, or should they just pick another religion?




There are people that claim to have seen aliens, some say they have been abducted by aliens, do you believe them?

Lots of religions make lots of claims, we don't know if anyone saw Jesus rise from the dead, as I said we have a hard enough time finding anything that was written during his life, let alone anything that would be considered evidence of that.

But even if we had an account of someone that saw Jesus turn water into wine, how do we know it wasn't a simple magicians trick, Travel through India and you will see lots of "Guru's" will big followings that use simple circus tricks to fool their followers.

these guys convince people they do bare hand surgery.



this is how its really done.


----------



## Tisme (17 April 2018)

I know people who worship exotic cars, they haven't driven one but they want one anyhow ...belief in the unknown right there.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There are people that claim to have seen aliens, some say they have been abducted by aliens, do you believe them?




And you are prepared to say they are all lunatics ? What's your evidence for that ? Most of them have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by making those statements.


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

My point is that graph accepts the claims made by his religion, but probably rejects claims made by alot of religions and other groups, even though the other religions and groups use they same sort of anecdotal stories as evidence

eg, Graph might think that a bible story of some one claiming to see Jesus is evidence of Jesus, but he would probably reject a similar claim if it comes from outside his religion from another religion or alien abduction group.




SirRumpole said:


> And you are prepared to say they are all lunatics ? .




I am prepared to say none of them have ever provided enough evidence to allay reasonable doubts.



> What's your evidence for that ?




The burden of proof is on the people making the claims.



> Most of them have nothing to gain




Some just want attention, others book sales, speaking engagements, merchandise sales, tours etc




> and a lot to lose by making those statements




also, some may genuinely believe it happened, but could be just mistaken due to hallucination or dreams etc

---------


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> also, some may genuinely believe it happened, but could be just mistaken due to hallucination or dreams etc




So you are prepared to reject the whole subject on the grounds that it's too extraordinary to be true ?


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you are prepared to reject the whole subject on the grounds that it's too extraordinary to be true ?




I take the default position of unbelief eg. refraining from belief until there is sufficient evidence to allay my doubts.

I don't accept the claims as true, while I also don't claim that they are false, I simply don't believe them and move on.


--------------------------
I do believe there is a good chance that alien life exists, its just the specific claims of abductions and earth visits that I would want evidence for before accepting them as true.


----------



## bellenuit (17 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> You need to give it a go and then you can really see for yourself.




I did, for 2/3s of my life. Then I started to think critically about my experiences and beliefs and I realised it was all self delusion. The more I spoke with or read the writings of others who also believed they had been blessed by the Holy Spirit, I could also see that they were simply deluding themselves as well. Everything was filtered to confirm their belief. Something good happens, particularly in relation to health, and it was due to the Holy Spirit. But the preceding event that caused the health issue was somehow ignored. The more I observed them, the more gullible I realised them to be. A cloud that only vaguely resembles a cross was somehow a sign from God. Statues moved even though cameras showed they didn't and rational explanations of the occurrences were simply ignored and put down to "you must have faith to see it". I believe even one of your first posts on this thread related to some event in the Phillipines that was easily explicable with a modicum of science knowledge. And even one of the happenings in that video, the rainbow rising from the head of the statue, was quite obviously wrong. Even you acknowledged that "happening" was not important compared to the rest of the video, but it had to be pointed out to you before you acknowledged it.


----------



## cynic (17 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Should one believe if they saw Paul work those wonders or Jesus rise from the dead, or should they just pick another religion?



Some might challenge their claims by showing video clips of a stage magician emulating similar feats, and insisting that it was all trickery. Or others might simply impugn the cognitive factors of the ones claiming to have witnessed miraculous events.

To my understanding,the important thing for each person, is to seek out the truth for themselves, making their own determinations about how to live responsibly and accordingly, whilst allowing others the space to do likewise.

And for those having the startling experience, of having truth come crashing into their lives, before it was actually sought, similar sentiments apply. i.e. live according to that which is now known.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> while I also don't claim that they are false, I simply don't believe them




How to  contradict yourself in one sentence.


----------



## Value Collector (17 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> How to  contradict yourself in one sentence.



It’s actually not a contradiction at all if you take a moment to understand the position.

Saying I don’t believe something is not the same as claiming it’s false or saying that I know it’s false.

Eg. If you told me you had met an alien, I can be unconvinced so I don’t believe you have, but that is not a claim to know you are lying, or a claim to know that you haven’t

It’s just like I have described myself as an agnostic atheist, it’s I claim that I don’t believe, but also have no way of knowing for sure.


----------



## grah33 (17 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I did, for 2/3s of my life. Then I started to think critically about my experiences and beliefs and I realised it was all self delusion. The more I spoke with or read the writings of others who also believed they had been blessed by the Holy Spirit, I could also see that they were simply deluding themselves as well. Everything was filtered to confirm their belief. Something good happens, particularly in relation to health, and it was due to the Holy Spirit. But the preceding event that caused the health issue was somehow ignored. The more I observed them, the more gullible I realised them to be. A cloud that only vaguely resembles a cross was somehow a sign from God. Statues moved even though cameras showed they didn't and rational explanations of the occurrences were simply ignored and put down to "you must have faith to see it". I believe even one of your first posts on this thread related to some event in the Phillipines that was easily explicable with a modicum of science knowledge. And even one of the happenings in that video, the rainbow rising from the head of the statue, was quite obviously wrong. Even you acknowledged that "happening" was not important compared to the rest of the video, but it had to be pointed out to you before you acknowledged it.




Regards being deluded, yes there are many people who are deluded. If there are people who genuinely experience the Holy Spirit, would you not expect there to be other deluded people too? You would and there are, and I've seen just that so I know that is the case. Yes, it doesn't inspire anybody when we see that. People are people, and some people have this thing where they seem to erroneously take their thoughts to be coming from God etc. (Side comment: if one religion is the correct one, would you not expect there to still be many others? ). But then there are other people who aren't deluded. Some in particular (they're not rare) God acts through them that they may help people in some way (it can be powerful). One person that I know strikes me in particular. They might be what one would call “full of the Holy Spirit “. They seem to have a goodness and sanctity that I haven't seen in anyone else before. I think that leads to having more of the Holy Spirit.

Regards the clip, some good points. I mentioned it on an impulse which was not a smart idea. The rings and so on can't be observed in the clip so it's probably not that good a clip to bring up in the first place. From memory I also misunderstood you in the posts afterwards so that is why some of my responses don't seem to make proper sense. I have a memory of that happening and being surprised by my replies later on. I would like to be there to see what they saw and really see what they were cheering at. Regarding the rainbow, I didn't get your point on that. I never saw anything special about that.

I don't know whether you really have given it a go. It's a big thing to say that one has. There are many people who may even go church everyday in the morning, but they will never experience any divine action from the Spirit. That includes clergy. To follow Christ one must get rid of everything , and I mean everything that's incompatible (all little habits,ways of thinking etc , one of Christ's teachings...). We seldom meet someone that lives like this. Unless that happens, very little or  nothing of God's presence/action may be experienced imv, or something in the beginning that may have brought the person to God). This is how it seems to happen and "letting go" is hard to do for most of us. “narrow is the way that leads to life and few there are that find it”. The commentary view on that verse is that hardly anyone fully experiences the divine life.  Even the masses of daily church-goers have faults that they choose to continue in (they can't get graces).  I believe though that we are always holding onto rubbish when we live like that.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The earliest writings we have about him date to 100 years after he died, anyone that has played Chinese whispers, or seen rumours spread knows it takes less than 5 minutes for stories passed by word of mouth to change, So everything that "Jesus" said or did in the bible is unlikely to represent actual happenings, he might not have even existed at all as represented in the bible.



There were high hopes the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus. Turned out to be carbon dated in the Middle Ages. Looks like King Arthur to me. The Roman Catholics treasure it and will claim it as the Jesus burial cloth. Perfect to keep the disciples believing.


----------



## cynic (18 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> There were high hopes the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus. Turned out to be carbon dated in the Middle Ages. Looks like King Arthur to me. The Roman Catholics treasure it and will claim it as the Jesus burial cloth. Perfect to keep the disciples believing.



Somewhat reminiscent of this excerpt from the gospel according to Baldrick

Makes for effective comedy to some, sacrilege to others.


Apparently there's quite a trade in false relics of another of Earth's deities:
https://www.elvis.com.au/presley/elvis-autographs.shtml

Which raises the question: Apart from the human capacity for mendacious acts, what do false relics actually prove?

Is the existence of Elvis Presley now in dispute?

And are we no longer able to appreciate the recorded music accredited to him?


----------



## cynic (18 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Somewhat reminiscent of this excerpt from the gospel according to Baldrick
> 
> Makes for effective comedy to some, sacrilege to others.
> 
> ...


----------



## grah33 (18 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Some might challenge their claims by showing video clips of a stage magician emulating similar feats, and insisting that it was all trickery. Or others might simply impugn the cognitive factors of the ones claiming to have witnessed miraculous events.
> 
> To my understanding,the important thing for each person, is to seek out the truth for themselves, making their own determinations about how to live responsibly and accordingly, whilst allowing others the space to do likewise.
> 
> And for those having the startling experience, of having truth come crashing into their lives, before it was actually sought, similar sentiments apply. i.e. live according to that which is now known.





You've expressed here what seems to be a belief system that subscribes to Judaism, or much of it anyway, with some personal flexibility. I'm surprised the posters here didn't really question you more as I was curious myself. As well as those beliefs you mentioned before, I'm guessing you are anticipating a Messiah right? If that is the case, I'd like to know a bit more about what kind of figure this might be in your eyes?


----------



## cynic (18 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> You've expressed here what seems to be a belief system that subscribes to Judaism, or much of it anyway, with some personal flexibility. I'm surprised the posters here didn't really question you more as I was curious myself. As well as those beliefs you mentioned before, I'm guessing you are anticipating a Messiah right? If that is the case, I'd like to know a bit more about what kind of figure this might be in your eyes?



One of the things I noticed when reading the Revelation according to John, was that of the events it foretold, some had previously occurred in Exodus. This suggested to me that there may exist longer term cycles of societal evolution, giving rise to repetitious manifestation of archetypal events/elements.

Consequently, I believe that messiahs will typically emerge (from time to time) from the human populace, in response to the evolutionary needs of society, offering insights which are in stark contrast to prevalent misconceptions.

Some might, with good reason, choose to believe that this man resembles a current day messiah of sorts:


Of course there are messiahs, and then there are Messiahs, with a capital "M". I pray that I never  have to endure a period of history, where the straits are so dire, as to require the assistance of the latter type of Messiah.


----------



## Tisme (19 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> There were high hopes the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus. Turned out to be carbon dated in the Middle Ages. Looks like King Arthur to me. The Roman Catholics treasure it and will claim it as the Jesus burial cloth. Perfect to keep the disciples believing.




I think that's back on the don't know list. Someone used an image analyser to realise the image as a non organic one and the carbon test that put it in the 14th century has been debunked by a more recent test.


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> If there are people who genuinely experience the Holy Spirit,.




Wouldn't you have to prove the Holy Spirit exists before you can use it as an explanation for something?

I mean before we say "Aliens did that" we should probably supply evidence that aliens exist.


----------



## cynic (19 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Wouldn't you have to prove the Holy Spirit exists before you can use it as an explanation for something?
> 
> I mean before we say "Aliens did that" we should probably supply evidence that aliens exist.




The same criticism, could be rightly applied to the hasty invocation, by scientists, of the unproven "dark matter" concept, as being the explanation for effects that would otherwise lie beyond the scope of contemporary scientific comprehension.


----------



## noirua (19 April 2018)

El Salvador - The Religion of the GIANT CARROTS and Mega-Churches:


Ben Zand spends time with Guatemala’s huge evangelical community. Visiting a Guatemalan million dollar mega-church, and meeting Cash Luna - one of the most famous pastors in Central and South America, and one of the wealthiest. Cash Luna runs Casa de Dios, one of the world’s biggest churches. Ben also meets Pastor Sanchez, from the town of Almolonga. Almolonga is famous for the story of transformation, where God blessed its giant carrots and vegetables, saving people from poverty. Both men claim they have the ability to heal, and that the story of Almolonga’s carrots is true - but is all as it seems?


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2018)

cynic said:


> The same criticism, could be rightly applied to the hasty invocation, by scientists, of the unproven "dark matter" concept, as being the explanation for effects that would otherwise lie beyond the scope of contemporary scientific comprehension.




Science is actively gathering evidence and promotes inquiry into the subject, I am un aware of any studies being conducted by the Vatican into the existence of the holy spirit, They simply want you to accept their word on faith.

So you example is not valid.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Science is actively gathering evidence and promotes inquiry into the subject, I am un aware of any studies being conducted by the Vatican into the existence of the holy spirit, They simply want you to accept their word on faith.




What sort of evidence do you want ?


----------



## cynic (19 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Science is actively gathering evidence and promotes inquiry into the subject, I am un aware of any studies being conducted by the Vatican into the existence of the holy spirit, They simply want you to accept their word on faith.
> 
> So you example is not valid.



The Vatican isn't the only theistic entity in existence.

The thing that makes the treatment of the "dark matter" concept analogous, is the presumption (by many scientists) to its existence, despite the absence of proof.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2018)

> The thing that makes the treatment of the "dark matter" concept analogous, is the presumption (by many scientists) to its existence, despite the absence of proof.




People keep talking of "the God of the gaps", dark matter seems to be one of these.


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What sort of evidence do you want ?




What to you have?

Like anything there has to be a good reason for believing something, and if some one is going to proclaim that X is the cause of something, should should be able to have some solid reasons about why they think X exists.


> The Vatican isn't the only theistic entity in existence.




Are any of them actually putting in effort to prove the holy spirits existence? No, they aren't otherwise they would constantly talk about faith.



> The thing that makes the treatment of the "dark matter" concept analogous, is the presumption (by many scientists) to its existence, despite the absence of proof.




there is real evidence that Dark matter exists, nothing for the Holy Spirit though.

Cynic you constantly disbelieve scientific findings based on real evidence  while easily accepting the totally baseless claims of supernatural things, it was a mistake for me to click the "show ignored content" button, So back to ignore for you, bye.


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> People keep talking of "the God of the gaps", dark matter seems to be one of these.




Except science is actively trying to understand and reduce the gaps, religion relies on the gaps, its doesn't want to fill them.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Except science is actively trying to understand and reduce the gaps, religion relies on the gaps, its doesn't want to fill them.




Well, that's a fair point.

The Higg's boson was contentious untill it was actually found, but science may yet create an instrument that allows us to see our 'spiritual' bodies if they exist. Would you accept that at least as evidence of mind/body separation and therefore life after death ?


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> but science may yet create an instrument that allows us to see our 'spiritual' bodies if they exist.




And that is when we should believe it, until then, no.

But science can gather evidence for things and predict that things exist kong before they are proven to exist.

for example Dark matter, we haven't figured out exactly what it is, but we have evidence it is there.

and the elements, the periodic table predicted and reserved places for elements before some of these elements existed.

but when is comes to "souls" or "spirits" we don't even have anything that would lead science to predict they exist.



> Would you accept that at least as evidence of mind/body separation and therefore life after death ?




Yes, all you have to do is produce the evidence, and show how its evidence for the claim.

Religious people say there is nothing that can change their mind, I am the opposite I would change my mind in an instant if I had evidence, thats the big difference between religion and science, and its an important difference, changing your mind as new evidence comes out isn't a sign that your process is flawed, its a sign your process is robust.


----------



## cynic (19 April 2018)

Oh no!!! The clash of credulities!
Followed by a highly enlightened response, such as that demonstrated by the following guru:
http://hrringleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/fingers-in-ears.jpg


----------



## Value Collector (19 April 2018)

Here is a video explaining the periodic table and how it allowed science to know certain chemical elements existed and even know their properties and even give them a name long before they were discovered in nature.

This is kind of how I see the dark matter studies, we are gather data and making prediction based on known facts, even though we haven't discovered exactly what it is yet.

Thats a lot different to a religious claim that is not backed with any evidence at all.


----------



## cynic (19 April 2018)

For the benefit of those preferring empiricism to supposition:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...l-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/


----------



## cynic (19 April 2018)

Anyhow, given a recent development,I think this might be an opportune time to highlight, a couple of the less publicised things, about the highly esteemed, prophet Randi and his widely acclaimed religious initiative/s:


----------



## grah33 (19 April 2018)

cynic said:


> One of the things I noticed when reading the Revelation according to John, was that of the events it foretold, some had previously occurred in Exodus. This suggested to me that there may exist longer term cycles of societal evolution, giving rise to repetitious manifestation of archetypal events/elements.
> 
> Consequently, I believe that messiahs will typically emerge (from time to time) from the human populace, in response to the evolutionary needs of society, offering insights which are in stark contrast to prevalent misconceptions.
> 
> ...





So you do believe in a Messiah, but a different one form the one that I believe in.  I mean, you wouldn't put up such comedy clips while at the same time holding the name of your own God in such a holy manner.

You previously mentioned a heavy passage from the NT about Christ's potential to be divine. I should also point out to you that in the OT God appeared as a theophany on several occasions in the form of a human being, and was worshiped in this form. So I'm fine with the worship of Christ in a similar manner.

What I also find interesting is that the historical Jews (for a very long time, in various quotations) seem to have shared some Christian views regarding their future Messiah. They saw Him as a 'sin offering' type of person, in addition to being 'victorious' in some way. And they held these views for a long time (many centuries) . Also, there is the well known Suffering Servant oracle (only a fragment was posted here on some previous pages), which wonderfully describes the passion of Christ to the Christians. Sure, it can be creatively applied differently e.g. about Israel, but what strikes me is the early Jews (for many centuries), saw it as referring to a human being, to their Messiah. What I'm saying is, their views may have been more like mine than yours.

There are also some good references in the OT which suggest the Messiah is an eternal person, rather than created. Of course, a Jewish person could interpret them differently, but I'll go with Christ's interpretations about Himself (David's messianic psalm). I also like Paul's explanation about the Messiah being 'of the order of Melchizedek' , and how this relates to an 'indestructible lifeform', ie an eternal person.

And it doesn't stop there. e.g. Christ's dramatic confession of Himself to be the Messianic figure Daniel has prophesies about. And the imagery in Daniel's visions represents Christianity well enough...

Not trying to convince you or anything, but I thought you were being a little smart with the comedy clips, so you could do with some lecturing.


----------



## cynic (19 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> So you do believe in a Messiah, but a different one form the one that I believe in.  I mean, you wouldn't put up such comedy clips while at the same time holding the name of your own God in such a holy manner...



Is that truly the message you are gleaning from my various posts?

In one of my posts, to which you seem to be referring, I included a comedy clip, which I acknowledged as being potentially sacrilegious to some.

In the message I was seeking to convey, was there not a strongly implied defence, of the rights of others, to continue enjoying the fruits of their chosen belief system, irrespective of the authenticity (or lack thereof) of any purported relics/souvenirs?



> ...
> You previously mentioned a heavy passage from the NT about Christ's potential to be divine. I should also point out to you that in the OT God appeared as a theophany on several occasions in the form of a human being, and was worshiped in this form. So I'm fine with the worship of Christ in a similar manner.
> 
> What I also find interesting is that the historical Jews (for a very long time, in various quotations) seem to have shared some Christian views regarding their future Messiah. They saw Him as a 'sin offering' type of person, in addition to being 'victorious' in some way. And they held these views for a long time (many centuries) . Also, there is the well known Suffering Servant oracle (only a fragment was posted here on some previous pages), which wonderfully describes the passion of Christ to the Christians. Sure, it can be creatively applied differently e.g. about Israel, but what strikes me is the early Jews (for many centuries), saw it as referring to a human being, to their Messiah. What I'm saying is, their views may have been more like mine than yours.
> ...



Whilst I do not specifically insist upon it, I prefer to believe that Christ was the capital "M", Messiah, in whom many have chosen to invest their belief.

Having said that, my preference is not to become too embroiled in disputes over the more phenomenal claims (aquatic perambulation etc.), the reason being that these claims, although somewhat fascinating, seem to divert attention away from the importance of the message Christ brought to mankind.

When one places too much emphasis on the authenticity of miracles and/or historical relics, one creates openings, which detractors of theism can then gleefully exploit when contesting, both, the validity of theism, and the rationality of its subscribers.


----------



## grah33 (19 April 2018)

cynic said:


> Is that truly the message you are gleaning from my various posts?
> 
> In one of my posts, to which you seem to be referring, I included a comedy clip, which I acknowledged as being potentially sacrilegious to some.
> 
> ...



Well, I'm not exactly sure what religion you are (one of the big 3 or not ), or which directions you favor. And one can interpret your posts to mean different things, but it looks like I misunderstood you.


Regards relics and all that stuff, never really interested me that much. I'm just into the simple things.


----------



## noirua (20 April 2018)

I remember a person who told me his god was gold.  His company went bust and he had to sell his house. His wife divorced him.  He put on a lot of weight and died suddenly of a heart attack.


----------



## noirua (22 April 2018)

Pope Alexander VI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI

Of Alexander's many mistresses the one for whom passion lasted longest was Vannozza (Giovanna) dei Cattanei, born in 1442, and wife of three successive husbands. The connection began in 1470, and she had four children whom he openly acknowledged as his own: Cesare (born 1475), Giovanni, afterwards duke of Gandia (commonly known as Juan, born 1476), Lucrezia (born 1480), and Gioffre (Goffredo in Italian, born 1481 or 1482). For a period of time, before legitimizing his children after becoming Pope, Rodrigo pretended that his four children with Vannozza were his niece and nephews and that they were fathered by Vannozza's husbands.[_citation needed_]


----------



## bellenuit (27 April 2018)

This is a very interesting conversation between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty (host of the Atheist Experience broadcast from Austin). It was intended to be non-confrontational (and mostly was). Matt set the scene by answering Jordan's question "what shall we talk about?" by saying "Is there a God".

Matt is a secular moralist (something VC tried to explain in various threads) which though is different to being an atheist (as explained often, an atheist has just one tenet and that is he doesn't believe the evidence for a God).

I know my opinion will be seen as biased, but I think Jordan lost the plot at about the 40 minute mark. He didn't seem to be able to come up with answers to Matt's assertions about secular morality and resorted to using almost Greek style paradoxes as a response, disputing the meaning of words that everyone commonly understands.

Although I like Peterson, I think his performance was quite poor here and perhaps he should confine himself to his area of expertise, psychology. I think he was quite miffed that he was unable to confuse/confound Matt with "psychology jargon" and Matt held his own in that area, in addition to dominating in the discussion on morality. I am sure some will disagree.

_I think Grah might find the 20:10 minute Mark interesting as it relates to something we discussed last week._


----------



## cynic (27 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> ...
> I know my opinion will be seen as biased, but I think Jordan lost the plot at about the 40 minute mark. He didn't seem to be able to come up with answers to Matt's assertions about secular morality and resorted to using almost Greek style paradoxes as a response, disputing the meaning of words that everyone commonly understands.
> ...



Therein lies a large part of the problem. 

Metaphorical constructs and/or word definitions, are commonly misunderstood, particularly by those allowing their personal biases to obscure critical distinctions.

As far as I could ascertain, Jordan's principal error, was in not conveying his contentions in a manner that would be correctly understood by Matt.

Matt's responses to a number of Jordan's assertions, showed that Matt largely misunderstood some very important literal and/or conceptual distinctions.


