# Can Atheists be Moral?



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Socrates asks Euthyphro “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” 


This is known as the Euthyphro dilemma.

If God is merely an agent advocating some universal morality, then morality exists independently of God and, given enough time, humans could discover it through reasoning. In this case, we would not need God—the only role for God would be to help speed up the process of discovery. God would be unnecessary.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Of course they can.

The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

I like this idea:


Let’s say we have a few hundred gods to choose from and a few thousand religions.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


How can this God be moral when the past history of this God has God performing immoral acts and breaking his/her own rules, it's bullshit.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



Send him to jail then. And visit him on Sundays.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 6, 2019)

Yes they can. Abortion loving democrats cannot! Pelosi should stfu!


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I already did but no visitation that was over forty  years ago..


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)

If God were the source of morality, then morality is not objective but instead mind dependent, i.e. based on God's subjectivity. 

If the God cannot change his morals on a whim, God is not all powerful.

If the God of the bible is the source of morality, then it is moral to rape, pillage, genocide and also to murder babies. 


Seems morality is a human construct based on the observable notion of cause and effect - and since we're a sentient, communal and empathetic creature, morals are based on the mitigation of suffering. This is proven over and over by the fact that over time, our morality has evolved and things that were considered moral hundreds of years into the past, or even just decades, are now considered barbaric.

Also, as secular society evolves in this way, theists have been conforming to the new secular standards, and have been forced to reinterpret much of the old-guard morality of their ancient scriptures.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International




"1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not."


1.  god doesn't exist.  the source of morality for people why believe in god does NOT come from a non-existant god.  It comes from a book written by uneducated, ignorant, primitive savages.

The fact that these people NEED a book (and a god) to tell them what is right or wrong, moral v immoral, is sad, pathetic and rather scary!

what if that book says "kill gays and atheists and witches!"?


And not just "I'm god....don't steal!"....

that wasn't enough to deter them or make them moral.

They needed FEAR!

So god had to say "I'm god....don't steal....or YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!"

Now THAT got their attention.

(2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

ridiculous.


I know right v wrong and I did NOT need a bible to tell me.

In fact, MOST of what the bible says is IMMORAL is BS.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



No.

They are AMORAL.

They have no morals of their own.  They merely embrace whatever morals their bible or religious leaders indoctrinate into  them.

If they hate gays it  is NOT "morals"

It is the brainwashing.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 6, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


/----/ "like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?""
Pedophiles will play any role, take any job and pretend to be the opposite of what they really are so they can have access to their victims - children. Whitewashing Catholics as child-molesters as if it's part of our religion is as intellectually dishonest as labeling all Soccer coaches as child molesters because of a few bad actors.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.


The Bible says differently.  It says God's Law (or call it 'morality' if you will) is written on the hearts of all men--believers and non-believers alike.  For those of us who feel there is truth and wisdom in the Bible we learn that mankind therefore has two attributes:  We may all have a fallen nature, but we also retained our grasp on moral law.  

As a whole--just like believers as a whole--atheists are moral people.  There are exceptions/predators in both groups.


----------



## cnm (Jan 6, 2019)

Morals are community norms. Valid morals are those which assist the survival of the community. This is demonstrated by the way successful communities have different norms.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



"The Bible says differently."

the bible....written by MEN!

when you quote the bible you are NOT quoting a god.

you are quoting primitive savages.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 6, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"


Isn't the bigger question, "Can anyone, like child molesters, be moral?  Or, is the assertion, "Child molesters can be moral except child molesters who are Catholic"?   Which then begs the question, Can Catholics be moral?


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 6, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> the bible....written by MEN!


Yes.  Did this just become news to you?  I was taught that as a child.  And yet the Bible still contains truth and wisdom.  Go figure.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Jump to "Morality does not rely on religion" · The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that, "it is not hard to ... That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral ...


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Thousands upon thousands over decades with not only no repercussions but the next best thing to official sanction is not "a few bad actors" it's institutionalized pedophilia.  Brought to you by your "moral superiors".


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 6, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"
> ...


No, that's not the question.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 6, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


/----/ Leave it to you to miss the point by a country mile.


----------



## cnm (Jan 6, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"
> ...


If that is the community norm. Whether such a norm will demonstrate its validity by assisting the survival of the community is doubtful, in the case of Catholics anyway.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...


I did not miss your point, I pointed out it's flaws.

Wake up.


----------



## Penelope (Jan 6, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



Its not only Catholics who molest children, just as many Protestants do as well. 
and haredi jews, Jerusalem - Chief Rabbi Lau: Do Not Sweep Sexual Abuse Claims Under The Carpet

The question to ask, is why are not all Christians moral?


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 6, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Why are so many christians less moral than atheists?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



I haven't come here to indulge your Jew fetish.

You just can't resist, can you?


----------



## Penelope (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



No just can't.  All religious have pedophiles including jews.  Now call me an anti-Semite. I love it.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 6, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


/——/ The perverts aren’t Christians. They are pedophiles Pretending to be Christians so they can gain access to the children.  Try and let that sink in.


----------



## Penelope (Jan 6, 2019)

Morals are something you are raised with, it doesn't matter what religion you might belong to,  and actually atheist seem to value all life more, as they know its the only one.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 6, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


/—-/ I’ll dumb it down for you. Pedophiles aren’t Christians. They pretend to be to get children.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


So they have no idea that what they are doing is wrong because their God told them it was wrong in the scripts they were studying.??


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



You're obsessed, that's what.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 6, 2019)

*Can Atheists be Moral?*
Can religious people be moral?

Only if they want to be..


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 6, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


/—-/ Why do you defend perverts who hurt children? How can you do that with a clear conscience? Sad.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...


You think what I said supports the abuse of children? You must be cross eyed.


----------



## cnm (Jan 6, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Morals are something you are raised with,


Absolutely. And they differ as communities differ.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 6, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


/——/ Yes. You intentionally blame Christians for the actions of interlopers whom you defend with a passion.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...


Hardly so, I'd have them tortured and killed if I had my way.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 6, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


/----/ The Romans and Muslims tortured and killed Christians too. You're in terrible company.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...



Yeah. I watched Ben Hur ten times on TV  over Christmas.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Look at it this way, Moonglow. Just up your street.

 Maybe it's 'laws' not 'morals'.

At some time, in the past, it was considered 'normal' to grope tits and asses. Or drag some hapless female into a dark alley and have your way with her. Till some meddling bureaucrat made it illegal.

Still that way today. But you daren't.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > the bible....written by MEN!
> ...



some truth
some wisdom
some lies
some insanity


----------



## Penelope (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



I'm obsessed with all zealots , like the Haredi sects in NY that are the baby boom capital and welfare capital of the US, the men can't work as they have to study.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 6, 2019)

Atheists are simply stupid dishonest people

Not recognizing the benefits of a strong immune system that helps greatly which proves unwise

A person that Has to suffer when does not have to

Many times they are hateful revengeful
People


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 6, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



This life systrm is set up perfect


To bring humanity to the best paradise they have to experience pains and struggles and injustice first and then to paradise all prepared to feel paradise in the best way

We cannot enjoy justice as much if we have not had injustice 

So that's how life is set up.. Exactly Right!


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Jan 6, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



No the bible is a blue print for happiness and is how history works and the history proves gods plan

The good feeling of moral is simply a pre wired feeling put into a created human being to help move humans with the plan

The pains are also pre wired into a created human at creation

God placed these pre wired feelings into humans to move them a certain way to the best paradise

The whole universe set up to help this plan

Humans to become gods of the universe


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Well don't dump it on me. 

Find some other dumbass.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Yeah... No.  I might buy that if the folks in charge were actually trying to do something about it but they ain't.  They allow it, even cover for it.  It's institutionalized pedophilia.  Nothing less.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 6, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...


You're wrong. See my post above.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> Atheists are simply stupid dishonest people
> 
> Not recognizing the benefits of a strong immune system that helps greatly which proves unwise
> 
> ...



Conservative christians are simply stupid dishonest people

Many times they are hateful revengeful
People


and they smell funny


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...





"No the bible is a blue print for happiness and is how history works and the history proves gods plan"


killing gays makes you happy?

killing atheists makes you happy?


"


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Socrates asks Euthyphro “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”
> 
> 
> This is known as the Euthyphro dilemma.
> ...


.


Mindful said:


> If God is merely an agent advocating some universal morality, then morality exists independently of God and, given enough time, humans could discover it through reasoning. In this case, we would not need God—the only role for God would be to help speed up the process of discovery. God would be unnecessary.


_*
God would be unnecessary ...*_

the discovery for life's purpose, morality, same as faith is reliant not on their existence rather the end result and being a fully invested practitioner, a spirit that has triumphed in their resolve such as prescribed by the spoken Religion of Antiquity - the Triumph of Good vs Evil. as well The Apex of Knowledge - metaphysical axioms.

the necessity ...

the reward would be admission to the Everlasting - a return to the metaphysical from whence they came conditioned by the necessary judgement of the existing Almighty. the final proof.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 6, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> How can this God be moral when the past history of this God has God performing immoral acts and breaking his/her own rules


A specific example of this would be helpful in sorting out context, but let's walk through some generalities that occur in the Old Testament.  First, it is written from the Jewish perspective.  This nation were in awe of God's holiness, and were (maybe even painfully) aware of mankind's own shortcomings.  We often see a story where it is human misdeeds  that prompt an action from God to put things right for humans once more.  

Keep in mind, ancient man used story form, and in literature, some action from an opponent forces the hero into action.  The hero then protects his people or defends his values against that aggressive opponent.  The final chapter describes what steps are taken to fortify and secure the borders against future threats both from within and without.  

Taking someone's story and switching their hero into the role of villain, and the aggressors into the role of victims, joins the person currently making these changes with those the original author perceived as the original villains/aggressors.  The original author might also suggest writing one's own story instead of plagiarizing his.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 6, 2019)

Penelope said:


> Its not only Catholics who molest children, just as many Protestants do as well.



Child molesters recognize no boundaries.  They can be found in places of faith--and places of no faith; in wealthy places, in poverty; among the most learned, among the ignorant; in our families, outside our families; in our homes, in our neighbor's homes; in our public schools, in our private schools; in places of trust, in places where no trust exists; in our news media that directs reports of such away from themselves or those they decide to protect from allegations.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 6, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> and they smell funny


That's perspiration from hard work--you know that stuff that pours out of people who work hard to raise the money the government takes to give to people who don't know the aroma of perspiration.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Sure. Why can’t atheists be moral?


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Despite what some believe morals are not subjective. Morals are objective. 

No one group has a lock on objectivity.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



God has not informed me, but I know Donald J. Trump is Immoral to his core.  Don't you agree?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



No.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> Despite what some believe morals are not subjective. Morals are objective.
> 
> No one group has a lock on objectivity.



No one said they had.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



Most people have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong.  They don't need myths and lore to codify that sense.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Despite what some believe morals are not subjective. Morals are objective.
> ...


I bet some people think that’s the case.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


They aren’t myths. You need to see them as myths to validate your beliefs.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



I wonder where that came from. It seems to be a default setting in most cases.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



If someone comes up and punches you in the face for no reason how are you going to feel about it?

That's where it comes from.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 6, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Its not only Catholics who molest children, just as many Protestants do as well.
> ...


.


> Catholic Priests Abused 1,000 Children in Pennsylvania, Report Says
> 
> Bishops and other leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Pennsylvania covered up child sexual abuse by more than 300 priests over a period of 70 years ...



_*covered up child sexual abuse ...*_




Meriweather said:


> Child molesters recognize no boundaries.


neither did the rcc have any boundary's to protect themselves from the publicity without concern for the crime that without doubt was a part of that church from its earliest beginning - nor are 300 priests and the congregations that supported them some sort of aberration found in a single state.

deny reality as you please, the root of that evil is within the confines of the broad and rampant patronage found in all three of the desert religions histories and scriptural writings.

those unwilling to correct the forgeries and fallacies written in their religious documents are themselves as guilty of the crimes committed as the perpetrators and their deniers.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Maybe the puncher in the face thought he had a reason.

Maybe I should try and see it from his/her point of view.


----------



## Toro (Jan 6, 2019)

Yes.

Next question.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Toro said:


> Yes.
> 
> Next question.


Are you a moral person?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Toro said:


> Yes.
> 
> Next question.



Is it boring in the FZ?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



He plays safe. So one never knows.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


It’s actually a really tough question. 

He probably doesn’t know how to answer it.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...


Yes.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Dictionary definition, Ding:

*Morals* are the principles we follow that help us know the difference between right and wrong. When someone is *immoral*, they make decisions that purposely violate a *moral*agreement. *Immoral* is sometimes confused with *amoral*, which describes someone who has no *morals* and doesn't know what right or wrong means.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Dictionary definition, Ding:
> 
> *Morals* are the principles we follow that help us know the difference between right and wrong. When someone is *immoral*, they make decisions that purposely violate a *moral*agreement. *Immoral* is sometimes confused with *amoral*, which describes someone who has no *morals* and doesn't know what right or wrong means.


Yes. Morals are effectively standards.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Then there are ethics.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Then there are ethics.


Same difference. Ethics are effectively a standard.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

Can you imagine being confronted with the moral dilemma of this:

Plane crash survivor describes the moment he resorted to cannibalism

Morally it's wrong. But if it's life or death?


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 6, 2019)

Sure. Even the Wiccan creed is " do as ye will and harm none"


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Can you imagine being confronted with the moral dilemma of this:
> 
> Plane crash survivor describes the moment he resorted to cannibalism
> 
> Morally it's wrong. But if it's life or death?




As a guy who won't eat food that touched the floor (even if for less than 3 seconds!) I can assure you that I would NOT EVER go cannibal.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Can you imagine being confronted with the moral dilemma of this:
> 
> Plane crash survivor describes the moment he resorted to cannibalism
> 
> Morally it's wrong. But if it's life or death?


What is morally wrong is profiting financially from it.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine being confronted with the moral dilemma of this:
> ...



Easy to say if you're not in the situation.

I've spoken to Germans who were starving after WW2, and resorted to eating cats and rats.

I can't imagine doing such a thing, sitting here in a warm room, with plenty  of nice things to eat and drink in the kitchen


----------



## Mindful (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine being confronted with the moral dilemma of this:
> ...



What? Writing a book about it? I suppose so.

But I'd  interested in reading about that emotional dilemma. Eating your friend. Could haunt you for the rest of your life.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jan 6, 2019)

No.  Atheists have no morality whatsoever


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Yes, writing a book about it. 

Obviously if he is going to profit from it, it can’t be haunting him too much.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

I think people learn to be moral.  Morality often means considering things outside your own needs and desires.  Religion provides an opportunity to see beyond self.  Society needs people to work together on some level, so laws reflect a certain moral code  Anyone can develop morals, some have under developed ones.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 6, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Given the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, ‘morality’ is a creation of man – just as flawed, inconsistent, and subjective as anything else man creates.

Consequently, theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality – indeed, theists often fail to abide by the moral tenets their religious dogma dictates them to follow, and those free from religion are often as moral as theists, if not more so.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Given the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, ‘morality’ is a creation of man – just as flawed, inconsistent, and subjective as anything else man creates.
> 
> Consequently, theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality – indeed, theists often fail to abide by the moral tenets their religious dogma dictates them to follow, and those free from religion are often as moral as theists, if not more so.



Seems like the theist would be doubly penalized by violating both law and committing a sin.  Since you don't believe in sin, how does their failure hurt you?  You seem offended.  By the way, Gideon's are okay that you stole that Bible.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


That’s total bullshit. But I understand why you believe this.  If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals.  Morals can be anything we want them to be.  The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome.  Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony.  Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.  So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes.  That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes.  This is the moral law at work.   If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave.  The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws.  When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate.  If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall.  Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. 

Morals are effectively standards.  For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.  Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man. 

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong?  The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.  The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Can you explain what you disagree with, GT?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.

You jump to conclusions as easily and as narrowly thought out as a 9yr old.

Random example....you stated the Universe shows preference for an outcome.

Ummmmm....

Preference implies agency.

The universe is an Agent?

You have no clue (its okay).

Preference is a very specific word.

Cause and effect working out a certain way does not* equate to evidence of a "wanted" way, or "preference." It simply points to the uniformity, or the nature of things. Not preference. Thats really basic.

Its as much evidence for preference as it is for happenstance, but you're too autistic brained to understand such things.

That was just the random, OBVIOUS example of what youve asked.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Dingerred is triggered into his unsupported assertions. lol no wonder he's universally , left and right, treated like a dunce-cap wearing bartholomew



He has faith.  That will get you a long way on Earth and in Heaven.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Dingerred is triggered into his unsupported assertions. lol no wonder he's universally , left and right, treated like a dunce-cap wearing bartholomew
> ...


Faith in certain institutions, if properly justified, is certainly beneficial


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

G.T. said:


> No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.
> 
> You jump to conclusions as easily and as narrowly thought out as a 9yr old.
> 
> ...



It was actually backwards of reality.  The Universe seeks entropy, therefore it must have a force that seeks order.  That may well require a higher power.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.
> ...


Its evidence (the Universe) for a lot of things. The proof comes when it's justified beyond a reasonable doubt as being....something.

A hole in a wall with marker-ink inside of it is evidence that someone poked a hole with a marker.....and its also evidence that a hole was there, already, and a kid traced the hole with a marker.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.
> ...


I am glad you brought that up.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.  That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.  After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body.  Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose.  So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same.  We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence.  We are obsessed with making smart things.  So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

"We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create."  George Wald​
The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a  requisite for intelligence to arise.  If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist.    The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed the moment space and time were created.  One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable.  *One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy.  That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe.  It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder.  But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the  material world so that minds with bodies could create too.  *

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.  Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence.  Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence.  The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.  The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.  The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect.  Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose.  The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world.  Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing.  So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense.  The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there  has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey.   The formation of space and time followed rules.  Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics.  These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.  These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world.  The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct.  Space and time were created from no thing.  Spirit is no thing.  No thing created space and time.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That God was released in a Big Bang?  That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That God was released in a Big Bang?  That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?


If we re-define what we mean by "God" to fit any idea we'd like, it becomes a meaningless concept. Sure, Tony the Tiger is God if we re-define God as the bringer of frosted flakes.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

G.T. said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That God was released in a Big Bang?  That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?
> ...



Except I have not redefined God.  We are made in His image, He is omnipresent and all the other terms used in Christianity.  Tony has not existed since the beginning of time.  Also Frosted Flakes would not get soggy in milk if it were Holy.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That God was released in a Big Bang?  That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?


God cannot be matter and energy and exist outside of space and time.  It isn't possible for matter and energy to exist outside of space and time.

God must be something different.  Specifically, God must be no thing.  Spirit is no thing.  In fact, science tells us that space and time were created from nothing.  Science is literally telling us no thing (i.e. spirit) created space and time.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That God was released in a Big Bang?  That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?
> ...



You seem to be placing limits on God.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

Going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


Tony was an analogy, not literal.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the attributes of God, according to Christianity - if you care to list them.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


Not at all.  There are no limits on God because God is no thing.  If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God.   There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.  God is consciousness without form.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


When it is said that we were created in the image of God, they were talking about beings that know and create.  God is literally existence.  When asked his name he answered I Am.  We can't possibly understand the nature of God because there is no thing that we can compare God to.  The closest we can come is a mind without a body or consciousness without form.   It totally matches up with science.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

G.T. said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Basically He is our Father.  Sets down rules which are meant to guide us in the direction of a good life.  Loves us by providing for us, while giving us the independence to feel accomplished and make our own mistakes.  Keeps a place for us in His home.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> Not at all.  There are no limits on God because God is no thing.  If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God.   There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.  God is consciousness without form.



According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form.  Your theory has a hole.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That God was released in a Big Bang?  That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?


Space and time did have a beginning.  Matter and energy were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.  Once space and time were created, you are correct, matter and energy cannot be destroyed.  It can only change form.  Science tells us that the atoms in our body are ~14 billion years old.  That our atoms were literally present when God created space and time. 

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


That's respectable to me, in terms of possessing those properties as a faith of what God is.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  There are no limits on God because God is no thing.  If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God.   There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.  God is consciousness without form.
> ...


I don't see how it does.  If God can create the material world he can be born into the material world.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That God was released in a Big Bang?  That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence?  That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?
> ...



Hole number two, God says He has existed for eternity, that has no beginning or end.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.  There are no limits on God because God is no thing.  If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God.   There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.  God is consciousness without form.
> ...


.


saveliberty said:


> According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.



_*According to the Trinity ...*_

both have holes if christianity really does represent a trinity that is theirs ...


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You just finished telling us He has no consciousness form.  I pointed out He did through Christ.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



...and your future is limited if it exists, so think on that for awhile, that way adults can talk.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

Getting way off the topic.  In essence, I see Atheists as defining themselves as God of their own morals.  Some will have high standards and others not so much.  They are likely to fail at reaching their standards as are the rest of us.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



not to mention there is no evidence to indicate jesus ever claimed to be a messiah.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


Right, our space and time has a beginning.  Outside of space and time there is no such thing as time.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.  Matter and energy cannot be eternal because matter and energy are not unchanging.  Matter and energy will always seek equilibrium.  Specifically, thermal equilibrium.  Spirit on the other hand has no such constraint.

We literally have an example of a "no thing" which existed before space and time; the laws of nature.  The laws of nature are "no thing."  They do not exist as matter or energy.  They existed before space and time were created.

We also have an example of a "no thing" in our material world which is eternal and unchanging.  The final state of fact.  For any given thing there is a final state of fact that once it is discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way.  In other words, the final state of fact is eternal and unchanging.  Another name for the final state of fact is objective truth.  Objective truth is reality.  Reality is existence.  Ergo God is existence.

What I am trying to tell you is that God - who is spirit - created the material world so that beings like us could know and create.  Everything I am describing to you is consistent with science, the laws of nature and logic.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice.  What is said is The Creator.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> Getting way off the topic.  In essence, I see Atheists as defining themselves as God of their own morals.  Some will have high standards and others not so much.  They are likely to fail at reaching their standards as are the rest of us.


I disagree.  God is pruning us all.  Even the ones who do not believe he exists.  Here's how...

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals.  Morals can be anything we want them to be.  The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome.  Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony.  Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.  So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes.  That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes.  This is the moral law at work.   If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave.  The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws.  When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate.  If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall.  Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. 

Morals are effectively standards.  For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.  Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.  

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong?  The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.  The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice.  What is said is The Creator.


Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation.  Man came from dust and man will return to dust.  

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years.  Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing.  We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world.  Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning.  If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization.  That is not intended to be a criticism.  It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago.  We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Getting way off the topic.  In essence, I see Atheists as defining themselves as God of their own morals.  Some will have high standards and others not so much.  They are likely to fail at reaching their standards as are the rest of us.
> ...



Interesting, because I clearly stated morals were standards, just like your long winded mantra says.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


No. I said God is consciousness without form.  Jesus was born into this world.  Jesus had form while on earth.


----------



## ding (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


See you around, SL.  

It was nice chatting with you.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice.  What is said is The Creator.
> ...



Yeah, well I prefer to think God thought explaining Quantum Physics to folks 6,000 years ago had its own set of issues.  Keep it simple was another good rule.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> No. I said God is consciousness without form.  Jesus was born into this world.  Jesus had form while on earth.



The Spirit is God and Christ, Christ is The Spirit and God, God is Christ and The Spirit, yet each separate, the Trinity.  God took physical form as part of Christ.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

ding said:


> See you around, SL.
> 
> It was nice chatting with you.



Same here, bless you.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 6, 2019)




----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 6, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > not to mention there is no evidence to indicate jesus ever claimed to be a messiah.
> ...



in 35 years jesus never ventured 100 miles from where he was born for the simple reason they had no inclination for a divine origin ... one erroneously manufactured in the 4th century christian bible.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Maybe it never dawned on you, but its a world wide religion now.  Imagine of He had TV back then.


----------



## hjmick (Jan 6, 2019)

Morality is not necessarily defined by religion.


----------



## Penelope (Jan 7, 2019)

saveliberty said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



We would of never believed him.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 7, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 7, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

 Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men. 

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

 Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.


----------



## Taz (Jan 7, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


If the god you all follow was moral, you all wouldn't hate gays.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 7, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


.


PoliticalChic said:


> Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.





PoliticalChic said:


> If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion



neither of the above statements are true if for no other reason they are based on a religion, desert religions that have not proven the existence of their deity to be real.

they have only faith and do not reach the next level where faiths foundation is realized as attaining the Apex of knowledge or the Triumph of good vs evil that provides the irrefutable evidence for the metaphysical morality of their existence - from whence they came. the same as their gods judgement, the proof their destiny was fulfilled.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...




"...they have only faith ...."


This must be why they call you 'Sherlock,' huh?



You seem to have overlooked the 100 million deaths associated with the doctrines that abjure religion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 7, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures.


And you give gods credit for this? ...pffft.... The Bible morality is horrible. Thank goodness we don't have that immoral abbheration hardwired into us. In fact, modern western society has spent the better part of the last 400 years using secular enlightenment to claw out from under that nonsense.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 15, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




while you overlook the deaths FROM religion.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 15, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




"Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men."


In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages.

and also the killing of gays.


Roy Moores' source for his desire to have homosexuality made illegal.

So if the christian bible (and i have no doubt that the only religion/bible that you approve of is the christian one)
is used as a source of morals or laws gays and atheists would be slaughtered and blacks would still be slaves.

Would  this be an example for you of "Making America Great"?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 15, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...





There is no possible way to equate the slaughter by you Leftists with those attributable to religion.


"Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. *While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury. *
The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.

R.J. Rummel estimates that *almost 170 million people* were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left


Some major examples:

Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Chiang Kaishek...10,214,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......122,064,000




Get it, mud??????


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 15, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SweetSue92 said:
> ...




"In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages."

I love it when Leftists suddenly try to quote the Bible.



1. " Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, *selling their captives or prisoners* of war to European buyers.[19] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups. These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans." Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia


*2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.*
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


*3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.*


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term _eved_  and Greek _doulos_  to refer to slaves. _Eved_ has a much wider meaning than the English term _slave_, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as _servant_ or _hired worker_." 
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; *Moses was the servant of God *but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf




"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 15, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Of course Hitler is a bad example.

There is no evidence that he was an atheist.  MOST evidence indicates that he believed in the occult (if nor orthodox religion) On the  other hand there can be no doubt that the people who committed the actual slaughter were MOSTLY protestant  and partially catholic.  The guys stuffing ovens with jews monday thru saturday went to church on sunday and felt fine about  themselves.

Your other examples are undeniable.  They were certainly non-believers and they certainly had millions slaughtered.

Unforgivable!

So ANY "ism"  that promotes the dehumanization and demonizing of any portion of society should be denounced.

So I denounce ALL "isms" that promote dehumanization and vilification.  ATHEISTIC or RELIGIOUS.

and I find it a little disturbing that you consider it a matter of "degree".

"communism is EVIL because they killed MULTI MILLIONS of people."
"christianity is ok because they didn't kill as many"


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 15, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




nice spin!

you should write for FOX news.  You are great at cherry picking what you want and omitting anything that doesn't serve your agenda.

1. SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN slave owners defend slavery using the very quotes I used!

so
if you have a problem with their use of the bible go argue with them.

2.  Slavery is slavery.  Is this another matter of degree for you?

SOME slavery (as long as it is not you being enslaved, of course, is not a bad thing?

*Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV / 1,792 helpful votes *
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 15, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...




Those are Democrats.

Democrats.

Clearly not followers of the biblical proscriptions.


And they have been grouchy ever since the Republicans pried their slaves away from them.




. The Supreme Court *Dred Scott decision*- due to collaboration by a Democrat Judge and a Democrat President- deemed slaves as personal possessions, and escaped slaves _had to be returned to their 'rightful owners.'_


Is this consistent with the Bible's authorizations?


_Not in any way, shape or form._


*" *If a slave has taken refuge with you*, do not hand them over to their master.* *16 *Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
Deuteronomy 23:15


The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today include control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death with no crime having been committed by the slaves "owner."

That's not what is found in the Bible.

"… the Bible does record instances of slavery, but not in the cruel way in which we think of today. In today’s age, the idea of slavery conjures up images of a black man with whip marks on his back and bleeding blisters on his hands, working tirelessly day and night to please his ruthless white “master.” This is not the idea of slavery according to the scriptures. 


_When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money._-Exodus 21:20-21


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 15, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Those are all religions. The head of the state was the god.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International




Of course they can.  Atheism is simply the religion of natural law.  They believe the universe works and happens without a conscious plan and direction.  They can be moral, just that their morality won't involve spirituality.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...




That's a great question.  Let's ask the baby-killing progressives.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 15, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Ooh, nice straw man.  Do you know anyone who kills babies?  I don't.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


Or relativity.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Ooh, nice straw man.  Do you know anyone who kills babies?  I don't.



Can't think of a single person.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 15, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Ooh, nice straw man.  Do you know anyone who kills babies?  I don't.
> ...


None of the people shown kill babies.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



*How do you know that?* 

You are a mystic.  

You know all of them personally.  

You have their signed statements.  

You're just a stupid, flaming jackass that just throws words out there and says shit.

Planned Parenthood Killed 321,384 Babies in Abortions Last Year | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Has Killed 6,803,782 Babies in Abortions | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Sets Record for Number of Babies Killed

Really sucks when you walk into a boldfaced lie with your pants down and foot up own ass, doesn't it?


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 15, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Oh give me a fuckin' break.  None of those people kill babies and you know it.  Stop with the mouth-foaming nonsense.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 16, 2019)




----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


It's easier to justify ending their lives when you dehumanize them, right?


----------



## cnm (Jan 16, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.


Complete bullshit. For example the Plains Indians considered it absolutely moral to torture members of competing tribes. Morals are community norms, they differ as communities differ.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 16, 2019)

cnm said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.
> ...



"Members of competing tribes". So I guess you missed what I said. Don't torture for fun.


----------



## cnm (Jan 16, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> "Members of competing tribes". So I guess you missed what I said. Don't torture for fun.


They did it to amuse themselves. They could have killed them quickly, after all. It was completely moral.


----------



## SweetSue92 (Jan 16, 2019)

cnm said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > "Members of competing tribes". So I guess you missed what I said. Don't torture for fun.
> ...



Anybody could kill quickly when they torture, and if they're torturing, they're not killing quickly. You're still twisting what I said. I'm not talking about torturing your enemies. I'm talking about torturing for fun, as a pastime or hobby, as in serial killers. Sorry, there is absolute morality.


----------



## cnm (Jan 16, 2019)

Ffs. They tortured their enemies for fun! Do you consider that moral, as in you'd do it?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2019)

cnm said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> > Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.
> ...


No. Morals are standards which are independent of men. Standards exist in and of themselves.


----------



## cnm (Jan 16, 2019)

SweetSue92 said:


> Anybody could kill quickly when they torture, and if they're torturing, they're not killing quickly.


What on earth are you babbling about here?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


You freaks don't care about babies. You care about controlling women.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




You Libs really are the f---king dolts.  Is it that you are truly this ignorant of the real world or are you simply such bad liars?  All the democrats working at PP not only murder on a daily basis, but they've been videotaped selling the body parts for profit for medical research.

Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Baby Parts Makes Over $100 Million Doing Abortions | LifeNews.com


Planned Parenthood Exec Busted Again Trying To Sell Baby Body Parts

Planned Parenthood Harvests Baby Parts | plam.org

You are so busted.  Straw man my ass.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Posting stupid propaganda videos does not prove your point my gullible friend.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

ding said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




The air-bubblebrain has no clue he's been sanctioning and funding baby murder all his life all the while claiming no one in pictures of hundreds of people he's never met and doesn't even know who they are can't possible have ever killed a baby.  Just another leftard goon with zero credibility in anything he ever claims.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




You're such a f---king LIAR.  It isn't propaganda when you have the very heads of PP themselves sitting down at a table working out the deals to sell baby parts for medical experiments, pictures, words and audio.  Not only are they baby killers, YOU are a baby killer.

HELLO, MURDERER!


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 16, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


we should resort to Ethics whenever our morals may fail us.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 16, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



Have you ever tried principles?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



This has been thoroughly debunked.

You NEED to believe these lies because you want to kill liberals.

YOU are the murderer.

As is every conservative media source that peddles this blood libel.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 16, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


sure; we have a general welfare clause.  it is a general principle.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Another Baby Killer in Denial.  Start with proving your point of how you can claim to know what hundreds of strangers in photos you know nothing about have done with their lives first, otherwise, your words are less than empty.  Not only are you a pathetic, delusional liar, you can't even admit that the Left and the DNC supports a baby killing organization!  Or are you now going to try to tell all of us that PP has never aborted a live fetus?!

YOU ARE SOOOO  BUSTED, murderer.  Murderer by day, murderer by night.  Good thing your mother didn't decide to go to PP and abort YOU.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



BULLSHIT, asshole.  I sat through and watched all the videos myself when they came out a few years ago.



> You NEED to believe these lies because you want to kill liberals.



Right.



> YOU are the murderer.



Right.  Who have I killed, numbnut?



> As is every conservative media source that peddles this blood libel.



Another funny, psycho-dolt on lithium.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Back up, wipe the spittle off the monitor, and try again.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


You know that was faked, right?

It's just one more product of the okeef propaganda factory.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


More spittle-spraying nonsense.

You can do better.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




I've nothing to try.  Women FIGHT for the right to abort their babies, they FIGHT to protect and defend Planned Parenthood as their goto place for an abortion.  Planned Parenthood is an undeniable unquestioned center for "woman's rights" to kill fetuses and you said NOT ONE PERSON in my photos has killed a baby, including Planned Parenthood. 

Not only are you a terrible liar, but you are a clueless one as well.  The air-pocket asswipe bombs once again, even if you don't have the integrity to even man up and admit it when you've hopelessly put your own foot in your mouth all the way up to the knee!


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Ok, I'mma stop now, before you stroke out or something.

Don't want that on my conscience.

Have a nice day, check your blood pressure.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




Another liberal ducks and runs because he's been caught with his pants around his ankles yet again.  Even Snopes cannot support his bullshit:


*In the first video*: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
*In the second video:* Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
*In the third video:* Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
*In the fourth video:* Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
*In the fifth video*: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
*In the sixth video: *Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
*In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video:* Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
*In the eighth video*: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
*The ninth video*: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
*The 10th video*: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies.The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
*Unreleased Videos*: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.
*The 11th video*: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.
*The 12th video in the series* shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Creepitus goon actually worked at PP himself murdering fetuses.


----------



## Votto (Jan 16, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



Atheists have morality.  The question is, morality based upon what?  Even being supposedly amoral is a type of morality in itself.

To then say that there is a universal morality would then bring into question why morality differs.  At the same time, looking at the broad categories of morality we seem to be more alike than not.  After all, what society says it is OK to murder and steal, etc.?  But why then are they so similar if there is no universal morality?

My take is that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong based upon a universal morality, and that universal morality is the golden rule Jesus spoke of, which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you.  The reason we even have a sense of "wrong" is because we all have done wrong, which means that we have all at one time or another broken our own internal moral code.  Otherwise, we would have no sense of right or wrong.  In this sense our guilt is without defense.  In short, the reason we all differ in certain realms of moral conduct is our response for breaking our own internal moral standards.  Some have simply altered right and wrong in their own minds by such methods as rationalization in order to justify themselves.  For example, the best way to justify genocide is to dehumanize the other party.  We see it with Nazis that called Jews vermin or blacks referred to as glorified apes in the deep south in the 1800's or the unborn a fetus, etc..  It is only then that we feel free to treat them as we do cattle because they are no longer our equal.

We only have understanding of things we can relate to, and we only can relate to things we have experience with.  This is why we know atheists have morality, because they fully understand their innate thoughts of what is right and wrong which is what they use to try and tear apart their opponents.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 16, 2019)

Votto said:


> The question is, morality based upon what?


Humanism.


----------



## Votto (Jan 16, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > The question is, morality based upon what?
> ...



What is the morality of Humanism?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 16, 2019)

Votto said:


> Atheists have morality.  The question is, morality based upon what?



Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species.


----------



## Votto (Jan 16, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists have morality.  The question is, morality based upon what?
> ...



So you would say that morality is based upon your own perceived view of what is best for your survival?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 16, 2019)

Votto said:


> What is the morality of Humanism?


I am not saying it has it's own morality. I am saying morality is derived from a few accepted truths about the well being of humans. 

You didn't derive your morality from your religion. Your morality is chiefly due to the genetic accident of where and when you were born. So you might just take a lomemnt to look at how your own morals were derived and answer your own questions.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 16, 2019)

Votto said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



No, I would say "Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species".

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me, kill me?

If you answer no, then gods aren't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt (not you personally, the greater “you”), and immoral and that is _your_ personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people _do_ behave morally.


----------



## Votto (Jan 16, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You do realize that people who claim that there is a God historically have also been murderous, right?

For example, there is an element within Islam that thinks that murdering infidels is God's will.

So your argument is a strawman, just because you believe in a God does not mean it discourages you from committing murder or even genocide.

In fact, convincing people that God wants them to kill is one of the most effective ways to motivate people to kill.

In history, we see men try to convince others that they were a god in order to serve them and kill for them, but when that no longer worked, they convinced people that they spoke for God, but when that no longer worked, the tried to convince people that there was no God, thus making themselves a god to the people.  Interestingly, these types of regimes, mostly communist, have murdered the most people.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 16, 2019)

Votto said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



We are largely in agreement. We disagree that I believe in god(s).


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > The question is, morality based upon what?
> ...


No. Morals are effectively standards. They exist independent of man. Moral behavior, like truth, is discovered. There is no letter of the law standard. That is called legalism or legal positivism.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


I'm not "ducking and running" you twit, I stopped so you wouldn't hurt yourself.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



That's the greatest self-effacing BS claim I've yet heard here;  'I lost an argument out of concern for you!'  Why, THANK YOU O kind sir for saving me, but from what?  You can say anything you want but you cannot change the facts already laid out above.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 16, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Atheists are moral because it is the right thing to do

Theists are moral because they fear God


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 16, 2019)

ding said:


> Morals are effectively standards. They exist independent of man.



I'm not so sure, Ding.  Who but man uses morals?  Certainly horses don't.  Dogs don't.  Man judges morality.  Morality may come from the heart, inspired by faith, driven or guided from within, but just as a tree falls in the woods, without mankind, of what need, use or value are morals?  Morals are guidelines and goals set by MEN I think.


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 16, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


From what?  From yourself.

I thought that was pretty clear.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 16, 2019)

Votto said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...




christians have NO morality.

So they actually NEED a book to tell them how to behave.

"and god said don't kill"

but the conservative christian said ..."yeah?...why should I follow THAT rule?  I kinda LIKE killing..."

and god sayeth "because I am the lord thy god and I command you!"

and the conservative christian yawned and replied...."yeah?  well what the fuk are YOU gonna do about it anyway?"

and god sayeth "I shall smite thee!  and curse thee!  and torment thee in hell for all eternity!"

and the conservative, a bit concerned, meekly replied....

"well...since eternal hellfire is the punishment for killing people I guess I better stop killing people..."

and THAT is where conservative christians get their morals!

from fear.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 17, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> and THAT is where conservative christians get their morals!
> 
> from fear.



being as no person has ever seen their god or any two people at the same time has heard the same voice they claim is from their god and having completely made up their bible in the 4th century, a political document disguised as a religion it is quite amazing how they have used that fear to foster their religion through persecution and victimization of the innocent and are still allowed a part in society they are fully unfit to be granted. greed is their morality above all else.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 17, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


why omit ethics?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 17, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


danielpalos said:


> why omit ethics?



absolutes in such matters are not invariable especially over time, evolution that is why there is the religion of antiquity that evil will never be allowed to be a contributing participant. that is what perishes when the temporary physical life comes to an end.


----------



## Votto (Jan 17, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We obtain our morality from people who have authority over us, such as the state, the church, your parents, etc, as well as our innate sense of right or wrong.

In this sense, we all have "gods" or a God that we look to for guidance.

Historically we have seen how the morals of society have been swayed with such issues as abortion and slavery.  Before they were made legal, they were seen as OK, but once they are illegal, they are seen as immoral.  In this sense, we are lemmings, or as the Bible calls us, sheep.

Baa, baa, baa.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 17, 2019)

Votto said:


> We obtain our morality from people who have authority over us, such as the state, the church, your parents, etc, as well as our innate sense of right or wrong.


Speak for yourself. I formed mine through years of reasoned arguments. Don't come fuse your authoritarian bent with everyone else.


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Morals are effectively standards. They exist independent of man.
> ...


What you are discussing is the perception of morality. Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral. Abortion and slavery are good examples.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 17, 2019)

ding said:


> Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral


Just as man can snap fit nonsense religious texts to any morals he chooses. That's why 15th century ding was torturing infidels, subjugating women, amd enslaving brown people. But morals based o. Reason are far superior, as we have the benefit of secular and scientific enlightenment to grant us some knowledge.


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral
> ...


The fact that you are morally indignant and expect this belief to be universally understood by all proves my point.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 17, 2019)

Votto said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...



I agree in the sense that our morality is largely a function of societal norms.


People are on the precipice of a slippery slope if they’re suggesting that religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before the currently configured gods existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few or even one)? 

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well. 


Interesting observation about sheep

A child is _bereft_ of a critical platform to make a valid choice, which is why they need caring for. Look at the terminology of the three competing religions:

Be as a child
Faith alone
Belief, and it shall be
I am the shepherd, you are like sheep…

Notice a theme there? Not once are we extolled: Rigidly question, for I the LORD hath made thee with a brain, and thee hath the world before thee to explore. No, instead its surrender the brain I gave you.


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Morality is not relative. Man's perception of morality is relative. It is relative because man is subjective. Man did not invent moral laws. The moral laws of nature exist independent of man. Man discovers the moral law much in the same way Einstein discovered special relativity. Einstein did not invent special relativity. Einstein discovered special relativity. Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors through outcomes. In part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 17, 2019)

ding said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Man discovered these successful behaviors through outcomes.



so says the 4th century christian ... too bad their discovery's remain conveyed in their religions book of forgeries.


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2019)

To properly understand that morals are standards that are independent of man you have to look at diametrically opposed behaviors. Outcomes reveal the higher standard. 

Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures. 

Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct that exist in nature.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 17, 2019)

Why does God violate the morals set for humans?


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Why does God violate the morals set for humans?


See Job 40.


----------



## yragnitup (Jan 18, 2019)

E.g Abrahamic religions claim we get the idea that incest is immoral only because of their God. This is funny. In that case, their God should have created 2 pairs of Adam & Eve alike to avoid their kids having sex together to keep the human progeny alive.

Another point this tread is missing, unlike Abhramic religions, religions elsewhere does not necessarily mean God too.
For instance, Buddhism has nothing to do with God. It's perfectly accepted by their followers that Buddha is just a man & the moral values he espoused are within the capacity of humans to evolve it. E.g Buddha taught to even love those who hate you 600 years before God supposed appeared as a goat herder in Israel & said the same thing.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Why does God violate the morals set for humans?



The unknown authors of the Bibles wrote their tales / fables at different times from different experiences. That would account for the errors and contradictions.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Why does God violate the morals set for humans?
> ...


What errors?  What contradictions?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral
> ...



There is no greater villian iin all of history written history than the atrocities in the bible linked to the Christian gods. Just look at the damage to humanity they have caused.

Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Are you sure you aren’t talking about the Old Testament?  Which atrocities?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It’s super convenient to blame religion for everything. Why don’t you blame the Jews, Hollie?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2019)

If I held those beliefs I would question them.


----------



## sparky (Jan 18, 2019)

ding said:


> If I held those beliefs I would question them.



Isn't that what you're _doing_ ding?

~S~


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jan 18, 2019)

How would atheists know if they were moral?


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 18, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


No. Because if one is a true atheist why not be like Fidel or Saddam and " all for me- it"  ?. The agnostic is one who is afraid because he's unsure. The what if it's true ? " factor comes into play. Often good people. Just havent read or prayed enough to get it.Many do when confronted with death.
These will be the most heard words on earth when Yeshua returns. " OH SHIT IT IS TRUE"


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2019)

sparky said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > If I held those beliefs I would question them.
> ...


Actually I am asking clarifying questions that are intended to bring out the incongruity of her beliefs. 

She transposed OT events onto the NT and ignored the Jew’s culpability in her beliefs. 

I on the other hand see religion as a good thing and read these passages and subsequent acts of religious persons in the context of the day.


----------



## sparky (Jan 18, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> How would atheists know if they were moral?




_Good one_ MM

Which brings us to >>>>






~S~


----------



## sparky (Jan 18, 2019)

ding said:


> Actually I am asking clarifying questions that are *intended to bring out the incongruity *of her beliefs.
> 
> She transposed OT events onto the NT and ignored the Jew’s culpability in her beliefs.



My bad then Ding.....so yet another example of biblical chery picking marches on....





ding said:


> I on the other hand see religion as a good thing and read these passages and subsequent acts of religious persons in the context of the day



I find no matter what time period, the terrestial _manifestations_ of celestial doctrine are always biased , because terrestial _existence_ in and of itself inherently is _self _serving

~S~


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2019)

sparky said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I am asking clarifying questions that are *intended to bring out the incongruity *of her beliefs.
> ...


Not everyone cherry picks. 

The OT actually does a pretty good job of not being biased. It tells the good and the bad.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 18, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


He doesn’t return to Earth, he doesn’t alit he sets on the clouds and looks down.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 18, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



You have defined one of the motivators used by religions to cohere large groups of people: fear. Making up angry, supernatural entities to explain things that were not fully understood defines most every religion ever invented.

What is an effective way to get someone to believe as you wish for them to? FEAR. Scare the hell out of him. Tell the people that non-believers (or believers in competing religions) they are on a paved road to hell...., tell people that leaving the faith will cause god(s) to abandon them (and back up those threats with religious Mafioso enforcers), and you will deter them (for a time) until they LEARN better.


----------



## sparky (Jan 18, 2019)




----------



## Moonglow (Jan 18, 2019)

god has broken every commandment, which God the one that is Jesuse’s Dad. You Christians an your multigod religion.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 18, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> How would atheists know if they were moral?


Compassion


----------



## Mindful (Jan 18, 2019)

sparky said:


>



You tell 'em.  

Regarding Brexit.


----------



## sparky (Jan 18, 2019)

can i _sing it_ instead?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


 
I heard that he will return like a thief in the night and while everyone is sleeping he will enter the fortress of the enemy by stealth, throw the devil a beating while he's in his footie pajamas, bind him hand and foot, ransack his house, and make a clean getaway with all of his possessions before the sun comes up.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 18, 2019)

sparky said:


> can i _sing it_ instead?



It's nothing to do with her.

But she does go to church every Sunday.


----------



## sparky (Jan 18, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Likkmee said:
> ...




aaAAAAaaaand.... the _chosen _assend...


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2019)

sparky said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


 

Maybe so. I heard that at the resurrection, when Jesus emerges from behind the clouds that have obscured him from sight,  the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. Giddy up!

Or maybe that's just some ignorant ancient superstitious goat herder fantasy...

Time will tell.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 18, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > can i _sing it_ instead?
> ...


At least we can see what her dress fashion is like.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 18, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I see you actually read the Bible..


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 18, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Likkmee said:
> ...


Yeah God has been saving the devil just for this action....Will popcorn be served?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




lol... I'm not sure about popcorn, definitely no fish sandwiches.. Maybe a barbecued pork roast? Jabberwocky stew? Badger snouts? Wolf nipple chips? Who can say?

Just be ready to have a belly laugh that will carry you through the rest of your days.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


  Yeah, I don't like overcooked vegetables very much, and reading something that everyone is arguing about is such a bore, but I ate it anyway.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2019)

Birds of a feather flock together.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Birds of a feather flock together.




vipers crawl on their bellies and eat dust  for their entire lives alone.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Birds of a feather flock together.
> ...


Which is your life right now.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




lol..  are you indulging in wishful thinking again?

I found  the hidden door, have eaten the hidden manna,  and have entered the kingdom of God and earned the right to eat the fruit of the tree of life.. .  I found what everyone is looking for. I couldn't  be alone if I tried.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No. Your soul is rotting. 

Your humanistic theology is the source of your deception.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



If my soul was rotting I would say things like "God experiences the material world though us."

But thems your words, not mine.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


That’s because you don’t believe God exists. I do. 

Of course a mind without a body that created the material world shares in our experiences. It’s how he experiences the material world he created. 

He shares in the highs and the lows. He gets the full human experience. So when you meet your maker and ask him why bad things happen to good people he will tell you so that you could experience the full human experience and then he will tell you that he was there every step of the way.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


 

lol.. "Now I lay me down to sleep.".....

What are you,  8 years old?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Nope. I am awake. You are dead.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It drives you crazy when people sing the praises of God.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

No wonder that people who don’t believe in God don’t experience the joy from sharing their experiences with God. 

They have no joy to share. 

I guess that’s why they hate other people that do.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




right.... if you say so... ooooh noooo!

 I'm in such torment seeing you  carving a false image of an edible mangod  out of your own feces and then stinking up everything you touch..

Whatever should I do?

lol...


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yes. You are. Your misery shines through in every hateful post you make.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Misery?  lol... I'm having the time of my life...aren't you having any fun? thats a shame.

Thanks for playing along.. lol


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You don’t believe God exists so you can’t believe that God shares in your experiences.

It’s as simple as that.

So you will never experience the joy of sharing your experiences - both good and bad - with God.

If you are looking for the source of your misery, look no further.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Your behaviors say otherwise. 

Taking your misery out on others is an extremely poor substitute for sharing your experiences with God. 

There’s a reason you keep experiencing the same misery. You keep doing the same thing.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I'm not taking out any misery out on others. And I have been sharing what I have seen in the presence of God.

I have exposed you as a liar worthy of the condemnation just like God condemned the talking serpent in the fairy tale (Genesis 3:14)  for misleading the gullible into setting aside divine instruction , defying the law against idolatry, and desecrating the teachings of Jesus as an expression of religious devotion,  which results in separation from God, expulsion from paradise, death,  and hades.. 

That is the right thing to do. It makes Jesus happy and all the angels sing.

Why would I feel bad? I am immune to your poison. You are the one who has been discomfited.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You are lying. You don’t believe God exists so you can’t believe God shares in your experiences.  

Everything about you is a lie.

You can’t sing the praises of God.

It drives you crazy when other people sing the praises of God.

You only have one objective here; to discourage people from sharing their experiences with God.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



If I am discouraging you from lying in the name of God, desecrating the teachings of Jesus,  and consigning yourself to destruction, isn't that a good thing?

I am doing you a favor. You can thank me some other time..


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> No wonder that people who don’t believe in God don’t experience the joy from sharing their experiences with God.
> 
> They have no joy to share.
> 
> I guess that’s why they hate other people that do.





MOST non-religious do NOT "hate people" who believe in god.

We merely wish to deny those people their attempts to FORCE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on everyone else; in schools or in laws


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I thank you for providing a contrast to everything which is good and just. 

I thank you for proving my point that you do not believe God created the material world so that he can share in our experiences. 

I thank you for proving my point that you do not sing the praises of God and are driven crazy by people who do. 

I thank you for providing an example of what misery looks like.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> No wonder that people who don’t believe in God don’t experience the joy from sharing their experiences with God.
> 
> They have no joy to share.
> 
> I guess that’s why they hate other people that do.


Your god causes you to bicker with people on the internet to an overtly obsessive degree. I think that sums up your joy.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No wonder that people who don’t believe in God don’t experience the joy from sharing their experiences with God.
> ...


No one is forcing anything upon you. Tell me how they are forcing you?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No wonder that people who don’t believe in God don’t experience the joy from sharing their experiences with God.
> ...


  Exactly. Their openly expressed delusions, irrational beliefs,  and crippling thought disorders should disqualify them from any position of authority that requires sober, rational,  intelligent thought or the public trust.

Can you imagine how fucked up this country and the world would be if these nut jobs usurped  positions of authority in government, took control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system,  and deciding whether or not to go to war?

Uh oh,,, never mind. I just read the news....


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No wonder that people who don’t believe in God don’t experience the joy from sharing their experiences with God.
> ...


No. We do that to ourselves. God’s not pulling any strings although the deck is stacked against us per se in that our behaviors have consequences.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Salami and bacon amen


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Irrational beliefs like God created the material world so that he can share in our experiences?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Exactly. 

At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But only a-rational or irrational folks need any bibles, anecdotes or allegories to realize or understand archetypes.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jan 19, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > How would atheists know if they were moral?
> ...



How do you know compassion is moral? This is really simple stuff here.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


  Yeah, thats quite irrational. A person doesn't write a book to educate himself dummy. Human beings are invited to experience life in the realm of God. Its not the other way around.

Only a condemned spirit in the realm of the dead would seek experiences through those living on earth.

The devil has tricked you into worshipping him..

But if it makes you so happy just go ahead and gibber your life away..


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I was talking to someone else with that post, Ding. Since you asked nicely, rationality, cause and effect are all thats needed to understand these things.

Perhaps in the Ancient days, passing on the experience-learned wisdom through dumbed down allegory was necessary to strike a cord and infect change. 

Today, its completely unnecessary except that it serves the folks' egos who need to lean on the dusty propoganda aspects of it. 

Being rational means taking no position on the unproven.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


Its simple to know compassion is moral because our moral progress and intuition tells us so, but for folks who need a crutch of understanding - our reasoning tells us its moral because a community without compassion would have greater communal suffering. 

Its basic survival instincts paired with a logical dissection of cause and effect.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...



People teach their children about the big bad wolf.whats wrong with that?


The problem is that they read about a talking serpent over and over again yet for some mysterious reason they still do not understand this human archetype. 

Its probably because they are it..


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I doubt that they dont understand human archetypes simply because they miss a metaphor in a book, that doesnt rationally follow and if it did, try putting it in a valid syllogism.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Ok... let me put it this way. Any person over the age of 18 has probably heard what religious folks have been saying more times than they can stomach. Anyone any older has definitely heard it all before so I don't need to get into any of that.

Every professed believer of any of the three so called abrahamic religions do not think that the talking serpent is a human archetype at all.

They teach that the talking serpent in the fairy tale  is an invisible disembodied entity in real life that enters the soul to make people do naughty things.

If they understood human archetypes and basic literary teaching methods they wouldn't be saying any of that.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Where does that come from? 

Atheism: The religion of Isssss Notttttt!


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


That doesnt follow.

1 can understand an archetype through experience and rationality alone, and thats evident. Therefore, it doesnt hinge on whether they can spot it as a metaphorical allegory, in a book. Thats a pretty simple ipso facto deduction.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


Where does what come from....

I just explained why compassion makes sense as part of our moral ethos through the instinct of survival and the attribute of reasoning.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I agree. I could do that in the second grade.

But if a person can't spot such an obvious metaphor in a book they are probably not going to spot much in real life.

They might misidentify a talking serpent for a holy man and then all hell would break loose.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


People write books for a number of reasons, one of which is to share knowledge.  They also write books because using our talents and creating is enjoyable and fun.  

Yes, human beings are invited to experience God, but like all relationships it is a two way street.  

I believe you have an unrealistic perception of God.  If you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will accept.  There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing.  God is not matter and energy like us.  God exists outside of our four dimension space time.  In fact the premise is that God is spirit.  A spirit is no thing.  Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things.  A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time.  The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness.  That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.   Mind you I am not saying I understand the nature of God, I am only telling you that in our limited human capacity the closest we can come to understanding the nature of God is that God is like a mind without a body.  

So starting from that position and using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose.  So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same.  We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence.  We are obsessed with making smart things.  So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too. 

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is why?  Why did a mind with no body create minds with bodies?  There are a number of possible reasons.  Again, using our experiences as creators as a proxy and your book analogy, we create things because using our talents and creating things are enjoyable and fun, but we also create things for a reason to serve a purpose.  We also create things to share with others.  We know from our experiences that relationships are not one way.  So it is no great leap in logic to believe that God shares in our experiences as much if not more than we share in his experiences.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


 we we we,  us us us ...

How many of you are there?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Hell hasn't broken loose.

The only thing we can establish as an absolute is that, statistically, the more the human species developed communally, the less violent crime there was amongst the populations. This is global geopolitics between Governments aside, which is why I was very specific in citing "amongst the populations," i.e. the vast majority of actual human agents that havent made these decisions to go to war personally....but even still, if we include even Governments, dividing and conquering other Countries through violence is on a directly downward trajectory.


Now lets think about this.....does it imply a misunderstanding of human archetypes on a macro-level?

Let me be the 1st to sincerely doubt it.

I would attribute that to the development and refining of reasoning itself, coupled with the instinct to survive and reproduce.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 19, 2019)

Any mortal may have respect for a God.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Any mortal may have respect for a God.


The sun farts purple over the up.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Very good description! Thank you Ding.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


One body many members.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

RodISHI said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


  Yes, but only one head.

Without it the body is dead.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I understand that you were replying to Hobelim.  I was in that conversation too.  And I almost always ask my questions nicely too. 

The allegorical accounts of historical events and ancient man's wisdoms that he discovered were important enough for him to pass down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing.  Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old.  We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world.  Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. 

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history and wisdoms discovered by ancient man before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an  actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning.  Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times.  Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations.   Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. 

There really is nothing in the history of mankind that is comparable. It would seem to me that it would be a waste to discard them instead of searching them for their original meaning.  For instance one of the most important lessons is that man knows right from wrong and that when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes that he didn't violate it.  This is probably the single most important lesson in the Bible.  It literally has a practical effect on how we should be living our lives today.  I don't disagree that we should examine cause and effect. I disagree that we should discard ancient wisdoms.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof, (please dont post what you feel is your your proof its redundant at this point)...

 instead of the null hypothesis, which is more appropriate shy of personal omniscience.... which is...

man learned the most practical ways to survive....and simply communicated it and we all built upon and improved it over time.

Its practical, and its how every human actually behaves. Passing down stories of things we learned is not some blockbuster revelation.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

We arent cavemen anymore.

We dont need to touch a stove to learn that it causes suffering because we are simply a species that communicates and reasons.

Baseline assumptions dont need further explanation, no inserting or postulating deities in order to understand.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Any mortal may have respect for a God.
> ...


what is wrong with a Tradition of Respect for a god?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Without a doubt virtue is the greatest organizing principle of man.  Societies which behave with virtue experience harmony and order.  Societies which behave without virtue experience chaos and disorder.  So clearly not all behaviors have equal outcomes.  Man did not invent virtue.  Man discovered virtue.  Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors. In part from comparing them to the failed behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures. 

If we look at it through the lens of natural selection we find that man does have a preference for virtuous behavior because virtuous behaviors offer a functional advantage.  According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.  So even natural selection confirms that virtue is a behavior which leads to success.

But under no circumstances can man make make virtue be what he wants it to be because we do live in a logical universe where cause and effect control outcomes.  And because we live in a logical universe governed by cause and effect, standards exist for reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from standards, eventually the reason the standard exists will make itself known and be discovered.  Which is why...

Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures. 

Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


If you replaced may with should, your comment wouldnt have been vacuous.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


Ding- pro tip.

When two folks seem to agree that cause and effect exists, you dont need to waste 5 irrelevant paragraphs of jargain - of your time.

What you just said amounts to literally zero effect in advancing any conversation. You can comfort yourself by repeating shit youve posted several thousand times on someone else's time, man. Ill talk to hobelum alone for this very reason going fw, bloviating is just a waste of time.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


We are all connected.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Survival, by the way, is empirically proven to be the greatest organizing principle. This has been examined, empirically. When survival is at stake, folks who otherwise wouldnt come together do so, almost every single time. its as close to 100% as it gets, whereas virtues are argued about and can also divide. When survival is at stake, it takes a hero to sacrifice their own life for the life of another.

Thanks to human empathy, there are lots of heroes. Salami and bacon, amen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof,


I.e., not a shred of evidence whatsoever.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof,
> ...


Evidence and proof are different, conceptually...though. A deity has some evidence, but that same evidence could also be evidence for other explanations which makes it just evidence, and not proof.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof, (please dont post what you feel is your your proof its redundant at this point)...
> 
> instead of the null hypothesis, which is more appropriate shy of personal omniscience.... which is...
> 
> ...


At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.  If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world.  Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal.  There is no middle ground.  There is no other option.  Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't.  All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.  Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral.  And how space and time has evolved.  And how we perceive God.   You perceive God to be some magical fairytale so everything you see skews to that result. There isn't one single thing that you will agree with or accept.  Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.  I perceive God to be consciousness without form.  That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. 

A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.  

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.  That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.  After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body.  Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose.  So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same.  We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence.  We are obsessed with making smart things.  So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too. 

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless.   

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a  requisite for intelligence to arise.  If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist which is exactly what we see.  The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed the moment space and time were created.  One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable.  One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy.  That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe.  It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder.  But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the  material world so that minds with bodies could create too. 

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.  Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence.  Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence.  The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.  The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.  The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect.  Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose.  The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose. 

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world.  Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing.  So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense.  The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there  has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey.   The formation of space and time followed rules.  Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics.  These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.  These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world.  The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct.  Space and time were created from no thing.  Spirit is no thing.  No thing created space and time.  God is no thing.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


My people shall never be put to shame.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Evidence and proof are different, conceptually...though.


Right...one concept actually exists outside of mathematics , and the other does not. 


G.T. said:


> A deity has some evidence


I don't think so.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Evidence can be valid, invalid, strong, poor, inconclusive or conclusive ~ and a failure to set it apart from what we call proof bogs down SO many would-be fruitful discussions regarding epistemology, metaphysics, etc


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> but that same evidence could also be evidence for other explanations which makes it just evidence, and not proof.


Hmm,not really. If something is to be evidence of another thing, then it should be ruled out by some method as evidence of much simpler explanations.


 For example, finding a glass of spilled milk on the floor near your kitchen table, with the cat sitting nearby. Never ever would you say, "while this is evidence the cat knocked over the glass, it is also evidence that a rainbow unicorn passed through my kitchen and knocked it over."


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I do when you have reached erroneous conclusions.  

I am not trying to convince you.  I am correcting you.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Evidence and proof are different, conceptually...though.
> ...


Hey, evidence can be unconvincing which, speaking of a deity....it all seems to be unconvincing
.

but its still evidence.


Evidence can literally be defined into existence. If I was to tell you that washing machines make bacon....

bacon is evidence of my claim. 


Its not proof, and its not convincing.....thats the distinction.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > but that same evidence could also be evidence for other explanations which makes it just evidence, and not proof.
> ...


Youre still failing to distinguish between evidence and proof.

Youre requiring the evidence to be conclusive to even be considered evidence...but then...thats just proof.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof,
> ...


Wrong.  Physical laws, biological laws and moral laws provide all the evidence you need.  

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals.  Morals can be anything we want them to be.  The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome.  Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony.  Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.  So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes.  That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes.  This is the moral law at work.   If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave.  The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws.  When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate.  If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall.  Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. 

Morals are effectively standards.  For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.  Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man. 

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong?  The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.  The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Hey, evidence can be unconvincing


True...but at what point can we call it, "not evidence", then? Never? I mean, the fact that the moon is round does not convince me that leprechauns make ice cream. So is that just "unconvincing evidence", or "not evidence"?



G.T. said:


> Youre still failing to distinguish between evidence and proof.


No, I very clearly and strongly delineated the difference: "proof" only exists in mathematics. I have seen no such clear distinction from you, though. But I would like to hear it. It seems to me you are defining "proof" as, "that which is strong enough to convince you". Well, that's not a very strong definition, when it can so vastly change from person to person.

One person may see the sunrise as proof that Allah wants him to blow up children at a bus stop. Are we to kowtow to this nonsense and allow him use of the word, "proof"? No. I won't even agree that it is evidence. But you would...you would just defer and say, "it's evidence, just not good evidence".


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


So no real proof, just personal opinion. Got it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Youre requiring the evidence to be conclusive to even be considered evidence..


Not true at all. If I have a dog amd a cat, the spilt milk is evidence one of them knocked it over. Is it conclusive? No, I suppose a small earthquake may have occurred while I was in the shower, so I didn't notice.  But that would be a path to looking for more evidence. I wouldn't suddenly, upon seeing the glass of spilt milk,be lost in an unbounded barrage of ideas like, rainbow unicorns and fairies spilling the milk. While I cannot be 100% certain what happened, I can still make fair determinations and proceed from them.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, evidence can be unconvincing
> ...


No, I dont define proof that way...proof is something that reveals the truth of a proposition.

Evidence is ruled out when it is refuted.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Youre requiring the evidence to be conclusive to even be considered evidence..
> ...


Exactly! And when theres paint on all of their paws...

and the only print on the glass is a dog print ~ the dog's presence at the scene becomes stronger evidence in light of the print evidence corroborating it, and the cat evidence becomes much weaker.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> No, I dont define proof that way...proof is something that reveals the truth of a proposition.


Which simply does not exist, outside of mathematics. What does exist is evidence based determination. Once the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence supports an idea, we accept it as fact out of pragmatism. Evolution, in this way, is accepted fact. Have we completely ruled out the idea that the laws of nature were altered to fool us, for example? Have we,  with 100% certainty, ruled out the existence of rabbits in the Cambrian?   No, but we have so much evidence to the contrary   that it would be foolish to waste time on such pursuits.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, evidence can be unconvincing
> ...


The evidence is what was created and how it was created and the laws of nature which governed its creation.  The proof is that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time.  So the only thing that can create space and time is no thing (which is exactly what science tells us).  Spirit is no thing.  God is spirit.  You can't comprehend what I am telling you because you being a thing can't comprehend a no thing.  God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. Your problem is that you can't comprehend or accept that consciousness without form can exist outside of space and time even though science tells us that only something like consciousness without form can exist outside of space and time.  It is literally your ignorance of science which prevents you from exploring the possibility of what I am talking about.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> and the cat evidence becomes much weaker.


Right, agreed. But yet, not 100%, conclusive proof. Nor will you ever find such an elusive thing.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The proof you are so sorely seeking


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > No, I dont define proof that way...proof is something that reveals the truth of a proposition.
> ...


Well, "outside of mathematics" as a concept, in and of itself, might be nonsensical in this universe if this universe were a program of all 1s and 0s.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > and the cat evidence becomes much weaker.
> ...


I consider proof to be not so elusive. Empirical proof exists if it can be tested and falsified. But.....we could argue for days if that all Ultimately leads to mathematics so Id be an agnostic, as a starting point. Ive never tried that rabbit hole.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Well, "outside of mathematics" as a concept, in and of itself, might be nonsensical in this universe if this universe


Yes, an interesting thought. I would tend to agree. However, until we can know the state of every particle of matter and of every field in the universe at the same time (allowing us to deterministically demonstrate the past and the future states of the universe with perfect accuracy), we won't have that tool at our disposal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Empirical proof exists and can be tested and falsified.


Outside of mathematics? No. In mathematics, we have the luxury of predetermining all of the premises' truth values by using definitions. We don't have the luxury of knowing the truth of premises with 100% certainty outside of this realm. 

One may say, "yes I do. I can say with certainty that I am standing on planet Earth, for instance." However, that fails outside of your own brain, as there would be no reason for all people to accept this as true with 100% certainty. But mathematical definitions are a rigged game, and are true for everyone inherently. That is the point of them, after all.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Well, "outside of mathematics" as a concept, in and of itself, might be nonsensical in this universe if this universe
> ...


I'd say that any rational agent should caution on the side of the null hypothesis for any proposition that cannot be tested or falsifiable. The scientific process is my stand-alone guide towards the truth of any proposition. That's why the big bang exists as a theory, but God never could in the science world. Its purely conjecture, a god, Id even argue its irrational from a philosophical standpoint but thats just the ones as described in Religious texts.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical proof exists and can be tested and falsified.
> ...


Solipsism is a tough cookie, but to ones SELF, the self even thinking at all... is a proof that a thinker exists. That concept has never been soundly defeated.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Except of course that the evidence is what was created and how it was created and the laws of nature which governed its creation.  And that the proof is that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time. So the only thing that can create space and time is no thing (which is exactly what science tells us). Spirit is no thing. God is spirit. You guys can't comprehend what I am explaining because you guys can't comprehend the requirements of existing outside of space and time. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. So you guys can't comprehend or accept that consciousness without form can exist outside of space and time even though science tells us that only something like consciousness without form can exist outside of space and time. It is literally your ignorance of science which prevents you from exploring the possibility of what I am talking about.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> I'd say that any rational agent should caution on the side of the null hypothesis for any proposition that cannot be tested or falsifiable.


Which would be the case when you have a cat and dog and find spilt milk. You would merely do your best to use evidence to determine what is most likely.


G.T. said:


> Solipsism is a tough cookie, but to ones SELF, the self even thinking at all... is a proof that a thinker exists.