----------



## grah33 (28 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> _I think Grah might find the 20:10 minute Mark interesting as it relates to something we discussed last week._









Well that is true I think. Some people mistake their natural experience for something else, but it doesn't mean it never happens. The action of the Holy Spirit can be far more convincing as well. It can reveal knowledge that can't be known otherwise, which is strong evidence to the people involved. And one can read about this in the NT letters, since they had the same experiences.  And yes there are many fakes out there, as there were false prophets in the OT


----------



## SirRumpole (28 April 2018)

I know people who have been converted to religion because of experiences like themselves or a close family member receiving a "miracle" cure after prayer or some other religious event.

Such events are sometimes hard to explain (leaving aside the faith healer shams)so it's easy for some to be convinced that a supernatural entity was involved.

If that is what people want to believe fair enough, but there are also a lot of cases where people were prayed for and died anyway, but these are not considered by the converted.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 April 2018)

grah33 said:


> Well that is true I think. Some people mistake their natural experience for something else, but it doesn't mean it never happens. The action of the Holy Spirit can be far more convincing as well. It can reveal knowledge that can't be known otherwise, which is strong evidence to the people involved.



Telling a story to keep a group believing and faithful is a terribly deceitful practice.


----------



## grah33 (29 April 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Telling a story to keep a group believing and faithful is a terribly deceitful practice.



I doubt they would be telling stories to deceive people. I think that it's just the way some people are, not critical enough. Also, they can be surrounded by other people who really do have experiences, so they think they're having it as well.


----------



## grah33 (29 April 2018)

I wasn't specifically thinking of healing ministries that some people have, but I also believe in that too. Some people out there are fake , but there are very credible people as well, in different denominations. And the ones that don't have wealth and work for free are the ones I prefer .


----------



## ducati916 (30 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> This is a very interesting conversation between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty (host of the Atheist Experience broadcast from Austin). It was intended to be non-confrontational (and mostly was). Matt set the scene by answering Jordan's question "what shall we talk about?" by saying "Is there a God".
> 
> Matt is a secular moralist (something VC tried to explain in various threads) which though is different to being an atheist (as explained often, an atheist has just one tenet and that is he doesn't believe the evidence for a God).





I watched the youtube link and enjoyed it. Both missed some fairly obvious points, but that didn't really detract from the overall quality of the discussion.

jog on
duc


----------



## Value Collector (30 April 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I know people who have been converted to religion because of experiences like themselves or a close family member receiving a "miracle" cure after prayer or some other religious event.
> 
> Such events are sometimes hard to explain (leaving aside the faith healer shams)so it's easy for some to be convinced that a supernatural entity was involved.
> 
> If that is what people want to believe fair enough, but there are also a lot of cases where people were prayed for and died anyway, but these are not considered by the converted.




Tim sums it up perfectly


----------



## Tisme (30 April 2018)

_It is easie to raze, but hard to buylde_

Richard Stanyhurst 1577


----------



## bellenuit (30 April 2018)

ducati916 said:


> I watched the youtube link and enjoyed it. Both missed some fairly obvious points, but that didn't really detract from the overall quality of the discussion.




Matt Dillahunty - Thoughts on his conversation with Jordan Peterson


----------



## Tisme (30 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Matt Dillahunty - Thoughts on his conversation with Jordan Peterson





I'm sure he articulated his thoughts well when he had Jordan around, or is he explaining his superior being in his absence, sans a counter attack?


----------



## Tisme (30 April 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Here is a video explaining the periodic table and how it allowed science to know certain chemical elements existed and even know their properties and even give them a name long before they were discovered in nature.
> 
> This is kind of how I see the dark matter studies, we are gather data and making prediction based on known facts, even though we haven't discovered exactly what it is yet.
> 
> Thats a lot different to a religious claim that is not backed with any evidence at all.





I'm having trouble with this video

viz

aluminium is 13 

68 is Erbian discovered by Carl Gustav Mosander in 1843.

Gallium is element 31


----------



## cynic (30 April 2018)

bellenuit said:


> Matt Dillahunty - Thoughts on his conversation with Jordan Peterson




This video is a fine example of observations opined very recently in another thread. Namely: 


> ...the self proclaimed "secular moralists" of this world, would perhaps benefit, by first defining the premise/s upon which their precious theories are founded.
> That way they will be less likely to render themselves foolish, with premature self congratulations and proud parading of elitist delusions.


----------



## cynic (30 April 2018)

The following  is an article by a person whom identifies as a "secular humanist".
http://reasonrevolution.org/my-disa...tt-dillahunty-and-jordan-peterson-discussion/
Whilst I do not necessarily share all views expressed, I found the evident willingness to openly,and critically, examine theistic and secular perspectives alike, to be a refreshingly welcome change from the antitheistic rhetoric, that so often dribbles from the lips, of those proudly claiming the "secular" humanist/moralist label.


----------



## noirua (8 May 2018)

*No wonder there’s an exodus from religion*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...58a1aa9ac0a_story.html?utm_term=.0286e9f23523


----------



## Tink (12 May 2018)

*Sheelah Rudman: 104 and happy to live, with still so much to give*

_In reflection of her 104th birthday, Sheelah Alice Rudman says the formula to a happy long life is good health and strong faith in the ubiquitous Lord.

The Lathlain resident and Cloverdale parishioner has lived through both World Wars, 10 Popes, six Archbishops of Perth, and overcame infantile paralysis.

When she was born on 19 April 1914, St Pius X was Pope and Archbishop Patrick Clune was Archbishop of Perth.

In an interview with The eRecord, Sheelah puts her positive outlook on life down to God.

“He is very likely looking after me. That’s all I know,” she said, pointing to the sky._

_Sheelah is a popular figure at Cloverdale Parish Notre Dame Catholic Church, where her fellow parishioners took the opportunity to celebrate her birthday after morning Mass on 22 April.

Parish Priest Fr Quynh (Michael) Do presented Sheelah with a handmade birthday card and a bouquet of flowers and cake.

“She is an inspiration to others and a motivation to all of us, reminding us that we can do anything if we work hard at it,” Fr Quynh said.

Sheelah has fond memories of her childhood growing up in the suburb of Northam – it was there where she contracted polio syndrome._

_“I was seven when they said I wouldn’t walk again, but here I am.”

Her sheer determination, exercises, and treatment made it possible for her to walk unassisted – and eventually she became recognised as one of her school’s best athletes.

She attended Our Lady’s College – now Mercedes College – on Victoria Square and her daughter Barbara followed suit a few decades later.

“All the nuns who taught mum, taught me,” Barbara said.

Barbara’s wedding with Bruce Walther, celebrated by Mgr Michael Keating at St Mary’s Cathedral on 29 January 2014, was one of Sheelah’s proudest memories._

_“I took her hand in my arm and walked her down the aisle,” Sheelah said.

Barbara’s wedding took place 75 years after her parents married at the iconic Cathedral on 16 December 1939.

During WWII, Sheelah was lucky to escape the bombing of Darwin in 1942 when she left the town just three days prior.

The 104-year-old puts her invigorating long life down to: ample sleep, a good sense of humour, keeping her mind active, knitting, and drinking a glass of wine every night.

Sheelah gracefully wears a pearl blister on her right hand that her mother gave to her more than 100 years ago.

Barbara, who is the primary carer of Sheelah, conveyed her mother’s message of advice for those who wish to live a prolonged life.

“Think positive, be thankful for God’s blessings and try to help others as much as you can,” Barbara said.

“This is what has kept Sheelah going for over 104 years and this will keep her going for many more years to come.”

Sheelah underlines the importance of being surrounded by loved ones.

“Be happy with what you’re doing, have interests in life; and have many good, sincere friends.” 

http://www.therecord.com.au/news/lo...and-happy-to-live-with-still-so-much-to-give/_


----------



## luutzu (12 May 2018)

Tink said:


> *Sheelah Rudman: 104 and happy to live, with still so much to give*
> 
> _In reflection of her 104th birthday, Sheelah Alice Rudman says the formula to a happy long life is good health and strong faith in the ubiquitous Lord.
> 
> ...




Not to pull a VC on you but... 

If a long and happy life is because of God... those who live short life in poverty and ill health... God weren't paying attention or just got upset at them for some reason?

I think happiness and optimism, good friends etc. goes a long way to longevity... and if happiness mean having faith in the Lord so be it. Just that it's probably not the Lord's blessing but the happiness from the thought of being blessed that does it.


----------



## Value Collector (12 May 2018)

luutzu said:


> Not to pull a VC on you but...
> 
> If a long and happy life is because of God... those who live short life in poverty and ill health... God weren't paying attention or just got upset at them for some reason?
> 
> I think happiness and optimism, good friends etc. goes a long way to longevity... and if happiness mean having faith in the Lord so be it. Just that it's probably not the Lord's blessing but the happiness from the thought of being blessed that does it.




Do religious people really live longer? or does it just feel like they do because they spend so much time in boring church services?

-------------

In reality Tink's flaw here is the survivorship bias, Her Data set of 1 person is ignoring all the equally faithful people that died young, some of them because they prayed instead of seeking medical help.

Its like some one that justifies smoking because there is an 88 year old smoker in their street, they are ignoring that 88 year old smoking peers who dropped like flies over the decades, and simply counting the lone survivor.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 May 2018)

noirua said:


> *No wonder there’s an exodus from religion*



This phenomenon could also be aligned with personal financial positions. When the economy is flush and jobs aplenty then there is no need to seek divine intervention.


----------



## Value Collector (12 May 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> This phenomenon could also be aligned with personal financial positions. When the economy is flush and jobs aplenty then there is no need to seek divine intervention.




I think it is due to the rise of the internet, its very hard for people to stay in their bubble now.

They basically only have two choices, accept the nature of reality that there is probably no god, of double down into your religion and become more extreme and claim there is a global conspiracy against you.

This is what we are seeing, massive polarisation, religions are becoming more extreme at the poles and the gap of unbelief in-between the poles is widening.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 May 2018)

Value Collector said:


> They basically only have two choices, accept the nature of reality that there is probably no god, of double down into your religion and become more extreme and claim there is a global conspiracy against you.



The escape hatches have psychological locks on them. The devil etc. Excommunicating from religion -> what 'is' rather than what 'believed', self realisation, self acceptance, self control, self healing, using all our senses, understanding nature, understanding the workings of mind (prolific lying and deceipt, illusions, ability to achieve great good etc.).

No one person is holier than thou (the next person is flesh and blood too), don't be stood over, you have natural rights.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 May 2018)

If you meet Buddha on the road to enlightenment, kill him. Well that is my extended version of a koan which meets my attitude.


----------



## Tink (12 May 2018)

You don't have to agree.
You can go in this thread -

_Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/suicide-and-voluntary-euthanasia.3588/page-29#post-981749_


----------



## cynic (12 May 2018)

Tink said:


> You don't have to agree.
> You can go in this thread -
> 
> _Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/suicide-and-voluntary-euthanasia.3588/page-29#post-981749_




I found the article linked in this post from noirua, particularly interesting, largely on account of a certain experience the boy apparently had whilst unconscious (or possibly brain dead):


noirua said:


> *'Brain-dead' US boy regains consciousness one day before doctors set to pull plug*
> https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/wor...iousness-one-day-before-doctors-set-pull-plug
> Slowly but surely, Trenton is making strides beyond what anyone expected, but it’s not without a struggle.



The event is unlikely to sway anti-theists from their religion. Some of those holding beliefs, that are yet to be distilled into religion, might perhaps be willing to enter such events into their consideration when pondering the value of life.


----------



## grah33 (12 May 2018)

I think religion can definitely make a person's situation happier. For example a devout religious person may see the deliberate act of worrying as going against God's goodness, and try to do it much less. If you believe in a Creator it just makes sense to never worry about anything. If you believe in nothing, then you might (or might not) think that you should worry about something. It sounds nuts but a religious person full of “faith” in a prison cell may find themselves feeling quite happy and carefree, while having brief recurring moments of e.g. mental anguish/deprivation.


Feeling happy is a different thing from having a happy life. A happy life might be where things go to plan and things go well for us most of the time, and you also feel good most of the time I guess. If I reflect on 5 people I know well enough in my life, none of them emanate happiness. And 3 seem troubled much of the time. The other 2 seem okay, although one comes across a little despondent at times.

Just musing, there are people who go around in endless circles. they want something, crazily apply themselves to get it, and then think it's not much of a big deal, then get back on that circle again going round and round.  I know one. They are irritable often enough and ultra busy all the time (for many years non- stop). 

Anyway, I think we all gotta tough it out until the end .


----------



## Value Collector (12 May 2018)

Tisme said:


> I'm having trouble with this video
> 
> viz
> 
> ...




You are confusing atomic weight with atomic number.

Erbian’s atomic number is 68, it’s atomic weight is not 68, Galliums atomic weight is the closest to 68

Erbian’s atomic weight is 167, not 68 (68 is its atomic number not its atomic weight)


----------



## noirua (13 May 2018)

Maybe religions are only at an early stage of becoming commercial.  Eventually they may circle the Earth in space stations with added options of visiting many planets.  Children will be able to go on individual rides in mini-aircraft with numbers - so they can be called in when their time is up.


----------



## Tink (13 May 2018)

May is the month of Mary, and Mother's Day.

Happy Mother's Day.


----------



## grah33 (19 May 2018)

noirua said:


> Maybe religions are only at an early stage of becoming commercial.  Eventually they may circle the Earth in space stations with added options of visiting many planets.  Children will be able to go on individual rides in mini-aircraft with numbers - so they can be called in when their time is up.



that made me laugh a few times,  but I still don't know what it means.  can u explain the joke ?

regards your other post, yeah, some people live for money  - it's their everything.  A person may even want to kill themselves for losing a little bit of money.  you may have noticed money can also hold people tightly and that's not a pleasant feeling . we could talk on and on about money i'm sure...  and wealth of course is merrily passed onto somebody who never worked for it.


----------



## noirua (20 May 2018)

grah33 said:


> that made me laugh a few times,  but I still don't know what it means.  can u explain the joke ?
> 
> regards your other post, yeah, some people live for money  - it's their everything.  A person may even want to kill themselves for losing a little bit of money.  you may have noticed money can also hold people tightly and that's not a pleasant feeling . we could talk on and on about money i'm sure...  and wealth of course is merrily passed onto somebody who never worked for it.




This link from the UK shows just how far things can go in gambling: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5952233/husband-gambling-wife-3-5-million-penniless-flat/

That link from a religious point of view shows that survival for churches is difficult and they need to raise money as they can. Even though people get poorer by giving their money away and they, the churches and other religious organisations, will gradually move just a slither away from out and out gambling - collecting in the proceeds of.

Bitcoin being accepted buy churches:
*BITCOIN NOW ACCEPTED AS CHURCH OFFERING IN SWITZERLAND DESPITE FEARS OF CRYPTOCURRENCY BUBBLE*
http://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-accepted-church-offering-784354

*Churches that accept bitcoin in United States*
http://spendbitcoins.com/places/c/churches/


----------



## noirua (20 May 2018)

grah33 said:


> that made me laugh a few times,  but I still don't know what it means.  can u explain the joke ?
> 
> regards your other post, yeah, some people live for money  - it's their everything.  A person may even want to kill themselves for losing a little bit of money.  you may have noticed money can also hold people tightly and that's not a pleasant feeling . we could talk on and on about money i'm sure...  and wealth of course is merrily passed onto somebody who never worked for it.




Funnily enough it's not meant to be a joke.  Space-stations will become common one day and visits to reasonably close planets, once technology advances far enough.


----------



## grah33 (20 May 2018)

noirua said:


> Funnily enough it's not meant to be a joke.  Space-stations will become common one day and visits to reasonably close planets, once technology advances far enough.



Well it made me laugh a fair bit, and still does.

The gambler story...yeah, that's terrible. I know of 2 in my circles. One or both lost their homes. I bet other people here have similar stories.


----------



## Tink (27 May 2018)

Abortion referendum: Ireland votes to repeal constitutional amendment

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-27/abortion-referendum:-ireland-votes-to-liberalise-laws/9803848

http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2018-05-26/is-abortion-legal-in-australia/9795188

-------------------

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trump-addresses-45th-march-life/


----------



## grah33 (28 May 2018)

I'm guessing more people in the future will not only have abortions but start terminating themselves as well.

Unborn children that old can sense pain...Don't know why they regard it as some kind of happy achievement.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2018)

grah33 said:


> I'm guessing more people in the future will not only have abortions but start terminating themselves as well.
> 
> Unborn children that old can sense pain...Don't know why they regard it as some kind of happy achievement.




There has to be some dividing line between life and pre-life, but nobody knows what it is, the best we can do is an educated guess.


----------



## noirua (29 May 2018)

*'Catholics who voted 'Yes' in abortion referendum should consider coming to confession' - Bishop*
https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...der-coming-to-confession-bishop-36953052.html

This Bishop is a very bad loser and of course has to say that as the church would boot him out if he said you should vote "YES".  Better a person should have their own beliefs and let others get on with theirs and not try to indoctrinate them


----------



## Tink (29 May 2018)




----------



## cynic (29 May 2018)

Putting ESP abilities to the test and demonstrating them with real results, in the real world:
https://www.dailygrail.com/2014/06/...ake-thousands-of-dollars-on-the-stock-market/


----------



## grah33 (29 May 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> There has to be some dividing line between life and pre-life, but nobody knows what it is, the best we can do is an educated guess.




Those who favor the existence of God and morality (the two seem to exist together), may see it as an act of evil, while others see it as not a nice thing, but not an evil thing. Or maybe they feel it is wrong, but they don't care. Makes you realize just how much Christian influence there has been in the world (until recently) given the laws we've had.  The coming of the “Kingdom” would spread everywhere to the gentiles (Isaiah's oracle)... Also, If a God exists, this God acted to remove homosexuality,  hence the world has been predominately straight after Christ, and it's a truth that men and women are complementary to one another. If not, it was a successful myth.


----------



## lindsayf (1 June 2018)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-...es-allegation-against-school-chaplain/9820084

This has been an ethical issue for a long time.  The chaplaincy program is fundamentally flawed and can and does result in untrained people responding to complex psychological situations in silly and harmful ways - such as this chaplain apparently did.  Of course, apparently, chaplains are not 'allowed' to promote thier religion or beliefs.  That is a non sequitur - they operate from a religious ideology..or they would not be a chaplain.  I have had direct experience of a local chaplain who would not refer similar cases onto appropriate professionals....all at the expense of the person.  Why does the chaplaincy program exist?  Why is it funded by the commonwealth? Probably economics..and focus group politics.  Not as a way to put evidence based responses into the school system.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 June 2018)

lindsayf said:


> Why does the chaplaincy program exist? Why is it funded by the commonwealth?




Because of the influence of the religious Right (read Tony Abbott et al) in the Liberal Party.


----------



## Value Collector (1 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> I'm guessing more people in the future will not only have abortions but start terminating themselves as well.
> 
> Unborn children that old can sense pain...Don't know why they regard it as some kind of happy achievement.




Proper sex education and access to birth control is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

However church groups have often protested both options, So you could say the high numbers of abortions are the churches fault.

There is a reason the "Bible Belt" in America is also the teen pregnancy belt, its simply because they don't give their kids proper sex education or access to birth control.


----------



## Value Collector (1 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> Also, If a God exists, this God acted to remove homosexuality,




really??? he hasn't done a very good job, maybe he doesn't exist?


> Those who favor the existence of God and morality (the two seem to exist together)




Those that favour god can't even agree on the basics of morality. So I can't see how the two are linked.

I mean your over here saying god hates homosexuality, while some other churches are now accepting it, you are saying killing an unborn child is wrong, while other religious groups are cutting peoples heads off, some religious groups say eating pork is immoral, you are fine with eating bacon,

the list goes on, it seems to me using logic and evidence about what is best for well being is the best way to get to good morals, religious ideas just stick you in the mud,


----------



## Tink (1 June 2018)

Yes, VC, it seems you want the state to be your mum and dad.

Faith, Family, Truth and Freedom.


----------



## Value Collector (1 June 2018)

Tink said:


> Yes, VC, it seems you want the state to be your mum and dad.




???

I have no Idea what you are on about tink, or how your statement relates to my post.


----------



## grah33 (1 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> really??? he hasn't done a very good job, maybe he doesn't exist?
> 
> ,




U reckon? Most of the world has been predominately straight for 2000 years, although our ancestors were bisexual before then. First the Jews were given the revelation that God created men and women to be complimentary to one another, then after Christ's appearance, it spread to the rest of the world.  Do you see woman holding hands together down the street (maybe soon...)

Yeah, your a little too friendly with the state...


----------



## Tisme (1 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> U reckon? Most of the world has been predominately straight for 2000 years, although our ancestors were bisexual before then. First the Jews were given the revelation that God created men and women to be complimentary to one another, then after Christ's appearance, it spread to the rest of the world.  Do you see woman holding hands together down the street (maybe soon...)
> 
> Yeah, your a little too friendly with the state...




Knowing your kids are your own requires some confidence in fidelity, traditionally leading to marriage and a skydaddy keeping an eye on things and civilised tribes. Homosexuals don't have that concern, so marriage is really a sham concept when it comes to them.


----------



## ghotib (1 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> U reckon? Most of the world has been predominately straight for 2000 years, although our ancestors were bisexual before then. First the Jews were given the revelation that God created men and women to be complimentary to one another, then after Christ's appearance, it spread to the rest of the world.  Do you see woman holding hands together down the street (maybe soon...)
> 
> Yeah, your a little too friendly with the state...



 This is a joke post right? You don't really think that there was ever a time when men and women didn't compliment each other. And you really do know that the reason woman doesn't hold hands together down the street is that she's holding 4 bags of groceries in one hand and a squirming toddler with the other. And as for the notion of some sea change in human sexuality 2000 years ago... You're kidding.


----------



## bellenuit (1 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> Do you see woman holding hands together down the street




It is not in the least bit uncommon for Asian women to do so. I see many Chinese ladies in Australia do it and lots and lots of ladies in Bali, particularly schoolgirls.


----------



## luutzu (1 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> ???
> 
> I have no Idea what you are on about tink, or how your statement relates to my post.




I think she was calling you a typical Capitalist


----------



## luutzu (1 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> U reckon? Most of the world has been predominately straight for 2000 years, although our ancestors were bisexual before then. First the Jews were given the revelation that God created men and women to be complimentary to one another, then after Christ's appearance, it spread to the rest of the world.  Do you see woman holding hands together down the street (maybe soon...)
> 
> Yeah, your a little too friendly with the state...




After Christ... what spreads to the rest of the world?


----------



## grah33 (1 June 2018)

ghotib said:


> This is a joke post right? You don't really think that there was ever a time when men and women didn't compliment each other. And you really do know that the reason woman doesn't hold hands together down the street is that she's holding 4 bags of groceries in one hand and a squirming toddler with the other. And as for the notion of some sea change in human sexuality 2000 years ago... You're kidding.



No i agree.  My point is there was lots more homosexuality /lesbianism in ancient times.  After the time of Christ much of it went away.  The gentiles (non-Jews) esteemed purity for the first time.  It was a new thing for them.


----------



## luutzu (1 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> No i agree.  My point is there was lots more homosexuality /lesbianism in ancient times.  After the time of Christ much of it went away.  The gentiles (non-Jews) esteemed purity for the first time.  It was a new thing for them.




I heard a former Iranian president saying that there's no homosexuals in The Islamic Republic of Iran, too.

So I'm guessing it's always been around, just some religion beat the crap out of it. 

Not sure why anyone would envy homosexuals. For one, it reduces the competition for a potential mate. Two, they make very neat and clean neighbours.


----------



## grah33 (1 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> ???
> 
> I have no Idea what you are on about tink, or how your statement relates to my post.



some of us are of the opinion that's it is 'uncool' to be excessively friendly toward the state


----------



## Tink (2 June 2018)

Do you have children, VC?