I will defeat that right now, and easily so:

When something is only "proof" to you, then it is not proof or even evidence at all.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that any rational agent should caution on the side of the null hypothesis for any proposition that cannot be tested or falsifiable.
> ...


Its proof to the self, and merely asserting that its not isnt an argument.

The claim isnt that its proof to others, the claim is that to myself, as an agent, I can prove something.

TO myself. 

You equivocated on "to self" and "to others."


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

RodISHI said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...




“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; *apart from me you can do nothing*.  *If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned*."


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Something else provable to ones self, as an agent, is that you dont possess all knowledge. If you did, youd know you did because your mere posession of such would then be knowledge.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

It's not that complicated. As much as it pains me to say, GT is correct.  

The definition of evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The definition of proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...





> I Am the True Vine
> 15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
> 
> 12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants,[a] for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.



This only makes sense if you believe that God created the material world and was born into the material world to testify to the truth.  Whether or not you believe these things he will progress you through a conflict and confusion process.  But if you have faith in these things you will have peace through the storm because you will know he is working in your life even when it seems to you that he isn't.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...



No, it only makes sense if I believe that God created heaven and earth, the world above and your world below. The firmament, basis,  of heaven is the law. Unless you conform to the revelation of Jesus about the figurative language and hidden subjects in the law and do it, you will remain where you are.

Nowhere. You are withering, dead and dying,  without ever finding peace in death.

fit for nothing but fuel for the fire.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

RodISHI said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


Exactly.  This is the power of faith.  I cannot begin to explain how much it has transformed my life and the lives of those I love for the good of all.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I am really glad you are doing better. Kudos. I shudder at the thought of what you used to be like if turning to a matzo for spiritual life and perjuring yourself in the name of God is an improvement.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


God is literally existence.  Nothing exists without God.  Not space, not time.  Nothing.  

I don't agree that I need to conform.  Regardless of what I do in this world, I am being pruned.  I am constantly receiving feedback on my thoughts and actions.  This feedback has the effect of reinforcing or correcting my behaviors such that I am being progressed.  The only question will be will I resist the pruning or will I accept the pruning.  If I resist the pruning my progression will be fought by me and I will not become what I can be.  If I accept the pruning I will learn and progress and have peace through the storms of my life.  

Everything is hidden from you because you have made yourself God.  You will never progress behaving the way you do.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


I doubt that you are glad.  

Your dismissal of the power of faith was entirely predictable.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


  My dismissal of your professions of having faith in absurdities was entirely predictable because you know that what you profess to believe is a lie. You are beginning to suspect that I don't believe you. You are an amazing  seer,  a perfect reflection of that brazen, subtle, and very clever shining star of ancient days, the Nachash.

May I bring you some tea your highness?


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Not backed up by a real science site, so just your personal opinion. Man, you sure suck at this.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Evidence can be valid, invalid, strong, poor, inconclusive or conclusive ~ and a failure to set it apart from what we call proof bogs down SO many would-be fruitful discussions regarding epistemology, metaphysics, etc


With all of the new discoveries Astronomy is bringing us; it may be that there is at least one earth like planet in each galaxy.   

if one of all of those discovered a Fountain of Youth; would mortals still be equal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Its proof to the self,


I.e., not proof, or even evidence.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No.  Your dismissal of faith is because you don't believe in the supernatural.  You are a secular humanist.  

You try and give the perception that you aren't, but that is just a deception.  Which is why you dodge the question do you believe that spirit created the material world.  You think you are being clever about it but it is as obvious as the nose on my face.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> May I bring you some tea your highness?


There is nothing special about me.  There is nothing special about any of us.  We came from dust and we shall return to dust.  We're just creatures.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Your dismissal of faith is because you don't believe in the supernatural.


I would agree this is silly. Faith should be dismissed because it is absurd and deserves no respoect.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Tell me what you disagree with and you back that up with what you believe is real science.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



horseshit.

I read the Bible. What God is and what God is not is described in great detail.

What you profess to believe is a lie, not because I say so but because it contradicts what is written.

Anyone who can read and understand a sentence can see for themselves who is telling the truth.

You are a very stupid man.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Your dismissal of faith is because you don't believe in the supernatural.
> ...


 If he had any faith at all he would accept the evidence presented by reality every day and every night which to him,  because reality contradicts everything he professes to believe,  must seem like being in torment day and night in the fires of hell.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Your dismissal of faith is because you don't believe in the supernatural.
> ...


Obviously you have never experienced the power of faith.  Which is really odd because it's pretty common knowledge that if you don't believe you can accomplish something, you most likely can't.  Not because you can't accomplish it, but because you don't believe you can.  

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I don't really care what happens to you in this life.  I'm no saint.  You probably deserve all the bad things you get in life because you have such a piss poor attitude about everything and your behaviors are that of a nazi.  

But I really do want to thank you for admitting that you condemn respect for people of faith.  Most militant atheists are too chicken shit to do that.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


^ dunning effect

And you are dangerous because you discourage people to have a relationship with God for no other reason than it does not conform to your beliefs about God. God's a big boy.  He doesn't need your help.  See 2 Samuel 7:5.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Speak for yourself.  Your allies are atheists who don't believe in God at all.  That says it all.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > May I bring you some tea your highness?
> ...


 

"we" came from the dust and "we" will return to dust..lol.. Exactly.

I come from God, and will return to paradise. See?   I have other plans, so ya'll go and get on with it already.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So you are an agent for God or God impregnated yer Ma?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Oh well. so what. In the end when Jesus floats down from the clouds to judge the living and the dead it will be far better to have been an atheist than to have wasted your life professing a belief in a false three in one edible god that never existed.


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You made the claim, it’s up to you to back it up.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Technically everything came from God because God created the material world.  But if you read the Bible it tells us that our father is Satan, right?  

I figure there is zero chance of you understanding what this means but suffice it to say we are effectively creatures and to become adopted sons we literally have to renounce self and see reality and stop rationalizing our bad behaviors.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You are typing in "the cloud".


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Ok, I will prove my point then.  Here is a link to a video where a world renowned cosmologist explains what I have been telling you.  It's slightly over 3 minutes long and I doubt you have ever even watched it.   

You will dismiss it like you always do and you won't provide any evidence or links to support it.  Checkmate.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Not so what.  It is extremely telling that you side with atheists over people of faith.  

And your response is some nonsense that is designed to make you seem like you have faith.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Are those the only two choices? I'll have to ask my mother if any strangers ever came to her window in the middle of the night to tell her she was chosen  to have a special baby and then wham bam.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

^ proving my point that Hobelim has more in common with atheists than people of faith.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> ^ proving my point that Hobelim has more in common with atheists than people of faith.


  If you were trying to paint me crazy, thats not going to help.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> If he had any faith at all he would accept the evidence presented by reality every day and every night


That doesn't make sense....faith is taken without evidence....


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> ^ proving my point that Hobelim has more in common with atheists than people of faith.


It is very hard for people to get past the flesh realm thoughts; and it is difficult for the same to understand that the Word covers all realms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

RodISHI said:


> It is very hard for people to get past the flesh realm thoughts


No it isn't. We write books and movies about that all the time. We call them, "fiction".


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Its proof to the self,
> ...


The impossibility of the contrary is proof enough for me, on my existence. Perhaps you require more proof than your thoughts that you think....but its self evident for me.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > If he had any faith at all he would accept the evidence presented by reality every day and every night
> ...


  Not necessarily.

Don't you have faith in what you know to be true because you have evidence that is confirmed by and conforms to reality?

He has faith that God can be eaten as a consequence of having an unrestrained imagination. Someone poisoned his mind with the belief that every rational thought that questions his irrational beliefs is a demonic assault on his faith in the ridiculous.. You have faith that his claims are ridiculous because your thoughts are constrained by known facts..

Both of you can't be right.

Would you care to make a wager on who has real faith in the truth and who has faith in a lie??


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> The impossibility of the contrary is proof enough for me


Exactly. But not enough for anyone else by any standard. So, not really proof or evidence. Instead, that's faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Not necessarily.


Yes, necessarily. Taking a belief without good evidence is faith. Making a determination of what is likely, on evidence, is the opposite. And will always be. And no amount of rearranging words in just the right order in order to be contrarian is going to get you or anyone else around this.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > It is very hard for people to get past the flesh realm thoughts
> ...


He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The impossibility of the contrary is proof enough for me
> ...


false equivocation fallacy. i wasnt referring to anyone else to begin with


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He’s theorizing, not providing proof. Know the difference. And he’s not saying that a creator made the universe. Please try again.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily.
> ...




Anyone who bases their logic on false premises are bound to have faith in false conclusions, even you.

You think that scientific facts disprove the fantastical stories in scripture that many people who do not think very deeply profess to have faith in and believe are literally true.

If you can't apply the intelligence of a third grade child to decipher the complicated metaphors about talking serpents,  rising from the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, or ascending into heaven, etc.,  to figure out what those stories are actually teaching about real life, you are not a very deep thinker either.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I totally nailed it.  See?



ding said:


> You will dismiss it like you always do and you won't provide any evidence or links to support it. Checkmate.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ^ proving my point that Hobelim has more in common with atheists than people of faith.
> ...


You don't need my help for that.


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It’s not proof, just a theory, like what you propose, a theory.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > It is very hard for people to get past the flesh realm thoughts
> ...


And yet man feels so strongly about right and right that he expects everyone to know and understand it even when people disagree with it.  

Have you ever wonder why movies portray heros and villians the way they do?  It's because there is a universal expectation of right and wrong.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You are still proving my point.  

Where's your link again?  I provided mine.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Yeah I know.. In a world full of Jesus eaters anyone who has the audacity to say out loud that God is not edible is bound to seem crazy. Maybe I was raised by Martians?  lol...

Brace yourself Nancy, you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You disagree with my theology but I don't know any atheist who agrees with my theology.  Especially the militant ones like yourself.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Yeah well when you meet the avatar of Shiva, act like an asshole and let me know how it goes.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

RodISHI said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



All that means is that the preexisting metaphor for the word of God, manna from heaven, became flesh, a new metaphor for teaching from God, teaching that Jesus received from God like manna from heaven that became his flesh, given for the life of the world.

Complying with divine law in light of the revelation of Jesus is the only way to eternal life.

It is so freaking easy to do I find it astonishing that anyone even with the least intelligence can't master it.

Seriously, how hard is it really for a human being to not do something as stupid as worshipping another human being as if they were a god? You are human right? You read the Bible? How can you think thats not stupid?

I must be a martian. You better hope I don't figure out how to use this nifty ray gun I just found in my pocket.


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He’s giving an opinion, like you do. Science can’t see all the way back to the BB yet.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Is it too hard for you to perceive that there is more than just one heavenly realm and that what comes from that is heavenly (complete, walking talking, spiritual beings) is real and has been planted into earth from the beginning? You may search and find them within you because they were put there with breath but first they were planted before you were. These were planted here and still exist of the ancients and those ancient things were created to establish this world of earthy flesh we currently reside in.  No one is telling you to worship another human being but you are supposed to fully respect that spirit that created the Son and worship no other.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

RodISHI said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...




 You could have just slapped your head and said, oh, DUH, thats what the words that I posted without a clue are actually about. Instead you started gibbering your way into fantasyland.

have you no self respect?


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"No self respect", you are in error. I will not deny who I am or what God has given. If I did then you may be able to say, "have you no self respect" and you would be correct but alas you are not, you are in error.

Even so "Hold on to what you've got";


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

RodISHI said:


> He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.


Well that makes no sense on any level.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Anyone who bases their logic on false premises are bound to have faith in false conclusions, even you.


Irrelevant. Again, you aren't going to rearrange words just the right way to get around this.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who bases their logic on false premises are bound to have faith in false conclusions, even you.
> ...


 

Its not about rearranging words.

 You think that scientific discoveries disprove the fantastic stories in scripture and have concluded that its all just magical bullshit written by superstitious people even though those stories were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people. 

What does that tell you about yourself?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> You think that scientific discoveries disprove the fantastic stories in scripture


Some of them, absolutely. Like, zombies, global floods, and living in whales. And you agree.


hobelim said:


> concluded that its all just magical bullshit


Yes, all the magical parts. And anyone who believes any of them would agree, had they not already taken up faith in them.

Do you plan to make my points for me all day? Thanks, I'll grab some coffee and relax.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > You think that scientific discoveries disprove the fantastic stories in scripture
> ...


  lol... before you go running for a touchdown grab your crotch and start twerking you should try to wrap your head around the fact that scientific discoveries disprove nothing since those stories were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people.

They are not and never were about zombies, living in whales or floating up into the sky etc.


Is this above your grasp professor? Are you a zombie? Living in the belly of the beast? Hello? Is there anyone in there?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> those stories were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people


Which is stupid and wrong. Sorry, I reject your wishful nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Lordy, man. If the Bible’s aren’t intend to be taken literally, I sure wish we could have had a Dr. Seuss version. We could have had some real interesting characters.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > those stories were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people
> ...




After you sober up, you should search the streets of any city looking for a Jew, grab his cloak and then ask him about it.

If you show a modicum of respect maybe they will take pity on you and tell you that I am right.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



More interesting than a talking donkeys, demons, and creepy things that creep? Great idea. How about a flock of dingbats fighting batboy for control of the underworld?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> After you sober up, you should search the streets of any city looking for a jew, grab his cloak and then ask him about it.
> 
> If you show a modicum of respect maybe they will take pity on you and tell you that I am right.


Haha, what a stupid argument. Yes, I will collect one anecdote, and that will settle it. Now you see why people like you are prone to believe hilarious magical horseshit...your reasoning skills are dull, and made duller by faith...


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > After you sober up, you should search the streets of any city looking for a jew, grab his cloak and then ask him about it.
> ...




Damn. It has never been a secret that Torah means instruction, not history.

Maimonides was writing about the figurative language of the prophets and the use of metaphors analogies, hyperbole, homonyms, etc., used throughout scripture in the 12th century.

The gospels specifically say that the character Jesus spoke only in parables and was using figures of speech.

You are an ignorant asshole.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

Whale sounds so much more poetic than 'the thorns of the seas' or 'the spiney points of the scales of leviathan that lives in the seas', especially when they don't know what the Leviathan actually is in the first place. Zuph or compressed honeycomb.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Its indicative of jesus being no more important than Dr. Seuss or Walt Disney


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Jews wear cloaks?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




lol...Yes, the cloaks are made from very sophisticated alien technology.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




lol...Lets see if everyone is still talking about the cat in the hat or the little mermaid in 2000 years. Maybe entire societies will be based on the teachings of Hop on Pop or Mickey Mouse...


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Have you met any lately?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Shhhh! They are in hiding. The sound of goose stepping is in the air.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I sincerely doubt that Jesus will be any more or less relevant in 2000 years than my currently perceived wardrobe. 

Actually the cotton tee shirt is almost SURE to outlast the bronze aged Nun books that teach the derps that its probably not a good idea to be a dick all the time.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



This one isn't. 

Hi.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




Nahh. The nuns were right to tell you that you would go blind if you didn't stop masturbating. It will always be true. even  if you burned every book in the world some genius would eventually resurrect the teaching that its probably not a good idea to be a dick all the time.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Im not sure about jerking off, but I do know that I dont require fairy tales to learn the psychology of human archetypes - and also Im sane and reasonable enough to not pretend to know if a creator God exists or not.

You take a half-step to rationality in that the bible is nonsense and not literal, but then go full retard and believe in a creator god and somehow pretend thats not as bad and unreasonable as a biblical literalist.

Thatsssssssss... kind of worse, bro!


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



This is fascinating!

What creator God do I pretend to believe in?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


The one that thought you required simplistic bronze aged allegories to reach reasonably obvious conclusions about archetypes, and you've got it so bad that you actually brag about decoding the pieces of toilet paper called scripture.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




I didn't need any book to understand bronze age allegories about human archetypes.

Everyone I knew was already fluent in grade school.

And how is it that you are having such difficulty accepting the fact that bronze age adults were teaching bronze age children how to understand the world around them with your superstitious knuckle dragging barbarian ancestors always trying either kill them or get them to eat shit?

The metaphors are still above their grasp. They believe.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I did not know that Hinduism was a revealed religion.

pro tip: it's not. 

But regardless of that, I believe that there is only one creator who goes by many names and that whatever name or way that works best to get you to listen for him is AOK with him.  I'm not like you in that regard, but then again I'm not a secular humanist pretending to be religious either.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You tell ding hes damned because he worships god wrong. 

That makes you a theist, or at the very least deist, and neither are a rational conclusion. We dont know is the currently verifiable answer. 

Never go full retard.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It kind of sounds like you are worshipping Jesus when you say, "divine law in light of the revelation of Jesus."


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 
lol...


Ding isn't damned because he worships God wrong. Where the hell did you get that?

Ding filled his mind with irrational garbage and consequently lost his mind.

Have a chat with him if you don't believe me.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


No.   He's actually written scientific papers on the universe being created from nothing.  Besides, that just sounds like it is your opinion. 

Do you have a link to anything?  I know how big you are on links, right?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Why dont you skip beating around the bush and advise the folks that are tossing around ideas here what YOU think was the origin of everything....or the cause of it, or if it even had a cause.

Ill clearly tell you mine, because it doesnt spook me to be cross examined: "I dont know."


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  Do you want me to read you a bedtime story?

Believers and unbelievers alike can't seem to grasp that genesis was never about the origin of all things. sheesh.

If you want to talk about science you are in the wrong place.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.
> ...


It's people like you who misrepresent a faith that is not your own.  You think faith is all about heaven and hell when in reality it is 100% about how to live life and how not to live life. 

I could explain it to you but it would be totally lost on you because you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale.  Everything you believe is skewed to that result. There isn't one single thing that you will agree with or accept.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No, I'd like your opinion on where/when/how existence came to be. Youre obviously drawn to these discussions ~ declining to offer your own view would allude to you being a bad faith actor.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > You think that scientific discoveries disprove the fantastic stories in scripture
> ...


Genesis is the allegorical account of the history of the world that all people share.  The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 1500 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 1500 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an  actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning.  Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times.  Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations.   Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember.  Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.  Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history. 

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years.  Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing.  We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world.  Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning.  If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization.  That is not intended to be a criticism.  It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago.  We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Indeepenent, a fellow Jew of yours, believes Genesis is a literal account.  I don't.  My faith and common sense tells me that they are allegorical accounts of world history and wisdoms that ancient man deemed important enough to pass down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years.  In fact, the establishment of Israel is based upon these accounts.

I bet you would never make fun of Indeependent for his beliefs or any Jew for that matter, now would you.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Ok,  fair enough.


Before God created heaven and earth the world was without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for billions of years.

Every living thing on the planet was trapped in the violent struggle for survival, eat or be eaten. People were brute unthinking animals. The survival of the fittest and all that.

Then God said, let there be light, and the law came down from heaven like a tree of life to teach the wild beasts of the field to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, life and death.

 and so man was raised up from the dust of the earth and became aware, a living being..... and then fucked it all up, threw his mind in the trash and said with clenched fist raised in anger against God, I will not stop being a dick


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > After you sober up, you should search the streets of any city looking for a jew, grab his cloak and then ask him about it.
> ...


You argue like a first grader.  You are worse than the guy you are arguing with.  For your sake I hope you don't act like this in real life.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


That's a pretty stupid statement given the fact that Western Civilization was built upon Christianity.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


You are right about what Hobelim does and wrong that we can't know God exists.  We can use the evidence of creation, we can use our experiences as a creator, we can use logic and reason but most importantly we can test it by entering into a relationship with God.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Dude, you are the only person here that has a bigger hard on for me than GT.  I suspect you guys will be best friends by the end of this thread.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Funny, but really its a good thing to know about ya.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It takes one to know one.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


this post pretty much aligns with how fuckin delusional all of your beliefs are


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I have seen professional dodgeball players make less of a dodge than you just did.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Speak for yourself.  You are here on Saturday afternoon arguing about something you don't believe in.  In my book, that's pretty damn funny.  

Back in my day, I never gave it a second thought.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


So I actually have a basis for this belief while he won't offer his and you don't have one.  But I 'm the crazy one?  Oy Vey!


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


yepp, your day is clearly long past.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I'm sure it seems that way, but I assure you it only seems that way.

Things that have been kept secret since the foundation of the world are flying right over your head.

Some people don't have enough sense to look up even when it starts raining.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


When did the universe begin?  How did the universe begin?  Where was God before the universe began.

Please don't tell me the universe has always existed because then I will have to bitch slap you with science.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Really?  You are going to leave it at that?

Maybe you don't know how the universe began.  Is that the problem?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Nope.  I am just hitting my stride.  But if you keep normalizing your deviance you can count on a few predictable surprises along the way.  And given your worldview, the best you can hope for is to suffer without complaint.  My money is on complaint.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It was a total dodge.  But then the best part was when you stepped up to the plate and opened your mouth and revealed how ignorant you are of what the evidence shows.  That was priceless.  I've eaten swiss cheese with less holes than your story.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


He seems pretty intelligent, I just havent discovered why he doesnt proclaim his own actual beliefs. You, youre just a whiny twat on the internet with poor reasoning skills. 

Whats left to say today? He and I will converse again.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



How do you know it hasn't always existed? Are you going to bitch slap me too, for the impertinence of daring to question you?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Hmmm.... Toynbee felt that way about the Jews too.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



You mean that doyenne of the Left; Polly?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


They aren't fairytales.  That's you confirming your bias because you don't have the courage and maybe the intellect to challenge your beliefs.  

If you start from the position of truth that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an  actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning.  Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times.  Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations.   Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember.  

But you keep making that first grade argument and I'll keep correcting you.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


If that were the case you wouldn't need to proclaim it or run away from the arguments I make. 

For what it's worth, he's a fake, a phony, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I would love to debate you in the bull ring, but for some odd reason you just won't go there with me.  I would think someone of your great skill would be itching to show just how much of a whiny twat I am on the internet with poor reasoning skills.

Are you sure you aren't the whiny twat on the internet with poor reasoning skills?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I don't even know what that means.  All I know is that the Jews were the only hole in his argument and he predicted their demise in a fashion similar to the one where GT predicted the demise of Jesus.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


That's exactly what I have been saying for the last year.


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So he’s written about his theory, that doesn’t mean that science has accepted it as fact. Please try again.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




I really don't understand how you or anyone would think that I haven't already openly stated by beliefs especially after you try to discredit them...Am I speaking in a strange language that you don't understand? Having trouble retaining information?

Are you looking for a creed? A manifesto? What?

lol.. "heads I win tails you lose?"

Find another sucker.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Bull ring, chicken little?

I mean how hard can it be to school someone with delusional beliefs, right?  It should be easy.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I am looking for something that actually makes sense and isn't a dodge.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> .Lets see if everyone is still talking about the cat in the hat or the little mermaid in 2000 years.


Or taosim, or Hinduism....wait, yes they will...because people are prone to believing magcial nonsense....


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Im not sure why you couldnt answer a direct question with a direct answer, that's all....but it doesnt really matter to me, so. Do you, playboy.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


The short answer?  The second law of thermodynamics.

That was a great question BTW.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Things that have been kept secret since the foundation of the world are flying right over your head.


Hahahahaha

But shaman hobelim knows these things. He just can't seem to be able to tell anyone what they are... And anyone who tries to puzzle out from his absurd, ad hoc equivocation and ramblings is immediately told they don't and can't understand...

And then shaman hobelim sells you a Shamwow.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Polly Toynbee. She writes for The Guardian.

As for the demise of the Jews, that was attempted by 'you know who'. In fact there was a memorial erected by the Germans, to commemorate a lost civilisation and culture BEFORE they'd all been finished off. I visited it in Krakow.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Hey,  I was just trying to make a distinction between the creation story in genesis,  what Hebrew children were expected to know about the beginning of their culture,  and what no one can possibly know.

I do not like to conflate the two entirely different subjects. One thing has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the other.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Yes, it is the leading explanation for the beginning of the universe.  There are no other models which explain how the universe began without violating the laws of thermodynamics.  Not to mention it's predictions match what we see.  There is one final match that they are working to prove but they do not have a detector built yet.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So when was the universe created?  How was the universe created?  Where was God when the universe was created?  Did God create the universe?  Here's your big opportunity to explain it all.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 

When was the universe created? It wasn't.

How was it created? It wasn't.

Did God create the universe? No. The universe does not exist.

God created heaven and earth.


Where was God?  God was exactly where he is.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Tells me nothing.

Our part animal, part lizard brains are programmed for beginnings and endings. Even I can't get my head round 'always was, always is, and will be'. But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No biggy.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Ahhhh.... now I get it.  No, Arnold Toynbee.

"...Over three hundred years ago King Louis XIV of France asked Blaise Pascal, the great French philosopher of his day, to give him proof of the existence of miracles. Without a moment's hesitation, Pascal answered,"Why, the Jews, your Majesty-the Jews."

We don't have to speculate what Pascal meant when he gave this answer, because he took the trouble to spell it out. In his masterwork, Pensees, he explained that the fact that the Jewish people had survived until the seventeenth century-the time period in which he lived-was nothing short of a supernatural phenomenon.

Pascal is but one of many scholars and students of Jewish history who have been awed by a story that seems inexplicable by the ordinary rules of logic. When Arnold Toynbee completed his classic ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of human civilizations, _A Study of History_, he was troubled by only one seeming refutation of his universal rules governing the inexorable decline of every people on earth. Only the Jews had survived, in defiance of Toynbee's carefully reasoned analysis. So Toynbee proclaimed the Jews nothing more than"a vestigial remnant," a people destined soon to perish..."

The Miracle of Jewish History |  History News         Network


British historian, philosopher of history, author of numerous books and research professor of international history at the London School of Economics and King's College in the University of London. Toynbee in the 1918–1950 period was a leading specialist on international affairs.  He is best known for his 12-volume A Study of History (1934–1961). With his prodigious output of papers, articles, speeches and presentations, and numerous books translated into many languages, Toynbee was a widely read and discussed scholar in the 1940s and 1950s.

Arnold J. Toynbee - Wikipedia


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

Yes, I know Arnold Toynbee, Ding. 

I was just testing you.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Ok, long answer....

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Yes, I know Arnold Toynbee, Ding.
> 
> I was just testing you.


Did you misspell teasing?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Actually the account of Genesis is exactly about the creation of space and time.  Specifically it is the allegorical account of how existence had a beginning and that man is a product of that creation.  That man arose from what was created.  All things proven true by science 6000 years later.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Where do morals and atheists come into this?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

An expert witness in support of the position that the big bang matches the account of creation in the Bible:

Similarly, Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Five left turns ago?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I know Arnold Toynbee, Ding.
> ...



No.

Teasing would be misconstrued as flirting by some backward thinking people.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?


A three minute video...


or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool.  In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I would be in big trouble if that were the case.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?
> ...



That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  Please tell me more.  If you can, but I somehow think you can't.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



With whom?

The geniuses of USMB?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So why does red shift which shows galaxies moving away from each other?  Why is there cosmic background radiation which shows the remnant of the big bang?  Why do Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations predict the universe had a beginning?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


My wife and my friends.  My friends tease each other a lot.  And I mean a lot.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



I don't can't speak for atheists but I think that Ding, a genuine believer,  has proven beyond any doubt that he can't be moral if honesty is required. 


At least I'm convinced.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


No.  Not really.  You have a better explanation?  We know there was a beginning.  Why does this disturb you?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Can you tell me why you believe that about me?  What exactly have I done?  Challenged you?  Yes, I can see why that would be morally wrong.  

How about you answer those challenging questions I asked.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I think he's quite moral.


Underneath


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



When you start talking like that, I lose  interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I never claimed to be a saint.  The problem is that the people here treat people as if they are all good or all bad.  No one is all good or all bad and we shouldn't treat them like they are.

I have a very curious mind and I ask a lot of questions.  That disturbs some people.  But it's not going to make me stop.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




You want to hear some stupid shit?

I have exclusive distribution rights to a holy matzo, directly from the factory in Rome,  that I can turn into the flesh of God himself for a nominal service charge of a mere 10% of you income for life, oh, and all your children.

All you have to do is just believe that God loves you, he died for you,  and he really really wants you to eat him,  and Shazam!  You will live forever,    (just as soon as you die that is.)


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning.  Many people are.  Not because of the data but because of the implication.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Does that mean you can't tell me why red shift shows galaxies moving away from each other? And why cosmic background radiation shows the remnant of the big bang? And why Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations predict the universe had a beginning?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I'd rather hear about the raping and slavery as spoils of war and the torturing of babies due to the sins of their father.

Mebbe sumfin more fun to read about, is how Mary cheated on Joseph and when she became pregnant, Joseph said unto her, "yooo..listen bitch I havent even gotten it in yet, who you been fuckin!!"

Then, with despair, Mary looked to Joseph and said..., "i dunno nigga. god. now fuck off."


And they all broke bread amen.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)




----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.


Ding, dont beg honey. I came here today to talk to hobelum. You interjected, I entertained you for a little but your twatty attitude always gets the better of you.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

I called that shit too.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.
> ...


Cool story, bro.  But if you could hang you would.  Please do carry on.  It should be entertaining.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


A 60 year old acting like a boastful 15yr old bowling tournament winner is impressive though.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You use the wrong words. I _question _it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not  nean there's no such thing.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Something fun to read about is A-theory and B-theory of time.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Which wrong words did I use?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


I'm just calling it like it is.  Every single time you get confronted with something you have no good answer for and it threatens your bias, you make some BS excuse blaming me and run away.  If you behave like that in the real world, you probably have a lot of drama in your life.

Your ego makes snowflakes look like tungsten.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Stop it!


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I don't believe I used any wrong words.  I used the words that were necessary to describe what I was explaining to you.   I'm not going to walk on eggshells.


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


In eternity it is difficult to grasp something as having shorts lives of a thousand or two thousand years. Everything to the earthy mind is an opposite to that which is created with the eternal spirit.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




Geez. Can you imagine what this guy was like before he was transformed and saved by eating Jesus?

.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You get upset. I understand. Its never gunna make me take you seriously, intellectually, Dingerred. I think that youre stupid.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Don't then. No one is making you.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



It's like going down the rabbit hole, all this stuff. Maybe I'll run into the Mad Hatter.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




I know. You might, I did. I even offered him some tea..


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you admit that it’s not fact. Good for you.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I'll let you know when I want the opinion of a cable repairman.  Fair enough?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice.  What is said is The Creator.
> ...


You guys tell us there’s something wrong with us atheists for not believing the Bible. You come up with all kinds of irrational reasons why we don’t buy it.

Well why isn’t it obvious to the muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, jews etc? 

How come they aren’t Christians too?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Cable Guy with Jim Carey


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


No.  I am telling you it is idiotic to call it a fairytale.  But please do keep doing it because I don't mind correcting it.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Probably more like Larry...






























...if Larry were gay.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ok I’ll give you there was a nice man name Jesus born 2000 years ago. Jews Mormons muslims Hindu Buddhist agree with that too.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



They have the fashion sense to avoid the big funny hats worn by the catholic clergy.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Try harder.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But don’t you think I’m making a good point that ding probably wants to avoid? Christians go on and on about why atheists don’t believe in the Bible but do they use any of those same arguments when debating Christianity with people of other faiths?

We are all atheists. Ding doesn’t believe in the Hindu Mormon or Muslim gods. He just believes in one more god than I do.

Same with Muslims. They aren’t buying the new or Old testaments or the book of Mormons just like I don’t.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don't argue about other people's faith.  I'm not like you.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Your point is well taken.

People accept what their theistic beliefs are for many reasons (mostly cultural),  but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural, i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another.

If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You’re purposely missing the point. You know their religions are bullshit. I know it too. They know your religion is bullshit. I know it too. 

You just don’t know it same as they dont


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

When in Rome...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Ding will disagree in 5,4,3,2,


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Dude, see post #521.  

I'm not an atheist.  I don't have to believe that every single religion has gotten it wrong.  You do.

I get to see a lot of things I agree with.  You guys are so emotional about this you fell into your own trap.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> I don't can't speak for atheists but I think that Ding, a genuine believer, has proven beyond any doubt that he can't be moral if honesty is required.



not when it is the 4th century christian bible - they believe in ... and dismissing recorded history the victims of their chosen religion.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


  I hate to be the one to tell you but any story that starts with "In the beginning" just like "Once upon a time" and then introduces a talking serpent is a fairy tale with a moral teaching.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Ugh.. There were lots of nice men 2000 years ago, well, probably at least a few.

Why do you suppose that this particular nice man, who was despised according to the story,  was singled out to be the subject of a fantastical story about dead people coming out of their tombs and graves after hearing him speak a few words?


----------



## Taz (Jan 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So like Jesus then.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That’s the ticket. Be proud of your militant atheism. Unfortunately no.  It’s not a fairytale. It’s an allegorical account of world history and wisdoms and knowledge they deemed important enough to pass down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years. Too bad you don’t understand the meaning of these accounts.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Feel free to ask him.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jan 19, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Survival, by the way, is empirically proven to be the greatest organizing principle. This has been examined, empirically. When survival is at stake, folks who otherwise wouldnt come together do so, almost every single time. its as close to 100% as it gets, whereas virtues are argued about and can also divide. When survival is at stake, it takes a hero to sacrifice their own life for the life of another.
> 
> Thanks to human empathy, there are lots of heroes. Salami and bacon, amen.



In what way does faggotry and buttsex promote survival?

I wouldn't bet the farm or my life on the empathy of an athiest or state baby.

Probably not on an alleged "Christian" either, unless I knew them really well.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He spoke up. He was a big mouth trouble making rabble rouser


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Survival, by the way, is empirically proven to be the greatest organizing principle. This has been examined, empirically. When survival is at stake, folks who otherwise wouldnt come together do so, almost every single time. its as close to 100% as it gets, whereas virtues are argued about and can also divide. When survival is at stake, it takes a hero to sacrifice their own life for the life of another.
> ...


We are overpopulated and over consuming. We have kids looking to be adopted.

Faggotry is Mother Nature’s way


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So similar to a fairytale.

The only difference between the Jesus myth and fairytales is Jesus supposedly happened 2000 years ago and fairytales happen a long time ago (not specific) in a land far far away.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Survival, by the way, is empirically proven to be the greatest organizing principle. This has been examined, empirically. When survival is at stake, folks who otherwise wouldnt come together do so, almost every single time. its as close to 100% as it gets, whereas virtues are argued about and can also divide. When survival is at stake, it takes a hero to sacrifice their own life for the life of another.
> ...


Who said faggotry and buttsex promote survival? 

Homosexuality occurs randomly & naturally in the entire animal kingdom, but that doesnt mean that its a means of survival and Im not sure why anyone would think that. Evolutionary theory is that its RANDOM genetic mutation, not GUIDED.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...





We are not ‘overpopulated,’ and your homosexuality has nothing to do with demographics.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...


That myth is repeated by a LOT of people. We arent even CLOSE to capacity. Not even a FRACTION of it.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jan 20, 2019)

By what scale (standard) do Atheists measure their morality by?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> By what scale (standard) do Atheists measure their morality by?


Human suffering.

How about you, what's your scale? Lets hope its not the God of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and other horrific scripture. Yikes!


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Yeah, but there were many big mouth trouble  making rabble rousers back then who didn't rise up against their own religion.  Ask Rosie. They were clamoring for an uprising against the romans. A Jewish holy war.  but not Jesus.

Jesus instead openly rejected more than a thousand years of Jewish traditions dating back to the death of Moses, denouncing widely respected and beloved holy men who were famous for their acts of charity, doctors, lawyers, and their blind followers suggesting that they, the oppressed, should focus on their own shortcomings and love their brutal foreign oppressors. People high and low hated his guts.  Everyone questioned his sanity. Why would anyone elevate him to the status of messiah, messenger of a holy God after he was unanimously condemned by the religious authorities as a traitor and executed as a seditious petty criminal by the Romans?

Some very dedicated religious experts and luminaries still scoff at the idea that this particularly offensive rabble rouser was the messiah.

Why would anyone think that Jesus was the messiah way back then much less an incarnation of God himself to this day??


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> In what way does faggotry and buttsex promote survival?


Nobody is implying it does, genius. What aids survival is a social contract, by which we leave people the fuck alone to be happy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> By what scale (standard) do Atheists measure their morality by?


Atheists aren't a monolithic group, anymore than a religious group is. Notice we can have assholes like you and pious, gentle people, all claiming to be Christian.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Bullshit. We are even crossing lines and going past points of no return. You cons are so fucking blind.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


What do theists on this side of the pond say about people on the other side and visa versa? So even you theists debate morality.

I’m an atheist and I wouldn’t put a dog outside in the cold or in a hot car. Why not? I wouldn’t want it to suffer. Isn’t that morality?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I’m an atheist and I wouldn’t put a dog outside in the cold or in a hot car. Why not? I wouldn’t want it to suffer. Isn’t that morality?


Of course it is.

And, as Hitchens always liked to point out, there is not a single moral statement that can be made, nor a moral action taken, that could not be made or taken by an unbeliever, and which could not be arrived at by reason instead of magical incantation and authoritative sky daddy declaration.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I’m an atheist and I wouldn’t put a dog outside in the cold or in a hot car. Why not? I wouldn’t want it to suffer. Isn’t that morality?
> ...


  But the sky daddy is teaching people to do things that even you do, as dumb as you are.

Not as an authoritative declaration to follow or else, but as an essential teaching to understand in order to live a fulfilling life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> But the sky daddy is teaching people to do things that even you do, as dumb as you are.


No he isn't,what a moronic thing to say. For one, no sky daddies exist. Furthermore, the obvious fact that our morality is  chiefly dependent on the genetic accident of where and when we are born shows us that , even if sky daddies existed, they seem to have no influence over our morality.


Thank you for always making me feel smart, shaman hobelim.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Exactly. Some idiots just repeat anything they’re told, and that particular lie fits the general leftist hostility towards human life.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Then what’s all this hell talk about?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Exactly. Some idiots just repeat anything they’re told, and that particular lie fits the general leftist hostility towards human life.


What a completely idiotic thing to say. Those concerned about over population are concerned with the well being of the people who do and will exist. You sound like a goddam moron.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Yes repeat after me. Our father (who?) who is in heaven (where?) hallowed be thy name (what?) Thy kingdom come? Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?

Yea, it’s us who will repeat anything. Lol


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Some idiots just repeat anything they’re told, and that particular lie fits the general leftist hostility towards human life.
> ...


Is this the first time you’re meeting unkotare the illiterate?


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Some idiots just repeat anything they’re told, and that particular lie fits the general leftist hostility towards human life.
> ...




Note how many people who repeat that falsehood also support abortion and other aspects of the democrat death cult.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Religion covers things that aren’t illegal. Honor your parents, don’t fuck your neighbors wife, he’ll dont even think about it. Someone’s watching you masturbate. Talk about wanting and needing big brother.

And step out of line and burn in hell for all eternity.

Do you know I’m more moral than god? Even I wouldn’t do that to a soul. Maybe just 1 billion years but then even hitler could Rest In Peace after a billion years.

God holds grudges and don’t forgive. Evil prick.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Haha, yes, stomp your feet and insist the moronic thong you said is true. That's what I like about angry, dumb people...you can always get them to double down on stupid and make your points for you...


----------



## Mindful (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



And empathy and compassion.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Abortion is no big deal to me if I choose to do it or if someone else chooses to do it. 

Also, can you call all these pro abortion Americans Christians? Then are we really a Christian nation if 51% of us are pro abortion? Check mate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Religion covers things that aren’t illegal.


And it convicts people of thought crimes. See, right there is a good example of the superiority of my morals and those found by reason and secular enlightenment over the iron age nastiness in the Bible.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > But the sky daddy is teaching people to do things that even you do, as dumb as you are.
> ...


lol... No problem!   I am always happy to make the less fortunate  feel good about the level of their  intelligence.

Anyway, while you are reveling in your glory, you might want to notice that whether you believe in a sky daddy or not and whether a sky daddy exists or not he is a character in a book that anyone can read who teaches people to not be gullible, to not just swallow any irrational thing that people say without thinking, to stand guard over the purity of your own mind by  differentiating between clean and unclean teaching, right and wrong true and false in order to have a fulfilling life.

  Its what you are half assed trying to do. supposedly.

 By condemning the the teaching of sky daddy, you might as well be condemning yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> lol... No problem! I am always happy to make the less fortunate feel good about the level of their intelligence.
> 
> Anyway, while you are reveling in your glory,


I do love me some irony... Hobelim, your god is you, and you worship that God by fellating yourself.


hobelim said:


> By condemning the the teaching of sky daddy, you might as well be condemning yourself.


Oh no! That's disconcerting. Or not. Sorry shaman hobelim, your magical threats and incantations hold no weight, here. Maybe try an Amazonian tribe, or some starving kids in subsaharan Africa. They will tell you how smart you are for a sandwich.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Its just a metaphor for the confused state of mind of the people who fill their minds with the trash discarded by higher intelligences. It really has nothing whatever to with whether you believe in God or not.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


I’m all for assisted suicide too. I saw a loveone suffer and funny thing is I wouldn’t have given her a suicide pill and I’m glad she didn’t do it before her Alzheimer’s got too bad but I wouldn’t blame anyone for not wanting to go thru that. I think it’s evil to make them.

And there was a point they should have given my grandfather a lethal dose of morphine but instead he suffered for 2 needless days.

We could have kept grandmother alive by putting the breathing tube in her neck because you can’t have it down the throat for too long. We chose to just take the tube out and if she couldn’t breath she would die in an hour or two. Do you think we murdered her by not putting the tube in her neck? She could have lived another year with the tube. Did we murder her?

Now, you hypocrite republicans consider all the religious poor people on Medicare and Medicaid who are in this situation. Do you want the insurance company to pay to keep my grandmother alive for a year on a breathing tube?


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Looking at reality is not "stomping feet," parrot.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > lol... No problem! I am always happy to make the less fortunate feel good about the level of their intelligence.
> ...




Alright, so you will never be a deep thinker.

Not to worry!

You will always have that shiny  magical bullshit ornament in your nose. You could be a teacher in a university, jump up and down all day long completely out of your tree. People will be very impressed!

Can I get an ooh ooh ahh ahh?


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




You, of all people, shouldn't be trying to boast about literacy, idiot.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




What a shame that you're all alone.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No one knows if there is a god or hell. All wild speculation. No holy book contains any facts on the subject but they claim to. That’s a lie. They’ve been lying all these years. Too many Christians and Muslims see these stories as facts. Why so much confusion in the church on if these stories are factual or not? They want you to believe they are facts. When they no longer can convince you it’s factual then they get you to go along because it’s a good story that produces good things.

I disagree and even if a lie makes you feel good it’s still a lie


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"You could be a teacher in a university!"

Indeed, and i have been. While you provide no useful information whatsoever.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


What a shame you are not. For everyone else who are involved sake.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Im not conservative and global warming is a topic regarding our pollution - not our population size. Humans on the entire earth can fit in fucking Texas. These are raw numbers, we are not at even a FRACTION of capacity weirdo. Something like 80% of the US land mass is undeveloped wild life. Look it up.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Hell,  I wish there was no such thing as hell. One day there won't be any such place. Until then I can help but notice how many people are flailing about in its fires being tormented day and night by devils and demons who keep their befuddled minds in captivity .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I disagree and even if a lie makes you feel good it’s still a lie


A statement with which all of these devout sky daddy worshippers agree fully. They just reserve special space for their personal, preferred magical beliefs. And  when they can't satisfactorily explain them, why, that's everyone else's fault.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Holy beyelzabob


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree and even if a lie makes you feel good it’s still a lie
> ...


Cognitive dissonance


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


  And a copra sanctum to boot!

Can't you hear the cries of lost souls in hell?

We are sinners! The end is near! the antichrist will kill us! Judgment day is coming! Hell is real!  Jesus save us!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Humans on the entire earth can fit in fucking Texas.


Neat! But the concerns about overpopulation aren't about whereto fit the bodies. They are about capacity for well being. And limiting population growth is only one side of the coin and will happen as a result of education and empowerment of women. The other side is making sure we can not just survive, but also thrive.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Yet our oceans are filled with plastic and our landfills are filled with disposable diapers.

I guess if humans went back to using diapers you wash and reuse that might make an impact but we won’t.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yet, what the fuck do you mean YET...

You're talking about POLLUTION, theres no YET, I agree we pollute too much. I disagree that its a matter of population size, its moreso a problem with our ingenuity.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Humans on the entire earth can fit in fucking Texas.
> ...


We can survive and thrive with triple this population. Population is not the mitigating factor preventing us from doing so. Its a cooperation of ideas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> We can survive and thrive with triple this population.


I like to think so, too. You aren't really arguing against a word i have said. But it's still a good idea to take steps to ensure that. Noting the hardships that an exploding population can cause is the first step in that direction. So it's neither smart nor wise to immediately jump on people for bringing them up,  thereby stalling the discussion.

I think we essentially agree.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > We can survive and thrive with triple this population.
> ...


Then you didnt need to chime in, because the conversation you chimed into was a claim that we are overpopulated. Surviving and thriving is something we can achieve without the mitigation of our population size, and you just agreed with that sooo0o0o...THATS weird.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I read about Christians the years after Christ. All of them were certain the end was near but they grew old and nothing ever happened.

And in the 1500s Martin Luther was so sure the end was near, but it never happened.

And guess what? The end is near for all of us. I’m 48. I have anywhere from 1 day to 52 years left. Doesn’t really matter to me really if you all come with me or not. I would prefer it be just me though so I want to stop global warming. You know for future generations.

I also want to put man in space because this planet will someday die


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > We can survive and thrive with triple this population.
> ...


I bet you if we were just talking about Detroit or Chicago he would agree with me we are overpopulated.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Surviving and thriving is something we can achieve without the mitigation of our population size,


But we aren't achieving that. So yes, we are overpopulated. And you are being too defensive about that.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Surviving and thriving is something we can achieve without the mitigation of our population size,
> ...


No, we are under achieving.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Population centers have nothing to do with the macro population of the Earth, and in fact they help my case. LOOK! WE NEED TO SPREAD OUT B.C. POPULATION CENTERS ARE GROSS!

Thankfully, we have ample the amount of space to do so, duh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> No, we are under achieving.


Gotcha. We aren't failing, just under achieving. Where's my participation trophy, then?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > No, we are under achieving.
> ...


Your survival and the fact that you live in an age where the longest living humans in history are now being born - means we arent failing.

Survival is the goal.

What we ARE doing, is underachieving on the "quality of life" aspect, and not survival.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Sure if we solved the problems we wouldn’t be overpopulated but google this. humanity has finally consumed more than it can produce in a year.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Your survival and the fact that you live in an age where the longest living humans in history are now being born - means we arent failing.


Bullshit. See, the thing about global concerns is that they are global.

No, mere survival is not the goal. Thriving is the goal. We definitely diverge there, and you self-defeat with that nonsense. If survival is the only goal, then we apparently succeeded 200,000 years ago. By your lofty standard.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Google what Africa expects its population to be in the next few decades. They are worried. So is the rest of the planet especially if they all start global warming the planet like the rest of us are doing.

Thank god for abortions and wars huh?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Google what Africa expects its population to be in the next few decades. They are worried.


They should be. And people need to understand that this will have effects on the entire world.

I mean, look at the tailspin we go into when one person crosses our border and is positive for Ebola.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Then we need to start paying half the fishing boats who are over fishing our oceans to stop and instead we pay them to clean up the oceans for a decade. But the price of fish will go up and our taxes will go up to clean up the oceans.

Luckily the rest of the world would be on board. So would democrats. Only republicans would fight this


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You just conceded that the issue is a matter of problem solving, not population size.

"sure but i just like to argue"

A restaurant throws more away in a day than a person needs to eat in a year.

Its a logistics and cooperation problem.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




We are nowhere near "overpopulated," and globally fertility rates are declining. Relax Chickenshit Little.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google what Africa expects its population to be in the next few decades. They are worried.
> ...


If you watch that show about the planet with Will Smith and those astronauts you learn the entire planet is connected. What happens in the rain forest and deserts are all connected. Very delicate and fragile.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> You just conceded that the issue is a matter of problem solving, not population size.


That's such an odd thing to say. The matter is problem solving, but not the problem itself? Weird...it would be interesting to see someone address accommodating burgeoning population growth while refusing to acknowledge burgeoning population growth...


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Google what Africa expects its population to be in the next few decades. They are worried.
> ...


Ebola spreads worse in population centers. 

Theres enough land to quintuple our size WHILE reducing population centers.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You just conceded that the issue is a matter of problem solving, not population size.
> ...


A few posts ago, you agreed that population size wasnt the issue. Now youre calling it the problem itself.

Look, its a waste of time to have conversations with people who are that autistic and un-caring in the text they lay down.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Science says republicans are brainwashed by rush and fox to deny global warming is man made.

And you are fighting going green despite their warnings. So I tend to not believe republicans when they downplay the warnings. Remember you guys denied lead was bad and that cigarettes cause cancer. You lie for the corporations who want more people not less. More people lowers wages and means more consumers.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Let's try an analogy:

You are mayor of a city with streets that are over congested. The first step in solving this problem is to admit that the streets are over congested ( if no admittal of the problem, then no honest attempt can come about to solve it).

So, you work with your planning department on a multi faceted solution. This will come in the form of wider streets and better traffic control, along with upgrading the capacity of public transportation.

So, while you have both acknowledged the problem and taken, among other steps, a step that gives more people the choice not to drive a car, at no point have you "banned cars" or limited the number of cars people can own.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > We can survive and thrive with triple this population.
> ...


Weird, weird people on this website. its just like some odd fascination or OCD to wanna argue.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


And you seem odd to me...you are willing to talk about solutions to a problem you insist does not exist. Watching this discussion, it seems the hitch has been the trigger word "overpopulation". As long as nobody says the magic word, we all stay on the same page. We will try to accommodate your delicate sensibilities.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> " 61 countries (with about 44% of the world’s population) already have below-replacement fertility rates (less than 2.1 births per woman). The number of such countries is projected to grow to 87 by 2015, encompassing about two thirds of the world’s population"
> 
> 
> "Fertility has declined most quickly in Latin America and Asia"
> ...


All of which is due to empowerment of women to have more opportunities and to control their own lives,vis a vis, when they get married and to whom they get married, and control over their own reproduction.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Let's try an analogy:
> 
> You are mayor of a city with streets that are over congested. The first step in solving this problem is to admit that the streets are over congested ( if no admittal of the problem, then no honest attempt can come about to solve it).
> 
> ...


Like nyc. You can have a car but most will take public transportation. Cant afford a car. Not practical.

I think we are there now. Let me give you an example. Let’s say it’s $300 a month for a lease and $100 for insurance. Then gas and oil changes. Let’s say it’s $500 a month to drive my car. 

If I had public transportation I could save money even if I only made $30k a year. 

Same argument for socialized medicine. If people didn’t have to pay $300 a month for health insurance.

Then cable and internet

How do people do it? Can’t have kids.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

Half of countries have fertility rates below replacement level, study finds


Replacement Fertility Declines Worldwide | YaleGlobal Online



The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> How do people do it? Can’t have kids.


Which has always been an economic pressure. Now, women have more control over when they have kids, if at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Half of countries have fertility rates below replacement level, study finds
> 
> 
> Replacement Fertility Declines Worldwide | YaleGlobal Online
> ...


You keep forgetting to make your point. While the global fertility rate mmay be declining, it is not zero or negative. So what point are you trying to make?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


False equivocation fallacy, youre good at that.

I wanna talk about the problem of our misallocation of resources ~ and overpopulation implies we dont have ENOUGH resources, which isnt true.

Its that we misallocate them.

Youre just fuggin dense


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> False equivocation fallacy, youre good at that.


No it wasn't. It was my commentary on you, in response to yours on me. At no point did I state or imply equivalence. Don't try too hard to sound smart, you can fall on your face doing that. You can just be smart without the dancing and prancing.



G.T. said:


> I wanna talk about the problem of our misallocation of resources


As do I! See? Same page on that one. Another solution to a problem you insist does not exist.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > False equivocation fallacy, youre good at that.
> ...


The misallocation of resource problem is not a function of population, its a function of logistics. 

Youre now dismissed, idiot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> The misallocation of resource problem is not a function of population, its a function of logistics.


It is, of course, a function of both. So no, you're wrong. You would, of course, in any such honest attempt have to acknowledge the size of the population and its growth rate. So you won't be much help.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


He hasn’t thought it through. Stop trying to bully him. That’s how cons convert people. 

He knows two things. Too many people has led to our oceans turning into toilet bowls

And too many workers for not enough jobs is a bad thing. 

The cities like Detroit and Chicago aren’t producing people who will eventually come to your neighborhoods and be productive. They are takers. 

So you say they should move out. But then what are they going to do in the middle class? We aren’t having a lot of kids because we can’t afford them. So in a way right now you are right. We are in a crisis. We aren’t producing enough babies. Well what do you wcxpect when your policies made the middle class poorer so the rich could get richer?

This is why I like republican policies. They lower the birth rates.

The only place birth rates don’t go down is poor areas because they are already poor. I’m hoping republican work requirements on federal help will get poor women to stop having so many mistakes. And if they want to have mistakes get your baby daddy to pay for it. 

I’m only against people on public assistance having more than 1 mistake no matter what color or where they live.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

The world in 2076: The population bomb has imploded


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

"A few posts ago, you agreed that population size wasnt the issue. Now youre calling it the problem itself."

At no point did I say or imply such a thing. The problem encompasses all of it: our growing population, and how to accommodate it in such a way not just to promote survival, but also thrival.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

Death Spiral Demographics: The Countries Shrinking The Fastest


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Thank you, unkotare  , for furiously googling for agreeable headlines to articles you never read, and for failing to use their content to make any point whatsoever.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

Low Birth Rates, Aging Pose Challenges for Europe


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Half of countries have fertility rates below replacement level, study finds
> ...


He says eventually it’ll lower and never go beyond a manageable point.

If republican policies work he may be right. Middle class people don’t want to be poor so we’re having less kids. And republicans are taking away the nanny state for poor people so even they might think twice about having a kid you can’t afford.

Even unkotare should agree with this statement: A person who doesn’t have health insurance should not be having a baby.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> He says eventually it’ll lower and never go beyond a manageable point.


Well, that's an odd thought, since we aren't managing it well now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Even unkotare should agree with this statement: A person who doesn’t have health insurance should not be having a bab


Well, that's neat and all, but pointing at people and saying, "do better!" is a non solution. It's like teaching abstinence.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The misallocation of resource problem is not a function of population, its a function of logistics.
> ...


No. It isnt. If we have enough resources to accommodate more than our populace, the issue isnt the size of the population its the allocation of the resources.

That was another false equivocation fallacy, and I see above that you dont know what that means so Ill tell you, youre equivocating on what the "problem" is. The size of the population is not contributing to the problem, the lack of sufficient logistics is. Thats your equivocation. On the word "problem" and the fact you keep saying that Im DENYING theres a problem exascerbates your false equivocation, as Ive repeatedly stated that misallocation of resources IS a problem. Population size, is not. Theyre seperate concepts which youve conflated to assert that Ive said neither exist. Your fallacy, own it.

Further, it was dishonest.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "A few posts ago, you agreed that population size wasnt the issue. Now youre calling it the problem itself."
> 
> At no point did I say or imply such a thing. The problem encompasses all of it: our growing population, and how to accommodate it in such a way not just to promote survival, but also thrival.


You just said you wanted to accomodate the GROWTH, "growing population and how to accommodate it." - your words. 

So, to accommodate the GROWTH, you want to stop the GROWTH.

What does he win, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> If we have enough resources to accommodate more than our populace, the issue isnt the size of the population its the allocation of the resources.


Clearly the problem is both, and so empowering people to have choices of when to reproduce would be a part of that solution. That's the smart way to approach it. Just like public transportation is one of the facets of addressing traffic congestion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> You just said you wanted to accomodate the GROWTH, "growing population and how to accommodate it." - your words.


True, so? I'm not proposing culling the human herd or banning reproduction. I think the population will still grow, no matter what steps we take. So I acknowledge and invite your points on this, while not being squeamish about also addressing population growth. You don't seem to be willing to do this simple intellectual task.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > If we have enough resources to accommodate more than our populace, the issue isnt the size of the population its the allocation of the resources.
> ...


The problem is both if you have a blind spot in your reasoning capabilities.

Nyc is not a mecca of starvation but its densely populated. It has restaurants throwing away trillions of pounds of unused foods.

There are LESS dense (by many magnitudes) populations in Africa (that are) starving.

Thats your defeater that population is a contributing factor, or even relevant.

The factor that matters is the misallocation.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You just said you wanted to accomodate the GROWTH, "growing population and how to accommodate it." - your words.
> ...


You want to address population growth by accommodating it, and accommodating it would mean better allocating our resources.

Limiting it is not accommodating it. Youre stumbling all over yourself, you need a break on this topic its clearly a concept thats escaping you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Nyc is not a mecca of starvation but its densely populated.


And every single year they acknowledge the problems causes by population growth, having to upgrade their infrastructure and public transportation. When they do so, do you think they pay any mind to some crazy person screaming, "there is no population growth problem!!!"

.heh heh...I doubt it.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Nyc is not a mecca of starvation but its densely populated.
> ...


Thats also another misallocation of resources.

80% of the land in the US is undeveloped.

The population growth is not the issue, the issue is trying to do it all inside of a box that is NYC, land-mass wise.

Jesus christ this is simple shit


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Jed has a gigantic, empty shed.
Jed tries to shove his lawn mower & his other yard tools into his broom closet and it barely fits.

Jed is misallocating his resources.

The broom closet is NYC. The yard tools are people. The shed is un-used land.


Forts analysis is Jed has too much stuff, when very simply he could reallocate his shed space from "empty," to..."for yard tools."


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



There are many  people starving in the cities and its not because there are too many people or not enough food. 

They have no money. If they did they wouldn't be poor or starving or turn to crime etc.,


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


yupp


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Like you said, misappropriation of the collective wealth of resources by a few laying siege to the lives of many in order to subjugate and bend them to their will and  profit from their suffering while living smooth, comfortable,  and  self indulgent  lives on easy street all justified by their dedication to perpetuating the most ignorant,  superstitious,  irrational,  and perverse  interpretations of biblical teachings possible upon which they base their false claim to moral authority.

Simple.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


.


hobelim said:


> Why would anyone think that Jesus was the messiah way back then much less an incarnation of God himself to this day??



they didn't nor did the character ever proclaim they were a messiah, as but one of the various representations who's notoriety was to suffer the fate of crucifixion. by fate and through distress rome chose the latter, centuries past, to appease a growing discontentment by rationalizing a new religion.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


.


Unkotare said:


> Exactly. Some idiots just repeat anything they’re told, and that particular lie fits the general leftist hostility towards human life.





Unkotare said:


> Note how many people who repeat that falsehood also support abortion and other aspects of the democrat death cult.



_*
... and that particular lie fits the general leftist hostility towards human life.*_


and you disdain all other life in regard to your own.






good luck, loser.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




What makes you say that?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


.


G.T. said:


> Im not conservative and global warming is a topic regarding our pollution - not our population size. Humans on the entire earth can fit in fucking Texas. These are raw numbers, we are not at even a FRACTION of capacity weirdo. Something like 80% of the US land mass is undeveloped wild life. Look it up.








another joke looking for an audience ... obviously has never been in a plane, not a single stretch of forest from florida to texas - ther's obviously a reason you are an atheist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> The population growth is not the issue, the issue is trying to do it all inside of a box that is NYC, land-mass wise.


To accommodate the population growth. Yes, I know, I already pointed that out. Also,  If no population growth, then no problem to address. Thank you for repeating my points back to me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> There are many people starving in the cities and its not because there are too many people or not enough food.
> 
> They have no money.


They have SOME money, just not enough to afford what they need, due to scarcity of resources. Which, as we know, is not only dependent on demand, but also supply. Two sides to this coin.

They have more direct competition for housing , food, etc, due to population density.

Don't worry guys, I won't say"overpopulation". I can make all the same points without using the trigger word. And it seems we can all agree on what to do about it, for the most part.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


.


Unkotare said:


> What makes you say that?



where is habitat, only 200 years from today ... of course orientals have never had a conscious - been killing any whales lately.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




You watch too much TV, kid.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> .. ... of course orientals have never had a conscious - been killing any whales lately.




What the hell are you talking about, fool?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The population growth is not the issue, the issue is trying to do it all inside of a box that is NYC, land-mass wise.
> ...


Your reasoning seems pretty circular. You want to mitigate population growth to accommodate population growth, when growth is not the issue.

Neither is SCARCITY of resources.

ALLOCATION of resources is the issue, which makes it all resolvable independent of complaining that we're overpopulated like an ignorant wankster.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What the fuck are you talking about? I live in New York, for example, and the VAST MAJORITY of the landmass here is dense forestry & mountains

Not to mention the swamplands of Louisiana, Florida....youve goto be kidding regarding your comment about the stretch btwn fla and tx. Holy shit!

im not sure you really meant to type that comment.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .. ... of course orientals have never had a conscious - been killing any whales lately.
> ...


.





oh look, the oriental left a couple - he has somewhere to picnic ...


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

Turboooo0o0o over populationzz


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




Why are you addressing these strange, racist comments to me, fool? Are you confused about something?


----------



## mdk (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> View attachment 241168
> 
> Turboooo0o0o over populationzz



You need to charge your phone.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

mdk said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 241168
> ...


My daughter watched Collins Key while I shoveled. 

Hows things, Mike?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


.


G.T. said:


> Not to mention the swamplands of Louisiana, Florida..


who are you kidding - 10 years ago fish and wildlife closed the last remaining watch tower - there is nowhere in florida not in sight for natural / fire disaster - by humans.

your an atheist for a reason - no regrets from you in your death.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Facts arent your friend. 

Are you aware of a sattellite map on google?

Open one up.

Go to Louisiana.

Its almost exclusively wildlife.

Now that I know what trash reasoning capabilities you have - I know to ignore you completely.


----------



## mdk (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> My daughter watched Collins Key while I shoveled.
> 
> Hows things, Mike?



Everything is grand. 

I shoveled the whole block for my neighbors. We are pretending we are snowed in and playing board games with a big glass of bourbon. Life is good. Hope everything is well in your neck of the nonexistent woods. lol


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

mdk said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > My daughter watched Collins Key while I shoveled.
> ...


Between raking the leaves from our imaginary trees and shoveling the snow off of our imaginary lawn to make a path for the mailman to walk through - this concrete jungle street life is a struggle


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


.



Unkotare said:


> Why are you addressing these strange, racist comments to me, fool? Are you confused about something?





> Can Atheists be Moral?
> *
> Japan to Resume Commercial Whaling, Defying International Ban*




is butcher any better for you ...


----------



## mdk (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



My entire region in one big honking forest. It isn't uncommon to look out the windows and see turkey in the alley. I am not sure where this goober is getting his information about out forest, but he's flat wrong.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 20, 2019)

mdk said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Wellll, arent WE just dreamy data monsters 

Inventoried Roadless Area Acreage by State


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




Again, what the hell are you talking about? Are you laboring under some stupid assumption?


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Christian here- Atheists can indeed be more.

But their morality is purely subjective. In the absence of an objective moral framework, Nihilism can easily become the norm if the subjectivity of atheist morals and ethics are held paramount.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Even unkotare should agree with this statement: A person who doesn’t have health insurance should not be having a bab
> ...


But be honest. A person who doesn’t have health insurance themselves shouldn’t be bringing a baby into this world.

what do you think happens if you give free health insurance and foodstamps to poor people who have kids? It increases the birth rate. 

So republican policies of making you work for welfare and taking away healthcare for poor kids should lower the birth rate.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Christian here- Atheists can indeed be more.
> 
> But their morality is purely subjective. In the absence of an objective moral framework, Nihilism can easily become the norm if the subjectivity of atheist morals and ethics are held paramount.


So can you! You used to all be against gays. Many of you are not.

And half of you are pro choice. How do you explain that?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


I get the point he made. Of course stupid you doesn’t.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Yea now measure the air and water and you’ll see human pollution even in the most remote places.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What is unkotare trying to say? I see you doing all the talking. He pushes buttons but never says anything.

Unkotare what are you trying to say?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Translation. They use religion as a tool to control the masses.

Baptists teach their members to pray and cope. Cope with your shitty life. Never mind doing something about it. It’ll be better in heaven. Don’t fuss over this shitty life.

Why did slave owners teach slaves religion? They used it to control them just like they use it to control poo white folk


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




No one was talking to you, asshole.


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Christian here- Atheists can indeed be more.
> ...



Christians are still against the *activities* of Homosexuals- but we are commanded to love the sinner nonetheless.

And by Christians, obviously I mean true, committed Bible-believing individuals.

What you are describing is the attitude of liberals who desperately wish to reconcile Christianity with progressive ideas. No such reconciliation can take shape. Most of these apparent "Christians" often tend to divert themselves from the faith as their days go on.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...


So they aren’t really christians. Your numbers are inflated.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Tell ding they aren’t really Christians. I agree


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Your reasoning seems pretty circular. You want to mitigate population growth to accommodate population growth, when growth is not the issue.


But it is part of the issue. And that's not the only thing I want to do. You say it isn't part pf the issue, and, of course, that's wrong.


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



They are culturally Christians, but spiritually adrift.

Why is it so important what the "numbers" reflect? The Biblical worldview isn't a numbers game.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Christian here- Atheists can indeed be more.
> 
> But their morality is purely subjective. In the absence of an objective moral framework, Nihilism can easily become the norm if the subjectivity of atheist morals and ethics are held paramount.


Please....nihilistic mindset is not caring about this life because you are just placeholding for the afterlife. You Christians are more likely to fall into that trap than any atheist, who would highly value this shirt tome one earth. So atehists view you revelation types as the real nihilosts, not giving any importance or purpose to the only life that matters: the one that actually exists.

And D'Souza is a goddamn moron.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> No one was talking to you, asshole.


Then don't post on a public forum and instead use private messages, crybaby.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> They are culturally Christians, but spiritually adrift.


Excuse you...atheists experience all the same feelings, just with 100% less magical bullshit. They have those experiences when listenening to music, reading poetry, and contemplating the cosmos. Of course, their version is better, as it doesn't defer to childish , madeup fairy tales.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > No one was talking to you, asshole.
> ...




Are you gonna walk him home after the picnic too?


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Christian here- Atheists can indeed be more.
> ...



You seem quite confused on the definition of Nihilism if that is your argument.

Christians aren't to disregard this life- not at all. Rather we are expected to live and strive in all our life pursuits while upholding God's commandments. This is why millions of charities around the world are Christian, why Christians are often at the forefront of humanitarian causes, relief efforts during crises, etc.

And thanks for calling me a moron, very nice of you (hint: D'Souza is my last name, this is not a tribute to Dinesh)


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > They are culturally Christians, but spiritually adrift.
> ...



I have no idea what you're responding to.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> You seem quite confused on the definition of Nihilism if that is your argument.


Not at all, because I don't defer only to the narrow definition that includes rejecting religion. I defer more to rhe philosophical definition, who focuses on minimizing the importance and purpose of the only life we have. And you revelationists do that in spades. 



D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> And thanks for calling me a moron, very nice of you


I was referring to Dinesh, not you.


D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Christians aren't to disregard this life- not at all.


And yet they often do...actual senators on the floor of congress, tossing aside earthly science in favor of religious nuttery.... People saying they should surrender everything to god, including their children's healthcare and stewardship of the planet...

So, the issue isn't what you WISH Christian's would do, it's what they actually do. And, as an atheist, at no point in my life have I ever felt nihilistic. And I certainly have the same experiences as anyone else who claims to have spirituality...I just don't ascribe them to magical nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...



I always find it funny when Christians define out of Christianity those Christians who are perceived as not Christian enough or who are the wrong kind of Christians.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

Hollie said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes, that's a cute little game they have rigged up for themselves. Kind of how the majority of worldwide Muslims who believe in punishment for apostasy are just "doing it wrong", according to more moderate Muslims...but no, it can't possibly be Islam making them do that....nuh uh, no sir....


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Hollie said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Claiming to be a Christian yet going against Biblical teachings on things which are core to life itself= you are not a Christian.


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...



Your point is baseless. We *know* that Muslims who believe in the death penalty for apostasy are, in fact, genuine Muslims- based upon the fact that their intent is driven from Koranic and Hadith dictum.

But there is no such foundation for Christians to behave in such ways.


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > You seem quite confused on the definition of Nihilism if that is your argument.
> ...



There is nothing in Christianity explicitly diminishing the importance of life- rather, we are encouraged to have faith in God to provide for us, and to be thankful and gracious for all that he does. I do this all the time when it comes to my career, studies, relationships, etc. I believe that everything that comes into effect in this world has come forth via the arbiter of all things (God).

You atheists seem to have a problem with that because of your own egocentric disposition which convinces you that attributing your life providence to a creator/higher power undermines your own individuality and agency. That is not our problem.