The girls have a mother and a father, NOT THE STATE.

Parents are the primary carer of their children.

I did mention, though we all went private, that information nights were WITH THE PARENTS.


----------



## Value Collector (2 June 2018)

Tink said:


> Parents are the primary carer of their children.
> 
> .




Yeah, So what?

Does that mean that teenagers don't benefit from sex education?

I think its smart to teach people who are becoming sexually mature and are at the age where sexual experimentation is starting to happen, the facts about Sexually transmitted diseases, Sexual reproduction and how condoms etc can be used to prevent both.

Did you send your kids to school or were they home schooled?

If you trust the schools to educate on all the other topics, why not Sex education? I mean its just biology

Your children's right to information about their body trumps your right to be prude.


----------



## Value Collector (2 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> some of us are of the opinion that's it is 'uncool' to be excessively friendly toward the state




What does that have to do with my post?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If you trust the schools to educate on all the other topics,




Hahaha.

Teachers these days are muppets for whom teaching STEM subjects is too hard, so they concentrate on things they understand like social "justice" and "gender fluidity".


----------



## Value Collector (2 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Teachers these days are muppets for whom teaching STEM subjects is too hard,




How many do you Know?

How did you come to this conclusion?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> How did you come to this conclusion?




The fact that our kids are ranked 39 of 41 OECD nations for literacy and numeracy.

https://www.smh.com.au/education/un...es-for-quality-education-20170615-gwrt9u.html


----------



## Tink (2 June 2018)

We are all entitled to our views, VC
Freedom of speech and thought..

Here is another view.



----

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact that our kids are ranked 39 of 41 OECD nations for literacy and numeracy.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/education/un...es-for-quality-education-20170615-gwrt9u.html




So from that you think our teachers are muppets?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So from that you think our teachers are muppets?




They are ones doing the teaching, they have obviously failed their jobs.


----------



## Tink (5 June 2018)

imv, religious freedom needs to be dealt with in Australia, as they did in the US.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-champion-religious-freedom/


----------



## Tisme (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact that our kids are ranked 39 of 41 OECD nations for literacy and numeracy.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/education/un...es-for-quality-education-20170615-gwrt9u.html





Imagine if they took the parentally bullied homeworked asian students out of that equation...we'd be ranking outside the OECD parentheses.

The real reason the lessons aren't getting through is the extreme use of behavoural clamps on the teachers by policy and process...they are just drones who get pinged constantly for not following strangling pedagogy that is skewed to covering their principal's arse with rules on social justice, gender fluidity, KPI's, and crepe paper children.

The rising fascist nature of school teaching correlates with the reduction in males at the blackboard. Women are creatures of rules and eventually they strangle organisations because of excess access to policy.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> They are ones doing the teaching, they have obviously failed their jobs.




Not necessarily, there could be other societal factors outside the classroom causing issues.

Also, standards might be really high.

I mean if you came 39th out of 41 in a tennis tournament that was made up of the 41 worlds best tennis players, could you really say your coach is a muppet, All 41 might be star players with star coaches, but some one has to come 39th.


----------



## grah33 (5 June 2018)

There may very well be a correlation in poor school performance with the type of people we are becoming.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I mean if you came 39th out of 41 in a tennis tournament that was made up of the 41 worlds best tennis players, could you really say your coach is a muppet, All 41 might be star players with star coaches, but some one has to come 39th.




That's a pretty poor excuse.

We all know that highly paid jobs flow to the countries with the skills to do those jobs, so there are 38 countries on the list ahead of us for hi tech industries and we are going to end up on the scrap heap.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a pretty poor excuse.
> 
> We all know that highly paid jobs flow to the countries with the skills to do those jobs, so there are 38 countries on the list ahead of us for hi tech industries and we are going to end up on the scrap heap.




Its not an excuse, just showing that teaches are not necessarily "muppets", 

And what was the difference between the top 10 and the bottom 10 on the list, was there even a big gap?

I think a fair test would be to compare Australia with Australia over time, rather than against other nations, because thats what matters.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> There may very well be a correlation in poor school performance with the type of people we are becoming.




or the type of people we came from, hence why I think its important to check or performance against ourselves rather than against others.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I think a fair test would be to compare Australia with Australia over time, rather than against other nations, because thats what matters.




No it's not, as we live in a global economy. We are actually competing against other countries for jobs and industries so a global comparison is essential.


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> Imagine if they took the parentally bullied homeworked asian students out of that equation...we'd be ranking outside the OECD parentheses.
> 
> The real reason the lessons aren't getting through is the extreme use of behavoural clamps on the teachers by policy and process...they are just drones who get pinged constantly for not following strangling pedagogy that is skewed to covering their principal's arse with rules on social justice, gender fluidity, KPI's, and crepe paper children.
> 
> The rising fascist nature of school teaching correlates with the reduction in males at the blackboard. Women are creatures of rules and eventually they strangle organisations because of excess access to policy.




Don't you have a daughter who's a teacher? 

She might not be impressed hearing that form her old man.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No it's not, as we live in a global economy. We are actually competing against other countries for jobs and industries so a global comparison is essential.




Yes but if you are making claims such as you were alluding to claims that modern teachers are muppets or as graph was that modern Australians are some how becoming inferior, then a comparison against our past is best.

Comparisons against other nations is more for goal setting.

When it comes to investment in the global market place, there is a whole host of things that move the needle more so than simply school test results, eg stable political systems, tax rates, high rate of local investors willing to support projects etc.

a few percentage points on school tests isn't the be all and end all.


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yes but if you are making claims such as you were alluding to claims that modern teachers are muppets or as graph was that modern Australians are some how becoming inferior, then a comparison against our past is best.
> 
> Comparisons against other nations is more for goal setting.
> 
> ...




How are we doing on those other results? 

I'm subscribed to this China channel on YT just to get some idea of what they're up to. Man, seems they finished one major construction project every couple of weeks. 

Roads, bridges, high speed rail, tunnels... new roads and rails into Europe; financing and constructing more in the Caribbeans and Africa. New naval fleets, planning another couple aircraft carrier battle groups by 2020 or so. 

They're even turning the entire northern border with Mongolia (back) into a forest. All across the top of China by some 149km deep... have been at it since the 70s but are accelerating the process. Redirecting fresh water from the South to the North, greening and reclaiming land from the desert. 

Chinese stocks will soon be included in the MSCI so capital will start to flow into the middle kingdom a lot faster. The new Roads and Belt silk road...

I know they started from a low base, infrastructure wise... But their progress sure make ours look puny and snail paced.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

luutzu said:


> I know they started from a low base, infrastructure wise... But their progress sure make ours look puny and snail paced.




Problem is can they afford it in the long run ? They are deeply in debt but it probably doesn't matter to them because they have no intention of paying it back.


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Problem is can they afford it in the long run ? They are deeply in debt but it probably doesn't matter to them because they have no intention of paying it back.




I think they're a net lender rather than borrower. But not sure seeing how they also got onto that property bandwagon since the GFC.

I think they're applying that Keysian economic model of state investment, stimulus program, to put the plebs to work else they get bored and start a revolution. 

Seems they're also borrowing the US/Western model of lending money to under-developed countries to "help" them build their infrastructure. The repayment terms are harsh and a good excuse to properly forced asset fire sales when the gov't doesn't see the sense in letting China park a few warships enroute its world tour and peace keeping missions.

They seriously have "peace keepers" all over Africa. 

With debt... They're starting to get themselves, and their trading partners, off of US dollars and into the Yuan. I don't know much about these, but guessing that once enough partners, or countries being sanctioned by the West, join the Yuan to settle their trades... the USD as world currency reserves will be diminished. 

There's pretty much a world war every century. This 21st one looks to be gathering pretty quickly.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> They are deeply in debt




To who? foreign debt is very small, they are largely (as a country) self funded, and the debts are payable in their own currency, Not to mention they hold ship loads of USA Bonds.

-----
But as long as over all most of the infrastructure investments produce economic returns in excess of their cost, countries the spend big on infrastructure do well, even if they are funded by debt.

eg. If you can borrow long term long term at 5%, and build infrastructure that generates returns of say 10%, then the more you borrow the better you will do, borrowing $1 Trillion will make you ship loads of money.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

luutzu said:


> There's pretty much a world war every century. This 21st one looks to be gathering pretty quickly.




We are past that, Trade beats war every time, and I am sure the Chinese understand that, Hence all their investments are to enable the speed of trade.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> To who? foreign debt is very small, they are largely (as a country) self funded, and the debts are payable in their own currency, Not to mention they hold ship loads of USA Bonds.
> 
> -----
> But as long as over all most of the infrastructure investments produce economic returns in excess of their cost, countries the spend big on infrastructure do well, even if they are funded by debt.
> ...




I wonder what the economic return on aircraft carriers and missile bases is.


----------



## Tisme (5 June 2018)

luutzu said:


> Don't you have a daughter who's a teacher?
> 
> She might not be impressed hearing that form her old man.




Not at all. My pedigree goes back to colonist days and teaching. Teachers these days are employed to be drones .... or else. Mine manages to garner exceptionally high class scores until the knives come out and she skips off to another school .... being in high demand there is always offers, three last week from principals trying to poach for next year.

Many teachers fear their permanency and super will be for zip if they don't double down and do as they are told by dept policy ....... kids are secondary consideration.


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> Not at all. My pedigree goes back to colonist days and teaching. Teachers these days are employed to be drones .... or else. Mine manages to garner exceptionally high class scores until the knives come out and she skips off to another school .... being in high demand there is always offers, three last week from principals trying to poach for next year.
> 
> Many teachers fear their permanency and super will be for zip if they don't double down and do as they are told by dept policy ....... kids are secondary consideration.




Of course. It's always other people. We and our offspring are the exceptions.

Since it is departmental policy... doesn't the blame rest at those on high and not at the teachers' feet?

Teaching has always been aimed at droning on and on about useless stuff hasn't it? Indoctrinating eager young mind with approved truths and accepted apologies; learning things in the most boring of ways... all to remove the intelligent from the compliant idiot worthy of stable jobs and fancy things. 

Just that, it seem, too many teachers aren't doing their jobs properly. Hence the testing and testing of students to further focus kids attention to what's important in life... and keeping teachers busy with test preps, less time for creative, personalised teachings, and union activities.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yes but if you are making claims such as you were alluding to claims that modern teachers are muppets or as graph was that modern Australians are some how becoming inferior, then a comparison against our past is best.




How can you possibly compare education now with education 20 years ago ? Technology has increased exponentially, it's not just 2+2 anymore. Trying to compare apples with oranges is futile.


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> We are past that, Trade beats war every time, and I am sure the Chinese understand that, Hence all their investments are to enable the speed of trade.




Gunboat diplomacy is very much alive and kicking. Just that the focus is not direct confrontation between major/nuclear-powered states, but against their proxies, or would be proxies.

It also helps with trade talks, diplomacy and getting the other guy to switch sides if you got a few boats parked just over the horizon and a couple of brigades well fed but with nothing to do just next door.

There are "rumours" that Saddam and Qaddafi got taken out because, among other things, they were seriously considering getting off of the petro dollar and into Yuan. But that's just silly.

But imagine you're a dictator of a resource rich country and the Chinese comes to you with a higher bid. You of course wanted the money, but where's the protection, right?  

I think that's why China has more success with their dictators in southern Africa - less French, NATO and US presence there. 

China is being pretty damn clever, so far. They're buildings roads and trading ports. Rail and bridges... Then of course they'd have to send a few frigates along to protect the cargoes. And of course it's more convenient if those frigates and marines station strategically along key ports. etc. etc.

They're already offering the Thai generals free money to allow them to fund and build the long planned (when France and Britain rule the waves) Thai Canal. 

Not only is that an alternate route that cut shipping and naval ships by a few days/weeks... it's telling the Singaporean that if they want to continue being that hub, might like to get back to their "Chinese" roots or else be isolated and lose those trillions of goods passing through the Thai each year.


----------



## Value Collector (5 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder what the economic return on aircraft carriers and missile bases is.



I did say as long as “most” produce an economic return, but also security assets deliver an economic return, in the same way police officers produce an economic return, whether it’s detering pirates from attacking cargo ships, or keeping terrorists away from a gas pipeline, investments in security can have good payoffs when it comes to loss prevention.


----------



## luutzu (5 June 2018)

Planned Chinese Railway networks across SE Asia.


----------



## Tisme (6 June 2018)

luutzu said:


> Gunboat diplomacy is very much alive and kicking. Just that the focus is not direct confrontation between major/nuclear-powered states, but against their proxies, or would be proxies.
> 
> It also helps with trade talks, diplomacy and getting the other guy to switch sides if you got a few boats parked just over the horizon and a couple of brigades well fed but with nothing to do just next door.
> 
> ...





I don't see what is so clever. They are employing hachneyed empire building methods, which they, themselves, fell victim to and suffered for. You'd think they would avoid inflicting conflict on others given the miserable nation they are.


----------



## luutzu (6 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> I don't see what is so clever. They are employing hachneyed empire building methods, which they, themselves, fell victim to and suffered for. You'd think they would avoid inflicting conflict on others given the miserable nation they are.




Sharing the love?

btw, weren't England, and all of Europe, just filthy when they decided to civilised the world?


----------



## explod (9 June 2018)

"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion.  Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers, no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honor killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts').  Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it..." 

from p.24 The God Delusion, Dawkins 2006.

And my plod words, imagine free education (teacher training), equal for all and if you want to be a soldier you have to pay to be trained and attend war to kill.  Our guvmint got it the wrong way hey.

Well worth thinking about.... real freedom and democracy.

God does your thinking for you.  An atheist thinks for itself.


----------



## Tink (10 June 2018)

The God delusion
or
The rage against God.


----------



## cynic (10 June 2018)

Tink said:


> The God delusion
> or
> The rage against God.



I believe it could be even more correctly referred to as "The Dawkins delusion".

Those proudly quoting its content, are actually saying a lot more about themselves and their religiousity than they seem to realise.


----------



## cynic (10 June 2018)

explod said:


> "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion.  Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers, no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honor killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts').  Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it..."
> 
> from p.24 The God Delusion, Dawkins 2006.



This is merely further evidence of how deluded the author of that garbage article, truly is.
If one were to examine the atrocities of this past century, perform the death tally honestly, one would see that the element common to grand scale human tragedies is typically humans engaged in the zealous pursuit of unrealistic ideals. The "lofty ideal" simply serves as the "infallible" excuse for inhumane behaviour. Whether or not a deity belief features within that "ideal", is more incidental than it is causative.


> And my plod words, imagine free education (teacher training), equal for all and if you want to be a soldier you have to pay to be trained and attend war to kill.  Our guvmint got it the wrong way hey.



Imagine applying the same principle to other forces, such as our police force! How do you think that will work out for society?


> Well worth thinking about.... real freedom and democracy.



Perhaps some more thinking on it, by your good self would prove beneficial. Others can already recognise that logic has long since departed the theatre of such ruminations.


> God does your thinking for you.  An atheist thinks for itself.



This sounds suspiciously like an anti-theist's mantra. And as usual, such zealous pronouncements are typified by their departure from rationality.

Think upon this! :-

Of Richard Dawkins or Isaac Newton, which is/was the greater thinker?


----------



## explod (10 June 2018)

Isaac Newton was good at maths and into physics which has little to do with philosophical clear thinking.

The idea of a God clouds thinking which is why the powers that be created and push that.  ie., the Witch Doctor over the tribe for the Chief.

Armies (for killing) and Police (for peacekeeping) have very different roles.

"This sounds suspiciously like an anti-theist's mantra. And as usual, such zealous pronouncements are typified by their departure from rationality."   You are certainly lost ole Pal


----------



## cynic (10 June 2018)

explod said:


> Isaac Newton was good at maths and into physics which has little to do with philosophical clear thinking.



On the contrary, it has much to do with "philosophical clear thinking"!
Anyhow, what exactly are you trying to say here? Was Newton a greater thinker than Dawkins, or wasn't he?


> The idea of a God clouds thinking which is why the powers that be created and push that.  ie., the Witch Doctor over the tribe for the Chief.



What about the pioneers of science, i.e. Newton, Copernicus etc., was their thinking clouded by their ideas of a God?
Perhaps, you might benefit from doing some of your own thinking, instead of relying on the likes of Dawkins, to do it all for you.


> Armies (for killing) and Police (for peacekeeping) have very different roles.



Whom does one turn to, when someone threatens to invade one's residence? Now, whom does one turn to, when someone threatens to invade one's country?


> "This sounds suspiciously like an anti-theist's mantra. And as usual, such zealous pronouncements are typified by their departure from rationality."   You are certainly lost ole Pal



Well, given that this comment issues from a self confessed Dawkins admirer, I consider that to be very high praise indeed!


----------



## grah33 (11 June 2018)

cynic said:


> On the contrary, it has much to do with "philosophical clear thinking"!
> Anyhow, what exactly are you trying to say here? Was Newton a greater thinker than Dawkins, or wasn't he?
> 
> What about the pioneers of science, i.e. Newton, Copernicus etc., was their thinking clouded by their ideas of a God?
> ...



Out of curiosity I just had a look at Newton. He has some fairly refined views, and unusual views too, about religion. 

Just goes to show that what some regard as nonsense can be taken quite seriously by other people. So the discussion keeps on rolling back and forth, on and on.


----------



## cynic (11 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> Out of curiosity I just had a look at Newton. He has some fairly refined views, and unusual views too, about religion.
> 
> Just goes to show that what some regard as nonsense can be taken quite seriously by other people. So the discussion keeps on rolling back and forth, on and on.



I find it somewhat amusing, that antitheists are often witnessed citing subscription to science as justification for their expressed contempt for theism.
One only has to ask, how much of our science would exist today, sans the discoveries of the following theist:
https://www.quotesaga.com/quote/984


----------



## grah33 (11 June 2018)

cynic said:


> I find it somewhat amusing, that antitheists are often witnessed citing subscription to science as justification for their expressed contempt for theism.
> One only has to ask, how much of our science would exist today, sans the discoveries of the following theist:
> https://www.quotesaga.com/quote/984



Looks like Newton saw the physics of the universe and its apparent design coming together with the biblical revelation and the oracles of the prophets (prophecy was important to him), for a complete understanding of the world.

Although he did have an usual Christian belief – Christ is the Messiah but not God. From what I read this man was more religious than scientific...


----------



## cynic (11 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> ... From what I read this man was more religious than scientific...



It is interesting that you view it that way.

I have yet to identify so much as one single distinction, separating scientific practice from religious observance.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 June 2018)

cynic said:


> It is interesting that you view it that way.
> 
> I have yet to identify so much as one single distinction, separating scientific practice from religious observance.




Both trying to understand life, but it's like the parable of the blidfolded men and the elephant.  

Science and religion have a reasonable meeting point in non-dualism.  

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/


----------



## Value Collector (12 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> Out of curiosity I just had a look at Newton. He has some fairly refined views, and unusual views too, about religion.
> 
> Just goes to show that what some regard as nonsense can be taken quite seriously by other people. So the discussion keeps on rolling back and forth, on and on.




His Ideas on religion are as bogus as his ideas on alchemy.


----------



## grah33 (12 June 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Both trying to understand life, but it's like the parable of the blidfolded men and the elephant.
> 
> Science and religion have a reasonable meeting point in non-dualism.
> 
> https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/



I'm somewhat apprehensive about letting my mind go...In those moments when I'm half asleep my defenses are down, and I have felt strange darkness …


----------



## grah33 (12 June 2018)

Value Collector said:


> His Ideas on religion are as bogus as his ideas on alchemy.



 They were regarded as heresies or something from what I saw .  Still  though, he was open to some kind of truth from the holy books.


----------



## Tisme (12 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> They were regarded as heresies or something from what I saw .  Still  though, he was open to some kind of truth from the holy books.




https://www.livescience.com/1638-papers-reveal-isaac-newton-religious-side.html


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> I'm somewhat apprehensive about letting my mind go...In those moments when I'm half asleep my defenses are down, and I have felt strange darkness …




Same.  If complete liberation from the egoic mind was *not *terrifying, everyone would do it.  That's the barrier.  Our choice is to live as slaves to our mind (never ending struggle, striving, desires and fears), or let go the mind and live in peace.  The latter has a big price.  That's what they say anyway... I'm not speaking from experience now.


----------



## grah33 (12 June 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Same.  If complete liberation from the egoic mind was *not *terrifying, everyone would do it.  That's the barrier.  Our choice is to live as slaves to our mind (never ending struggle, striving, desires and fears), or let go the mind and live in peace.  The latter has a big price.  That's what they say anyway... I'm not speaking from experience now.





You're touching on some ideas that mean something to me , but obviously getting there a different way. But can letting the mind go really achieve this? For example, if someone practices this, will he find it easier to forgive someone who murders their only child, or steals their money? Will he experience greater control when consuming pleasurable food (a common problem for many)?  Can they lose weight easily enough without so much inner struggle?  Do they feel jealous of people?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> You're touching on some ideas that mean something to me , but obviously getting there a different way. But can letting the mind go really achieve this? For example, if someone practices this, will he find it easier to forgive someone who murders their only child, or steals their money? Will he experience greater control when consuming pleasurable food (a common problem for many)?  Can they lose weight easily enough without so much inner struggle?  Do they feel jealous of people?




I understand all the logic in it, but it's worth nothing if I'm not living it.  Plenty of quality answers here ...  https://www.holybooks.com/i-am-that-nisargadatta-maharaj/


----------



## Tink (13 June 2018)

As was mentioned in the Trump thread -

_"In America, we know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of American life. 
Our motto is "in God we trust."_

_Ronald Reagan said the same,

If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, we will be a nation gone under._

---

Faith, Family, Truth and Freedom.


----------



## grah33 (13 June 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I understand all the logic in it, but it's worth nothing if I'm not living it.  Plenty of quality answers here ...  https://www.holybooks.com/i-am-that-nisargadatta-maharaj/





I'll have to take a look when I get some time. Although for many theists letting go of the mind tends to be a forbidden thing. We must stay in control of ourselves at all times. Our peace is partly derived from rejecting our selfish inclinations, and helping when we see a need.  It leaves us with a free feeling, and even joy (as described in NT). We rely on God's 'grace' to do this.


----------



## grah33 (13 June 2018)

Tink said:


> _
> If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, we will be a nation gone under._
> 
> ---
> ...




It seems to be already happening. They are shooting each other all the time now.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (13 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> I'll have to take a look when I get some time. Although for many theists letting go of the mind tends to be a forbidden thing. We must stay in control of ourselves at all times. Our peace is partly derived from rejecting our selfish inclinations, and helping when we see a need.  It leaves us with a free feeling, and even joy (as described in NT). We rely on God's 'grace' to do this.




The mind is the self - they are one and the same.

When you help someone (your example) and you feel freedom/joy as a result, it's because your mind will be silenced by the process.  Any action which approximates love will have the same effect on the mind.

Given what you've said here, you probably won't like the book I recommended.  But at its core, it is the same as Christian mysticism.

You know the darkness you feel when you start to let go of the mind?  The darkness is the way the ego tricks you into avoiding falling into the Absolute (or what Christians would call God).

I'm not Christian, but I like to look at spirituality from multiple viewpoints.  Bernadette Roberts was a Christian nun.  If you're serious, you will be able to make sense of her work linked here, then match it with your personal experience of impending darkness and what I'm saying here.  http://www.nonduality.com/berna.htm

Chapter 1 - "Roberts describes a quality of silence she had known on occasions, which was so total as to evoke fear, annihilation, point of no return".