Surrendering to God does not equate with abandoning the pursuit of strong policies. You are judging an entire doctrine because of the parochialism observed by a handful of people in positions of power. How is that any more fair than when Christians blame Atheism for the Communist crimes of the 20th century? As I recall, many Atheists detest such a thing.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...



No, I’m not Christian. I suppose if I was, I would be one of those Christians you would define out of Christianity as I am perceived as not Christian enough, or, the wrong kind of Christian. 

It seems I made a turn into the Christian Cul-de-sac of judgemental Christianity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Your point is baseless. We *know* that Muslims who believe in the death penalty for apostasy are, in fact, genuine Muslims-


And we know Christians who believe in slavery and killing infidels are geniune Christians. It says so right there in the book. Joseph Kony says, "you're doing it wrong".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> You atheists seem to have a problem with that because of your own egocentric disposition


And yet, interestingly enough, only one of us is actually talking about himself when pretending to talk about others. You claim people will be nihilistic as a result of atheism, only because YOU would be. So, in an egocentric effort and error, you say everyone else must be like this (instead of just speaking for yourself).

And what of the ultimate egocentricity? I.E., the proposal that you are divinely special, and that we primates go to special heaven just for us and we live forever and the entire universe was made for us...? Egocentricism does not get any more pervasive and grandiose than this.

So, it is really only YOU who would be nihilistic without the religious fairy tale...YOU who would be amoral without a bronze age instruction book...only YOU  who would be lost in endeavours of art, music, and passionate, "spiritual" experience, without your bronze age fairy tale...YOU who operate from egocentricism...

That's a YOU problem. Speak for yourself.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...


People claim we are a Christian nation. Between the fake Christians, atheists, Muslims, Mormons, Jews and Hindu I wonder how many real Christians actually exist.

I think it’s very important so many people don’t buy the basic premise that Jesus was the messiah.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...


Lots of Christians are pro choice. I guess only half the so called Christians are actually Christians.

So they aren’t going to heaven right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Hollie said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


So don’t waste your time. You wouldn’t go to heaven and would go to hell anyways.

Ok so now i will really laugh if he tells me that the fake Christians still go to heaven. Or if he tries to say those fake Christians don’t burn in hell for all eternity. If he says either then he isn’t a real Christian either. Just another cherry picker.

The church doesn’t care if you are a real Christian. Your money is just as good so they don’t tell you you’re wasting your time not doing it right.

And if that’s really how they feel isn’t it their moral obligation to tell the fakers?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No one except me ever talks to you. I’m your only frienemy


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > You atheists seem to have a problem with that because of your own egocentric disposition
> ...



No, I could still enjoy the whims and pleasures that life has to offer in the absence of my beliefs.

However, I couldn't succumb to the mental gymnastics and convince myself (and/or others) that my life actually has objective and intrinsic meaning. It wouldn't. It would only matter to me.


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have no insight on what awaits those individuals when they are set to meet their creator.

What makes you think I can determine that?


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Our foundation was based on Judeo-Christian values, yes.

But at the end of the day, America is just a nation with its flaws (and many of them). Only God is sovereign over the world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> No, I could still enjoy the whims and pleasures that life has to offer in the absence of my beliefs.


But they wouldn't be as fulfilling for you. Only you. You speak for you.



D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> However, I couldn't succumb to the mental gymnastics and convince myself (and/or others) that my life actually has objective and intrinsic meaning. It wouldn't. It would only matter to me.


Okay, fair enough. I don't particularly suffer from that notion, and you should not assume that i or anyone does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Our foundation was based on Judeo-Christian values, yes.


No.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > No, I could still enjoy the whims and pleasures that life has to offer in the absence of my beliefs.
> ...


His life does only have meaning to him, his family and friends and his community. Then his countrymen. Then to the human race.

I wish we valued the lives of the million people we killed invading Iraq but their lives had no meaning to us Christian Americans. Not enough to lose sleep over


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > No, I could still enjoy the whims and pleasures that life has to offer in the absence of my beliefs.
> ...



I never contended that you do suffer.

But my issue is precisely with those among the Atheists who wish to claim that an absence of a God-oriented view can still provide objective meaning to one's life.


----------



## D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...



You see, that's where my faith will never relinquish me.

My friends, family, community, country and the whole of mankind are but a temporal ordinance. Passing by in this world.

But my relationship with God is eternal. Even if/when the aforesaid friends, family, etc. phases pass on by, God will remain firm.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> I never contended that you do suffer.


...from that notion. You forgot the rest. And you most certainly comtended this with your relation of atheism and nihilism, in general.



D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> But my issue is precisely with those among the Atheists who wish to claim that an absence of a God-oriented view can still provide objective meaning to one's life.


I claim it. The only "meaning" of my appearance on the planet results from nature deciding it was advantageous for DNA to form large sacks of water around itself to move over distance and to find other DNA with which to combine. So, that's the "why we are here?" answer.

But the very objective meaning I take from my actual life since is that I like being alive. I like my kids, my hobbies, the arts, other people, etc.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...


I have positively affected hundreds of peoples lives. I’d like to think I made this planet a better place. What other meaning do you need?

I enjoyed my life. I was lucky to be born. My brother has two kids so I don’t have to worry about my gene living on. My brother took care of that. 

The human species wants to live as long as possible. Are you anti science? Maybe your meaning or purpose is to doom us with the planet when it dies and we’re stuck here because you didn’t see the importance of space travel.

So while you’re worrying about your soul living forever I think it’s more important that our ancestors live forever.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Yes you will always have god.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...


  Hmmm.  Thats some mighty bad news for Christians.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2019)

hobelim said:


> D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


What percent would you guess qualify as real Christians who are not going to burn in hell? Out of every 100 in the pews I’d say 22 make it to St. Peter.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...



 It is a requirement to admit that you are a worthless piece of shit and then get down on your knees and pray to God for forgiveness and then set aside the divine commands and worship Jesus as if he was a three in one mangod to become a bonafide Christian.

Given those facts and according to my calculations  every single Christian is already dead and in hell if scripture is true. 100%


----------



## hobelim (Jan 20, 2019)

Not to worry!

Whenever Jesus shows up he will bring them back to life before they even realize that they were dead.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2019)

D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...


.


D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:


> Claiming to be a Christian yet going against Biblical teachings on things which are core to life itself= you are not a Christian.





> _*Christianity in the 4th century* was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the Great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene *Christianity* the state church of the Roman Empire._


_
*against Biblical teachings ...*
_
they spent most of the 4th century writing your christian bible yet you will not let others the same latitude - why is that christian, you a roman dog.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 21, 2019)

atheists can merely be unethical; only the truly Religious, may be immoral.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> atheists can merely be unethical; only the truly Religious, may be immoral.


Morals are standards of behaviors. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standard. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes.  The definition of standards is a level of quality or attainment. 

So it has nothing to do with religious beliefs.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 22, 2019)

Ten simple Commands from a God not the Expense of Government.


----------



## badger2 (Jan 22, 2019)

'Virtue, I have quit your tyranny.'
(Marguerite Porete, Mirror of Simple Souls, burned as a heretic 1 June 1310, Place de Greve, Paris)


----------



## badger2 (Jan 22, 2019)

Bishop Barron: Spinoza, Secularism and the Challenge of Evangelization
Bishop Barron: Spinoza, secularism, and the challenge of evangelization
'....Thus if God is indeed the ground for morality, then something like worship is in point of fact required for the cultivation and exercise of morality...."It" must be, therefore, a "he," a person.'

'The significance of Spinozism seems to me this: it asserts immanence as a principle and frees expression from any subordination to emanative or exemplary causality. Expression itself no longer emanates, no longer resembles anything'
(Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza)


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Bishop Barron: Spinoza, Secularism and the Challenge of Evangelization
> Bishop Barron: Spinoza, secularism, and the challenge of evangelization
> '....Thus if God is indeed the ground for morality, then something like worship is in point of fact required for the cultivation and exercise of morality...."It" must be, therefore, a "he," a person.'
> 
> ...


The good bishop is one smart cookie.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Bishop Barron: Spinoza, Secularism and the Challenge of Evangelization
> Bishop Barron: Spinoza, secularism, and the challenge of evangelization
> '....Thus if God is indeed the ground for morality, then something like worship is in point of fact required for the cultivation and exercise of morality...."It" must be, therefore, a "he," a person.'
> 
> ...



The configuration of the Christian gods are no standard for morality.


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2019)

That awkward moment when Hollie misunderstands the concept of the trinity.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > D'Souza.SoldierOfChrist said:
> ...



Thumpers should actually read some of their bibles. The actions of their gods are the most cruel and capricious. Interestingly, I would like to see anyone use the primary Judeo gods as a role model for moral behavior. Just make a list of the things Yahweh has done, and then go on and try to live according to that morality. That is the example the thumpers want to emulate?

The most cruel and evil villain in all of literature is named Yahweh.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 23, 2019)

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Thats why its a more interesting question if reversed.

Can THEISTS be moral.

Sure, if they're perfectly happy to adapt to the ever improving secular views on morality, and not being Scriptural Literalists.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



They don't even try to be moral.  Or they say they try but it's perfectly acceptable to god if they are not moral as long as they believe in god.  But a moral person who doesn't believe in god is going to hell.  An immoral christian is going to heaven.

And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, 23for allhave sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

And that makes sense to them?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Their source of morality is Emo and subjective. Its a good thing society corrects their path so often or we'd still be raping women as the spoils of war & such - or torturing babies for 7 days and killing them after for the sins of their father : 0


----------



## hobelim (Jan 23, 2019)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




If someone says, "give me a child for ten years and I'll give you a catholic for life" and the child dies after suffering for seven years its from the sins of their fathers who said, "sure, have all of my children, and 10% of my income for life too"  its not Gods fault.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 23, 2019)

Religion should be about the Good, not the Bad.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I dont have a belief in any God for something to be its fault.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 23, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




lol... then you should be doing better judging the morality of an imaginary being in stories written by people who used some very deep and mysterious metaphors and allegories..


----------



## G.T. (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I'm not having any issue, merely because your decoder ring fallacy says so.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


How do Christians not see that book is designed to brainwash them through fear and at the same time promise of an afterlife? 

They can’t realize it’s wishful thinking?

But then the ones who believe in hell tell us it’s us who are wishing he’ll isn’t true.

It really is brilliant. These lying churches have convinced many smart people too. That’s because smart people are only human too. They wish for heaven and they fear the unknown. And if you get them young you can even brainwash an intelligent human.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 23, 2019)

WillowTree said:


> Yes they can. Abortion loving democrats cannot! Pelosi should stfu!




Anyone who voted for trump has no right to question my morals.


Anyone who needs to get their morals from a book has no right to question my morals.

Anyone who  thinks the way to make America great is a BLOODY CIVIL WAR in which you kill LOTS of people simply because they are gay or feminists or liberal or atheist doesn't get to question my morals.


I get to question YOURS!


----------



## hobelim (Jan 23, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Yeah, well, lol,  your insistence that Yahweh was a meanie says otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Do any of us believe in god?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...





killing thousands of people simply for being gay or having sex  sounds pretty "mean" to me.

Did god throw a hissy fit?
a temper tantrum?


has he no self control?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yahweh hasn't even been established as having existed. You can start there before I give any damns whatsoever what you think scriptures meant by x,y, z ~ Im not interested in the decoder ring fallacy.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 23, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  If he is a mythological character in a fairy tale then he didn't do anything. People did,

If you believe that God did these things then you don't believe its a fairy tale and even if you do think its a fairy tale you really need to think a little more deeply about  the lessons being taught like any hidden teaching in a fairy tale and the subjects of morality and life and death.



Samson,  Son of Meanie, slaughtered thousands of philistines with the jawbone of an ass.

you can call him,  the ass,  anynameyouwish.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 23, 2019)

.
life's origin from the metaphysical to a physical state and the progression to have evolved the first physiological template clearly indicates through those transactions a continuation that an individual could become a part of to extend their own existence. having a spirit to do so to accomplish the feat being an essential ingredient factored in from the very beginning.


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2019)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


First of all CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle that life on this planet requires.

Secondly the carbon footprint of human beings does say that increasing carbon emissions are a function of population growth and the data overwhelming proves this.

But I agree you are not a conservative.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  How many of you are there?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


He sounds almost human.  I say almost because he's very inhumane.  Sounds like a fake character we made in our image.

Just think about the story of Noah.  Humans were such scum.  Such filth.  So bad that God caused a great flood to drown them all.  What an evil sick fuck.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I mean of the three of us.  Doesn't sound like any of us believe in god.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I don't think we miss the message of the stories.  Don't fuck your neighbors wife.  Don't lie.  Honor your parents.  Don't question authority.


----------



## james bond (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> How do Christians not see that book is designed to brainwash them through fear and at the same time promise of an afterlife?
> 
> They can’t realize it’s wishful thinking?
> 
> ...



We don't think it's brainwashing because we verified it for ourselves.  We took the leap of faith and believed in God and he revealed himself to us.  It's not just the promise of an afterlife, but God's word; It's always true.

For me, what I could not believe were how long people lived to in the Bible.  However, one realizes that things were different in ancient times.  People lived longer.  It was only after Noah's Flood that we only live to around 120 years.  You believe in evolution that people are getting stronger, but they're getting weaker.  People in the past were sturdier.  I recently studied Wilt Chamberlain and he may have been the greatest athlete of our time.  He was a Goliath of a man.

Anyway, what if you were the one brainwashed by universe from nothing (quantum particles), abiogenesis, humans from chimps/apes and so on?  The majority of the people in the world would have been brainwashed by Satan, master of lies and trickery.

You're not going to believe me and instead go with the majority, so Blaise Pascal had his philosophy of Pascal's Wager.  There's more to it than meets the eye, so I'll post a couple of links.

"*Pascal's Wager* is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal's posthumously published _Pensées_ ("Thoughts"). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[3] marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism.[4]"

Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...




trump broke all of those.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




obfuscation, dodging and weaving....

won't help you.


I won't play your game of loony toon semantics.

The god of the bible, fiction or not, is a deranged bastard. Irrational, mean, overly punitive.

I wouldn't worship that turd even if he was real!

I have morals and ethics.

But I understand that chrisitans do NOT have morals or ethics.

Apparently they need a book to tell them who to hate and who to kill.

Without that book who knows what murders they would commit.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How do Christians not see that book is designed to brainwash them through fear and at the same time promise of an afterlife?
> ...


I’ll address the first two then keep reading. Thanks for the reply.

1. Nothing revealed itself to you. Unverifiable. Plus I believed for 30 years and nothing ever revealed itself to me.

2. People 1000 years died younger than we do. So if you believe people lived longer back in biblical times then why did religious people 1000 years ago die so much younger than we do now? We’re living longer.

So you think people lived till 500 in biblical times, and talking snakes, then they only lived till 60 and since medicine and science were introduced now we live to 100? We’re living longer than we did 100 years ago because of science. Religious people don’t live longer than non religious people. How come you don’t live 200 years?

You can’t prove people lived 300 years ever in the history of man. If you point to your holy book that’s just more evidence it’s bs.

Hindu know it. Muslims know it. Buddhist know it. Mormons know it. And atheists know this is ridiculous.

Book of allegories.


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


At the heart of the debate is whether spirit created the material world or the material world created spirit. Arguing about the Bible won’t answer that question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 23, 2019)

hobelim said:


> then you should be doing better judging the morality of an imaginary being


A stupid thing to say, as it is part of the topic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 23, 2019)

james bond said:


> We don't think it's brainwashing because we verified it for ourselves.


Haha,no you didn't. You don't help your case by saying stupid shit like this. Just admit it is faith and march under your true flag. Stop trying to put your faith on the same shelf as evidence based knowledge. It will never work. Ever.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How do Christians not see that book is designed to brainwash them through fear and at the same time promise of an afterlife?
> ...


No I’m not brainwashed. In fact I remain open to all possibilities but the scientific method says question everything and do not trust authority if what they are saying doesn’t pass the scientific test. What you’re saying doesn’t pass.

And what I get from your wager is that you have nothing to lose, better safe than sorry and wishful thinking. I have no fear in what happens after I die. It will be exactly what it was like before I was born. I didn’t suffer.

You literally believe you are a god in waiting? Your soul is immortal? Eternal? Won’t ever get sick or be sad or angry? 

That’s some powerful wishful thinking there bro.

God revealed himself to you? The Bible disagrees that you saw any angels or demons or ghosts.

Real quick do you believe in ghosts? Because many people say they’ve revealed themselves but I had two neighbors die in their condos and I sit in the hall begging for one of their ghosts to show themselves. The one guy blew his head off. If anyone would be a ghost it’s him


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> No I’m not brainwashed.


Of course you aren't.

That is a favored tactic of the charlatan, be he religious or selling snake oil:

Accuse people who reject his nonsense of being "closed minded". When, in reality, it's these religious dogmatists who are completely closed-minded, and the evidence-based thinker who is open-minded.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Spirit is just a feeling.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > No I’m not brainwashed.
> ...


That’s because they’ve been convinced that their ancient holy book was inspired by a god who visited. Hell it wasn’t even written by the original 11 guys who spread the story. Hearsay 

And then to tell us he knows god is real because he truly believed and only then did god show himself. What a load of horse shit.

Fact is no god would take credit for any holy book. Not the Koran or bibles or book of Mormons


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International







Of course they can.  Religion is not a requirement for morality.


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No. Spirit is no thing. You being a thing you can’t possibly understand a no thing. It’s more like a mind without a body.


----------



## Taz (Jan 23, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


As opposed to you, a body without a mind.


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I’ve been called worse.  It’s not so bad.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 23, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How do Christians not see that book is designed to brainwash them through fear and at the same time promise of an afterlife?
> ...


.


james bond said:


> Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,



_*Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God,*_

_The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose._



> Reason alone can bring us to the knowledge of God’s existence - Furthermore, the knowledge of God is enough to render us all without excuse before God’s judgment.



^ typical christian theology ... it is christian bible theology knowledge of the Almighty is required for their judgement to be rendered - where as Pascals wager is dependent on the opposite, there being a lack of ability to know for sure a god exists.

* didn't the christian god speak to moses ...

so bond, how can pascals wager be in reference to the christian god rather than zeus



_Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me._

and the wager does not work with the above forgery anyway.


----------



## cnm (Jan 23, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species.


Communities rather than species.


----------



## james bond (Jan 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Nothing revealed itself to you. Unverifiable. Plus I believed for 30 years and nothing ever revealed itself to me.



How can you speak for me when I just told you it happened and that I verified it for myself?  That ticks me off.  Why don't I tell you what to think?  Evolution and evolutionary thinking doesn't happen.  It's unverifiable.



sealybobo said:


> People 1000 years died younger than we do. So if you believe people lived longer back in biblical times then why did religious people 1000 years ago die so much younger than we do now? We’re living longer.



Which people are you referring to?  Do you have a link?  The longevity is provided as history in the Bible.



sealybobo said:


> So you think people lived till 500 in biblical times, and talking snakes, then they only lived till 60 and since medicine and science were introduced now we live to 100? We’re living longer than we did 100 years ago because of science. Religious people don’t live longer than non religious people. How come you don’t live 200 years?



People lived to be over 900 years old.  There are no talking snakes.  Satan was using the snake to talk.

You're talking in generalizations.  I don't think it's science and medicine that makes us live longer.  They help us to be healthy, so that certainly helps.  What makes us live longer than someone else is our genes.

We don't live 200 years because after Noah's Flood, there were gamma rays sent by God that shortened our lives.

I think Christianity helps us live longer.  Besides creation science helping, we avoid mutations and try to eat organic when possible.


----------



## ding (Jan 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species.
> ...


Wrong. Standards exists in and of themselves.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 24, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Every Christian proves they don’t really believe every time they masturbate. How could you knowing a god is watching and judging


----------



## ding (Jan 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Exactly. If we really believed that God shares in our experiences then we would behave differently in all things. 

But it is a process, not a light switch. Life is a journey filled with ups and downs, backwards and forwards, ebbs and flows. 

There are three possible states. We can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 24, 2019)

ding said:


> We can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static.



that is not true, liberating one's spirit is the objective with a consequence of what spirits likewise successfully accomplished the feat as only an inevitable event where there hopefully is an Almighty that does filter out the evil from functioning in the Everlasting - keeping the initial life template as pure as possible. for future generations and further refinement.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 24, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



How are you more moral that me?  I mean besides you don't approve of abortion.  Any other ways you are more moral?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 24, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...





Of course you are right. lol.... All that I am trying to tell you that if you think a little more deeply about those fantastical stories than the average Christian you might find an unknown God not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used that reflects the image of a loving and benevolent father who doesn't care about what you wear or what you eat for dinner, the Father Jesus spoke of,  instead of the image of an almighty (yet edible) three in one capricious petty tyrant obsessed with the sex lives of human beings that never existed but for some mysterious reason scares the living bejesus out of Christians which makes them get down on their knees to blubber to for special favors, to worship,  and then solemnly eat.


----------



## james bond (Jan 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Is that why you stopped "believing" after thirty years haha?  j/k.  Masturbation isn't a sin despite the jokes we all heard or seen, especially that one you scroll down for miles.  Jesus will forgive your sins, but you don't have to ask him to forgive you for that.

The big sin would be not believing in God, i.e. having no faith and breaking the 1st commandment, but you are entitled to your new "faith" of non-belief, i.e. atheism.

I admit the Bible is confusing and troubling in the people parts.  We've all struggled mightily to understand; I've struggled myself with it.  Many people do not understand and turn away from it because others of the same faith interpret it for their own benefit and advocate their own views.  The entrance to heaven isn't big pearly gates where groups of people walk in.  It's a narrow entrance.  Satan works on the believers, as well.


----------



## james bond (Jan 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We don't think it's brainwashing because we verified it for ourselves.
> ...



I said I verified it for myself as well as others who did it for themselves.  I present the arguments here and in the science forum.  Can I help it if you're blind because Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes and tricked your brain?

Atheists can be moral and good (doubtful due to too much temptation), but they still end up having the great sin of disbelief in God and violating the 1st commandment.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



It's not just atheists who don't believe in your gods but large swaths of people on the planet who believe in different gods. It's a bit arrogant to suggest that gods which have been worshipped long before the invention of your gods are any less godly. It's also arrogant to suggest that the worshippers of those other gods are any more or less moral than those who worship your gods.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 24, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




When I cited the story of Samson, Son of Meanie, slaughtering thousands of philistines with the jaw bone of an ass, I was showing that a person can read that and come to the belief that God wants the faithful to be homicidal maniacs, the deranged,  irrational, mean, and overly punitive prick, or by applying the least amount of intelligence and effort required to dress yourself you can see that something not so terrible, even funny,  is hidden in plain sight, much more there and in every genocidal story than what meets the eye.

You can read the story of Lot and come to the belief that God endorses drunken incest, the immoral bastard,  or you can open your eyes and see that the authors were just yo' mama mocking the origins of their enemies in an ancient Hebrew nomadic goat herder sort of way.

Come on now. It's time to put your pants on.


----------



## ding (Jan 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


When did I say I was more moral than you?  

I don’t see myself as moral. Anyone who believes they are moral most likely aren’t.


----------



## badger2 (Jan 24, 2019)

'I am interested in how beliefs about the historical figure of Jesus were formed later in the imagination of others, and came to function with the doctrinal formulations and ritual practices of a particular religious coalition, which eventually came to dominate most of the Western world. The problem is not Jesus who, as best we can tell, was a relatively compassionate revolutionary with good intentions (who, like Oedipus, apparently had mother issues and struggled with alienation from a Father figure). The problem is the way Paul, John and later theologians imaginatively constructed "Christ" as the Son of God, the heavenly High Priest and idealized moral Judge of all humanity. As we will see below, the motivations for such constructions can be illuminated by attending to the human cognitive and coalitional defaults that so easily engender widespread imaginative engagement with supernatural agents (like Christ), which in turn reinforces anxiety about personal and in-group identity.
....
My strategy is to begin from the inside, so to speak, and to work outward, testing Deleuze's suggestive hypothesis that Christianity in particular has a special role to play in the secretion of atheism. What potential movements of deterritorialization, what possible lines of flight can we find already (within [italics]) Christian theology itself? As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect. If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
(Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)


----------



## ding (Jan 24, 2019)




----------



## Taz (Jan 24, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Like Trump?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 24, 2019)

badger2 said:


> 'I am interested in how beliefs about the historical figure of Jesus were formed later in the imagination of others, and came to function with the doctrinal formulations and ritual practices of a particular religious coalition, which eventually came to dominate most of the Western world. The problem is not Jesus who, as best we can tell, was a relatively compassionate revolutionary with good intentions (who, like Oedipus, apparently had mother issues and struggled with alienation from a Father figure). The problem is the way Paul, John and later theologians imaginatively constructed "Christ" as the Son of God, the heavenly High Priest and idealized moral Judge of all humanity. As we will see below, the motivations for such constructions can be illuminated by attending to the human cognitive and coalitional defaults that so easily engender widespread imaginative engagement with supernatural agents (like Christ), which in turn reinforces anxiety about personal and in-group identity.
> ....
> My strategy is to begin from the inside, so to speak, and to work outward, testing Deleuze's suggestive hypothesis that Christianity in particular has a special role to play in the secretion of atheism. What potential movements of deterritorialization, what possible lines of flight can we find already (within [italics]) Christian theology itself? As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect. If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
> (Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)


.


badger2 said:


> As atheists have learned over the centuries, however, poking at problematic doctrinal reasoning or questionable moral practices in religion has surprisingly little effect.



not atheist alone but those willing for an Almighty as the guardian of the Everlasting have learned it is not the atheist that is the greatest threat to humanities prosperity but the corruption certain theist have chosen in their gospels without remorse for their errors or the brevity to make the appropriate remedies that is the greatest threat for propelling humanity to its untimely demise.




badger2 said:


> If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression, we need more leverage; we need to understand the mental and social mechanisms that surreptitiously produce and automatically reproduce this phenomenon across cultures.'
> (Shults F. LeRon, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, p. 9)



^ badger's post - a quote ... thought it was an original.


_*If we really want to dissolve the power of (religious [it.]) repression ...*_

good luck - religious repression of atheist or simply religious repression -


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> I said I verified it for myself


No, you didn't. You took it on faith and still do.  When did you become so embarrassed of having faith?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 24, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> badger2 said:
> 
> 
> > 'I am interested in how beliefs about the historical figure of Jesus were formed later in the imagination of others, and came to function with the doctrinal formulations and ritual practices of a particular religious coalition, which eventually came to dominate most of the Western world. The problem is not Jesus who, as best we can tell, was a relatively compassionate revolutionary with good intentions (who, like Oedipus, apparently had mother issues and struggled with alienation from a Father figure). The problem is the way Paul, John and later theologians imaginatively constructed "Christ" as the Son of God, the heavenly High Priest and idealized moral Judge of all humanity. As we will see below, the motivations for such constructions can be illuminated by attending to the human cognitive and coalitional defaults that so easily engender widespread imaginative engagement with supernatural agents (like Christ), which in turn reinforces anxiety about personal and in-group identity.
> ...


But churches have a decision. Loosen up the rules or lose members. But do they really want those half committed members who don’t even show up unless it’s time to get married or baptized?

The more controlling churches do better.

The Greek Orthodox for years was very liberal and relied on members generosity’s. The new priest is flat out a republican. It’s obvious. And he has made the church more conservative. Muslims and gays are bad. 

And this mofo sent home a letter to all members that you’re supposed to be giving 10%. That’s bold.

But I bet it’s effective. Fuck the c&e’s. The people who only go Christmas and Easter. It’s the devoted ones you want to milk. It’s no longer a numbers game. Religions are turning into cults.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 24, 2019)

God seared right from wrong in to ALL of us...atheists included my dear.....

A Seared Conscience - Bible Topics and Questions
www.bibletopicsandquestions.com/ArticleDisplay.php?filename...
God gives each of us a conscience. We know right from wrong. The oftener we violate our own conscience the easier it becomes to do that. Our consciences can become worn down and useless, much like that of John Gacy. A conscience that serves its God-given purpose will be one that is in agreement with God*s standards of right and wrong. American ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 24, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Then this thread should actually be “Can anyone be moral?”?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 24, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Ding made a good point. Can anyone be moral? He who is without sin step the fuck up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 24, 2019)

Care4all said:


> God seared right from wrong in to ALL of us...atheists included my dear.....


No, evolution did that. And it didn't do a very good job of it, either. That's why it has taken us 200,000 years to finally puzzle out the more ethical and moral societies we have today. And much of that progress came  just since the scientific enlightment.


----------



## ding (Jan 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


...all the time. 

No one is all good or all bad.


----------



## ding (Jan 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


Christianity is a religion for sinners.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > God seared right from wrong in to ALL of us...atheists included my dear.....
> ...


respectfully disagree!  We've had a conscience...at least since the 10 commandments time period!  

Did you ever see the 10 commandments movie?  When Moses was up on the mountain and gone for weeks, when he came back down I believe with the 10 commandments?, his tribe members had all gone bonkers cuz they thought he was never coming back....  or something of the sort....  it's been decades since I had seen the movie....  I remembered this part...  the tribe had made a golden calf to worship and were doing all kinds of immoral things...  the voice in the movie stated that, from this point onward, God SEARED right from wrong in to all of man's conscience....

I believe much of what is in the Bible coincides with science and evolutionary things, if you have an opened mind about it and can read further than the short story version in the Bible... ( it would be 10 miles plus high if the Bible covered all of humanity's journey if it was in detail....  it's simply a short story version)

So you and I, actually could be on the same page with this, to a certain degree...

at least to the point where we recognize that the Bible vs your version, both recognize that early on, we did not have a conscience or know right from wrong or it was not embedded in us  until later, or in your version...  learned over time...  or evolved.


----------



## james bond (Jan 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I said I verified it for myself
> ...



I took it on faith to believe in God as I said, but the science in the Bible verified it.  Your "faith" in evolution is unverifiable, e.g. humans from monkeys claim or birds from dinosaurs claim.  Your "faith" in abiogenesis is unverifiable.  Aliens is verifiable, but so far it's been no aliens.  That follows abiogenesis is unverifiable.  Thus, you're the one who is embarrassed beyond belief.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



“Humans from monkeys” is ignorant nonsense spewed by the creationist / Flat Earth cranks from the Christian madrassahs.

Don’t be an accomplice to ignorant nonsense.


----------



## ding (Jan 25, 2019)

Hollie makes a good case for humans from monkeys.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



There is actual science to confirm the transition from birds to dinosaurs.


CC214:  Transitional Birds


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 25, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Christianity is a religion for sinners.



only your 4th century version - the composite jesus of the 1st century was in fact just the opposite, the reward for those who deserve it.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 25, 2019)

Care4all said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


.


Care4all said:


> at least to the point where we recognize that the Bible vs your version, both recognize that early on, we did not have a conscience or know right from wrong or it was not embedded in us until later, or in your version... learned over time... or evolved.



_*we did not have a conscience or know right from wrong ...*_

that would not be true of the religion of antiquity the 4th century christian bible is based on - the life template from its inception has manifested its physical profile in all ways imaginable from that time forwards clearly demonstrating a controlled metaphysical objectivity for each succeeding phase of its development. from one generation to the next without interruption.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 25, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So atheists can be moral.  Tell the person who started this thread.

Also tell them that theists can be immoral.  He doesn't seem to know.

I still want to know can a theist be moral?  According to you we are all sinners so you theists are no better than us atheists.  That's what I'm getting out of this.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


He is so far gone at times I think he is kidding.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 25, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I still want to know can a theist be moral? According to you we are all sinners so you theists are no better than us atheists. That's what I'm getting out of this.



Do theists and atheists agree on what is moral?  Then the question becomes what is the level of morality each individual lives up to or attains.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Your "faith" in abiogenesis is unverifiable


Utter , wishful thinking, Bible boy nonsense. Every shred of evidence we have ever collected on anything shows us a deteministic universe that follows physical laws. So abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion and requires no faith to believe. In the same manner, star formation was and is a foregone conclusion. In a point in space where there is a star, there once was no star and someday will probably be no star. At no point did scientists throw up their hands and say, "must be magic!" and they would have been foolish to do so. The only reason you undertake this foolish nonsense with the formation of life is because you buy into a very specific set of religious dogma, who you do by faith and faith alone.

Compare abiogenesis to your alternative, who you assert without a shred of evidence: magical horseshit.

I know you charlatans think it is somehow valid or effective to accuse everyone else of that of which only you are guilty, but it doesn't fool anyone. And it discredits you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 25, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I still want to know can a theist be moral? According to you we are all sinners so you theists are no better than us atheists. That's what I'm getting out of this.
> ...



Lets look at what the guy originally wrote:

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

It is not clear cut.  Even theists disagree on morality.  Muslims and Christians don't agree do they?

Even Christians disagree.  Many different sects.

Just because this guys morality comes from one of 1000 different holy books does not mean he is a moral person.  What it does mean is that atheists have no such holy book that they point to as their moral compass.  

And this guy needs to realize human beings wrote his holy books.  So his morality is based on the morality of sheep herders 1500 years ago or 7000 if he's jewish or 500 years ago if he's a muslim or 200 years ago if he's a Mormon.  

He is right we have no holy books to refer to.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 25, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Just because this guys morality comes from one of 1000 different holy books does not mean he is a moral person. What it does mean is that atheists have no such holy book that they point to as their moral compass.
> 
> And this guy needs to realize human beings wrote his holy books. So his morality is based on the morality of sheep herders 1500 years ago or 7000 if he's jewish or 500 years ago if he's a muslim or 200 years ago if he's a Mormon.
> 
> He is right we have no holy books to refer to.




lol... You once said that you go to church and pretend to pray hoping to get laid..What a guy!

Your morality  would fit in with the morality of the great and wonderful snake oil salesman of ancient Egypt.

If you don't have a holy book, maybe you should write one? You can call it "how to remain single, and or miserable, for the rest of your life in one easy step".


----------



## ding (Jan 25, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What part of no one is all good or all bad do you not understand?

Go look somewhere else for absolution.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 25, 2019)

ding said:


> What part of no one is all good or all bad do you not understand?



you need another book to read for your religion ...


----------



## badger2 (Jan 25, 2019)

That morality is a two-part argument assumes that the prisoner believes that god is a disembodied intentional force. Shults has shown in his figure 1.1 the depiction of a correlation between cognitive and coalitional tendencies that developed together in mutually reinforcing ways in the evolution of Homo sapiens. Shults describes the graph:

'The horizontal line indicates a continuum on which we can mark the tendency of persons to guess "human-like intentional force" when confronted with ambiguous phenomena in the natural environment....The continuum indicated on the vertical line registers how a person holds on to conventional modes of inscribing the social field....Sociographic prudes are strongly committed to the authorized social norms of their in-group, following and protecting them even at great cost to themselves. They are more likely to be suspicious of out-groups and to accept claims or demands that appeal to authorities within their own coalition. The sociographic promiscuity of those at the other end of the spectrum, on the other hand, leads them to be more open to intercourse with out-groups about alternative normativities and to the pursuit of new modes of creative social inscription. Such persons are also less likely to accept moralistic restrictions that are based on appeals to convention.

The evolutionary default is toward the integration of anthropomorphic promiscuity and sociographic prudery. In other words, human beings today are intuitively drawn into the biocultural gravitational field of the integrated tendencies in the lower left quadrant.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)

In the lower left quadrant of the graph in Figure 1.1 are the words, :"integrated theogonic forces," an d goes on to say that 'Whatever the unique conditions were that led some groups out of Africa, however, it seems clear that their survival was enhanced by the integration of theogonic forces.'

Thus, as Hodder (The Domestication of Europe) depicts the striated space of houses being placed in rows while esoteric knowledge began to forge protection rackets for theology, morality was simultaneously accompanied by manipulations of the fundamental illusions of Man, for instance, the illusion of not being dead once we already are. If absolute knowledge is death, Derrida goes even further to suggest that god (is [italics]) death.


----------



## ding (Jan 25, 2019)

Morals, virtues and standards are interchangeable. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors naturally produce better outcomes and some behaviors naturally produce worse outcomes. Therefore, the standards are natural standards. They exist in and of themselves. Independent of what we would have them be.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

badger2 said:


> That morality is a two-part argument assumes that the prisoner believes that god is a disembodied intentional force. Shults has shown in his figure 1.1 the depiction of a correlation between cognitive and coalitional tendencies that developed together in mutually reinforcing ways in the evolution of Homo sapiens. Shults describes the graph:
> 
> 'The horizontal line indicates a continuum on which we can mark the tendency of persons to guess "human-like intentional force" when confronted with ambiguous phenomena in the natural environment....The continuum indicated on the vertical line registers how a person holds on to conventional modes of inscribing the social field....Sociographic prudes are strongly committed to the authorized social norms of their in-group, following and protecting them even at great cost to themselves. They are more likely to be suspicious of out-groups and to accept claims or demands that appeal to authorities within their own coalition. The sociographic promiscuity of those at the other end of the spectrum, on the other hand, leads them to be more open to intercourse with out-groups about alternative normativities and to the pursuit of new modes of creative social inscription. Such persons are also less likely to accept moralistic restrictions that are based on appeals to convention.
> 
> ...


No offense, but this is pretty stupid.  From the atheist's vantage point morality exists because of evolutionary forces.  But the reality is that even that argument confirms that morality offers a functional advantage over immorality.   According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.  So even natural selection confirms that morality is a standard which leads to success.  Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago.   As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for morality has not diminished.  In fact, the more immoral we become the less satisfied we become.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> No offense, but this is pretty stupid. From the atheist's vantage point morality exists because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that morality offers a functional advantage over immorality. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that morality is a standard which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for morality has not diminished. In fact, the more immoral we become the less satisfied we become.






hobelim said:


> You really should just strive to become a better person. Try to stop munching on Jesus and lying in the name of God.. You can do it! er.,  at least you can try.


You  might want to consider taking your own advice.  

Your obsession over the religious beliefs of others is revealing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Just because this guys morality comes from one of 1000 different holy books does not mean he is a moral person. What it does mean is that atheists have no such holy book that they point to as their moral compass.
> ...


Only I’m not miserable.

So what if I want to fuck a girl?

Do you know there are a lot of Jews who don’t believe in god? But they still belong to the Jewish community. Same with a lot of Greek Orthodox men. I know I’ve talked to a lot of them. They are all good husbands and fathers.  They like Greek pussy and good luck finding one when you broadcast you’re an atheist.

The Scientologist I’m dating now knows I don’t believe.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





I understand. So you want to become a false person to a religious girl so that you can fuck her. Whats the big deal.

But the Jew, the Jews, 

I know.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No offense, but this is pretty stupid. From the atheist's vantage point morality exists because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that morality offers a functional advantage over immorality. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that morality is a standard which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for morality has not diminished. In fact, the more immoral we become the less satisfied we become.
> ...


Nah. It’s just one of the few things that fascinate me.

Politics, religion, movies, sports. You’ll notice us all over the boards.

It’s YOU who’s always on here. If not discussing with me I see you arguing or debating with many other people.

Why are you obsessed with the religious forum?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


If she brought up faith I’d tell her I’m an agnostic but usually the first thing they ask is what do you do for a living.

If a guy believes in God is usually a low priority on women’s list. And the ones who it matters to, we wouldn’t end up fucking if belief mattered. I’ve only had believe matter once. The Pentecostal girl wouldn’t date me unless I went to her wacky church on sundays. But she still fucked the shit out of me on the first date. She really needed to get laid I wasn’t even trying to fuck her that night.

So if it were a high priority to the girl I wouldn’t lie and say I take the Bible literally. Most Christians today don’t anyways. Jesus was just a good dude.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Where to start... I post in other rooms.  Yes, I post here the most because I enjoy discussing things I believe in.  When I didn't believe in them I didn't discuss them because it would have been illogical to do so.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Jesus was just a good dude? lol...Apparently many people didn't think so. He said some remarkable things and then just walked away. When astonished  people who had many questions and gathered to hear more, he just went off somewhere to make out with Mary Magdalene or said something that sounded nutty.


They probably should have just asked him a specific question if they wanted a specific answer to something.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Untrue. We’ve told you all the reasons we don’t like religion. We are passionate that it’s bad. Hell there’s another place I belong to agnostic.com

You would love it there but there aren’t any theists there. I’m surprised. It would make the place more interesting.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


And what made him an authority? He was just a preacher


----------



## hobelim (Jan 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




If he was just a preacher, he was a reluctant one like Jonah was a reluctant prophet.

What gave him the authority? The people who were satisfied with his teaching. He claimed to have received a revelation from God, they believed him. He proved it. They were waiting for him to do something miraculous, he was waiting for them to do anything at all aside from trying to punch holes in what he was saying or doing in order to discredit him. He already did what no other man but the messiah could do in revealing the hidden teaching in the book of the law. It was up to them to do it.

It didn't seem to make much of a difference to Jesus whether he was honored or despised, according to the story.

He even seemed to be daring his enemies to kill him knowing that  they would only succeed in destroying themselves and the corrupt system of political and religious tyranny that they were protecting and perpetuating.

As it turns out, according to the story, Jesus was killed, the country was destroyed, and the rest is history.


Apparently some people would rather see the entire country go down in flames than to admit they were wrong about something.

 How much more painful must it have been for them to have to admit that some froward nobody from the bad part of town who was a little too comfortable with sinners, prostitutes,  and the Roman underworld was right.

They just  couldn't do it..It was way too embarrassing for such dedicated holy men, according to the story.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 26, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



And what about the average Roman centurion?  What the hell was he supposed to report back to headquarters with a straight face?

Sir! A guy who says he came down from the sky is arguing with people who are afraid of bacon. There are rumors of dead people walking around and prisoners being set free from dungeons. We have checked twice and all prisoners are accounted for and every graveyard remains undisturbed yet the entire region is running amok and on the verge of civil war! 

No one ever has any sympathy for the devil in a fairy tale.


----------



## james bond (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?
> ...



I missed this regarding the _new_ ToE or the theory of everything.  It's not even a theory if you ask me.  This guy is just talking out of his rear end.  He does not even explain cosmic inflation nor singularity.  He believes in multiverses.  He also brings up the concept of a closed universe in order to further his wrongness.  This is due to extraneous dark matter that just so conveniently happens to reside on the universe's boundaries.  He goes on "... quantum mechanics allows a spontaneous nucleation.. of a closed universe."  What poop!  A smart guy who has been duped into believing nonsense because of no God.


----------



## james bond (Jan 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> you need another book to read for your religion ...



This statement is _stupidity_ beyond belief.  God's word is all you need.  The Bible is inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs.  It's the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.


----------



## deanrd (Jan 26, 2019)

I’m just surprised Republicans could use the word “moral“ without their tongues bursting into flame.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What’s untrue?  That I didn’t waste my time arguing about religion?

I don’t care what you do. You can do all the stupid things you want. It won’t change the fact that I think it is stupid and a waste of time.

That would be like me arguing how stupid it is for you to lie to your pops. I don’t believe in you lying to your old man. I don’t agree with you lying to your dad. I think it is stupid but it would be a waste of my time. Go live your lie. Now do you understand?


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Maybe atheists who troll religious forums can't be moral.

*Psychological* studies show *trolls* tend to be male, show higher levels of psychopathy traits — low levels of empathy, guilt and responsibility for their actions — and higher levels of sadism traits, the enjoyment of causing others physical and *psychological* pain.Jul 12, 2017

Trolls understand what hurts people but they simply don't care


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Are atheists who troll religious forums moral if they are narcissists, psychopaths, and sadists?

Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists


----------



## Taz (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Maybe atheists who troll religious forums can't be moral.
> 
> *Psychological* studies show *trolls* tend to be male, show higher levels of psychopathy traits — low levels of empathy, guilt and responsibility for their actions — and higher levels of sadism traits, the enjoyment of causing others physical and *psychological* pain.Jul 12, 2017
> 
> Trolls understand what hurts people but they simply don't care


So you’re saying that I’m causing you physical and psychological pain?


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe atheists who troll religious forums can't be moral.
> ...


Would that cause you to be aroused, Taz?

I am saying that you display sadistic behaviors of an internet troll.  That you enjoy inflicting pain.  

Probably because it was done to you when you were a small child.


----------



## Taz (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nice naked breasts of the female persuasion.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


According to the science, anonymity can drive groups of individuals with a similar disposition towards sadism and anti-social behaviour to connect with each other. This may be helping them to distance themselves from a sense of personal responsibility when it comes to their behaviour online.

Do you feel a lack of responsibility in your life?


----------



## Taz (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No. Please try again.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


The good news is that science tells us that you aren't really a danger to society.  Just yourself and the ones you love.

Everyday Sadists Walk Among Us, Study Says


----------



## Taz (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Don’t worry, I’m not doing it on purpose to hurt you physically or psychologically.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That's comforting.  You are only hurting yourself.


----------



## Taz (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, just you, you fucking pussy. Need a tissue?


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Oh, so you admit that's your goal.  

Isn't that exactly what I have been trying to tell you?


----------



## Taz (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If you can’t take the heat, why are you here?


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That's a false assumption given that we are discussing your sadistic behaviors and you are the one who is uncomfortable with the conversation.

You could just as well say the hell with the invisible code of common decency.  That it is ok to be sadistic and narcissistic, right?  But the fact that you don't means I win again.


----------



## Taz (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Have you stopped crying yet?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 26, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What am I lying to my old man about ?


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Your beliefs. Or were you lying to me about that?


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I never started.  But if you need to believe I did, go for it. It seems really important to you.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > you need another book to read for your religion ...
> ...


.


james bond said:


> This statement is _stupidity_ beyond belief. God's word is all you need. The Bible is inerrant, authoritative, reliable, and sufficient to meet our needs. It's the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.



_*The Bible is ... sufficient to meet our needs.
*_
your needs bond -

_



*Christianity* in the *4th century* was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the Great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene *Christianity* the state religion of the Roman Empire ...
		
Click to expand...

_
thousands spent the entire 4th century compiling your book, a political document disguised as a religion. and don't try and convince us of its otherwise wisdom when what needs changing you squirm it must remain as they made it, for your own political persuasion.

the events of the 1st century is what they obscured taking them 3 centuries to commit their crime.

_*
God's word is all you need ...*_

that is correct, the spoken religion of antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - as prescribed by the Almighty is all there is as reflected by the true events of the 1st century.

bonds _"stupidity_ beyond belief", their 10000 page document of forgeries is in fact a selfmade deception they and their followers will be awaken too against their will by the very punishments they have exacted on the innocents they purposely choose as their victims.


----------



## james bond (Jan 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> _*The Bible is ... sufficient to meet our needs.
> *_
> your needs bond -



As I said, the Bible is inerrant.  It's such wrongness on your part, but everything for every person has already been predetermined.  That said, one can change starting this moment and the _predetermination_ is still correct.



BreezeWood said:


> _*God's word is all you need ...*_









You are wasting your save.  Can you pass it on to someone deserving?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > _*The Bible is ... sufficient to meet our needs.
> ...


.


james bond said:


> As I said, the Bible is inerrant.



recorded history of your christian bible says otherwise - name one instance of a Triumph of Good recorded by your "religion". for over 16 centuries.


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2019)

Does anyone actually understand what this guy is saying


----------



## hobelim (Jan 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> recorded history of your christian bible says otherwise - name one instance of a Triumph of Good recorded by your "religion". for over 16 centuries.



 In 1556 Pomponio Algerio who believed that he had the right to speak his mind freely said at his trial: "I say that the Church deviates from the truth in so far as it says that a man could not do anything in any way good on his own, since nothing praiseworthy can proceed from our corrupt infected nature except to the extent that the lord God gives us his grace... the Roman Catholic Church is a particular Church and no Christian should restrict himself to any particular Church. This Church deviates in many things from truth."

And then they threw him alive into a cauldron of boiling oil..


----------



## james bond (Jan 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> name one instance of a Triumph of Good recorded by your "religion".



We have Earth and our solar system for one.  It was beautifully designed so that we would have a perfect place to live.  Only humans sinned and farked it up.  Yet, it's still better than the other planets and exoplanets that you want to try and live on.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > name one instance of a Triumph of Good recorded by your "religion".
> ...



Oh, lordy, man. Not the silly “_beautifully_ _designed_ _nature”_, canard again.
I can't help but find it ironic that you never seem to address how this "beautiful design" actually exists in view of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, planetary bombardment by meteors, etc., etc.

As part of that "design", the laws of plate tectonics describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the author of that “design", the gods could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

And so the question remains firmly unanswered: Why did the gods need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gods" in the first place?


----------



## ding (Jan 27, 2019)

So that man could progress. We are all being tested. We are all being pruned. Some see the tests for what they are and find peace through the storms. They realize that from every adversity there is a lesson to be learned. Others never understand that they are being tested. They do not find peace through the storm and they fight learning the lessons. Those people will continue to have their tests brought back to them and the best they can hope for is to suffer without complaint.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 27, 2019)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > recorded history of your christian bible says otherwise - name one instance of a Triumph of Good recorded by your "religion". for over 16 centuries.
> ...



Reflecting on Christianity here in the US, the original colonies were horrors of christian religious intolerance. 

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Research the laws of the original 13 colonies. You'll be surprised at what can learn not that Im accusing you of trying to learn anything.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

I just find it shocking *SHOCKING* that Christians can be just as totalitarian and dogmatic as well the Taliban or even well fundie Christians.

The better motivation is to accept the world for what it was, in the only way one can perceive the world, with reason and knowledge. Better still, I read more than christian books to get a true perspective on all religions (reading books on Christianity only proved to me that the believers in Christianity could not self-critique either themselves or Christianity-- it always reads like pro-Christiany propaganda). And interestingly, they all fail for the same reason. Which is, of course, reason.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don’t flat out tell him I don’t believe so I’m a hypocrite here. Remember I said I don’t like religions because a lie is a lie no matter how good they make us feel?

Too Che


----------



## hobelim (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


  Too Cheap?  Too Cheeks? Too waa?
lol


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How do you spell toche?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


  touche


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So on this other thread these republicans talking about Kamala Harris infidelity. I don’t know if she’s a Christian but the hypocrites there don’t seem to mind that trump the Christian sleeps with porn stars. 

Can Christians be moral?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Is trump a Christian? He cheats on his wife with porn stars. Can he be moral?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 I don't know.  Who can say? Why don't you go to church, pretend to pray,  you phony fuck,  and then see if you can get some girl to lift her skirt for you in the pews..

Maybe you will catch someone being immoral? No, I guarantee it.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



Are you? Do you? Can you?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Answer me first. 

Question is, are you theists any better than us atheists?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Your low self esteem is not my problem.

And I don't want to talk about President Trump on here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


He’s a typical Christian. So are you hypocrite


----------



## Mindful (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I'm a Christian? I never knew that.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 27, 2019)

anybody can be honest and make appointments for full body massage.

only Bad girls lie to us and let us miss our turn.


----------



## ding (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No. You are a hypocrite on all levels because you lead him to believe a lie about you. 

So you take out your chicken shitness here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 27, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He knows I have my doubts that’s why he keeps trying to convince me there must be a god.

Honor thy father.


----------



## ding (Jan 27, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


For you not to be a hypocrite you’d have to try to convince him there’s not.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > name one instance of a Triumph of Good recorded by your "religion".
> ...


.
Garden Earth is a metaphysical circumstance where life became enabled, a single template that evolved into both Flora and Fauna including humanity ... your religion had nothing to do with it.



> Homo sapiens, the _first_ modern _humans_, evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and *300,000 years ago*.
> 
> The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least *3.5 billion years* ago. There is evidence that life began much earlier.



try as you may bond, your ancestors did not exist but a few seconds after the first hour of Earths existence.


I am curious bond, what have you to point to that your religion has triumphed for the good since the 4th century ... as opposed to the endless examples as depicted for every century since that time christianity is responsible for -






when has christianity ever exerted moral authority rather than persecution and victimization for its own selfish purpose and reward.


----------



## james bond (Jan 27, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Garden Earth is a metaphysical circumstance where life became enabled, a single template that evolved into both Flora and Fauna including humanity ... your religion had nothing to do with it.



Haha.  Your brain does not have the voltage to conduct much charge, but flora and fauna twins just didn't happen by itself.  We can't even take two non-flowering plants to make a flowering one.

You can wait billions of years and it still won't happen.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> You can wait billions of years and it still won't happen.



... that is your response when asked a simple question - what through the centuries has christianity ever triumphed against of the prevailing evils that have existed - to build momentum for all humanity to conclude positively the religion of antiquity. the triumphal return of the Almighty. not murdering humanity but in praise.

is there a single example ...


----------



## james bond (Jan 28, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You can wait billions of years and it still won't happen.
> ...



Your question is a loaded question.  If you read history, Christianity has triumphed against prevailing evils.  Ours is a nation based on Christianity.  Now comes the "loaded" part.  You claim God murdered humanity, but he had just cause.  Sin kills.

Now let me ask you a question and it's not loaded like yours?  Do you believe in that we live in the matrix and that our existence, everything around us, Earth and universe is like a software program?

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 28, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I can’t convince him. He’s one of those people I’ve deemed too far gone to even discuss religion with them. He takes it personally. 

Do you understand there are many theists we wouldn’t even try to have that conversation with them. The Catholic who’s anti abortion. Good luck having a rational conversation with some person who is close minded and not open to discussion.


----------



## ding (Jan 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I must be one of the lucky ones because you keep trying. 

But I am shocked the irony of your closed minded statement didn’t cause the universe to implode.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 28, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Oh you said try? I did try. Same way I feel out every snowflake theist, I asked him some questions and you could tell he had decided in his mind there must be a god, there has to be he says. He ponders a lot and hopes because he wants to see my mom again so I dont tell people who hope to see a loveone again while they are mourning them.

All his arguments and his how can it be’s can be answered by science but he shrugs off the facts. I can’t explain to him how there was no first human. He blows off the science.

We are still a very primitive young New barely evolved species.

And at least he doesn’t try to use the Bible as reasons why he believes. He’ll tell the poll takers he’s a Christian but even he doesn’t believe in virgin births or rising from the dead. He is a classic cherry picking fake Christian who you count among the spiritual. Lol

But does the church care? He gave them $1000 last year. Fuck they don’t care what you believe as long as you believe them they got you fools.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 28, 2019)

Being an atheist saves me $9000 a year. Ding must pay $50,000 because he makes a lot and you have to give 10% to the church right?

Just remember the church only gives 10% what they have to god


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 28, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I’m off today so hope to have some fun discussions with you. I always do.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


.


james bond said:


> Your question is a loaded question. If you read history, Christianity has triumphed against prevailing evils. Ours is a nation based on Christianity. Now comes the "loaded" part. You claim God murdered humanity, but he had just cause. Sin kills.



_*Ours is a nation based on Christianity ...*_






no, when they wrote the constitution they did everything possible to distance the new nation from all religions particularly christianity ... as reflected by your own evasiveness in regards to christianity's culpability with evil throughout history.

_*
You claim God murdered humanity, but he (they) had just cause.
*_
not for the reason christianity represents in their 4th century forged christian bible, for the reason depicted in the above relief - your relatives from the past._*


*_


----------



## ding (Jan 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Dave much?  That’s bullshit by the way. We both know better. 

But way to fake it.


----------



## ding (Jan 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That’s good. But I’m not so you might want to not wait around. 

If you actually understood science you wouldn’t be an atheist.


----------



## james bond (Jan 28, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



LMAO.  Those aren't an example of real Christians.  Your argument is hasty generalization or arguments from small numbers fallacy.

Also, I answered your "loaded" question, but you failed to answer mine.  Nevermind.  Your answer to that will be fallacious, too haha.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Who are the real Christians?


----------



## james bond (Jan 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Who are the real Christians?



Maybe I can put it in 'liberal' terms to point out the fallacy of hasty generalization from people like BW.  Are all Muslims terrorists?  If they are, then he is correct.

The majority of people who follow Jesus and go to church and read the Bible do not subscribe to the ways of the KKK.  The KKK are not a real Christian organization when they practice white supremacy, but are just one that claims to be.

Jesus taught:
“Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" Matthew 7:22-23


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


.


james bond said:


> LMAO. Those aren't an example of real Christians. Your argument is hasty generalization or arguments from small numbers fallacy.
> 
> Also, I answered your "loaded" question, but you failed to answer mine. Nevermind. Your answer to that will be fallacious, too haha.


_*
Those aren't an example of real Christians ...*_



sealybobo said:


> Who are the real Christians?



there is no real, their religion as their messiah is makebelieve, a 4th century political concoction - there is no example in history they have risen on any occasion to triumph against evil, the true religion of antiquity they abandoned for their idolatry.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Who are the real Christians?
> ...


It’s too bad the followers of Christ didn’t think it was important enough to write down what he said. Not one thing survives from this place and time. None of what you read is even stuff written by Paul peter Luke.

If I’m wrong please tell me where they keep Peters writings.

They don’t exist. Your holy book was written 500 years later. Talk about hearsay and making a martyr out of someone.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


There was a time when America slaughtered Indians. Very wrong what America did to Indians. There was a time America owned slaves. We were the last nation on earth to own slaves. So we can’t pretend those were different times. America was the last country to give slavery up.

And America is a very racist country to this day.

And America is a Christian nation. It was back when it was slaughtering Indians and whipping slaves after church on sundays


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jan 28, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



If I had to choose one word that defined anti-morality in every instance where it was questioned that word would be force.

Force is anti-moral.


----------



## james bond (Jan 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Where is the evidence for your claims?


----------



## james bond (Jan 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Are you Canadian?  If you live in the US, then you should move.

So, I'm going to assume that it's okay to claim Muslims need to die because they're all terrorists.  You just conveniently do not answer my questions.  By the same logic, all atheists are immoral, so we might as well get rid of them, too.  

Why doesn't Trump just drop the big one on them?  He's the peace POTUS, so he's giving them a chance to clean up their mess.  Not Obama tho.  Thus, the hypocrisy is on the liberal side.  First, it was BreezeWood and now you.  That's two.  Two convicts everybody by your logic.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> You just conveniently do not answer my questions.



are you a parrot ... we'll try again, when during the centuries has christianity triumph over evil and not been its perpetrator.





there is something in every century you can claim they were not real christians - how is that bond.


----------



## james bond (Jan 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> are you a parrot



I'm not a parrot.  ARE YOU?  We've all seen this several times before and will be subject to your inanest again.  I'll put you down as _unable_ to answer questions directed at your atheism.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Morals are very personal. I am an atheist, have never been religious, and I have my own very strong set of morals. 
However, in my experience, I've noticed that a huge proportion of people, many in this very forum, who are disillusioned Christians, rather than atheists from birth such as my siblings and myself, do not seem to have any morals whatsoever. Because their original morals taught to them as children by their family were based squarely on their religion, when they lose their religious faith, their morals tend to go out the window with it.

They end up being extraordinarily immoral piece of shit motherfuckers when they get older.

AKA Democrats.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Where’s yours?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I gave you more than small numbers. I gave you the United States of America. A so called Christian nation that continued owning blacks when the rest of the world stopped because they knew it was wrong.

I guess America wasn’t a real Christian nation.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



What was it then?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


We are good people. What examples can you give that illustrate how you’re a more moral atheist than us. I can’t wait to hear this spin


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I say it was a real Christian nation. A real immoral Christian nation. 

The point is, can theists be moral? Seems like their holy books don’t stop them from being immoral.

So this thread is shit. Can atheists be moral? Sure. Just about the same as Christians. It’s subjective. No perfect holy book guides us to be perfect.

If the Bible was written perfectly how did christians put up with such an immoral practice such as slavery.

Oh yea, those weren’t real Christians.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I think you'd better define morality.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


What about that whole being a Democrat thing? Forget that little bitty error, did you? Everyone on this forum knows that you are obviously a Democrat! How do you expect to explain that away?

Being a Democrat is some very evil shit! Dude. In other words, very immoral shit.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



They were nice, once upon a time.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 29, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



and yet you voted for trump.......


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

I would define Morality somewhere between not Republican or Democrat, as well as, as far the fuck away from Donald Trump's lying pathos as humanly possible.

If this definition is not clear, it's open to follow-up questions.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 29, 2019)

Morality is what I make of it not what you tell me it is....


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> I would define Morality somewhere between not Republican or Democrat, as well as, as far the fuck away from Donald Trump's lying pathos as humanly possible.
> 
> If this definition is not clear, it's open to follow-up questions.


I can just imagine how bad his gas is..


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So were the Jews, right before God stopped the human sacrifice punking of Abraham..


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I would define Morality somewhere between not Republican or Democrat, as well as, as far the fuck away from Donald Trump's lying pathos as humanly possible.
> ...


It would be funny if the archetype displayed in the Pinocchio story actually had that nose effect in real life.

It would take Melania 5 minutes to prefer his nose to his jewels.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Hopefully it doesn't impale her while he's lying..


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 29, 2019)

When one is a serial liar that person either has mental issues or don't know what they be talking about.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



You're _that _old?


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


A little older really....


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> When one is a serial liar that person either has mental issues or don't know what they be talking about.


He def. has mental issues. Ive known since the 90s when he was on the Stern show, extensively. For all intents and purposes, he was treated as a whack-packer, unwittingly.

Its still pretty shocking to me that the most OBVIOUS case of the fulla-shit schmooze artist in Trump wasn't apparent to so many humans.

But then....Hillary was his opponent and she doesn't resonate with barely anyone, personality wise.

Trump folks are a near cult, which is an explanation for the cognitive dissonance with his serial lying.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > When one is a serial liar that person either has mental issues or don't know what they be talking about.
> ...



When a person puts all of their stock and sense of self worth into winning, lying cheating and stealing is par for the course.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

Is this getting political now?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Its deeper than that, his lies arent just to win. He lies about what he said, on video, 3 minutes ago....

About stuff like what he's had for breakfast.

Maybe it originated with his penchant for ripping folks off in Business dealings - but its certainly cut realllllly deep into his psychii.

The saddest shit is that when Decorated heros of the Armed services have the mettle and honor to speak the truth about him after their attempts to integrate into his Administration, all of a sudden many Conservatives are willing to tear down their sacred cows JUST for their new Daddy.

Its fun, but itll end up just a phase


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




Yes, sad but true,

 in the national pursuit of a more perfect union,  many people have yet to get out of bed.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Is this getting political now?


Politics and morality are certainly connected, so it's not uncommon Id presume.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Is this getting political now?
> ...




I went to the grocery store the other day with an overflowing cart and when they asked for the money I told them that Trump said they would help out and then they looked at me as if I was crazy.

I don't know if it was because of what was in my cart or because I believed Trump..

I will pray on it.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


If the "anyone but Trump" candidate is half-way decent, Im expecting quite a referendum in 2020, and thats despite whatever Mueller turns up. 

So funny, is that Trump was actually the "anyone but Hillary" candidate, and she still some the fffffuck how won the popular Vote. 

So times her popularity (eww) by just a little bit, and he easily loses or by a lot ~ and epic butthurt will ensue.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Is this getting political now?
> ...



Yes, but it becomes a sort of personal hobby horse.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Don't you feel blessed to have front row seats to the end of the world? 

The celestial powers are being shaken, stars falling are from the sky, valleys are being lifted up and mountains are crumbling into the sea..

Cool. Just don't bogart that joint!


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I keep up with the future sciences and things are SO promising there, that mere political bickery and religious nuttery are going to be Relics much sooner than later. 

There's tons of exciting things in the works for us....this other crap is just blahblah place holder stuff in the scope of humanity.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


What aspect is a personal hobby horse?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You bring it up a lot.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Bring what up a lot? I'm not tracking.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I'm fed up of talking about Donald Trump. Except on threads pertaining to him.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

Was morality invented?

Did hunter gatherers practice it?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Was morality invented?
> 
> Did hunter gatherers practice if?


  Most animals that live in social groups develop a sense of fairness and a knowledge that sharing is good and greed is evil  as a consequence of living in a social group.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Well a good idea is to take it out on me!

lol wtf

Hey, this is called "us message board - a political discussion forum" on the front page...

and in that context, the vast majority of the folks are talking EXCLUSIVELY politics, on the daily.

Me, in comparison to THEM? lol, I rarely even bring it up. I mostly discuss origins, science and hang with folks Ive known for years down in the basement.

Trump pertains to a discussion on morality because he is a PARTICULARLY immoral man who was elected to what we colloquially call "the leader of the free world."

He came up organically, in that sense.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Was morality invented?
> 
> Did hunter gatherers practice it?


Morality is just a categoric title of human behavior....so its basically a conceptualization of how we literally act.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Was morality invented?
> ...





hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Was morality invented?
> ...



Cats will cuddle and purr, yet think nothing of snatching food from one another.

I might well behave the same,  if certain circumstances prevailed, and all morals and principles flew  out of the window.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Did I sense some moralising in that essay?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Do you mean moralizing? Yeah, it's a thread on morality. It's an interesting discussion topic, especially in philosophy with the is/ought problem.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




Yes, I heard about a study with rats. in one instance every rat was given equal amounts of food, and everyone had a mate and there was peace in the colony. 

Then they put all of the food in a big pile and the bigger rats hoarded it all, attracted all the females, and the rest were left  to devour one another or starve.

Sorry...

I tried to not speak about politics.

.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




The gerund or present participle: *moralising.*


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I was thinking of cases where one was put into a moral dilemma.

Like the passengers of an aircraft that had crashed somewhere in the mountains of South America (I think). And to survive, they had to decide whether to eat the flesh of their dead companions.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


No in our dictionary. 

Anyhoo ~ yes, I certainly was moralizing in a thread regarding morals. Seemed pertinent at the time but this neener/neener aside is kind of lame, and boring.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

General Intent can be everything.  Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral if the general intent is Good and not Bad.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I think the constant Trump repetition is lame and boring.

What exactly do you find exciting?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> General Intent can be everything.  Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral if the general intent is Good and not Bad.



Shutup about that, will you? Find your own G-spot.

A neck massage will suffice, thankyou.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I don't know, because I dont experience what you're complaining about. Trump doesnt often get brought up in the conversations Im having here, and in comparison to what the bulk of the board is discussing on the daily its actually fairly rare. 

Its not exciting to talk about Trump, it simply pertains to a chat regarding morality.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> General Intent can be everything.  Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral if the general intent is Good and not Bad.


Danny, thats just a weird comment bro.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > General Intent can be everything.  Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral if the general intent is Good and not Bad.
> ...


you are not Happy enough and could be Happier.  

sugar and spice and everything nice, is the general intent.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> General Intent can be everything.  Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral if the general intent is Good and not Bad.




ugh, Still struggling with the full body massage message again...Don't know how to write a happy ending? get a girlfriend already. Sheesh!


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > General Intent can be everything.  Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral if the general intent is Good and not Bad.
> ...


you just are not Happy enough, sis.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I'm not complaining. Sounds like you are. Or spinning the narrative.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > General Intent can be everything.  Full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral if the general intent is Good and not Bad.
> ...


i am the one being the most moral by being the most civil.  

i love taking the moral high ground and arguing those of the opposing view, into submission.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I dont go out on the limbs that you do, for sure!

Is it moral to sexualize every thread, oh I dunno.

Hey can atheists be moral


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


general intent is everything.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


general intent is everything.  

for the Good, not the Bad.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Why would I want one from you? When I can go round the corner to the Thai place and get one?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


  Yeah but when all you want to bring up is your disappointment with your experiences at massage parlors, well, WTF.

Have you tried online dating? Saying hello to someone in person?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



No it's not.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Thats really weird, I thought hobelim and I were talking about the morality of Trump and you interjected about how sick of hearing about Trump you are...

and now youre bickering over whether your interjection was a "complaint" or not....

Are you o.c.d. or something? Do you argue over what color the sky is, over breakfast?

Calm down.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Are you a control freak or something?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I didnt interject into anyones dialogue to try to complain that they stop talking about something because youre sick of it...that'd be you....and then you called me the one complaining and me the control freak.

Look, whatever mental problem youre having here - take it out on someone else. Id like to chat about morality, without your desire to control the parameters because you're sad about Trump.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Intent seems relevant for both good and bad.

If I get hit by a bus, that would seem a bad outcome for me but if my intent was to save my daughter.....I guess thats different.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


why be unHappy when you can always get it?  it should be immoral.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


no, but i can make up stories just by typing.  anybody can do that.  Men have arguments.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Yes, it is.  Why do you not know this?


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


that is a bit extreme.  but, i get your point.  

Good intentions should be Good.  Would something done with Good intentions be Bad?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Good intention should be good, ya dont say!

To your question ~ that's a relative notion.

In the bus example, my good intention would be good for my saved daughter, good for my sense of peace in knowing my daughter saved, and bad for my physical well-being, depending how animal the driver was going, speed-wise.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.


It depends on the context of why they're acting like they're acting. I can certainly provide a context where a woman being a bitch is morally justified.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.
> ...


we know women know how to talk and make appointments.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.


  Sure, as long it keeps you from feeling entitled to a happy ending.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.
> ...


women who do me the most must love me the most.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.



That's highly subjective.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.
> ...



Is there ever an ending?

Only 'onwards'.


----------



## james bond (Jan 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Where’s yours?



I'm going to assume that you have none.  Mine is the Bible.  As usual, I answer your questions while you do not answer mine you sniveling hiding coward and liar.  And are you Canadian to boot?  You should move there if you aren't.  The US is too hypocritical to you, you hypocrite.  Are you a lardie, too, like the stereotypical atheist?  You could be Canadian bacon over there.



sealybobo said:


> I gave you more than small numbers. I gave you the United States of America. A so called Christian nation that continued owning blacks when the rest of the world stopped because they knew it was wrong.
> 
> I guess America wasn’t a real Christian nation.



You haughtily deemed yourself judge and jury.  Unfortunately, you are not the executioner, but Jesus is and has the power.  While Darwinism isn't responsible for slavery (slavery was something that the racist liberal party wanted -- always did, always now -- in the US, it did cause a lot of people to be murdered by Hitler and the rest due to eugenics.  We had civil war in the US.  Today, we have the liberal Planned Parenthood which is a racist liberal organization.  Furthermore, state atheism has killed the most people in history.  Those aren't small numbers, but bigger numbers than yours.  Those are facts.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Sure. Either that or you exposed an easy way to put a ring in your nose. Either way why are you complaining about massage parlors Romeo?

Some once told me that you don't pay them to love you.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


  Well,  I heard that there is this place in the city.... But thats only what I heard. I swear.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > how about this, can women who act like "bitches" instead of being "sugar and spice and everything nice" be Good and not Bad.
> ...


if, women can Talk for Badness, they should Talk for Goodness instead to be more moral.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


the Pursuit of Happiness?


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


not sure how you reached that conclusion.  

it is about women being willing to talk and be Bad, but not make appointments for full body massage for one to three hours at a time, to help a guy be Good.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


  Sheesh.   help a guy be good? OK.

May I offer you a vat of vaseline, a naked picture of Jesus on the cross,  and a moist towelette?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



That's what Americans do.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



"Morality", however one defines that, is innate and buttressed by social mores.  Inventing an imaginary sky-pixie has zero influence on that.  Imaginary friends are a crutch.

Simple as that really.

I just wanted to use the word "buttressed" in a post.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 29, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"
> ...



Looks to me like it begs the question, "wassup with all the Composition Fallacies?".


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


in modern times, nice girl friends do help their friends get really really good.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


a happy ending is not helpful?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I queried is there such a thing as an 'ending'?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 29, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 29, 2019)

Pogo said:


> Looks to me like it begs the question, "wassup with all the Composition Fallacies?


Or, the question of, "Who can identify light sarcasm?"


----------



## Pogo (Jan 29, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me like it begs the question, "wassup with all the Composition Fallacies?
> ...



Or, the question "when does sarcasm not work?"


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 29, 2019)

Pogo said:


> Or, the question "when does sarcasm not work?"


Even when it doesn't work, I feel it is better than trying, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 29, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Mindful the moral wants to round up us democrats and put us in camps


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 29, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




says the nazi who enjoys putting children in cages.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


They have tried to do it to me for years...


----------



## G.T. (Jan 29, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


She has been largely brainwashed by Trump fandom.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I actually prefer liberals over libertarians. Libertarians are amoral. At least Democrats believe they are moral even though they are diametrically opposed to what is good and just.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Had to inform myself on that one.

'*amoral*/ *immoral*. Both have to do with right and wrong, but *amoral* means having no sense of either, like a fish, but the evil *immoral* describes someone who knows the difference, doesn't care, and says "mwah ha ha" while twirling a mustache. If you call someone *immoral*, you are saying that person knows better.'

Vocabulary.com


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes, unless they have rationalized wrong as right.  And in that case they still believe in right and wrong whereas an amoral person doesn’t.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




If Moses,  who should have known better,  told you to turn to a statue of a bronze serpent for healing are they immoral, insane, or just testing you?

If someone, who should know better, told you that God became a human being are they immoral, insane, or do they really just want to save your soul?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



No. _You _are just testing me.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Are cats amoral? I love than for it.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



You should know better.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


if we limit ourselves to discrete sessions.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


It's all about personal perspective...


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


in special pleading, the right wing is Always right.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 Sure... Promises promises. You've been beating around the bush for days now and still no happy ending.

I want my money back!


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Than what?


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


the right wing has nothing but fallacy and believe they are Right.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


i have a happy camper policy.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You make that blatantly obvious.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Would you rather play ask me another?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




Just wanted to let you know that its probably a waste of time to argue about morality with a person who is an antisemite Monday through Saturday and then on Sunday begs God for forgiveness for being such an asshole during the week and then to show God how sorry he is for his sins, celebrates the torture and death of a Jew.


Might as well debate trump,  who always tells it like it is, about the value of honesty.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Who's that then? The 'person', not Trump.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Who was it that brought up amoral vs immoral,  democrats are evil, etc.?

A wild and crazy guy who just loves to golf and gets his spiritual life from doing exactly that which God promises results in death, according to the book he cites without knowing the meaning of the words or subjects about which he is so dogmatic.

The dead know nothing, remember? Would you jump into a pit of snakes to look for a snack?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Oh you mean the vague ambiguous one?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




If you want to be a mouse in the mouth of a cat that just found a new friend to play with who am I to judge? What else can I say aside from mazel tov!


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




Yes or no would have sufficed.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Maybe so.

Anyway,  you probably are already well acquainted with the subtle tactics and potentially crippling effects of the psychological assaults on the unsuspecting by those who merely want to save your soul because they really, really, really love Jesus, a lot.

Do what you want. I'm going to hell in a bucket. At least thats what I heard.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I'm not going to do anything.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




a bucket?

I'm going in a hand-basket.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



What!  You don't believe that God could be born into this world so that he could  talk about himself? If you don't believe that you won't believe that God could turn himself into a lifeless matzo. If you don't believe that he can turn himself into a lifeless matzo you will never know what its like to go insane when you eat him.


Loser.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


how much is how i feel at the moment, worth?

constructive criticism is much more constructive and valuable as a result.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Go on then. Who's stopping you?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




How you feel is worthless. Who you are is everything. Unfortunately for some, its still not worth half a shekel in the open market.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


If a Creator of the Universe existed, which is neither proven n'or unproven, it may or may not have the ability to do anything the Universe's finite beings might find to be insane. No human knows the answer to the origins question.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...



So what.

When I read about God creating  heaven and earth in the book of Genesis I understand that it is talking about something that happened no more than 6000 years ago. Humans  already know a lot about what was going on back then. The symbolisms and metaphors are about as deep and mysterious as your grade school vernacular was.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You don't understand that that is what it's talking about - you understand now through science that it was far longer than 6, 000 years ago but you have nothing to indicate that the Biblical authors knew this, as well. 

There's also no such place as "heaven" that anyone has established as existing to even discuss its creation date to begin with.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  You misunderstood.

The creation of heaven and earth and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different subjects.

Light being spoken into existence into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world like a light to the nations. Light that separates the darkness by teaching people to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, life and death.

Nothing whatever to do with the big bang 14 billion years ago.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Heaven isn't an actually established thing.

The Earth is approximately 4 and a half billion years old.
The Age of the Universe in relation to the first speculative causal event is is approximately 13.7 billion years. 

The Bible, allegorically or directly, depicts exactly none of this accurately.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Ugh..The law came into the world like a light no more than 6000 years ago.

The firmament, the basis of heaven is the law,  stretched out above the earth like a vault.

You already know that there are angels and demons and everything in between. In scripture those mythological creatures and animals, everything from talking snakes to zombies, archangels and prophets, human beings, and all the wild beasts of the field are metaphors for human archetypes that reflect the heights and depths of human potential.

Extremely accurately.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Decoder Ring Fallacy -

You could get away with describing much of scripture as metaphor, because it seems ridiculous and you necessarily have to.

What you're incapable of doing, is explaining why the Bible is internally contradictory when it simply names a City where something took place, or a Mountain, etc. and there's countless things it gets completely wrong. Not metaphorically wrong, but categorically wrong on its specifric claims regarding whereabouts and dates - also on direct scientific claims that were thought at the time by the Bronze-Aged thinkers as actual scientific explanations for things, i.e. not what they "metaphorically" thought but what they literally thought, and were later discredited visa-vie the scientific method.

Further, what you're really, reallllly not going to be able to answer, is what is means for a "Law" to "come into the world" and why that's any different from a Congressman scribbling onto a piece of paper and bringing it to a Vote.

Human archetypes are observed by living, not revealed in the Bible. The Bible talks fanciful shit for folks like you who imagine that we'd be lost somehow without the metaphors. Jordan Peterson was defeated on this exact notion, in debate.

p.s. - I do not know that there are such things as Angels and Demons in existence - I don't consider the characters used to depict human behaviors as magically, then, existing into the real world.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I think they subscribe to the theory that if you teach a man to fish it's better than giving a man a fish.  There is some truth to it.  Let's not forget the poor are not easy to defend.  It is their fault when you look at each individual person.  Collectively it's not their fault.  Capitalism needs ditch diggers.  It needs the masses to be poor so the "makers" can exploit them to become rich.  

Now Ding probably thinks unions are immoral but guess what?  Without them there would be a very small middle class.  Not the huge successful middle class the immoral new deal created.  Immoral social security and medicare.  Why are they immoral?  Because they steal from the rich to give to the poor.

The same way Ding twists morality is the same way preachers spin Christianity.  Any fucking way they want.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

Pinocchio is a character written into existence to tell the story of learning not to lie. 
Lying is a human behavior that, in most circumstances, is considered immoral in light of its consequences. 
People lying aren't, then, Pinocchio and Pinocchio doesn't, then, magically exist.
He's a literary tool, not an actuality.

The same goes for angels and demons, etc.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Republicans would read this and say it is immoral

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Decoder Ring Fallacy -
> 
> You could get away with describing much of scripture as metaphor, because it seems ridiculous.
> 
> What you're incapable of doing, is explaining why the Bible is internally contradictory when it simply names a City where something took place, or a Mountain, etc. and there's countless things it gets completely wrong.



lol... You might as well ask my why there is a talking puppet in Pinocchio when there is no such thing, why there is no  archeological evidence for the town of the boy who cried wolf,  how could three little pigs build houses.

In scripture any apparent contradiction or miracle that contradicts what every grade school kid already knows to be true about reality, animals can't talk, dead people stay dead, etc., is like a giant X on a treasure map marking the exact place where something of great value is buried and hidden just like any moral teaching of a fairy tale which is not explicitly revealed and requires some intelligent thought to grasp.





G.T. said:


> Further, what you're really, reallllly not going to be able to answer, is what is means for a "Law" to "come into the world" and why that's any different from a Congressman scribbling onto a piece of paper and bringing it to a Vote.




Why would I even try to answer a confused question in your mind?




G.T. said:


> Human archetypes are observed by living, not revealed in the Bible. The Bible talk fanciful shit for folks like you who imagine that we'd be lost somehow without the metaphors. Jordan Peterson was defeated on this exact notion, in debate.




First you try and dismiss scripture because science says something different about the beginning of the universe which is an entirely different subject as I have shown, and then you try to dismiss the fact that they were using metaphors to educate children as if that was too simple an explanation even though they were simple people which is why you know and I agreed they weren't speaking in scientific terms.

WTF.

How is a talking serpent anything other than a human archetype?

Who says they are not revealed in the bible exactly like they are revealed to any living grade school kid who calls someone a pig?

Human archetypes are observed by the living?

what kind of bullshit is that? Someone actually thought that was intelligent? Were the authors of scripture who wrote about what they observed not living? are the intended readers not living?

If you don't see human archetypes revealed in the Bible does that mean that you are not living?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.

And why?  Because things weren't "fair" for rich people.  And Ding says it's immoral what us liberals were doing to rich people back then.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

Of course, there were conservatives (like Hamilton and Adams) in Jefferson's time, too, who took exception, thinking that the trickle-down theory that had dominated feudal Europe for ten centuries was a stable and healthy form of governance. Jefferson took exception, in an 1809 letter to members of his Democratic Republican Party (now called the Democratic Party): "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

But, conservatives say, government is the problem, not the solution.

Of course, they can't explain how it was that the repeated series of huge tax cuts for the wealthy by the Herbert Hoover administration brought us the Great Depression, while raising taxes to provide for an active and interventionist government to protect the rights of labor to organize throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s led us to the Golden Age of the American Middle Class. (The top tax rate in 1930 under Hoover was 25 percent, and even that was only paid by about a fifth of wealthy Americans. Thirty years later, the top tax rate was 91 percent, and held at 70 percent until Reagan began dismantling the middle class. As the top rate dropped, so did the middle class it helped create.)


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Decoder Ring Fallacy -
> ...


This is completely fallacious - they wrote factually contradictory statements to give you a treasure map to describe an overtly obvious human archetype?  

And you're their #1 fan, it seems.

THAT'S as magically wishful thinking as thinking Jesus is in some wine and crackers - you think that view is BETTER?

LOLLLLlllll!!!!

Hopefully you knew that Historians can point to specific Geo-Political reasons that the Bible was written as a propoganda piece.

No, you were unaware of these things and thought it was enlightening philosophy and a treasure map? LOL

They used it to bring people to literal arms, and thought it was for the biblical god they thought had actually sent jesus christ to die in the name of. They claim to have eye-witnesses. That's testimony, real or fake, not an attempt at metaphor. 

Propaganda.

Newsflash, magical thinker: The folks that existed at the TIME the Bible was written weren't using it in the way you're apologetically describing here now, as a fictional story book to describe human behavior...

Um, they actually thought it was literal and were much closer to the situation than you were.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

But conservative economics - the return of ancient feudalism - rose up after Lincoln's death and reigned through the Gilded Age, creating both great wealth and a huge population of what today we call the "working poor." American reaction to these disparities gave birth to the Populist, Progressive, and modern Labor movements. Two generations later, Franklin Roosevelt brought us out of Herbert Hoover's conservative-economics-produced Great Depression and bequeathed us with more than a half-century of prosperity.

But now the conservatives are back in the driver's seat, and heading us back toward feudalism and serfdom (and possibly another Great Depression).

Only a return to liberal economic policies - a return to We The People again setting and enforcing the rules of the game of business - will reverse this dangerous trend. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


i usually do when arguing.  i am no longer fifteen years old.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




lol...You are lost without understanding biblical metaphors.

You call talking serpents holy men. You think that the demonically possessed are dedicated believers. You think that the flesh of swine is a good thing to teach your children,  and anyone who discovers something of value hidden in scripture is a madman.

What would you call someone who can't grasp the teachings of a bronze age fairy tale?

Genius? lol.... I don't think so..


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Now you're onto lying.

I called no such serpent holy men. Didn't even imply it.

I called nobody a dedicated anything - didn't even imply it.

Demonic is a made-up concept - your usage of the term is ill conceived. 

I don't teach my kids anything about the flesh of swine.


What would I call someone who lies so much to exacerbate a magically thinking decoder ring view of the bible to apologize for its explicit contradictions....

I would call that person somebody who can't even grasp the story of pinnocchio, and why it's probably not a good idea in discourse to lie so much.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




You claimed the authors and readers actually believed that snakes could talk. Where do you get that? These people lived in tents.

If you took any 4 year old child in the southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science and asked him if snakes could talk he might say, " Yes, when they rattle their tail, that means they are about to bite."  But if you said, "yes, very good, but can they talk like people do,"  they would answer, "No, only people can talk with words. What are you a fucking idiot?"


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

To demonstrate the self-deception Hobelim is experiencing, let's watch him not answer any direct questions. It's necessarily the case that he won't, because it's just not possible for him to do so.

He won't, of course, and the same goes for Jordan Peterson. What he's doing, is trying to invent a new category of truth - which is what Peterson calls "metaphorical truth," to smuggle the ideals of the Bible into reality unnecessarily...... when a discussion of how ridiculous the Bible really is can't be handled directly.

Question #1 - How would Hobelim, personally, define God?

Question #2 - Not allegorically, not metaphorically - but literally, does Hobelim believe that defined God exists?

Dip, duck, dodge - - I know why. It's okay. Nobody in your shoes engages in good faith. I'd answer any questions, directly and in good faith. The difference between us is that I'm not inside of some self-deluded bullshit to apologize for the Bible.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I made no such claim. Another lie.

The authors of the Bible wrote a propaganda piece to convince folks that a christian god exists, I'd never presume that they BELIEVED what they had written - 

And it convinced folks that a Christian God exists.

There, another dispelled Hobelim lie.

Would you like to tell the truth, when addressing me Pinocchio?


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

When the Bible gets things wrong via internal contradiction...

Such as - discrepancies in the order of creation between Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 - -

Is it more rational to presume:

A. It was written clumsily by Bronze Aged Propagandists.
B. It got these tiny, unnoticeable to the un-skeptical eye ....things wrong, ON PURPOSE, to draw a treasure map for enlightened seekers like Hobelim, to bring him to the wisdom of a human archetype that anything with a rational brain and a community was already aware of without needing said bible or treasure map in the first place...and as a consequence of being written this way, has led billions of folks to literally believe in a god, a heaven and a hell and a magical jesus.....

Hmm, let me seeee....which is more rationally plausible.

B seems like the same magical thinking that leads others to eating wine and crackers - the magical thinking Hobelim hypocritically  mocks.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

...i can be as moral as any deist.  Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.


----------



## Taz (Jan 30, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> ...i can be as moral as any deist.  Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.


Like anyone wants a sweaty beaner putting his hands on them. Better luck next time.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> ...i can be as moral as any deist.  Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.


Your level of thirst on a political messageboard anything anyone in real life should be worried about, bro?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed the authors and readers actually believed that snakes could talk. Where do you get that? These people lived in tents.
> ...



uh huh. Never said any such thing. Right.....



G.T. said:


> Newsflash, magical thinker: The folks that existed at the TIME the Bible was written weren't using it in the way you're apologetically describing here now, as a fictional story book to describe human behavior...
> 
> Um, they actually thought it was literal and were much closer to the situation than you were.



You are dismissed.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yes, that means the part about considering God as real, and Jesus the son of God, and it doesn't mention the writers believing it at all, like you lied about me saying...and doesnt mention snakes talking or which parts they took as literal and which parts were metaphor. Are you going to claim no Christians believe in an actual creator God that had a Son Jesus through the immaculate conception?

Thats an easily disprovable claim - there's video, verbal, written testimony affirming such faith and hundreds of thousands of Churches with it as their doctrine. 

Jeepers, you bend over backwards to be wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ...i can be as moral as any deist.  Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.
> ...


So,has hobelim yet explained to you the precise, absolutely true meaning of all the Bible "metaphors"?

No?

Don't hold your breath.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


He doesn't engage in good faith - he mocks the believers in crackers and wine while at the same time engaging in the equally magical thinking that the biblical contradictions were written "on purpose" to paint a treasure map to metaphorical truths about human archetypes that anyone with an above 70iq already knows and understands - but only the super smawwt folks with the decoder ring following the treasure map must need these archetypes revealed in the first place lol

It's totally as bananas as talking snakes and eating crackers to me.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


Mindful said:


> Had to inform myself on that one. - Vocabulary.com





Mindful said:


> but *amoral* means having no sense of either, like a fish,


_*
like a fish ...*_

morals for you are defined then by humanity (whatever vocabulary.com is) throughout the universe and not the bases of the metaphysical, all things created ...

the same for Flora






the vines choice is not a matter of morality ... 



.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Morality is a human construct. Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Not always.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Okay. I can go with that.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Light being spoken into existence into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world like a light to the nations. Light that separates the darkness by teaching people to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, life and death.



_- into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world like a light to the nations._

you keep saying that - if even remotely true, for physiology that would be the moment for the first life template, the beginning of Garden Earth and nothing to do with humanity ... christian. 

not to mention the preceding development / configurations for the elements of the periodic table.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


There is nothing vague or ambiguous about what I believe or write. If anything the complaint against me is that I am too black or white. People like to believe there are shades of grey but it is situations which are graduated, not moral laws.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Yes, but you won't meet halfway.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


But I can be convinced and I am open to being convinced. But you are correct, I won’t compromise my beliefs for the sake of compromise. And I am more than happy to agree to disagree. I may challenge the beliefs of others but I try very hard not to criticize the person or their beliefs just because they don’t believe as I do.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Morality is a human construct (AS FAR AS YOU KNOW). Lower level life forms can have empathy but they usually (USUALLY?) operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but have a unique ability to override them. (ANIMALS CAN'T OVERIDE INSTINCT AND IMPULSE?  ARE YOU SURE OR JUST PULLING SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS?)  It’s really what the allegorical account of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is all about.

Like you this guy is only offering up opinions can animals override instinct?

Impulse control can be taught too Impulse control – the 6 keys to teaching dogs calm and polite behavior - Smart Animal Training Systems...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Don't just swallow Dings bullshit just because it sounds good or because it doesn't make enough sense to understand what he is saying.  Hint.  He's making half of what he said up.  All opinion based on how little we know about the world around us

The idea that animals can act morally—can act for moral reasons—has been almost universally rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. According to tradition, while animals may be objects of moral concern, they cannot be regarded as subjects of moral motivation. This book argues against the traditional view. Animals can act for moral reasons—at least there are no compelling reasons for supposing that that they can’t. Animals can act on the basis of moral emotions—emotions that possess moral content—and these emotions provide reasons for their actions. Animals can, in this sense, be moral subjects. Using recent empirical work in cognitive ethology as a springboard, this book embarks on a meticulous examination of the idea of moral motivation—an examination that weaves its way through central topics in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, metaethics, and moral psychology. The result of this investigation is a powerful defense of an extraordinarily controversial claim—animals can, in fact, be moral—that is sure to engender heated debate.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Are you sure you don't mean altruistic?


----------



## Mindful (Jan 30, 2019)

I'm quite capable of making up my own mind about Ding, thanks all the same.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Sometimes I wonder how much my dog actually loves me or if I'm just his source of entertainment.  LOL.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 30, 2019)

the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Animals absolutely experience emotions. And there are more than enough examples in the wild where they risk their lives for others.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.


There’s only about 1% that separates us from the monkeys.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ...i can be as moral as any deist.  Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.
> ...


i have a happy camper policy; call me on my True Witness bearing!


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ...i can be as moral as any deist.  Full body massage with happy ending for women, feel free to call me a liar and insist I prove it, chics.
> ...


i love capitalism for the market based metrics.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Dogs are very much social creatures. You should get a second one.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


They say my dog is a pack animal but it’s obvious he only likes company and doesn’t like sleepovers. He is attached to me big time. If I get up to leave my girls house he jumps up to leave with me. If she gets up to leave my place her dog cuddles into my legs and tells her he wants to stay. 

And her dog is all about me when she’s gone. I can’t even pet my dog. He gets in between and puts his neck on my mouth so I can kiss his neck. 

If that’s not moral what is?


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don’t know about that. I only know your dog would benefit from the company of another dog when you leave him alone.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I wonder. I guess it makes sense. He does have a friend I can have more weekday sleepovers where I leave them together for the day when I go to work. Then I need a camera to watch and see if he cares. I’m sure they would play a couple times during the day.

I give him good 1-2 hour walks after work and pay attention to him till I go to bed. He’s so spoiled. He goes everywhere with me. Screw me having two dogs. Impossible.

I had a neighbor her dog and mine hung out but she’s crazy and I don’t take her dog to the dog park anymore.


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


How will you know if he cares?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 30, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I would see them playing with each other.

They came over tonight. The dogs hardly played. But I am going to drop him off at her place tomorrow morning. They’ve been cooped up un -9 degree weather.

It’ll be 45 saturday and sunday


----------



## ding (Jan 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Maybe you aren’t making the proper comparison. It wouldn’t be the first time.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 31, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Now you want to snivel at him to try to debate his Dog's emotions? 

Sick!


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Are you still carrying that girl?

I left her at the stream.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 31, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's ^ a meth post.


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2019)

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


You misspelled Zen Buddhist.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 31, 2019)

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're pretty far from Zen, probably the farthest here besides the Civil War folks. I would say you're in the "conflict" phase of your conflict and confusion process.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > the question for bing is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.
> ...




1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..


----------



## Taz (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Sod Jews are descended from apes.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 That would be the great apes., Sirs to you.


----------



## Taz (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So you believe in evolution. It's a start.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


 I did until I met you.

Now I also believe in devolution.

In full view of everyone here  you went from a creature with the form and shape of a flabby human being and an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey into a shapeless quivering puddle of smelly pond scum.

Its fascinating!  People are taking pictures and jotting down notes


----------



## Taz (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So Jesus descended from an ape?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Weird it's harder for Christians to believe that they evolved from a more primitive species but they have no problem believing they are gods in waiting.


----------



## DGS49 (Jan 31, 2019)

Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral."  Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.

A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.

The Ethical person sanctions abortion, as long as the personhood of the fetus cannot be demonstrated.

Huge difference.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral."  Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.
> 
> A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.
> 
> ...


I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice.  How do you explain that?


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice. How do you explain that?


Would these people choose aborting their own child?  Or, are they telling others while they wouldn't do it, it is okay for them to do it?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I have a brother and his wife are church going Christians and like half the congregation, they are pro choice. How do you explain that?
> ...


Sure.  I'm the same way right now.  I wouldn't abort a child if I got a woman pregnant now that I can afford one.  My freshman year of college I would have got one but not now.

If you don't want to get an abortion don't get one.  Beyond that butt out.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 31, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral." Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.


.
_*Moral implies accession to a higher authority ...
*_
nothing ambiguous with the above -




DGS49 said:


> A Moral person abhors abortion even while acknowledging that the beginning of "personhood" is in question. It is the mere possibility that abortion kills a person that makes it morally unacceptable.



and being obsessed is your litmus test -





there is not a moral tradeoff within the Garden ... or being obsessed in of itself is the key for a moralists. "build the wall".


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




Who can say? People have been searching high and low for a pair of his underwear so they could take a DNA test but so far, nothing.

I am beginning to suspect that he didn't wear any.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Sure. I'm the same way right now.



Is taking an innocent life right or wrong?  Is slavery right or wrong?  What would you say today if you read a statement by one of your ancestors that said, "I would never own a slave myself, but if someone else does, that is their choice."  Or, "If circumstances were right, I might own a slave myself."  

Just something to reflect on.  What is the essential question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 31, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral."


Total garbage. I am atheist, and almost certainly have far superior morals than do you. Especially if you get them from the Bible.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. I'm the same way right now.
> ...


Good one.


----------



## Meriweather (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Good one.


It is not meant to be good (or bad).  It does seem that society is affected by what others believe to be right or wrong.  It occurs to me that someone who would never have an abortion themselves telling others they would approve it if someone else did it, may not serve either the interest of that individual or society as a whole.  As I said before, simply another angle or perspective upon which to reflect.


----------



## Taz (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


There must be a cum shot on some guy’s shorts.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Yes, of course. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

With all of that stuff dribbling around everywhere just like you said, and you would know, there must be. Maybe some blood or even a shit stain!

Dexter will arrive shortly at your back door to collect your tighty whities for testing.


----------



## Taz (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yes, a shit stain from the cross would do it. Jesus would have likely have had at least one wet fart up there.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Do you think he was a vegetarian?


----------



## Taz (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


He probably ate some cock, so no.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 31, 2019)

i am willing to barter full body massage for coconut oil; feel free to call me a liar and make me Prove it, chics.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


 
Yeah but if it was black bean imitation cock it doesn't count.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


.


hobelim said:


> Light being spoken into existence into a world that was without shape or form and void is about the law coming into the world ...





hobelim said:


> The creation of heaven and earth and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different subjects.





hobelim said:


> 1% or 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in our genome since the time of our common ancestor about six million years ago..





BreezeWood said:


> the question ... is whether humanity evolved from the same initial life template as all other physiological beings on earth or as being distinct from the metaphysical Garden which itself evolved on Earth's surface.


_*
- is about the law coming into the world ...
*_
is that morality

I did not read where you cleared up your understanding of when the light came into the world, hob - was it special for humanity as a distinctly made being or for all physiological beings, Flora and Fauna the evolution of life, Garden Earth on this planet. - 

in your religion opinion, was it when the initial life template first became alive. 


_*


*_


----------



## DGS49 (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists can be ethical, but not "moral."  Moral implies accession to a higher authority, and moral imperatives often involve behavior that is not overtly harmful (e.g., lust, greed, hatred), and their ethics only kick in when actual, demonstrable harm is imminent or visible.
> ...



There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth).  Your relatives are hypocrites.

Like most of us.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


Well sure getting an abortion could never be put on the list of things that are moral.  

Neither is cheating on your wife.  It's not illegal though.


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There may be hope for you yet.


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


Even then it would not be moral. Merely the lesser of two evils so to speak.


----------



## badger2 (Jan 31, 2019)

'Deleuze's attempts to dissolve the dogmatic image of thought raise a challenge for philosophers: to begin (and begin again) by struggling against the "natural" presuppositions that chain thinking to Analogy, Identity,  Opposition, and Resemblance. I have suggested that part of the reason that this bondage has lasted so long was the forced implantation of Chriost into Porphyry's tree. This will make it all the more difficult for sacerdotal theologians, or philosophers who identify with a Christian (or other monotheistic) in-group, to loosen these constraints. This final shackle is particularly resilient because of the way in which it is fortified by the forces of theogonic reproduction that bind together individuals through the hyper-active detection of similarities and the hyper-active protection of the assimilated. The cognitive and colaitional biases that are part of our phylogenetic and cultural inheritance are extremely powerful. They contributed to the survival of our ancestors in the Late Pleistocene. Today, however, they constrain our thinking in ways that lead us to guess "supernatural agent" when confronted with ambiguous phenomena and surround ourselves with like-minded individuals with whom we constantly exchange a mutual endorsement of guesses, a spiral of similarity that intensifies anxiety about defectors and out-groups.
....
Thought is not conditioned by encounters with "the gods," with ordered forms that guarantee recognition. On the contrary, "what we encounter are the (demons [italics]), the sign-bearers: powers of the leap, the interval, the intensive and the instant. The repetition of difference is a "demonic"  power that both "makes us ill" and "heals us" (Difference and Repetition, p. 19) The process that engenders the liberation of thinking is (demonic [it.]) "rather than divine, since it is a peculiarity of demons to operate in the intervals between the god's fields of action, as it is to leap over the barriers or enclosures, thereby confounding the boundaries between properties (DR, 37)....we can also take the question, "what are we to make of Deleuze's  references to the demonic genesis of thought?" - in a pragmatic sense.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)


----------



## badger2 (Jan 31, 2019)

'They struggled to fit both the Logos, conceived as the determining principle  of the hierarchical distribution of being to and through the subaltern genera,and the man Jesus, conceived as determined individual within a particular differentiated species, into one and the same Person. It is somewhat obvious how their attempts to represent  the infinite (and the finite) within an identical concept were driven by anthropomorphic promiscuity. However, it is equally important to notice the role of sociographic prudery. Plotinus and Porphyry had no need to threaten anyone with excommunication or damnation. For the church fathers at Chalcedon, however, the Unity of the Church as a religious coalition was at stake, and so everyone in the in-group must confess One and the Same belief. When one presses too hard at the logical cracks in religious doctrine a little atheism always begins to secrete, even if one's intention is to purify or reform the tradition.'
(Shults, op cit)

'That primal feeling through which human regulation comes under the sway of daemonic rhythm, dissolving the vitreous resistance of law in the undulating ether of the cosmic pulse.'
(Ludwig Klages)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 31, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases


More garbage. Yes there are.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 31, 2019)

i don't need to engage in the immorality of false witness bearing.  free full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work!


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




You must be transformed from what you isn't into what you is.

That is the initial life template to become a living being. Everything else is just dust and ashes, ashes and dust.


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


That makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 31, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


.


DGS49 said:


> There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for abortion, under any but the most extreme cases (e.g., the mother will die if she has to go through with childbirth). Your relatives are hypocrites.



you made an exception to your own baiting ... are you a raping - misogynist.

abortion is not a moral issue, it is a biological circumstance giving woman a choice for them to make whether or not it was their desire to start a process they did not intend.

no different than having a (medical) vasectomy for the same reason to restrain an undesired result.

it is also immoral to capitalize "NO MORAL ARGUMENT" when it was that poster that broached the subject. the same as the race baiter swinging a noose.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


.


hobelim said:


> You must be transformed from what you isn't into what you is.
> 
> That is the initial life template to become a living being. Everything else is just dust and ashes, ashes and dust.



you accomplished the impossible, I agreed with bing ...
_*

That is the initial life template to become a living being ...*_

you are wrong there hob, the life template is the living being both Fauna and Flora - from the very beginning, purity as the criteria from the metaphysical for all things that exist.


----------



## Taz (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Ya, he probably ate some black cock too.


----------



## buttercup (Jan 31, 2019)

Ah, how cute.  People with the mentality of a pimply-faced 14 year old troll thinks he's being edgy and cool.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


That’s a score for my side. I love it when you realize there’s no difference between us.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Let’s not deny the obvious. The spirm penetrated the egg. It’s now a life. A seed but still a life if you let it be born.

At what point is it moral to abort it? The answer is never. I’ll give anti abortion people that


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Ah, how cute.  People with the mentality of a pimply-faced 14 year old troll thinks he's being edgy and cool.


Who are you talking to?

You know what I want? I want conservatives to make abortion illegal. This would be horrible for society so I want to see what this world would have been like if from 1969-now all those unwanted babies were born to mothers who didn’t want them and couldn’t afford them

Republicans would never admit it was these babaies that caused the spike in poverty welfare or global warming.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

Anti abortionist say 100000 babies minimum a month for 50 years have been aborted. We are already overpopulated. Necessary evil.

The women who abort would be the worst moms


----------



## buttercup (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, how cute.  People with the mentality of a pimply-faced 14 year old troll thinks he's being edgy and cool.
> ...



It wasn't to you, in case you thought that.   Look at the post above mine, and that pathetic string of conversation.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 31, 2019)

buttercup said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


They just need to know if young poor American women abort100,000 babies a month that’s a good thing. 

In a perfect world every baby should be born and have the best life. And every baby should be born.

If every mother knew her baby would have free healthcare and foodstamps if needed, yes I would argue no reason to abort

But republicans want to cut social services that would encourage the mother to keep the baby. 

Seems to me republicans would be pro foodstamps.

And they would be if blacks weren’t on them


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The fact that you believe there are sides proves that YOU inherently believe there are differences.


----------



## buttercup (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe that's where the discussion was going, but that's not the topic.  But just to quickly reply, I don't see how the possibility of a less than perfect life justifies killing an innocent human being. That is a very dangerous position, which opens the door to all sorts of other attacks on human rights, especially the right to not be killed or aggressed against.

ETA:  People (and all living beings) want to live.  I know tons of people who started off in poverty and later moved up the economic ladder and had an all-around successful life.  Your position is kind of saying "If one is poor, life is not worth living."  I hope that's not what you really believe.  First of all, money isn't everything, and second of all, there is ALWAYS hope. While people are alive, that is.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 31, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




lol...

The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe'


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


At least your incongruity is consistent.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Anti abortionist say 100000 babies minimum a month for 50 years have been aborted. We are already overpopulated. Necessary evil.
> 
> The women who abort would be the worst moms




We are most certainly NOT ‘overpopulated.’ Brainless is also without morals.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Anti abortionist say 100000 babies minimum a month for 50 years have been aborted. We are already overpopulated. Necessary evil.
> ...


You always chime in with that Montra. You are wrong. I’m glad you weren’t my teacher.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




What the hell is a “montra,” dumbass?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




Its what  dedicated believers,  faithful spellers,  ordinary morons and  holy men chant right before they eat God.

owa tana siam

owa tana siam

 owa tana siam


----------



## Taz (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Anti abortionist say 100000 babies minimum a month for 50 years have been aborted. We are already overpopulated. Necessary evil.
> ...


Yes were are. Too many beaners... like you.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 1, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


God never committed such acts. 
You just blame everything on God.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Taz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He's an irishman with a zipper fetish.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I don't blame god for anything.  He doesn't exist.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...





Your fetish seems to be ME, closet boy. No means no.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

Taz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





Nowhere near.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

Taz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




What is that supposed to mean? You don’t even understand the slurs you are trying so hard to use, stupid.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, how cute.  People with the mentality of a pimply-faced 14 year old troll thinks he's being edgy and cool.
> ...



Is there any chance at all, that with abortion banned , people will do more than ever to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...



Nah. The wise and dedicated religious right will just defund social services and education,  enact laws to promote family values, lol,  criminalize doctors, attack the free press, lift their skirts for the Russians on international TV, turn their backs on traditional allies, flirt with dictators, despots, and blood thirsty tyrants,  and  then build more prisons to punish all of  those unruly bastards  running amok destroying the very fabric of our beloved God fearing country.

Then they will finally build a wall and people can go about doing more important things like rounding up latinos,  looking up their asses (for security reasons of course) , and then  having gay sex in mens bathrooms on capitol hill,  never missing an opportunity to grab a pussy, make a buck, say something stupid,  or salute  a parade.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Is there any chance at all, that with abortion banned , people will do more than ever to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?


Who knows? But we can all be certain that you frauds will continue to sit there and do nothing  to actually prevent abortions.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I can't quit you.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Closer than you think because you are close minded on all subjects except bookaki.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Google it you dumb son of a bitch.  

He's suggesting you look like a wetback.  He is your typical Republican that you vote with.  You're just like Bruce Jenner.  She's clueless the GOP hate her type.  You are the kaitlyn jenner of teaching.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


People who have unprotected sex or accidents will need to keep the morning after pill in stock.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


No look at Africa.  The poor just keep popping them out so much so that 

*More than half of the world’s population growth will be in Africa by 2050*

*It will also increase illegal unsafe abortions for women who really want them.  And rich women never had a problem getting an abortion.  Only the poor will be punished by banning abortion.  That and the rest of us who will have to deal with the spike in crime that will no doubt come with all the unwanted kids.*

*Imagine if all the people in prison's parents aborted them like they should have.  *


----------



## Taz (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


And he's a wrestling coach for sweaty teen boys who like to hug and grab each other in all kinds of places.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Did they ever officially determine whether or not the MAP is an abortifacient?


----------



## Taz (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Go watch some guys hugging and grabbing each other, you can give them pointers.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yeah. 

Other than the legality of abortion the US and African cultures and levels of education and poverty are virtually the same.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


.


Chuz Life said:


> Is there any chance at all, that with abortion banned , people will do more than ever to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?






> History of Abortion
> 
> Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before “quickening” were openly advertised and commonly performed.






> The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.
> 
> Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before _Roe v. Wade_, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year. Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.



_*
people will do more than ever to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place ...
*
In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.*

*_
what is an "unwanted pregnancy" - for the pretend moralist ... the mere thought is in itself the actual outcome. per desired medical solution to physiological constraints.
_*



*_


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're full of shit. Nobody knows what the numbers of illegal abortions were, that's a totally fabricated number. What we do know is that the numbers of legal abortions SKYROCKETED each year for decades after RvW. Every year there was more, more, more.

And the numbers of women harmed and killed by abortion since 1973 long ago bypassed the numbers harmed before it was legal. Because NOW the entire medical field is engaged in running interference for abortionist ghouls and their victims. When women are butchered and die at home of sepsis or hemorrhage after an abortion, the ER workers and the morticians opt not to identify the CAUSE.

Your numbers are garbage, and you're a propagandist for an industry that mangles women and chops up babies for profit. That makes you the dregs of society. You are the most vile and despicable of any group of people...you rub shoulders and indeed embrace the same garbage anti-human ideologies as Hitler, Herod, the Pharoahs, and any slave owner who ever raped or killed a female slave.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Prior to Roe v Wade, the nation as a whole was much more ignorant about children's development while they are in the womb.

We didn't know anything about dna, ultrasounds, ivf , prenatal surgery or anthing like that.

You can ignore the difference that makes, if you want to.

I think lawmakers will wisely take it into account.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





What a surprise who was first on your mind...


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...







The typical democrat hostility toward life on display again.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


We will see...... LOL!!!!


----------



## LilOlLady (Feb 1, 2019)

Morality is not by being a Christian and believing in GOD it is the inborn sense of right and wrong. I am not religious, I am spiritual. I do not believe in organized religion where someone tells me what I am supposed to believe. Too many atrocities have been done in the name of Christianity and GOD.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Abortion is a simple outpatient procedure.  Very safe.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Well we all hear about the kids who weren't aborted and grew up to be productive members of society.  What about the ones who didn't?

Do you know what he did?
Male nurse worker arrested for 'rape' after woman in coma gives birth


----------



## LilOlLady (Feb 1, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


The Bible teaches us what is right and wrong but it is up to us to know the difference an act accordingly. But we do not need the bible to do what is right. We have free will.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


No you won't.  You'll be dead.  Remember what life was like the 13 billion years before you were born?  That's what it'll be like when you are dead.

_“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” _– Mark Twain


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

LilOlLady said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


How could a nation that supposedly was founded by Christians own slaves?  What good is that book if it didn't even stop them from doing that?

And all the Catholics in Germany WW2.  How could Christians become Nazi's?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


.


> History of Abortion
> 
> Between 1967 and 1973 one-third of the states liberalized or repealed their criminal abortion laws. However, the right to have an abortion in all states was only made available to American women in 1973 when the Supreme Court struck down the remaining restrictive state laws with its ruling in _Roe v. Wade_.


_*
Between 1967 and 1973 one-third of the states liberalized or repealed their criminal abortion laws.
*_
you are arguing for one poster that included your subject to this thread and is the reason you have chosen to post your opinion being obsessed with what you believe to be an absolute you can not live without, the supposed moral highground ... 

the truth is you are simply obsessed over a subject matter that progressively evolved in a manner that is time tested for its accuracy as opposed to forcing your uneducated, selfrighteous opinion onto society that broadly accommodated a reasoned solution giving choice to those willing to make that decision.

reasoned solution = morality /=/ selfrighteous obsession.
_*


*_


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Baby killers are masters of the deniable plausibility and the information withholding games. They deny information to the women they exploit...and whenever they are caught in a particularly ghoulish affirmation, they pretend they didn't know what they were saying.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



You are a mentally ill, gibbering, ghoul. 

Nothing you said there made any sense at all. Talk about uneducated and self righteous. You monsters always accuse others of whatever you are engaged in AT THAT MOMENT.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> The typical democrat hostility toward life on display again.







no, it is a statement against gluttony and ignorance ...


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > The typical democrat hostility toward life on display again.
> ...


No, it's not. It's a statement of your own gluttony and your fear that other people might get more of the pie than you do.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Only people who do evil need worry about dying. Oh, redemption is also something that can save you, but there is only one sin that you cannot be saved from, and that's denial or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

Look it up.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > The typical democrat hostility toward life on display again.
> ...





No, it was a clear and direct wish against human life.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 1, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



I don't want to die, Mudwhistle. I want to know what happens next.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


.


Unkotare said:


> No, it was a clear and direct wish against human life.



no, it is a moral concern for Garden Earth -






orientals lost that long ago - why spread your crime, criminal.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



We are just being honest.  I don't want to kill a baby.  Unless it's going to be severely retarded and I'm going to have to take care of it the rest of my life that is.

I'm not trying to withhold anything from you.  We just think it's ok if we abort our fetus'.  Don't you wish our moms aborted us?


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Do you think our laws and policies that govern our societies would be right to be based on such wishes?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



No that's just how you took it.  

It's the poor who complain life isn't fair.  There is some truth to that.  Life isn't fair especially if you are born poor.  So I don't blame a poor person who goes and gets an abortion because having that baby will doom them to poverty the rest of their lives.  Are there small exceptions?  Sure but they are rare.

And if Republicans are telling us we have too many poor people with kids who are on foodstamps and welfare and need obamacare for their kids?  Then I can only say I don't want to take away abortion as an option to 18 years of welfare and/or foodstamps and/or Obamacare we are paying so that kid can be covered with healthcare.  I'd rather the woman abort her fetus and us tax payers pay for that than pay for 18 years each kid.  Yea each kid.  We all know that she can have a 2nd kid in 5 years then she'll be on welfare for 23 years.  I say she should abort rather than put us and the kids through it.

And Republicans can all appreciate this right?  

Notice I don't tell middle class people to get abortions?  The only reason I would tell a middle class person to abort is if the kid was going to put them into poverty.  It's expensive to raise a kid.  

Pro life Republicans must be pro welfare.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


My family is from Sparta.  We threw unwanted babies in the pit of death


----------



## Pogo (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Chuck E Cheese?


----------



## Crixus (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International




Yes atheists are mostly moral. I know Christians that are less moral then any atheists I know. Even says in the Bible the sense of right and wrong is something we are borne with.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


And I don't care if poor people want to stay poor by having kids they can't afford.

Here is the truth about poverty.  No one single without kids is in poverty.  And if they are in poverty, they can easily get out.  So the only people struggling in this country are people with kids.

Same goes for struggling middle class families.  I finally agree with Republicans on something.  If you had kids you couldn't afford, you did that shit to yourselves.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 1, 2019)

Crixus said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



First, you have to define moral.


----------



## Crixus (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




Just stick with the basics.  Murder=bad. Lying= bad. Stuff like that.  If you are right. You can take apart what nursed is, what lying is and so on. Man Eve screwed us all screwing around with the tree of knowlage.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 1, 2019)

Crixus said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



What if you were faced with the issue of killing to avoid being killed?


----------



## Crixus (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




That’s where it gets fuzzy. Why were you in that position? Were you breaking into a house and the home owner threw down on you? Or stealing, is is stealing if you take someone else’s stuff if you are starving? Did you ask for it? How did you get in that position to begin with? For me it all comes down to living right. Mind my business, stay away from bad people and bad places, stay working and do unto others as I expect done onto me. Golden rule type shit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


So you want to murder the handicapped. 

Duly noted.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


No.  I see that guy pushing that severely retarded kid around town in that heavy old wheelchair and I hear the kid screaming out of control and moving his body around uncontrollably and I wish I had one of those of my very own.

I don't care if the guy wants to take care of that kid.  God bless him.  Me?  I'd have that kid aborted at 8.5 months.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



It's like saying I murdered my grandmother when we pulled the tube out of her mouth and didn't connect it to her throat so she could live another couple years in a bed with a tube connected to her mouth.  It's true we could have kept her alive but why?  That's not living.  Same with the retard.

Stop calling it murder.  You are misusing the term.  We can't accept the premise that it's murder.  Is it murder to take the morning after pill?

*Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates*
*Rates of Abortion Have Declined Among All Groups of Women, But Vary Considerably Between Them*

Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45


I didn't know we had so many murderers walking among us.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Yup. 
And atheists can't.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Nobody doubts that you would force your girlfriend to get an abortion, boobo.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

mudwhistle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


That's funny.  So one of the biggest sins is denying a god exists at all? Brilliant I tell you.  Those organized religions have their bs story down pact.


----------



## Crixus (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...





Who can though? Moral is different to everyone. Even members of any given theology can’t agree 100% on what moral is, only the basics.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


That's what you got out of what I wrote?  lol


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Huh?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



*Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S.  N*early one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45.

We are over populated.  Imagine if all these women had those kids.  We'd be shoulder to shoulder.  No more free range humans.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

Crixus said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Yeah that's why atheists can't be moral. 

To be moral is to reject the concept of "relative" morality lol.


----------



## Chuz Life (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Can or Does the morning after pill induce anabortion?


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...





Utter bullshit


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...





 Bullshit, and why the hell would you be telling me that anyway?


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's not what these people are doing. 
They're waiting till the kid is born, then deciding his fate. In the UK they kill the kid without the parents consent. Even it he's several werks old. And they're doing it because of money. This is the death panels we were warned would be coming after Obamacare was passed.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




 No, it isn’t. The poor generally just get on with life and make their way the best they can. That is human nature. It is the comfortable usually suburban coddled left the snowflakes you have the time and self indulgence to cook up new ways to bitch and moan about the world and tell the poor how they should act who do the whining and complaining and the writing of posters in the marching around to zero effect in the shitting on police cars and all the rest of that nonsense that you left-wing douche bags love so much.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


.


Unkotare said:


> Bullshit, and why the hell would you be telling me that anyway?








hong cong

I'm reflecting on books read long ago, china / japan -  they were always themed , drought / too many people - they ate everything. you seem one of them ... their morality is skewed - marshal arts.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




One of who, dumbass?


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




 No such thing.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




 Everyone eats, dumbass.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 1, 2019)

It seems to me, nature has no morality. I've just been watching a wood lice eating alive a moth while it was copulating with a female.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Everything you say is utter bullshit fish


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> It seems to me, nature has no morality. I've just been watching a wood lice eating alive a moth while it was copulating with a female.


That's gross!!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Huh?

The one thing I agree with is that it is true us upper middle class people do complain a lot about rich people's problems.  Whenever I catch myself complaining I ask myself if this is a rich person's problem?  If it is then stop complaining.  Poor people have real problems.

And it is the rich who constantly complain and cry that the poor are stealing from them.  They are takers!  Isn't that what you believe?  Then maybe you aren't a real republican.

The entire premise of your party is the rich pay too much and the poor need skin in the game.

And what else does your party hate?  They hate foodstamps and welfare.  Who accepts foodstamps and welfare you stupid fool?  It's the poor.  So they don't just generally get on with their lives.  They take foodstamps to get on with their lives.  That gives us the right to talk about them, judge them and tell them they suck.  

And they should stop having kids we can't afford.  Fuck that they can't afford them.  WE can't afford them.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

You give up the right to say mind your own business when you go apply for food stamps.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me, nature has no morality. I've just been watching a wood lice eating alive a moth while it was copulating with a female.
> ...



That's nature.

Take the black widow spider, and the preying mantis. What they do.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Do you think the males know they are going to get eaten after sex?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 1, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



lol. 

No.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


It's gross when they do it too   
We used to have praying mantises in our house.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 1, 2019)

LilOlLady said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




"The Bible teaches us what is right and wrong but it is up to us to know the difference an act accordingly. But we do not need the bible to do what is right. We have free will."


Ok
so what IS right?

what is wrong?

is it right for gays to have equal rights in America?

is it wrong?

is it right to criminalize gays (roy moore wants)?

is it wrong?

since you have free will.....


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



"You are a mentally ill, gibbering, ghoul.

Nothing you said there made any sense at all"

having read his gibberish I am left with a great sense of superiority......!

The more they speak....the better I feel....


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 1, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> I am left with a great sense of superiority......!



_*"The Bible teaches us" ...*_

who would have guessed -




> EarthLink  - News
> 
> Supreme Court halts Louisiana abortion clinic law for now
> 
> ...





> The clinics say at least one and maybe two of Louisiana's three abortion clinics would have to close if the law is allowed to take effect. A federal appeals court *that upheld the law* said it's not clear that any clinic would close.








funny things are happening with scotus - they have a very high regard for ginsburg - for a while anyway.


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > First, you have to define moral.
> ...


Morals are community norms. They vary with the community. Valid morals are those which assist the survival of the community. One who upholds community norms is moral.


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> It seems to me, nature has no morality. I've just been watching a wood lice eating alive a moth while it was copulating with a female.


Everything in that vignette was behaving in a moral fashion.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...





Wrong


----------



## Desperado (Feb 1, 2019)

After the new abortion laws being passed recently the better question is:
Can Democrats be Moral?


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Wrong


Pfffft.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



So the atheist who denies the sanctity of life,  if that atheist lives in a Christian community,  is immoral.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 1, 2019)

i don't trust women who are not doing me; does that count?


----------



## Taz (Feb 1, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> i don't trust women who are not doing me; does that count?


So you don’t trust any woman. Got it.


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Morals are community norms. They vary with the community. Valid morals are those which assist the survival of the community. One who upholds community norms is moral.
> ...


Let's use slavery as an example of a moral quandary. The South considered slavery to be a community norm, it was moral. However, the community of the South was destroyed, slavery was not a valid moral, it did not assist the survival of the community.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


All community norms are not considered *moral* even by the communities in which they are normal. 

There's a lot of material on this topic, it's a favorite topic of philosophers at the colleges.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



No, not all community norms are considered *moral*. 

This is what I'm saying. Atheists can't even frame this concept in their brains.


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> So the atheist who denies the sanctity of life, if that atheist lives in a Christian community, is immoral.


Depends a bit whether the community is Christian Taliban and insists on Capital punishment. Then the atheist is certainly moral. Of course that norm may well prove to be an invalid moral.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > So the atheist who denies the sanctity of life, if that atheist lives in a Christian community, is immoral.
> ...


If only there was such a thing as "christian taliban". Then you might have a point. But there isn't, and you don't.


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> All community norms are not considered *moral* even by the communities in which they are normal.


Not all community norms will assist survival or prosperity. They are invalid morals.


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> If only there was such a thing as "christian taliban". Then you might have a point. But there isn't, and you don't.


Oh, did I say that out loud? Silly me. Of course I meant Southern Baptist.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...




No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.


----------



## LilOlLady (Feb 1, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


I know what is right and what is wrong but it is not up to me to judge what other people do is right or wrong. I can only answer for myself.


----------



## cnm (Feb 1, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.


Slavery was moral to the South. It was the cornerstone of their new government. Use some words you understand.


----------



## ding (Feb 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.
> ...


You misspelled Democrats. Northern Democrats voted in lock step with Southern Democrats.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 1, 2019)

ding said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


.
no, you misspelled - bible belt ... north and south, slavery.


----------



## cnm (Feb 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> no, you misspelled - bible belt ... north and south, slavery.


In the north it was considered to be an invalid moral, generally, not one that would assist the survival of the community. As opposed to the South, where slavery was deemed morally valid, essential to the survival of the community.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.
> ...




You don't understand history or morality.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 2, 2019)

Does morality require the existence of a god?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 2, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



He uses any nefarious excuse to bash America.

Therefore he is dishonest, and therefore immoral.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 2, 2019)

A recent string of popular-level books written by the New Atheists have leveled the accusation that the God of the Old Testament is nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a cosmic child abuser. This viewpoint is even making inroads into the church. How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments?

Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including:
God is and jealous
God punishes people too harshly
God is guilty of ethnic cleansing
God oppresses women
God endorses slavery
Christianity causes violence
and more

Copan not only answers God's critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2019)

The Jews saw God as loving and caring. 

The original meaning of their message has been lost.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 2, 2019)

ding said:


> The Jews saw God as loving and caring.
> 
> The original meaning of their message has been lost.



We still do.


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The Jews saw God as loving and caring.
> ...


I don’t really see them singing God’s praises here.


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2019)

I wish they would.


----------



## Crick (Feb 2, 2019)

Morality is the set of rules by which human society can exist.  Morality is not the product of religion.  It is their attempt to set the rules.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 2, 2019)

LilOlLady said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...





 That is not morality.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 2, 2019)

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > i don't trust women who are not doing me; does that count?
> ...


Man must have invented money for a reason.  We even put, In God We Trust, on it.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.
> ...





No, it was not.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 2, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Does morality require the existence of a god?


we should mind our morals if Gods are involved; otherwise, ethics should be sufficient.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 2, 2019)

i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice if it is about the morality of abstinence and just saying No, to silly chic trics.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 2, 2019)

Mindful said:


> This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans.





Unkotare said:


> That is not morality.



their publications are factitious ...

there is no doubt ... morality would never be in the confines of a written document. the religion of antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - abandoned by the desert religions is the example of the human construct in replacement of the true representation of the metaphysical Almighty and is the cause of their errant conclusions and history of debauchery.


----------



## Unkotare (Feb 2, 2019)

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





No means no, pervert.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Morality is the set of rules by which human society can exist.  Morality is not the product of religion.  It is their attempt to set the rules.


Which is evident, and tangible.


----------



## koshergrl (Feb 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > All community norms are not considered *moral* even by the communities in which they are normal.
> ...


It's statements like that where you expose yourself as a simpleton. 

#1. Not all community norms are established as morals. So yeah. There's that. 
#2. Whether or not community norms *survive* or *prosper* has nothing to do with their *validity*, even if all community norms are considered as *morals* (which they aren't). 

You've built a whole mountain of nothing on false premise. 
For example, it might be a community norm to accept a king having sex and children with his siblings. The Pharoahs and the Romans went through that. The community accepted it..but it wasn't considered *moral*....Likewise the German community accepted it as a community norm to kill Jews in the street. It wasn't considered *moral* just because it was common and accepted. If an entire community sucks their thumbs as they go about their daily chores..the fact that they do it doesn't make it *moral*. 

Regarding the validity...no, just because a community norm that is considered a part of the societal understanding of morality disappears, it doesn't mean the moral is *invalid*. I have no idea how you can make such an illogical leap...The Golden Rule is considered to be moral around the world. If tomorrow aliens came from the sky and took us hostage and forced us all to reject the Golden Rule and commence to slaughtering, raping, and pillaging, the fact that we are no longer allowed to abide by it doesn't render it "invalid".


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 2, 2019)

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


i also resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments; coincidence or conspiracy?


----------



## deanrd (Feb 2, 2019)

ding said:


> Maybe atheists who troll religious forums can't be moral.
> 
> *Psychological* studies show *trolls* tend to be male, show higher levels of psychopathy traits — low levels of empathy, guilt and responsibility for their actions — and higher levels of sadism traits, the enjoyment of causing others physical and *psychological* pain.Jul 12, 2017
> 
> Trolls understand what hurts people but they simply don't care


And yet pointing out people that are racist and hate minorities and follow a troll who says some Mexicans don’t  rape and boasts about sexual assault and lies with every other sentence is trolling?

 Guilty people absolutely hate being discovered. And the fact that they follow Trump when they know he has unprotected sex with porn stars and assaults women, maligns our soldiers,  doesn’t pay his workers and strips parents of their babies. 

 Of course they’re going to be very angry. But not because he does these things, but because these things are pointed out to the public and it shows the world what kind of people Republicans are.  

 They can’t handle the truth.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 2, 2019)

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


lol.  only those who lack morals, say that.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 2, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


  Taz doesn't claim to be moral.  That makes him more moral than many dedicated believers out there who base their claim to moral authority on a professed belief in bullshit.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 2, 2019)

deanrd said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe atheists who troll religious forums can't be moral.
> ...



Whatever _that _ is.


----------



## Taz (Feb 2, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Like you, hob?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 2, 2019)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Well, no. I am talking about where right and wrong and judgement lie concerning the subjects of written stories that anyone can read. Morality has nothing to do with it except if someone claims moral authority based on a professed belief which when scrutinized is completely false making that person immoral calling the revealed truth a lie and a belief in superstitious mysteries, with all of the miracles, demonstrations of power and attendant signs of a lie,  the truth.

When someone  like you comes along and starts talking about sucking cock, anal sex,  and cum dribbles for giggles that doesn't make you immoral, just a degenerate lowlife who finds a perverse humor in his own pathetic aberrations exactly like  the hopelessly insane jerking off in his very own rubber room laughing his ass off every time he shoots a load into his own eye.


----------



## Taz (Feb 2, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Do you think that Jesus ever sucked any cock?


----------



## badger2 (Feb 2, 2019)

Religious forces are beginning to drool as they become more intense, more rabid:

27 Jan 2018 Nancy Pelosi: 'Moral Responsibility to Ensure All Children of God are Treated with Compassion and Decency
Nancy Pelosi: ‘All Children of God' Should Be 'Treated with Compassion'
'....House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - have lain down a very specific marker on a wall, calling it immorality.'

It is now a good time to study nationalism's history in Germany. Nick Land: 'There's no sense in making a moral case against nazism. Nazism is morality itself.' (Making it with Death: Remarks on Thanatos and Desiring Production)

27 Jan 2019 The Moral Question of Trump's Border Wall
The Moral Question Of Trump's Border Wall


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 2, 2019)

bearing true witness to women about being willing to practice full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work is moral.   

bearing false witness for poon is immoral and merely imperils the "Greater Glory of our Immortal Souls".


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2019)

deanrd said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe atheists who troll religious forums can't be moral.
> ...


You are obsessed.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 2, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


e

Morality is a human concept and not a Godly standard.

As Christians we seek to act in accordance with the perfect will of God. To act contrary to the perfect will of God, no matter the reason, is sin.

Can atheists accidentally act in a manner which is consistent with the perfect will of God? Absolutely.

Can they always act in a manner which is consistent with the perfect will of God. Absolutely not...but take heart atheists, neither can Christians.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23.

God's standard is perfection and none of us can be perfect (save God). 

Sadly, I don't believe that even using the human standard of morality, there isn't a human that can act morally all the time.

To bridge the gap in language between atheist and Christian let's exchange the terms morality and sin for selflessness. 

To do the perfect will of God one must continually submit their own selfish will to the perfect will of God and place the needs of others above their own. Any honest Christian will admit that they struggle to put the needs of others ahead of their own.

Human morality seeks to produce ethical and "good behavior" by restricting one man's behavior so s moral person's actions don't adversely affect others (sound familiar). Most honest atheists will admit they struggle to do so. 

There are some Buddhist Monks who might argue they have achieved this standard, but there is one additional problem with that argument.

Under the Godly standard, it not sufficient to act correctly, because thinking of acting sinfully is the same as actually taking the action.

 If you can show me the other person who has ALWAYS thought and acted selflessly (there was one), I'd really like to meet  that person.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 3, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> As Christians we seek to act in accordance with the perfect will of God.



what makes that different being a christian ... 



MedfordMan said:


> If you can show me the other person who has ALWAYS thought and acted selflessly (there was one), I'd really like to meet that person.



_“Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” 

always_, is your construct, no need for the Almighty for that ... the metaphysical does provide doubt._
_
hopefully in accordance with the religion of antiquity you might someday meet one - triumphal (always), not being capable yourself, christian.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 3, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Once again morality is a human construct.

By less moral, I assume you mean less tolerant.

The bible doesn't teach tolerance it teaches love. (One is selfish and one is selfless)

Jesus was extremely intolerant of sin, but in a loving way.

Sin isn't bad because it is forbidden. Sin is forbidden because it is bad (for us).

unfortunately our selfish sin nature wants to do what it wants to do and it makes us recoil from anyone or anything that tells us what to do.

Therefore mankind brands intolerance (even when it's actually love) hate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 3, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Once again morality is a human construct.


As is sin. As are gods. As is religion.


----------



## Crepitus (Feb 3, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


Morals are 100% relative.  I've argued that til I'm blue in the face.

But "intolerance is love"?

Pull the other one.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 3, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > As Christians we seek to act in accordance with the perfect will of God.
> ...



Are you arguing that non Christians seek to act according to the perfect will of God. Non Christians do you concur?

"always in your construct..."

It's not my construct.

" no need for the Almighty for that... "

Are you arguing that it's human nature to be selfless (any parents of toddlers want to chime in here).

"the metaphysical provides doubt"

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the  evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1.

Evidence provides knowledge not faith. Mankind's self serving sin nature provides all the doubt any need.

No one is capable - that's the point.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 3, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


 
Sometimes intolerance is love.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, but he warned her to go and sin no more (demonstrating his intolerance of the act which brought her into his presence)


----------



## Crepitus (Feb 3, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


"Go and sin no more" is the opposite of intolerance.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 3, 2019)

Ding: 'atheists who troll religious forums.' Where would ding like for this thing called 'trolling' to happen, a bowling alley?

'One fatal flaw: Kant's failure to push his thought beyond its common sense subjective biases and conformism. This flaw is what Deleuze calls Kant's 'moralism', and it is so significant that the dogmatic Image of thought is synonymously referred to throughout Difference and Repetition as the 'moral Image' of thought. Deleuze contests the dogmatic Image of thought in the way that he claims Kant could not: by subjecting it to a 'radical critique.' According to this radical critique, the Kantian critical model Deleuze has laid out nust undergo its own critique and submit to a  series of radical modifications aimed at the 'common sense' presupposition of morality that Deleuze believes Kant failed to abandon....His radical critique thus begins not by overthrowing the original Kantian initiative (the effort to turn the examination of the relationships and limits of power inward) but by applying that initiative to a systematic evaluation of the dogmatic Image of thought and the moral presuppositions on which it is built.'
(Carr CL, Deleuze's Kantian Ethos: Critique as a Way of Life, pp. 80-1)


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 3, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


But how do you get your morality from god? The Bible?

I was on another thread and half of the people there said prostitution should be legal. What does your holy book say about prostitution and why do so many believe it should be legal?

Like abortion maybe it’s not moral but it’s a immoral act that our Christian nation might allow?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 3, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Ding: 'atheists who troll religious forums.' Where would ding like for this thing called 'trolling' to happen, a bowling alley?
> 
> 'One fatal flaw: Kant's failure to push his thought beyond its common sense subjective biases and conformism. This flaw is what Deleuze calls Kant's 'moralism', and it is so significant that the dogmatic Image of thought is synonymously referred to throughout Difference and Repetition as the 'moral Image' of thought. Deleuze contests the dogmatic Image of thought in the way that he claims Kant could not: by subjecting it to a 'radical critique.' According to this radical critique, the Kantian critical model Deleuze has laid out nust undergo its own critique and submit to a  series of radical modifications aimed at the 'common sense' presupposition of morality that Deleuze believes Kant failed to abandon....His radical critique thus begins not by overthrowing the original Kantian initiative (the effort to turn the examination of the relationships and limits of power inward) but by applying that initiative to a systematic evaluation of the dogmatic Image of thought and the moral presuppositions on which it is built.'
> (Carr CL, Deleuze's Kantian Ethos: Critique as a Way of Life, pp. 80-1)


Here is what I got out of this. I notice one of the biggest sins in Christianity is doubting god or not believing in god. If a real god visited he would expect his religion would be able to pass the scientific process. And it would encourage doubt in a story that rationally couldn’t possibly be true.

This is how and why I believe religion is holding us back. It’s asking Muslims, Mormons, jews and Christians to believe the unbelievable despite the evidence.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



MY holy book?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 3, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


.


Mindful said:


> MY holy book?





Mindful said:


> How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments?



the religion of denial and temptation ...


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 3, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


.


MedfordMan said:


> No one is capable - that's the point.



that's what they added to your 4th century christian bible to make you a christian including a messiah - 

they, the 4th century forgers abandoned the Religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - as prescribed by the Almighty, the perils of noah ... good luck.




MedfordMan said:


> Are you arguing that non Christians seek to act according to the perfect will of God. Non Christians do you concur?



the will of the Almighty is to triumph over evil - there is no free ride with a messiah however that fits for you christian.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 3, 2019)

Defining Ethics and Morality

'Yes, establishing ways of existing or styles of life isn't just an aesthetic matter, it's what Foucault called ethics, as opposed to morality. The difference is that morality presents us with a set of constraining rules of a special sort, ones that judge actions and intentions by considering them in relation to (transcendent values [italics]) (that is good, that's bad....); ethics is a set of optional rules that assess what we do, what we say in relation to the ways of existing involved. We say this, we do that; or say through mean-spiritedness, a life based on hatred, or bitterness toward life. Sometimes it takes just one gesture or word. It's the style of life involved in everything that makes us this or that[....].'
(Gilles Deleuze in Conversation with Didier Eribon, Negotiations, 1995)

'Morality understood as the application of a transcendent standard to a case, was seen as a false step, something to be avoided and gotten rid of -- "to be done with judgement" was one of Deleuze's wishes. Ethics is understood as the immanent evaluation of an encounter of bodies; what is evaluated is the affective dimension of the encounter, that changes in the composition of the bodies and the concomitant change in the power of the bodies, a change felt as joy or sadness, depending on the valence of the change.'
(Deleuze and Ethics, A Review)


----------



## badger2 (Feb 3, 2019)

'It is as though the fall "outside" the Pleroma amounted to a loss of dimension. The demiurge plummets into the depths of darkness, but it is a false depth that amounts to no more than an erasure of the original depth of the Father. It is not a spatial outside, which would indicate, as Irenaeus maintains, the finitude of the Pleroma. Just as depth is always distorted when an object is projected onto a flat surface, so too is the depth of the Pleroma perverted by its negative image. On a two-dimensional surface, depth is portrayed through a line that indicates an edge or cut. Depth is thus misunderstood as a division, not as a virtual, differential folding within beings and the infinitely folding field on which beings emerge. The "outside" is thus the loss of inflection found in this misrepresentation and resulting from ignorance that has "no root....Oblivion did not come into existence from the Father, although it did indeed come into existence because of him" (Gospel of Truth, NHL 1.3.17.30, 18.1-4)

Enormous consequences follow from this error. Positivity is mistaken for a unitary source reducing all centers to a single Creator and understanding difference through a created hierarchy. Cause and effect are externalized, so that the relations between creatures are those of limitation and contradiction, both logical and existential (see The Book of Thomas the Contender, NHL 2.7.139.2-11). Two creatures can be affirmed simultaneously only through the identity of their Creator, and the Creator is affirmed only as the transcendent apex of its hierarchy. The fullness of the Pleroma is distorted into a determinate totality in which the Creator rules through a Law of retributive justice. The result is a deficient and dead world in which the positive difference of the Pleroma can appear only as a threat to the demiurge's hierarchy. The vestige of pleromic light within human souls must therefore be buried: humanity is thrust into a mundane world, blamed for its condition, and then given a moral system that implicates it more deeply within the cosmic order (see The Testimony of Truth, NHL, 9.3.29.22-30.17). Despite these efforts, however, this difference consistently eludes all attempts to contain it, mocking the demiurge and his archons.'
(Widder N, Genealogies of Difference, p. 109)


----------



## badger2 (Feb 3, 2019)

'The attainment of gnosis awakens this pleromic element, lifting the veil of ignorance and exposing the negative nature of the limit of the One. The philosophy of the One now seems only to implicate its followers more deeply in the negative, who then struggle against all that threatens to expose its fallacies. The idea of positivity as a One that grounds a Many is but an error of the negative; the limits and determinations established within this philosophy are pale images of the true difference understood through gnosis. It is not surprising that Gnostic practices were largely nonhierarchical, operating on principles of equal access and participation and even allowing women to preach, nor that Gnostic ethics reject the moral alternatives offered by philosophies of the negative....But one must consider the problem of desire from a Gnostic viewpoint to see why moral law is a mistaken solution.'
(Widder, op cit)


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 3, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



How do you figure?