----------



## grah33 (14 June 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The mind is the self - they are one and the same.
> 
> When you help someone (your example) and you feel freedom/joy as a result, it's because your mind will be silenced by the process.  Any action which approximates love will have the same effect on the mind.
> 
> ...




I can partly agree with you about the mind getting silenced. But I would explain it differently. If I do something good for someone else right now, and it's inconvenient for me , it's somewhat of a blow to the 'flesh' , but also tends to make one feel more ordered within. However there is certainly more to it than just trying to be a good person or following rules. These things alone might be drudgery for a person. “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. ” (Christ). So to the Christians it is something divine as well, and better than what the world can offer.


----------



## Value Collector (14 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> They were regarded as heresies or something from what I saw .  Still  though, he was open to some kind of truth from the holy books.




Yet even with his great mind, he still never found any real evidence for it.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (14 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> These things alone might be drudgery for a person.




I wouldn't want to put myself through drudgery to help others.  Self-flagellation is based upon misunderstanding, imho.  

I've met some very dreary and unhappy people who give all their time to volunteering when they should be helping themselves.  The underlying belief is that by grinding away in charity work (in the name of God) they will win some big prize after they die.  I could never agree with that.


----------



## grah33 (15 June 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I wouldn't want to put myself through drudgery to help others.  Self-flagellation is based upon misunderstanding, imho.
> 
> I've met some very dreary and unhappy people who give all their time to volunteering when they should be helping themselves.  The underlying belief is that by grinding away in charity work (in the name of God) they will win some big prize after they die.  I could never agree with that.





It's more about moral duty rather than beating oneself down. It can be challenging, since our nature (that deformed nature we spoke of) doesn't like it, while our conscience seems to instruct us to perform certain acts. I believe Christian 'perfection' (something the apostles wrote about, similar to what you have mentioned), would be doing all these things, but with ease (it wouldn't be a burden). In turn a person would be completely free from those desires which destroy our quality of life, and make us 'slaves' to everything around us. Paul wrote a fair bit about all these things. Based on the scriptures, our belief is that these problems (human nature) came to us in the beginning along with death after the transgression...Then Adam felt fear and the need to wear clothing for the first time...


On a practical level , I believe that having this peace does bring benefits . For example, if a person needs to lose weight, it won't be a problem for someone who is mortified. Or if they have addictions, these tend to drop off. But this isn't everybody, and most Christians do not practice what they follow.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 June 2018)

grah33 said:


> Adam felt fear and the need to wear clothing for the first time...




Yes fear and shame are the root of all evil, and these are a by-product of duality (in the non-dual traditions).  I tend to think all religions are talking about the same thing.  At the beginner level, these perspectives look totally different - enough to wage wars over.  But these perspectives converge the further you progress on the path.  eg. what you refer to as 'mortification' I'd refer to as earnestness or dedication.  And I'd agree that dedication makes certain things easier. 

I re-read that Bernadette article because I hadn't read it in ages.  Man, she went through some ****!  Left me thinking ..."where's the love?".  It's not a path I'd pursue myself, but it makes for fascinating reading.


----------



## grah33 (16 June 2018)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Yes fear and shame are the root of all evil, and these are a by-product of duality (in the non-dual traditions).  I tend to think all religions are talking about the same thing.  At the beginner level, these perspectives look totally different - enough to wage wars over.  But these perspectives converge the further you progress on the path.  eg. what you refer to as 'mortification' I'd refer to as earnestness or dedication.  And I'd agree that dedication makes certain things easier.
> 
> I re-read that Bernadette article because I hadn't read it in ages.  Man, she went through some ****!  Left me thinking ..."where's the love?".  It's not a path I'd pursue myself, but it makes for fascinating reading.



“Put yourselves on the ways of long ago and enquire about the ancient paths: which was the good way? Take it then, and you shall find rest. “(Jer)
“Your will is my portion for ever., For in it my heart finds joy “ (ps)

rest...joy...just some verses about that freedom... Not from letting go of the mind, just following morals. Rather than a set of rules, followers of Christianity see it as living the way they're meant to, and becoming what they're meant to become.

I'll want to explore that link a bit as I'm interested...

Mortified includes feeling and having a greater sense of self control and command of oneself.  Something I learned is that all these things such as peace, self control, patience, even spiritual wisdom all show up together in a similar measure, as do their opposites.


----------



## Tink (17 June 2018)

“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.”
_-- G.K. Chesterton_


----------



## bellenuit (18 March 2019)

Why I think Islam is dangerous.

Islam is a religion with over a billion followers who are in general peace loving people who follow a belief system that they hold dear. So how is it dangerous?

Firstly, to whom is it not dangerous? It is not dangerous to the vast majority of Muslims who profess their faith in Allah and submit to his will. It is not dangerous to people in non-Islamic states who do not conform to the teachings of Allah and who have secular law to protect them, so long as those laws remain in place.

But It is highly dangerous to those living in Islamic states who do not submit to the will of Allah. People who reject Islam and either change religion or become atheists (apostates). People who were brought up in other religions. People whose sexual identity is different to the standard male/female identity. Women in particular who are Muslim but do not accept the suppression that they must live under, whether it relates to choice of husband, divorce law, manner of dress etc.

_The issue with stating that "*Islam is a dangerous religion*" is in the conflating of extreme elements of Islam and terrorist groups with a religion lived by 1.2 billion people. 

I have never defended the rise of extreme Islamic sects. There are a danger to the world and a real menace to the moderate Islamic countries they are trying to undermine. But equating these elements with with the the beliefs of millions of people who completely disown them is wrong in every way.

We don't attempt to define the Jewish faith or Christianity by the extreme views of sects that use the cover of these religions to justify hate and vengeance. And there are enough of them to cause concern.

There is a good analysis of what extremist Islam groups look like and in particular the clear differentiation to Islamic teaching in Wikipedia._

You are deliberately ignoring what I wrote. I specifically excluded terrorist groups and concentrated on states that operate either fully or predominantly under Islamic law. This is what I wrote: These are all Islamic states whose laws are based on Islam. We are not talking about ISIS, but nation states whose laws are barbaric in every sense of the world.

_On a practical level I ask what sort of society would we have if Islam and it's believers were all treated as dangerous people ? Were the people who were murdered in Christchurch extremists ? Should our neighbors and friends, workmates and students , be seen as "dangerous " and treated as such ? What does such a society look like ?_

You again ignore what I wrote in relation to its believers. This is what I wrote: I am talking Islam the religion, not Muslims the people.

_Australia has rules of behaviour around tolerance, respect , freedom of religion and abiding by the laws of our country. So we don't and shouldn't accept the discrimination that Bellenuit points out is a hallmark of countries governed by extreme Islamic groups. *And these views are unacceptable in Australia because they attack the hallmarks of tolerance and respect we offer every citizen.*_

But this is where you completely miss the point. Most of the countries that I listed are not governed by extreme Islamic groups, but are nation states. These, apart from moderate Indonesia, are where the vast majority of Muslims live, and most of these states, if not all, are UN members, are represented in various UN bodies and are nations that we trade with on a regular basis. Unlike Australia, these Islamic states do not have rules of behaviour around tolerance, respect and freedom of religion that we have here in Australia.

That is why it is dangerous for those groups I have identified (as well as many others) to live there. It is secular law that protects us in the West from the extremes of any religious intolerance. But what we regard as secular law is extremely limited or non-existent in these countries. Islamic Law takes precedence mostly.

When the Christian woman who brought water to her fellow Muslim workmates was charged with blasphemy and sentenced to death for doing so, it was the limited secular law in Pakistan that freed her. But there were still shouts from the Mullahs for her to be put to death - on the basis that Islamic Law demands it.

If you think somehow that the Islamic states, which make up the majority of countries in which Muslims live, are misinterpreting Islam and most Muslims disagree with those strict laws, you might want to read some thorough research done by the very respected Pew Research. A snapshot of figures from 2 relatively moderate predominantly Muslim countries; Turkey and Indonesia; and one more extreme; Pakistan.

This survey relates to Muslims only living in those countries. In relation to Sharia Law (which according to certain Hadith texts prescribes the death penalty for Atheism, Homosexuality and Apostacy):

That Sharia Law is the revealed word of God; Turkey 49%, Indonesia 54% and Pakistan 81%.

That Sharia should be the law of the land; Turkey 12%, Indonesia 72% and Pakistan 84%

% among those who believe it should be the law of the land, that Sharia Law should apply to non-Muslims as well as Muslims; Turkey 43%, Indonesia 50% and Pakistan 34%

% among those who believe that Sharia should be the law of the land, that favour stoning as a punishment for Adultery; Turkey 29%, Indonesia 48% and Pakistan 89%

% among those who believe that Sharia should be the law of the land, that favour the death penalty as a punishment for Apostasy; Turkey 17%, Indonesia 18% and Pakistan 76%

So taking Indonesia as an example, we see that 72% of Muslims think Sharia should be the law of the land and of those 48% think adulterers should be stoned to death. That is 34% of Indonesian Muslims.

For Pakistan, 84% believe Sharia should be the law of the land and of those 76% believe apostates should be put to death. That means 64% of all Pakistan muslims believe apostates should be put to death.

You can see the full research here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

So not only are we talking about mainstream Islamic states and not the extremists, but the laws that are such a danger to those who do not conform have substantial support among the Muslims living there. 

I think it will for ever be a shame of the righteous Left in the West that they ignored the plight of those living under Islam that either by choice or by accident of birth do not conform to the rules prescribed by Islam. Ex-Muslims who understand full well what is happening in Islamic states are being shouted down when the try to talk or show support for those being oppressed. The word Islamaphobia is used as a weapon to silence those with influence who have taken the time to understand Islam and speak out against its shameful oppression of certain groups. Their blind identity politics can only see white males as oppressors and anyone else by definition couldn't be so, so they gladly align with some of the most oppressive regimes in the world.


----------



## kahuna1 (18 March 2019)

Hello Brother,

I too join others in expressing remorse, sorrow and regret at this act. Intolerance, hate and mental disorders stoked by what is NOW accepted as free speech, is NOT who and what we are. That, being Australian, to our shame, our home bred person who went to our dearest friend, NEW ZEALAND and committed this act, is not who either we, as Australians are or New Zealand is.

Intolerance, hate, couched often in weasel words, is what it is. Despite being of a different faith, and possibly a different colour, god forbid, I was inspired by one act in the face of hate filled intolerance.

“*Hello Brother”*. A man, in Christchurch, a man, faced by a rage filled, hate filled maniac, greets a person whom he knows will and is going to kill him with two words. *“Hello Brother”.*

This man, a MAN OF FAITH, a man devoted to peace, in sheer display of acceptance and love. Without anger, without fear, greeted a man he knew would kill him with two words. Words of greeting, of compassion, with kindness. “Hello Brother” and his reward was three bullets, as he was executed.

This man, a man I wish I knew. A man of a different religion, set of beliefs, in his last moments showed what a pathetic monster and intolerant hate filled person one must be to commit this act.

*In this good mans last moments, he displayed a level of faith, few could ever aspire to.*

I wish for peace and tolerance and express my deep sympathies and disgust for this act whilst offering what I wish, was the power, that could take away the pain this man has caused to so many.


----------



## Value Collector (18 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Hello Brother,
> 
> I too join others in expressing remorse, sorrow and regret at this act. Intolerance, hate and mental disorders stoked by what is NOW accepted as free speech, is NOT who and what we are. That, being Australian, to our shame, our home bred person who went to our dearest friend, NEW ZEALAND and committed this act, is not who either we, as Australians are or New Zealand is.
> 
> ...




Imagine if the reason he said “Hello brother” was because he mistook the gunman for a member of isis or other Islamic group which he sympathized with.


----------



## kahuna1 (18 March 2019)

Hello Brother,

I too join others in expressing remorse, sorrow and regret at this act. Intolerance, hate and mental disorders stoked by what is NOW accepted as free speech, is NOT who and what we are. That, being Australian, to our shame, our home bred person who went to our dearest friend, NEW ZEALAND and committed this act, is not who either we, as Australians are or New Zealand is.

Intolerance, hate, couched often in weasel words, is what it is. Despite being of a different faith, and possibly a different colour, god forbid, I was inspired by one act in the face of hate filled intolerance.

“*Hello Brother”*. A man, in Christchurch, a man, faced by a rage filled, hate filled maniac, greets a person whom he knows will and is going to kill him with two words. *“Hello Brother”.*

This man, a MAN OF FAITH, a man devoted to peace, in sheer display of acceptance and love. Without anger, without fear, greeted a man he knew would kill him with two words. Words of greeting, of compassion, with kindness. “Hello Brother” and his reward was three bullets, as he was executed.

This man, a man I wish I knew. A man of a different religion, set of beliefs, in his last moments showed what a pathetic monster and intolerant hate filled person one must be to commit this act.

*In this good mans last moments, he displayed a level of faith, few could ever aspire to.*

I wish for peace and tolerance and express my deep sympathies and disgust for this act whilst offering what I wish, was the power, that could take away the pain this man has caused to so many.


----------



## bellenuit (18 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Ex-Muslims who understand full well what is happening in Islamic states are being shouted down when the try to talk or show support for those being oppressed.




This is a prime example of the above.


----------



## kahuna1 (18 March 2019)

I think a better site for your views ...

*Small Penis Syndrome*
Sign in to follow this 
A forum exclusively devoted to serious discussion of the intense emotions, shame and social complications associated with Small Penis Syndrome (SPS

http://www.mentalsupportcommunity.net/forum/30-small-penis-syndrome/


----------



## basilio (18 March 2019)

Bellenuit that was an interesting reference you offered on Pew Research into views of Muslims.

I thought the Executive Summary was a good look. 

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec/


----------



## moXJO (18 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I think a better site for your views ...
> 
> *Small Penis Syndrome*
> Sign in to follow this
> ...



Which side are you an activist for? 

If I wanted people to hate the left I'd post the stuff you are posting.

If I was on the delusional left side, then expected.

If its truly neither then I need to ask  "Are you ok".
I tried to pm previously to keep it private,  but I'm on your block list. Perhaps you are just passionate, maybe high strung. But I'd rather know before quoting you and ratcheting your levels up any further.


----------



## kahuna1 (18 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Which side are you an activist for?
> 
> If I wanted people to hate the left I'd post the stuff you are posting.
> 
> ...





Hmm ... humanity's side. No, no one blocked. Just agog at anti Islam stuff given recent events. On small penis, I am pro small for well evidenced reasons.  That or use of a pill like Mifepristone which is free in America if your Black or Latino or white trash. All thanks to the Eugenics society and its benefactors ... the Gates Foundation and Warren Buffett. Strange world where someone with a medical issue is charged $600- for Insulin and an abortion, is free.

Such is life, on one hand disgusted, one hand agog, watching evil being spread. Its not as though I would ever go to a white supremacist site ...  so I watch with disgust and horror at their drivel.

Is that plain enough ? I am neither left of right, *just human.*


----------



## moXJO (18 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> .
> 
> Is that plain enough ? I am neither left of right, *just human.*



Fair enough.


----------



## kahuna1 (18 March 2019)

Sadly my spy ware is able to turn some peoples cameras on ... who post on this thread .



Nice visit to the supermarket and I sadly say its not PG.


----------



## basilio (18 March 2019)

Kahuna I wanted to write and suggest you tone down the rhetoric. Again Like MoXjo I'm not sure where you are at.
Unfortunately your settings do not allow communication. Whether that is by accident or design only you know.
Take care


----------



## kahuna1 (18 March 2019)

Ooh thanks for the advice.

I think this is more toned down, no naughty words.
*A Geography Class for Racist People*



13 million views ... speaks about Islam and it is educational in nature !!


----------



## Darc Knight (18 March 2019)

Reading your posts @kahuna1 I feel your pain and anger, having fought similar feelings myself lately.
Speaking of true Christians who live in accordance with the New Testament I can only describe their behaviour as unconditional love. They love you and me and everyone else almost as much as a Mother loves her Child. I can only relate your "hello brother" story to that. Take care good Man.


----------



## kahuna1 (18 March 2019)

I will be honest,

Its not anger, nor hate. Its not some christian belief, or other religion. It is how we define ourselves as humans.

I have to be honest, and blunt, and it disgusted me. Simple as that. In 25 years of sharing ideas, some macro economic, some demographic some climate ... on a lot of mainly scientific type sites and oh, yep helping others at times on a Mental health site helping people dealing with it .. in 25 years, even at times dealing with very ill people, I have never seen such a display as occurred on three threads here, the Christchurch one, the Jordan Peterson one and this one.

I have no anger, nor hate, nor pity as I know they will not and cannot change. My life has been one of beauty and privileged even at lows, people could not imagine. One takes either learning, or compassion or something out of it, or they take anger, hate and blame is often the case.

Despite being trolled by one person 30 times if not more, labelled a Nazi, and a few other goodies. I have no anger or hate, just, a differing view and acceptance of the world. I do not like bullies, I do not accept hate and violence I learnt many years ago, is where good men are sometimes sent to protect us. A coward, is always a coward, afraid of the dark and asking others to join in their torment or intolerance of others.

I will admit, I found it disturbing, for people to be so openly hateful of places they have never been. Cultures they do not know, and choose to live in fear of the unknown. Death, is death and a place not to be feared. Different is different and also not to be feared and often embraced and enjoyed.

As I learnt a lot, not about cowards, trolls or whatever, but a better understanding of issues driving peoples fears, hate and intolerance, I walk away with a bag full of goodies !! A man to admire. I do wish, I was there, Christchurch, in my youth with some of my friends, a wild bunch, sadly most died in one event now over 35 years ago protecting what we now enjoy. The demented gunman would be still wetting himself in fear and we likely would have barely touched him. Cowards are cowards.

Hello Brother, ... I would use that, but unbelievably even one person stooped so low ... what did they say? He said that because he mistook a white boy carrying guns who already had executed several as a member of ISIS.  Such hatred and lack of even respect, well, anger is not something I feel, just disgust.

To be exact a person called Value Collector ... on the previous thread ...
*Imagine if the reason he said “Hello brother” was because he mistook the gunman for a member of isis or other Islamic group which he sympathized with.*

I would expect this not, from a country I love, nor my fellow Australians and in this I include NZ ...  it is not and should not be tolerated, but, it is what it is.

Anger, revenge, hate will get you no where. Compassion, love and tolerance of some people being ill, lets me accept it without anger. Sadly they miss parts that make us human. Having faced violence, hate and people at their worst, Value collector and his fellows are the first to run, cry, beg, or urinate  ... I say this with a capacity and background in dealing with violence that, is not based in anger. 

Strange to deal with someone just saying NO, without threats, anger and so on. Confusing for those who only fear the unknown and with 1.8 billion Muslims, as the pretty young Canadian girl said, if they were all somehow as described, or even 10% of them, the world would be a different place.


----------



## DB008 (18 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> “*Hello Brother”*. A man, in Christchurch, a man, faced by a rage filled, hate filled maniac, greets a person whom he knows will and is going to kill him with two words. *“Hello Brother”.*




Very similar happened when the radicals shot up Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and killed police officer Ahmed Merabet. 



> On Wednesday, as two gunmen fled the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, where they had murdered much of the staff, they encountered a police officer named Ahmed Merabet in the street. The gunmen shot Merabet before he could respond, hitting him in the groin. As he fell to the ground and held his arm out in self-defense, one of the attackers asked, "Do you want to kill us?" Merabet, whose final words were caught on camera, answered, "No, it's okay friend." One of gunmen jogged over and, standing above the policeman, shot him in the head.




https://www.vox.com/2015/1/11/7527697/ahmed-malek-merabet-eulogy-charlie-hebdo​


----------



## moXJO (18 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I will be honest,
> 
> Its not anger, nor hate. Its not some christian belief, or other religion. It is how we define ourselves as humans.
> 
> ...



Any traumatic experiences in the past? 
No mental health issues?


----------



## lindsayf (19 March 2019)

There was mention in another thread of people converting to Islam in Australian prisons.
A google produced this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Islam_in_prisons
Astounded by the over representation in prisons world wide....but the reasons are many and varied including just playing the system for better conditions apparently.


----------



## kahuna1 (19 March 2019)

*Any traumatic experiences in the past? 
No mental health issues?*
from MO XJO

Trying to provoke me whilst showing your true self ?
Again. a person, who is missing parts. I have no issues, just a different background than most. MO XJO I note from your posts, your lack of compassion, empathy and even decency. Even the cruelest person would be proud of some of your recent uttering s. Bravo .... I hope your not married or have children ?

As to traumatic issues in my past, even the gentlest soul will have some story to tell, it is what makes us unique.

Mental health issues ? Nope, and as you seem devoid of compassion, unable to express remorse and seem to take glee, in this case in others death, I might ask the same question back.

That of course would be rude, to point out that, even though 50 people were killed, murdered, you Mo Xjo like some others seem unable to even acknowledge they were killed. Quite a statement about a human being that they seem to take pleasure in others grief, death and pain.

Congratulations and will pray for your souls, and try and contain my disgust for your type of species. One of your comments about Islam, actually nearly made me sick given the thread was about a massacre and your hate of ISLAM could not be contained. Are you human ? No offense meant but this is the correct thread to ask that ? 

Hello Brother as the man said !!


----------



## qldfrog (19 March 2019)

Islam is a religion of war and conquest, from its very beginning, it is no surprise it is a good fit to a prison population,most of them not meek lambs
It also target a mob who often feel lost, know very well that addictions and idle life is not right, have a hate of society.
Islam is the answer: rules, no place for own questioning, hate against the system, can blame own problem on corrupt society 
and by getting out of drugs, the guy can watch himself in the mirror again and join a new tribe
I suspect there is a real danger the lost souls of our aboriginal communities could be the next to join


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> I have no issues, just a different background than most.
> 
> As to traumatic issues in my past, even the gentlest soul will have some story to tell, it is what makes us unique.



Could you expand on these two parts.
It's not to mock. Simply an interest in the background story that is obviously here.


----------



## Darc Knight (19 March 2019)

How many of you people have actually read the Quran?
As VC proved in the other thread by his "Christian beating a child to death" vid, the only way is to read it (the Quran or the New Testament) for yourself. Look at ISIS's and Alan Jones interpretations.
You can't use others interpretations.

@SirRumpole
@moXJO
@qldfrog
@bellenuit
Et al


----------



## kahuna1 (19 March 2019)

MOxjo,

I shall pray to for you. Your display of anti Islamic tropes, even asking me if I had mental health issues on THIS thread, because I expressed my disgust for you, and a few others, not anger, merely stating your lack of humanity made me sick ....

What a fantastic joke, a person devoid of even decency given events, thinks someone has mental health issues because they even express a disgust for their ANTI Islam rants ... PRIOR to 50 being killed, as I did with you, and feel even more disgust as well as shame when in the wake of a massacre, you do so AGAIN .... more openly and make normal peoples skin crawl.

I have no mental health issues, nor one about values or boundaries or respect for others. More so in their time of need and grief.

I doubt you could do the same, say your not dealing with issues and this is not an insult, or said with anger or hate as your diatribe clearly is. You disgust me, and make my skin crawl.

Peace Brother !!

PS ditto to others, with 1.8 billion mainly peaceful followers, ISLAM and MUSLIM faith clearly have more faith decency value than your racist rants.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> MOxjo,
> 
> I shall pray to for you. Your display of anti Islamic tropes, even asking me if I had mental health issues on THIS thread, because I expressed my disgust for you, and a few others, not anger, merely stating your lack of humanity made me sick ....
> 
> ...



As much as I'd love to engage,  I feel like you are in the "too fragile" pile.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> How many of you people have actually read the Quran?
> As VC proved in the other thread by his "Christian beating a child to death" vid, the only way is to read it (the Quran or the New Testament) for yourself. Look at ISIS's and Alan Jones interpretations.
> You can't use others interpretations.
> 
> ...



I found the bible easier to read. Without the tafsir some of the stories don't make sense. Its a very hard book to read through. 
I didn't read it cover to cover.
I found Buddhist teachings more interesting. Buddha does lay down some great quotes.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> How many of you people have actually read the Quran?
> As VC proved in the other thread by his "Christian beating a child to death" vid, the only way is to read it (the Quran or the New Testament) for yourself. Look at ISIS's and Alan Jones interpretations.
> You can't use others interpretations.
> 
> ...




Have you ?

I have read passages of it but I'm certainly not going to waste my time reading all of it, Like I wouldn't waste my time reading the Bible.

Why do you ask ?


----------



## Darc Knight (19 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> I found the bible easier to read. Without the tafsir some of the stories don't make sense. Its a very hard book to read through.
> I didn't read it cover to cover.
> I found Buddhist teachings more interesting. Buddha does lay down some great quotes.




OK, good start 

Everyone has an interpretation of The Bible .The Quran and Harry Potter. It's ludicrous.
You can't rely on YouTube, TV, Radio, or anyone else really, particularly in this era. Everyone spins it. Look at ISIS, look at nutters doing atrocities in the name of Christianity.
I'll post how you interpret legal statutes when I have time, it's a good guide to interpretation of these things.


----------



## Darc Knight (19 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Have you ?
> 
> I have read passages of it but I'm certainly not going to waste my time reading all of it, Like I wouldn't waste my time reading the Bible.
> 
> Why do you ask ?




Because everyone has a personal agenda, you can't trust alot of it.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2019)

I am not trying to vilify religion and say it has no value by the way.
But there are those in it who use it for personal gain. The past has already shown that when it is abused by those in power, innocent people suffer.  

Again this is not an attack on religion but those who use it in a negative way.

We saw the priests in positions of power abuse their authority. No one said anything out of fear.
There are numerous other examples. 

So no. I don't believe religion should get a free pass. However those practicing should not be tarred with the same brush.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Because everyone has a personal agenda, you can't trust alot of it.




Sure. Any criticism I have of Islam is based not on ordinary Muslims who just live normal lives but on the actions of the hierarchy in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc who sometimes violently enforce their primitive beliefs on the population who are really no more than slaves to the "church".

It's the same criticism I have for the Catholic church, but at least Catholics have to live within the laws of the land, whereas the Islamic church makes their own laws.


----------



## Darc Knight (19 March 2019)

OK, it 9AM and I've yet to have one coffee you heathens 

The Bible and The Quran are basically codes of conduct. Skeptics say forms of social control like Statutes (Laws).
Interpretation of Statutes is done thus:

"The principal rules of statutory interpretation are as follows1) An Act must be construed as a whole, so that internal inconsistencies are avoided.(2) Words that are reasonably capable of only one meaning must be given that meaning whatever the result. This is called the literal rule.(3) Ordinary words must be given their ordinary meanings and technical words their technical meanings, unless absurdity would result. This is the golden rule.(4) When an Act aims at curing a defect in the law any ambiguity is to be resolved in such a way as to favour that aim (the mischief rule).(5) The rule _ejusdem generis_ (of the same kind): when a list of specific items belonging to the same class is followed by general words (as in “cats, dogs, and other animals”), the general words are to be treated as confined to other items of the same class (in this example, to other _domestic_ animals).(6) ...…..

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100008301

Try it yourself. Be careful though with definitions in The Bible, The Quran, they can have their own, much like Statutes. Be careful whose interpretation of the Bible, Quran, Harry Potter you take. (Yes I see the irony of including Harry Potter).


----------



## qldfrog (19 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> How many of you people have actually read the Quran?
> As VC proved in the other thread by his "Christian beating a child to death" vid, the only way is to read it (the Quran or the New Testament) for yourself. Look at ISIS's and Alan Jones interpretations.
> You can't use others interpretations.
> 
> ...



Dk, after living among mostly muslim migrants in housing estates in french suburbs  as a pennyless student, i faced a world far different from my y12 leftist teachers description .i participated at the time to the "touche pas a mon pote"( so called anti racist ) movement, had grand ideas about mankind one world etc
The hatred,violence,disrespect of women and non muslim shocked me
So guess what DK i read the koran.not easy or  funny or something i will do again , but i did
Very instructive
And another shock, at how mindless believer must be, on how as a non believer i should be killed directly
And my fellow christian are lucky to have a chance to convert..or die 
A middle age backward code of life, similar totan army codecof conduct code well suited to the army hords it was written for initially, but now completely out of wack.
that is my conclusion after reading the book, and there is not much place for interpretation, so when did you read the book DK?


----------



## kahuna1 (19 March 2019)

This echos my own views ....



My own disgust and as confusing as it is to some my STANCE and sharing my disgust at their exposed views. Not anger, not hate, just pure love and intolerance of outright demonizing of a faith as has been displayed.


----------



## Darc Knight (19 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Dk, after living among mostly muslim migrants in housing estates in french suburbs  as a pennyless student, i faced a world far different from my y12 leftist teachers description .i participated at the time to the "touche pas a mon pote"( so called anti racist ) movement, had grand ideas about mankind one world etc
> The hatred,violence,disrespect of women and non muslim shocked me
> So guess what DK i read the koran.not easy or  funny or something i will do again , but i did
> Very instructive
> ...




Clutch in down a gear Frog. My exposure to Islam has been via a Muslim Sydney Elder who preached pretty much similiar to a Christian Pastor - love, tolerance etc etc. Then about nine months later he recounted a story of his Daughter being abused at some traffic lights. He then said he would've "killed" the thugs if he was there or if they touched her or something. He was a world level athlete in his youth, so I assume high Testosterone levels, not to mention from a war torn Country in his youth.
That compelled me to read bits and pieces of The Quran, not the whole lot.

As I've seen how people speak about Christians, being so far off the mark I'm skeptical about how bad The Quran is. That's why I'm pursuing the discussion.

I detest bullies and sociopaths and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder, back to back with anyone fighting such people, if in fact Muslims are that bad.

Just pursuing further knowledge on the topic Frog.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Clutch in down a gear Frog. My exposure to Islam has been via a Muslim Sydney Elder who preached pretty much similiar to a Christian Pastor - love, tolerance etc etc. Then about nine months later he recounted a story of his Daughter being abused at some traffic lights. He then said he would've "killed" the thugs if he was there or if they touched her or something. He was a world level athlete in his youth, so I assume high Testosterone levels, not to mention from a war torn Country in his youth.
> That compelled me to read bits and pieces of The Quran, not the whole lot.
> 
> As I've seen how people speak about Christians, being so far off the mark I'm skeptical about how bad The Quran is. That's why I'm pursuing the discussion.
> ...



I mentioned when extremists reach critical mass. If you want to study you go to places like Indonesia,  Somalia,  Nigeria, a whole host of arab nations and you can see the worst parts overtaking. Even the religious police in Iran.
Churches are burned and bombed regularly. Buddhist sites are destroyed.

Its nothing to do with hating religion. Its the acknowledgement that its not just a few on the fringes. Indonesia has become very devout to the point that politicians are afraid to act. 

There are problems within the religion. But you don't instantly assume all Muslims are the enemy. Or their religion.
But if it looks suss you should be free to point it out.


----------



## qldfrog (19 March 2019)

Fair DK, i am a bit sensitive as i spent a year or so arguiing with @luutzu on that very subject.
Dozen of time i asked him: read the Koran before denouncing my view of islam.there are fundamental differences between your or mine migration and the islamic ones
You cannot have an opinion without reading it .but to no avail
i understand the trauma of history,family past etc but there was no point wasting everyone's time so he joined my ignored list .
sad as i believe that in adapting a more open view and at least getting informed, we would probably have shared a lot 
We are after all migrants both of us.
If you also want to learn more, try to understand/,research what is happening with the current takeover of islam proselitism from the salafists and SA/qatar financed imams to the recent surge of turkish influence ergovan if i i spell it right.a few quotes of him on how they are taking over the west are interesting
Google reliable sources and you will find them...but maybe not in the Guardian


----------



## basilio (19 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> I mentioned when extremists reach critical mass. If you want to study you go to places like Indonesia,  Somalia,  Nigeria, a whole host of arab nations and you can see the worst parts overtaking. Even the religious police in Iran.
> Churches are burned and bombed regularly. Buddhist sites are destroyed.
> 
> Its nothing to do with hating religion. Its the acknowledgement that its not just a few on the fringes. Indonesia has become very devout to the point that politicians are afraid to act.
> ...




It has been ugly in Indonesia.  Good story on ABC showing how communities can come together after these horrors.

Also has a sting in the tail about why communities can come into conflict.

 Print  Email  Facebook  Twitter  More
*Poso is still reeling from religious conflict, but a women's school is forging a path to peace*
RN
By Nicole Curby for Earshot
Updated about an hour ago





* Photo:* After surviving a violent encounter, Martince is helping lead Poso's charge against hatred. (ABC RN: Nicole Curby) 
*Related Story:* 'We have to forgive each other': Bali terrorists and victims come face-to-face
*Related Story:* Sulawesi attacks spark religious violence fears
Martince Baleona was living in the forest with her two infant children, eating nothing but leaves and plants, when she was intercepted by a group of armed men.

They demanded to know her religion.

She froze. The answer could cost her her life.

"In that moment, my only hope was for my children," Martince, now 48, says.

"I thought, if I say that I am Christian, maybe I'll be murdered. And if I say I'm Muslim, maybe I'll be murdered.

"So we kept quiet."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...g-religious-divide-in-poco-indonesia/10825656


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2019)

Thai border cities were a hotbed last time I was there


----------



## bellenuit (19 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Thai border cities were a hotbed last time I was there




The Thai Malaysian border has had problems since 1948, but the violence escalated this century. It goes almost unreported in the West but since 2001 there have been about 500-600 killed each year and double that injured. Although it was originally an ethnic separatist insurgency (wanting autonomy from Thailand), it has in part being taken over by hard-line jihadists.


----------



## moXJO (19 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> The Thai Malaysian border has had problems since 1948, but the violence escalated this century. It goes almost unreported in the West but since 2001 there have been about 500-600 killed each year and double that injured. Although it was originally an ethnic separatist insurgency (wanting autonomy from Thailand), it has in part being taken over by hard-line jihadists.



I can tell you from first hand experience that the Thais don't mess around over there.


----------



## bellenuit (19 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> I can tell you from first hand experience that the Thais don't mess around over there.




But it can be quite over the top. 

There was the incident about 10 years ago where demonstrating Muslim students were arrested near Patani and packed into an unventilated truck and driven to Phuket, I think, for trial. Dozens had died of asphyxiation by the time they arrived


----------



## qldfrog (19 March 2019)

Thai and burmese know history, they are basically the only non muslim countries in the area from the previous Buddhist region.
ask balinese or the giant Buddhas of afghanistan if islam is the religion of peace.
 it is a survival fight, and the west should take note too, as for us, with Indonesia up north , i have no doubt who we will pray to in 200years, if still around


----------



## bellenuit (19 March 2019)

Anti-Muslim bigotry should replace Islamaphobia as the latter is misused.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> The Thai Malaysian border has had problems since 1948, but the violence escalated this century. It goes almost unreported in the West but since 2001 there have been about 500-600 killed each year and double that injured. Although it was originally an *ethnic separatist insurgency* (wanting autonomy from Thailand), it has in part being taken over by hard-line jihadists.



That is racism. Obviously multiculturalism doesn't sit well with them. (facetious remark )


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> A middle age backward code of life, similar totan army codecof conduct code well suited to the army hords it was written for initially, but now completely out of wack.



I hear you Frog. Foot to the floor, left hand down.


----------



## qldfrog (20 March 2019)

Wysiwyg said:


> I hear you Frog. Foot to the floor, left hand down.



Wysiwyg,
Have you read the Koran or still living in your nice flowery bubble?
Nothing to add, knowledge has been replaced by ideology.you are with the winners, but not your kids


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> To be exact a person called Value Collector ... on the previous thread ...
> *Imagine if the reason he said “Hello brother” was because he mistook the gunman for a member of isis or other Islamic group which he sympathized with.*
> 
> I would expect this not, from a country I love, nor my fellow Australians and in this I include NZ ...  it is not and should not be tolerated, but, it is what it is.
> ...




If you think I am racist or hateful against Muslims, I don’t think you have read many of my posts on this subject over the years.

While I am in general against religion I support religious freedom of indivuals and stand up for Muslims rights all the time on his site, I have supported them in many debates here, I am not against Islam any more than I am against any of the religions.

My comment seems to have wound you up a bit, I am honestly unsure why, I was simply pointing out a possibility (even though an unlikely one), the truth is none of us know what went through the guys head, we are just guessing, I was just pointing this fact in my own way.


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> OK, good start
> 
> Everyone has an interpretation of The Bible .The Quran and Harry Potter. It's ludicrous.
> You can't rely on YouTube, TV, Radio, or anyone else really, particularly in this era. Everyone spins it. Look at ISIS, look at nutters doing atrocities in the name of Christianity.
> I'll post how you interpret legal statutes when I have time, it's a good guide to interpretation of these things.




Hence if an all powerful god existed, I doubt he would write a book that needed to be constantly translated into new languages as old languages died.

The fact that “holy books” exist, is an arguement against the existence of a god in my opinion.


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Hence if an all powerful god existed, I doubt he would write a book that needed to be constantly translated into new languages as old languages died.
> 
> The fact that “holy books” exist, is an arguement against the existence of a god in my opinion.



Not really.  It's an argument against the God man created, but God may be something else entirely, different in every way to the God of the Bible,  Koran etc. 

Who knows?


----------



## Darc Knight (20 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Hence if an all powerful god existed, I doubt he would write a book that needed to be constantly translated into new languages as old languages died.
> 
> The fact that “holy books” exist, is an arguement against the existence of a god in my opinion.




You couldn't get a bite out Kahuana this morning now you're trying me hey. Heck I'll bite. Firstly, I don't believe in God, Jesus, Allah or the Lochness Monster. My issue is with people attacking good loving charitable defenseless people like true Christians. Coz if you live according to the New Testament that's the kind of person you become.

Even though you continually attack these good people, true Christians will still turn the other cheek and forgive you and love you VC. Pity you can't at least try to be similiar to them, rather than pursuing your agenda.


----------



## kahuna1 (20 March 2019)

Hello Brother,

Peace to all. We each have views, beliefs and ideals. My own, I thank others for pointing out, is unusual. Whilst I should know this, being made an ambassador of a site that helps people with 100,000 members was a surprise for me. In ones life, we all experience ups and downs.

We all read and listen to things. We are shaped by our experiences and often its the case, unless it happens to you, its to be ignored and at times feared.

I again thank others, for their input and honesty, which helped me better understand our differences.

Take care on your journeys and whilst one thinks I am angry or right or left wing, its actually the case neither is true.

PS if someone is calling me names or whatever, that too is fine. Or that my view offended them, or my distaste for theirs, so be it. It is what it is.

Mark K


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> You couldn't get a bite out Kahuana this morning now you're trying me hey. Heck I'll bite. Firstly, I don't believe in God, Jesus, Allah or the Lochness Monster. My issue is with people attacking good loving charitable defenseless people like true Christians. Coz if you live according to the New Testament that's the kind of person you become.
> 
> Even though you continually attack these good people, true Christians will still turn the other cheek and forgive you and love you VC. Pity you can't at least try to be similiar to them, rather than pursuing your agenda.




I didn’t try to get a bite from kahuna, lindysf left a note on my profile saying I had upset kahuna, so I came back on the thread to explain myself a bit better, before the note left on my profile I had no idea kahuna had mentioned me, he never actually quoted me so I didn’t get notified.

I have never attacked good charitable defenseless people.

I simply said it’s wrong to say all Christians are good charitable people, and it’s especially wrong to use the no true Scotsman fallacy to try and prove they are.

Remember not all Christians follow your interpretation of the NT, and simply saying if they don’t have your interpretation then they can’t be “true Christians” is a fallacy.


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Even though you continually attack these good people,




Can you quote me in a comment where I have attacked good people?

Because I think you must be either confusing me with someone else or exaggerating.


----------



## Darc Knight (20 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Can you quote me in a comment where I have attacked good people?
> 
> Because I think you must be either confusing me with someone else or exaggerating.




Vid of child being punched, that thing about child being beaten to death etc. I could go back through your ilI informed posts but I shan't, I can't turn the other cheek like those lovely true Christians.


----------



## ducati916 (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> OK, it 9AM and I've yet to have one coffee you heathens
> 
> The Bible and The Quran are basically codes of conduct. Skeptics say forms of social control like Statutes (Laws).
> Interpretation of Statutes is done thus:
> ...




The idea of using [legal] interpretative tools is while an interesting one, is unlikely to move you much farther down the road of [truly] understanding.

Legal interpretation is designed, or employed, to gain a result, where no agreement exists. It is arbitrary and one party is always unhappy.

The 'rules' have many issues. Some examples:

(a) _*Words that are reasonably capable of only one meaning must be given that meaning whatever the result. This is called the literal rule.*

Sirius International Insurance Co (Publ.) v FAI General Insurance Ltd_ [2004] (HL).

Lord Steyn:

"_What is literalism? It will depend on context. But an example is given in the works of William Paley (1838 ed) Vol III p.60: the tyrant Temures promised the garrison of Sebastia that no blood would be shed if they surrendered. They surrendered. He shed no blood. He buried them all alive. This is literalism._"

Essentially, the law dispensed with 'literalism' and moved to context. Context, as Wittgenstein wrote rejects any reductionist view that intentions can only be discerned from express intentions or linked to a state of mind at the precise point of utterance. It is, rather, suggestive of a large role for gap filling, whether through interpretation or the _implication_ of terms.

(b) *Ordinary words must be given their ordinary meanings and technical words their technical meanings, unless absurdity would result. This is the golden rule.
*
The language of [contract/law] is not directed at describing an experience but at controlling human behaviour. [I suppose it is arguable at which scripture is aiming]. The concern of the court is not with the truth of the language but with the expectation it raised in the parties.

Oliver Wendall Holmes:

"_Thereupon we ask, not what is meant, but what these words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used_."

This imports the test of 'objectivity'.

Lord Steyn [again]:

"_The interpretation of a legal text must aim to assign to the text...a meaning derived from its nature and contents. It cannot aim to discover what the parties to a contract...subjectively intended. Such a subjective enquiry cannot be expected to yield realistic results_."

Anyway, entire [legal] books have been written on the subject. There is currently extra-judicial argument between Lord Hoffmann and Lord Sumption re. contextual analysis. The two above examples are just the tiny tip of an immense iceberg.

jog on
duc


----------



## Tink (21 March 2019)

*Victorian parliament to consider axing Lord’s Prayer*

Daniel Andrews says a “multi-faith moment at the beginning of the parliamentary day” may offer a better reflection of modern, multicultural Victoria than the Lord’s Prayer, backing a move by his Special Minister of State to consider scrapping the century-old tradition or add prayers from other faiths alongside it.

Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings today referred the matter to an upper house committee of review, following calls from Reason Party leader Fiona Patten and the Greens to end a tradition Coalition MPs have defended as an important part of our Judaeo-Christian heritage and the Westminster system.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...r/news-story/c3b888d2507d608f5a471b3871f34094

The Lord's Prayer

_Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Amen_

----

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/i-dislike-daniel-andrews-intensely.32824/page-11


----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

Thanks Duc. I can't argue with someone who can rattle off precedents, Statutes and various quotes of esteemed Law makers off the top of their head. Retired Solicitor or Barrister I assume  Welcome back


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Vid of child being punched, that thing about child being beaten to death etc. I could go back through your ilI informed posts but I shan't, I can't turn the other cheek like those lovely true Christians.




How is that attacking “good people”?those things actually happened, and I simply showed it.

Do you think punching a child as hard as you can in the chest makes you a “good person”? If not how does me pointing it out mean I was attacking good people.

I know you will probably say that the pastor that did the punching isn’t a “true Christian” (even though he is running a church), but as I pointed out that is simply you editing who is and isn’t a Christian just to keep the concept pure in your mind, eg “no true Scotsman” fallacy


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Not really.  It's an argument against the God man created, but God may be something else entirely, different in every way to the God of the Bible,  Koran etc.
> 
> Who knows?




Yeah, or it might not exist at all.

It’s probably best to refrain from believeing in it until we have evidence for it.


----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

A distinction has to be drawn between people calling themselves Christians or Muslims and those who truly are. True Christians conduct themselves in accordance with the New Testament. I assume true Muslims conduct themselves in accordance with the Quran.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> A distinction has to be drawn between people calling themselves Christians or Muslims and those who truly are. True Christians conduct themselves in accordance with the New Testament. I assume true Muslims conduct themselves in accordance with the Quran.




Well, there is the problem.

The Bible and Quran are large documents capable of being cherry picked to suit one's own internal beliefs.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child" could be a justification for beating children for example.


----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> "Spare the rod and spoil the child" could be a justification for beating children for example.




Yes, but from a perspective of Love, not anger, viscousness and brutality. Abusing anyone isn't Christian.

But also that's Old Testament.


----------



## moXJO (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> A distinction has to be drawn between people calling themselves Christians or Muslims and those who truly are. True Christians conduct themselves in accordance with the New Testament. I assume true Muslims conduct themselves in accordance with the Quran.



Its the ideologies and separation of state that is the problem. 
Then we have what you mentioned. Those that do follow the teachings and those that warp the message and gather followers. Its not just limited to religion though.
Those two things become a larger problem.


----------



## wayneL (21 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, or it might not exist at all.
> 
> It’s probably best to refrain from believeing in it until we have evidence for it.



That could certainly be true too. I believe I have some soft evidence,  certainly nothing I'm prepared to share though. 

But,  TBH, if something does exist,  I don't think it actually cares whether we believe  or not, that is merely a human precondition. 

IMHO


----------



## qldfrog (21 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> what is happening with the current takeover of islam proselitism from the salafists and SA/qatar financed imams to the recent surge of turkish influence ergovan if i i spell it right.a few quotes of him on how they are taking over the west are interesting



Funny i typed this on Tuesday and he was in front page yesterday after his latest comments dangerous guy
But i agree he is using islam as a way to gain power.the trouble is it is much easier to slaughter your neighbours quoting the Coran than the Bible..but it can be done for both, or even in opposition to both


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> A distinction has to be drawn between people calling themselves Christians or Muslims and those who truly are. True Christians conduct themselves in accordance with the New Testament. I assume true Muslims conduct themselves in accordance with the Quran.




Since you accused me of attacking good people, can you please explain how me pointing out that a Christian pastor punched a child in the chest and then bragged about it to his flock could be seen as me “attacking good people”

Other wise can you provide some other examples, because you actually said I am continually attacking good people.

If you can’t provide examples to back up his claim I would like an apology or at least a retraction.

—————
As rumpole pointed out, the holy books get interpreted and cherry picked in many different ways.

If you want to limit the number of people we classify as Christians to those strictly following your interpretation and doing nothing wrong, then as I said before you would have to admit Christianity is not a major religion, and is quite small, because you would be deleting many of the brands and many individuals.


----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

VC, I'm not going to sit here wasting my time while you pick apart everything, twist things to suit your agenda and vendetta.
It's been discussed ad nauseum.