What tolerant person would even have the right to express their own morals to this woman and suggest she conform her actions to their set of beliefs, risking making her feel bad?

Still, since you persist in this untenable position, I'll give you another example.

In the old testament adultery is forbidden in the ten commandments. In the new testament, Jesus says if you even look  at a woman with lust in your heart you've already committed adultery. 

would you consider it intolerant of Jesus to tell others what represents sexual impropriety for them, especially when he teaches that this sin will land them in Hell?


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 3, 2019)

badger2 said:


> 'The attainment of gnosis awakens this pleromic element, lifting the veil of ignorance and exposing the negative nature of the limit of the One. The philosophy of the One now seems only to implicate its followers more deeply in the negative, who then struggle against all that threatens to expose its fallacies. The idea of positivity as a One that grounds a Many is but an error of the negative; the limits and determinations established within this philosophy are pale images of the true difference understood through gnosis. It is not surprising that Gnostic practices were largely nonhierarchical, operating on principles of equal access and participation and even allowing women to preach, nor that Gnostic ethics reject the moral alternatives offered by philosophies of the negative....But one must consider the problem of desire from a Gnostic viewpoint to see why moral law is a mistaken solution.'
> (Widder, op cit)



Christians beware the false self importance of  Gnostocism, which by definition of it's principles is anathema to God's will.

This is a dangerous philosophy.


----------



## buttercup (Feb 4, 2019)

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages.  But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in?  The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative.  And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality _is_ subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> badger2 said:
> 
> 
> > Ding: 'atheists who troll religious forums.' Where would ding like for this thing called 'trolling' to happen, a bowling alley?
> ...



According to the Bible there is only one sin that is not forgiveable, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Rejecting God is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

God can't forgive someone who rejects him, because as a loving God he has to  honor that person's choice to do so.

Science is the method by which mankind, limited by natural laws, tries to understand a super natural God.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Atheists are more moral. They aren’t burdened by conflicting bible verses.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages.  But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in?  The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative.  And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality _is_ subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.


I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time.  Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.


----------



## Crepitus (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Explaining where someone went wrong (in your opinion) and encouraging them not  not to do it again is not intolerance.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

One could also examine moral justification. Portraying  inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable.


----------



## buttercup (Feb 4, 2019)

Flopper said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages.  But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in?  The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative.  And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality _is_ subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.
> ...



That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there.  Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective.  Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong.  (Regardless of what anyone believes.)   The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


But even so morals have never really been diametrically opposed such as black is white.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > badger2 said:
> ...


Ridiculous! And we aren’t rejecting god. If god made himself known I would embrace him. It’s your fake god I reject. The real god will understand.

And what a great guy your sick god is. Send me to burn in hell for eternity just because I don’t believe he exists.

Sooo fucking funny. Because he’s loving he has to honor my bad choice? No parole after 100 years of torture? That’s loving?  Sorry god but from what I can tell you don’t really exist.

I wish you christians knew how stupid you sound


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages.  But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in?  The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative.  And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality _is_ subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.


Human suffering is the basis.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...



You say adultery is wrong. But isn't it wrong to have married that person you don't love  enough, in the first place?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.

God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.

God's opinions are free to change, or God does not have free will.

Morality based on God would be subjective, God being the subject.

Morality based on human suffering is measurable, and these empirical measurements exist in spite of bias.

A moral system based on human suffering is far less subjective than one based on a God that experiences emotions and a preference for an outcome. Gods morality is even less objective when you consider the Laws he gave to Moses, vs. the moral disposition of Jesus. There was a change there, and a change is in conflict with moral objectivism based on a God.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Good point.

If talking serpents, talking donkeys, swine that do not ruminate, sheep, goats, wolves in sheep clothing etc., are metaphors for types of people then many well respected dedicated married religious folks are guilty of bestiality.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...



Is eating meat immoral?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Of course not.

Eating the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate is just dumb. their flesh defiles and contaminates the mind and consequently a persons  entire experience of life.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



The manner of slaughter I was alluding to.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



I can't speak for other people but when I slaughter a he goat without blemish for the expiation of sin I do it in the kindest way possible with a razor sharp knife forged by angels in heavenly fire.

They do not even realize their throats have been cut as their blood drains into the ground.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.
> 
> God has feelings. He is Loving, Jealous, Angry, disappointed, vengeful.
> 
> ...



Your argument misrepresents God, but it perfectly sums up the underlying argument of everyone who doesn't believe in God.

God is not human. God does not have feelings. Human feelings are one of the ways we experience the world of which God is the creator.

God does not change.

God does not need free will, as he operates outside the space time continuum. He sees the past, present and future simultaneously, so his will and plan is perfect.

Still, it's your post modernist argument that each person's subjective experience is more valid than that of an entity so powerful it created the universe and everything in it is intrinsically flawed.

You see unbelief comes down to a very simple choice. Do I submit to something greater than myself or do I seek to elevate myself, so I don't have to submit to anything and I can act in accordance with my selfish and base desires.

It's the latter choice which is the source of all human suffering.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings.
> ...


You didnt answer the objection succinctly - the bible uses specific adjectives to describe God's emotions, and you just denied it based on you said so.

Second, I didnt apply subjectivism based on any 1 human individual, so that wasn't pertinent but was a strawman. I appealed to measured human suffering, something concrete as opposed to God who is 1 subject that has emotions, whose morals at least described in the Bible DID change and his adjective of being "un changing" is just another Biblical contradiction ~ and it also causes more logical issues than it resolves.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 4, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Crepitus,

Since I seem to be encountering a moving goal post, how do you define intolerance?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...



"but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist."

ok....

murder and theft....

after that....what ya got?

what EVERLASTING morals and principles?



"


----------



## Crepitus (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


I'm not moving anything, you are just using your own definition instead of the one everyone else uses.  Here is an example of intolerance.



AveryJarhman said:


> Now that 'Childhood Trauma' (#ACEs) victim-survivor Oprah Winfrey LOUDLY addressed our Nation's *CHILD CARE* PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS, will YOU, a responsible, caring American citizen join Oprah & Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, MD, pediatrician & CEO of 'The Center For Youth Wellness', in passionately calling for a National MOVEMENT educating American & foreign born primary child caregivers about a potentially life scarring medical disease/condition:
> 
> "Childhood Trauma" aka
> "Adverse Childhood Experiences" (#ACEs)
> ...


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...




"Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong."

not in a society that didn't give a hoot who you had sex with.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ok....
> 
> murder and theft....
> 
> ...




If you eat the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate you will be defiled and contaminated, their flesh is vile and loathsome.

In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life.

This has always been and will always be true.

To sum up kosher law, Stand guard over the purity of your own mind, the seat of your consciousness and entire experience of life. Learn to differentiate between clean and unclean teaching.  If you don't, you will fuck up your mind and your life.

When was this or will this ever be irrelevant? Will there ever come a time when adopting irrational beliefs into your thought processes will make you a rational person?


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well there is a long history of biblical scholarship that addresses these issues, but since I doubt that you want to educate yourself on it, I thought I'd provide the cliffs notes version for you.

I believe the use of Human emotions to explain God's behavior represents a  challenge in translating  God to us. The use of emotions is less about God's state of mind and more about we as limited beings understand how and why God moves.

Your whole argument was subjective although you artfully tried to dress it up as something else.

Human suffering is far from concrete (as the 21st century has proven),  but it is easier to understand than a super natural entity powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it.

Ironically, that is why Jesus is such an important part of the Bible story. Through Jesus, God became a man,  to show us that  he fully understands us though we continue  to struggle to understand God.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Now you're just special pleading. You want to explain away God's described emotions by saying they were simple place-holders, and a function of a misunderstanding ~ but you did not establish that as fact it's just a claim. Decoder ring fallacy.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 4, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



The Potter Stewart threshold for intolerance - you know it when you see it.

How convenient.

The fact that you objected to my moving goal post reference is particularly ironic given the set up.

If intolerance is objective then it should be something which can be defined. Define it.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > ok....
> ...




"In other words if you swallow the teachings of people who do not think deeply without thinking at all, that vile and loathsome teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become an unclean creature incapable of thinking deeply and you will say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love, sometimes for decades, sometimes for the rest of your life."




I got it!

I should NOT listen to people who quote the bible because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!

Thank you for that advice!


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


  Excellent. Just one minor correction.

"I should NOT listen to people *who take the bible literally* because they are NOT deep thinkers and are only regurgitating nonsense that they NEVER questioned!"

You still get an A for effort!


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




Do I get a gold star, too?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...



Better than that.

I will give you a name.

Kosher creature aka,  KC, Son of Meanie. Now go find the jawbone of an ass and slaughter some philistines!


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




I shall bear it with pride!

it's much better than "devil worshipping, god hating, commy traitor"!


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


 

Fear not! With vorpel sword firmly in hand the jabberwocky's days are numbered.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 4, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


 
Anynameyouwish,

I did not give that advice (but you know that)

Thank you for illustrating the twisted  illogic of the selfish sin nature.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



The problem is scale.

you're still thinking of God as a super powerful humanoid with a white beard sitting on a cloud.

Like Bible translators, science and philosophy are limited by human understanding.

Imagine that God is the proton, the neutron, the electrons and the nuclear glue holding them together. Imagine God is both energy and matter.

what science experiments could be designed to prove or disprove such a God?

What philosophic argument could prove or disprove, such a God?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Thats just more special pleading.

The Bible says what it says - if you believe it is in error on ascribing adjectives to God, then it seems you have a bit of a problem on your hands.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Thank YOU for proving that people who do NOT question the lunacies of the bible should NOT be listened to!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality.


Utter nonsense. For one, religion has no such objective basis. It is madeup by men amd interpreted by men. That's why your morals are different than a christian living in the year 1500, despite both of you possessing the same "instruction manual". Furthermore, magical, divine ideas will supplant your reason and incredulity, making it possible that you will commit immoral acts because "the Bible says so".

Atheists are unburdened by these iron age fairy tales. They devise morals based on the well being of humans in THIS life, with no mind paid to the magical nonsense of the afterlife. Atheists can devise morality and ethics via reason amd first principles. This is far superior to the complete lack of this process, which is what occurs when a person simply defers to divine orders.

And you didn't get your morals from your religion, anyway. Your morals chiefly arise from the genetic accident of where and when you were born.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality.
> ...




Do you think that if you were born in 12th century Europe and people were peddling the flesh of God for a nominal service charge you wouldn't come to the same conclusions as you have now that they were full of it? 

If you were born in a tenement slum 12 years ago and never went to college would you arrive at any other conclusion?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


Of course it is possible, but you would more likely operate from your existing, cultural basis. And you would also operate from a position of abject ignorange about the human race and the world, compared to someone living in western society today.

It would have been helpful,had the ignorant, lying charlatan prophets who wrote the bible mentioned that humans are all nearly genetically identical, race is an illusion, and therefore blacks are not subhumans. But, since they were not actually prophets with a conduit to God's mind, they operated and wrote from their existing cultural and intellectual basis.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


  Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.


Knowing yourself and how you have responded in this life can you picture yourself living during any place or period in history where you wouldn't object to someone trying to sell you a bullshit story?

Don't you know people who have come from the same place and time as you and have lived under similar circumstances who have bought into it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.


The same would have been true of me. I would also be operating from abject ignorance and my cultural basis.

I wasn't born incredulous. It's a skill i developed.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Ok but I am not talking about just anybody, I'm talking about you.
> ...


  Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Wouldn't you have already known since you could walk that serpents don't talk, except for the human sort?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


your scenario of folks back then considering the bible as just a full work of fiction, and yet not speaking as much freely and as often as they felt like......makes your hypothesis really Dogmatic and unreasonable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?


 Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Scripture was written by oppressed people for oppressed people during brutal times when there was no such thing as freedom of expression and people were maimed and killed on a daily basis for trivial reasons by irrational violent and superstitious people who could not grasp sophisticated metaphors like talking serpents or the seditious teaching in the divine menu to refrain from the flesh of swine


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Thats a real fuckin stretch.

Christians dont call themselves Christians and profess worship for all these Centuries in Church and in lifestyle....because they think their book is a work of fiction just like Snow White fans dont call themselves Disneyians.

You're being an apologist. Its evident through their own testimony what they believed.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?
> ...




They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk ever since their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


  These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language, metaphors, analogies, similes, homonyms, hyperbole, etc.,  or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.


Maimonides openly wrote about these subjects in the 12th century. You are way behind. Smarten up.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Ohhh so I cannot find Jewish folks who believe in the God of the Bible..


ahhhhkayyyyyy


You're just being an apologist because you found a few things in the Bible and youre incapable of reconciling them.

#1. Allegories that convey common sense wisdom.

#2. Direct commandments to worship a God.

#3. Ridiculous contradictions.


And in order for you to reconcile all of that, you use a presupposed apologetic that it all falls under #1, which it doesnt and thats established based on the History and testimony.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 I'm sure you can find many Jews who believe in God. They just won't ever believe that he became a human being or  is edible.

I think your argument should be with people who profess to believe such nonsense.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible.

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

You cannot use the same terrible reasoning and mock one and not the other because that's hypocritical, and lacks something like a spine.


----------



## Flopper (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


There are probably some things such as adultery that have been recognized as immoral because the structure of society would disintegrate if it became acceptable throughout society.  Likewise moral values such as trustworthiness, honesty, peace, concern for others, human dignity are universally accepted as a moral value.  However many actions that are considered immoral today were certainly acceptable in the past such as torturing criminals in the middle ages and slavery which was widely accepted in most cultures until the 19th century.  Who is to say that many immoral acts today will become acceptable in a few hundred years.  The status of abortion which has been recognized as immoral for centuries is rapidly changing.   

I believe what you refer to as everlasting morals are those that are necessary in order for society to function acceptably.


----------



## buttercup (Feb 4, 2019)

Flopper said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You guys don't get it, that is very apparent.   When it comes to objective moral truths, it doesn't matter what people believe or disbelieve.  It doesn't matter that certain societies have other ideas about adultery or abortion or what have you.  And it doesn't matter that "many actions that are considered immoral today were certainly acceptable in the past."  It doesn't matter what people believe at all.  You're looking at it from a purely anthropocentric point of view.   But I do understand why you think that way. If you're an atheist, that's the way your mind works, you can't think of it in any other way.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

I suppose we could move on to the definition of *belief.*


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> I suppose we could move on to the definition of *belief.*


We don't need to define it colloquially. The standard works.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions.


And yet didn't understand it, believed wild myths, and attributed phenomena to magic. 

So my point stands.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 4, 2019)

Flopper said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Adultery is only immoral because deception is immoral. When both married partners consent, it's not immoral. A religious person may disagree, due to the "holy vows".


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 4, 2019)

I don't mind if women prefer to start out slow and watch GunSmoke, Season 3, episode 11 with me.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> He uses any nefarious excuse to bash America.
> 
> Therefore he is dishonest, and therefore immoral.


Only where using nefarious excuses to bash the US is not a community norm.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> For example, it might be a community norm to accept a king having sex and children with his siblings. The Pharoahs and the Romans went through that. The community accepted it..but it wasn't considered *moral*


Yes it was. You appear to lack comprehension.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Fair enough. Demonstrate how the South considered slavery immoral then.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Likewise the German community accepted it as a community norm to kill Jews in the street. It wasn't considered *moral* just because it was common and accepted.


If it was common and accepted it was moral to Germans. Demonstrate how Germans considered it immoral.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Does morality require the existence of a god?


Ffs. Do you really not read your own thread?


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

buttercup said:


> And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality _is_ subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.


Valid morals assist the survival and prosperity of the community.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Science is the method by which mankind, limited by natural laws, tries to understand a super natural God.


No, it is the method by which nature is explained.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Feb 4, 2019)

YES


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> One could also examine moral justification. Portraying inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable.


Oh. You mean face splashing, or enhanced interrogation? I think those were determined to be norms which did not assist the survival or prosperity of the community.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)
> 
> They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.



that is not true, metaphysical effects are both provable and evident, evolution is an example of the metaphysical presence in the universe.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)
> ...


Not unless you don't know what metaphysical means.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Yes, but wouldn't you [ffi] have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?


No, he would have realised he didn't have enough faith.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> I suppose we could move on to the definition of *belief.*


Let me know when you've offered an opinion on *anything* in this thread.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose we could move on to the definition of *belief.*
> ...


She doesn't discuss her own topics...she trolls them.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2019)

It’s pretty obvious to me that mindful wants to facilitate discussion but does not wish to provide her beliefs on these subjects.

Not because she is trolling but because she is Jewish.  They seem to like to hold their cards tightly to the chest. I wonder if it is a tribal thing.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

ding said:


> It’s pretty obvious to me that mindful wants to facilitate discussion but not wish to provide her beliefs on these subjects.
> 
> Not because she is trolling but because she is Jewish.  They seem to like to hold their cards tightly to the chest. I wonder if it is a tribal thing.



Dithering Ding. No backbone.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Gods.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


Nice quote fail. Your judgment of what's intelligible is insignificant. Youre a gnat.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It’s pretty obvious to me that mindful wants to facilitate discussion but not wish to provide her beliefs on these subjects.
> ...


Why?  Because I wrote what I believe?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose we could move on to the definition of *belief.*
> ...



Says the moral arbiter of trolling. 

The upholder of the mendacious standard.

Even here, you can't get off my neck. lol.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Did you just ask something? Surely not.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


These discussion forums tend to make matters worse, not better.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Is there something you would like to compromise over?  I know how big your people are on compromising. 

That was a question.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



What "people"?


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Jewish people?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You want to talk about Jews now?


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Even here, you can't get off my neck. lol.


Even here, on your _*own OP*_, you can't give an opinion on the topic.


----------



## ding (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Not particularly. Conversations with them serve no purpose. They act exactly like you do.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Even here, you can't get off my neck. lol.
> ...


Her drive-by neener-neener posts take way less of a spine. She's just an internet thirsty, that's all.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Even here, you can't get off my neck. lol.
> ...



Can't you leave me alone? You think you can try it on here, because these people don't know you. This is upstairs, hadn't you noticed?


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> You think you can try it on here, because these people don't know you.


But, in hilarious fashion, these people do appear to know you. Anyway, why not stop seeking victim status: rather, give your opinion on the OP?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)




----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > You think you can try it on here, because these people don't know you.
> ...



Troll chromosomes. You fit in well.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


.


G.T. said:


> Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.


_*
Its entirely described in terms of the physical ...*_

nothing could be further from the truth.

they are interrelated ...






the transformation of one physical being into another is a metaphysical event -


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Metamorphosis is beautifully typified by the caterpillar into butterfly.

Unless there's another example?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 4, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Jewish people?



they have claimed to be christian ...


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


.


Mindful said:


> Metamorphosis is beautifully typified by the caterpillar into butterfly.



what do you consider the cicada - some are underground 20 years before surfacing, turning into an avian and flying away -  true faith and exercised were their doubt of its existence.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



I didn't know that.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 4, 2019)

g.t. has evolution wrong ... same for james bond, neither realize information is transferred from one generation to the next is a metaphysical phenomenon proven by evolution's progression - from the initial life template.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

Hey Breezewood, just out of curiousity what do you understand the difference between metaphysics and physics to be?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 4, 2019)

the metaphysical is not understood ... does not mean it does not exist, proof is abundant. such that physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth but to the general universe the same as the elements.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> the metaphysical is not understood ... does not mean it does not exist, proof is abundant. such that physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth but to the general universe the same as the elements.


Im asking you, in virtue of which characteristic do you understand metaphysics to be different from physics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> information is transferred from one generation to the next is a metaphysical phenomenon proven by evolution's progression


It is exactly not that. We explained it with genetic theory


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > information is transferred from one generation to the next is a metaphysical phenomenon proven by evolution's progression
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is exactly not that. We explained it with genetic theory



you explained what ff - there is no physical connection from one generation to the next.


----------



## cnm (Feb 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> there is no physical connection from one generation to the next.


What is a fertilised egg, a concept?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 4, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Hey man. I do mock the literal the symbolic and your dismissal of it all as nonsense. There was nothing mysterious or ridiculous about Jesus speaking in figurative terms and clearly identifying bread as a metaphor for teaching. He was speaking in code like all oppressed people, criminals and ordinary people do when they want to communicate in secret.

The preexisting metaphor for the word of God, bread from heaven, became the flesh of Jesus, a new metaphor for teaching from God.

The body of any persons teaching is easily proven to exist, even easy to consume and digest  even if a symbolic or literal eating of the teacher ritual is ridiculous and accomplishes nothing..

If you adopt the body of any persons teaching then that body is in you and with you.

The words of the law are figurative, the subjects hidden, and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. In kosher law, the flesh of one creature or another whether clean or unclean is a metaphor for teaching. This is the subject of kosher law. This reveals the wisdom of God. This is the Body of Christ.

Jesus taught and demonstrated by example the only right way to understand and fulfill the laws demands that removes the burden of the law, death, (the curse for failing to heed the instruction), reveals the wisdom of God,  and fulfills the promise of eternal life for anyone who accepts that teaching and acts on it.

This is my flesh.

Now its in you, like a flame in the brush of a deadwood forest on a windy day, and you can't do a damn thing about it.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Man, your psychobabble is not really any more coherent than a literalist. At the end of the day, the same idea applies: God is not proven. YHWH is not proven.

Nor is zeus, or Jesus at all. I dont really care what you think about the aim of a fairy tale.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



lol...I understand that and its fine by me.  Still I find it rather stupid to try to discredit a fairy tale by saying there is no proof that God exists. He really is a character in a book that anyone can read. Do you need proof for that?

Thats would be like hearing about the pied piper and then demanding proof of his existence without even trying to discern the teaching conveyed by reading and thinking deeply about what was written. Either way, whatever you believe or don't believe, whether you understand the lessons of the past or fail to,   you will pay the piper.

At the end of the day, lol, whether you like it or not, our entire society, perceptions of good and evil, crime and punishment, who lives and who dies, who is admired and who is hated,  is based on the ideas of perverse and irrational people who claim to believe it all yet have not thought any more deeply about scripture than you have.

How do you intend to deal with that fact if you really don't care and can't be bothered to take a stand about what is the right or wrong way to understand what was written? Find a hole in a wall, crawl inside and die?

Go ahead and continue to tell everyone that they are wrong without having the slightest clue about what is right while openly admitting that you don't give a crap and see how far you get you intellectually lazy and morally deficient bastard.


----------



## cnm (Feb 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Still I find it rather stupid to try to discredit a fairy tale by saying there is no proof that God exists. He really is a character in a book that anyone can read. Do you need proof for that?


Like Tinker Bell? Do you clap your hands?


----------



## cnm (Feb 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> At the end of the day, lol, whether you like it or not, our entire society, perceptions of good and evil, crime and punishment, who lives and who dies, who is admired and who is hated, is based on the ideas of perverse and irrational people who claim to believe it all yet have not thought any more deeply about scripture than you have.
> 
> How do you intend to deal with that fact if you really don't care and can't be bothered to take a stand about what is the right or wrong way to understand what was written?


Haven't you just implied a position entered irrationally cannot be changed rationally?


----------



## cnm (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Man, your [hobelim] psychobabble is not really any more coherent than a literalist.


Seems contradictory to me.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


thats a claim

i dont think our ideas are based on those writings, i think it was the other way around. those writings borrowed from secular humanity, and got a ton of the shit wrong anyhow.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 5, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> you explained what ff - there is no physical connection from one generation to the next.


I explained exactly the opposite. Peddle your parlor tricks to someone else.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 
I don't  see it as a problem. As an intelligent and ever questioning Christian, I see studying scripture and thinking through how the written word is consistent with the nature of God, as expressed through the life of the person of Jesus Christ, as a challenge that strengthens my faith.

But, I understand you argument. If  you can't fully understand God in human terms, then you don't  believe in God.

With our disagreement clarified, I leave the thread with a questiob: Would a God you could fully understand in human terms be God or would he just be a super powerful humanoid?

The bottom line is that you refuse to submit to a entity more powerful than yourself and plan to rely on your own intellect as you function as your own god (the small g is on purpose here)

Of course you could have said this directly and succinctly in your first post, but then you wouldn't have had a chance to show everyone here how smart you think you are...


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Hey! He has chicks to impregnate which is time consuming..


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Once again you are ascribing human traits to God who is not some super powerful humanoid.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


To the god that described him/itself this way, allegedly, to humans.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Jesus put off his Godhood and became a man, because it was the only way to redeem mankind, but the portion of the triune being that is God  remained God.

Billy Graham once said that a little bit of Christianity can be like a vaccine that prevents you from getting the while thing. I'm starting to believe you know\understand  much less about Christianity than you let on.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


You're entitled to your beliefs - I enjoy philosophical discussions and cross-examining that's all. It's never personal unless someone makes it so.


----------



## Meriweather (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.


Which is why no one believes in "that god".  Making up such a god and claiming that is the God people of faith worship is simple gibberish.  I also assert that it is not God doing a pathetic job, it is the individual doing a pathetic job of studying and understanding thousands of year old scriptures.  Today it appears popular (among some who haven't a clue as to scripture's original intent and meaning of Biblical stories) to blame God.  What deserves a good a good look is the approach currently being taken by atheists towards God (i.e., claiming scripture means something other than the original authors intended).


----------



## hobelim (Feb 5, 2019)

cnm said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of the day, lol, whether you like it or not, our entire society, perceptions of good and evil, crime and punishment, who lives and who dies, who is admired and who is hated, is based on the ideas of perverse and irrational people who claim to believe it all yet have not thought any more deeply about scripture than you have.
> ...




I am really not interested in changing anyones deliberately chosen irrational beliefs.

I just suspect that they are the least qualified people on the planet to lead, the least qualified to think deeply about any given problem, the least qualified to establish law, dictate national policy, tell the truth, invest in the future, or make peace.

They should be banned from public office and every position of authority because they are demonstrably insane, , banned from owning guns because they are demonstrably insane,  and banned from working with children because they are demonstrably insane...


Then they can dance with snakes, celebrate the death of Jesus , eat cookies, drink wine, , and pray for God to smite everyone but themselves for the rest of their lives for ever and ever amen, without the power to persecute the innocent, perpetuate their delusions like a plague,  profit from corruption, and destroy the planet in the process.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > A god that has the predisposed desire for folks have faith to worship him, attempting to make him/itself apparent via scriptures, would be doing a pathetic job in the sense youve just described.
> ...


The problem here is, the scriptures do not stand up to scrutiny on the bullshit meter when taking a deep-dive. From degreed biblical scholars with a minor in ancient Hebrew writing full dissertations as to the genesis of Biblical propaganda, to any 1st world thinker with an agnostic approach free of dogma, it does not pass the pragmatic smell test at all.

If there was any syllogism in philosophy or falsifiable experiment in science that proved a creator God, these conversations would be many shades different. Until that's the case, it's simple faith and special pleading. Pretty much by definition.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 5, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Jesus put off his Godhood and became a man, because it was the only way to redeem mankind, but the portion of the triune being that is God remained God.




Thats terrific!

Let us show our love for God and celebrate the torture and death of Jesus. Let us solemnly condemn gays, and democrats, build more prisons, go to war with our allies and take over the world in the name of an almighty yet edible triune mangod who really really really loves us.

Then we can eat him.

Yay! Jesus died! We are saved! Lets kill some unbelievers! we're not crazy!


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



 "Until that's the case,  it's ... faith..."

 On this we agree.


----------



## Meriweather (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> The problem here is, the scriptures do not stand up to scrutiny on the bullshit meter when taking a deep-dive. From degreed biblical scholars with a minor in ancient Hebrew writing full dissertations as to the genesis of Biblical propaganda, to any 1st world thinker with an agnostic approach free of dogma, it does not pass the pragmatic smell test at all.
> 
> If there was any syllogism in philosophy or falsifiable experiment in science that proved a creator God, these conversations would be many shades different. Until that's the case, it's simple faith and special pleading. Pretty much by definition.


Actually scriptures do stand up--especially when taking that deep dive.  

I believe this:  I don't tell people what they believe or what a science book "really" says.  I let them tell me their beliefs and how they interpret the books they do believe.  The same would be appreciated in return.  Don't tell people of theology what their books "really" say.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The problem here is, the scriptures do not stand up to scrutiny on the bullshit meter when taking a deep-dive. From degreed biblical scholars with a minor in ancient Hebrew writing full dissertations as to the genesis of Biblical propaganda, to any 1st world thinker with an agnostic approach free of dogma, it does not pass the pragmatic smell test at all.
> ...


That's fair that you're not open to the cross examining of ideas - no worries.


----------



## Meriweather (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> That's fair that you're not open to the cross examining of ideas - no worries.


What is taking place here is not the cross examining of my ideas, but the cross examining of *me* based on *your* own ideas of what your wrongly conclude are my beliefs.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

Meriweather said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > That's fair that you're not open to the cross examining of ideas - no worries.
> ...


I dont even know who you are and ONLY have been addressing IDEAS, in responding to you.

I didnt intend for you to take this cross examining of ideas personally.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 5, 2019)

Can Theists be moral.

Ten simple Commandments from a God or,

women get to go around nude, proclaiming;

to bad you guys could not be moral enough to stay out of it in Modern Times.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 5, 2019)

cnm said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > there is no physical connection from one generation to the next.
> ...



that is the physical properties for succeeding generations, the actual link (evolution) is a metaphysical transfer as they are two distinct beings ... pertaining to designed alterations / changes over time, the spiritual content.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 5, 2019)

nice girls "break us in" not "break us down"!


----------



## cnm (Feb 5, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Cannot comprehend.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 5, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> nice girls "break us in" not "break us down"!




How many of you are there?


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 5, 2019)

nice girls twenty-one and above are welcome to be proactive in "helping me stay out of trouble".


----------



## ding (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


If you perceive God as a fairytale then everything you see will skew to that result. 

At the heart of the debate is whether spirit created the material world. You will never be able to objectively analyze the evidence if you start with the premise that it is a fairytale. 

There are plenty of good reasons to examine the evidence at our disposal and none of them are fairytales.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > nice girls "break us in" not "break us down"!
> ...


Danny needs a sex robot. Lets go halves


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 5, 2019)

cnm said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


.
we are able to communicate while not being physically attached ... that is through the metaphysical. 

* does that help


----------



## hobelim (Feb 5, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



lol.. nah, Its much more fascinating watching this strange creature preen while trying to attract a mate in the wild. With any luck  his intricate gyrations, arrogant gestures, and discordant clucking will draw a smitten female  of the same species out of the bush. The cameras are ready to roll.

And then, well, you know, people will pay us to see that!


----------



## cnm (Feb 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> we are able to communicate while not being physically attached ... that is through the metaphysical.
> 
> * does that help


Communicate between generations? Communicate what? The generations have physically communicated through DNA. One way.

edit...No it does not help.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 6, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


if Only, 

there were nice girls who actually believed in equality and equal rights in modern times.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


i love getting physical and making a _good connection _with girl friends.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 6, 2019)

Concerning the fairy tale, it is Boehme's 'birthing the son' as a Gnostic scenario that compares with the Triplicity of Flux, where it is shown that Einstein's relativity in the 4th dimension is a symbol; a symbol for a fiction. (Deleuze, Bergsonism) In the Gnostic 'disfiguration,' of Bergsonian triplicity, a tyrannical deity is the creator of an imprisoned, hierarchical actuality, the enslaving moral master, the monstrous lobster enforcing entity. That is why one should pay attention to a double articulation whenever these tales are invoked. 

'From Augustine to Hugh of St. Victor and beyond, a sacrament was defined in part by its (likeness [italics]) to what it represents (e.g., the water of Baptism washers the body like the Spirit cleans the soul). This emphasis emphasis on similitude fits easily into cognitive and coalitional defaults, making it easier to remember and transmit ritual practices across generations.'
(Shults, op cit)

' "Be like Him," the Serpent whispered in Eve's ear.'
(Safir, Melancholies of Knowledge)


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 6, 2019)

i feel good about myself, whenever i help a girl friend, "stay out of hell".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> we are able to communicate while not being physically attached ... that is through the metaphysical.


No it isn't. It's called,"radio".


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > we are able to communicate while not being physically attached ... that is through the metaphysical.
> ...


.
it's doubtful you are able to understand either ... keep trying, someday you will have a breakthrough.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Thereis nothing to understand. You also cannot explain it.you pass ofd a bunch of meaningless, useless tripe as wisdom.nothing but verbal masturbation on your part.thats why you can't explain anything or provide any useful predictions. Your metaphysical nonsense is as useless as tits on a boar.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Thereis nothing to understand. You also cannot explain it.you pass ofd a bunch of meaningless, useless tripe as wisdom.nothing but verbal masturbation on your part.thats why you can't explain anything or provide any useful predictions. Your metaphysical nonsense is as useless as tits on a boar.


_*
Thereis nothing to understand.*_

you tend to stutter when you have nothing to say ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


That doesn't make sense...it was a typical...and what I said is clear:

Your metaphysical horseshit is useless garbage. It explains nothing and yields no useful predictions. It has no bearing or effect on any of our knowledge. It is a useless veneer of useless nonsense you toss all over things only AFTER we have explained them by scientific means. What a luxury that must be... You don't have to understand, explain, discover, or predict anything....then you get to pay yourself on the back anyway...


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.
I disagree, physiology is an example where the metaphysical created a physical substance to support an individual spirit that when removed its physiology disappears and is a substance not native to planet Earth but to the universe.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 6, 2019)

'However, as we might expect, most Christian theologians who are attracted to Deleuze are also strongly attracted to the iconoclastic lines of flight already present within Christianity. That is, they are more willing to allow logical reflection, egalitarian concern,  or intense contemplative  experience to challenge traditional formulations and ecclesial practices. They tend to be on the cutting edges of the deterritorialization of their religious coalitions. Nevertheless,  insofar as such efforts at liberation also include appeals to divine revelation and ritual engagement with Christ as the ideal representative of God, whose moral judgements and promises are the basis for holding together religious Groups, they are held back by the forces of the sacerdotal trajectory. This weakens the plausibility of their hypotheses by (partially) immunizing them from the critique of those who do not share their imaginative engagement with this supernatural Agent. This strategy functioned relatively well from the axial age to the early modern period, but it is rapidly losing its vitality (and proving itself detrimental) in our current globally interconnected, ecologically stressed environment.'
(Shults, op cit, p. 194)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> I disagree, physiology is an example where the metaphysical created a physical substance to support an individual spirit that when removed its physiology disappears and is a substance not native to planet Earth but to the universe.


And yet nobody needs any of that to explain anything, you have no good evidence, and it yields no useful predictions whatsoever. It has met the standard for an idea to be discarded as wistful nonsense.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 6, 2019)

The first amino acids of life that were formed at the mouth of an earthly volcano disputes a universal substance, unless samples from Martian volcanoes reiterate the same mechanism.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 7, 2019)

badger2 said:


> The first amino acids of life that were formed at the mouth of an earthly volcano disputes a universal substance, unless samples from Martian volcanoes reiterate the same mechanism.


.
_*disputes a universal substance ...
*_
it is a substance of the universe not of planet earth, physiology and is a metaphysical occurrence that does not occur without it being as a life form.

your statement fails in that it has occurred on Earth as proof not only of a physical presence but the ability of the metaphysical to manifest itself when the (inorganic) conditions are conducive._* 
*_



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet nobody needs any of that to explain anything, you have no good evidence, and it yields no useful predictions whatsoever. It has met the standard for an idea to be discarded as wistful nonsense.


_*
 you have no good evidence ...
*_
your entire statement is false - there is no physiology on Earth that is not living and when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical and those properties that make it possible and the physical form it has created.

and therefore the precepts of morals for life's emergence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical


Oh really? Show me 5 examples, then. Show me when and how the metaphysical was removed, and how this is not explained by other means that don't require your metaphysical nonsense. Please be specific with all 5 examples.

Then we can examine this "good evidence" you claim to have. Or, we can all have a good laugh at your expense.


----------



## cnm (Feb 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> _*disputes a universal substance ...
> *_
> it is a substance of the universe not of planet earth, physiology and is a metaphysical occurrence that does not occur without it being as a life form.
> 
> your statement fails in that it has occurred on Earth as proof not only of a physical presence but the ability of the metaphysical to manifest itself when the (inorganic) conditions are conducive.


Anyone?


----------



## cnm (Feb 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> your entire statement is false - there is no physiology on Earth that is not living and when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical and those properties that make it possible and the physical form it has created.


Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2019)

cnm said:


> Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?


That's precisely what his nonsense is. It's an ever expanding tautology that can be slopped onto any hard earned knowledge, after the fact. It explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, comes without a shred of evidence, and could never be falsified or confirmed. It's a useless, steaming pile.


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?
> ...


Angry much?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


No...why? What do you think I am? Yahweh? It's not as if I am going to to rub out some kids just because I got my feelings hurt.


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Because religion pisses you off. It’s obvious.  Or maybe it’s people who have religion that pisses you off.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2019)

ding said:


> Because religion pisses you off.


And atheism pisses you off. That's why you throw nightly fits and lie and deceive and plagiarize specious reasoning from idiot bloggers...


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because religion pisses you off.
> ...


Not at all. I oppose militant atheism. It doesn’t piss me off.


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because religion pisses you off.
> ...


I have not thrown any fits or plagiarized anything. The reality is there is no one you can quote that you wouldn’t be ashamed of quoting. I don’t have that problem.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2019)

ding said:


> Not at all.


Well, you're a liar then.



ding said:


> I oppose militant atheism.


Yes, another charlatans term. This, of course, means any atheist who dares to speak against people trying  to claim the truth of , for instance, your hilariously stupid iron age fairy tale. It's just your way of trying to rig the game for yourself. When it's people who favor your particular brand of magical voodoo, you call them "proselytizers". Because you are such a sensitive little sissy that you have to even baby yourself with special terms.


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because religion pisses you off.
> ...


Why do the beliefs of others piss you off?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why do they piss you off?


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.
> ...


No. I am not lying. 

A militant atheist is someone who behaves a certain way and meets certain requirements. 

1. They condemn respect for people of faith. 

2. They attempt to subordinate religion.


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


They don’t. 

But when I asked you why people who have religion piss you off rather than deny it you responded that atheists piss me off. 

So why do people who have religion piss you off?  It’s quite obvious that they do.


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


If you allow your anger to keep building up you very well may do something you will regret.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 7, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Hmm, I doubt it. I have morals formed from reason and humanism, not out of fear of a sky daddy. These morals focus on the well being of humans, not on my selfish desire to live forever. More likely I'll end up the victim of one of your fellow cult members.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 7, 2019)

cnm said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > your entire statement is false - there is no physiology on Earth that is not living and when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical and those properties that make it possible and the physical form it has created.
> ...


.


cnm said:


> Isn't that merely an exercise in tautology?





BreezeWood said:


> your entire statement is false - there is no physiology on Earth that is not living and when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical and those properties that make it possible and the physical form it has created.
> 
> and therefore the precepts of morals for life's emergence.



no, or state why you believe it is ...

physiology was created by the metaphysical for life to have a physical presence on planet earth, the fact physiology disappears when its life expires proves its origin is from the universe and not native to our planet. its formula is the basis for the religion of antiquity involving purity as a metaphysical necessity derived through moral behavior.


----------



## cnm (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's a useless, steaming pile.


Heaped elegantly high though, be fair.


----------



## cnm (Feb 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> no, or state why you believe it is [tautological]


Physiology is a term informed by life, that is why your screed is tautological. The rest, including its relationship to physiology, is incomprehensible to me, I gain no useful information from it.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > when the metaphysical life is removed the physiology disappears is the proof of the metaphysical
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh really? Show me 5 examples, then. Show me when and how the metaphysical was removed



Fauna and Flora both emerged from the initial (metaphysical) life (spiritual) template, take anything that is living as an example ... the physiology the living beings have evolved is created by their spiritual component over time and is itself, the evolution proof of the metaphysical presence in the universe.

if as bing suggests you are not to angry to give a reasonable response to what is as secular as it might be religious in reference to the underpinnings necessary for the initial life templates emergence on Earth in the first place ...


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Feb 7, 2019)

Atheists now are going against recent evidence instead of going with

This
Makes modern atheists totally dishonest 



Otium said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Yep. Human nature gets upset with hypocrisy ...and their anger then stops it.  The most wise will see the hypocrisy first and these would be white males

The wise white males has judged Muellers probe as blackmail to scare trump to over look the more serious crimes by democrats 

Barr is soon to be confirmed and the investigations of the deep state will begin

And soon both investigations will be looked at side by side

Barr will declare the mueller probe as a blackmail crime to cover up more serious crimes

Trump has the white men with their highest logic ability who already had judged Muellers probe as blackmail

Barr or anyone cannot afford to go against the REAL POWER. The white males

The white males has never lost a war


----------



## ding (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You are already half way to being a nazi, bro. 

If you had morals you wouldn’t be half the asshole you turned out to be.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 7, 2019)

Atheists can be.

democrats can not.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Feb 7, 2019)

Atheists are going against modern science today


----------



## cnm (Feb 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Fauna and Flora both emerged from the initial (metaphysical) life (spiritual) template, take anything that is living as an example ... the physiology the living beings have evolved is created by their spiritual component over time and is itself, the evolution proof of the metaphysical presence in the universe.
> 
> if as bing suggests you are not to angry to give a reasonable response to what is as secular as it might be religious in reference to the underpinnings necessary for the initial life templates emergence on Earth in the first place ...


You know, I tried parsing that out of curiosity. I ended up with a jumble of words without connection.


----------



## cnm (Feb 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> The white males has never lost a war


Tell it to the Tsar.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Feb 7, 2019)

cnm said:


> GreenAndBlue said:
> 
> 
> > The white males has never lost a war
> ...



Only white males has ever beat another white males.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 7, 2019)

GreenAndBlue said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > GreenAndBlue said:
> ...


.


GreenAndBlue said:


> Only white males has ever beat another white males.








the Japanese made a go of it for at least 6 months ... does bataan ring a bell.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Feb 7, 2019)

Still total destruction of Japan came from white males


----------



## cnm (Feb 7, 2019)

And the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. Are Russians white males?


----------



## Aponi (Feb 7, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


IothersI do understand all cultures have differnt standards on morality. But deep down inside I think the majority know right from wrong.

Let me as you this is it diffcult to say its wrong to have sex with a 9 year old woman and marry her .but why do some billion plus accept this


----------



## cnm (Feb 8, 2019)

Aponi said:


> Let me as you this is it diffcult to say its wrong to have sex with a 9 year old woman and marry her


 Is that in the Koran, as a matter of curiosity?


----------



## cnm (Feb 8, 2019)

Let me ask you this. Is it difficult to say grabbing women by the pussy without invitation is wrong? But why do some millions accept this?


----------



## gtopa1 (Feb 8, 2019)

cnm said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> > Let me as you this is it diffcult to say its wrong to have sex with a 9 year old woman and marry her
> ...



You need the Koran to tell you it's wrong??

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Feb 8, 2019)

cnm said:


> Let me ask you this. Is it difficult to say grabbing women by the pussy without invitation is wrong? But why do some millions accept this?



Ask Monica if cigars are fit for purpose.

Greg


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2019)

gtopa1 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Aponi said:
> ...


Thank you for proving there is a universal code of common decency which exists that you expect everyone to know and accept.


----------



## Faun (Feb 8, 2019)

Aponi said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


Who accepts that?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 8, 2019)

Faun said:


> Aponi said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...




I think he is referring to Muslims who celebrate the love story between a 53 year old Mohammed and his prepubescent bride .

People try to justify that by saying moral standards were different, but the fact is that the most primitive stone age people who ever walked the earth would have found that to be morally deviant and reprehensible.

Still doesn't explain why so many people don't. Maybe they do, but they keep their mouths shut because they want to keep their heads. Maybe the rational part of their  brains were surgically removed when they were too young to remember and malware was installed so that every time an intelligent thought is required all they can do is recite verses from the Koran.

I don't know why they don't get along better with Christians or why Christians don't have more empathy for muslims. Both groups seems to have been subjected to the same type of ancient time tested and proven methods of sorcery, the magical arts, what people now would call brainwashing or mind control. You know, close the curtains, light a candle, stand up, sit down, kneel, get down on your hands and knees,  chant chant chant, praise the Lord, sing a song, participate in a three minute hate session, empty your pockets in full support of the cause, and then tell everyone what a beautiful service and moving spiritual experience it was.

Its messed up. They actually argue over whose brainwashing is better instead of uniting to destroy the practice while the bastards who control them are celebrated as dedicated holy men in public and act like degenerates in private laughing their assess off at all the lost sinners out there throwing money at them and  begging to be abused, er, saved.

So they take the money, give them a few lines to recite, rosary beads to count daily or a compass to find mecca, and send them into the jungle to fight each other to the death while they take off on a private jet to a private island for a spiritual retreat... It must be exhausting being a humble servant of the Lord and ripping people off for a living.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 8, 2019)

cnm said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fauna and Flora both emerged from the initial (metaphysical) life (spiritual) template, take anything that is living as an example ... the physiology the living beings have evolved is created by their spiritual component over time and is itself, the evolution proof of the metaphysical presence in the universe.
> ...


.


cnm said:


> You know, I tried parsing that out of curiosity. I ended up with a jumble of words without connection.



have you answered where your physiology originates -

physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth that is the physical representation of a living spirit. and disappears when the life (spirit) is removed from it.

* can't be made any simpler for you - tautology is just a defection or answer the question or go back to school.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 8, 2019)

Life began just as the Miller-Urey volcanic spark experiment has shown. There is nothing spiritual about it. Reasons for smuggling spirituality into the argument are based on fundamental illusions of Homo sapiens.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 8, 2019)

Look at it this way:

Can _anyone _be moral?


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Look at it this way:
> 
> Can _anyone _be moral?


Sometimes.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 8, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Look at it this way:
> ...



Immoral? Or ammoral?

Or both?


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


It probably depends on the occasion and the person.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 8, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Yeah. It _depends._

It's always been that way.


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Just like rationalizations.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 8, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Ding the Ditherer.

Hovering on the periphery.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 8, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> have you answered where your physiology originates -


Yes, about 150 years ago.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 8, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Look at it this way:
> 
> Can _anyone _be moral?


.
that possibility is for all beings, Flora and Fauna to accomplish in freeing their spirits for admission to the Everlasting - the apex of knowledge, the triumph of good vs evil - the state of purity a Sabbath.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > have you answered where your physiology originates -
> ...


.
 and your answer is / was ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 8, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Selection, same as the first 500 times you asked me.


----------



## ding (Feb 8, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I couldn’t be happier for you to see it that way, darling. Get it out of your system and I’ll throw a there there your way.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Selection, same as the first 500 times you asked me.



that is not an answer ff - for physiology ... that would be a metaphysical correspondence between generations, spiritual to accommodate adaptions applied to their physiology. not its origin.


----------



## cnm (Feb 8, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Can _anyone _be moral?


Those who abide by community norms. Do you really not read your own thread?


----------



## cnm (Feb 8, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> that is not an answer ff - for physiology


_physiology noun, biol the branch of biology that is concerned with the internal processes and functions of living organisms, as opposed to their structure.
_​And makes a tasty word soup...


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 8, 2019)

cnm said:


> physiology noun, biol the branch of biology that is concerned with the internal processes and functions of living organisms, as opposed to their structure.





> phys·i·ol·o·gy
> 
> the branch of biology that deals with the normal functions of living organisms and their parts.
> the way in which a living organism or bodily part functions.
> ...



phisiology is the physical components of an organism ...


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Can _anyone _be moral?
> ...



I don't read you, if that's what you mean.

I've always thought your trolling was immoral. Especially the compulsion and duration of it.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

^ if only everyone could be moral like her.


----------



## cnm (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> I've always thought your trolling was immoral. Especially the compulsion and duration of it.


Oh. Interestingly, I think your passive aggressive act does not conform to community norms.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

cnm said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > I've always thought your trolling was immoral. Especially the compulsion and duration of it.
> ...



Mendacity is not moral. 

Can't you keep your vendetta downstairs?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

That inner feeling  someone gets when deciding whether or not something is right or wrong. = moral compass. 

Regardless of religion or not religion.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

And then is immediately over ridden by their rationalizations.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

ding said:


> And then is immediately over ridden by their rationalizations.



Speak for yourself.

But okay, I'll concede you have a point.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And then is immediately over ridden by their rationalizations.
> ...


It’s human nature. Deny it at your own peril.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

Rationalizations of right and wrong can be seen in every single quarrel between two people where each believes they are right and the other is wrong and expects the other one to  not only understand it but agree with it. 

There is a universal expectation of common decency.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 9, 2019)

ding said:


> Rationalizations of right and wrong can be seen in every single quarrel between two people where each believes they are right and the other is wrong and expects the other one to  not only understand it but agree with it.
> 
> There is a universal expectation of common decency.




"There is a universal expectation of common decency."


which conservatives fail to meet.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Rationalizations of right and wrong can be seen in every single quarrel between two people where each believes they are right and the other is wrong and expects the other one to  not only understand it but agree with it.
> ...


Disagreeing on solutions is not the same thing as disagreeing on problems.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Rationalizations of right and wrong can be seen in every single quarrel between two people where each believes they are right and the other is wrong and expects the other one to  not only understand it but agree with it.
> ...



This is not a political thread. There are enough of those around.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

ding said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You just come out with slogans.

You could write them on planks, and hang them up in the kitchen.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


 

Give a priest a supple and tender lad for ten years and he'll give you a dingbat for life.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I'll hang that one up in my bed chamber.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 9, 2019)

ding said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




"Disagreeing on solutions is not the same thing as disagreeing on problems. "


disagreeing?


You said;

"There is a universal expectation of common decency."

To which I replied;

"which conservatives fail to meet. "

after which you responded;

"Disagreeing on solutions is not the same thing as disagreeing on problems. "

disagreeing?

We are talking about (your subject, your words) "There is a universal expectation of common decency."

Calling liberals "scumbags, nazis, fascists, commies, dirtbags, liars, cheaters, god haters, christian haters, America haters, terrorist lovers and traitors who are trying to destroy our constitution and country" SIMPLY because we disagree with you on gay rights is NOT COMMON FKN DECENCY!


I call  this the HATE and SWITCH routine.

Conservatives are very good at it.....


They'll say "fkn dirt bag liberals are traitors and should be treated like the dirty commy traitors they are"


to which a rational person will respond
"what the fuk?....that was kinda mean...."


and the con will IMMEDIATELY reply;  "typical liberal,  insult me simply because I DISAGREE with you....."


I expect common decency
I do not get it from conservatives.


signed
LIBTARD, demoNAZI, demoCRAP,LIEberNAZI


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 9, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> I do not get it from conservatives.



that sounds more like 4th century christians ...






they excel in persecuting and victimizing the innocent ...


liberal / conservative are indeed opposite polarity that is separable than in combination to create a whole as the disguise to overcome in accomplishing a final result.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


My response was limited to your comment, 
“which conservatives fail to meet.”

I assumed you were referring to the erroneous belief that conservatives don’t care about the plight of others. I hope that cleared it up for you.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


It’s a common misperception of the left that conservatives don’t care about the poor. That’s not true. We don’t agree with solutions that have been proven to not only not work but make the problem worse. 

I’m thinking April was right about you all along.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


I don’t believe I have called you any names at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> that is not an answer ff -


Of course it is. That's why we see selection produce fusiform shapes in marine animals, for instance. And we know this information is passed by DNA replication and meiosis. It hasn't been a mystery for quite a long time. Feel free to slop on this veneer of metaphysical nonsense...it explains nothing, yields no useful predictions, and it doesn't affect our knowledge in the slightest . that's how we know it's useless nonsense.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Oh well. Must be true then. lol.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Pfft...he's just another baby boomer fraud who regurgitates old reaganite talking points, until it comes to his own well being. Just another baby boomer thief who would sell out the future but make sure his own entitlements are robust.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



It's like going down the rabbit hole with him.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Well, do yourself and your sanity a favor, and don't ask him for specifics. Unless you enjoy being treated to a bunch of nebulous, equivocating, self-contradictory nonsense.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > that is not an answer ff -
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> why we see selection ...



you have not answered the origin of physiology, begin by the admission it is not native to planet Earth would be helpful.

your selection is passed from one generation to the next, physiology is incapable of doing that the process is a metaphysical transfer just as the initial life template became a physical manifestation of the metaphysical forces that made it. I refer you to Flora -






that is not their DNA - that is their composite metaphysical being in physical exhibition. provided by their adherence to religious convictions.


----------



## cnm (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> That inner feeling someone gets when deciding whether or not something is right or wrong. = moral compass.


So, entirely subjective?


----------



## cnm (Feb 9, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> liberal / conservative are indeed opposite polarity that is separable than in combination to create a whole as the disguise to overcome in accomplishing a final result.


JFC


----------



## cnm (Feb 9, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> your selection is passed from one generation to the next, physiology is incapable of doing that the process is a metaphysical transfer just as the initial life template became a physical manifestation of the metaphysical forces that made it. I refer you to Flora -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh well, at least I found out I needn't bother.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> you have not answered the origin of physiology,


I absolutely have: selection. Period. Same thing that causes the shape of the water molecule, or the shape of Saturn's rings.

You just don't like the answer, because I can eliminate your entire body of magical nonsense with a one-word, simple explanation that requires no magic, is supported by all of the evidence, and is accepted by the entire scientifici community. You prefer thinking you have outsmarted someone...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> that is not their DNA -


Wrong. Yes it is. Where do you get this magical horseshit....


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


More rationalizations. 

Technically that would fall under dunning effect.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I am now convinced of it.


----------



## ding (Feb 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 9, 2019)

...i usually don't take women very seriously, until after they do me.  

is that Bad?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 9, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I am now convinced of it.



convinced of what ...


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > you have not answered the origin of physiology,
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Same thing that causes the shape of the water molecule



cause is not an origin nor is shape pertinent - nor is water equivalent to physiology.


----------



## Baron (Feb 10, 2019)

Atheist can be moral, but they place will be Hell.
Plain and simple, unless they do not accept Jesus as their Savior


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> cause is not an origin


Yes it is. What odd language you use....the hallmark of a charlatan...

Normal person: "Gravity causes large objects to become spheroids in space"

Breezewood: " But that is not the origin of spheroidal shape. Metaphysics determines that"

Haha...ooooookay......



BreezeWood said:


> nor is shape pertinent


"Shape" is not pertinent to "physiology", eh. Fascinating. I admit, I have little in my toolbox to counter such obvious nonsensical doublespeak, besides mockery of it. It mocks itself, really.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2019)

Baron said:


> Atheist can be moral, but they place will be Hell.
> Plain and simple, unless they do not accept Jesus as their Savior


Your magical spells and chants carry no weight here, shaman.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > cause is not an origin
> ...


.


BreezeWood said:


> cause is not an origin nor is shape pertinent - nor is water equivalent to physiology.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Shape" is not pertinent to "physiology", eh. Fascinating. I admit, I have little in my toolbox to counter such obvious nonsensical doublespeak, besides mockery of it. It mocks itself, really.



_*"Shape" is not pertinent to "physiology" *_

no, it is not as there is no single shape for any physiology in existence or has ever existed in part or as a unit ... the "shape" of a water molecule is restricted atomically your comparison between the two simply shows your lack of understanding for what is being discussed -

gravity is a metaphysical force as less understood ... as ff using a blank space, magical to mimic what in fact is explainable if in broad perspective even without yet determined specifics. the same as moral equivalents.

and dodging again the origin of physiology on planet Earth and its spiritual content that keeps it from disappearing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


And yet, you have explained nothing, have not a shred of evidence, and cnanot produce a single useful prediction, much less an accurate one. So, for the last time: you are free to slop your veneer of magical horseshit all over hard-earned knowledge (AFTER the fact, as always), but it means absolutely nothing. You could switch your position to "rainbow unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension decide physiology", and the result of your magical, meaningless tripe will be the same.


----------



## ding (Feb 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> > Atheist can be moral, but they place will be Hell.
> ...


How’s this for magical?

At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. The very best you can ever hope for is to suffer without complaint. Something you don’t seem to be able to do.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 10, 2019)

Baron said:


> Atheist can be moral, but they place will be Hell.
> Plain and simple, unless they do not accept Jesus as their Savior



Nice! 

Make'em an offer they can't refuse. 

You Christian folks need to steal that _fatwa_ thing from islam. Grab a fatwa pen, scratch out a Mafioso style hit and let the believers go hunt down the condemned.


----------



## Baron (Feb 11, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Baron said:
> 
> 
> > Atheist can be moral, but they place will be Hell.
> ...



I advise you to read the Holy Bible.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 11, 2019)

what women consider Good and not Bad?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 11, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Yes we are.  

Insects Are Dying En Masse, Risking 'Catastrophic' Collapse Of Earth's Ecosystems | HuffPost

Vertebrate species, both on land and under the sea, are threatened at a global scale because of human activities.

habitat loss because of intensive agriculture is the top driver of insect population declines. The heavy use of pesticides and climate change are also key contributors.

All these things are happening because there are too many god damn people on this planet.

There is a way we can engineer our way out of this so we don't have to kill every other child

“Unless we change our ways of producing food, insects as a whole will go down the path of extinction in a few decades,” the review’s co-authors wrote. “The repercussions this will have for the planet’s ecosystems are catastrophic to say the least.”


----------



## Aletheia4u (Feb 11, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


There are some Atheist that has been born with the Spirit in them, that they don't know that they have it in them. Abraham didn't know the existence of God until he met with him. But before, Abraham has done what was right. Even though he didn't knew who was God. Moses never knew God. He just heard of Him through the Hebrews. Like on the mount. He told God which god should I tell the Hebrews whom I spoken to? And God responded back, that He is the only One. But Moses done what was right. A righteous person make the right choices of their own free-will. Abraham had left his father's village. To branch off into the wilderness, because God told him so. Things has gotten bad for him. But instead of returning home, where his life was secured. He believed in God, that he didn't even know nothing about. That was credited to him as righteousness.


  Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


 No, no, no....have you learned nothing from being yelled at by him? If you try to fit 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag, your problem isn't that you have too much shit. It's that you don't have a big enough bag. And you are an idiot to say otherwise. Just ask him!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


And he believes everything not just can be solved by engineering but will be solved. 

Well tell me unkotard what is our solution to all the mass extinction of bees and bugs? 

If we have so many humans producing so much methane and pollution from cars and cows, seems to me the solution is to cut the population in half.

I didn’t have any kids. And republican policies are causing the masses to have fewer kids so maybe we can engineer a solution. Plus trump has cut down on immigration. 

Young men don’t want to get married and have kids. They want to play Nintendo. The numbers don’t lie. I just hope it’s not too little too late.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 20, 2019)

Some interesting differences.


Americans are also much more likely to believe that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral, with more than half agreeing. Fewer than one in five agree that it is necessary in Britain, Spain and France.

Americans tend to be identify with their religion before their nationality, with 46% saying they prefer to be known as Christian rather than an American. Only around 1 in 5 Western Europeans identify as Christian over their national identity.

These are the real differences between Americans and Europeans


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Well Americans are better people than Europeans so there’s that too.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Well Americans are better people than Europeans so there’s that too.



There's always an exception.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Well Americans are better people than Europeans so there’s that too.
> ...


There’s ALMOST always an exception.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Are you ever going to stop it?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


The statement there’s always an exception has no exception so it defies itself. 

Whereas the statement there’s almost always an exception doesn’t. Now do you understand?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Apparently Europeans do not like to be corrected by Americans.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Well Americans are better people than Europeans so there’s that too.




No American conservatives are better than anyone....


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Well Americans are better people than Europeans so there’s that too.
> ...


Maybe you should round them up for extermination, Adolph.


----------



## Taz (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Americans are better people than Europeans? Why, because Americans wage war throughout the world? They have the death penalty? The most people behind bars? People with pointy hoods?


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 20, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


I believe you will find that deeply Christian individuals are better at understanding human nature than those who are decidedly against biblical Christianity. I also find that believers are drawn to each other no matter where they live or where they are from. They share the same FATHER!


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 20, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




I believe I will find that deeply christian individuals are NOT better people than anyone.

I believe I will find that I, an atheist/agnostic/apathetic, am a MUCH better person than any disturbed christian.

I'm certainly much better than you.


----------



## Taz (Feb 20, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You share the same myths. If your god was actually provable, everyone would be on board.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Post #1524: 'they share the same father!" That's one promiscuous little whore. 

'As (religious [italics]) coalitions, they are held together by imaginative engagement with axiologically relevant supernatural agents. As coalitions tied to a monotheist (Religion [it.]) that traces its roots to the west Asian axial age, however, they are also shaped by a long tradition of attempts to detect the Highest God possible -- an (infinite [it.]) supernatural Agent. The conceptual problems with such an idea are tricky enough, but the practical problems are a nightmare. It is hard to relate to a moralistic Entity whose intellect contains absolutely everything (eternally). christ as the image or representative of this god provides believers  with a mediating supernatural agent in relation to whom the cognitive and coalitional defaults that hold together religious groups can more easily be activated.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


Relax. It was a joke. Don’t get your panties in a wad over it.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 20, 2019)

ding does not have the stones to discuss the excerpt in post #1545 in front of the people, which explains why both god and ding are nuts.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

badger2 said:


> ding does not have the stones to discuss the excerpt in post #1545 in front of the people, which explains why both god and ding are nuts.


I’m on my phone. Post numbers aren’t shown. But I  like how you tried to bait me. Does that usually work on you?

I couldn’t care less what some anonymous troll on the internet thinks.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Taz said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Maybe the point is to distinguish the ones that should be on board from the ones that shouldn’t be on board.


----------



## Taz (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


So god's going to cherry pick from all the dead people?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Not exactly. You still believe it is about the destination rather than the journey.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What are you talking about?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That people like yourself and Taz believe faith is about death and not life.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No we get it.  In life faith makes you feel good.  And when you are dead none of that faith shit is going to help you.  So you are 100% correct the only benefits are here and now.  

It may comfort you right before you die.  You think that when you expire you become a god yourself.  I would think you'd be happy to die knowing this.  And you get to see grandma again!  Yippy!!!

Are you serious you believe this or is it just wishful thinking.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No. You still don’t get it. Your bias is getting in your way.


----------



## Taz (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The journey of a deformed fetus that will be born in constant pain? You’re clueless.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What am I not getting.

What if I said you aren't getting it?  What would you say to that?  I'll tell you what you would say.  You'd say, "what am I not getting?"  

So be more specific.  I know you are going somewhere with this.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 20, 2019)

Post numbers are shown (see upper right-hand corner); d has trouble finding the pertinent post while holding onto the phone at the same time. d will be getting screwed by information anarchy, regardless. Others will be thinking behind d's back, independently as they read.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...




If I were god not 1 conservative christian would ever be allowed in heaven.

And heaven would be lots more fun.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


And I have no doubt that you mean it too.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Post numbers are shown (see upper right-hand corner); d has trouble finding the pertinent post while holding onto the phone at the same time. d will be getting screwed by information anarchy, regardless. Others will be thinking behind d's back, independently as they read.


Not on the phone. Use the reply button. It won’t kill you.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You aren’t getting that having faith in God changes you for the better and makes you happier about life. And it is happiness which leads to success.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You don’t know that. In fact most handicapped children are happy and loved greatly.


----------



## Taz (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I’m not talking about most handicapped children, I’m talking about the ones that will live in constant severe pain. You’d have them suffer because of some fake invisible being that you love.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Ok, how many are those?  What percentage of all children are born with defects that will cause physical pain 24//7/365?


----------



## Taz (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The number is inconsequential, you want them to suffer for your beliefs. That’s messed up.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


No.  The number is minuscule and you are trying to define the rule using a minuscule number. 

No, I don’t want them to suffer. You are using a minuscule number of exceptions to justify the murder of millions of babies. That’s the definition of messed up, Taz.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ding in my opinion, having faith does not make you happier, in fact losing faith made me a happier and better person. Unlike religion, I am compelled to try to be a decent person, after all it's not like I can ask forgiveness and be done with it when I hurt the people around me.


----------



## Taz (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, I’m not talking about the others just this specific circumstance. You want them to suffer for your beliefs. You’re a sick prick.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


To each his own.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Apparently Taz agrees with you. I guess the only question I have for you is do you agree with Taz?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't agree that you are a sick fuck. What I do agree with is, that making ANYBODY suffer because of religious beliefs is morally wrong. I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so. I also have the view that a person has the right himself to define suffering, if he's able to do so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so.


And that is why you get a durable power of attorney to avoid stupid decisions by your family regarding your medical care.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Which religious belief would that be in my case?  I haven’t made a religious argument?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are against euthanasia and abortion on religious grounds are you not?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I also assume you find same sex attraction morally wrong, although that's an assumption on my end.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > I also agree that when that person can not make such a decision next of kin have the right to do so.
> ...


Sure nothing wrong with that. Your point?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I also have to admit that religiohs grounds were badly chosen. I should probably have said moral grounds.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


You just read it... I agree, nothing wrong with that...


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


No. I am against abortion on legal grounds. 

At conception a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. 

And since it is a human being- albeit one in its earliest stage of the human life cycle - he or she is not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> I am against abortion on legal grounds.


...and then proceeded to make a moral argument.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I disagree. Pregnancy is not a zero risk proposition. Even if I accept that a fetus has the same rights a full grown human does (I don't), you are still demanding that one person takes a potentially fatal risk for another.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Morally wrong?  No. In the best interest of society to define the rule through exception?  No. 

I think it is a slippery slope.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


That’s not why the vast majority of abortions are performed, right?  For fear of death by the mother?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I am against abortion on legal grounds.
> ...


Because it is wrong to end a human life?

So are laws against murder religious laws? Or moral laws?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> Because it is wrong to end a human life?


No, I said that because it is wrong to be a dishonest quack. It makes you unethical for sure and, at times, immoral.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Then you are already at odds with your professed religion. Something by the way that would fit in nicely with my contention that morals are relative, since you are obviously choosing to fill in your own moral code even when the rules you should follow as a catholic say otherwise.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Of course not. Doesn't mean the point isn't valid. You can't demand of anybody to take an actual risk.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


One argument at a time. 

But I don’t blindly follow dogma. Catholics are allowed some latitude. We like healthy debate. 

I disagree that it proves morals are relative because truth is discovered. Your confusion is in assuming truth changes rather than perception of truth changes. 

But let’s try to stay focused on the discussion on abortion. Fair enough?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I can if the risk was created by that person. It’s called personal accountability. 

But you do agree that you are trying to use an exception to justify all abortions, right?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sure I just wanted to point it out.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because it is wrong to end a human life?
> ...


If you had better arguments you wouldn’t need to use insults. 

I can see how your disbelief has made you a happier person.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Right, and I disagreed. Shall we move on?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, because a pregnancy always carries a risk. The percentage of the risk does not change that fact. I'll try to illustrate. " Say I see someone drowning in my pool. Do you think I am obligated to risk my life to save that person? Would my obligation change if I'm a very good swimmer?" In my view, no. I still would be risking my life. What amount of risk of death is acceptable enough to compel a person to take the risk? As to personal accountability of pregnancy. I assume that a person wanting an abortion did not plan on getting pregnant. They made the choice to have sex, not to create a baby. Yes they might be stupid, or irresponsible, or simply unlucky. None of that tough is sufficient enough reason to demand of someone to risk their lives.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Already did.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


What are the percentages of death by pregnancy?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Excellent.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Do you believe in personal accountability?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


216 per 100000 according to wikipedia. So 0.2 percent.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

Maternal death - Wikipedia

So in the US 26 women out of every 100,000 die in childbirth and 99,9974 out of every 100,000 survive childbirth.  Whereas ~1,000,000 unborn babies out of ~1,000,000 unborn babies die each year through abortions and pregnancy risks are a justification for abortion?