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, there is the problem.
> 
> The Bible and Quran are large documents capable of being cherry picked to suit one's own internal beliefs.
> 
> "Spare the rod and spoil the child" could be a justification for beating children for example.






also even Jesus said things that seem like they could be interpreted in ways that condone violence, for example he said this

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay _them_ before me”

Now he said that in a story, but the story doesn’t seem to be saying it is wrong, it seems to be a positive telling.

He also says he came to not bring peace but to bring a sword, I have personally heard American soldiers quote these verses to justify war fighting in the name of Jesus.


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> VC, I'm not going to sit here wasting my time while you pick apart everything, twist things to suit your agenda and vendetta.
> It's been discussed ad nauseum.




Dude, I just wish you wouldn’t make bold claims saying I am continually attacking good people and then not back it up.

The truth is your feeling got hurt, and you exaggerated what I said in your mind.


----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Dude, I just wish you wouldn’t make bold claims saying I am continually attacking good people and then not back it up.
> 
> The truth is your feeling got hurt, and you exaggerated what I said in your mind.




It was backed up, then you switch to something already discussed to pursue your agenda and vendetta again.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 March 2019)

I'll post this without comment and see what you think.


----------



## qldfrog (21 March 2019)

Interesting @SirRumpole


----------



## SirRumpole (21 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Interesting @SirRumpole




We can thank a mutual friend.


----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> also even Jesus said things that seem like they could be interpreted in ways that condone violence, for example he said this
> 
> “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay _them_ before me”
> 
> ...




You're a blatant liar VC. Saw I said I wouldn't respond so you threw that blatant lie in. Where in the Bible is that.
You're a blatant liar, you and your ilk.


----------



## cynic (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> You're a blatant liar VC. Saw I said I wouldn't respond so you threw that blatant lie in. Where in the Bible is that.
> You're a blatant liar, you and your ilk.



It is the tail end of one of Jesus' parables, and as such should ideally be quoted within the context of that parable. Sadly, as you will have undoubtedly already noticed, when cherry picked outside of context, it provides opportunity for misconstruance by those harbouring inimical agendas.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Luke/19/type/kjv


----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

cynic said:


> It is the tail end of one of Jesus' parables, and as such should ideally be quoted within the context of that parable. Sadly, as you will have undoubtedly already noticed, when cherry picked outside of context, it provides opportunity for misconstruance by those harbouring inimical agendas.
> 
> https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Luke/19/type/kjv




Mate, we can all say Jesus said this, Bob Hawke said that. No where in the Bible is that.
VC is just pursuing an agenda and vendetta.


----------



## cynic (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Mate, we can all say Jesus said this, Bob Hawke said that. No where in the Bible is that.
> VC is just pursuing an agenda and vendetta.



Rest assured, I am not seeking to defend the vindictiveness of those deliberately quoting it outside of its intended context.

It was at the tail end of one of His parables, which is why I first opted to link the entire chapter, rather than a single verse (please read the parable in its entirety before judging this particular verse):
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Luke/19/27/type/kjv


----------



## explod (21 March 2019)




----------



## Darc Knight (21 March 2019)

It's the saddest thing. These loving self sacrificing people getting attacked by the gay community or anyone.
I know, through my ex one couple running a small business and in their spare time creating and distributing these packs for homeless women. The wife is going blind because she won't take care of herself, she's too busy taking care of others. This is the scenario I see repeated so many times with Christians.
Anyway, they won't defend themselves why should I bother. Very sad.

But stuff the gay community and their bullying vendetta and stuff the Greens now too.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> This is the scenario I see repeated so many times with Christians.
> Anyway, they won't defend themselves why should I bother. Very sad.




Yes, that's the thing. People see the corruption of the church hierarchy and apply that to all church members. Totally false assumption.


----------



## qldfrog (21 March 2019)

DK, fully agree with you.
I am an atheist, catholic from birth..no one asked me
and I have a suspicion about Catholicism/Anglican due to the notion of hierarchy, 
but real Christians are some of the kindest people I have met.I am not talking fundamentalists but true believers.
The notion of not responding to violence and assault does not go well with me, I have more a jewish attitude of an eye for an eye.
But I pity the Christians who are now seeing there donations going to repay previous so called faults of the past, some 20 30y old which could very well have been imprinted..;I am not saying assaults did not happen but scientifically, after that time, they may not have happen yet be believed as true by the "assaulted"
And just think about it, as a true christian:
should a priest accused of molesting someone but actually innocent has any chance in a legal system? will he actually want to even defend himself and so expose the lie of a former practitioner..Think about it.
And they are often the first ones to donate and help the Muslim migrants, faith to the point of self destruction
What a world


----------



## explod (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> It's the saddest thing. These loving self sacrificing people getting attacked by the gay community or anyone.
> I know, through my ex one couple running a small business and in their spare time creating and distributing these packs for homeless women. The wife is going blind because she won't take care of herself, she's too busy taking care of others. This is the scenario I see repeated so many times with Christians.
> Anyway, they won't defend themselves why should I bother. Very sad.
> 
> But stuff the gay community and their bullying vendetta and stuff the Greens now too.



I have a very good friend who is gay, just retired from nursing, is a catholic and attends every Sunday.  When his Sister died of breast cancer he moved to his Brother-in-laws and helped bring p the children, both since grown up happily and now with their own children.

I was a Catholic from childhood and at 14 seriously considered the Priesthood.  Was an alterboy for 7 years in the days of Latin mind you.   I fond another path due to what I experienced and from my studies at Uni.

Whilst working with my brother at a recycle timber shed he had at Thomastown where we got to know a couple very well, they told us their Son had cancer and it looked bad.  A couiple of months later she returned and I asked how are things going, she said he is dying, I said how can you handle that, she said it's ok, I pray often and he will be in the hands of Jesus.  They Catholics also.

It should be obvious that the Greens in particular are for all religions.  When I was in Bendigo a few years back the town rose up against a Mosque being built.  Several Greens were on Council and after a tremendous fight we were able get the Mosque approved.

So not sure where you are Darc Knight but it would be good for us to be friends and work this out.


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> It was backed up, then you switch to something already discussed to pursue your agenda and vendetta again.




You have lost me, I honestly have no idea who these “good people” are that you say I have attacked.

My simple position is, there are many brands and versions of Christianity, and they aren’t all perfect, and you saying if they do something bad they are real Christians is silly.

Your position that there is only one “true” interpretation is also silly, if that were so, there wouldn’t be 10,000+ brands of Christians.


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> You're a blatant liar VC. Saw I said I wouldn't respond so you threw that blatant lie in. Where in the Bible is that.
> You're a blatant liar, you and your ilk.




Look up Luke 19:27.

https://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

Again I will have to request an apology from you, you are very quick to call me a liar, yet you say I am the one attacking people.

It’s not my fault you don’t know you Bible, for this verse is certainly there in my bible.


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Mate, we can all say Jesus said this, Bob Hawke said that. No where in the Bible is that.
> VC is just pursuing an agenda and vendetta.




As I said you obviously don’t know your Bible, please check the verse I quoted apologise or at least admit I am not lying and the verse I quoted exists.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> As I said you obviously don’t know your Bible, please check the verse I quoted apologise or at least admit I am not lying and the verse I quoted exists.




You have apparently taken this out of context.

Jesus did not say those words as a command, he was telling a parable in which a rich man said the words to his servants.

You probably like this bit.

*"
Then he told those standing by, ‘Take the mina from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ 

25‘Master,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ 

26He replied, ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him."
*
Robbing the rich to pay the poor, good idea ?

Obviously Jesus never said that, quite the reverse.


----------



## moXJO (21 March 2019)

11While the people were listening to this, Jesus proceeded to tell them a parable, because He was near Jerusalem and they thought the kingdom of God would appear imminently. 12So He said, “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to lay claim to his kingship and then return. 13Beforehand, he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.a‘Conduct business with this until I return,’ he said. 14But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’ 15When he returned from procuring his kingship, he summoned the servants to whom he had given the money, to find out what each one had earned. 16The first servant came forward and said, ‘Master, your mina has produced ten more minas.’ 17His master replied, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very small matter, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18The second servant came and said, ‘Master, your mina has made five minas.’ 19And to this one he said, ‘You shall have authority over five cities.’ 20Then another servant came and said, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have laid away in a piece of cloth. 21For I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man. You withdraw what you did not deposit and reap what you did not sow.’ 22His master replied, ‘You wicked servant, I will judge you by your own words. So you knew that I am a harsh man, withdrawing what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not deposit my money in the bank, and upon my return I could have collected it with interest?’ 24Then he told those standing by, ‘Take the mina from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’ 25‘Master,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’ 26He replied, ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.’”  

Its in the link you sent but you have to click on "read chapter".


----------



## Value Collector (21 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> You have apparently taken this out of context.
> 
> Jesus did not say those words as a command, he was telling a parable in which a rich man said the words to his servants.
> 
> ...




I didn’t mention any context, I said it was from a parable.

I was simply saying these sorts of verses exist, and can be interpreted in different ways.

I actually said I was confused by the parable, because it doesn’t seem to be told as a bad thing.

But you have to be careful with claiming to know he context, as I said many Christians will read the same parable and claim the other brand is taking it out of context.

Which brand is correct? Do we just take DK as the ultimate judge of what is Christian and what isn’t?

I am not claiming anything about who is and who isn’t, a “true Christian” that’s DK


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 March 2019)

Australia is doing very well as a broadly non-religious country. There is a great opportunity here to live a peaceful, harmonious and happy reality without the belief type bull dung.


----------



## Tink (21 March 2019)

*Religion in Australia* is diverse. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia of 1901 prohibits the Commonwealth government from establishing a church or interfering with the freedom of religion.[note 1] In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.2% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity. Historically the percentage was far higher; now, the religious landscape of Australia is changing and diversifying.[1] In 2016, 30.1% of Australians stated "no religion" and a further 9.6% chose not to answer the question.[1] Other faiths include Muslims (2.6%), Buddhists (2.4%), Hindus (1.9%), Sikhs (0.5%), and Jews (0.4%).[1]As per the 2016 Census, Sikhism is the fastest growing religion in Australia which showed a 74% increase from the 2011 census followed by Hinduism(60% increase) and Irreligion(48% increase).[3]

Australia's Aboriginal people developed the animist spirituality of the Dreaming and some of the earliest evidence on earth for religious practices among humans has been found in the archaeological record of their ancestors. Torres Strait Islander religion bore similarities to broader Melanesian spirituality. The general isolation of indigenous Australian religion ended with the arrival of the first British settlers in 1788, whereafter subsequent immigrants and their descendants have been predominantly Christian.

While the Church of England originally held a position of privilege in early colonial Australia, a legal framework guaranteeing religious equality evolved within a few decades.[4] Large numbers of Irish Catholics were transported to Australia through the British criminal justice system.[5] British Nonconformist Methodist, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists set up their own churches in the 19th century, as did Lutherans from Germany.[6][7]

Smaller groups also arrived and established their churches. Jews started arriving in the early 19th century. The Australian gold rushes brought in workers from China and the Pacific islands, as well as specialised workers from British India, such as the mainly Muslim "Afghan Cameleers".

While Australia has a strong tradition of secular government, religious organisations have played a significant role in public life. The Protestant and Catholic churches played an integral role in the development of education, health and welfare services.[8][9]

Today, around a quarter of Christians attend church weekly; around a quarter of all school students attend church-affiliated schools.[10] The Christian festivals of Easter and Christmas are public holidays.[11]

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


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 March 2019)

Tink said:


> As per the 2016 Census, Sikhism is the fastest growing religion in Australia which showed a 74% increase from the 2011 census followed by Hinduism(60% increase).



This is because Indians now challenge Chinese to the top spot as main immigrants to Australia, not because of conversion. They tick that box at census time.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

@kahuna1 a couple of days ago you said something, I can't find the post, but it went something like "that's what makes us human". You didn't mention it but I took it you were talking about EMPATHY. Some people lack it, a lot of them are Sociopaths/Psychopaths, whether "sucessful sociopaths" or the other ones who generally end up in Jail. But a lot of them thrive, knowing how to work the system.
I don't have your tolerance for these people, my experience leads me to believe the only way to deal with these people lacking empathy (like VC)  is harshly, that's the only way these people change. I think our justice system (eventually) agrees with me.


----------



## Value Collector (22 March 2019)

Tink said:


> In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.2% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity.




According to Dark Knight, we can’t count most of them as “true Christians” though, Only the ones that do no wrong and dedicate their lives to charity are “true Christians”.

So I guess maybe the real figure should be less than 1% of Australians are Christians.

You can’t have it both ways, eg claim Christianity is the dominant religion, but then when it suits you apply a strict definition that cuts out 99% of the members.


----------



## Value Collector (22 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> @kahuna1
> I don't have your tolerance for these people, my experience leads me to believe the only way to deal with these people lacking empathy (like VC)  is harshly, that's the only way these people change. I think our justice system (eventually) agrees with me.




Again with the insults.

What have I said that leads you to think I don’t have empathy?

I am an ethical Vegan, because I have empathy not just for humans but for animals also, that alone proves I have more empathy than most.

You just have your nose out of joint because I have pointed out that simply being Christian doesn’t automatically make you a good person.

I challenge you to link a comment I have made that shows in any way that I am a sociopath lacking empathy.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> According to Dark Knight, we can’t count most of them as “true Christians” though, Only the ones that do no wrong and dedicate their lives to charity are “true Christians”.




That's probably a fair statement.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

And in certain situations they know how to thrive.


----------



## qldfrog (22 March 2019)

They usually always know if they are intelligent, if not they end up in jail, but psychopath and high iq is a scary mix.
There is plenty of nasty things we could do with hardly any chance of getting caught but do not. 
Be it crime fraud tax evasion but both empathy and a system of values are the brakes


Darc Knight said:


> And in certain situations they know how to thrive.


----------



## moXJO (22 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> @kahuna1 a couple of days ago you said something, I can't find the post, but it went something like "that's what makes us human". You didn't mention it but I took it you were talking about EMPATHY. Some people lack it, a lot of them are Sociopaths/Psychopaths, whether "sucessful sociopaths" or the other ones who generally end up in Jail. But a lot of them thrive, knowing how to work the system.
> I don't have your tolerance for these people, my experience leads me to believe the only way to deal with these people lacking empathy (like VC)  is harshly, that's the only way these people change. I think our justice system (eventually) agrees with me.



No, I think you agreed on his point,  just not the way he went about it. 
You would have to agree that there are those who practice and a large group that just  preach.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> No, I think you agreed on his point,  just not the way he went about it.
> You would have to agree that there are those who practice and a large group that just  preach.




Not sure about your first sentence, but on your second one Yes. But those who preach without practicing can hardly be called true Christians - they are frauds, or failing to live as the New Testament teaches.

And those who live loving self sacrificing lives should not be attacked.


----------



## Value Collector (22 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> but both empathy and a system of values are the brakes




Agreed, but religion doesn’t automatically create empathy in fact it can hinder it, because it creates “in groups” and “out groups”.

Religion can also reinforce “values” that are not good, and in some cases totally immoral or at a minimum prevent progress onto better values.


----------



## Value Collector (22 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> And those who live loving self sacrificing lives should not be attacked.




And I have never attacked them.

As you continually fail to see, I am simply pointing out that most Christians don’t meet your strict definition of what a Christian is.

Take a moment to actually look up what the “no true Scotsman fallacy” is, it’s a real common logical fallacy that applies to lots of areas, and you are commiting it here.

—————

It is also rather telling that you have gotten so emotional about it that you have attacked my character rather than my points.

You have called me a liar, a sociopath and have said I am attacking innocent good people none of which is true.

All I have done is point out a logical fallacy you were making, and give a few examples and you have flew of the handle and started throwing insults.


----------



## Value Collector (22 March 2019)

Please watch this short video that describes the fallacy.

You will see Dark Knight wanting to rule out all the examples of Christians that do things he don’t agree with is a perfect example of he no true Scotsman fallacy.


----------



## moXJO (22 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Please watch this short video that describes the fallacy.
> 
> You will see Dark Knight wanting to rule out all the examples of Christians that do things he don’t agree with is a perfect example of he no true Scotsman fallacy.




Is it still valid if it plainly goes against the teachings or rules of the religion or topic at hand? 
Eg:
If a Christian went against teachings and killed people in the name of Christianity. 
He isn't really a Christian? 

Just so I understand it better.


----------



## Value Collector (22 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Is it still valid if it plainly goes against the teachings or rules of the religion or topic at hand?
> Eg:
> If a Christian went against teachings and killed people in the name of Christianity.
> He isn't really a Christian?
> ...




There are many interpretations of the Bible, and alot of Christians don’t believe all killing is wrong.

They will agree murder is wrong, but they may agree with there death penalty and killing during war etc as being totally acceptable under Christianity.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> They will agree murder is wrong, but they may agree with there death penalty and killing during war etc as being totally acceptable under Christianity.




Not necessarily.

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


----------



## explod (22 March 2019)

We just need to clearly stamp the word "Fiction" across the covers of bibles and leave it at that. 

Was at a bookstore yesterday trying to find a title and was told. "no we don't have any of that sort of thing anymore, it's all just fiction"

So it should still sell well.


----------



## moXJO (22 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> There are many interpretations of the Bible, and alot of Christians don’t believe all killing is wrong.
> 
> They will agree murder is wrong, but they may agree with there death penalty and killing during war etc as being totally acceptable under Christianity.



There are hard and fast rules to Christianity though.
Lets say I started playing soccer. And proceeded to box and knockout the ref and every player on the field. Then freely kick goals.
I'm playing soccer so I'd be classed as a soccer player. I could identify as a soccer player. But you wouldn't be accepted under the rules or other players.

On the flip side what if greater numbers accepted my method, does it then become accepted as legitimate soccer.

If there are rules, does it just become about choosing who you identify with and using the label?

I understand what you are saying in regards to interpretations though.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

Plod, everytime VC gets proven to be lying through his teeth you jump in to deflect attention off his blatant lies.
Don't give me any of your pre-election BS "can we be friends and sort this out". Too many strikes.

He's a disgrace.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 March 2019)

Nothing better to stir up emotion than religion.

Or football.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

Interesting to point out that in the current paradigm it is completely cool to bag out Christianity.... as it should be in a free society with free speech. 

...but it is hate speech to bag out Islam. 

Let that sink in... again.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Interesting to point out that in the current paradigm it is completely cool to bag out Christianity.... as it should be in a free society with free speech.
> 
> ...but it is hate speech to bag out Islam.
> 
> Let that sink in... again.




Imagine how much the BS will amplify if the Greens get more power.


----------



## Macquack (22 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Not sure about your first sentence, but on your second one Yes. But those who preach without practicing can hardly be called true Christians - they are frauds, or failing to live as the New Testament teaches.
> 
> And those who live loving self sacrificing lives should not be attacked.



Darc Knight, I am intrigued to know why you chose not to be a Christian?


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

Macquack said:


> Darc Knight, I am intrigued to know why you chose not to be a Christian?




Can't live the Creed Mate. I love a drink and a good time and I don't believe in God. But I have done a lot of volunteer work in the past. A security Mate used to "work the door" of a major inner city Church  Didn't he cop some stick.

They are the most beautiful caring people though.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Can't live the Creed Mate. I love a drink and a good time and I don't believe in God. But I have done a lot of volunteer work in the past. A security Mate used to "work the door" of a major inner city Church  Didn't he cop some stick.
> 
> They are the most beautiful caring people though.



I'm not an Atheist,  but I don't believe the Bible is the word of God (hence I don't do church), yet I have my reasons for believing in the existence of.... well,  some form of... other realm?  Or something? Not quite sure what. 

But I wear a cross I made myself from horseshoe nails (it's kinda bold and rustic. People may think it's shyte, but  it's mine,  it has my vibe). 

Why?  Because I believe in cultural Christianity,  that we can pick the good bits and toss what we don't like.  I believe that western culture such as it is(despite it's drawbacks and capacity for improvement ), is a doggone miracle. And I believe that our collective Christian, New Testement basis is largely responsible for that. 

So it's my way of claiming, owning and defending that, because it's damn well worth defending... from without AND within. 

I support your feelings here, Bruce.  Believe what you want to believe, eschew overt proselytizing BS and religious legalism , but recognise and promote the good.

FWIW & IMO


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Interesting to point out that in the current paradigm it is completely cool to bag out Christianity.... as it should be in a free society with free speech.
> 
> ...but it is hate speech to bag out Islam.
> 
> Let that sink in... again.




It's a sad reflection on our Society when Christians and their Churches need Security because of all the misdirected abuse. I've been there when Idiots kick the front door and start yelling abuse at the Christians. Next thing me and a Moari Mate come out and they take off. Even when they don't and they just stand there yelling abuse these Christians stand there so peaceful and loving and forgiving. Then I've almost had to drag my Moari security mate inside  The Lord forgives, he doesn't.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

One night two skinny buggers were trying to rip a fence down. One under each Armpit as I forcibly pulled them off the fence and removed them from the property. Little mouthy tykes, musta been Vegans


----------



## Darc Knight (22 March 2019)

Someone made threats they were coming with a Gun or Guns. I rock up Friday or Saturday night to chat to Security. I come in and the two old retired volunteers hav raided the Church sporting cupboard. All the tennis racquets, cricket bats, stumps etc are lined against this table. I couldn't stop laughing. I doubt the old Christians knew how to use them, but against bullets???


----------



## SirRumpole (22 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Someone made threats they were coming with a Gun or Guns. I rock up Friday or Saturday night to chat to Security. I come in and the two old retired volunteers hav raided the Church sporting cupboard. All the tennis racquets, cricket bats, stumps etc are lined against this table. I couldn't stop laughing. I doubt the old Christians knew how to use them, but against bullets???




Some metal ping pong bats might come in handy too.

Ever watched Dad's Army ?


----------



## Value Collector (23 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_pacifism




Did you know that the Australian army Chaplin Corps motto is “in this sign conquer” and their logo is the cross.

As I said different people have different interpretations, I am not the person saying all true Christians believe the same thing, that’s DK.

My uncle is a pacifist Christian (Jehovah witness) that is against the army and says he would rather be killed than defend himself, however there are also, Christians in the Army, the army actually has a Corp of preists and pastors called the Chaplin Corp, and they preach that their is good Christian reasons to fight wars.


----------



## Value Collector (23 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Plod, everytime VC gets proven to be lying through his teeth you jump in to deflect attention off his blatant lies.
> Don't give me any of your pre-election BS "can we be friends and sort this out". Too many strikes.
> 
> He's a disgrace.




Where did I lie?

Are you still talking about the Bible verse I quoted, Because I provided a link for you to show the Bible verse is there.


----------



## Value Collector (23 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> There are hard and fast rules to Christianity though.




Not really, as I have said different Christian groups interpret things different.

For example, some Christians interpret the 10 commandments as saying you should never kill ever, while others interpret it as you shouldn’t murder, and they don’t consider the death penalty, war or self defense as murder.

Some Christian groups think being gay is a sin, others are now fine with it, the list goes on, they read the same book, but interpret things differently, I bit like lawyers.

If there was only one interpretation there wouldn’t be 10,000+ brands.


----------



## Value Collector (23 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> Interesting to point out that in the current paradigm it is completely cool to bag out Christianity.... as it should be in a free society with free speech.
> 
> ...but it is hate speech to bag out Islam.
> 
> Let that sink in... again.




I am fine with bagging out Islam, just as I bag out Christianity, it is only when it crosses the line and becomes more about attacking the people rather than the ideas, that I have an issue.

Despite what DK says, I am not attacking “Christians” in general, I am not saying all Christians are bad, or trying to take any of their rights away.

DK has just flipped his lid a bit, it’s clear to see he isn’t capable of having a rational conversation on this topic, without resorting to throwing insults.


----------



## Macquack (23 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> If there was only one interpretation there wouldn’t be 10,000+ brands.



They can't all be right, which gives me further grounds for being a atheist.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Not really, as I have said different Christian groups interpret things different.
> 
> For example, some Christians interpret the 10 commandments as saying you should never kill ever, while others interpret it as you shouldn’t murder, and they don’t consider the death penalty, war or self defense as murder.
> 
> ...




All the above applies to Muslims too, agreed ?


----------



## Darc Knight (23 March 2019)

VC, I don't respect you as a human being or as a knowledgeable contributor on this topic.
Firstly, you're a spoilt brat whose Mummy n Daddy loaned you the money to invest. Mummy n Daddy then took care of your investment Property whilst you were off pursuing your sexual fetishes on the Taxpayer'' coin.
Secondly, your continued lies and propoganda aren't just based on naivety, the are a vendetta.

Yep, not nice but the truth and more charitable than VC's trype. Cue the complaints and whatever else. I can't stand being on the same page or website as this "person".


----------



## Tink (23 March 2019)

VC, our preamble is

*Under Almighty God.*

That is our heritage.

https://www.army.gov.au/our-history


----------



## Value Collector (23 March 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> VC, I don't respect you as a human being or as a knowledgeable contributor on this topic.
> Firstly, you're a spoilt brat whose Mummy n Daddy loaned you the money to invest. Mummy n Daddy then took care of your investment Property whilst you were off pursuing your sexual fetishes on the Taxpayer'' coin.
> Secondly, your continued lies and propoganda aren't just based on naivety, the are a vendetta.
> 
> Yep, not nice but the truth and more charitable than VC's trype. Cue the complaints and whatever else. I can't stand being on the same page or website as this "person".




You seem to have a lot of pent up hatred for me, that’s fine, but where is it coming from, surely it can’t be just our discussion in this thread, I am confused because I thought we had had a lot of positive interactions in other threads.

Do you know me in real life? Have I done something to you I am unaware of?

The reason I ask is because of what you said, although you got the details wrong, it’s close enough to make me think you might know someone in my family.

For example you said My mum and dad loaned me money, that’s not actually true, they only signed up as guarantor for a $40,000 component of a bank loan used as deposit for my first homeloan, they never loaned me money it was loaned from the bank.

And they only felt comfortable doing that because of my long track record of saving and investing from 12years old to 19years old.

You also mentioned they “looked after” my property, but you failed to mention that I paid them a management fee for doing so, and still to this day pay my Dad at an above market rate to do the lawns at another property.

By off pursuing sexual fetishes on tax payer coin you are obviously talking about the wage I earned working interstate and overseas serving in the Army, obviously I wasn’t always available to fix a leaking tap at a property, and paying my father who is a handyman to do it seemed like a win win.

As for sexual fetishes, I can assure you I have had less sexual partners than most and have been with the same girl since I was 21.


----------



## Value Collector (23 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> All the above applies to Muslims too, agreed ?




Yep, exactly the same. 

Hence why we should tar all Muslims with the same brush, simply being Muslim (or Christian) doesn’t automatically make you good or bad.

You can cherry pick good and bad from both religions.


----------



## Value Collector (23 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Yep, exactly the same.
> 
> Hence why we should tar all Muslims with the same brush, simply being Muslim (or Christian) doesn’t automatically make you good or bad.
> 
> You can cherry pick good and bad from both religions.




I meant to say “shouldn’t” tar all Muslims with the same brush


----------



## ducati916 (23 March 2019)

So, just heard on the radio that the 'Manifesto' has been declared an illegal document. It [apparently] crosses the line of being considered pursuant to 'free speech'.

jog on
duc


----------



## explod (23 March 2019)

Love this:


----------



## ghotib (23 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Did you know that the Australian army Chaplin Corps motto is “in this sign conquer” and their logo is the cross....
> 
> ... the army actually has a Corp of preists and pastors called the Chaplin Corp, and they preach that their is good Christian reasons to fight wars.



At the risk of being flippant and/or pedantic, I point out that a Chaplin Corp would be full of people like this: 

https://theconversation.com/for-a-primer-on-how-to-make-fun-of-nazis-look-to-charlie-chaplin-82574

The Army mob are actually Chaplains. I don't whether Chaplin or Chaplain is the funnier.


----------



## basilio (23 March 2019)

ghotib said:


> At the risk of being flippant and/or pedantic, I point out that a Chaplin Corp would be full of people like this:
> 
> https://theconversation.com/for-a-primer-on-how-to-make-fun-of-nazis-look-to-charlie-chaplin-82574
> 
> The Army mob are actually Chaplains. I don't whether Chaplin or Chaplain is the funnier.



Good story on The Great Dictator. Well worth a read !


----------



## So_Cynical (23 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> So it's my way of claiming, owning and defending that, because it's damn well worth defending... from without AND within.




Defending against what? the alternatives are just not that appealing, with compulsory 2 party preferred voting a nutter like Trump or some kind of fundamentalist can never win here, in our society an Erdoğan or Hanson can never rise to any major position of power, the majority of us is just not that stupid.

No vigilance or defending required.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Good story on The Great Dictator. Well worth a read !




This, from Chaplin's movie, is one of the best speeches in cinema - inspirational.


----------



## IFocus (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> This, from Chaplin's movie, is one of the best speeches in cinema - inspirational.





"We think too much and feel too little." 


Piffft another socialist left wing greens Marxist destroying our culture ............


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

IFocus said:


> Piffft another socialist left wing greens Marxist destroying our culture ............



"...  then *in the name of democracy* let us use that power, let us all unite, let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age a security by the promise if these things ... soldiers *in the name of democracy*, let us all unite."

Some people cannot but help create, then realise, their own delusions.
Others are left to deal with the aftermath.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

IFocus said:


> "We think too much and feel too little."
> 
> 
> Piffft another socialist left wing greens Marxist destroying our culture ............



Well he was based in fantasy.

.


rederob said:


> "...  then *in the name of democracy* let us use that power, let us all unite, let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age a security by the promise if these things ... soldiers *in the name of democracy*, let us all unite."
> 
> Some people cannot but help create, then realise, their own delusions.
> Others are left to deal with the aftermath.




Lets all get pet lamas as well

Speeches are great. Do fck all though. And filled with fantasy idealism.
It was the action and sacrifice of millions of men that actually provided the solution.

It would be nice if the world all acted in such a manner. But lets be real here. 
Thats a fantasy outcome at this stage.

All the guys that fought against Isis were the ones that gave freedom. And that was against a force that would stop at nothing to get what they want.

But keep pretending speeches like this changed the world. Not the men who are tasked with the will and the action to carry out what needs to be done.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Well he was based in fantasy.
> Lets all get pet lamas as well
> Speeches are great. Do fck all though. And filled with fantasy idealism.
> It was the action and sacrifice of millions of men that actually provided the solution.
> ...



Learn to read and understand what was written.
Are you related to Wayne?


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Learn to read and understand what was written.
> Are you related to Wayne?





rederob said:


> Learn to read and understand what was written.
> Are you related to Wayne?



Learn to discuss a topic in its entirety instead of short meaningless jabs and sjw pushing dribble.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Are you related to Wayne?



Wayne jabs seem to be your specialty by the way. Even when he isn't in the conversation.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Learn to discuss a topic in its entirety instead of short meaningless jabs and sjw pushing dribble.



Your commentary completely missed *all *the points made.
And whatever an *sjw *is relevant only to you.
Chaplin was speaking to his soldiers, imploring them to *fight *for democracy. 
My remarks on that speech addressed those who are delusional - as Chaplin was mocking Hitler - and I clearly stated  "Others are left to deal with the aftermath."
Your rant made a meal of this latter point.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

Put his speech up in its entirety.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Wayne jabs seem to be your specialty by the way. Even when he isn't in the conversation.



I occasionally address his ignorance on matters, as I address yours.
Both you and he seem to want to label everything.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Put his speech up in its entirety.



I linked to it earlier in the thread, but you run off your keyboard in the usual clueless manner.
More, "...and so long as men die, liberty will never perish."


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> I linked to it earlier in the thread, but you run off your keyboard in the usual clueless manner.



Let me get that out of video for you.


> I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible. Jew - Gentile - Black Man, White. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness. Not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. And this world has room for everyone, and the good Earth is rich can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has posioned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives us abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynincal. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much, and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More that cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities life will be violent, and all will be lost. The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men - cries out for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. ... Soldiers! don't give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don't hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: "the Kingdom of God is within man" - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then - in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will! Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite




This is the speech...
A great speech.
Idealistic BS though, as they often are.


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> This is the speech...
> A great speech.
> Idealistic BS though, as they often are.



Chaplin implored soldiers to *fight *for democracy.


moXJO said:


> It was the action and sacrifice of millions of men that actually provided the solution.



 "...and so long as men die, liberty will never perish."
You simply cannot accept what you stated was in fact what his speech was about.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Chaplin implored soldiers to fight for democracy.
> You simply cannot accept what you stated was in fact what his speech was about.




The first part and the part you quoted, yes I can.
It will never happen. 

Imo while he seems to be talking to soldiers to fight for liberty, I took it as fighting for liberty and not in the militaristic sense.
Eg:







> And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. ... Soldiers! don't give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don't hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: "the Kingdom of God is within man" - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.




Had double meaning. One that had to be used for the times (war against nazis) and the greater meaning of not killing your fellow man but fighting for freedom of the people from those that are in control. (I'm not up to speed on Chaplin history though). And if we look at it as if it talks directly to the soldiers, its hypocrisy.

But it is a great way to get people roused enough to go die for a cause. Even if misused. In the end Germany ended up in slavery. 
The truth is; freedom and democracy is for the victorious. 

Great speech though.


----------



## basilio (24 March 2019)

Speechs don't do anything ? 
Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Trump., Mao ?

The point of a powerful, passionate speech is to move people. To make them  want to follow your lead. To bring into reality the world you are envisioning.

It can be noble or nasty. Cooperative or despotic. But words are weapons. Why else did the forces behind the Christchurch murderer enable a Manifesto to be written and widely publicised ?


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Speechs don't do anything ?
> Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Trump., Mao ?
> 
> The point of a powerful, passionate speech is to move people. To make them  want to follow your lead. To bring into reality the world you are envisioning.
> ...



Theres bringing into reality things that can be done. 

Then the fantasy type bs they sell to you to risk your life for. I should have been more clear. Unicorns and rainbow speeches are great as an idea. Feel inspirational. End up dead in the water generally. 
They are used after the fact as well. Decision is already made, now lets throw some feelgood on top.

Almost art.
But reality in most situations is that its never going to be like that.


----------



## basilio (24 March 2019)

In my view MoXjo you undervalue the effect of powerful  speakers and ideas. Churchills'  speeches saying England would fight till the end, on the beaches ect were key elements in keeping support for a war that seemed lost.

Roosevelt fireside chats during the Depression were ongoing  efforts to reassure a nation that was seeing it's whole future disappearing in bankruptcy and unemployment. 

Hitlers speeches were epic. They were crafted and polished to bring a nation on the road to a 1000 year Reich.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/churchills-greatest-speeches/


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Speechs don't do anything ?
> Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Trump., Mao ?



Don't forget Obama....

There has to be will of action both from those making it and their supporters.

But you are right words do have power.
On the masses that are already sold on the idea. In fact I now believe speech is too powerful and should be banned. You are exactly correct. 

Speech is too powerful and dangerous. Lets ban speech deemed too powerful.


----------



## wayneL (24 March 2019)

I'm going to be AWOL for a while gents. Possibly an upcoming bereavement so don't feel much like arguing.

Hasta la vista.


----------



## Value Collector (24 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Speechs don't do anything ?
> Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Trump., Mao ?
> 
> The point of a powerful, passionate speech is to move people. To make them  want to follow your lead. To bring into reality the world you are envisioning.
> ...




Talking about speeches.

The hall of presidents show at Disney world features a lot of the great speeches that helped build America


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Imo while he seems to be talking to soldiers to fight for liberty, I took it as fighting for liberty and not in the militaristic sense.



Yes, *only you* would contend that telling soldiers to die so that liberty does not perish has no militaristic sense - hardly credible.


moXJO said:


> Had double meaning. One that had to be used for the times (war against nazis) and the greater meaning of not killing your fellow man but fighting for freedom of the people from those that are in control. (I'm not up to speed on Chaplin history though). And if we look at it as if it talks directly to the soldiers, its hypocrisy.



Again, you missed the points as made.  Chaplin separately addresses these senses during his speech.
You keep inventing your own narrative.


moXJO said:


> But it is a great way to get people roused enough to go die for a cause. Even if misused. In the end Germany ended up in slavery.



If you had basic comprehension skills you would have picked his quite separate senses.
In the end (as meaning now and the case for several decades) Germany became the economic and industrial powerhouse of Europe.
But I guess you will again twist what you want to believe what you like.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

.



basilio said:


> In my view MoXjo you undervalue the effect of powerful  speakers and ideas. Churchills'  speeches saying England would fight till the end, on the beaches ect were key elements in keeping support for a war that seemed lost.
> 
> Roosevelt fireside chats during the Depression were ongoing  efforts to reassure a nation that was seeing it's whole future disappearing in bankruptcy and unemployment.
> 
> ...




No you are absolutely right. Words are powerful. Powerful enough that (screw liberties) people need to be censored. Anyone republishing speech we don't like needs to be jailed (at least 6 years).
And people need to be assaulted.

I believe 100% that words are dangerous and therefore we should punish all those against us.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes, *only you* would contend that telling soldiers to die so that liberty does not perish has no militaristic sense - hardly credible.
> Again, you missed the points as made.  Chaplin separately addresses these senses during his speech.
> You keep inventing your own narrative.
> If you had basic comprehension skills you would have picked his quite separate senses.
> ...



Mmm hmm


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes, *only you* would contend that telling soldiers to die so that liberty does not perish has no militaristic sense - hardly credible.
> Again, you missed the points as made.  Chaplin separately addresses these senses during his speech.
> .




Read it again as is written.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Read it again as is written.



No bites? 

Fine.... Chaplain was a pacifist even met Ghandi. Refused to enlist etc. You still want to reduce his speech to kill nazis?


----------



## qldfrog (24 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm going to be AWOL for a while gents. Possibly an upcoming bereavement so don't feel much like arguing.
> 
> Hasta la vista.



Sorry to hear that Wayne.Hope you will be OK


----------



## IFocus (24 March 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm going to be AWOL for a while gents. Possibly an upcoming bereavement so don't feel much like arguing.
> 
> Hasta la vista.





Condolences, take care hope to see you back soon cheers


----------



## grah33 (24 March 2019)

It's been a while since I chimed in. God exists or not, I find there is something powerful about the Christian lifestyle. I've been doing a little self denial (nothing rigid) in recent months, and am surprised by this 'order' that I've been feeling within . That's primarily why I don't post much anymore .  All of it really – phone, texting, cooking, even arguing with dubious  acquaintances– just less of everything , which is good. In fact, along with the other benefits I'm getting, I think it's really good. But I should actually respond to another post from some time ago.


----------



## grah33 (24 March 2019)

You may be surprised that the 3 main religions regard suicide (not in all instances though) as a highly selfish act, likened to murder, and worthy of eternal perdition .  And this is what quite a few people -even on this forum – think , so should be pointed out.

There is definitely something selfish to ending your life imo, if it's not going how you want it to go.

Augustine (City of God from memory) provides a different perspective .


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Read it again as is written.





moXJO said:


> No bites?
> 
> Fine.... Chaplain was a pacifist even met Ghandi. Refused to enlist etc. You still want to reduce his speech to kill nazis?



You simply do *not *get it, do you.
This was about *democracy*.
That to preserve it we have soldiers willing to commit themselves to fight.
The first half of Chaplin's speech was about the values we *all* should hold dear, and about those trying to suppress them.  
The obvious backdrop of Nazism was convenient, and as Hitler borrowed Chaplin's famous moustache, it was doubly useful to mock him.
Chaplin could just have easily referenced Stalin's pogroms, or his liquidation of _*kulaks *_in the early 1930s.  But Chaplin bore no resemblance to Stalin.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You simply do *not *get it, do you.
> This was about *democracy*.
> That to preserve it we have soldiers willing to commit themselves to fight.
> The first half of Chaplin's speech was about the values we *all* should hold dear, and about those trying to suppress them.
> ...



Not fight and die in wars champ. He was a pacifist. Read his speech. 
Comprehension is apparently your strong point.


----------



## moXJO (24 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You simply do *not *get it, do you.



Ohhh.....I get it.
You took a fine bottle of 1811 Chateau d’Yquem and turned it into fruity lexia


----------



## rederob (24 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Not fight and die in wars champ. He was a pacifist. Read his speech.
> Comprehension is apparently your strong point.



You have yet to make a point which is credible.
He clearly intends through his speech that men should be willing to *die *for democracy.
That dies not conform with pacifism.
You need to separate Chaplin as a person in real life from his movie role.
You clutch at straws, invent new meanings, and deny the obvious.


----------



## moXJO (25 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You have yet to make a point which is credible.
> He clearly intends through his speech that men should be willing to *die *for democracy.
> That dies not conform with pacifism.
> You need to separate Chaplin as a person in real life from his movie role.
> You clutch at straws, invent new meanings, and deny the obvious.



Can you quote that part of the speech.


----------



## qldfrog (25 March 2019)

grah33 said:


> You may be surprised that the 3 main religions regard suicide (not in all instances though) as a highly selfish act, likened to murder, and worthy of eternal perdition .  And this is what quite a few people -even on this forum – think , so should be pointed out.
> 
> There is definitely something selfish to ending your life imo, if it's not going how you want it to go.
> 
> Augustine (City of God from memory) provides a different perspective .



Well, islamist suicide bombers killing infidels in the blast have a straight path to heaven
Yet it is suicide isn't it?
Suicide is frown on but murder suicide celebrated


----------



## moXJO (25 March 2019)

rederob said:


> He clearly intends through his speech that men should be willing to *die *for democracy.




Oh wait I missed the "intends".
You read it like that. Mr comprehension himself. 
So you dismiss the background of the man. On a speech he wrote and rewrote   for months. To write something that was deeply personal to his beliefs. And thinks he sold out for dirty lucre.
You didn't just soil the speech, you shat on the man.

Apparently if you look real hard he makes a cameo in Rambo.


----------



## rederob (25 March 2019)

moXJO said:


> Oh wait I missed the "intends".



You missed everything pertinent.
You make up what you want to believe and convince yourself that it's sensible.
You should re-read some of your comments for a guide on how not to present a case.


----------



## moXJO (25 March 2019)

rederob said:


> You missed everything pertinent.
> You make up what you want to believe and convince yourself that it's sensible.
> You should re-read some of your comments for a guide on how not to present a case.



Just like to shake trees.
Who knew you would fall out and land on your head.

Pretty sure I understood a speech you posted as "great". 
Greatly misunderstood maybe.


----------



## grah33 (25 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Well, islamist suicide bombers killing infidels in the blast have a straight path to heaven
> Yet it is suicide isn't it?
> Suicide is frown on but murder suicide celebrated



That would seem to be a kind of military operation. The Japanese did that as well.

Regards receiving numerous virgins as a reward, I believe Islam to be gravely mistaken . The Christian belief makes far better sense:

“ You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.…In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.…“  (Christ)


----------



## qldfrog (25 March 2019)

Kind of spoiling a bit the notion of heaven, so no orgies there?
Better enjoy here while we can


----------



## grah33 (25 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Kind of spoiling a bit the notion of heaven, so no...?
> Better enjoy here while we can



You may be surprised to know that Augustine and Jerome – 2 big writers in Christendom - strongly felt that Adam and Eve were virgins in Paradise.

In his Confessions, Augustine describes experiencing, from time to time, a heavenly happiness or ecstasy , unlike anything in the world.

Pleasures excite people, but they also make a soul weak, causing it to have problems.  Such is the human condition in this life.


----------



## bellenuit (25 March 2019)

grah33 said:


> You may be surprised to know that Augustine and Jerome – 2 big writers in Christendom - strongly felt that Adam and Eve were virgins in Paradise.
> 
> In his Confessions, Augustine describes experiencing, from time to time, a heavenly happiness or ecstasy , unlike anything in the world.
> 
> Pleasures excite people, but they also make a soul weak, causing it to have problems.  Such is the human condition in this life.




But I thought the Catholic Church new accepts Adam and Eve are just mythical. At least Cardinal Pell said that when debating Richard Dawkins on Q&A. It was just impossible for the Catholic Church to reconcile Adam and Eve with what is known about evolution.

On top of that, how could they be virgins if they had children, Cain and Abel? And what the heck is so special about being virgins? Clearly those 2 big writers in Christendom are very delusional.


----------



## noirua (26 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> But I thought the Catholic Church new accepts Adam and Eve are just mythical. At least Cardinal Pell said that when debating Richard Dawkins on Q&A. It was just impossible for the Catholic Church to reconcile Adam and Eve with what is known about evolution.
> 
> On top of that, how could they be virgins if they had children, Cain and Abel? And what the heck is so special about being virgins? Clearly those 2 big writers in Christendom are very delusional.




*Adam, Eve, and Evolution*
https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution


----------



## grah33 (26 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> But I thought the Catholic Church new accepts Adam and Eve are just mythical. At least Cardinal Pell said that when debating Richard Dawkins on Q&A. It was just impossible for the Catholic Church to reconcile Adam and Eve with what is known about evolution.
> On top of that, how could they be virgins if they had children, Cain and Abel? And what the heck is so special about being virgins? Clearly those 2 big writers in Christendom are very delusional.





Each cardinal is different and the Church leaves everybody to have their own view; whether God used evolution or not to create the human race. Although Christ and Paul ( apostle) spoke of Adam as a real human being, and the OT does track all human descendants form Adam and Eve.

From past browsing my take on their view : The first child came later after the fall, as did marriage (they thought it also defunct). At first there was no child, yet they were naked, so passion must have come later after the fall ( along with death). Augustine regarded passion to be something against reason; u should have a child because you want to create one, not from sexual desire. And the private parts worked so. They didn't want to create a child, so didn't make one. None of this is cannon though, just their interesting and respected views. TBH though I could be incorrect in some of these details (haven't got time).

Along with Paul they also thought  that the marriage act, though lawful, was detrimental . I'm not clear on it, but I do know that the flesh is  brought into subjection easily enough when some kind of abstinence is practiced. To be able to control yourself, and be habitually carefree is a good thing. Or, as another poster alluded, to be master over everything


----------



## bellenuit (27 March 2019)

A Visual Map of the World’s Major Religions (and Non-Religions)


----------



## qldfrog (27 March 2019)

bellenuit said:


> A Visual Map of the World’s Major Religions (and Non-Religions)



Bellenuit, we seem to forget the $ religion, or more exactly Yuan among 1.5 billion chineses both in China and OC (overseas chinese all over the world and definitively in Asia):
In the new year, who cares about health and happiness : Luck (in games and gambling) and wealth, fake banknotes, real money gifts for wedding or all important stage of life
it is incredible to someone like me. and in my opinion is really like a religion with gurus, evening courses, shows, mass hysteria, fanatism
I do like Chinese people..well some of them but it is a side of today's china which is very sad
Let's call this moneytism with probably just below 2 billions followers


----------



## explod (7 April 2019)

We really need to see what can be done at early childhood then education to resolve this.  Intermingling of cultures a big one too.  Are such mountains too high ?