Isn’t it really that women just don’t want to have a baby?  To suffer the consequences of their own actions?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Recheck your numbers.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sure I do. The very first person I'm accountable to is myself. I'm the one making decisions and I'm the one who has to face the consequences of those decisions. This also means I respect other peoples right to do the same.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Right. The problem is that abortion is not suffering the consequences of actions. Abortion is making someone else suffer the consequences.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Your right, it's 26 per 100000.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


As opposed to potentially losing your own life. Again what gives you the right to demand that of anybody?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I think your argument for justifying the ending of a human life is disingenuous for two reasons.  One, it’s not why women have abortions. Two, the numbers don’t support the 100% death rate from abortions.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You think having an abortion is without consequences? It's a decision you do have to live with. Using my analogy. Say I don't try to save the guy drowning. Unless you are a complete dick, I dare say you would carry guilt the rest of your life. Those consequences are real and not to be underestimated.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Because there is a 100% certainty that they will end a life that is not their own or theirs to take. Because they were the ones who got pregnant. Because the life they created will never exist again. Because the life they are taking has a right to life. Because it is wrong to end a human life. Because humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Because actions have consequences. Because responsibly is not learned when actions have no consequences. Because it is not the unborn baby’s fault that his or her mother got pregnant. I’m sure I will think of a few more reasons as the discussion continues.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's not disingenuous, because it is de facto what you are demanding. You are saying that there is a percentage of risk of death that is sufficiently low, as to give you the right to demand other people to take that risk.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I don’t think abortions have no consequences. That’s my point.  It is not in the mother’s best interest to have an abortion. 

And the consequence is even worse for the life being aborted. Right?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So the fetus has the right to life, and the other person alive has to risk his own?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


No. I am saying that it is a bullshit argument to begin with because that’s not why women have abortions and that the low risk is proof that isn’t the reason women get abortions. Women get abortions because they don’t want to be burdened with raising a child. The vast majority of abortions are done for selfish reasons.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The mother has the right to decide what consequences she will accept. You are advocating to take that right away.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


True, does that impact in any way the potential risk of dying?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Yes, the unborn child has a right to life. There really should be no disagreement on that point.

The woman is accountable for her actions. One consequence is the risk of childbirth.

You really are making a big deal out of a 26 per 100,000 risk. Especially since we both know that’s not why they choose to have an abortion, right?


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Yes, because that’s not why they are aborting their babies. It’s a disingenuous argument.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Not really. She made that choice herself when she took the risk of getting pregnant.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I also want to point out the following. Raising a child is an awesome responsibility. Doing so takes a level of maturity, financial means and sense of responsibility. You feel that abortion is selfish. I know, as you undoubtedly do, people who have kids who are incapable of mustering those traits. Can I ask if you feel any responsibility towards those kids and adults who are raised in such circumstances? Do you feel a sense of responsibility enough to provide healthcare, food, maybe a roof over their heads since you feel their life is so precious? Or do you feel that the only thing you have to do is make sure that they are alive and gladly abdicate any further sense of responsibility?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So the reasoning to abort, impacts maternal morality? Don't think the New England journal of medicine agrees but okay.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Yes, 100%. But I doubt we would agree on the solution. I believe in subsidiarity as this is the only effective solution. Welfare as practiced by a central government has been proven not to work.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I am specifically referring to your disingenuous argument that women have abortions because they are afraid of dying in childbirth. 

There are ~1,000,000 abortions in the US every year. You are literally trying to argue that 1,000,000 women have abortions each year because they are afraid of being one of the 260 women that die from childbirth. 

That doesn’t make any sense especially since we both know the real reason is they don’t want to be burdened by having a child. 

I’m actually surprised you haven’t tried to make the they are doing it for the good of the child argument yet.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I disagree, I'm European, Belgian to be exact. We have a way more robust welfare system, centrally controlled. My wife is American and as such I can say without reservation, that although I'm middle class, the amount of care that is available to me and my family as a matter of course is only available to actual millionaires in the US. This does include a guaranteed roof over my head, food in my mouth, healthcare and a college education for my kid without the need to accrue debt along the way.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Since I never made that particular argument I don't see how I can be disingenuous about it. I made the argument that the risk of death exists, not that woman invoke that risk to justify abortions.


----------



## ding (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I knew you would disagree. I even said so. 

How many people in Belgium?


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


12 million. And before you go of on the litany that the US is way more populous. Most Western nations, some of them with very large population achieve similar results. I invite you for instance to check life expectancy and you will find that most Western nations achieve a higher life expectancy, this despite the fact that the US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world.


----------



## forkup (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Anyways bedtime. Nice talking to you ding.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 20, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I think what you’re trying to say is ding is a self righteous asshole


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 20, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Tell that to the Isis bride who now wants to come back home.

Or Leah remini who had a very tough time getting out of Scientology


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 20, 2019)

.
how is bing's decision to have a vasectomy not the same as a woman having an abortion - the result is the same.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 20, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> how is bing's decision to have a vasectomy not the same as a woman having an abortion - the result is the same.


Simple:

He believes humans are endowed with souls at the time of conception. And then they live forever (at least, the souls can). Forever, yet with a beginning. Uh oh, ding has some internal strife to wrestle with, there.

I'm sure we will be treated to some nonsense about god knowing us before we were born. I would like to hear some descriptions of rhe memories of before we were born. That would be more interesting to me than hearing about the afterlife.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I’m not going into any litany. It’s a fact you are comparing apples to oranges and it has nothing to do with this discussion unless of course you are going to blame US healthcare for abortions which in that case you would be making the argument that abortions are being performed for the good of the unborn child.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


I agree. You have not yet made that argument. 

I also agree that women don’t get abortions because they are afraid of dying during childbirth.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


No. I don’t believe my argument is based upon souls. I have already explained my argument. I never mentioned souls once.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Because I am telling it to the guy who has no faith and spends most of his time complaining about how life is unfair.


----------



## night_son (Feb 21, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



*No.*


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


See?  No mention of souls or God or God knowing us before we were born. But those are some really nice straw men you built. Too bad you never addressed my actual arguments.



ding said:


> Because there is a 100% certainty that they will end a life that is not their own or theirs to take. Because they were the ones who got pregnant. Because the life they created will never exist again. Because the life they are taking has a right to life. Because it is wrong to end a human life. Because humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. Because actions have consequences. Because responsibly is not learned when actions have no consequences. Because it is not the unborn baby’s fault that his or her mother got pregnant. I’m sure I will think of a few more reasons as the discussion continues.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



The only one who spends most of his time here is you.

Religion is just one of my interests. Current events like Jesse Smollett. Or trump. I love complaining about trump as much as Christians here complained about obama.

You don’t seem happy


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Actually I don’t. I post in the morning before work and I post in the evening after work. Occasionally I will make one or two posts in between. 

Posting frequently isn’t really a measure of complaint though. It’s the content that is the measure of complaint. 

I am more than happy for you to believe I am a complainer and you aren’t because we are all the sum of our choices and we cannot escape the consequences of our choices. So in the end we will reap what we sow.


----------



## forkup (Feb 21, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


-If you assert that central government welfare doesn't work. And I can show that I live in a country that does it successfully, in the exact way that you say doesn't work, how am I comparing apples and oranges? Then you try to imply that the reason it works is because the US is bigger and I can show that scaling up central government welfare from Belgium, population 11.35 million to for instance Japan, population 123.8 million with similar result. Does that not invalidate your argument? As to it having nothing to do with abortion. Probably not. But the way I see it, neither me nor you seem to bring up anything new on that part of the discussion.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 21, 2019)

ding said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Actually you are overstating 

Abortion Fast Facts - CNN

you'll see that the number of abortions in 2015 ( the latest CDC data) was 638000 and that there has been a steady downward trend of the number of abortions performed annually since Roe v Wade


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 21, 2019)

So let me ask 

Can a religious person be immoral?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 21, 2019)

ding said:


> Because there is a 100% certainty that they will end a life that is not their own or theirs to take.



has the christian explained the difference between a woman's choice for an abortion and their choice to have a vasectomy is any different by the end result.


----------



## badger2 (Feb 21, 2019)

(G)god, this infinitely knowing moral entity, after you say "I quit," says "You're fired," exposing a full-of-itself stupidity, Indifference itself:

'Thus the only necessary virtuous act can be the love of god for his own sake, from which other acts are judged. But to love god in this way simply means to act in conformity to his will. This leaves god's will entirely free with regard to its commands. With no essential order between his will and knowledge, god can without contradiction even command that a creature not love him, although the creature cannot obey, since obedience would signify love for its creator. Ockham therefore holds such a command to be logically possible but ethically self-contradictory.
....
It is therefore essential to overturn the primacy of substance, of the self-subsistent or identical, and so too any infinite being that transcends and governs the world of finite beings and becoming. It is necessary to situate an originary web of differences from which individual identities both appear and dissolve. This move not only demolishes the christian god but affirms the differences by which individuals always exceed categorization according to similarity and sameness, enabling the extension of univocity to the primary diversity of individual differences. The consequent collapse of divine heterogeneity and infinity, however, eliminates the possibility of an ultimate intelligible recuperation of difference, in either this life or an afterlife. An individual being, constituted through a formal difference linking a common natura dn haecceity that are forever irreducible, now takes on the character of a singular-multiple event, and thus an ontology of difference is born. The univocity of being no longer remains indifferent to the difference between the infinite and finite so as to protect the separation of the two realms Rather, it embodies a positive but unrepresentable difference that now breaches this sacred divide: what is common to all beings is not their quiddity but instead this very excessiveness.'
(Widder N, Genealogies of Difference, Reason and Faith, pp. 147-8)


----------



## badger2 (Feb 21, 2019)

The "nature or haecceity" is where the prisoner takes the bait of capitalized or non-capitalized letters attempting to make satan represent the latter. That is why the demon is always irreducible in its difference, whereas god's bulemic will is a desire to engulf everything eternally, once and for all in its ipseity. Mass shooters also have a culpable will directed toward a 'once-and-for-all' resolution.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

forkup said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Because Belgium isn’t the US. It doesn’t have the same demographics as the US. It doesn’t have the same cultural as the US. It doesn’t have the massive population of the US. 

Same argument applies to Japan. You might as well be asking why a horse can’t be a dog. 

And finally, time will tell if the Socialist model will work. I don’t believe it will. Especially when the European culture becomes homogenized.


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



I don’t dispute your numbers. The average for the last 45 years is 1 million per year. But whether it is 1 million per year or 600,000 per year it does not reflect well on our society either way.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 22, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I NEVER said that Christians are better than anyone else ---- I believe they have an understanding of human nature and sin. Why do you believe you are better than anyone else?


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 22, 2019)

Taz said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Prayer is the one thing that proves GOD exists to the believer. See Hacksaw Ridge and note prayer in action.


----------



## Taz (Feb 22, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


If prayer works, then why do believers still die from cancer and other terminal diseases?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 22, 2019)

Taz said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Prayer is good for the soul.


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2019)

Taz said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Prayer alters the fabric of our identity.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 22, 2019)

Taz said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Simple, because everyone will die and after that the judgement. No one live in this Fallen world forever, but those who love the Lord will live with Him forever after in the next. And for whatever reason (GOD knows) some do live longer than they were supposed to.


----------



## cnm (Feb 22, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> I believe you will find that deeply Christian individuals are better at understanding human nature than those who are decidedly against biblical Christianity. I also find that believers are drawn to each other no matter where they live or where they are from. They share the same FATHER!


The bastards...


----------



## Taz (Feb 23, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Sure, if it makes you feel better there's nothing wrong with that. But if people are expecting something from it, they'll just be disappointed.


----------



## Taz (Feb 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


It's like meditation, if it helps you, that's ok, but don't expect some imaginary invisible being to do anything. 

Btw, heroin also alters the fabric of one's being.


----------



## Taz (Feb 23, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Just curious, why do you believe these fairy tales? because it's written in a book?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 23, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> So let me ask
> 
> Can a religious person be immoral?


Of course they can be. They latch on to all of the moral improvements of secular society and slowly do away with strict interpretations and traditions of their bronze aged books, as those traditions are deemed barbaric by secular society. 

By the time 2050 hits, they'll be considered 100% "metaphorical," and 0% true. Glad to help them along.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2019)

Taz said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



I don't do things to 'make me feel better'.

Better than what?


----------



## Taz (Feb 23, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


You just said "it's good for the soul". So it does make you feel better.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 23, 2019)

Taz said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



I wasn't feeling bad.

And prayer is not gratuitous.


----------



## Taz (Feb 23, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You won’t know until you test it.


----------



## Taz (Feb 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I've prayed for you to stfu. Hasn't worked yet. Probably never will.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Prayer doesn’t work that way. If it did we would all be lottery winners.


----------



## Taz (Feb 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So what type of thing can I pray for and except a good result?


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 23, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


.


Mindful said:


> Prayer is good for the soul ... I wasn't feeling bad.



how is reflection not a diversion from the task at hand, the same as faith without verification. interruptions are for the lazy and well fed. churchgoing for the desert religions unto themselves.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That’s simple. Pray that God will show you what you can do for him.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2019)

The practical application of prayer is to alter the fabric of one's identity.

The structure of prayer matters. Giving thanks and giving praise puts one in a thankful state of mind which has been scientifically proven to be one of the key behaviors of reaching a state of happiness. When we are happy two things will happen; dopamine will be released which gives us that happy feeling and all of the learning centers of the brain get turned on. 

Lastly and probably most importantly, prayer should not be about what God can do for us. Prayer should be about us asking God what He wants us to do.

Structure of Prayer:
1. Give thanks.
2. Give praise.
3. Ask God what He wants us to do. 
4. Listen.

It can be done anytime, but I believe we are most receptive to hearing the Spirit in the early morning when we are less full of ourselves.


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2019)

Taz said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


They aren't fairytales, Taz. They are allegorical accounts of a shared world history before the great migration from the cradle of civilization and selected wisdoms that ancient man deemed worthy of passing down. 

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 1000 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 1500 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if you start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an  actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning.  Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times.  Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations.   Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember.  Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.  Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

You have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years.  Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing.  You shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world.  Unfortunately, you are so far removed from these events that all original meaning has been lost by you.  If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization.  That is not intended to be a criticism.  It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago.  You  read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make yourself feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> So let me ask
> 
> Can a religious person be immoral?


Sure.  Why not?

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals.  Morals can be anything we want them to be.  The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome.  Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony.  Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.  So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes.  That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes.  This is the moral law at work.   If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave.  The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws.  When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate.  If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall.  Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. 

Morals are effectively standards.  For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.  Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man. 

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong?  The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.  The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So let me ask
> ...


It is cyclical.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2019)

Taz said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Why is the western depiction of the jeebus a tall, fair-skinned, fair-haired Caucasian looking guy?

Making the gods in our own image?


----------



## Taz (Feb 24, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Total fairy tales without a shred of proof.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 24, 2019)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > So let me ask
> ...


So the entire premise of this thread is a farce.

One does not need a god to be moral or to lead a good life.

The man who lives a good life because he is afraid of some eternal punishment if he doesn't is a cowardly man

The man who lives a good life knowing that there is no reward that in fact there is nothing beyond this life is the better of the two men


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I wouldn’t have asked the question because I believe no one is all good or all bad.


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Science which tells us that space and time were created from nothing and that man is a product of that creation says otherwise.  So does the great migration from the cradle of civilization.


----------



## Taz (Feb 24, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Science says no such thing, we can’t yet see all the way back to the BB. Stop making shit up.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...




The notion that one can communicate with the denizens of a spirit world is commonplace amongst religionists. Perchance they feel they are in a unique position to intercede on their own behalf and exert influence upon the gods from whom they seek a favour? In brief, influence peddling.


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Which part?


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 25, 2019)

"...If there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong." If

Simple answer. 

Mankind's default (base instinct) is to act selfishly.

The question is not why do people fail to act selflessly, that is not in our nature.

The  big question is why does anyone ever act selflessly, which is in opposition to their own selfish interests.

To the selfish person, the right thing is to serve themselves.

To the selfless person, the right thing is to put the interests of others above their own interests. 

We are all selfish. Christianity encourages us to strive to be better than our selfish nature.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 25, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



The problem is that the 2nd man definition of a "good" life is one that serves himself.

That man doesn't see the point of serving anyone but himself.

The 1st man knows he should act selflessly. While he occasionally does so, he too acts in his own interests all too often.

Neither man is good and neither lives a "good" life. 

Still,  the 2nd man is lazy and simply going with the flow of his base instincts, while the 1st man, while often failing, strives to rise above his base instincts. 

Both men are condemned to Hell, but the first man understands he can't ever do enough good to make up for all the bad. That man submits himself to the saving grace of God and receives salvation as a free gift (not something earned).

The 2nd man spends his whole life pushing God away from himself and then complains when he ends up in Hell, which is simply the absence of God.

The 1st man is foolish, but redeemed by a just God. The 2nd man is just a fool.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


I heard the Vatican has one of the largest gay communities in the world.

Imagine if Christianity was just a total scam invented by gays. When you look at all the men in robes and abuses, it sure does seem like it.

So us atheists know enough about morality than to join defend or support a corrupt religion like catholicism


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



The latest scandal.

The Australian Cardinal.

Why do they target children, and not adult women?


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Bravo.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.


----------



## Taz (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


He's as delusional as you are.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.



Prefer Tolkien.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.
> ...


No one is perfect.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Another logical disconnect.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Says the guy who denies the science of the Big Bang.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Present company excluded. Better?


----------



## Taz (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


See? You're delusional, making me right again.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


If only you could have seen the Big Bang with your own eyes maybe you wouldn’t deny the universe was created.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Seriously. Do you know what he is talking about?


----------



## Taz (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


By whom?


----------



## Taz (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Dingbat? Rarely. He makes no sense and can't back up what he says.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


As long as you keep denying the science behind the creation of the universe it doesn’t make much sense to even have that discussion.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Pay better attention.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Says the guy who denies the creation of the universe from the Big Bang.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



I would, if..................


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



So you're not an academic?


----------



## Taz (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


You're on tilt. I win.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


That sounds like a super reason to deny the Big Bang.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


If that is how you need to see it.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Say something intelligable, and I might engage with you.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I would actually prefer you didn’t which is the most intelligent thing I have ever said.


----------



## Taz (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


...By FAR!!!


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I know that intelligible isn’t spelled intelligable.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Because they are gay.  And all that sneaking around and lying makes them deviants.  All that power makes them corrupt.  

Same way Robert Kraft could go get an expensive hooker but he prays on poor women who are being sex traffic'ed.  It's easy.  They are what's available.  

Most priests who can't marry are probably gay or somethings wrong with them.  

And I'm not saying all gays are pedophiles.  I'm not.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Does it matter?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.



*Australian Cardinal George Pell, one of Pope Francis’ closest advisors, has been found guilty of sexually assaulting two choirboys, becoming the most senior Catholic cleric ever convicted of child sex crimes, it was announced Tuesday.

An Australian jury unanimously found Pell guilty on one count of sexual abuse and four counts of indecent assault against two choir boys at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne in the 1990s.

He was in December found guilty of the sexual assaults, but only on Tuesday was a wide-ranging suppression order thrown out, allowing media to report on the case.


I love people who say, "these things happened a long time ago".  Well who knows what we will find out in 20 years after the current wide ranging suppression orders are finally thrown out.
*


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.
> ...


I "love" people who say that homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery, and all other such deviate "lifestyles" are not *SINFUL* but *NORMAL!  *It would seem that they are not or no one would really care. I'm sure though that there is a growing consensus among "special" groups that such indulgences are merely learning experiences to be enjoyed....  Will we continue down the same ladder? I don't see the bottom yet!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



If it were just the priests getting it on no one would know or care.  

So don't lump homosexuality in with fornicating, bestiality or adultry.  






Remember Sesame Street?


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 26, 2019)

i resort to the fewest fallacies, regardless.  

how moral is that?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Wait.  Correction.  Fornication is ok too.  So don't lump bestiality and adultery in with being gay or someone who has sex.

Lots of straight American adults fornicate.  Is that wrong?  Are you against fornicating?  Have you ever fornicated?  sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.

Is it adultery if the husband and wife are ok with it?  Adultery:  voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.  synonyms: unfaithfulness, infidelity, falseness, disloyalty, unchastity, cuckoldry, extramarital sex, extramarital relations;


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Only if you were trying to look intelligent.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a good man to know just how bad he is. ~C.S. Lewis.
> ...


I guess he didn’t know how bad he was.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Who?

You? Or me? Or both of us?




Gawd, what a banal pointless conversation.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Not big on pronouns, I see.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Gawd, what a banal pointless conversation.


That’s pretty much all of your conversations.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd, what a banal pointless conversation.
> ...



Whatever turns you on.


----------



## ding (Feb 26, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Because that wasn’t banal and pointless?


----------



## Mindful (Feb 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Could have been.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 26, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



A person can serve his own interests while serving the interests of others the two are not mutually exclusive

One can act selflessly with no expectation of reward and with no fear of punishment if he chooses not to.

One who acts selflessly because he is afraid of eternal damnation if he doesn't or expects an eternal reward if he does is not true in his intentions and is indeed acting solely to avoid punishment or to gain reward

No tell me who is the fool and who is making the purest choice?


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So can atheists be moral when priests cannot?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



What makes you think religious people are moral?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Yes. I go up north with my nephews and all their friends. I wouldn’t harm a hair on their heads.

What gets me is the cover ups and how high up this goes.

They say the Vatican is one of the largest gay communities in the world.

I’m ok with two priests fucking. In fact the best jokes start out with so two priests are fucking.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Never said they were; however, religious people know their shortcomings.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Now now we know our shortcomings too.

We just don’t believe any organized religions. Is there a god? We’ve been asking that for a million or so years. Ever since we started being smart enough to ponder such things. In all those millions of years we don’t believe it ever visited.

That’s the only difference between us and you


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm not "Roman" Catholic. And the pope is not "my" father. No one is without sin. I feel that people without a biblical basis for considerations make personal choices (founded on "feelings"), and not spiritual ones... Frankly, there is NOTHING biblical regarding celibacy among Christian nor Jewish clergy. It is a BIG PROBLEM and it now is publicly rising its ugly head! Vain traditions are not a foundation GOD established!


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


And it seems the clergy would be the perfect place for a young closeted gay boy to go if his religion has raised him to believe gay sex is wrong. So they go into the priesthood and find other men just like them

The worst of them are pedophiles.

Most priests are able to suppress their gay urges. Some you find on to catch a predator or in gay chat rooms or gay bars.

Ps. God never visited.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



I wasn't aware you were the spokes-religionist for religious people. 

Were you voted in as _Head Muckey-Muck in charge of Religious People's Opinions_ or is your biased opinion just another opinion?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



The gods never established any traditions. The unknown authors of the various bibles established those.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What makes you think they are not moral? And what is your basis for morality?


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." This doesn't sound like an unknown author. And there is only ONE Bible. There maybe various translations, but only ONE Bible.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Were you?


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 26, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 Jesus is GOD in the flesh and an historical absolute.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Christianity didn’t arise out of jesus’ followers except for 11 men. They went around the world and told the myth, the legend. The martyr.

All the Jews around him didn’t and still don’t believe he was the son of god why should I buy it? Because I’m not a Jew?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Says you and your church.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Jesus is GOD in the flesh and an historical absolute.


Two dubious premises... one infinitely moreso than the other....


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



You might want to get familiar with history. There is nothing to suggest that religions and religious people have behaved “morally” as compared with non-religious.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


As a westerner, the expectation is that you would simply believe in the gods associated with western culture. 

Had you been born and raised in Saudi Arabia, you would have been a Koran thumping jihadist.


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That’s some scary brainwashing there huh? Think about what they said that wasn’t even true but they said it as absolute fact.

1. Jesus was god in the flesh? That’s the story but to any non Christian, what evidence do you have this story is true? Ancient books from corrupt churches? Seems man made up to me.

So Jesus being god in the flesh is certainly not  an absolute

2. Even if we gave them that this character existed, at best the stories told about him can only be explained as embellishing a martyr story to its highest level.

If there were any truth to the story jews would have all converted. If they weren’t compelled why should I today be ?


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 26, 2019)

why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 26, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?


The way I see it is if all the Jews who were there when they removed the tomb and Jesus was gone. If all the people in that town didn’t start Christianity then how did greeks who weren’t even there buying it? 

It’s a great story especially to people who are open to religions.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 27, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

An impure being can make a pure choice just as a person can serve both himself and others.

As a volunteer wilderness first responder I was taught at all times to guard my own safety first before rendering aid so I was not only looking out for myself but I was also rendering aid to people in need.

I suppose you think I should have thrown my personal safety to the wind so as to be selfless but tell me what good is having 2 people die on a mountain?

And I am not addressing why you became a Christian I am addressing the motivation for living well.

I notice you didn't say you didn't become a Christian for the promise of an eternal reward.

A man who will live a good life of his own free will knowing there is no reward has the higher moral ground than the man who lives the same good life but is motivated by a reward or does it because his god tells him too because if there were no reward or no order from god then he wouldn't be motivated to do good work.


----------



## Taz (Feb 27, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?


We don't, for the same reason nobody takes you seriously.


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> An impure being can make a pure choice just as a person can serve both himself and others.
> 
> As a volunteer wilderness first responder I was taught at all times to guard my own safety first before rendering aid so I was not only looking out for myself but I was also rendering aid to people in need.
> 
> ...


I don’t know of any pure humans. No one is all good or all bad. I doubt medford is arguing that point. The reality is that most people do act selfishly from time to time. If less people acted selfishly from time to time the world would be a better place. 

Thanks for being a first responder. That is commendable. We are called to be stewards. I don’t believe you protecting your life is what he is talking about though. I believe he is talking about being selfish at the expense of others. 

I believe Medford is saying that it is a logical fallacy that Christians live the good life because of a reward after living the good life or a punishment for not living the good life. Living the good life is the reward. 

It’s just easier to live the good life when one has a personal relationship with God. At least that has been my observation.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2019)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > An impure being can make a pure choice just as a person can serve both himself and others.
> ...


If one is not all good then by definition he is not pure.

And I never said anyone was pure I said an impure being can make a pure choice

And if living the good life is the reward why do you think people can't live a good life without religion?


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I’m pretty sure I answered all that in my last post.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 27, 2019)

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > why should we take the right wing seriously about morals or morality?
> ...


i resort to fewer fallacies than you right wingers.


----------



## Taz (Feb 27, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You're a total fool. I bet you don't know how to use soap.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 27, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> I'm not "Roman" Catholic. And the pope is not "my" father. No one is without sin. I feel that people without a biblical basis for considerations make personal choices (founded on "feelings"), and not spiritual ones...



_*No one is without sin ...*_

why is that an obsession christians rely on as though not sinning would be an insurmountable obstacle ... what are the sins you are unable to quit making.


_*I feel that people without a biblical basis for considerations make personal choices (founded on "feelings"), and not spiritual ones ...*_

since when is the book of forgeries a spiritual document or reading a book is the way to live a spiritual life - what kind of spiritual life do you live as a sinner when the religion of Antiquity is nothing else but the Triumph over evil as the means for admission to the Everlasting - as prescribed by the Almighty, the sole purpose in pursuit of immortality.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 27, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



An impure being can make a pure choice just as a person can serve both himself and others.

As a volunteer wilderness first responder I was taught at all times to guard my own safety first before rendering aid so I was not only looking out for myself but I was also rendering aid to people in need.

I suppose you think I should have thrown my personal safety to the wind so as to be selfless but tell me what good is having 2 people die on a mountain?

And I am not addressing why you became a Christian I am addressing the motivation for living well.

I notice you didn't say you didn't become a Christian for the promise of an eternal reward.

A man who will live a good life of his own free will knowing there is no reward has the higher moral ground than the man who lives the same good life but is motivated by a reward or does it because his god tells him too because if there were no reward or no order from god then he wouldn't be motivated to do good work.[/QUOTE]

I simply disagree with the  choice of the word "pure". There are no "pure" people, we are all compromised by sin.

Can sinful people make "pure" choices? We'll never know because we can only see the outside actions, not all the internal and external factors that go into each and every choice.  Only God can see what is in a Man's (or Woman's) heart, so only HE truly knows what motivates any individual act.

It appears that you had to twist yourself into a pretzel to come up with an example of an act which was both selfish and selfless at the same time.

 I don't know that foolishly getting yourself killed is more selfless than using discernment to aid people in a way that is more helpful to their situation.

 I note that you want us to have a broad, open mind and generous spirit regarding  the competing motivations of a non Godly person  appearing to  act selfishly, but won't extend the same courtesy to the Godly person appearing to act selflessly.

I can't say that I don't ever think of Hell and that  those thoughts don't occasionally change my behavior, but even as a Christian I have as hard a time conceptualizing Heaven as you do Hell. As a selfish sinner saved by Grace I probably don't think about either enough.

I know this is your main point and I'm going to give it to you, but not in the way you expect.

Ultimately you are asking whether a non Godly person can be a better person ( using mankind's standards) than a Godly person.

The simple answer is yes. The church is a hospital  for sinners, who realize they've been infected by sin. That hospital is open to all, even those who have done some very bad things.

The more complicated answers is this. An understanding of Christianity should produce in the Christian a profound awareness of all of the bad things they have thought, said and done. This is the weight of our sin that we lay down at the cross and seek forgiveness for. 

Like the apostle Paul that has awakened in me misunderstanding that I am the chiefest of sinners.

 Put more simply, because I am truly aware of how short I've come from being good, I see everyone else as better than myself.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 27, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...



I simply disagree with the  choice of the word "pure". There are no "pure" people, we are all compromised by sin.

Can sinful people make "pure" choices? We'll never know because we can only see the outside actions, not all the internal and external factors that go into each and every choice.  Only God can see what is in a Man's (or Woman's) heart, so only HE truly knows what motivates any individual act.

It appears that you had to twist yourself into a pretzel to come up with an example of an act which was both selfish and selfless at the same time.

 I don't know that foolishly getting yourself killed is more selfless than using discernment to aid people in a way that is more helpful to their situation.

 I note that you want us to have a broad, open mind and generous spirit regarding  the competing motivations of a non Godly person  appearing to  act selfishly, but won't extend the same courtesy to the Godly person appearing to act selflessly.

I can't say that I don't ever think of Hell and that  those thoughts don't occasionally change my behavior, but even as a Christian I have as hard a time conceptualizing Heaven as you do Hell. As a selfish sinner saved by Grace I probably don't think about either enough.

I know this is your main point and I'm going to give it to you, but not in the way you expect.

Ultimately you are asking whether a non Godly person can be a better person ( using mankind's standards) than a Godly person.

The simple answer is yes. The church is a hospital  for sinners, who realize they've been infected by sin. That hospital is open to all, even those who have done some very bad things.

The more complicated answers is this. An understanding of Christianity should produce in the Christian a profound awareness of all of the bad things they have thought, said and done. This is the weight of our sin that we lay down at the cross and seek forgiveness for.

Like the apostle Paul that has awakened in me misunderstanding that I am the chiefest of sinners.

 Put more simply, because I am truly aware of how short I've come from being good, I see everyone else as better than myself.[/QUOTE]

I never said people were pure.  In fact I distinctly said they were impure but are capable of making pure decisions.  A person can make the choice to endanger himself to pull a child of a complete stranger out of the path of a car.

That is an impure person making a pure choice


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 27, 2019)

Taz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


ad hominems instead of valid arguments?  how worthless is that under Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## Taz (Feb 27, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Gawd, you’re stoopid.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 27, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not "Roman" Catholic. And the pope is not "my" father. No one is without sin. I feel that people without a biblical basis for considerations make personal choices (founded on "feelings"), and not spiritual ones...
> ...



" What are the sins you are unable to quit making" 

Well the definition of sin is acting not in concert with the perfect will of God, but for the sake of this argument let's simplify that to acting selfishly.

The point many here have tried to make  is that any of us CAN act morally (for the sake of simplicity, selflessly)

But the standard is not what we can do, but what we do do.

Here's an exercise that illustrates the conundrum.

Just using what happened today, on the left side of the paper write  down all of the selfish things you did  to someone or said to someone today. When that is done write down all the selfish things you did  and said, but which no one actually heard of others are actually unaware of.  Finally write done all the selfish things you thought but did not say  or do. 

In the right side of the paper write down all the selfless things you actually did known or unknown to others (you don't get credit for the stuff you thought of but didn't do)

Now multiply the two numbers by the number of days you've been alive.

The point that takes shape, none of us can ever expect to enough selfless things to make up for all the selfish thing we've done or are doing.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 27, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...



I never said people were pure.  In fact I distinctly said they were impure but are capable of making pure decisions.  A person can make the choice to endanger himself to pull a child of a complete stranger out of the path of a car.

That is an impure person making a pure choice[/QUOTE]

How often does that scenario occur?

Have you done that personally?

If there are no pure people and just few random "pure" acts how do we decide who is less impure?

What if the person who pulled the child out off the way of the car did so as a "pure" act, but he\she was a pedophile, a serial killer or worse a Republican owner of a large corporation?


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 27, 2019)

"And if living the good life is the reward why do you think people can't live a good life without religion"

There are no good people, so no one lives a good life.

Christians are still sinners and the frequently fall short (act selfushly), but they live better (more selfless) lives than they would If they were not Christians


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 27, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


.


MedfordMan said:


> Well the definition of sin is acting not in concert with the perfect will of God, but for the sake of this argument let's simplify that to acting selfishly.



that is not true what is not tolerated is whatever is evil - perfection, the triumph over evil is unrelated to a direct involvement with a deity. on your own, sink or swim.




MedfordMan said:


> The point that takes shape, none of us can ever expect to enough selfless things to make up for all the selfish thing we've done or are doing.



_*none of us can ever ...*_

you are simply wrong "ever" that is if you ever expect to accomplish admission to the Everlasting. the original religion of antiquity

the short and simple is you are in direct conflict with the original religion - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - as prescribed by the Almighty.




BreezeWood said:


> what are the sins you are unable to quit making.



you did not answer the question, something about selfishness ... I can not quite remember the last time I have committed evil or that I ever did knowingly, none knowingly now as a matter of habit, till forever ... eventually with tailwind the spirit can take off in flight till the final Triumph puts them over the edge - that's when you are judged. never before christian. never a sinner.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 28, 2019)

I respect your right to choose not to follow God's perfect will.

At least you have your defense planned for when you will stand in front of God, at the great white throne of judgement.

Good luck going forward.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...



How often does that scenario occur?

Have you done that personally?

If there are no pure people and just few random "pure" acts how do we decide who is less impure?

What if the person who pulled the child out off the way of the car did so as a "pure" act, but he\she was a pedophile, a serial killer or worse a Republican owner of a large corporation?[/QUOTE]

maybe you should learn how to use the quote function

 that you imply that a business owner who is republican is worse than a serial killer tells me all I need to know about you.

If your sense of morality is that fucked up it is a waste of time communicating with you


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 28, 2019)

Rest assured that I don't make any statements lightly and everything I say is working towards a larger point.

As we have explored throughout this thread morality is a human concept that mirrors man search for Godly morality or righteousness (rightness with God)

You see under the human standards of morality as expressed on this forum, there are some who have argued that the folks who run corporations or belong to the Republican party are inherently immoral. (That's the problem with human standards of morality)

Under any human standard, most of us would agree that pedophiles or serial killers act immorally.

You have been attempting to make the point that even non Christians can choose to do a righteous act and by doing so they are better people because they don't need God's help (ie. the crutch of religion, the fear of Hell, the promise of reward)

I have been subtly undermining the premise of that argument by making a counter argument that because mankind regularly acts unrighteously (it's the default of the sin nature) no single righteous act can make up for all the unrighteous acts and so mankind is not (and cannot be) righteous (right with God).

Put simply we cannot save ourselves, so attempting to become more righteous by going it alone and occasionally doing a righteous act is a foolish not a praiseworthy course of action, because the person taking that course is fooling themselves.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 28, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Rest assured that I don't make any statements lightly and everything I say is working towards a larger point.
> 
> As we have explored throughout this thread morality is a human concept that mirrors man search for Godly morality or righteousness (rightness with God)
> 
> ...





VLADIMIR: Our Savior. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other . . . _(he searches for the contrary of saved)_ . . . damned.

ESTRAGON: Saved from what?

VLADIMIR: We are all born mad. Some remain so.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Rest assured that I don't make any statements lightly and everything I say is working towards a larger point.
> 
> As we have explored throughout this thread morality is a human concept that mirrors man search for Godly morality or righteousness (rightness with God)
> 
> ...



There is nothing to be saved from.

And one can choose to live a righteous life without religion.

We invariably choose our own actions.

That a man is occasionally selfish or even petty does not in any way mean that he is incapable of living a good life with a love and respect for others as his driving tenet.

I never once said anyone was perfect or that anyone could be perfect but that people are not perfect in no way means they cannot strive to be no god is necessary only a choice on the part of the individual


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2019)

Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2019)

ding said:


> Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.



And I choose not to.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 28, 2019)

Part 2:

Here's where I may lose you, but I love you enough to be honest with you even when God's ways are hard for me to understand and accept.

The next logical question (I'll ask it myself to speed this up) is, if we can't be righteous on our own, did God just set us up to fail.

God sent HIMSELF as Jesus Christ who lived a perfect life and then died in the cross for your and my sin (unrighteous acts). By doing so, God (through Jesus Christ) paid the price necessary to redeem us (or save us from our own unrighteousness) and by doing so makes (present tense purposeful) righteous (right with God).

Now here's where it gets crazy.

The gift of salvation (redemption from sin) is a free gift. All one need to do to accept it is to be humble enough to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (essentially choose to believe in him and his ability to save and agree to be directed by him).

Now here's where it gets really crazy.

This gift is an example of God's grace (receiving what we didn't earn and don't deserve), so God offers it to all regardless of what they've done in their past.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 28, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.
> ...



Why not (honest question)?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Part 2:
> 
> Here's where I may lose you, but I love you enough to be honest with you even when God's ways are hard for me to understand and accept.
> 
> ...


So be as wretched as you want but accept Jesus

I'd rather strive to live as well as I possibly can with no illusion that I will be granted eternal life or some such nonsense


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 28, 2019)

should we trust women if they can't bear true witness and make appointments with us?

just one "little test".


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 28, 2019)

God's free gift is not a license to sin or a get out of jail free card.

It's an expression of love by God that seeks that no one shall be separated from HIM in the after life (Hell) other than those who chose to be separate from him.

I respect your decision to make that choice for yourself.


----------



## MedfordMan (Feb 28, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> should we trust women if they can't bear true witness and make appointments with us?
> 
> just one "little test".



DP, 

Your test might function better if we had any clue what you are talking about.

If you are referring to a scripture, include the scripture so I can read it for myself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 28, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> I respect your right to choose not to follow God's perfect will.


And I respect your right to believe any hilariously goofy iron aged fairy tale you like.

But I don't  respect your faith, your dumb belief, or your arrogant threats


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > I respect your right to choose not to follow God's perfect will.
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And I respect your right to believe any hilariously goofy iron aged fairy tale you like.



do you suppose they would have any religion at all without their self absorbing 10,000 page christian bible or if that book were authentic they would chose the truth over the dark path it presently leads them on ...




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But I don't respect your faith, your dumb belief, or your arrogant threats



the problem is they have been getting away with it since the 4th century ... persecuting and victimizing the innocent -






without the least remorse for their centuries of sinning.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 28, 2019)

actions speak louder than words, chics.


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Everything is choice. Surrendering to God is one of them.
> ...


Your call.


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Part 2:
> ...


I have no illusion either. 

But your premise that it’s lip service is flawed. Some people do pay lip service but I’m not sure it is intentional as you seem to imply.


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > I respect your right to choose not to follow God's perfect will.
> ...


Or the person and it shows.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 28, 2019)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...



Human nature

Promise everlasting life in paradise if they do as they are told and people will comply
Promise eternal suffering pain and torture if they don't do as they are told and they will do as they are told


----------



## hobelim (Feb 28, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Here's where I may lose you, Now here's where it gets crazy. Now here's where it gets really crazy.





"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them." Jeremiah 25:15


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 28, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International





Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Can theists be moral?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu To Be Indicted | HuffPost

The first case accuses Netanyahu of improperly accepting about $270,000 in luxury gifts, such as cigars and jewelry, from billionaires James Packer and Arnon Milchan. Netanyahu allegedly helped Milchan with tax exemptions and other favors. In another case, police believe Netanyahu tried to make a deal to get favorable press coverage in one of Israel’s biggest newspapers in exchange for damaging a rival publication. The third case also concerns Netanyahu allegedly trying to engineer positive press ― this time pushing through regulatory decisions to benefit the country’s biggest telecommunications company, Bezeq, which owns a popular Israeli website.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 28, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



I can't deal with highly subjective posts.


----------



## LittleNipper (Feb 28, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


So, what is your excuse? Why did Adam and Eve not listen to GOD ---- clearly it isn't human nature.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 28, 2019)

any nice girls want to help me try to overcome my "false pride" in modern times?


----------



## hobelim (Feb 28, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> any nice girls want to help me try to overcome my "false pride" in modern times?




Do you have any sex toys? Love jelly?


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > any nice girls want to help me try to overcome my "false pride" in modern times?
> ...


no.  i have a manual work ethic from the Age of Iron.  

i prefer coconut oil, for the health benefits.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 28, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 Wow. Sounds very manly. Will dinner and drinks be involved or do you want to just get right on down to it Romeo?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 28, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> do you suppose they would have any religion at all without their self absorbing 10,000 page christian bible


Probably. about 85% of the world is religious, but Christians only account for about 20% of the population.


----------



## BreezeWood (Feb 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > do you suppose they would have any religion at all without their self absorbing 10,000 page christian bible
> ...


.
the desert religions are hopelessly corrupt, a statement for the people that comprise their congregations the majorities that have always ruled ... the ones that abandoned the character jesus are who's descendants eventually wrote the 4th century christian bible in their likeness and debauchery. 

as though they are unable to live without sin is an unattainable goal.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


it depends on the female intuition involved.   some women have good female intuition and some women have lousy female intuition.  

besides, you are missing the point.  i just want twat, not really really serious.  

is equality and equal rights, too much to ask?


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


That hasn’t been my observation.


----------



## hobelim (Feb 28, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...





Some people... some people like cupcakes exclusively, while myself, I say
There is naught nor ought there be nothing so exalted on the face of god's great
Earth as that prince of foods... the muffin!…


----------



## RWS (Mar 1, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


I'm very late in this dance, but I am atheist. But I am very moral. I need no reason to be moral, I just am.

Evolutionist theory would say that every species should  be moral, unless they lay millions of eggs. Morality is being nice to your own species so you can survive. 

A species that kills their own, unless they lay thousands of eggs, will not survive for the long run. 

Being "good" is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one.

There are many examples of animals that aren't "moral", but those are one-off and rare, like humans. Most animals respect this "moral code". Because that is the basis of surviving.


----------



## RWS (Mar 1, 2019)

Humans had to turn that whole idea into "religion", and force people to fight for them based on their religion. 

Those weren't morals... Or faith... 

Dogs protecting their puppies are morals. Humans protecting their children are morals. 

Killing each other over morals, is religions.


----------



## ding (Mar 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has. 

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 1, 2019)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You do know there is more to anything than just what you have observed don't you?


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 1, 2019)

hobelim said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"equal pay for equal work". 

i want sex as easily and as conveniently as Any woman can get it. 

We know women know how to talk and make appointments. 

why do they want "equal pay".


----------



## hobelim (Mar 1, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> i want sex as easily and as conveniently as Any woman can get it.
> 
> .


  Have you considered trying a new perfume?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 1, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> i want sex as easily and as conveniently as Any woman can get it.



not quite, they have the side effect not shared, pregnancy otherwise the floodgates might indeed be wide open - except for selective religious demonicism: to outlaw what they do not like, free will innocents they named prostitution and better, forced labour for life through unwanted pregnancy the denial of manifest destiny to the same, abortion.


----------



## ding (Mar 1, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I know that for any given thing there is a distribution. So I see distributions which is what my observations are based upon.


----------



## RWS (Mar 2, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.


----------



## RWS (Mar 2, 2019)

All animals besides humans, seem to have incredible morals that humans do not follow. 

They make sure they are safe, to keep their species alive. They only kill to eat. They don't kill each other. 

Any species that kills it's own, is doomed to not last very long. 

Only humans want to kill other humans. Why? 

I'll tell you why... religion... 

Animals do not have religion. But we do, and it's the reason we do crazy shit....


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 2, 2019)

ding said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



yeah OK


----------



## hobelim (Mar 2, 2019)

RWS said:


> All animals besides humans, seem to have incredible morals that humans do not follow.
> 
> They make sure they are safe, to keep their species alive. They only kill to eat. They don't kill each other.
> 
> ...




Plenty of people who have no religion kill and do crazy shit too.

How do you explain that?


----------



## ding (Mar 2, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


So you are saying nature selected virtue as a successful behavior because it offers a functional advantage?  I agree.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 2, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing   along unaware while singing  kumbaya.


----------



## ding (Mar 2, 2019)

And yet here people are quarreling over right and wrong and expecting everyone else to understand that their beliefs of right should be universally accepted.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 2, 2019)

ding said:


> And yet here people are quarreling over right and wrong and expecting everyone else to understand that their beliefs of right should be universally accepted.


  I know, Its messed up, isn't it?

Vast herds of liars and hypocrites, blood thirsty creatures,  who feed exclusively on the flesh of unbelievers and Jews, professing to be teachers of the moral law without having any understanding about the words and subjects about which they are so dogmatic.

But don't you worry your goofy selves about it.

A sky fairy has struck the right wing religious conservative republican herd with foot in mouth disease.

If you don't believe me,  just watch.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 2, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


.


hobelim said:


> There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.
> 
> Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.



_*
- that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.*
_
deception and guile have two sides to their survival strategy.

the distinction for all beings is between whether their behavior is unnecessary exaggeration, evil or a progression of fulfillment exemplified by evolutionary attainments. metaphysical purity that is attained to add to the progression to a higher state of purity. a triumph first accomplished, an apex to make a change possible by the metaphysical content of the physical being.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




And when a mouse is caught in the teeth of a cat he goes limp,  thinks he's having a spiritual experience,  and tells himself that he has a powerful new friend ....right before he is chewed up and  swallowed.


----------



## ding (Mar 2, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And yet here people are quarreling over right and wrong and expecting everyone else to understand that their beliefs of right should be universally accepted.
> ...


Stop being so silly.  If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals.  Morals can be anything we want them to be.  The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome.  Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony.  Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos.  So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes.  That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes.  This is the moral law at work.   If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave.  The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws.  When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate.  If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall.  Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. 

Morals are effectively standards.  For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.  Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man. 

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong?  The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity.  The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning.  The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 2, 2019)

i can be Honest about full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work.


----------



## ding (Mar 2, 2019)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Death is just another phase of life.  Don't be afraid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2019)

ding said:


> Death is just another phase of life.


*Cuckoo*
.
.
.
.
*Cuckoo*


----------



## ding (Mar 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Death is just another phase of life.
> ...


That's only because you are a materialist.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 2, 2019)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


.


hobelim said:


> And when a mouse is caught in the teeth of a cat he goes limp, thinks he's having a spiritual experience, and tells himself that he has a powerful new friend ....right before he is chewed up and swallowed.



he goes limp because he knows his time is up ... his life cut short. the spiritual being definitely does not feel liberated by such events.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 2, 2019)

dear women, 

you know i am male.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

hobelim said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > All animals besides humans, seem to have incredible morals that humans do not follow.
> ...



That's just random crazy shit. But the huge amount of people who kill for crazy shit, are religious. And killing because they think their religion tells them too.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I agree too. Species that kill each other for no reason, will not survive very long. It is vital to have a sense of virtue, which all mammals do. Except religious fanatics.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

If you're a fish, you can lay a million eggs, and you don't care about 'em because many are bound to survive. You can eat your young.

But mammals, have very few offspring, and they have to protect them. Especially because it takes longer for them to be self-sufficient. They have to care for each other, by evolutionary rules.

But religious rules, says we can kill women and children for fun and giggles! Just because they refuse to believe.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

And you cannot deny that that shit happened, in every major religion that we are referring to.

They killed EVERYBODY that opposed them. Men, women, children... and enslaved everybody else! They crucified/burned women and children, and gays, at the stake! Religious folk would stand around and watch and applaud the burnings every week!

They were horrible people!

That's who your ancestors are.... if you still believe in those horrible religions...

They're the same religions today. Nothing changed.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



What about those black widow spiders, and praying mantis? What about what they do? Who designed all that devilish stuff?

OTOH, they're not mammals.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

Mindful said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


lol, and they're women...


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

c'mon think about it. 

Nowadays, we look back at the Crusades, the Inquisitions and many other religious wars, and we're horrified by what they did. 

But no religious book has been rewritten to say that that shit is not allowable. They're all still the same. 

Which means it can happen again, given enough religious people pissed off.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



I was about to say.........


----------



## cnm (Mar 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> All animals besides humans, seem to have incredible morals that humans do not follow.
> 
> They make sure they are safe, to keep their species alive. They only kill to eat. They don't kill each other.


What a load that and following posts are. Just one example, male lions kill any offspring not their own.


----------



## cnm (Mar 3, 2019)

Anyway...


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > All animals besides humans, seem to have incredible morals that humans do not follow.
> ...



Yes, because evolution dictates that they should, to help ensure the big lion's offspring survive. It's the odd's on way to go.

Religions say that they should kill children because god says so. And there is no god.

It's a human ruler telling them that "god says so".


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

I repeat.... 

Nowadays, we look back at the Crusades, the Inquisitions and many other religious wars, and we're horrified by what they did.

But no religious book has been rewritten to say that that shit is not allowable. They're all still the same.

Which means it can happen again, given enough religious people pissed off.


----------



## cnm (Mar 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> Yes, because evolution dictates that they should, to help ensure the big lion's offspring survive. It's the odd's on way to go.


So their morals are no better than human's.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

The proof that there is no god, is the amount of sexual abuse by clergy towards children, that has been ignored and unpunished. By either the higher-ups or by God himself. 

The fact that those incredible sinners serving in the name of god have not been smited, is testament to the realization that God does not exist. Or he endorses it... Either way, no bueno....


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

God, is actually the Devil, you know...

It was reversed from ancient texts. EN.KI was our lord per Sumerian texts (his symbol was two intertwined snakes). But he was miscast as the serpent in the OT. If we had just followed the original shit, we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Because of religions, EN.KI, our creator and savior, became the symbol of evil.

And EN.LIL, the guy who really hated us and smited us, became the "good god".


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

And ancient groups understand this, and keep it secret. You have to get really high level-wise to understand. See the Brotherhood of the Snake, which became Freemasons.

It's not allowable now to understand the truth, because it will turn over society. Just like aliens landing and setting things straight. It has to be slowly released, like a PSI valve.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, because evolution dictates that they should, to help ensure the big lion's offspring survive. It's the odd's on way to go.
> ...


Humans do it because "god said so".

And their god is EN.LIL. The real evil one.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

All your three trilogy religions are based on EN.LIL being your god. The one who wants us dead. 

It's no wonder religions kill each other for fun.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

Research EN.KI instead, and learn about what he did for us. And you'll start your journey into reality. He not only created us, he saved us multiple times from the wrath of EN.LIL. But we consider his legacy as the snake, serpent, and devil, because EN.LIL was the ruler.


----------



## RWS (Mar 3, 2019)

And fyi, in Babylonian times EN.KI, became EA. EArth is named after EN.KI. Just saying... He's our true god.

But religious people regard his legacy as "evil"!


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


So religion defies natural selection?


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> God, is actually the Devil, you know...
> 
> It was reversed from ancient texts. EN.KI was our lord per Sumerian texts (his symbol was two intertwined snakes). But he was miscast as the serpent in the OT. If we had just followed the original shit, we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Because of religions, EN.KI, our creator and savior, became the symbol of evil.
> 
> And EN.LIL, the guy who really hated us and smited us, became the "good god".


So you are saying we are following the wrong religion. 

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > God, is actually the Devil, you know...
> ...


Morality seems to be subjective among Christians. Look at how New England Christians are treating kraft after it was found out he participates in human trafficking. Compare that to the outrage of Michael Vick for dog fighting or ray rice for punching that woman in the elevator. Is forcing a woman to suck dicks for money better than one punch to the face?

Should kraft be forced to sell the team?


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


No. Humans are subjective. Morals are standards. Standards exist for reasons. When you deviate from the standard the reasons make themselves known through predictable surprises.


----------



## cnm (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Morality seems to be subjective among Christians.


I'm shocked. Shocked.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 3, 2019)

women are welcome to be my witness regarding my full body massage skills.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Is it ok for you to go have another woman give you a full body massage? Is it ok that your wife have a man give her a full body massage? Then your morals have loosened in 100 years. No man 100 years ago would think it’s ok for another man to give his wife a full body massage even if he was a professional.

A Muslim man today would think it completely immoral.

You’re a more liberal moral person.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

Look at our morals regarding women’s bathing suits.

People don’t get how long it takes for morals to change. Like evolution you don’t even notice the mutations. They happen slowly over generations and generations.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Morality seems to be subjective among Christians.
> ...


In just a couple generations we now realize two men or two women loving each Is completely moral.


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Not me.  I'm old fashioned that way.


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There's never been a socialist movement without a free love movement so I wouldn't be surprised by anything man does.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Not the point. Did you get the point? Seems morality evolves


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Not me. I'm old fashioned that way.


Haha, yeah, like a faith healer, or an alchemist.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


Point is we are right now but wrong just a couple generations ago regarding two men loving each other.

Turns out it is very moral.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Not me. I'm old fashioned that way.
> ...


This seems like one of those times where I have demonstrated that morality is subjective and all ding could come back with was that?

I consider that a win


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Nope, unnatural behavior will never be accepted as moral but eh, less people will be moral but convince themselves that they are or simply not give a damn.
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> and all ding could come back with was that?


i.e., an implicit admission that it is subjective, in that he subjectively chooses it.  But don't tell ding that!  No sir, he will proudly claim divine authority as the reason his morality on this is from the only true, complete, objective, universal list.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2019)

Lumpy 1 said:


> unnatural behavior will never be accepted as moral


Like, flying a plane?  Eating hot dogs? Birth control?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

Lumpy 1 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


Is it immoral for a man to play with his wife’s butt?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Mar 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > unnatural behavior will never be accepted as moral
> ...



Eh, you could care less what I think about it and that's just fine with me...
.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 3, 2019)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


Because it doesn’t matter what you or I think. The point is what wasn’t moral 500 years ago to those people, is moral today to us. Even if you agree with the people 500 years ago.

Do you agree with muslims what is and isn’t moral? No. So morality is subjective.


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You missed the point. Man’s perception of morality changes.


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Not me. I'm old fashioned that way.
> ...


Maybe one day you will be able to process normalization of deviance and predictable surprises but it doesn’t seem like today will be the day. 

Until then be prepared to be surprised by life.


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Only time and outcomes will tell.


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Morality isn’t subjective. Man’s perception of morality is. Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist in and of themselves.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Nonsense. And I’ve given you plenty examples how it’s all in your head.

Watch the Orville. Great show. It’s like Star Trek where they visit other planets. On one planet it was immoral to be straight. Everyone was gay. They killed straights. 

If we didn’t start covering our women’s bodies with clothes 50,000 years ago nudity wouldn’t be immoral.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You missed the point. Man’s perception of morality changes.





sealybobo said:


> Nonsense. And I’ve given you plenty examples how it’s all in your head.




morality is a construct - - from the underpinnings of evil vs good where over time one is allowed and the other isn't. per the original conclusions of the earliest religions.

christianity that aqueouses to evil rather than its elimination will be to their "predictable surprise" - over time their eventual extinction.


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What you are describing is man’s perception of morality. Not morality itself.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 4, 2019)

can atheist women be moral about being willing to help us become, ClitLicker Pro's?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ding still doesn’t understand.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Do you eat cows? It can be said eating cows is immoral. Are you an immoral person?


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


But I do.  You are confusing man's changing perception of morality with morality changing.  Morality just is.


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes, it can be said that.  In fact, if we want to find the highest possible standard then not taking any life at all for any reason would be it.


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Do you eat vegetables?  Vegetables are living organisms too, right?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




by whom Chick-Fli-A ?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> Ding still doesn’t understand.



especially when he is unable not to sin ... how moral is that or what really is the christian talking about ...


----------



## ding (Mar 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Are you an immoral person?


I never claimed to be a saint. 

I’m a sinner.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 4, 2019)

ding said:


> I’m a sinner.



what sins are you unable to get a fix on ... do you even try.


----------



## RWS (Mar 5, 2019)

Morality is an evolutionary trait.

Superiority is a religious trait.


----------



## cnm (Mar 5, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> christianity that aqueouses to evil rather than its elimination will be to their "predictable surprise" - over time their eventual extinction.


By drowning?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I’m a sinner.
> ...


Is being fos a sin?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


But what might not be moral to you is moral to a muslim.

So you think that the highest power of morality is in fact morality.  So, yes, eating a living plant is immoral. 

In another world across the galaxy they would say eating plants is a sin.  And they would say morality just is.  It's obvious.  Just ask our boy ding over there in the milky way galaxy.  He knows that spitting is a sin.  It's fucking OBVIOUS right?


----------



## ding (Mar 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You are not only reading too much into it you are getting all emotional because of one word; sin. 

All I am saying is that for any given thing there will be a standard. You are free to follow it or not. You are free to decide which standard you believe in but the actual highest standard is independent of your perception of it. The standard exists independent of your perception.


----------



## ding (Mar 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If it is there should be some predictable surprise that lets you know. Consequences are a bitch.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Boy you will never admit you are wrong huh?  Do you know you are a little shit?  You can argue that water isn't wet.  What is wet?  Define wet?  That's not wet that's damp.  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You and your predictable surprises and locust of control bs.  Broken record


----------



## ding (Mar 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


One time I thought I was wrong and later found out I was really right so I was wrong at least once. 

I make mistakes all of the time. But then I correct them and the case gets stronger because of it.


----------



## jillian (Mar 5, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Probably more moral than pretend Christians


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2019)

jillian said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



Based on the definition

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, correctness, ethicality More

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
A.  We know right and wrong differ from society to society.  Is it immoral to sleep with your dead brothers wife?  In America we think so but in Afganistan that's called doing the right thing.
B. Praying 7 times a day.  That's the right thing to do in the middle east but Ding doesn't think not doing it is immoral
C. Ethics?  This is all subjective stuff.  
D.  It even says in the definition that morality is a particular system of values held by a specific person or society.

So no ding, there is no universal truth about morality.  Unless you are talking about murdering the innocent but even that is subjective because we abort every day.  It may not be a moral thing to do but it certainly isn't murder.  Not in America it isn't.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Ok, here is a great article about how Trump is the most unethical president of all time

The Most Unethical Presidency: Year One - CREW

If you can argue with this article then you prove morality is subjective.  If you read this article and agree 100% with the writer then please continue to stubbornly say that morals are set in stone.


----------



## ding (Mar 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It’s a very powerful concept and tool. Dismiss it at your own peril. I’m good either way.


----------



## ding (Mar 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I’m not invested in politics as you are. 

Standards exist independent of people following them. We have all kinds of laws that people break all the time. Breaking the law or the standard does not invalidate the law or standard. It only means people will suffer the consequences for doing so.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 5, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Standards exist independent of people following them. We have all kinds of laws that people break all the time. Breaking the law or the standard does not invalidate the law or standard. It only means people will suffer the consequences for doing so.



why not explain how avowed sinners, a sinning religion, christianity can represent morals by the simple fact those that do not sin whatever that might be are by definition the equivalency of moral and living a true existence, christian. as either the true religion of antiquity to triumph against evil or simply who are non sinners being possibly atheists.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 5, 2019)

Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral.  That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian.  It's called asking God for forgiveness.  Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 5, 2019)

Jackson said:


> Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral.  That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian.  It's called asking God for forgiveness.  Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.


Atheists cannot be moral, because they base morality on personal or social acceptance. Morality must be based on the acceptance or rejection of an impartial third party.

Can a murderer be moral? Well, he may choose to do something moral; however, he also has done something immoral. The immoral deed trumps all the individual's moral deeds in GOD's eyes. Only through the saving grace of GOD through the Messiah does GOD extend forgiveness of sin.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 6, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral.  That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian.  It's called asking God for forgiveness.  Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.
> ...


My guess iss there are many "Moral" people who don't be.lieve in God at one time in their lives.  It doesn't mean they have sinned, but they don't have the faith required to get to heaven.  God expects us to get to heaven not just what you've done, but what is in your heart.  If you don't have faith, you are lost.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

cmm, He has his own ways of saying the truth. 

Let's answer the master question of this thread.

Atheists are moral. 

Religious fanatics are not....


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral.  That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian.  It's called asking God for forgiveness.  Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.
> ...



Not many atheists are murderers. So I don't understand how you can compare.

However, many religious people ARE MURDERERS, and if not already murderers, they have the murder spirit in their heart. How do you feel about that?


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

You're ready to kill upon command from the Pope.

I will just laugh.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

Actually, I'll cry, because it happened again, despite all warnings....


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

And nowadays, it's gonna be a lot more serious than in prior days. 

Do you really want that to happen? For a fake religion?


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

Instead of millions dead, we're looking at billions dead in future wars. 

Just because of different beliefs in "God". What an asshole.... if he exists....


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

laughing leads to crying


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

I've been trying to say that "God" is "EN.LIL".  makes perfect sense then.

And our Lord is EN.KI.  The one who created and protects us.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

I hope you're seeing the truth ding. Sometimes you have to cry and laugh. It's not schizo, it's realizing reality.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

According to John Gray, an atheist, the vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

Monism, which divides the human species into a hierarchy of racial groups, created an intellectual climate in which policies of racial slavery and genocide claimed a basis in science.  Julian Huxley, proponent of “evolutionary humanism”, shared some of his views with monism and looked forward to a time when “backward” peoples would be remade in a western mould or else vanish from the world.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

You know I can find that quote, and that you didn't write it. I hate when people do that to try to make themselves look smart...

Ding, you basis on your religion is based on ancient Sumerian texts, that said a lot different than the OT rewrote. It falsifies your religion. Everything else that followed from the OT, is make-believe. That includes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's all wrong. Anything that came afterwards was due to rulers looking to take advantage of the religions, to create armies, to make themselves richer based on their fanatical fighters.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

The original Sumerian texts, said nothing about killing others. It's just beautiful works about math and science and society. And about who taught them about all that shit. The Anunnaki. 

Those are the original gods, but the Sumerians did not regard them as gods, just rulers.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

By the late 1930's the rise of monism and eugenics was playing itself out, not because of scientific revelation but because of the rise of Nazism.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

Who the Anunnaki were, is up for debate. I think they were ET's. But they also could have been a more advanced society on Earth, that taught the Mesopotamian society the rules of civilization. In that case, who taught the Anunnaki? I don't know. But they were obviously waaaay more advanced than the Sumerians at the time.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

New atheists are doing the same thing today using the liberal values which western societies subscribe today by  looking with contempt upon “backward” cultures that have not abandoned religion.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

So even though the racial theories promoted by atheists in the past are no longer endorsed by atheists, they have still not renounced the conviction that human values must be based in science.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

This Anunnaki story, is where your religion begins. And it has been changed or modified countless times to create all the different religions we have today. It's like the telephone game. Spread over 6000 years.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

According to John Gray, "When organised as a movement and backed by the power of the state, atheist ideologies have been an integral part of despotic regimes that also claimed to be based in science, such as the former Soviet Union. Many rival moralities and political systems – most of them, to date, illiberal – have attempted to assert a basis in science. All have been fraudulent and ephemeral. Yet the attempt continues in atheist movements today, which claim that liberal values can be scientifically validated and are therefore humanly universal."


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

ding said:


> New atheists are doing the same thing today using the liberal values which western societies subscribe today by  looking with contempt upon “backward” cultures that have not abandoned religion.


Yours is a backward religion. You don't even acknowledge the shit it took to get you here, the murders, the rapes, the abductions. To you, it's just "natural". 

All prior sins are forgiven!


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

Not all atheists have been interested in propagating a new gospel, and some have been friendly to traditional faiths.  Unfortunately, campaigning atheism is a missionary enterprise, which aims to convert humankind to a particular version of unbelief.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

Not all atheists, even when they have been committed liberals, share the evangelical atheist's convictions.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

And not too many years before that, they stopped burning women and children at the stake! But for hundreds of years, they tortured and raped and murdered millions of people during the Inquisition. Just for fun, and giggles. 

That's your religions buddy. Face up to it and admit it. It is friggin evil shit. 

You have an out. Just have your faith, and drop the religious mantra. Realize you have been lied to, but you still have faith in other parts of it. 

Just don't kill or hate over it...


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

According to John Gray, "Roughly speaking, an atheist is anyone who has no use for the concept of God – the idea of a divine mind, which has created humankind and embodies in a perfect form the values that human beings cherish and strive to realise. Many who are atheists in this sense (including myself) regard the evangelical atheism that has emerged over the past few decades with bemusement. Why make a fuss over an idea that has no sense for you? There are untold multitudes who have no interest in waging war on beliefs that mean nothing to them. Throughout history, many have been happy to live their lives without bothering about ultimate questions. This sort of atheism is one of the perennial responses to the experience of being human."


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

I have my faith, and I would never, ever, ever, ever, hurt anybody because of it.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

According to John Gray, an atheist, "Around the time Haeckel was promoting his racial theories, a different theory of western superiority was developed by Marx. While condemning liberal societies and prophesying their doom, Marx viewed them as the high point of human development to date. (This is why he praised British colonialism in India as an essentially progressive development.) If Marx had serious reservations about Darwinism – and he did – it was because Darwin’s theory did not frame evolution as a progressive process.

The predominant varieties of atheist thinking, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, aimed to show that the secular west is the model for a universal civilisation. The missionary atheism of the present time is a replay of this theme; but the west is in retreat today, and beneath the fervour with which this atheism assaults religion there is an unmistakable mood of fear and anxiety. To a significant extent, the new atheism is the expression of a liberal moral panic."


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

Friggin guy can't answer posts. Just copy/pastes mantra from other sites. 

Let's test... 

Who is Sponge Bob in Creationist Theory?


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

Sam Harris, a new age atheist, wants a “scientific morality” which follows a trajectory similar to monism and eugenics.  Whereas today everyone agrees that that sort of atheism was illiberal.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

Harris’s militancy in asserting these values is largely a reaction to the fact that as society became ever more reliant on science, religion did not decline.  The militant atheism we see today is in effect a panic on their part.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

So he's your Sponge Bob of Creation Theory, or evolutionary theory? I want the SB of Creation!


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

The grand march of secular reason that more and more societies would join the modern west in marginalising religion has not occurred.  So evangelical atheists panic and lash out.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

You seem to be afraid of science replacing your beliefs, instead of science supplementing your beliefs... 

Let me tell you, if you have beliefs, and not religion, science can help very much in understanding those beliefs.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

According to John Gray, an atheist, "The resurgence of religion is a worldwide development. Russian Orthodoxy is stronger than it has been for over a century, while China is the scene of a reawakening of its indigenous faiths and of underground movements that could make it the largest Christian country in the world by the end of this century. Despite tentative shifts in opinion that have been hailed as evidence it is becoming less pious, the US remains massively and pervasively religious – it’s inconceivable that a professed unbeliever could become president, for example."


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

If you have religion, then science is nothing, and the world is flat, and dinosaurs walked with man...And the universe was created 6000 years ago.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

According to John Gray, an atheist, "For secular thinkers, the continuing vitality of religion calls into question the belief that history underpins their values. To be sure, there is disagreement as to the nature of these values. But pretty well all secular thinkers now take for granted that modern societies must in the end converge on some version of liberalism. Never well founded, this assumption is today clearly unreasonable. So, not for the first time, secular thinkers look to science for a foundation for their values.

It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism."


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

Stop quoting an unknown atheist from god knows when, when you have well known atheists talking to you right here, right now. . 

Speak your own shit. That's all I've ever been trying to say. Don't rely on past terrors.


----------



## RWS (Mar 6, 2019)

You rely on copy/paste for your quotes. You don't really put any effort, besides the sites you are told to copy/paste from.

You are a servant to your religion. I don't know if you get paid, or it's just something you have to do to continue to be a member, but you are so FUCKING WRONG, on so many matters, that it hurts me to talk to you further.

I don't want to hurt you, or break your heart. But I wish you can reel back from the brainwashing dude. I don't see a bright future for you, unless you seek some help. We can try, but you really need some professional help. I'm not trying to be funny. Seriously. Sometimes I feel like I'm feeding you, and making it worse. So I will stop posting on this thread. Please, buddy, think about what I said. Please?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Huh?