The Dutch Atheist
Nonprofit Organization


----------



## wayneL (8 April 2019)

explod said:


> We really need to see what can be done at early childhood then education to resolve this.  Intermingling of cultures a big one too.  Are such mountains too high ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Every wondered why the Islamic world,  once leaders in science,  now aren't? 

Ever wondered why the Christain world ran past them at a million miles an hour ans became the most liberal and technologically advanced ever?

Think about that Plod.  Put the Greens toxic narrative in check and think about it.


----------



## explod (8 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Every wondered why the Islamic world,  once leaders in science,  now aren't?
> 
> Ever wondered why the Christain world ran past them at a million miles an hour ans became the most liberal and technologically advanced ever?
> 
> Think about that Plod.  Put the Greens toxic narrative in check and think about it.



Religion advancing anything useful and productive my eye wayne.  Just one (and can insight many more) huge event to ponder:-

"The _French Revolution_ was a _watershed event in world history_ that lasted from _1789 to 1799_. Among other things, it saw the French abolishing feudalism; beheading their monarch; changing their form of government from a monarchy to a republic; forming a constitution based on the principle of equality and freedom; and becoming the first state to grant universal male suffrage. The French Revolution had _a great and far-reaching impact _that probably transformed the world more than any other revolution. Its repercussions include_lessening the importance of religion; rise of Modern Nationalism;_ _spread of Liberalism _and_ igniting the Age of Revolutions_. Most importantly the Revolution altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies and replacing them with republics and liberal democracies. Know more about the impact of the French Revolution through its 10 major effects."

https://learnodo-newtonic.com/french-revolution-effects


----------



## wayneL (8 April 2019)

Nice segue.
You might want to try answering my question though.


----------



## Value Collector (8 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Ever wondered why the Christain world ran past them at a million miles an hour ans became the most liberal and technologically advanced ever?
> 
> .




Simple, he Christian countries slowly took Christianity less seriously. 

The boom is economics and sciences came because society became less religious, not more religious.


----------



## wayneL (8 April 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Simple, he Christian countries slowly took Christianity less seriously.
> 
> The boom is economics and sciences came because society became less religious, not more religious.



Only partly, yes that is a valid point,  but only about 25% of the answer.


----------



## bellenuit (8 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Every wondered why the Islamic world,  once leaders in science,  now aren't?




The answer lies here:


----------



## Value Collector (8 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Only partly, yes that is a valid point,  but only about 25% of the answer.




Well I think we would all agree that if the Muslim countries reduced their level of religiosity, and started spending more time in universities instead of mosques, their society would improve.

And it would be silly to say that their religion caused the improvement, when the improvement only happened as Islam was put to the back of their mind more and more.

But that is the arguement you have made, you are claiming the religion helped us leave the dark ages, when it actually caused the dark ages.


----------



## wayneL (9 April 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Well I think we would all agree that if the Muslim countries reduced their level of religiosity, and started spending more time in universities instead of mosques, their society would improve.
> 
> And it would be silly to say that their religion caused the improvement, when the improvement only happened as Islam was put to the back of their mind more and more.
> 
> But that is the arguement you have made, you are claiming the religion helped us leave the dark ages, when it actually caused the dark ages.



Que?

When did I say that?


----------



## IFocus (9 April 2019)

Christianity did nothing until the enlightenment and people started being nice to each other pretty much what you are against now


----------



## grah33 (9 April 2019)

The Christian morals are PERFECT


----------



## Value Collector (10 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> The Christian morals are PERFECT



Really? Because it seems different Christians groups can’t even agree on a lot of the basics.


----------



## Value Collector (10 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Que?
> 
> When did I say that?




When did you say what?


----------



## ducati916 (10 April 2019)

Value Collector said:


> But that is the arguement you have made, you are claiming the religion helped us leave the dark ages, when it actually caused the dark ages.




In regard to 'religion' causing the Dark Ages, it was the fall of the Roman Empire in the West that caused the Dark Ages. The Roman Empire in the East fared much better and retained control far longer, possibly accounting for the benefits referred to in the later video of Tyson.

In the second statement, Wayne, which if he is, [in regard to leaving the Dark Ages] is correct to do so.

Religion, in this case Christianity, was for the most part the sole repository of Greek & Roman knowledge in the West. The ecclesiastical hierarchy were literate and educated where the vast majority of the populations were not.

Did they exploit this? Of course. They were however very often leaders in philosophical and economic thought, which eventually brought Europe out of the Dark Ages.

Canon law preserved Roman law and which eventually evolved into the common law and civil law. Property rights are the bedrock upon which all manner innovation takes place.

jog on
duc


----------



## Tink (10 April 2019)

When in Rome, do as the Romans do


----------



## grah33 (10 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> But I thought the Catholic Church new accepts Adam and Eve are just mythical. At least Cardinal Pell said that when debating Richard Dawkins on Q&A. It was just impossible for the Catholic Church to reconcile Adam and Eve with what is known about evolution.
> 
> On top of that, how could they be virgins if they had children, Cain and Abel? And what the heck is so special about being virgins? Clearly those 2 big writers in Christendom are very delusional.




Remember that post about the guy in the video, who claimed to deceptively feel something that resembled the Holy Spirit. Well, not long ago, while I was absent from asf forums, I believe the real thing happened to someone I knew very well. There weren't religious, but now they are. It was a dramatic event for her and the family.  Some points from their story to me:

-'Electricity' was how she described it. Probably referring to the Holy Spirit going through them .
-She reported that she felt a special joy or happiness within (something like that from memory), may have characterized it differently from usual happy feeling , can't remember
-God was communicating something to her , she said, yet without employing words (can't remember the message. was it love for her? or to follow , can't remember)
-Parent was crying, about to call ambulance (had never seen this before);she was lying on the ground for maybe 30 minutes (they said it was for a very long time)
-Either upper body or lower body couldn't move (can't remember)
-Person wasn't looking for this experience, it just happened. They went to a Catholic healing mass,didn't get healed, but this happened.  It happened afterwards when they went up to get  prayers (they lay hands over people).
-I queried her afterwards, she never knew such experiences happen to people,nor did she look for one
-She used the word 'electricity' to describe what was inside her. I may have heard this word before so asked her about it. It came from her, she didn't copy it from other people.
-She's very committed to her religion now. Thinks her life before (without God) was severely lacking.
-Her condition had something to do with the jaw 'clicking' , and anxiety along with that. it wasn't simple for me to grasp at the time.
- I know them well enough. They wouldn't lie to me.

My belief is that these things do happen, along with false experiences (like the guy in that video).


----------



## ducati916 (12 April 2019)

explod said:


> Religion advancing anything useful and productive my eye wayne.  Just one (and can insight many more) huge event to ponder:-
> 
> "The _French Revolution_ was a _watershed event in world history_ that lasted from _1789 to 1799_. Among other things, it saw the French abolishing feudalism; beheading their monarch; changing their form of government from a monarchy to a republic; forming a constitution based on the principle of equality and freedom; and becoming the first state to grant universal male suffrage. The French Revolution had _a great and far-reaching impact _that probably transformed the world more than any other revolution. Its repercussions include_lessening the importance of religion; rise of Modern Nationalism;_ _spread of Liberalism _and_ igniting the Age of Revolutions_. Most importantly the Revolution altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies and replacing them with republics and liberal democracies. Know more about the impact of the French Revolution through its 10 major effects."
> 
> https://learnodo-newtonic.com/french-revolution-effects




French Revolution.....

The *English Civil War* (1642–1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") over, principally, the manner of England's governance. The first (1642–1646) and second (1648–1649) wars pitted the supporters of King Charles Iagainst the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–1651) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The war ended with the Parliamentarian victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651.

The overall outcome of the war was threefold: the trial and execution of Charles I (1649); the exile of his son, Charles II (1651); and the replacement of English monarchy with, at first, the Commonwealth of England(1649–1653) and then the Protectorate under the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1658) and subsequently his son Richard (1658–1659). In England, the monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship was ended, while in Ireland the victors consolidated the established Protestant Ascendancy. Constitutionally, the wars established the precedent that an English monarch cannot govern without Parliament's consent, although the idea of Parliament as the ruling power of England was only legally established as part of the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Then you had the American War of Independence, 1776.....

The French were well behind the times.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (12 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> The Christian morals are PERFECT





Which are what exactly?

jog on
duc


----------



## Tink (12 April 2019)

_Magna Carta Libertatum_ (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called _Magna Carta_ (also _Magna Charta_; "Great Charter"),[a] is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.

The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling English Parliament passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as _habeas corpus_. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles.

The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.[c] Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[4]

In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheets using quill pens, in heavily abbreviated medieval Latin, which was the convention for legal documents at that time. Each was sealed with the royal great seal (made of beeswax and resin sealing wax): very few of the seals have survived. Although scholars refer to the 63 numbered "clauses" of Magna Carta, this is a modern system of numbering, introduced by Sir William Blackstone in 1759; the original charter formed a single, long unbroken text. The four original 1215 charters were displayed together at the British Library for one day, 3 February 2015, to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

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


----------



## grah33 (12 April 2019)

ducati916 said:


> Which are what exactly?
> 
> jog on
> duc




All the parables and so on about Christian living taught by Christ.  Future nations would then incorporate them into  their laws.  That coming of the Kingdom foretold long ago.  Some we all know, others are not so obvious to derive by human agency alone.

examples:
Love your enemies (Christ): it's morally correct and required to treat them kindly, and to forgive .
Necessity to help poor (good Samaritan parable) . Hence western world is big on charity.
To not dislike someone (integrity must  also be in the mind).
Another moral, but for various reasons will omit...
Welcoming the disabled /poor , and equality with everybody.


"Be ye perfect.."(Christ).


----------



## ducati916 (13 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> All the parables and so on about Christian living taught by Christ.  Future nations would then incorporate them into  their laws.  That coming of the Kingdom foretold long ago.  Some we all know, others are not so obvious to derive by human agency alone.
> 
> examples:
> Love your enemies (Christ): it's morally correct and required to treat them kindly, and to forgive .
> ...




Well already I have problems with these in that they seem more akin to common sense or what your granny told you.

Meta-ethics investigates the basis of morality, for example whether it [the stated moral] is either objective or subjective. Normative ethics focusses on the norms on which moral conduct is based and finally applied ethics brings philosophical theory to bear on day-to-day practical issues.

Normative ethics, as its test to fitness for purpose, must pass the universality test. This simply means that, for all people at all times, the moral stated must promote positively the continuing existence of the human race.

Taking your first example: 'love your enemies'.

'Enemies' will appear on a spectrum: some will seek to kill you at one end and at the other end simply wish ill upon you. The test must be applied at the extreme end to pass muster. Allowing your enemies to kill you does not pass the test and could not therefore be considered a moral.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (13 April 2019)

Tink said:


> _Magna Carta Libertatum_ (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called _Magna Carta_ (also _Magna Charta_; "Great Charter"),[a] is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.
> 
> The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling English Parliament passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as _habeas corpus_. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles.
> 
> ...





All interesting, but the article is more concerned with the origin than the purpose.

Do you understand 'why' the Magna Carta was so important historically and why it is still so important?

jog on
duc


----------



## grah33 (13 April 2019)

ducati916 said:


> Well already I have problems with these in that they seem more akin to common sense or what your granny told you.
> 
> Meta-ethics investigates the basis of morality, for example whether it [the stated moral] is either objective or subjective. Normative ethics focusses on the norms on which moral conduct is based and finally applied ethics brings philosophical theory to bear on day-to-day practical issues.
> 
> ...





It's not about how innovative  the virtues/morals are.  Not to be compared with technology. Yet I still think some aren't that obvious .  For instance things pertaining to  sexual immorality .  Here sexuality is misused, thus going against reason and God.  Certainly not obvious in today's time.  Or the requirement for purity in the mind  (see parable about lustful ), and not just exterior actions.  The world didn't think like this until Christ came.   It was revolutionary.  Augustine likely thought a society would be flawed and dysfunctional without the common sexual tenets we've all known.  

" Love your enemies ", as in  having a good disposition toward them.  Or the verses about slaves that VC likes to quote.  It makes sense to me.  It all accords with human dignity.  

Paul's letters (NT)  are worth investigating, for anyone who wants to see if there is any substance to the Christian faith.


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> The world didn't think like this until Christ came.   It was revolutionary.
> 
> "Love your enemies ", as in  having a good disposition toward them.




The teaching predates Jesus.

“_Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy._”

- Akkadian Councils of Wisdom (from the ancient Babylonian civilization that existed two millennia before Jesus was born)

“_Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be hurtful to yourself._”

- Buddhist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)


----------



## grah33 (13 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> The teaching predates Jesus.
> 
> “_Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy._”
> 
> ...




That's besides the point.  The morality has always been there, so the buddhists were able to discover some of it, although not all of it I imagine.  I'm sure God was happy that they were contemplating such things back then.  The Jewish people as well were likely aware of some of it, even if it wasn't part of their prescribed law.  And Christ came specifically to die on a cross.


----------



## bellenuit (13 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> That's besides the point. The morality has always been there




But you said it was revolutionary! Now you are saying it was always there.


----------



## grah33 (13 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> But you said it was revolutionary! Now you are saying it was always there.



I meant that morality is morality; right and wrong doesn't change, it's always the same.  Christ even said so , if you read the passage on marriage (first generations were like that).  Yet Christ still caused a great revolution.  Let's not argue about words, as that would be a waste of time.


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> I meant that morality is morality; right and wrong doesn't change, it's always the same.




I think we have been through that 100 times and do we need to bring up the morality of the God of the OT again. Morality, when taken to mean what is seen by most people as moral at a particular time, does change.

A clear example would be at what age should marriage be allowed. What was seen as acceptable at the supposed time of Christ, would not be acceptable today.

We tend to define morality in relation to age when marriage should be allowed based on the sexual maturity of those marrying, but we know that has changed in the last 50 years. People are more sexually mature at a younger age today.


----------



## ducati916 (14 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> It's not about how innovative  the virtues/morals are.  Not to be compared with technology. Yet I still think some aren't that obvious .  For instance things pertaining to  sexual immorality .  Here sexuality is misused, thus going against reason and God.  Certainly not obvious in today's time.  Or the requirement for purity in the mind  (see parable about lustful ), and not just exterior actions.  The world didn't think like this until Christ came.   It was revolutionary.  Augustine likely thought a society would be flawed and dysfunctional without the common sexual tenets we've all known.
> 
> " Love your enemies ", as in  having a good disposition toward them.  Or the verses about slaves that VC likes to quote.  It makes sense to me.  It all accords with human dignity.
> 
> Paul's letters (NT)  are worth investigating, for anyone who wants to see if there is any substance to the Christian faith.




You simply have not addressed the issue put to you.

jog on
duc


----------



## grah33 (14 April 2019)

ducati916 said:


> You simply have not addressed the issue put to you.
> 
> jog on
> duc



Your question was a bit funny, so I gave you a better answer


----------



## grah33 (14 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> I think we have been through that 100 times and do we need to bring up the morality of the God of the OT again. Morality, when taken to mean what is seen by most people as moral at a particular time, does change.
> 
> A clear example would be at what age should marriage be allowed. What was seen as acceptable at the supposed time of Christ, would not be acceptable today.
> 
> We tend to define morality in relation to age when marriage should be allowed based on the sexual maturity of those marrying, but we know that has changed in the last 50 years. People are more sexually mature at a younger age today.




I was under the impression that the Jewish people back then had an age limit for young girls, that girls were fit for marrying.  Fit or not fit, your point doesn't really travel far to make an argument against Christianity/religion.  And I did quote from the the NT before which explained well enough the moral deficiency in the OT. 

I might have to email Craig Lane my little analogy about the higher life form (advanced in wisdom) having authority to abort the lower life form.  It might help him when  debating to explain some of the difficult passages in the OT.


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> I was under the impression that the Jewish people back then had an age limit for young girls, that girls were fit for marrying. Fit or not fit, your point doesn't really travel far to make an argument against Christianity/religion.




It wasn't an argument against religion or Christianity, but an example of how morality evolved whereas you stated it was unchanging.



> And I did quote from the the NT before which explained well enough the moral deficiency in the OT.




Exactly, proving my point that morality evolves.


----------



## grah33 (14 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> It wasn't an argument against religion or Christianity, but an example of how morality evolved whereas you stated it was unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, proving my point that morality evolves.



Now you're making me go around the mountain again.  A few seconds I will, but this week I'll be getting into a new gear for Lent.  Those verses do show that a lesser form of morality was needed to deal with the times, so don't put God in a box.  And I'm glad it's in there, since everyone asks that question.  Nicely answered for all.


----------



## grah33 (14 April 2019)

It's possible though that you don't understand me,  so I will clarify. The morality, or "perfect will of God" as St. Paul put it, was always there, but God gave a lesser version appropriate for the times , intending to bring them out of it in the future .

Augustine felt that human beings were dumbed down from sin, so the right thing isn't obvious to them.  The word "wisdom" has relevance here.  From the NT:
"But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, accommodating, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial, and sincere."  From the other lines as well around it, it seems that Paul thought a person who is like this - arriving at perfection - would have this intuitive ability within to know how they should conduct themselves worthily, and would live in such an excellent manner.  They would be able to apply that finer morality in less obvious instances , and so live a perfect life.


----------



## bellenuit (14 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> Now you're making me go around the mountain again.  A few seconds I will, but this week I'll be getting into a new gear for Lent.  Those verses do show that a lesser form of morality was needed to deal with the times, so don't put God in a box.  And I'm glad it's in there, since everyone asks that question.  Nicely answered for all.




You are completely confused. These are your words:



grah33 said:


> I meant that morality is morality; right and wrong doesn't change, it's always the same.




*A lesser form of morality* vs. _morality is morality_
*to deal with the times* vs. _it's always the same_

_so don't put God in a box_: I haven't brought God into the argument at all. You are the one boxing yourself in with your contradictory statements.

To be honest there is no point arguing or discussing any of this with you. Your statements are completely belief based, incoherent at times, contradictory within themselves and devoid of any historical or factual underpinning.


----------



## ducati916 (15 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> To be honest there is no point arguing or discussing any of this with you. Your statements are completely belief based, incoherent at times, contradictory within themselves and devoid of any historical or factual underpinning.




That pretty much sums it up. Saves me typing a response.

jog on
duc


----------



## ducati916 (15 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> Your question was a bit funny, so I gave you a better answer





See previous response above.

jog on
duc


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> It's possible though that you don't understand me, so I will clarify. The morality, or "perfect will of God" as St. Paul put it, was always there, but God gave a lesser version appropriate for the times , intending to bring them out of it in the future .



Perhaps we do understand you.
This God of yours is willing to impose a lesser standard of morality so that his supposed flock will understand their sins or whatever "*bring them out of it*" means.
So rather than set a standard for *perfection*, it's more wise to set a lesser standard... for reasons which are not clear.
I would love to hear the argument for how condoning what is not moral is an appropriate way to improve morality.
Laud not, forbid!


----------



## grah33 (15 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> You are completely confused. These are your words:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I won't argue about words, as that would be a waste of time.  Although you've made me realize that the NT does a great job of explaining morality and its constancy over time, and variation (in terms of prescribed codes to follow).  The NT does a great job in knocking off the atheist's argument - that morals aren't constant, therefore  God doesn't exist.


----------



## grah33 (15 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Perhaps we do understand you.
> This God of yours is willing to impose a lesser standard of morality so that his supposed flock will understand their sins or whatever "*bring them out of it*" means.
> So rather than set a standard for *perfection*, it's more wise to set a lesser standard... for reasons which are not clear.
> I would love to hear the argument for how condoning what is not moral is an appropriate way to improve morality.
> Laud not, forbid!



NT will give you the answer, easily enough:
"
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, 10for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
"
Also Christ's explanation for the changes ;it was simply to hard for them to follow in Moses's time.  It's a bit like taking baby steps , and then bigger steps later on when you're ready.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> The NT does a great job in knocking off the atheist's argument - that morals aren't constant, therefore  God doesn't exist.



There is no such argument that I am aware.
Typically morality is measured at societal levels, and standards of behaviour across different societies can be very different.  Determining right and wrong from moral positions, on the basis of what society accepts, can be quite different from the humanist's position.
A problem with the God idea is that about half the world does not ascribe to it and there is no evidence that their morality suffers as a result (and I am not talking about people without belief).


----------



## rederob (15 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> Also Christ's explanation for the changes ;it was simply to hard for them to follow in Moses's time.  It's a bit like taking baby steps , and then bigger steps later on when you're ready.



So what was *not *moral was ok?
Yes, it's not acceptable, but don't worry.  You can repent any time you like and still go to heaven.
qed


----------



## grah33 (16 April 2019)

rederob said:


> So what was *not *moral was ok?
> Yes, it's not acceptable, but don't worry.  You can repent any time you like and still go to heaven.
> qed




There is a metaphor for it in the OT, which foreshadowed this simplicity; they merely looked up at the pole with the bronze serpent suspended on it, and were saved.  So yes, it's that easy.  Anyone who wants it  can get it.  Although for many it isn't so easy.


----------



## rederob (16 April 2019)

grah33 said:


> There is a metaphor for it in the OT, which foreshadowed this simplicity; they merely looked up at the pole with the bronze serpent suspended on it, and were saved.  So yes, it's that easy.  Anyone who wants it  can get it.  Although for many it isn't so easy.



So much for your arguments - they fall apart at the seams.
And yes, it's easy for anyone to repent: do you have a different bible to everyone else?


----------



## MARKETWINNER (16 April 2019)

http://www.religiousmovements.org/views-on-death-according-to-different-religions/
*Views on Death According to Different Religions*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewgabriele/2019/03/18/new-book-religion-death/#3f12defd7b31
*This New Book Will Change How We Think About Ancient Religion And Death*

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/06/the_odd_body_religion/
*What are the most widely practiced religions of the world?*
There are some 4,300 religions of the world.

https://www.everystudent.com/features/connecting.html
*Connecting with the Divine*

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/building-a-world-community-world-day-for-cultural-diversity
Building a Global Community: World Day for Cultural Diversity


----------



## explod (17 April 2019)

12 years?


----------



## MARKETWINNER (18 April 2019)

I thought it happened in Pakistan. I found the following link.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...fter-abducting-and-killing-boy-15-423545.html
Racists are jailed for life after abducting and killing boy, 15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
List of countries by intentional homicide rate

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/spreading-fear-how-social-media-contributes-fear-crime

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/safest-countries-in-the-world/
Revealed: The world's safest (and least safe) countries

https://muscatdaily.com/Archive/Oma...male-tourists-second-in-the-world-Survey-5bcf
OMAN SAFEST ARAB COUNTRY FOR FEMALE TOURISTS; SECOND IN THE WORLD: SURVEY


----------



## Tink (24 April 2019)

Tom Elliott says there are ‘astonishing inconsistencies’ with our reaction to attack on Christians


----------



## bellenuit (11 May 2019)

*Global persecution of Christians reaches “near-genocidal levels”*

*https://www.thepostmillennial.com/global-persecution-of-christians-reaches-near-genocidal-levels/*

_A new report on Christian persecution ordered by the UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Jeremy Hunt, finds that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world._


----------



## basilio (26 January 2021)

Religion and fundamentalism.  How literally should we quote the Bible ?

Check out this letter to a famed Christian broadcaster..

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination…End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?









						Dr. Laura and Leviticus
					

A healthy antidote to Scriptural literalism of any sort




					www.americamagazine.org


----------



## noirua (13 November 2021)

Right or wrong this is guessology as no one really knows.  So maybe the speaker should mention this and not tell people it is definitely so. He is a very good speaker so make your own choice.


----------