Christians say they know right and wrong. On every issue. It’s absolute.

But they don’t claim to actually be moral. They don’t have to be as long as they believe in jesus they get a pass. 

As long as they’ve been baptized. No baptism as an adult, no heaven.

I was baptized as a child. So were Catholics. We’re all going to hell. Even if we believe.


----------



## ding (Mar 6, 2019)

It appears it is true that laughing leads to crying.


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 6, 2019)

RWS said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...


I wouldn't be so sure... Quite prison inmates become "saved" while in prison. Jeffery Dahmer is a case in point. Ask anyone in jail how often they were attending Sunday School and Church services before they got into trouble and I am rather certain that it had been Y E A R S ---- if ever. Of course it could be argued that attending church doesn't make one a Christian. HOWEVER, not attending doesn't encourage a healthy spiritual lifestyle given societies' seeming lack of propriety...


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 6, 2019)

an atheist must be even more moral than Any deist, if the atheist hopes to win the moral high ground.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 6, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


.


LittleNipper said:


> Jeffery Dahmer is a case in point.



maybe a fellow sinner might think so, nipper - an irredeemable sin, what can not be given back is unforgivable ... sorry, J will not be able to help you in your case nipper and for the truthful the Almighty has already spoken.

how about you nipper how do you reconcile being a sinner and at the same time claiming to be a moral person. funny how you and bing fit the bill.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 6, 2019)

i thought women were for social "feel good" policies for free instead of capital "feel good" policies for a market friendly price.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Have you ever been right about anything?

Because nothing you wrote here is correct.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Talk to other Christians. They told me this stuff.

I know they were fos


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 7, 2019)

Atheists probably adopt the "general agreement" on morality.  Morality without God, is defined by society.  Not to say it will be accepted by all, but, nothing is absolute.

The only reason for morality in a godless society is for the benefit and that society.  The only reason for morality in a godless person is for the benefit of the person.  No one is self sacrificial for others for no reason, as, we are all selfish by nature.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

Bonzi said:


> Atheists probably adopt the "general agreement" on morality.  Morality without God, is defined by society.  Not to say it will be accepted by all, but, nothing is absolute.
> 
> The only reason for morality in a godless society is for the benefit and that society.  The only reason for morality in a godless person is for the benefit of the person.  No one is self sacrificial for others for no reason, as, we are all selfish by nature.


First, long time no see b.

2. Morality with god is defined by the people who invented the religion. Are you suggesting god told your cult what morality is and is not? How come he didn’t teach you not to be mean to gays? He didn’t cover that. He only told you gay sex is bad.

3. Why are you moral besides for your own benefit? I want to see if Christians are any different than us on your last point. Why are you moral? For selfish reasons. You want to go to heaven. I don’t need the threat of hell to make me be good.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

Did Bonzi leave and find god?


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


There is only ONE unforgivable sin. That is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. There is no other unforgivable sin. And the Holy Spirit testifies within the heart of man that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. So, to reject Jesus as either God in the flesh or the Messiah, is part and parcel to the unforgivable sin.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 7, 2019)

I believe that morality is not a subset of Christainity.  It can be included in the Christain belief but it can be practiced outside the Christain belief.

Look at the Jewish faith.  Many of them are moral, but do not ascribe to the lesson that Jesus is the messiah.  Does that mean they are going to Heaven?  No.  The real test of a Christian is that one accepts Jesus as our messiah and when asked he forgives all your sins.  God knows your heart and that does not mean your acts on earth will open the gates to heaven, believing in Jesus will.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 7, 2019)

i am trying to find coconut oil and nice girls who are willing to help me practice get really really Good.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



This is ridiculous and exactly what a cult would say.  

Don't you see rejecting the Jesus myth is the least offensive of all the sins?  It harms no one.  Unless you think God is a snowflake.

And we don't reject Jesus or God.  We reject your Jesus and God stories as fake/lies/made up.  This doesn't offend god it offends your church.

To accept the Jesus stories to me is insane.  Clearly this guy was made into a martyr.  Stories have been embellished to say the least.

So are you saying that atheists, muslims, jews, buddists and hindu people are all committing an unforgivable sin for not believing the Jesus stories?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

The Holy Spirit is in the mind of man.  

Interesting that everyone on earth who is not a Christian is committing the one unforgivable sin.  Got it.  Does Ding agree with this?


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 7, 2019)

Women of morals should not need to lie to us or let us miss our turn.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Do you agree with this Ding?

There is only ONE unforgivable sin. That is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. There is no other unforgivable sin. And the Holy Spirit testifies within the heart of man that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. So, to reject Jesus as either God in the flesh or the Messiah, is part and parcel to the unforgivable sin.

So Jews, Muslims, Hindu and Buddists who don't believe Jesus was God are committing the one unforgivable sin?

If you don't believe this then you are not a Christian in my opinion.  You are the cherry picker.  The person who wrote this is the real christian.

I have a feeling if pushed you will agree with this nut.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

I love it that the biggest sin in Christianity is not believing Christianity.  LOL


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 7, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


.


LittleNipper said:


> There is only ONE unforgivable sin. That is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. There is no other unforgivable sin. And the Holy Spirit testifies within the heart of man that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. So, to reject Jesus as either God in the flesh or the Messiah, is part and parcel to the unforgivable sin.



there is no independent physical corroboration for your above statement by the primary character jesus or any other source than the 4th century christian bible you have used as your source that is replete with forgeries that in fact are the source for your statement. there was no worldwide pronouncement at the time for all beings to be made aware as would be required to make your belief effectual.

more to the point, nipper you have not answered the question first posed to you - what are the sins you are unable to stop committing that requires for you to rely on a savior rather than accomplishing the feat yourself, Admission to the Everlasting. the true religion of antiquity.
_*



*_


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 7, 2019)

Can it be moral to resort to Any fallacy over sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation?


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don’t believe that is what it means. To me blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is when you do believe in God and reject him. 

You don’t believe in God, so how can you reject him?


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I love it that the biggest sin in Christianity is not believing Christianity.  LOL


I have yet to read anything you write about Christianity be true. You create more straw men than Old McDonald.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Then yes I would agree if you were looking at the Holy Ghost and rejected him that god can’t have. He can’t have a demon in heaven.

Jeffrey Dahmer and hitler rejected the Holy Spirit, probably. That’s some evil shit.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I love it that the biggest sin in Christianity is not believing Christianity.  LOL
> ...


Knock em down ding. Knock them down


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Except for the saints we know about and the saints we don’t know about no one knows their fate or the fate of others.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Why?  They fall over under their own weight.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We shall see


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral.  That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian.  It's called asking God for forgiveness.  Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.
> ...


Ding disagrees. Ding?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 7, 2019)

Jackson said:


> Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral.  That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian.  It's called asking God for forgiveness.  Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.


When you ask god for forgiveness you are really asking yourself for forgiveness


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 7, 2019)

can it be moral to have a Happy camper policy and not let women call me on it?


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral.  That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian.  It's called asking God for forgiveness.  Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.
> ...


No. There are actually three parties you should ask forgiveness from.


----------



## RWS (Mar 7, 2019)

Yep. You're asking forgiveness for yourself, for your parents that forced you to believe it, and for the entire evil religion that forced your parents to believe it. .


----------



## RWS (Mar 7, 2019)

Atheists don't have those sins to worry about. All religions have sins they have committed, to get followers and armies to join their ranks. Murders, rapes, abductions, trafficking, drugs, etc...

Atheists don't have that burden, and they use true morals, based on earth, and logic, and science, to dictate our lives.  We do the right thing. We just don't believe in these "fantasy gods".

And the rules they tell us to follow.


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 8, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists probably adopt the "general agreement" on morality.  Morality without God, is defined by society.  Not to say it will be accepted by all, but, nothing is absolute.
> ...



Okay so I'm just speaking from the Christian point of view. I used to be very involved in Church, that is not to say that I am an atheist or agnostic now.  I'm just (trying) to speak objectively.....

I would venture to guess that most Christians get their moral code from the Bible, the 10 commandments and such.
I would venture to guess that most of those that are not God or "other being" believers or worshipers, get their moral code from their parents, authoritative figures and society... and, of course, any built in conscience we have.  

Sorry, but, I don't think people are instinctively altruistic, but the opposite, selfish. Anything we do for others is for our own benefit - e.g. to look good to others, to avoid people looking down on us or thinking badly of us, or, to make ourselves feel superior or better about ourselves.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 8, 2019)

Bonzi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


I agree we are all selfish. Don’t think you are serving god for any other reason than to win his favor and be rewarded.

But when I do something nice for a stranger the only thing I get is I feel good about it.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 8, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Ding thinks you are misinterpreting this scripture. He believes I haven’t rejected anything other than your stories. One day when I see the messiah and the truth I will either accept or reject him. This has yet to happen

Sure if I saw and rejected him then off to hell but who would do that?

Is he right you are misinterpreting this?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 8, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> One day when I see the messiah and the truth I will either accept or reject him.



good luck on your one day as having accomplished the prescribed requirements for such a feat to know the truth. that is more than just a reflection. before your passing.
_*

*_


----------



## ding (Mar 8, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You may not be the last person I would want to speak for me but you are on the short list.


----------



## ding (Mar 8, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I don’t believe it is as simple as that. 

If you lead others down the wrong path you just might find yourself accountable.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Mar 8, 2019)

The only valid society, family, True Parents, and life lived, in my new, non-denominational, Rite of Spring Church. We are doing Original Religion. Like this, Pagan Russia 'marriage'. Sacrifice bride to death because liberty is between a bunch of dudes and one girl.  First Act. Old Woman throws sticks. Act 2: Man kiss earth, sees sky! (this one) AAct 3 : The dance, you are married now! Act 4: Communism will delete your 1913 play, that is communism comrade.


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

Bonzi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


I'm sorry you feel that way. I am of the thinking that conscious beings are altruisti, in the grand scheme of things. 

I think organisms such as mammals get to the point where they can think for themselves. And understand that killing each other is a detriment to society. But then further with humans, religions kick in, and they say it's ok to kill each other... 

I'd rather go with the natural way. I don't understand why humans must kill each other over differences in religion.


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

Ding and I have been arguing about religion for like friggin forever! 

We're not dropping bombs and killing each other over it, we're just having a silly discussion that will never end... 

Why did peeps back then need to kill each other over it?  And to this day?

Why couldn't they, like, come to an agreement to disagree?


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

Actually, the argument will end when I die, and then I'll find out the truth. 

And I will find a way to tell it you from the beyond. But if there is no beyond, then shit, you won't hear a peep from me... dang... 

Gotta figure this shit out.


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

But shite, that won't happen for at least 50 years, i hope...  So I have time to think about it.

Actually Harry Houdini said he would find a way to communicate from his afterlife. We need a seance.


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

Are we ready to call upon the spirit of the great Houdini?


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

I'm ready for the friggin seance. 

Anybody know how to do it? 

If Houdini can't do it, than nobody can. We need to get Mr Houdini in our minds, and gather him here... to tell of his afterlife.


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

who's got a ouija board?


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

oh shit, i heard him, he came through my speakers....

This is the word of god....


----------



## RWS (Mar 9, 2019)

Let me turn you on to some shit... 

This is great music! And btw, you have to find a way to watch the movie "Chef", jus sayin... hard to find, great movie!!! This is also from "Chef". friggin awesome...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 9, 2019)

RWS said:


> Ding and I have been arguing about religion for like friggin forever!
> 
> We're not dropping bombs and killing each other over it, we're just having a silly discussion that will never end...
> 
> ...


It wasn’t until Moses was the first person to claim he saw god. Until that people pondered but no one ever claimed to definitely know

But remember even canabals on remote islands were sacrificing women to their gods before that.

I think god made the most sense when it was the sun. The sun is god to us. We would give thanks during the day and pray at night it would return tomorrow.


----------



## noonereal (Mar 9, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International




What an ignorant thread.


----------



## RWS (Mar 10, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Ding and I have been arguing about religion for like friggin forever!
> ...


We have been pondering shit since we had the ability to look into the sky, and wonder why. And we made some unwise choices based on that. 

This is the best video I have found so far to explain, what you said, and the truth.


----------



## ding (Mar 10, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Ding and I have been arguing about religion for like friggin forever!
> ...


Moses was the first Jew to record the account of Genesis. It had been passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years.


----------



## ding (Mar 10, 2019)

RWS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Actually we are hardwired to worship. It’s in our nature. Absent worshipping a creator we will worship man. Why do you think Kings existed?

So your explanation turns out to be too simplistic.

In fact, the reason both of you post here is that you are subconsciously drawn to discussing God. You secretly desire to be convinced. There’s something missing in your lives and you don’t even know it but you can feel it.

As far as atheists go, the ones who post here arguing against God are in the minority. You are the minority within the minority.

The rest are either at peace or are too busy with their day to day lives.

People don’t  believe in God because they ponder their existence. People believe in God because they were made to worship God.

Your problem is that you don’t understand what  worship means because I am certain the original meaning of worshiping is lost on you. Of course it is lost on most people which is why the world is the way it is.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 10, 2019)

ding said:


> Your problem is that you don’t understand what worship means because I am certain the original meaning of worshiping is lost on you. Of course it is lost on most people which is why the world is the way it is.



that does not explain the desert religions, they are political documents disguised as religions for anterior motives, primarily a socio economic barrier for a select group rather for the general good.







embellished stories for their own demise. worshiping in of itself being their weakness and final error.


----------



## RWS (Mar 10, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


My argument, is if you would let it be, and not create "gods" and "religions", the world would be a much better place.

How is your religion more right than, say, Islam ofrJudaism?


----------



## RWS (Mar 10, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



Why are you right and everyone else is wrong?


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 10, 2019)

RWS said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Most religious people do NOT do that.  It all boils down to brainwashing and control for these types of religions.  If we lived naturally, it would not be all kumbaya, but, PC would be out the window and we would hurt or kill others if they were a threat to us. Of course, we are talking with no police or organized society and if we lived truly in a natural state.  The way we live now in society is NOT natural at all.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 10, 2019)

Can it be moral to lie to us and let us miss our turn?


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 10, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Some people "serve" God because they realize that you are happier when you are living for someone other than yourself.  That being said, I think you'd be happier with your focus and concern being on someone else whether it's God or just another person.  So whether you are being nice to "God" or someone else, same result.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


No someone else was the first to record the Moses character and supposedly Moses spoke to or saw god.

Show me Moses writings. His original copy. Notes. Scribbles. Anything from moses


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So we are born to be herded sheep, followers, group mentality. 

Yes, to most people it’s not that important in their lives. They willfully ignorantly just believe because they want to and they were brainwashed by others 

I wonder if two people were born on a deserted island if they would come up with god. They may look around and ignorantly believe the world was made for them. They may even worship the sun. I do


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

Bonzi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


In the military the commanders will give the troops sitting around chores. Good for the body and mind to have something to do rather than nothing at all. 

I can see this being a positive aspect of religion. I still think overall religions control exploit manipulate and lie to people but of course there are positives to religions. This is one of them.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 10, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




They just found this scribble with a collection of doodles, a robe, a few shekels,  and a decoder ring  buried in a cave by the red sea.  The word "religion"  is in the back (must be the title) and its signed Moishe.






Now archeologists are feverishly searching for the town of the boy who cried wolf.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Do you see how he lied about Moses? I can’t wait for clarification on the claim that Moses is the first Jew to officially start recording genesis.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

Bonzi said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Some people aren’t happier living for someone else especially when that someone else doesn’t even exist to us. 

So if we believe it’s all a lie what do you suggest us atheists do? 

A secular society comes up with laws that are universal. Don’t try to push your religion on us. For example if straight can be married and get benefits from being married so should a gay couple.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 10, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




The guy is half right.. It is widely assumed that Moses authored the first books of the bible.

He is wrong that what he wrote was based on oral traditions, even though he borrowed plots and characters from existing stories.

What Moses wrote in a state of enlightenment was based on his unique experiences with God after living half of his life in the darkness of a world that was without form and void.


The talking serpent was not an imaginary mythological being from China ( ding is such an idiot)  To Moses who knew the pharaoh who wore a serpent on his head personally,  satan,  the enemy,  and the danger of losing your sanity and free will for life to the practitioners of the magical arts, sorcery,(mind control) ,  was and still is very real...


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 10, 2019)

women who can make and keep appointments, must be moral.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> women who can make and keep appointments, must be moral.


I just heard a line in a movie. No one is all good or all bad.


----------



## Unkotare (Mar 10, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > women who can make and keep appointments, must be moral.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

Unkotare said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The movie I was watching was an old western


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 10, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > women who can make and keep appointments, must be moral.
> ...


can she keep her word?


----------



## badger2 (Mar 10, 2019)

Bonzi: "You are happier when you are living for someone other than yourself." 

'Salvation, for Deleuze, entails the dissolution of the self, a becoming inhuman. As the unity of god is the self's only guarantee (as a product of god), the death of god brings about a cracking of the self that fractures and 'installs and interiorises within' the self as 'essential dissimilarity.' Instead of an essential unity, the self liberated from the judgement of god is 'carried away by the verbs of pure becoming and slides into the language of events.' Against the 'faith' that would resurrect or heal the self, Deleuze could be seen as advocating another 'theological' self, a self resting in the dead god (a mad self waiting and dreaming with dead Cthuhlu), where 'a different and more mortuary betrothal between the dead god and the dissolved self forms the true condition by default and the true metamorphosis of the agent.' Such a transformation of the self -- where a traditional theology would allow no such transformations, no werewolves --  is an imperative to becoming-nonhuman, becoming-nonpersonal, becoming transparent to the [plane of immanence....the other side of salvific transformation for Deleuze is the affirmation of life -- the belief in the world. Whereas christianity, on Deleuze's Nietzschean accounting 'christian nihilism,' would judge life to either justify it or to accuse it, Deleuze's Nietzschean-Spinozist ethic of immanent modes of existence works to increase the power to live.'
(Simpson, Deleuze and Theology)


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Bonzi: "You are happier when you are living for someone other than yourself."
> 
> 'Salvation, for Deleuze, entails the dissolution of the self, a becoming inhuman. As the unity of god is the self's only guarantee (as a product of god), the death of god brings about a cracking of the self that fractures and 'installs and interiorises within' the self as 'essential dissimilarity.' Instead of an essential unity, the self liberated from the judgement of god is 'carried away by the verbs of pure becoming and slides into the language of events.' Against the 'faith' that would resurrect or heal the self, Deleuze could be seen as advocating another 'theological' self, a self resting in the dead god (a mad self waiting and dreaming with dead Cthuhlu), where 'a different and more mortuary betrothal between the dead god and the dissolved self forms the true condition by default and the true metamorphosis of the agent.' Such a transformation of the self -- where a traditional theology would allow no such transformations, no werewolves --  is an imperative to becoming-nonhuman, becoming-nonpersonal, becoming transparent to the [plane of immanence....the other side of salvific transformation for Deleuze is the affirmation of life -- the belief in the world. Whereas christianity, on Deleuze's Nietzschean accounting 'christian nihilism,' would judge life to either justify it or to accuse it, Deleuze's Nietzschean-Spinozist ethic of immanent modes of existence works to increase the power to live.'
> (Simpson, Deleuze and Theology)


I would like to believe that when I die I will live forever in paradise and see my mother and grandmother again.

I would love to believe that.

It would be great if I could believe that.

Oh Lordy


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


You have an idealized view of a path not taken. 

The problem is we do have examples of godless societies and it was never any good.


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Oh sure let me pull that out of my hip pocket because I always walk around with ancient texts. 

I really couldn’t care less if you believe that Moses was the first Jew to record the account of Genesis in writing or that the account of Genesis had been passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before Moses recorded it in writing. 

I also couldn’t care less if you believe that was how ancient man captured and shared not only historical information but wisdoms that were revealed to them.  

It isn’t my loss. It’s yours.


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Actually quite the opposite.  You were born to be herded sheep. You only think you aren’t but the poor quality of your arguments says otherwise.


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2019)

RWS said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You mean the vast majority of all humans who have ever walked this planet believing in a higher power than man?

It seems your question applies more to you than to me.


----------



## james bond (Mar 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > women who can make and keep appointments, must be moral.
> ...



Based on a true story.

<bends down and writes with his finger in the dirt>

He rises and says, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

One by one the people who came to watch and participate in the execution leave until the accused woman and the man are the only ones left.

"Is there no one to accuse you of the crime, woman?" he asks.

"No one."

"Then you are free to go, but don't do it again."


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > women who can make and keep appointments, must be moral.
> ...


A movie, huh.


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Bonzi: "You are happier when you are living for someone other than yourself."
> 
> 'Salvation, for Deleuze, entails the dissolution of the self, a becoming inhuman. As the unity of god is the self's only guarantee (as a product of god), the death of god brings about a cracking of the self that fractures and 'installs and interiorises within' the self as 'essential dissimilarity.' Instead of an essential unity, the self liberated from the judgement of god is 'carried away by the verbs of pure becoming and slides into the language of events.' Against the 'faith' that would resurrect or heal the self, Deleuze could be seen as advocating another 'theological' self, a self resting in the dead god (a mad self waiting and dreaming with dead Cthuhlu), where 'a different and more mortuary betrothal between the dead god and the dissolved self forms the true condition by default and the true metamorphosis of the agent.' Such a transformation of the self -- where a traditional theology would allow no such transformations, no werewolves --  is an imperative to becoming-nonhuman, becoming-nonpersonal, becoming transparent to the [plane of immanence....the other side of salvific transformation for Deleuze is the affirmation of life -- the belief in the world. Whereas christianity, on Deleuze's Nietzschean accounting 'christian nihilism,' would judge life to either justify it or to accuse it, Deleuze's Nietzschean-Spinozist ethic of immanent modes of existence works to increase the power to live.'
> (Simpson, Deleuze and Theology)



Confront reality. Die to self. 

And stop reading pseudo intellectual bullshit of bullshitters.


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The thing is, not everyone HAS to do anything.  I don't think the religious right wants to force anyone to "believe", what their agenda is is what they feel is important to the health of society and, that, regardless what others believe, they believe there IS a God and that if we live HIS way and by HIS rules, that we will be the better for it.  That being said, I do agree that many of the religious right USE God and their MISinterpretation of the Bible as an EXCUSE to be hateful.  They are NOT really pleasing their God when they behave this way, ironically.


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The problem with religion is that they are man-made, like any other organization.  At least as far as any "rules" go with a religion.  The lines blur between a belief and a religion.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 11, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You seem to care.


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Not as much as you think.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 11, 2019)

Ugh look at all the evil little scumbuckets milling around on this page. 

Foul, foul people. 

We need a war to cull them.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 11, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Ugh look at all the evil little scumbuckets milling around on this page.
> 
> Foul, foul people.
> 
> We need a war to cull them.


.


koshergrl said:


> We need a war to cull them.









when has a christian not been at war - since the 4th century when they madeup their illicit religion. believing for themselves to be saved ...


----------



## Pogo (Mar 11, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh look at all the evil little scumbuckets milling around on this page.
> ...



"The Religion of Peace" doncha know.  A death cult that worships a man hung in agony on a cross.  The poster you quoted wished death upon me after I refused to run over wild turkeys, and I'm not even making that up.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 11, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh look at all the evil little scumbuckets milling around on this page.
> ...



Yes we do have to defend ourselves, we have had to defend ourselves from the very beginning. 
Because godless, soulless animals have always tried to eradicate us. 

Let's go to war. I know you would never volunteer but I'm fairly confident that your own party will eliminate you. Once you become a federal dependent, commies determine you're no longer a contributing member of society and kill you off.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2019)

Pogo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


It has nothing to do with religion, though.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 11, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


why dont you go to war and see who follows ya old fuggin internet crank


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2019)

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Pfft.. that self-loathing closet faggot won't be getting off his fat ass to wage war on anything but a tub of ice cream. He will continue to sit on his couch and watch reruns "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and tell his family he is "doing research", when they walk in the room...


----------



## G.T. (Mar 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


mostly true but its a girl though


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 11, 2019)

G.T. said:


> mostly true but its a girl though


Uh, no.  Just because Francis up there insists on being called Francine doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy into his transgender fantasy.  Them's the rules, just ask a republican.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 11, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


That numbers inflated


----------



## G.T. (Mar 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > mostly true but its a girl though
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 11, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Ugh look at all the evil little scumbuckets milling around on this page.
> 
> Foul, foul people.
> 
> We need a war to cull them.


Cull you. You’re viciously evil


----------



## sparky (Mar 11, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Because godless, soulless animals have always tried to eradicate us.



the crux rears it's ugly head

that those of you stand so _steadfast_ in the insistence  your '*God*' and your '*Soul*'  validates empirical objectivity


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 11, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


.


koshergrl said:


> Yes we do have to defend ourselves



against the innocent ...





how brave you have been through the centuries kosher, there is no forgiveness for the forgeries written in your 4th century religion after your passing no matter how sincerely you beg for yourself before your extinction.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 11, 2019)

moral guys can "bear true witness" to their Happy camper policy; can women be immoral by, "being a witness" to that?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 12, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


How many centuries ago was that?

Tell me how it's relevant today? 

let's go to war. You people need to be pushed out.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 12, 2019)

sparky said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Because godless, soulless animals have always tried to eradicate us.
> ...


Funny that evil bitch thinks she’s going to heaven.


----------



## ding (Mar 12, 2019)

I love it when you guys show through your actions that you believe morals are absolute.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


& imagine if she was - and her gawd that's telling her disease-addled brain to be so spiteful and venomous is real - hah.

I'd much sooner piss in his face and kick him down a flight of steps than worship a scummer like that


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 12, 2019)

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


I'm serious.  These evil Christians like koshergrl are the worst poster children for Christianity.  I bet their preachers wish they would keep their religion to themselves.

Not everyone is a good recruiter or good spokesmen for a product or organization.  R. Kelly may love women's underwear but you don't think Victoria Secrets wants him endorsing their product.  When Koshergrl speaks god says stfu.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 12, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


.


koshergrl said:


> Tell me how it's relevant today?



the forgeries responsible for your vile religion continue to this day, you have shown no remorse for your uninterrupted past and continue to commit the same atrocities to undermine the original religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty that was their last act and final warning to humanity.
_

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

_
the above quote is a blatant forgery, used by 4th century chrtistians as a cornerstone for many of their crimes. you koshergrl. 

the full text is in error, only through correction will those christians ever see again the light of day.


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 12, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Can it be moral to lie to us and let us miss our turn?



I think most would say lying is not moral.  Everyone misses a turn.  Life isn't fair.  Get over it.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 12, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Well as fascinating as all that garbage is (to you, anyway)...please show me where Christians are engaging in anything remotely like the Inquisition today.

BTW, the crusades and the Inquisition are examples of what happens when the state controls the church.
And also btw, there was a beginning, and an end, to both...and not very many people were killed. 
Also btw, the crusades were embarked upon to save the Christian and pagan peoples of the Middle East (specifically Jerusalem) from the muslim butchers. That was pushback against a death cult that actually managed to threaten France before they were put in their place. 

Carry on.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 12, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


.


koshergrl said:


> BTW, the crusades and the Inquisition are examples of what happens when the state controls the church.



_*
- which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.*_


two exciting times for christians as well all their history from the 4th century to the present day, uninterrupted - without remorse.

yours included, as by your lack of response. to your assertion for the 1st century and its relevance to the religion of antiquity.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 12, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



You poor, deluded acolyte, lol. 

If only you could get a time machine and return to those brief periods maybe you could be martyred for..whatever it is that you are clinging to. 

Meanwhile, the rest of us would like to talk about reality. Is that too much to ask? If you can't converse in a relevant manner, you will be ignored. At least by me. I imagine by most people.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 12, 2019)

Bonzi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Can it be moral to lie to us and let us miss our turn?
> ...


why should i take women seriously about a serious relationship, if they can't bear true witness?


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Whether the path of religion is taken or not, the good in people remain. And if there is an afterlife, which I doubt, we'll be there regardless of religion. If we're good.


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

Any heaven that denies us because we didn't believe in their killer religions, is not a heaven I want to be in.

I'd rather roast in hell while I fix heaven.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 13, 2019)

RWS said:


> Any heaven that denies us because we didn't believe in their killer religions, is not a heaven I want to be in.
> 
> I'd rather roast in hell while I fix heaven.


Don't worry, you will roast.
But you won't have any influence whatever on heaven. We'll forget you existed.

Just for the record..you don't attain heaven by believing in religion. You attain it by accepting the gift of salvation from Christ. The fact that you obviously don't understand this shows just how little you know of the topic.


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Any heaven that denies us because we didn't believe in their killer religions, is not a heaven I want to be in.
> ...


There's something wrong with that scenario. That means billions upon billion upon billions of people, don't qualify.Just because your religion was made up about 1600 years ago.

And that's the evil shit. .

Everyone else is a fail. And doomed to hell.


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

Just because they made it up....


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

I will fix that shit when I'm doomed to hell!


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

I will uprise and take you sinners down where you belong. And take my rightful place in the land of the good.


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

That's just IF, there is a heaven or hell.

Otherwise, fook, we won't know shite.


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

You better hope there's no heaven or hell, because I'll be coming after the religious fanatics that promote hatred and genocide, and dragging them down to the depths of hell. .Hehehe


----------



## RWS (Mar 13, 2019)

I guess it's a question for everybody....

Would you rather be in a popular club with shady people, or be in an unpopular club with worthy people?

Think about your life choices before you answer.


----------



## Bonzi (Mar 13, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



you shouldn't


----------



## G.T. (Mar 13, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


She's just a fulla shit sad lady that posts wanna-be shocking shit on the internet.


----------



## Erinwltr (Mar 13, 2019)

God is an atheist.  So yes.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 13, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> God is an atheist.  So yes.


Erin, you know me so well!


----------



## ding (Mar 13, 2019)

RWS said:


> I guess it's a question for everybody....
> 
> Would you rather be in a popular club with shady people, or be in an unpopular club with worthy people?
> 
> Think about your life choices before you answer.


You can spot the shady people by their behaviors. Maybe you should be the one thinking twice.


----------



## ding (Mar 13, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Anyone who thinks they are good isn’t.


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 13, 2019)

RWS said:


> I will fix that shit when I'm doomed to hell!



RWS,

Who is at the center of your universe?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 13, 2019)

RWS said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



It would be if it were true. You continue to show us your ignorance of the religion. We get that you hate something, but whatever it is, it isn't Christianity though you pretend it is. 

Like most bigots, you just know you hate Christians and Christianity...but you are too stupid to have ever educated yourself about it. True of most bigots...you are too ignorant to spend the time it takes to acquaint yourself with your so-called enemy. Which makes you a joke.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 13, 2019)

an appointment is my "little test".


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 13, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


.


RWS said:


> And if there is an afterlife, which I doubt, we'll be there regardless of religion. If we're good.



_*And if there is an afterlife ...*_

is that as doubtful as your existence of some fashion prior to being born ... from the metaphysical and not existing afterwards as the true uncertainty than the former with an accomplishment necessary for the latter. being a productive member of the metaphysical as a reward. if desired.
_*

- we'll be there regardless of religion. If we're good.
*_
dream on, good is not good enough - the Triumph of Good vs Evil whatever you may refer it as from antiquity is one possibly known ticket for admission. purity over uncontrollable sinners.

.


----------



## ding (Mar 13, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Hardly.  You may wish it were different.


----------



## RWS (Mar 14, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## RWS (Mar 14, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I will fix that shit when I'm doomed to hell!
> ...


A firggin big black hole. 

I certainly know that it is not a religious god.  And what the center of universe means, is up for physical or meta-physical interpretations.


----------



## RWS (Mar 14, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


No, i dislike all religions. I have reasons to feel that way. I respect faith. But i have a short fuse with religions that feel ok to kill others. .


----------



## ding (Mar 14, 2019)

RWS said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Ummmm... no. Space and time did not start from a black hole if that is what you are trying to say. Space and time were literally created from nothing.


----------



## ding (Mar 14, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


You are most welcome. 

Often times ignorance is insolent.


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 14, 2019)

RWS said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...



I believe you misunderstood my question.

I suspect that at the center of your universe is yourself.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 14, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Anyone who thinks they are good isn’t.



because you believe there are no means to becoming good ... from the forgeries of your 10,000 page document.

considering you are unable to answer what sins you can not stop committing it's only reasonable for you to make that conclusion using your 4th century religion as a crutch to include everyone as sinners as yourself - that everyone in the christian heaven are sinners. and the Triumphant will be banished. the religion christianity stole and corrupted for themselves to placate their own sullen weaknesses.

too bad for you.

* what sins, bing are you unable to stop committing. have you ever tried.


----------



## RWS (Mar 15, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


Well, this universe could be created by the mass expulsion of a black hole in another universe, or even this universe. We really don't know. But we do know that the universe was created by a massive eruption, from nothing. I think the miraculous point is that physics and math work.

That could be "god". But that "god" is definitely not the religious sense of  "god".

I think "god", if there is such a thing, is the miracle of how particles react to each other.

I'm never going to kill anyone over it, but that's my "god".

My faith is in the teachings of Jesus. I don't believe he is the son of god, but I truly value his search for peace and love and harmony among everybody. He may have never existed, but it's the stories of inspiration that I like.

That's why I dislike religions so much. Because they don't follow those values.


----------



## ding (Mar 15, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


We do know that it couldn’t. For starters the mass of the universe says it couldn’t. 

God is not the math. And you overreact to everything you perceive as bad while failing to make a proper accounting of the good.


----------



## RWS (Mar 16, 2019)

You're actually right there by saying "god is the math". That's exactly what I believe. 

And I would never hurt anybody over math. 

Religions like yours think otherwise.


----------



## RWS (Mar 16, 2019)

I have to correct myself. ding sayd god is not the math.


----------



## RWS (Mar 16, 2019)

I apologize. But God is the math and the physics. 

How it came about to be true, i dunno, and that's what I call "god". But that "god" certainly doesn't give a fuck about us.


----------



## RWS (Mar 16, 2019)

It's just the rules of physics.


----------



## RWS (Mar 16, 2019)

Our "gods" that we insist upon, were probably the An.Un.Na.Ki, from ancient texts. Or Anunnaki for short. 

And it's possible they taught us everything. If you're gonna go with the "god" theory. If so, your religion is based upon their writings.


----------



## Spare_change (Mar 16, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


It is intrinsically impossible for atheists to be moral, given that they have no firmly established moral code, but rather rely on relativistic self serving, self-qualified opinions of what is right and proper in a particular situation.


----------



## Spare_change (Mar 16, 2019)

G.T. said:


> If God were the source of morality, then morality is not objective but instead mind dependent, i.e. based on God's subjectivity.
> 
> If the God cannot change his morals on a whim, God is not all powerful.
> 
> ...


Your circular logic is odious and immature. Grow up.


----------



## RWS (Mar 16, 2019)

Dude, you are a ding sock.


----------



## RWS (Mar 16, 2019)

Don't make me prove it with the mods.

Just cancel your other accounts.


----------



## ding (Mar 16, 2019)

RWS said:


> I apologize. But God is the math and the physics.
> 
> How it came about to be true, i dunno, and that's what I call "god". But that "god" certainly doesn't give a fuck about us.


I don’t believe so. 

There is no thing that we can use to describe God because God is no thing. 

God isn’t energy and matter like us. 

The closest we can come to understanding God is consciousness without form.


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 16, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize. But God is the math and the physics.
> ...



Ding,

I respectfully disagree.

We are made from energy and matter.

 God is energy and matter.


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 16, 2019)

we don't know how dense a black hole is.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 16, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> we don't know how dense a black hole is.


so many yo momma jokes could come from a comment like this


----------



## Mindful (Mar 16, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize. But God is the math and the physics.
> ...



G-d is the Universe.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 16, 2019)

Spare_change said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


.


Spare_change said:


> It is intrinsically impossible for atheists to be moral, given that they have no firmly established moral code, but rather rely on relativistic self serving, self-qualified opinions of what is right and proper in a particular situation.



_*It is intrinsically impossible for atheists to be moral ...*_

there is no barrier, intrinsically for an atheist to be moral having at birth a clean slate for deturmination however for a religion conceived deceitfully as christianity where sinning is perceived as inseparable from the being does make those individuals intrinsically immoral by their inability to rationally know right from wrong.

what sins are you unable to not commit short-change, to help determine the depth of your immorality - such as hate baited post that are "_relativistic self serving, self-qualified opinions of what is right and proper in a particular situation"_.


----------



## ding (Mar 16, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


I don’t believe so. I believe God is beyond energy and matter. We can’t possibly relate to it. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we would trying to understand a multidimensional being beyond space and time. 

Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because matter and energy creates space and time.


----------



## ding (Mar 16, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


That’s called pantheism. God can’t be the universe anymore than a painter can be the painting.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 16, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



G-d can be anything he wants to be.


----------



## Spare_change (Mar 17, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful, you are able to define the levels of right and wrong in the manner that best allows your conscience to be eased. If you're hungry, it's okay to steal. If you want his car to take your wife to the hospital, it's okay to kill him to get it.

Those are not morals, those are self-justification rationales for your behavior. Without an externally enforced set of unassailable laws, you have no moral code - you only have self-serving nonsense designed to justify your bad behavior.


----------



## ding (Mar 17, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


God can’t oppose himself. 

God can’t go against his nature. 

God is eternal an unchanging. God is uncaused. The best I can understand is God is consciousness without form.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 17, 2019)

Spare_change said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


.


BreezeWood said:


> there is no barrier, intrinsically for an atheist to be moral having at birth a clean slate for determination however for a religion conceived deceitfully as christianity where sinning is perceived as inseparable from the being does make those individuals intrinsically immoral by their inability to rationally know right from wrong.





Spare_change said:


> When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful, you are able to define the levels of right and wrong in the manner that best allows your conscience to be eased. If you're hungry, it's okay to steal. If you want his car to take your wife to the hospital, it's okay to kill him to get it.




_*where sinning is perceived as inseparable from the being does make those individuals intrinsically immoral ... When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful, you are able to define the levels of right and wrong -*_


_*When you are the arbiter of whether or not your actions are sinful ...*_

do you always ignore the post you are responding to - 4th century christianity precludes any morality for the being as being inexorably void of self determination through preexisting conditions, sin and therefore intrinsically an immoral being.

1st century events were for the individuals self determination through the judgement of Almighty_*,*_ the resistance to temptation and the Triumph over evil as the path for admission to the Everlasting - a freed spirit by attaining pure morality.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 17, 2019)

Spare_change said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


All complete nonsense....thats why no two Christian's loving today would agree 9n all morality, much less a Christian living today and one plucked from 500 years ago (despite carrying around the same,iron age instruction manual). You derive your morality chiefly from the genetic accident of where and when you were born .You simply fool yourself and aggrandize yourself by pretending your morality derives from some divine decree.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You simply fool yourself and aggrandize yourself by pretending your morality derives from some divine decree.



you have failed to disprove physiology is a metaphysical substance that disappears when the spiritual component is removed from it - or that by unlocking its dependence to its physiology by the metaphysical requirement to triumph good vs evil is not a viable reason for all beings to pursue during their stay, granted life on planet Earth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 17, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > You simply fool yourself and aggrandize yourself by pretending your morality derives from some divine decree.
> ...


I have also failed to disprove that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 8th dimension. That doesn't lend any truth whatsoever to the idea that unicorns make ice cream in the 8th dimension. It also does nothing to prevent someone from saying, "Sure, stars leave the main sequence after fusing all of their hydrogen, but that is because unicorns make ice cream in the 8th dimension".

What insight does this give? What useful predictions does it yield? Does it make any difference whatsoever to the knowledge of star behavior or to how we will go about learning more about star behavior?

No.

That is all you are doing...splashing a veneer of your magical nonsense onto hard earned knowledge after the fact. The fact that this impotent exercise by you has zero effect on any knowledge ever should be your first clue that it is useless nonsense.


----------



## ding (Mar 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Humans are subjective. Their perception of morality changes.


----------



## badger2 (Mar 17, 2019)

10 Mar 2019 Moral Zealotry and the Seductive Nature of Evil
Moral Zealotry and the Seductive Nature of Evil - Quillette


----------



## badger2 (Mar 17, 2019)

Consciousness came into being (including non-human animals) at the crusty lips of a volcano (Miller-Urey volcanic spark experiment), and there is nothing unique about DNA that thinks let alone speaks.

'For Marion, the true life of god is immortal. If god were not immortal, he would not be god. Marions employs this definition of god in order to make god immune from any possible refutation. If god is immortal, he cannot ever die and is consequently safe from the atheist proclamation that god is dead.....Here Derrida does not limit himself to the atheist claim that god is dead; he repeatedly makes the radically atheist claim that (god is death [italics]). That god is death does not mean that we reach god through death or that god rules over death. On the contrary, it means that the idea of immortality -- which according to Marion is 'the idea that we cannot not form of a god' -- is inseparable from the idea of absolute death.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism)


----------



## Mindful (Mar 17, 2019)

Dear G-d;

If you don't exist
I will never,
and I mean never,
forgive You.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> - onto hard earned knowledge after the fact.



what knowledge or fact is that ff, none you have yet to demonstrate as the origin for physiology or its nonchronological disappearance, occurring randomly only after its spiritual content is removed. as proof of the metaphysical origin for all living beings. from the universe not planet Earth. the Everlasting.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 18, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> what knowledge or fact is that ff,


Stop playong stupid, unless you want to be treated as if you are atupid. Every time anyone drops a hard earned fact about biology,you are right there to splash a veneer of your useless, magical horseshit all over it. But, gee, you never manage to uncover any of this knowledge yourself, nor does your magical horseshit seem to have any effect on it. Because it is useless pap.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 18, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> none you have yet to demonstrate as the origin for physiology


Except for every single time i have: selection.

Gee, it MUST be magical horseshit that marine animals often seem to form fusiform shapes. Or, it could just be selection. Gee, tough one...

If you are going to shamelessly lie, im going to put you on ignore.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 18, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it's a question for everybody....
> ...


Hey ding I’m watching how the universe works. Did the Big Bang really happen? Scientists are actually questioning if the Big Bang really happened the way we think it happened. 

Or is this Big Bang we refer to just the start of earths universe. Our observable universe.

It’s certainly not settled science.

Remember the tardigrade can’t see the sun or the moon. It’s observable universe is not all there is. There’s more. And I believe there’s more than our observable universe. Scientists are pondering this. Their coming up with reasons this might be plausible. 

Still so much we don’t know.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 18, 2019)

We don’t understand the physics or origins of the universe. 

Empty space isn’t empty. Virtual particles are in empty space


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > none you have yet to demonstrate as the origin for physiology
> ...


.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> im going to put you on ignore.




you have offered no response for the origin of physiology in any of your posts -

as pointed out earlier ...






physiology is not native to primordial Earth and is a metaphysical substance that appears and disappears in reference to its spiritual content.


----------



## ding (Mar 18, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


And yet we do not see thermal equilibrium. 

So you tell me why everything isn’t at the same temperature.


----------



## ding (Mar 18, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> We don’t understand the physics or origins of the universe.
> 
> Empty space isn’t empty. Virtual particles are in empty space


It seems the fact that there was a beginning freaks you out.


----------



## RWS (Mar 19, 2019)

We may not know what came before the big gang, but we certainly know it's not Snata Clause, or Christian religions. Or any religious god for that matter.

We do know a whole lot of physics took place. And those physics may be a sign of God. But it's not the god of your terrible religions.

No god that creates the big bang, wants you to kill other people 12 billion years later. But all your religious gods do.

Is that not like a little weird?


----------



## ding (Mar 19, 2019)

RWS said:


> We may not know what came before the big gang, but we certainly know it's not Snata Clause, or Christian religions. Or any religious god for that matter.
> 
> We do know a whole lot of physics took place. And those physics may be a sign of God. But it's not the god of your terrible religions.
> 
> ...


There’s only one creator. You keep confusing different perceptions of the creator for beliefs there are many different creators. 

Stop watching American Gods so much.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don’t know. Stupid question. Irrelevant 

The wonderful thing I learned last night watching that show is that I was right. The Big Bang is only the best way we can explain how our observable universe started. It’s based on what we know. But there’s so much we don’t know.

So for now scientists aren’t going with the multiverse as a scientific theory because we don’t have any evidence for other universe.

Actually, there is a place in our universe that scientists think might be where our universe and another have maybe collided with each other.

Point is, the Big Bang theory is just about as good as the flat earth theory. It may appear to be right but we don’t have enough knowledge to know for sure.

I have always known there must be more beyond our observable universe. And it’s ignorant to think this is all there is when space goes on in all directions infinitely. There is no end. Even beyond our observable universe.

So please don’t ask me why everything isn’t the same temperature. If it’s a serious question that scientists ponder, I’m sure they don’t know. And what does that have to do with anything? It’s just some stupid question you are stuck on. Must be locust of control


----------



## ding (Mar 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It’s a question whose answer tells us the universe had a beginning. So it is a serious question and it is relevant.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The observable universe did have a beginning. But what was before? And is our universe the only one?

Yesterday they were explaining how something can come from nothing and how nothing isn’t really nothing. There’s stuff in dark space. The air between you and your screen. There’s stuff in that “nothing”

Seriously, you people who talk about this kind of science but you don’t watch how the universe works, need to tune in. 

You need to see a lot of your questions are answered, a lot of what you think is wrong, or might be wrong. And you hear what the scientific community knows and doesn’t know.

It’s how I know your confidence in your theories is coming from ignorance.


----------



## ding (Mar 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It was nothing before. It literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago.

The mass of a false vacuum is not equal to the mass of the universe. The mass of a false vacuum is zero. The creation of the universe through a quantum tunneling event literally popped all matter and energy into existence. And the event followed the laws of nature. Specifically quantum mechanics and conservation.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You know the thing that is stumping scientists is inflation.

There’s so much you and they don’t know.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 19, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How did it happen?


----------



## ding (Mar 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Really?  How so?


----------



## ding (Mar 19, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Following the laws of nature which existed before space and time.


----------



## RWS (Mar 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Scientific theories are based on math based on observations and continued study, and technology that continues to support the theory. 

Religious theories were just.... made up, by humans seeking power and money. 

Christian religions are no more right than religions that think the universe was created from an egg. Like .Pan Gu. It's just something, somebody just made up. And got followers and money streaming in, and power, etc...


----------



## RWS (Mar 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


We don't truly know. We have to investigate, and that's what science does. We just don't jump into a religion because we're born into it and deny the logic that science is continuing to show.


----------



## RWS (Mar 21, 2019)

Three questions I think science will never answer are:
1. How did we get here (universe wise)?
2. What is our purpose?
3. What happens after we die? 

Science could possibly answer question 1 eventually. But 2 and 3 are philosophical questions that science doesn't cover. Those are the domains of religions. 

My dislike of religions is that it tells people that it's ok to dislike and even kill others that believe differently. Because they are the absolute religion. There's so many religions... that it's scary to think that what has happened in the past, can happen a billion-fold worse in the present or future. 

I'd be cool if religions said we're all equal and deserve to live our regular lives. But they don't.


----------



## grbb (Mar 21, 2019)

Morality is just part of a profit-seeking strategy

An immoral shop, something that charges too much, for example, will be left by customers

Societies tend to assign morality to ensure interests are appropriately aligned. For example, we do not think shops that charge too much as immoral. That's because customers can quickly go to another shop.

However, when shops that charge too much use deceptive marketing practice, like in Sim Lim square, we consider that immoral.

So someone, namely us, has to assign morality out of our interests or perceived interests of ourselves.

Countries are like shops. Countries with scammers will make a bad name for itself. So states have incentives to capture scammers. Often, the link isn't that tough or transparent, so the motivation is low. When that happens states often protect scammers.


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature. 

There are many different tools available to study nature. Use of proxies being one of them. Often times science makes indirect observations of a phenomenon to confirm or deny the phenomenon; Special relativity being a good example. You can’t directly measure special relativity like you can measure the weight of something. 

Discovering the evidence for the existence of a creator is no different.  But you can use science to examine the indirect evidence of a creator.


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

RWS said:


> Three questions I think science will never answer are:
> 1. How did we get here (universe wise)?
> 2. What is our purpose?
> 3. What happens after we die?
> ...


Our purpose is to evolve. To become the best version of ourselves that we can become and to transfer that knowledge to future generations.


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

RWS said:


> Three questions I think science will never answer are:
> 1. How did we get here (universe wise)?
> 2. What is our purpose?
> 3. What happens after we die?
> ...


No one knows their fate.  Materialists believe that at death it’s game over. Spiritualists believe that the material world was created by spirit and that at death our spirit returns to the creator. 

So if you are a materialist there is no good reason you shouldn’t live your life seeking as much earthly pleasure as you can even if it is at the expense of others. 

Of course I doubt you will find much happiness in doing so because we were created for more. Deep down inside you know this. That’s why you are here arguing about it.


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

RWS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You don’t have to believe in a religion to believe in a creator.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 21, 2019)

RWS said:


> Three questions I think science will never answer are:
> 1. How did we get here (universe wise)?
> 2. What is our purpose?
> 3. What happens after we die?
> ...



I think we know the answer to #2.  Fairly obvious.  To live as long as possible.  Same purpose fish have.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 21, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yea but is that enough?  Most religions say you'll go to hell if you don't believe their religion.

And I say it doesn't matter if you believe.  Who cares if you believe in a creator.  You think a creator cares?  

And it doesn't matter what you think.  Cavemen thunk the same thing.  What do you know?  Nothing.  You hope and wish.


----------



## grbb (Mar 21, 2019)

The purpose of life is to reproduce.

Morality is a strategy.

Stores charge a fair price, so customers don't live. Governments ensure fraud is not around, so politicians get votes.

When these things don't happen people abuse their power.

True morality doesn't exist.

Imagine living in front of CCTV and be honest all the time.

Imagine if one day, that CCTV is gone.

If "true morality" exist, we would expect people to be still honest.

To a certain extent, it's true. People follow their habit.

However, after a while, people will see another steal and get away with it. Then it becomes the norm. Then everybody steals.

That's why politicians without check and balances are very corrupt.

They're just selfish. Not moral. We all are.

Religions don't change that by much.


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


I think it has more to do with you than it does him. But given what I know from what I have observed, he cares about us. 

Do you care about your dog?


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


If you believed there is a higher power that cares about you, that’s more than enough.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Then stop calling yourself a Christian. That’s not what they believe


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


But I am a Christian.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are a typical Christian yes but I don’t think your beliefs align with any denomination I’ve ever seen


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Probably because you were a worse Catholic than I was.


----------



## ding (Mar 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


If you had learned anything as a Catholic you would have learned the thing that matters most is to have a relationship with the father, son and Holy Ghost. It’s the sign of the cross for crying out loud.

He will take care of the rest.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


First, I was Greek Orthodox. Second, I know my parents have their problems with the church and my mom was open to the idea there is no god.

My mom always talked about screw the church have your own personal relationship with god.

They were/are typical Christians too.


----------



## RWS (Mar 21, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Three questions I think science will never answer are:
> ...


 In my way of looking at it, number 1 may be answered by science, once they can create a self-replicating molecule from regular earth material in a test tube. That one's possible.

Our purpose is to reproduce more, like you said in a previous post. But how can we reproduce more and greater people, if religions keep committing genocides?

And lastly, why can't religions be cool about admitting that we're all equal and deserve the same afterlife as followers? Assuming we're good people? Countless billions of good people are disqualified from Christian "Heaven"  because they're not Christian. Which started less than 2000 years ago.

In other words, stop thinking you're superior based on your religion. Can't we be cool about that?


----------



## RWS (Mar 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Exactly, that's the way to do it. I have so much respect for her. Have faith. Don't follow. Following is usually a bad thing. Kudos to her!


----------



## RWS (Mar 21, 2019)

I love Jesus' ideals. I don't know if he was real or not, but he is definitely not what Christianity preached through the Middle Ages, and still to this day. But I love the ideal of Jesus and peace among everyone. It's just so hard with religious fanatics claiming they are superior because of the religion they were born into. It's like white supremacy, converted into religious supremacy.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 22, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


.


RWS said:


> In my way of looking at it, number 1 may be answered by science, once they can create a self-replicating molecule from regular earth material in a test tube. That one's possible.


_*
- number 1 may be answered by science ... once they can create a self-replicating molecule from regular earth material.*_

good luck on the latter, "regular earth material" confining physiology to a single planet in the universe where its components just happen to be purely "universal" in content. are you a latent christian.

you ignore or more correctly for yourself have determined physiology can be made alive without a spiritual content by science to be left lying on the ground to exist forever ... or to include the spiritual would only be an afterthought as a meaningful purpose. without the slightest scientific understanding of the metaphysical that does include it.


----------



## Spare_change (Mar 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Your argument, of course, suffers from the same malady that inflicts other such drivel .... "no two Christians today" have a damn thing to say about morality .... that is exactly the flaw in the "atheist" argument today, this nonsensical argument that you are remotely qualified to establish your own relativistic moral code.


----------



## Spare_change (Mar 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Exactly ... and therein lies the flaw in the logic .... the moral code cannot change. You may choose to ignore parts of it, or even, all of it. But, that does not change your culpability for your sins.


----------



## Spare_change (Mar 23, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Dear G-d;
> 
> If you don't exist
> I will never,
> ...


Dear God,

If you don't exist, I will still have been a better man for adhering to the code mistakenly allocated to You.

If, however, you do exist .... I got a list of those who didn't believe.


----------



## RWS (Mar 23, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Wherever water exists, there is life on Earth. That is possible on many other planets and moons. Throughout the universe. 

So miraculous bacteria being created on earth is probably the norm. 

Your god is just fucking with you. How much did you donate this year?


----------



## RWS (Mar 23, 2019)

It's only March, but you probably paid a lot so far, for bullshit. 

You paid for rapists and child molesters.


----------



## RWS (Mar 23, 2019)

Nice job!

Oh, your religion is so friggin good...


----------



## RWS (Mar 23, 2019)

Your god is so good... to allow those sins under his authority., He's a good god...


----------



## RWS (Mar 23, 2019)

or maybe he doesn't exist...

And people are just bad sometimes, and those need to be eradicated.


----------



## RWS (Mar 23, 2019)

If you have good thoughts, you should thrive, regardless of religion. We should all welcome those people together. In one world.  No matter of religion.

Religion tries to tell you to fuck em all, if they don't believe in the particular religion that you believe in. Turn them, or kill them. Because they're worthless (except as slaves).

That's not the way to roll. And any of you that can't understand that, are the part of the problem that will kill us all...


----------



## ding (Mar 23, 2019)

RWS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Karl Marx - who was also a militant atheist like yourself - made the exact same point as you about religion being a scam. 

But the reality is that according to natural selection, if there were no functional advantage gained from the practice of religion it would have been discarded long ago. 

Are you denying natural selection, Karl?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 23, 2019)

Spare_change said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


Spare_change said:


> Exactly ... and therein lies the flaw in the logic .... the moral code cannot change. You may choose to ignore parts of it, or even, all of it. But, that does not change your culpability for your sins.




_*and therein lies the flaw in the logic ... But, that does not change your culpability for your sins.
*_
what again are the sins you are unable to stop committing ... christian.

for the record for your posts you are unwilling to respond to what sins you are unable to stop committing, with that in mind there is no moral code for a christian only a position of abject servitude without morals, presently and in the future were you granted admission as a sinner which is antithetical for a reason to have been given life for the purpose to earn the reward of life in the Everlasting. through the apex of morality being achieved.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 23, 2019)

RWS said:


> In other words, stop thinking you're superior based on your religion.


sorry dude, that concept is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of believing one possesses the only, divine truth.

Religion poisons everything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 23, 2019)

Spare_change said:


> If you don't exist, I will still have been a better man for adhering to the code mistakenly allocated to You.


Nah, you're lying to yourself. Your morals and ethics arise chiefly from the genetic accident of where and when you were born, not from your religion.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 23, 2019)

RWS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


.


RWS said:


> Wherever water exists, there is life on Earth. That is possible on many other planets and moons. Throughout the universe.
> 
> So miraculous bacteria being created on earth is probably the norm.
> 
> Your god is just fucking with you. How much did you donate this year?


_*

So miraculous bacteria being created on earth is probably the norm.*_


RWS said:


> number 1 may be answered by science, once they can create a self-replicating molecule from regular earth material in a test tube. That one's possible.



_*by science, once they can create a self-replicating molecule ...*_

your post ignored completely the post it was responding to ... that physiology exists as a metaphysical substance in guidance by a spiritual content and is universal and is found also on Earth but that if "scientist" were to create the physical substance would it also have a spiritual content (wants and needs) as the present metaphysical physiology that naturally evolved.

what would they be creating, both the spiritual content and the physical attribute or just the physical attribute that simply existed the same as an element. the evolutionary leap was not just from a molecule to an organism but also a sustainable awareness not previously in existence possessing physical attributes.

so sillyboobo is correct to say beings are indeed destined, have the ingredients to make possible for them to become gods by transforming themselves to a state of purity, a sabbath to live into perpetuity. being without sin.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I didn't ignore you. I just didn't want to embarrass you.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

We've been talking for a while breezewood, and you have always had my side. 

Now one of these freaks have changed you? 

Really?


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

You joined the evil empire if you did. You still have many chances of coming back. Check it out for a while....


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Ask them if people that don't believe, and are good, still get to go to heaven.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Because the answer is "NO!".


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> They needed FEAR!
> 
> So god had to say "I'm god....don't steal....or YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!


THE DEVIL IS A LIAR!

Funny how fear will flood houses of worship 
with people looking for God....
That’s exactly what happened after 9/11


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"


No, the bigger question is...
Can they be forgiven?


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Are you two boobs in the right conversation?


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Orr is that a sock puppet, that mistakenly posted on the wrong thread?

Let's see.


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> Orr is that a sock puppet, that mistakenly posted on the wrong thread?
> 
> Let's see.


initforme posts the same way,

doesn’t quote, just replies


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

It's very odd that you would reply to this thread. Which has nothing to do with your topic. informe has nothing to do with it. i think you just messed up. Don't know who's sock you are, but you are a sock. Enjoy ding!


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> Orr is that a sock puppet, that mistakenly posted on the wrong thread?
> 
> Let's see.


Your last 54 posts were all on this thread,

105 of your last 115 posts, were on this thread


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

And how does that matter, ding?


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

I've never met this sock before.


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> It's very odd that you would reply to this thread. Which has nothing to do with your topic. informe has nothing to do with it. i think you just messed up. Don't know who's sock you are, but you are a sock. Enjoy ding!


It’s very odd that the last 83 posts from iminitforme,
were all posted on the same thread, in the same manner

No quotes, just replies


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> And how does that matter, ding?


I’m not ding, ding a ling


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Maybe they like me . But what are you doing  on that site? When you can see everything here? 

I don't know that site. \And I'm afraid to go to it. How did you get here? When you're in another thread?


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

unless you fucked up...


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Admit you're a sock. bc i'm gonna start looking at your previous posts.


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> Maybe they like me . But what are you doing  on that site? When you can see everything here?
> 
> I don't know that site. \And I'm afraid to go to it. How did you get here? When you're in another thread?


WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MORON?

I’m here, I don’t know what other site you’re talking about 
I’m on this thread, searching profile postings in 2 different tabs

Be good or be good at it


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> Admit you're a sock. bc i'm gonna start looking at your previous posts.


Have at it, be my guest


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Somehow you have 3014 messages,  but I cannot see any activity on your profile. I'm reporting you to the mods, and let them figure it out.


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> Somehow you have 3014 messages,  but I cannot see any activity on your profile. I'm reporting you to the mods, and let them figure it out.


Report me to the mods...

Go to my profile page 
and see if you can view my postings now


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

It's done. 
Yes I can see your postings now. What did you change? 

And how did you end up mistakenly posting here?


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

with a totally different topic? You didn't even have anything to do with the current subject matter, or the original subject matter.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

And you want to blame it on me? Give me a link that I can check on linux.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Maybe I'm wrong, and you're just answering questions from  200+ pages ago,..

And you had your profile hidden by coincidence....

I apologize for accusing you of being a sock. 

We cool? We still have to talk about our differences, but I don't think you're a sock anymore. Sorry about that. I can see where I could be wrong.


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> It's done.
> Yes I can see your postings now. What did you change?
> 
> And how did you end up mistakenly posting here?


I changed my privacy settings 

I didn’t mistakenly post here


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> with a totally different topic? You didn't even have anything to do with the current subject matter, or the original subject matter.


I replied to a post


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> And you want to blame it on me? Give me a link that I can check on linux.


Blame you for what?

What link?

I don’t know what you’re talking about


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

I'll repeat... I'm sorry. 

Maybe I'm wrong, and you're just answering questions from 200+ pages ago,..

And you had your profile hidden by coincidence....

I apologize for accusing you of being a sock. 

We cool? We still have to talk about our differences, but I don't think you're a sock anymore. Sorry about that. I can see where I could be wrong.


----------



## ding (Mar 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, stop thinking you're superior based on your religion.
> ...



Natural selection says otherwise.


----------



## keepitreal (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, and you're just answering questions from  200+ pages ago,..
> 
> And you had your profile hidden by coincidence....
> 
> ...


I don’t know what you’re talking about 
answering questions from 200+ pages ago...

I didn’t realize my postings were hidden,
I never wanted them to be

Yea, you’re right, I’m not a sock


----------



## ding (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> And how does that matter, ding?


How does what matter?

What are you yammering about now?


----------



## ding (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS has been smoking too much weed.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Natural selection has nothing at all to do with religion. It's survival of the fittest.  Geez, that's where it all goes wrong...... Natural selection does not mean that God chooses Christians. 

Is that where we're all different about natural selection?


----------



## ding (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


If you knew less about natural selection you’d be a monkey. 

Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. 

If religion is as you say it would have died out long ago according to natural selection.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > And how does that matter, ding?
> ...


I dunno. You have to ask yourself. The question was meant to your potential sock. Which I have apologized for twice already.


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

Why arre you answering?


----------



## RWS (Mar 24, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Seriously? 

Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest in their environment. 

Religions is about exploiting people's beliefs. 

Two different things.


----------



## Crepitus (Mar 24, 2019)

keepitreal said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"
> ...


That's a personal decision, not a question.


----------



## ding (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Natural selection applies to all aspects of living things. 

You do understand the concept of functional advantage, right?


----------



## ding (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


The only socks I own are in drawers, the laundry basket or washer and dryer.  Unless of course I am wearing them.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 24, 2019)

RWS said:


> We've been talking for a while breezewood, and you have always had my side.
> 
> Now one of these freaks have changed you?
> 
> Really?


. 
Ive noticed it is you who has changed -

I remain steadfast, 4th century christianity, the desert religions are forgeries using the events of the 1st century (christianity) to disguise their political documents as religions as history bears witness.


changed by not reading posts for content - 

will the physiology you / science create have a spiritual content - will it need nourishment to survive a means to reproduce, sensations etc. ... all questions answered by the metaphysical forces that did create the physiology that does exist in the universe.






the transformation from one physiological state to another is accomplished by the cicadas spiritual content - through metaphysical means derived not by an individual but from the forces that created it - from the Everlasting. the Almighty will not allow sinners (desert religions) to interfere, they are doomed.


----------



## ding (Mar 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > We've been talking for a while breezewood, and you have always had my side.
> ...


Bullshit.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 26, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Bullshit.



*
Can Atheists be Moral? 
*

I have yet to receive a response from you or any christian, what sins they are unable to stop committing - and that the 1st century was an affirmation of the original religion of antiquity to triumph over evil for there even to be a judgement.

4th century christianity and the other two desert religions have abandoned the original religion to substitute their own that are political documents disguised as religions to suit their own self interest that falls far short of the path leading to admission to the Everlasting.

if there are sins christians are unable to not commit they can not be moral - for those that triumph over evil they can not be 4th century christians.

morality is a goal acquired through triumph - the apex of knowledge, purity of a freed spirit being a sabbath is the path to the Everlasting.




*

*


----------



## ding (Mar 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What is it that you think sin is exactly?

Sin is anything which distances us from God. Since no man or woman is all good or all bad, there will be times when they distance themselves from God. It’s unavoidable. 

There are three possible states; we can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static. 

Furthermore, at any point in time we can change states. 

So save your bullshit for someone else.


----------



## ding (Mar 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


FYI, you are sinning right now.

How?  By placing the form of religion over the spirit of God.

You may ask, how are you doing this?  By arguing against the form of others religion. 

God doesn’t care how we come to him. He only cares that we move towards him.


----------



## RWS (Mar 27, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > We've been talking for a while breezewood, and you have always had my side.
> ...


hmm... I've got to take that under consideration.


----------



## RWS (Mar 27, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Wow... we need to have a group hug and a discussion...


----------



## RWS (Mar 27, 2019)

Both of your religions are based on far more ancient writings from the Sumerians, and the Babylonians, and Egyptians, and others. It was totally made up from more anceint texts telling us about the same people that appear in the biblical texts 2000 years later. The Bible is mostly a made-up transcript of earlier writings.

And people who kill for the Bible, whether it be Judaism, Christian, Islam, or others, are fighting for false gods and prophets.

They get away with it because they make everyone believe their particular religion is right, with the threat of death, and the promise of afterlife.

But all the original stories came from Sumer. And the Sumerians did not believe in those religions... They had no beliefs. They just told us about the Anunnaki. Which is what all your made-up religions are based upon...


----------



## ding (Mar 27, 2019)

RWS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Not really. It’s all good as everything works towards good. Sometimes it’s just a longer journey is all.


----------



## ding (Mar 27, 2019)

RWS said:


> Both of your religions are based on far more ancient writings from the Sumerians, and the Babylonians, and Egyptians, and others. It was totally made up from more anceint texts telling us about the same people that appear in the biblical texts 2000 years later. The Bible is mostly a made-up transcript of earlier writings.
> 
> And people who kill for the Bible, whether it be Judaism, Christian, Islam, or others, are fighting for false gods and prophets.
> 
> ...


I get you are not a fan of religion. Really I do. I just wonder how that is working out for you is all.


----------



## ding (Mar 27, 2019)

RWS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Don’t take too long. Time is running out.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 27, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> What is it that you think sin is exactly?
> 
> Sin is anything which distances us from God. Since no man or woman is all good or all bad, there will be times when they distance themselves from God. It’s unavoidable.



christianity is the religion of sinners, (all bad) no matter their persona of repentance they will reap what they sow - the original religion of antiquity is the triumph of good vs evil that is granted judgement and possible admission to the Everlasting.

the Almighty is simply the gatekeeper ... that will keep the unjustified from entering where they do not belong.




ding said:


> There are three possible states; we can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God or we can be static.



bing the dogmatic -

Columbus crossed the void and discovered land on the otherside, that is the mission for a spirit to be freed from the physical constraints through perseverance and knowledge to triumph by their own actions to be admitted to the Everlasting as a reward - it is a sin to remain a sinner, bing. making oneself pure is not - "no man or woman is all good or all bad" - have you fooled yourself or are you just lazy.


----------



## ding (Mar 28, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The Almighty is just a gate keeper?  Really?

Everyone reaps what they sow. Eventually.

 In fact, you are the sum of your choices because you have reaped what you have sown.

Look around. What do you see in your life.  Do you believe you are in a position to judge anyone?


----------



## ding (Mar 28, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You never answered my question. How do you define sin?


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Sin is disobedience to the law of God. But since the words of the law are figurative and the subjects are hidden,  as Jesus revealed,  many people are walking around feeling guilty for doing what is not sin and defiantly sinning without any awareness of their guilt.

Some people lie in the name of God as if its a religious duty and defy his commands as if death is the way to life.

There are even buildings all around the world where believers openly practice idolatry every Sunday thinking that by conforming to that vile and degrading practice they are saved.


Imagine that!


----------



## ding (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Where is this law that you speak of?  How many laws are there?  How was the law conveyed to us?


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


  Great questions!  Looks like you have a lot of work to do. Maybe you should stop playing lets pretend, put your thinking cap on,  and hit the books. At the very least,  put your pants on.

I heard somewhere that time is running out.


----------



## ding (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I just proved you are full of shit.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You did , did you? lol... thats very cute.

You are an idolator. You worship a triune mangod that does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence and eat the lifeless work of human hands for spiritual life.

And you actually you think that you have won something by ignoring your sin which is as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.   lol....

Congratulations!

You have your reward already!


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You've said that you think the God of the Bible is a fairy tale.

But you never seem to state your epistemology, for cross examination -

So, what is it? Specifically, your views on origins...


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


 

origins of what?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I'd love to know if you do or do not engage in earnest, but each time I ask you about your epistemology you deflect...so - I'll try it out again...

I'm asking you for your theory/belief on how the Universe got here, or if you think it's eternal, or if you hold the position of being agnostic about it... and what's your take on whether or not there's a "being" or consciousness, that's got anything to do with its creation...

Try to be straight forward, and not metaphorical or allegorical.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




I see. I have no belief or interest in how the universe got here.  I leave that question for scientists to answer. Its here and so am I is enough for me  to go on.

As far as the fairy tale,  I know that the story of Genesis is not about the beginning of the universe, the solar system, the earth, or the first plants, animals and human beings.

This is not a belief. Its a fact.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So you're agnostic in terms of how the Universe got here - 

How about a deity - are you agnostic on that or do you hold a belief?


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 28, 2019)

Can persons who resort to fallacy instead of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation, be moral?


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I hold a belief that conforms to reality about an unknown God whose existence has been confirmed by reality.


An unknown God who doesn't care about what you eat or what you wear or if your weenie was snipped. An unknown God that never diddled a virgin to father himself so that he could become fully human and die so that people could eat him. An unknown God that never chose a deranged child rapist to be his last and greatest prophet.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


And do you have a proposition to justify that God, rationally/empirically, or is it in part a faith claim?


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




What proposition? I have facts.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You have the fact that reality exists, that's "evidence" of a creator of ANY sort, but it's not compelling enough to rationally believe that there aren't other explanations or that an "unknown" God exists.

You can offer more facts than that, and I can evaluate them, but existence itself is not compelling enough evidence as to what or how existence got here...and it doesn't magically make an "unknown God," a "known" one.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




I wasn't suggesting that reality is evidence of anything other than reality and yes, I could offer more facts than that, what are now historical facts,  but this is not the time or place.

There is nothing I can say that would convince you better than you having an actual experience.

If you want to stand in the presence of the living God to either see him from a distance or close enough to hear his words, you must do what I did.

Purify your mind and be refined according to the detailed instruction in kosher law.

If you do,  my unknown God will make himself known to you.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Ahh, so you ARE fulla shit. I see. 

And I've seen the detailed instruction in kosher law - it's disturbingly simple-minded and not better, ritualistically, than any other dopey ritual. 



So - until you're ready to put up more than "he revealed himself to me" (personal testimony -  the worst empirical evidence), you'll be as fruity and giggled at by rationality than the christ cracker believers because your story isn't any more compelling than theirs.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




right. You think that I was suggesting to dick around over food. lol.


Right there is some proof that your mind is bogged down with malware and junk files. Bound to crash..

 Don't purify and refine your mind as if that was a ridiculous suggestion. see if I give a shit.

moron.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I understand the triggerdom when your beliefs are challenged - but the facts on the field are what they are ---you are as fulla shit as any other sky pixy believer that has no rational justification and if you weren't, it would be empirically evident.

Sorry that bugs ya out, but the hypocrisy on the christ cracker is yours.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 lol... you haven't challenged any beliefs. You don't even know what they are. 

fuck the fuck you.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > So - until you're ready to put up more than "he revealed himself to me" (personal testimony - the worst empirical evidence), you'll be as fruity and giggled at by rationality than the christ cracker believers because your story isn't any more compelling than theirs.
> ...


You missed the point, pinhead. I didn't ask for your personal experience, I said that personal experiences are shitty evidence to convince anyone of anything so you'd still be lacking a rational justification to believe in your fairy. The triggered-ness is something I understand - I know why you're lashing out and it doesn't move me. Having your short-sighted beliefs challenged is a hard pill to swallow for a person that thinks they've got it all figured out and like I said, if you had a rational justification, it would be evident. You don't, and you believe that kosher law is teh assum but it's simple minded dumb-shit that serves to micro-manage the way you behave.

Humans are gullible.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 

I didn't use a personal experience as evidence of anything. and again I never suggested anything about food even though I mentioned kosher law.

you are providing the rational justification for the belief in the consequences for failing to stand guard over the purity of your own mind as instructed by kosher law.

Thank you and well done!


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I didn't mention food either, except the christ cracker which wasnt referring to you or kosher law dummy.

It's not some secret knowledge that kosher law symbolically represents your ethics, idiot...it's that many of those ethics are as asinine and un-empirical as the christ cracker, and you're in no position to prove otherwise. You can't.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

& not only are many of the kosher ethics asinine, but also food IS indeed involved...

they eat a certain way to _symbolically represent the ethic_ behind each food law, and to learn discipline and be reminded of the ethic... and hobelim can be as coy or dopey as he wants about that ...but it's actually self-evident that it's done.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



The deeper implications of kosher law are not about ethics dummy.

  I didn't need to prove anything.

You have provided the evidence for my belief in the deeply disturbing death consequent for setting aside divine instruction to stand guard over the sanctity of your own mind.

Thats my belief being confirmed by reality right there by you.

See? No?

Thats a shame.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No, I see a fairy-tale believing idiot making dopey assertions that he cannot justify, on the internet. Yes, the deeper implications of kosher law are ALL ABOUT ethics, you simply have comprehension problems, fairy believer.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

What we see here, is that hobilly is as incapable of rationally supporting his beliefs as any christ crackerer - - which has invoked a triggerdom conveying a clear un-peacefulness of mind.

Critical thinking does this to many, many folks that have obtuse beliefs.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




again, the deeper implications of kosher law are not about ethics dummy.

again, I didn't need to prove anything.

again, You have provided the evidence for my belief in the deeply disturbing death consequent for setting aside divine instruction to stand guard over the sanctity of your own mind.

again, thats my belief being confirmed by reality right there by you, again.

well done!


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You just repeated yourself, hobilly, but you haven't refuted anything or supported anything because you can't.  you're as incapable as the christ crackerers, which you mock, of supporting your beliefs. This is more and more evident, as you melt down.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 

You might not realize this but invisible sky fairies have been standing all around, watching you melt down. lol


----------



## danielpalos (Mar 28, 2019)

Nobody should expect wo-men to take guys who have Only argumentative excuses instead of valid argumentative results, seriously.  Why should Men.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You might not realize this, but believing that is about as sane and empirically justified as believing that eating the christ cracker actually means something, and that's the point, Socrates


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




ahhh, pish posh. you are a lunatic.

I am Captain Strangerthanfiction. I have come down from the upper class to mend your rotten ways. I have been sending coded messages over your head to the armies of heaven who await  the release of the four angels stationed at the four corners of the world.

try to remember. When you are going to see the doctor, make sure you are wearing clean underwear. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Didn't you learn anything from your mother?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You believe in a lot of irrational woo-woo nonsense like the christ crackerers, my mother was much more intelligent.


----------



## ding (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Absolutely I did. You made a claim concerning the law of God and you can’t tell me how you know the law of God, where you got it from or even what these laws are.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

Hobelim is just deeply mired in his decoder ring fallacy. 

He's also incoherent, and self-contradictory. 

For example - -

"I hold a belief that conforms to reality about an unknown God whose existence has been _*confirmed by*_ reality."

-Hobelim

"I wasn't suggesting that reality is evidence of anything other than reality"

-Hobelim


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




OK, let me get this straight.

My belief and teaching, my flesh, that the essence and hidden subject of Kosher law is about distinguishing between clean and unclean teaching of people who  by their attributes resemble one described creature or another you are calling woo woo  derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr quackery no different than weenie snipper or  christer cracker gibberish?

LOL

There you go again, proving my belief true in real life, actual reality, that by failing to heed the instruction of kosher law to distinguish between clean and unclean teaching you have become incapable of distinguishing between clean and unclean teaching.

all I can say to you now is  derpa derp derp derp, durr dah dee durrrr


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No, you didn't get that straight at all.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  pft.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It wasnt a surprise that you dont comprehend what you read, you DO believe in a magical fairy without an ability to rationally justify that so....koo-koo...koo-koo


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  Yeah I know,  I'm koo koo, toys in the attic, crazy.

You confirm my beliefs over and over again. What other justification for my beliefs should I present to you if you can't see that??

Not to worry!

Invisible sky fairies can see.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You certainly confirm my belief, that you're a hypocrite that believes in the same sort of un-substantiated stuff that you mock christ crackerers for, and your lashing out irrationally afterward is a good sign that you don't like it when your feet are held to the same fire you hold theirs to. 

Tough shit - all of your past mockery of them now applies to you.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




irrational lashing out ?

lol

it is truly inspiring to see the many wonderful things that not maintaining the purity of your own mind has done for you.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Indeed!

Your incoherent machinations about your unknown fairy god being that you know..that cares about you following kosher law in order to reveal itself... is no more rational or coherent than the believers in a literal christ or his essence being symbolically encapsulated in the sacrament. 

You are a hypocritical kook, which is an order of magnitude above just a kook, kook.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Hobelim is just deeply mired in his decoder ring fallacy.
> 
> He's also incoherent, and self-contradictory.
> 
> ...


Yep,you nailed it there. Hobelim doesn't know what he said 5 minutes ago, as his responses have absolutely nothing to do with a well formed paradigm and arise purely in a reactionary manner and only and completely in order to obfuscate his nonsense and remove any responsibility from himself to form a coherent idea or argument.

It's Grade A quackery, no different from any late night cable infomercial host. Stick around, he has some valuable franklin mint commemorative plates to sell you....


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Hobelim is just deeply mired in his decoder ring fallacy.
> ...


It's like I said earlier about being an artist or having an imagination - 

I believe that folks that lack imagination... find it so _fascinating_ when a crumb of knowledge can be gleaned from a parable or a metaphor - that their knee-jerk reaction is to attribute its origin to something greater than a Man's brain. When pride meets insecurity meets lack of creativity. 

Hobelim likes to say ruminate, cracker and purity a lot. He's just another that's fulla fuckin shit, which is why he never strings together two coherent sentences in his attempt to articulate his woo-woo.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




well thats fine and all but its not what I said at all.

Its not about an invisible being that cares about me following kosher law in order to reveal itself, its about following kosher law in order to maintain  the purity of mind,  level of intelligence,  and clarity of perception required  to see what is actually there.

Everything a person experiences in life is filtered through the brain. If your brain is untidy it will not function as well as it could because it will not process information correctly. Something as simple as the infantile resentments you nurture and openly display will distort thoughts and conclusions and consequently everything you perceive just like the person who fails to routinely clean their computer from junk files, adware, malware, cookies, lol,  etc.,  that accumulates through daily use ends up with a crippled machine..

Now that may seem kookie to you but I really don't mind.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It's exactly what you said - you said "_*make himself known*_ to you," verb, action on the fairy's part, so I did not misquote you you're merely un-careful with your words...

"reveal himself" (your actual verb was "make himself known to you") implies _*his decision*_ to make an action...and you prefaced _*HIS*_ revealing himself with one's_ following of kosher law_. You can't even keep your own fucking bullshit straight - In order for "him to make himself known" he requires you follow woo-woo kosher law.

You are gullible.

As far as the "purity of mind," all you're doing is taking a common-sense knowledge that a sick brain doesn't function very well....and you're adding magic fairy woo-woo to it under the guise that "sick brains don't work so good... is uber irrefutable logic, bro!" and therefore it must be true that that's why people don't see your magic fairy.

You are, in fact, a worse kook than the christ crackerers...because you hide behind hypocrisy.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



If it was such common sense logic why is it that every time I squeeze your head a foul and smelly  pus comes oozing out?

A hidden subject in Kosher law is koo koo woo woo, common sense logic is koo koo woo woo??

Thats truly nutty pal. Whats the matter? Never took the time to clean out the garbage that has been festering in your addled mind? Can't you smell that smell?? 

lol...

See? There you go again, confirming what I believe to be true in actual reality.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Because your perception is skewed and you're really bad at reading comprehension.

That, and your self-aggrandized version of an impure mind is completely ridiculous.

If your mind was functioning properly, you'd be more rational. If your mind was functioning properly, you wouldn't contradict yourself so easily, within 2 posts, even.

"I hold a belief that conforms to reality about an unknown God whose existence has been _*confirmed by*_ reality."

-Hobelim

"I wasn't suggesting that reality is evidence of anything other than reality"

-Hobelim



"Its not about an invisible being that cares about me following kosher law in order to reveal itself"

-Hobelim

"Purify your mind and be refined according to the detailed instruction in kosher law.

If you do, my unknown God will make himself known to you."

-Hobelim






No, as far as having a clear mind, you sound ill and should probably see a Doctor because there's no poster that seems more full of vile confusion in his brain than you do. You contradict yourself flawlessly, and only an addled brain can do that. You've been spoken to by me, your God, so say 3 hail marys and salami and bacon, goof.

ohhh...there's more...HAH

"If you want to stand in the presence of the living God to either see him from a distance or close enough to hear his words, *you must do what I did."*

-hobelim

"I didn't use a personal experience as evidence of anything."

-Hobelim




^addled mind.

and it's that easy, ladies and gentlemen!


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



^^^^ liar.

nutter. I never told you what the personal experience that justifies my belief was. You complained about it. remember?

The most that anyone could do for you is to tell you to apply you mind to understand the subject of kosher law and then do it.

If you did you would see God.

You have a problem with the suggesting that you  should tend to the current addled condition of your own mind in order to better deal with actuality?

You enjoy being a numbskull? 

Again, I really don't mind.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Now, here's another lash out, oh addled mind. ^

Like I said, I understand when a prideful character doesn't like their beliefs challenged. 

Hobelim, you're not in any position to sit in judgement of anyone's mind. You lash out irrationally, hold irrational beliefs, contradict yourself, cannot make a coherent argument and arrogantly mock Christ Crackerers while you're more ridiculous than they are.

You go follow your derpy kosher law and imagine seeing your fairy as a result, dude - but thinking that you do is much better evidence of having an addled, ignorant cognitive function than someone who shoves your beliefs back up your ass where they came from Nutter


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  now you have degenerated into pure projection. sad.

I told you days ago that there is a hidden subject in kosher law. Flesh is a metaphor for teaching. Simple. Ever since then you have been contorting yourself into pathetic shapes in a vain attempt  to dismiss my assertion.


Then today, you have the audacity to say that what you have spend days deriding as koo koo woo woo  is common knowledge.

you are as full of shit as they come.

now take that and shove it up your ass.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

Imagine this claim - 

A guy who thinks he has a "pure mind" because he is in accord with kosher Law has, as a result, heard and seen THEEEeeEE God - - - 

And spends his time parking his ass on the internet to mock folks for believing in x, y, z - getting into psycho-babble and meaningless conflicts and arguments - calls names and shows spite - mocks and mocks and mocks the christ crackerers....sits in a position of mockery..

as opposed to - what, what would someone of pure mind who's seen God do with their time? 

PrrrrrrRRrrrobably donate....ALL of it...literally ALL of it, to getting off your ass and doing more worthwhile things. 


It's because of these reasons, and the fact that he contradicts himself and is hella-ripe with being a hypocrite, that one must conclude that Hobelim has a brain full of disgusting impurity, and is either delusional or doesn't believe the bullshit that he himself heaps. 




I have my theory.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Imagine this claim -
> 
> A guy who thinks he has a "pure mind" because he is in accord with kosher Law has, as a result, heard and seen THEEEeeEE God - - -
> 
> ...


 

lol....I once told Taz. if you are going to be a dick I am just going to fuck with you.

Capisce?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Here you go miscomprehending again, FASCINATING!

You really need a 4th grade teacher, dude. 

The kook part is the god part, not the common knowledge part. Was that really hard for you to surmise?
Im not misunderstanding the fucking stupid kosher law as being metaphorical. I've said that verbatim, and you continue to use it as an argument. That's called dishonesty. < addled brains do that, sick-o. 

Your teachings are not sublime, and are not hidden. They're blatant, and many of them are fucking stupid. 

You have a problem with that? Cry.

Your unjustified belief in your sky pixy is as woo-woo kooky as the folks who eat the sacrament. You have a problem with that? Cry. 

You're the one projecting, because you are so clearly full of shit and out of your intellectual depth.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine this claim -
> ...


It's not really that special, hoebilly...you're just incapable of comprehension and a rational argument and so you lash out.

Lash away - addled one .


----------



## hobelim (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




lol....read your previous crybaby posts and then tell me who is lashing out and melting down...


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It's just called medicine, HoeBilly. Your pure mind should have gleaned as much...but then, it would eliminate the necessity for said medicine if it were pure, innit?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 28, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


One thing is certain...no matter how hard you try to understand the nonsensical piles Hobelim pinches off, he will tell you that you don't get it. You can literally repeat his own words back to him (without telling him you are doing so), and he will tell you that you are wrong and just too stupid to understand.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yeah, I knew his decoder ring schtick ten years before I even knew who hobelim on the internet was. 

He's actually pretty terrible at it, most of the Jews I've conversed with and studied are actually able to articulate the specifics of what they believe. Hoebilly tries, but just turns out a lot of incoherent babbling about chewing cud and an impure mind.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 28, 2019)

*"So, is that ____ what you mean?"*

Hobelim: "No."
*
"Okay, I'll try a different way. Is this what you mean: ______?"*

Hobelim: "No."

*"Hmm, okay. How about, this:_____?"*

Hobelim: "Nope!"
*
"Well I guess that just leaves this:_____."*

Hobelim: "Nope! You don't get it, because youre not even trying!"

*"Actually, I tried four times. How about you just spell it out for me."*

Hobelim: "I already did! "

*"Uh, okay. Do it again, then."*

Hobelim: "Nope! I am instead going to write 4 paragraphs prancing about, hollering that you just don't get it, because you are too stupid. Even though I could repeat my point in a simple sentence, if I wanted to. I just dont _feeeel_ like it."

*"You're not really saying anything at all, are you?"*

Hobelim: "i'm saying the only thing that matters!"

*"Are you just making all this up as you go?"*

Hobelim: "I didnt make any of it up! It's all right there in the book, if you look at it just right!"

*"But that is circular reasoning...'if I read it just the right way to arrive at a certain idea, then the book gives me the idea.'... You dont really know what you are going to say next at any given time, do you?"
*
Hobelim: "I knew you would say that."


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 28, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Sin is anything which distances us from God. Since no man or woman is all good or all bad, there will be times when they distance themselves from God. It’s unavoidable.





ding said:


> You never answered my question. How do you define sin?




_



			Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Click to expand...


_
the above forgery is a sin - the 4th century christian bible is a political document disguised as a religion - is a sin ...
_*

It’s unavoidable.*_

excuses are sins, not answering what sins someone is unable to stop committing, when defining sin is a sin ... when speaking of a rapprochement with the Almighty while a sinner - is a sin. 

the uninterrupted history of persecution and victimization of the innocent by christianity - is a sin.





_

It’s unavoidable - 
_
a history lesson from a christian ...


----------



## ding (Mar 28, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The reality is there is no doctrine of the Church that was not founded on the tradition and beliefs of early Christians. 

The presence of Christ in the host, the assumption of Mary, that Mary was born without the stain of sin, that Mary never sinned, that Jesus was fully human and fully God. The list goes on and on. 

But putting all that aside the practice of forgiveness, thankfulness, confession and sacrifice are inseparable sisters of our faith that naturally leads to success. 

What is it that you have?


----------



## ding (Mar 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No one is all good or all bad. To argue that Christianity is flawed because Christians are not all good is ridiculous. 

I believe you have a log in your eye.


----------



## ding (Mar 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The reason you can’t or won’t define what sin is is because it would detract from your attack on Christianity. 

So let me be very clear here, sin is anything which distances one from God.


----------



## ding (Mar 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Excuses are not sins. Excuses are rationalizations for one’s failure to produce the desired result or objective. 

Excuses prevent one from seeing reality and learning the lesson they were supposed to learn and dooms them to repeating the same mistakes.  Excuses transfer ones power and control to external sources. But excuses in and of themselves are not sins.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




lol...  you are what you is.


You say its all magical bullshit.  I say it conveys hidden teaching.  You say magic decoder ring. I say giving sight to the blind, talking serpents,  raising the dead are metaphors. You say they are not, the authors believed that snakes could talk. I mention the vernacular of every language on earth uses such metaphors. you say magical bullshit from the great shaman hobelim..

If you are not stupid whats your excuse?


The devil makes you say stupid things?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


straw-man

he, n'or I, have said they're not metaphors.

Your addled mind causes bad, strawmen arguments. Purify yourself, kook.

Also, the magical bullshit is believing in the deity, which you DO


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Yes, he said they are not metaphors. they believed that snakes can talk. no one can know what the truth is... lol

you are an asshole.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No, he didn't. You mis-comprehended, like is always your problem. 

You believe in a magical fairy that reveals himself when you submit to the behaviors he likes. Raise your paw, kook.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


 

you don't know what you are talking about. FFI spend days trying to tell me that the authors believed that snakes can talk and opening the eyes of the blind was a magical belief..Then he tells me that no one can know what the truth is..

just like the stupid things you say  his moronic position only serves as another rational justification and daily confirmation of the truth of my beliefs that the law of God remains in effect and is in full force.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I understand that's what you're forced to tell yourself, because you're not capable of intellectually supporting your belief in sky fairy bro - I'm past that hiccup in your addled brain and I'm now onto you lying about others' positions. 

People that eat a wafer to symbolically represent receiving christ in their being are akin to people believing that following dictated behaviors will please their sky fairy enough to let you see and hear him. 

There's a foot of control on your neck, based on the same fairy tale but interpreted in a different way. Raise your paw, kook - hold it high.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




no, I am telling the truth. The guy didn't have the substance to admit that there was hidden teaching in what he derides as a fairy tale. Just like you.

astonishing!

And seeing and hearing God is not about having auditory and visual hallucinations. Like I said, God is a character in a book who says this or that..seeing and hearing the words of the living God is simply about understanding the subjects in the book just like when Jesus said "if you have seen me you have seen the father" he wasn't talking about his physical appearance or having visions of an invisible sky fairy. He was saying that if you understood him you would understand the character in the book and how that hidden God is actively involved in real life.

duh.

raise your paw - kook?

damn...You really need to come up with some new material..


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


no, kook, your god is a character too - a hallucinated one. You are easy to convince of things when they're dressed up in fanciful word-play. Kosher law controls you, raise your paw, kook - - and it does so because you seek your sky fairy that you could't possibly verify exists, raise your paw if you believe in magic, kook.

I have no problem agreeing that there's teachings in scripture, but you keep lying and saying I do.

You lie, and lie again, and I can quote my posts saying verbatim what you just said I _don't admit_. Why is that like 2nd nature, to you, to lie so easily? Your kosher law permits lying on messageboards because you're triggered when your beliefs are challenged and you cannot support them rationally? That's the under-current, and has been all along.

As far as them being "hidden," no that's just your self aggrandizing. The thesis of the parables is not hard to understand. fuck, they couldn't be if someone like YOU understands them! Albeit, you're really poor at following them.

Your problem is that you put your own intellect on a pedestal that's a world trade center tower higher than where you actually are, add in the gullibility that would allude to believing in your magic fairy.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




you derided kosher law as something equivalent to eating christ crackers, nothing hidden or mysterious about it, just kookie.Then you say that what I showed you that there is practical wisdom in that hidden teaching in kosher law you deride that as a decoder ring fallacy, only to say a little later that the teaching is obvious.

I don't believe in a magic fairy. I see God at work even in your shameful descent into a dishonest creature that crawls on its belly.

A very rational justification and confirmation in actual reality of my beliefs.

No one has to wait for the kingdom of God to come. They just have to open their eyes and see that the law of God is already in effect and is already in full force.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Here's more of your TERRIBLE comprehension skills.

No, kosher law itself and christ crackers are not what I equated.

I equated your belief in a magic fairy revelation that *comes* from following kosher law with eating the wafer.

Try and keep up, kook.

You really suck at reading comprehension, which might be why you're so yeshua damned gullible.

You do believe in a magic fairy - "you see god at work,"

The god that you're incapable of rationally verifying exists - while making fun of christ crackerers for being irrational.

You are a god damn kook, and a dumb one that miscomprehends simple concepts. You can't even follow a fuckin dialogue, let alone articulate your decoder ring hidden seeekritts..

I could fucking articulate them better than you, and I think your beliefs are fucking ridiculous.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> You really suck at reading comprehension, which might be why you're so yeshua damned gullible.
> 
> You do believe in a magic fairy - "you see god at work,"
> 
> ...




I believe in what I see with my own eyes. I am not incapable of rationally verifying the existence of God, you are incapable of grasping the reality that you have already provided the evidence for the rational justification of my belief.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You really suck at reading comprehension, which might be why you're so yeshua damned gullible.
> ...


That's not an argument, it's an assertion. 

Part of learning how to rationally justify something, is knowing what the fuck _rational_ and _justify_ mean in the first place. 

And I'm still not sure how lying, bickering, name calling and acting like an ass clown on the internet exemplifies a pure mind that follows kosher law - doing those things must be a hidden command huh billy?


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




Yes its a hidden command. 


You,  a he-goat 'without blemish", have been carefully chosen and prepared as a sin offering.

Your slaughter has been dedicated to the Lord.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

Hobelim is a unique circumstance of fail - 

He believes in the magicalness that a God exists and cares only to be revealed if you follow a law (cough: controls you); and makes fun of the magicalness of a belief in a god that asks you make a symbolic sacrament to him. 

So here you have me, a person that finds them equally ridiculous, defending the wafer eaters from the kosher law swallower. 



awesome!


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


We can dedicate slaughters and not crackers though, magical-kook Billy!


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




We? lol ... the facade begins to crack...


How many of you are there?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


did you have trouble following how you stepped on your own dick there, Billy?

Let me be clearer -

You mock folks for assuming a dedication is made to their sky fairy through a cracker, and stated that my slaughter is a dedication to your magical sky fairy.

They're equally ridiculous concepts because of the underlying, common thread: they both assume a sky fairy that likes sacrifices.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




I make no such assumptions. I read the book, I understand the lessons and see how they apply to real life.

I see what God did so thats what I do.

so when you came slithering along full of guile I put you in your place, beneath all the cattle and the wild beasts of the field. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven and all that..Simple. 

thats what is actually taking place.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


 you believe in a magical sky fairy because a book said some true things about how behavior works. 

You're gullible, and a hypocrite, to boot. 

You'd no sooner possess the capability to rationally justify your belief than a Pastafarian. Good luck with the angst and anxiety this causes you and manifests as sputtering mockery on the internet on a daily basis at christ crackerers.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


  lol ..... you keep telling me what you think that I believe and I keep telling you that you are wrong.

When I tell you what I do believe you try to ignore it and then deride a belief that I do not have.


looks like you are the one having a problem with angst and anxiety.

good luck with that yourself.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You've mis-comprehended again, HoeBilly.

Are you at a 1st grade reading level?

Your angst is prevalent, you've been mocking folks obsessively, on your ass, on the internet, for their magic beliefs because you're insecure of your own magic beliefs...it's apparent especially with your claim of a pure mind when you act like a gossippy, neenering little juvenile towards them. You have a lot of wood chips in your eyeballs, it seems like you stood in front of a stump grinder and opened wide.

5 years from now, you'll be of such peace of mind you'll still be talking about wafers.

Raise your paw, kook.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...





lol... you don't know where I am coming from, and you don't know where I am going. You don't have even the slightest inking about what I am doing now, so you have absolutely no idea about what I will or won't be doing tomorrow much less in five years...

I am not your ordinary run of the mill kook. lol...


I am Hobelim, son of sky fairy,   king of the kooks.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Your opinion of your self is irrelevant to that which is self evident. 

You're an idiot on the internet that believes in a fairy and mocks folks for believing in fairies. 

In that, I don't lump you in with the other kooks - I find the hypocrisy angle much worse. That changes from a mere misguided belief system, to being a bad person.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




yes, you are right. If I was mocking the silly things other people do and I was wrong about what is right, I would be a hypocrite if what I thought was right wasn't....but it is...so I am not a hypocrite.

Just being neighborly lending a hand to people who have fallen into a pit by the billions. You just mock them.


Thats the way the cookie crumbles.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You're a hypocrite because your basis for mocking them is because they engage in a metaphorical sacrament and meanwhile you engage in a metaphorical sacrament and they're both in honor of a being you could not possibly justify, rationally, and if you could you'd win a nobel prize but instead you only THINK you can - it's a blind spot in your reasoning, the same one that causes you to bicker about wafers on the internet and assume that's what a pure mind might do.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




 I see your ignorance is showing again. For thousands of years there was nothing metaphoric or symbolic about kosher law or celebrating the eucharist.

The flesh of swine in kosher law is literally about pork according to the teaching of the talmud, what Jesus called the traditions of men.

The eucharist becomes the Body of Christ* in actuality* according to the teaching of the roman catholic church.


dedicated believers of either faith vehemently deny any such metaphorical meaning and act like no one has ever said anything so ridiculous in recorded history, just like you.

You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Right! You're positing that there's not different interpretations by different sects of Christianity, and I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about! You possess the ultimate interpretations! Awesome!

You're the one that said like 7 directly contradictory things in consecutive posts and I highlighted it for you with nice little colors so that it was apparent for anyone reading. You also fail to comprehend posts that are above 2 sentences, not just from me but from many. You argue AGAINST the direct OPPOSITE of what most posts you're responding to say. That's your ignorance, no scapegoating necessary because it's here on the boards for everyone. Nuance is hard for you...and thats okay but hypocrisy is not, that makes you vile. 

And you're, finally, the one who believes in a magical sky fairy because your fruity-take on a hidden law about behavior makes sense to your addled mind.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> You're positing that there's not different interpretations by different sects of Christianity,


  no, you are wrong. Try again.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You're positing that there's not different interpretations by different sects of Christianity,
> ...


No, I tell the truth and YOU lie.

"dedicated believers of either faith vehemently deny any such metaphorical meaning"

-hobelim



While the same hobelim knows that right here on this board he's responding to christians' posts who adhere to a metaphorical-view on scripture. Ding, to name one, which made you a liar just right there. 

Sorry, dude - you're a terrible, piss-poor reasoner...you're dishonest and last, you're a hypocrite. Raise that paw, kook!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 29, 2019)

hobelim said:


> You say its all magical bullshit.


And you claim your particular, preferred pile of magical bullshit is the only magical bullshit that is not bullshit.

So, a rational person like me is left with two choices"

1) Shaman Hobelim holds the only, absolute divine truth, and everyone else is full of shit.

2) Shaman Hobelim is just as full of shit as eveyone else.

Its not a tough call.


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 29, 2019)

Of course. If they follow the ten simple commandments( of only one human ever proved was do-able).A few others were close. Noah I suppose is a good example although he wasnt "perfect", he was pretty darn close as was Moses and a handful of others. Damn few.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 29, 2019)

G.T. said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Anti Christians are nuts. Straight up, criminal crapheads. They can't help it, that's the nature of humanity that lacks humanity.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


To be fair, I'm anti Christianity, not anti-christian human... though - - but hobelim the human is a hypocrite. He says he is pure of mind and yet he sits in these very same neener neener bicker wars on the internet that everyone else does. Twat is a good word.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 29, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> If they follow the ten simple commandments


So, rape,kidnapping, and slavery are cool. But don't covet your neighbors' livestock, because that would be evil!


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> > If they follow the ten simple commandments
> ...


Non Christians maintain all those things are cool.
Christians, on the other hand, go to war to stop those things and believe that each man is equal in the eyes of God, no matter what his station, birth or past.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 29, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> Non Christians maintain all those things are cool.


No they don't, you fucking idiot.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 29, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



.


ding said:


> The reason you can’t or won’t define what sin is is because it would detract from your attack on Christianity.
> 
> So let me be very clear here, sin is anything which distances one from God.



who will not answer the question is you, what sins are you unable not to commit. christian.




ding said:


> Excuses are not sins. Excuses are rationalizations for one’s failure to produce the desired result or objective.



that must be one of them.




ding said:


> Excuses prevent one from seeing reality and learning the lesson they were supposed to learn and dooms them to repeating the same mistakes. Excuses transfer ones power and control to external sources. But excuses in and of themselves are not sins.



you have that backwards.




ding said:


> But excuses in and of themselves are not sins.









in regards to the original spoken religion of antiquity they are ... your 10,000 page document is an inexcusable sin. less than attaining the apex of knowledge is not an excuse. by humanity to fail without final judgement - for their existence from the metaphysical they evolved from.


----------



## ding (Mar 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What do you believe was the original spoken religion?


----------



## ding (Mar 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Life did not evolve from the metaphysical. Life evolved from the creation of space and time. The allegorical account of creation in Genesis is factually correct. Spirit created space and time and everything contained within space and time is a product of that creation including you. 

So man didn’t evolve from God. Man is a creature created through God’s creation.


----------



## basquebromance (Mar 29, 2019)

If there is no God, good and evil are subjective


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 29, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.
The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the original religion of antiquity, reaffirmed by the travails of noah ... why it took them till the 4th century to makeup the forgeries of the christian bible. the fallacies of all three desert religions.




ding said:


> Life did not evolve from the metaphysical.



life is metaphysical without it the physical expression, physiology disappears from existence and is subordinate to the spiritual for its composition. as proof for their shared origin. not of Earth.


----------



## ding (Mar 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You are incapable of giving a straight answer, aren’t you?

Which religion was that again? The triumph of good versus evil?  Never heard of it. Are you talking about Judaism?


----------



## ding (Mar 29, 2019)

basquebromance said:


> If there is no God, good and evil are subjective


Right. And outcomes show they aren’t.


----------



## RWS (Mar 30, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Are you excusing the evils that your religions did? That shit don't work... jus sayin....


----------



## RWS (Mar 30, 2019)

Pray to your god that you are forgiven for what your ancestors did. 

And learn the new reality.,,,


----------



## ding (Mar 30, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Ummm...  you mean people.  Religion is like any other tool, dipshit.

To answer your question...  no.  I’m not.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > You say its all magical bullshit.
> ...




lol,,, there you go again too..

I tell you there is hidden teaching in scripture just like any fairy tale and you say there is no hidden teaching. I mention a talking serpent and you said the authors 'absolutely' believed that snakes can talk. I tell you that a talking serpent is an archetype for a specific type of person described in great detail, which is true about any talking animal in a  fairy tale,  and you call  you that  magical bullshit.

Now thats quite the steaming pile of hypocritical bullshit right there dripping off your lips.



You two are just as dumb and deliberately blind as any deceptive religious fundamentalist nut job out there...


----------



## ding (Mar 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You are a religious fundamentalist.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 30, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




No.  I am  an ordinary unbeliever who just happened to learn how to recognize a fairy tale and search for the moral teaching of the story before I went to kindergarten.

By the second grade and I first heard about the story of Adam and Eve I had already known how to do that for years.

 So when I first heard a religious instructor say "we believe that this bread made by human hands will become for us the body of christ",  after I had memorized the ten commandments and learned about the death,  hell,  and eternal damnation consequent to disobedience  I said to myself,  "there goes a talking serpent, fuck this religion."

Nothing magical, mystical, mysterious, supernatural, complicated, religious, or special about it.

I was just paying attention.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 30, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Never heard of it.



the spoken religion of Antiquity, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - that's all there is christian ... and what is your religion of sinners called, that includes a messiah that is to save you from your uncontrollable sinning by granting you admission to the Everlasting than too who Triumph's over evil. 

the religion of Antiquity is the spoken religion as prescribed by the Almighty, the travails of noah - yours is madeup in the 4th century by the crucifiers that misconstrued the events of the 1st century as has been perpetrated since the 4th century to this day. their 10,000 page political document disguised as a religion.


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


 
H,

i disagree.

Sin is not just disobedience to the law of God it is disobedience to the perfect will of God whether that is expressly outlined in a "law" or not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> perfect will of God


Of course, the only one correct and perfect  interpretation of which is in your possession. Don't leave out the best part!


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 30, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Can persons who resort to fallacy instead of sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation, be moral?


 
DP,

the problem with "truth" is the limited nature of what man can know (Plato's cave allegory)

As Descartes opinined, "I think therefore I am".

Other than than mankind hasn't been able to agree on what is Truth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Other than than mankind hasn't been able to agree on what is Truth.


Right, in cases where there is no way to test the truth of a proposal. On the other hand, mankind has come to agree the earth is a spheroid. And those who claim otherwise are wrong. Note that our only "truths" come from empirical examination. 

While, on the other hand, magical, "divine" truths are untestable and, therefore, nonsense.


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > perfect will of God
> ...



Actually, no I don't have truth of or understanding of God's perfect will.

God has the truth which he communicates to me constantly through the Holy Spirit.

my choice to act according to his direction or to act according to my own direction.

If I act on my understanding of the truth, my understanding is limited and my actions are often erroneous.

Unlike the Gnostics we don't study the Bible and worship God to learn the truth for ourselves, we do so to remind ourselves of who we are, who HE is and to stay in communion with HIM.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> God has the truth which he communicates to me constantly through the Holy Spirit.


Then you do claim to have it. Get your story straight.

And you also claim everyone who doesnt believe as you do is wrong. Further evidence that, despite any of your contrived, flowery talking points to the contrary, you claim to be in possession of the one truth.

And this contradiction in your treatise from the start is evidence that you are selling a bill of goods.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International




Well, you kind of got that right.  In an absolute sense, morality, the ability to tell right from wrong must be independent from mankind otherwise any tyrant could say killing millions of his enemy is "Right" and it would be so.  In absolute terms, also, how is an atheist to judge or determine right or wrong in the context of spiritual beliefs or acts?  They can't, therefore, again, in that context, the highest absolute morality above all men must come from a source presumed above and separate from mankind, which we call "God."

Then it is up to you to argue the case for or against believing in a God in the first place, whether you are theist or not.  If one accepts the source as divine then, OK. Thus, man shall not kill, steal, and so forth.

But some people are atheist, so they will not accept a so-called divine source of morality above man, nor can they rightly determine the correct morality in spiritual matters since they don't even recognize them!  But in ALL OTHER INSTANCES of right and wrong, there is no reason to think or claim an atheist isn't capable of leading a "moral" life.  Their morality will simply be based on some standard other than God, the innate inner compass of "common sense" that abides in all normal, healthy, reasonable, intelligent people we call our "conscience."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> the ability to tell right from wrong must be independent from mankind otherwise any tyrant could say killing millions of his enemy is "Right" and it would be so.


And it IS so, if enough peole agree, for all practolical purposes.. Just as we all agreed at the time that firebombing german civilians was "right". 

No, morality and ethics are not independent of the human mind. In fact, they are an invention of the human mind, and that is the only place they exist. Thus, a social contract and legal system designed to enforce the consensus from outside the human mind.


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Other than than mankind hasn't been able to agree on what is Truth.
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > God has the truth which he communicates to me constantly through the Holy Spirit.
> ...



Much ado about nothing

If by Truth, you mean all Truth (upper case) then neither myself of any Christian claims to know that.

We do claim to know the source of Truth (upper case), which is God.

However, we do claim to know a truth (lowe case) or two, such as the means to salvation as expressed to us by the source of Truth (upper case) God.

but you already knew that...[/QUOTE]


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Ironically, in Isaiah 40:22, the Bible states that the earth is round long before modern science was around


No it doesn't. How absurd. For every overwrought attempt to peddle that nonsense, one can just as easily produce passages from the bible that imply the earth is flat.



MedfordMan said:


> Much ado about nothing


Excuse you, its germane to your point. In one breath, you claim not to be in possession of the one, divine truth. In the next, you claim god communicates this truth to you. And,in the next, you claim that your magical beliefs are correct, while those of other religions are wrong. I can see how you would want to sidestep this obvious contradiction in your talking points, because it discredits you utterly .


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > the ability to tell right from wrong must be independent from mankind otherwise any tyrant could say killing millions of his enemy is "Right" and it would be so.
> ...




Score one for the atheist position.  Of course morality MUST NOT BE independent of the human mind if you don't believe in God in the first place!  So in other words, your position may make 100% sense to you, but then so does it make sense to deny clouds and sunlight by a blind man.

The difference between us is that I'm willing to concede the validity of your POV making sense TO YOU.  But you will NEVER concede the validity of my POV of absolute morality to me.  You will argue it till doomsday claiming that I'm an idiot, wrong, mistaken and still living in the Dark Ages.  Which proves my point in the first place, thank you.

Now go ahead and tell me there can't possibly be any God.  I need my laugh for the day.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Of course morality MUST NOT BE independent of the human mind if you don't believe in God in the first place!


And i demonstrated quite well thatit is, regardless of your complaints. Furthermore, you reveal your own overwrought, verbose nonsense to be a useless ruse,as your ONLY real argument is thus:

"There is one god, therefore morality is independent of the human mind"

Of course, all your work is infront of you, as you are left to prove not only that gods exist, but there is only one, and he is perfectly moral, and he communicates those morals to us.

Get to work, Shaman! I think you will need to sacrifice at least 4 goats and 3 catsfor this one.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Of course morality MUST NOT BE independent of the human mind if you don't believe in God in the first place!
> ...




And there we go just as I know the FFT would.  Right onto the bait in a nanosecond like a guppy.  *Already putting words in my mouth* that I said there was only one God when I NEVER EVER said that!  I'm not even a Christian, so if I only believe in one god, how do I defend Christianity?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 30, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> *Already putting words in my mouth*


100% wrong. You put those own words in your own mouth, as they directly follow from your statements. If you dont like that, then recant your own bitchy little comments and reformulate them. Thanks.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > *Already putting words in my mouth*
> ...



Like I said.  You can predict the faux scientist FFT like a bad cold.  The guy has 0% credibility.  I'm 100% wrong about something he cannot even prove or show the slightest proof of.


----------



## ding (Mar 30, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Cool story. Of course there’s the whole attacking a rival religion thingee that makes you a religious fundamentalist.


----------



## ding (Mar 30, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No such thing.  Which religion did you say it was?  If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it?  Hmmmm?


----------



## ding (Mar 30, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Does this spoken religion of Antiquity have a God? Who practiced it?  How did you learn about it? Do they teach that God created space and time? Do they believe in more than one God? Do they believe they are Gods or can become like a God?

Tell me more about this mysterious religion you follow.


----------



## ding (Mar 30, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You don’t seriously believe this guy believes in God, do you?

The only religion he has is the religion of bashing Christianity. Especially Catholicism. But it’s actually even worse than that, he condemns respect for Christians and especially Catholics.


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Ironically, in Isaiah 40:22, the Bible states that the earth is round long before modern science was around
> ...



Let me correct a couple of misperceptions.

God, through the Holy Spirt,  doesn't just speak to me or other believers, he's speaking to you and everyone else. You're just not listening.

That's not as critical as it sounds, because I get it.  My selfish sin nature makes it difficult for me to listen to HIM too.

God (through the Holy Spirit) doesn't communicate "truth" to me. He provides practical direction in the minute to minute decisions I have to make in my daily life.

You see God doesn't provide truth, he  IS righteous and true.

As a Christian, I am not better than you. I'm not smarter than you. I don't have any greater understanding of anything other than this. I'm a sinner, like you, but I can't redeem myself.

You seek truth? That's the truth I understand and that you don't. 

You have made it clear that you don't feel that you need God and can do it all yourself.

Good luck to you, I tried that for years and was  unsuccessful. If you can pull it off, you're a better man than me.


----------



## Mindful (Mar 31, 2019)

There is a nice example of this way of thinking in the Vedanta philosophywritten down in the _Upanishads.  _Here God is not above this world but is this world and everything in it. God is purple mountains and red Ferraris, politicians and dog poo. To be liberated is to realize that oneself and everything else is of the same fabric. Life as we often think of it, as divisions between you and I or one cult and another, are simply tricks we play on ourselves that keep us from understanding the true nature of God and reality.  We think we die because God plays hide-and-seek with himself. But we never die, we just fall back into the wave of God. Alan Watts book _On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Really Are_ is an enjoyable romp through this way of thinking.

Why Do We Die?


----------



## RWS (Mar 31, 2019)

ding said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It's very easy to bash Christianity. Especially Catholicism. You people are wrong and evil. But so are every other religions. Yours are just easy because of documented history. You're evil people, believing in an evil religion. For the benefit of a few.

Just abandon that shit. And have your faith in goodness, and forfeit the evil and sin that your religion promotes and allows.


----------



## RWS (Mar 31, 2019)

once you can do that, you will be a faithful person. As opposed to a lemming...


----------



## RWS (Mar 31, 2019)

With faith, we can all have different ones and still get along great.

With religion, if we are different, we must kill to convert others. 

I mean really... Just have your faith, and realize everyone has an equal opportunity for their own faith. And just let it be. 

No reason to convert anyone. 

I mentioned Let it Be, so I have to play it...


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


You mean sort of like how Hitler saw the Jews?


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

RWS said:


> With faith, we can all have different ones and still get along great.
> 
> With religion, if we are different, we must kill to convert others.
> 
> ...


Maybe you are the one who needs to let it be. 

I already do.


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

RWS said:


> once you can do that, you will be a faithful person. As opposed to a lemming...


Lemmings come in all shapes and sizes. Some lemmings even accuse other people of being lemmings without ever realizing they are the lemming. 

Let it be, Adolph.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> God, through the Holy Spirt, doesn't just speak to me or other believers, he's speaking to you and everyone else. You're just not listening.


Right....me and 5 billion others...how unfortunate...


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > God, through the Holy Spirt, doesn't just speak to me or other believers, he's speaking to you and everyone else. You're just not listening.
> ...


I believe your numbers are way off. 

You’d be surprised how many people are willing to listen when they are in the shit.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 31, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




well, thanks,  it is a true story, not unlike your own I'm sure,  except for the fact that you had no balls.

Anyway,  how can a person who has no religion be a religious fundamentalist?

I'm into waste management now.

Or you can look at it as if you were given an assignment to study a book a few thousand years ago and now you are being tested for comprehension and   graded according to how well you have done.

So far you are failing miserably.


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I couldn’t be happier for you to believe I have no balls. Being meek isn’t what some believe. It’s hard work.

A person who has no religion is a religious fundamentalist when they habitually attack other religions. That’s how.

So you believe you are doing God’s work and that God has instructed you to attack the beliefs of others?  That your behaviors are morally justified?

It seems to me that if God is willing to let us have free will you should too.


----------



## hobelim (Mar 31, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Sure, I know its hard work trying to ignore reality day and night  perpetuating  delusions in your own head that are contradicted by reality day and night.

I'm sure its downright exhausting.

And I am not attacking anything dimwit. You are making claims and I am pointing out exactly how what you profess to believe is wrong and what is right.

So what. Its an open message board. Freedom of expression and all that... I'm a goddamn American.

If you want to pray to a lifeless matzo made by human hands and then eat it for spiritual life, kneel, stand up, sit down, light a candle, genuflect and then chant chant chant, knock yourself out....go to church. No one there is going to disturb your obliviousness by challenging you to question, "isn't this eating of the Jesus thingy a bit stupid?"


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > God, through the Holy Spirt, doesn't just speak to me or other believers, he's speaking to you and everyone else. You're just not listening.
> ...


 
I would call that unfortunate, yes.

my point is that Christianity is not secret club, it's an open invitation to anyone who has come to the end of themselves and is willing to accept the Lordship of a loving God.

But, I respect your right to decline that invitation.

However I love you enough to warn you that your decision may have consequences.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> But, I respect your right to decline that invitation.


Just as I have declined the invitation to join all the other religious clubs.  Like, hundreds of them. As have you.



MedfordMan said:


> However I love you enough to warn you that your decision may have consequences.



Sorry, shaman. Your magical threats and incantations hold no weight with me.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

Spare_change said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I need help deciding what the moral thing to do is. I’m at a fort being attacked by Apache indians. I escape to get help and run into a man with 100 rifles but I don’t have the money to buy the guns. I can either murder him to save the 200 men and women at the fort or they will die. What should I do?

No other option. Murder him and save 200 or don’t murder him and they will die.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But that is still somewhat unethical. You and the 200 made your choices to be in the position you are in (even though your position is not solely due to your choices).  And now you are transferring the negative consequences of those choices to someone else.

might i propose that you convince the gun seller that he will die as well?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


No. In the movie I just watched fort dobbs, he had to murder him for the guns.

I just thought it was odd in the movie they didn’t make the bad guy bad enough in my opinion to justify murdering him for his guns. The main character made the decision to murder him to save the fort.

Very strange movie. He was on the run because he murdered a man for beating up his whore girlfriend, but it was in self defense. Because he saved the fort the sheriff decided to let him go. No mention of the fact he murdered a man to save all their lives.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> No. In the movie I just watched fort dobbs, he had to murder him for the guns.


Well that was dumb. He xouldnt convince the guy that he was dead, too?

200 people couldn't overtake the guy withoit killing him?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


I don’t understand why he didn’t tell the guy he’d get the guns back as soon as they save the fort. I expect my gun has been fired a few times before I buy it. It’s not like they lose value because they’ve been shot a few times.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > No. In the movie I just watched fort dobbs, he had to murder him for the guns.
> ...


No the main character left the fort in search of help. So he came across him and they had a shootout.

Not the point. The point is, is it unethical that the main character murdered him for his possessions? I don’t think so but how many of us would to save 200 women and children?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> No the main character left the fort in search of help. So he came across him and they had a shootout.


Ah, I see.

Still somewhat unethical. But human.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 31, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> No such thing. Which religion did you say it was? If there was nothing ever written about it, how did you learn about it? Hmmmm?




- you are about as dense as they come ....

all the desert religions and early religions are verbal translations to text - the texts primarily a corruption by syntax. christianity.

the spoken religion of antiquity is reaffirmed by the travails of noah - when the last good or evil person perishes those who remain will be the Final Judgement granted by the Almighty for all humanity, granted admission to the Everlasting or that all will perish together.

the parable would have concluded with noah's death and the annihilation of humanity, that was preempted and mankind was given a second chance.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > No the main character left the fort in search of help. So he came across him and they had a shootout.
> ...


I want to hear from the theists here. Is it clear cut ethical or unethical in their eyes.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I just watched Noah. So did his son who left at the end of the movie find more people wherever he went?

And who impregnated who after Noah’s family multiplied?


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 31, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


.


MedfordMan said:


> I'm a sinner, like you, but I can't redeem myself.



what are the sins you can not stop committing, you fool yourself by the 4th century christian religion - follow the true religion as prescribed by the Almighty, triumph over evil for admission to the Everlasting.


----------



## BreezeWood (Mar 31, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> I just watched Noah. So did his son who left at the end of the movie find more people wherever he went?
> 
> And who impregnated who after Noah’s family multiplied?



you are talking about the christian version - the event was the reaffirmation of the original metaphysical imperative for the evolution of humanity from whence they came ... the threat to destroy the affirmative was itself destroyed. and was summarily resurrected by humanity, the 4th century as an example.


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Challenging me?  That’s what you are doing?

That’s rich.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You don’t come to these message boards then become sensitive about people attacking your ridiculous religion I agree. This is the place to do this.


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


There’s no corruption. The beliefs and traditions are intact. Which corruption do you think exists?


----------



## ding (Mar 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Do you believe God created space and time?  

If so, how do you know it?  Written text?  Or was that corrupted too?


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 31, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You know what conservatives can’t do? They can’t erase history especially when movies have been made about how religions felt about people who challenged their teachings like the earth isn’t the center of the universe

And Christians can’t say now that they never said Noah and Adam were real but instead just allegorical teachings. And Jonah. These stories were all factual just a century ago. In fact many still argue the earth is flat, god made the earth in 7 days and the earth is only 5000 years old.

The people who call themselves Christians but believe in evolution aren’t really Christians. They believe all the stories in the Bible are just allegories. The ones they can’t justify in their heads get filed away as allegories.

But then the question is was jesus just an allegory? Walking on water, miracles, virgin births, rising from the dead. The obvious answer is yes, he too is just an allegory. And a lot of people are ok with following Christianity even if jesus isn’t the literal son of god. They think Christianity is still a good club to be in. So they have a personal relationship with god even if they don’t believe the religion. Never even imagining god isn’t real. I know because this was my path to agnostic atheism


----------



## MedfordMan (Mar 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



A sin is simply choosing not to do the perfect will of God. When I  choose to do my own selfish will instead of the perfect will of God (for whatever reason), I sin. Remember it's not just the act (or thought), it's the heart behind the act (or thought). 

The list of sins I never commit would be must shorter than the list of sins I do commit.

This "what are the sins you can't stop committing" is not a gotcha, it's as silly as asking "what bad food can't you stop eating". If you don't eat perfectly, there are too many kinds of foods you eat (or have eaten your entire life), but shouldn't. 

Feel free to flesh out your 4th century religion argument, but it has two flaws going in.

First there were many false religions and false teachings in the early church.

If what your espousing was the true word of an all powerful God, why did it die out?


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Absolutely not. Where did you get that from? Hitler was the opposite. He wanted people to think like him and believe in his Nazi religion. And if they didn't, they got killed. 

Another religion, that led to atrocities.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > With faith, we can all have different ones and still get along great.
> ...


 No you don't. You keep religious mantra going, when you should just let it be.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > once you can do that, you will be a faithful person. As opposed to a lemming...
> ...


Very funny! Lemmings only follow. Which is what you do, based on your birthright. 

Therefore you absolutely believe in shit that hurts humanity and is going to doom us all.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

It just takes one religious fanatic to press the doomsday button......


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

Me? I don't trust religious zealots to hold a button that can launch nukes, and start a global nuclear war. Hitler would've done it in an instant had he developed it first.

They have been proven to not care about anyone else in the past. Just serve their own self-interest, and massacre innocent people for joy. Religious people should not have access to nuclear weapons.

How do we do that?


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

The question of the OP, is can atheists be moral?

I think we are way more moral than religious zealots.

We want all of humanity to survive and thrive. Not just the ones that believe in a particular religion....

So tell me where the morals lay.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


And that’s another thing you have in common with him. You are 2 for 2.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


No. I pretty much stick to defending my faith against aggressors like yourself and three or four others.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Really?  OK, read the subsequent posts.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


The fact that you don’t see that you are not only a follower but the aggressor is pretty amazing to me.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Do you need for me to break it down for you?


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm not an aggressor. I am providing logic to stop the aggressors. 

We're talking about morals. I have them. You don't...


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

you will kill for fun. 

I won't.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Yes, you are. 100%. 

But it’s good you recognize being the aggressor is bad.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> you will kill for fun.
> 
> I won't.


I’m afraid you don’t know what I would kill for. I’m not sure I know what I would kill for.  And I am certainly not arrogant enough or stupid enough to say that I know what someone else would kill for. 

But one thing I do know is that whatever the reason I did it, I would not try to rationalize it as good and just.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

You would kill for your religion.

I would not do so for my faith.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

You're evil dude. Just accept it. You follow an evil religion, and are willing to do anything that it takes to make that religion follow through to this day. Even if it means rape, child molestation, and lies.

I mean really? Your religion is full of evil.

And... it's allowed!


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> You would kill for your religion.
> 
> I would not do so for my faith.


Again, you don’t know what I would kill for. 

So your argument is full of shit. 

This is just you trying to rationalize you are not the aggressor when you clearly are.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> You're evil dude. Just accept it. You follow an evil religion, and are willing to do anything that it takes to make that religion follow through to this day. Even if it means rape, child molestation, and lies.


Hitler thought the Jews were evil. 

Have you worked out your final solution yet?


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

When we talk about morals, Christianity should put its tail up its ass and run away...


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> When we talk about morals, Christianity should put its tail up its ass and run away...


That’s like saying a gun is evil. A gun is just a tool that can be used for good or evil. The gun itself is neither good or bad. 

For any given thing there will be a distribution. There will be an envelope or spectrum. There will be good and bad Christians just like there will be good and bad atheists.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > You're evil dude. Just accept it. You follow an evil religion, and are willing to do anything that it takes to make that religion follow through to this day. Even if it means rape, child molestation, and lies.
> ...



Nope, but you have, with your evil religion, and non acceptance of Jews. You are Hitler.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


And yet, here you are being the aggressor calling others who don’t have the same beliefs as you... evil. 

You are the one trying to force everyone to have the same belief. 

Me? I love diversity. God created it. It is diversity that propels us forward.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > When we talk about morals, Christianity should put its tail up its ass and run away...
> ...


Dumbass, It's the person that is good or evil. You chose EVIL. 

I choose GOOD.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

Your morals say that it's ok to kill people. If they disagree with you. 

My morals say it's not ok. And we should be free to think whatever we want.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

That's what we're down to, ding. 

Will you love your brother, if he's gay?


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> That's what we're down to, ding.
> 
> Will you love your brother, if he's gay?


Sure, why wouldn’t I?


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> Your morals say that it's ok to kill people. If they disagree with you.
> 
> My morals say it's not ok. And we should be free to think whatever we want.


No. I already told you I would never rationalize killing someone as moral. No matter what the circumstances were. 

You are the one calling others evil, brother. Not me.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

I think you would remove him from the family. 

But... I think you will make a more sensitive response. To save your ass. 

Either way, we all know how you would really feel,  based on your orthodox views of religion.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > That's what we're down to, ding.
> ...


Then you're not Christian. And definitely not Catholic.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


You said Christianity was evil, brother. I just explained to you that Christianity can’t be evil. It’s just a tool. And like all tools it can be used for good and evil. 

Given that my only crime is believing differently than you, I’m not sure how you make the leap of faith that I am evil. What is it that I have done - besides believing differently than you - that makes me evil?  

Are all people who don’t believe as you do, evil?

And lastly, who is the evil person?  The one who calls others evil for no good reason?  Or the one who is defending himself from attacks by an aggressor?


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> I think you would remove him from the family.
> 
> But... I think you will make a more sensitive response. To save your ass.
> 
> Either way, we all know how you would really feel,  based on your orthodox views of religion.


You only believe that about me because you need to believe that about me to justify your treatment towards me. You have absolutely no evidence or knowledge to believe as you do. 

I have three liberal sisters who are atheists and one niece that is gay. I love them all dearly. Who are you to say I don’t?


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > you will kill for fun.
> ...


Of course you would. That's what your religion has told you to do in the past, for the glory of god. It's why you have your religion today. Maybe you didn't do it, but your ancestors did! That's why you believe in your shit.

It''s evil! Your ancestors killed so many innocent people. And raped and pillaged and erased history....

And you still love the religion....


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


I’m happy for you to see me any way you want. It doesn’t make it true. It’s only your loss. Not mine.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Give me a break.  How many times are you going to falsely accuse me before you give up?

You literally have zero evidence for your belief.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

Morals? 

You don't have any.

You don't even know what morals mean...


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> Morals?
> 
> You don't have any.
> 
> You don't even know what morals mean...


Morals are effectively standards. They exist independent of man.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Why am I being asked if I have morals? Because I'm atheist? When I have far more morals than you religious nuts. 

Am I somehow inferior to your religious views?


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


I’m not the one asking. My answer was, yes. It was the first reply I made in this thread. 

I’m not the one calling others evil. That’s you.


----------



## RWS (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So I'm inferior to you because I don't believe in your religion? 
And have no morals?


----------



## MedfordMan (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


 
So under this illogically based premise, any Orthodxy or Ideology that has a group philosophy even those who denigrate or dismiss religion (ie. Socialism, Communism, Atheism) are "relugions" and thus all "religion" is responsible for the atrocities in the world.

Man I've seen people tie themselves into logical pretzels to try to justify their selfish sin natutes, but this silly argument takes the cake.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


How did you make that leap in logic?

Because I certainly never said or gave you a reason to believe I believe that. 

But let me be clear, no and no.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 1, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


.


MedfordMan said:


> When I choose to do my own selfish will instead of the perfect will of God (for whatever reason), I sin.



and that is something you can not control - so you rely on a makebelieve messiah to save you when your evil deeds affect others ...

the prescribed religion of the Almighty is to triumph over evil - that is your sin against their will - good luck.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


That’s not how it works. 

But you aren’t interested in that. You are only interested in grinding your ax.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> That’s not how it works.


Yes it is.


----------



## MarathonMike (Apr 1, 2019)

I don't see the correlation between morality and one's religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > That’s not how it works.
> ...


No. It’s not. The fact that you think it is just might be the root cause of all your erroneous beliefs about Christianity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes, it is. And oops, no way to tell who is right. The downfall of magical whimsy.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Wrong.  You seem to have swallowed the Protestant belief. The problem is that even the Protestant belief assumes that the fabric of the identity changes when one enters into a relationship with the living Christ. 

Your specific problem is that you believe it is like a get out of jail for free card.  It isn’t.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> You seem to have swallowed the Protestant belief. The problem is that even the Protestant belief assumes that the fabric of the identity changes when one enters into a relationship with the living Christ.


In your opinion.  Sorry ding, as much of an authority as you obviously hold yourself on absolute, divine truths, I think you are wrong.  And oops, no good way to tell the difference.  Just a bunch of sectarian assholes, claiming their dogma can beat up your dogma.

The downfall of magical nonsense.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have swallowed the Protestant belief. The problem is that even the Protestant belief assumes that the fabric of the identity changes when one enters into a relationship with the living Christ.
> ...


Given that I have tested it and you haven’t, I don’t see how you can see yourself as an authority on it at all.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have swallowed the Protestant belief. The problem is that even the Protestant belief assumes that the fabric of the identity changes when one enters into a relationship with the living Christ.
> ...


The problem is that you think it is magical when in reality it is practical. 

There’s nothing magical about successful behaviors leading to success. It is natural. Not magical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 1, 2019)

ding said:


> Given that I have tested it and you haven’t


You have tested nothing. You have no tests, no repeatable results, and nothing that is proof to anyone but to yourself.  That is precisely NOT evidence, by any standard.


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Given that I have tested it and you haven’t
> ...


No. I absolutely have. How do you know what I have or have not done?


----------



## ding (Apr 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Given that I have tested it and you haven’t
> ...


Are you telling me that if you behave one way and observe those results and then behave in a diametrically opposed way and observe those results and see consistent results when the behaviors are repeated that that is not testing it?


----------



## hobelim (Apr 2, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Ok, I see where you are coming from. I also see that you have made some errors in your speculations.

You heard about the claim that the earth was flat and dismissed it out of hand as bronze age ignorance because everyone now knows the earth is round but the earth being flat had nothing to do with the shape of the planet. It was about the earth being a level playing field, everyone was equal. There were no mountains or valleys, rich or poor.

The earth was flat in this way,  in the beginning. Who would dispute that? Scripture speaking of otherworldly *spheres *of intelligent life seems to indicate that they knew that other planets were round before we confirmed the existence of other solar systems with planets.

In the same way the fantastical things that Jesus did were metaphors for something a real person actually did, whether raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, walking on water, etc., the title, Son of God,  is just a relational metaphor, not a claim about God having supernatural offspring.

So I would suggest to you to leave the question of whether God exists or not open until you decipher the metaphors and come to comprehend the moral teaching and hard learned lessons of the past hidden in these fantastical stories written by enlightened men to educate their own children.



Seriously, if I what I just showed you about the earth being flat wasn't obvious, God won't be visible to you either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2019)

ding said:


> How do you know what I have or have not done?


Because your claim is insane and false.


----------



## ding (Apr 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know what I have or have not done?
> ...


What is it that you believe my claim is?  

And how do you know it is false?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Good grief, try to follow a simple conversation.

And I know that you did not test anything. Ding, you should know by now that your lies are lost on me.


----------



## MedfordMan (Apr 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Breezewood,

are you arguing that man can not control his selfish nature?


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 2, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


.


MedfordMan said:


> are you arguing that man can not control his selfish nature?



again, it is you who is unable not to be a sinner and will not reveal what those sins are ... and makebelive in a messiah you undoubtedly had a hand in crucifying to save you from your own just reward. as always, good luck christian.


----------



## RWS (Apr 3, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't see the correlation between morality and one's religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs.


Yes. exactly what we're tying to say. But religions think otherwise.


----------



## RWS (Apr 3, 2019)

God cannot exist when he allows his priests to molest little children

At least, that's not the god i want to follow....


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You don’t even know what you are arguing. 

What is it that you believe I have tested?

How do you know I haven’t tested it?

Did I not explain it already to you?


----------



## RWS (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Do you like little children as a sexual toy?

Because your religion does.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Why would I?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Maybe one day you’ll convince us to understand Christianity exactly like you. But then the next person will come along and tell us you have it all wrong.

This is the problem with religions. You guys can’t even get on the same page.

And every person who falls for the scam is victim to whatever nut they come in contact with. Could be their parents, a preacher, you, David Koresh, Charles Manson, osama bin ladin


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I don’t care to convince you. Only to correct you.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Didn’t they see the moon was round? Maybe when they talked about other worlds being round they meant like the moon.

A circle can still be flat. Draw a circle on a piece of paper. See?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But that’s only how you see it? Do priests and preachers see it your way? Really? What denomination are you?


----------



## RWS (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Because you believe in a religion that promotes child molestation.


----------



## RWS (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That’s a really curious expectation, don’t you think?

Everyone should believe and do the same thing?

Why?


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


No. You believe I believe in a religion that promotes child molestation.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> No. You believe I believe in a religion that promotes child molestation.



then tell us the sins you are unable to stop committing, christian so we understand what your failings are the same as your priests you have condoned since the 4th century - the religion of sinners.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Yes, Christianity is a religion for sinners. 

Apparently you don’t believe God exists so you don’t believe sin exists. I don’t believe you know what sin is in the context of this discussion.  Which is why you think your point is a big deal. It isn’t. Sin is nothing more or less than anything that distances us from God. 

So the question is why can’t I stop distancing myself from God. The answer is the same as it has always been since the very beginning... pride; love of self. 

So the answer to the problem is dying to self which all religions teach. That is a process, not an event. It is a journey; a way.  One that has ups and downs. But the rewards are great, we get to see reality.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



A circle can be flat but a sphere isn't. Anyone can look at the half moon with the naked eye and see that the moon is a sphere and not a flat circle..

Anyway They were not speaking about the shape of the planet by saying the earth was flat in the beginning.

The prophecies about the end of the age of darkness speak about the stars falling from the sky, mountains crumbling and valleys being lifted up which shows that the earth will be flat again one day, as it was in the beginning.

The end of the age is not about cosmic catastrophe. It's about social upheaval and change, just like the morning after the first creation of heaven and earth when light was established on earth through law and many people rebelled against it once it dawned on them that they were depicted as vile and loathsome, foul, unclean, dumb, or creepy creatures in the divine menu.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 3, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> then tell us the sins you are unable to stop committing, christian so we understand what your failings are the same as your priests you have condoned since the 4th century - the religion of sinners.


 

Ding just can't stop lying in the name of God, misleading others, and worshipping and then eating a lifeless matzo made by human hands.

He is a dedicated  idolator, he doesn't know his ass from his elbow,  a sin from a banana, why would he stop?

he's proud of it. He thinks he is going up to hebbin.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I don’t believe that is what he is saying at all. He is saying he can’t redeem himself. He can’t reconcile justice with mercy. That is God’s call.  

But what he can do is to move towards God and by doing so God rushes towards him like the father did in the parable of the prodigal son when the son made the first move towards the father.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > then tell us the sins you are unable to stop committing, christian so we understand what your failings are the same as your priests you have condoned since the 4th century - the religion of sinners.
> ...


You don’t believe in God. So you don’t believe in “Hebbin” or sin.

Your only mission here is to subordinate religion and condemn respect for people of faith.

You don’t have faith that God would be born into this world to sacrifice himself to reconcile justice and mercy. I do. And because I do, he comes rushing towards me when I make an effort to move towards him.

You have never tested this so you are incapable of experiencing it. But you are more than happy to criticize and insult those that have.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Depends.  What is 2 + 2.  Do you have an opinion on that or is the universal answer 4?

Something like god shouldn't be subjective should it?  He either came and visited 2000 years ago or he didn't.  See where I'm going with this?  You should.  

What I'm getting from your comment is that your religion is just the main religion in your neck of the woods.  And even in your neck of the woods yall can't even agree on such things as who goes to heaven, what gets you to heaven, if there is a hell, etc.....

No wonder so many people in the world don't believe the Jesus myth.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You don’t have to be a Christian to move towards God. You only have to desire a relationship with the Creator of existence. You will never understand what I am saying until you test this for yourself.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Something like God shouldn’t be subjective?

God isn’t subjective. Humans are subjective. So why wouldn’t human perceptions be subjective?  

There was a point in time when humans did not know math. But math existed despite man’s ignorance of math, right?

Truth is discovered. So just because you have not discovered it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



That's why I'm looking into Hinduism.  Seems truthful.  Makes sense.  Buddism too.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Then you aren't a Christian

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Oh now we will get to hear DING's spin on this.  His translation.  Let's hear it Ding.

And sorry ding but I've told you before that I already tested your theory for a couple decades.   I was kidding myself.  You couldn't want it any more than I did.  I thought I had a personal relationship with god, then I woke up.  Even after I woke up I would find myself talking to god when I was walking or driving around.  I had to remind myself I'm talking to nothing.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




Of course I believe in God, thats why I would rather be drawn and quartered than to turn to a lifeless matzo made by human hands for spiritual life which is sin.

And of course I have tested your claims. This is what I found out. According to your own holy book you are an idolator. You died in the very day that you first got down on your knees in deranged adoration before a lifeless cracker for spiritual life and in the twinkling of an eye you descended into the netherworld, the realm of the dead, where you have been tortured for decades day and night by the demons of your own unrestrained imagination condemning yourself to a prison forever at odds with reality that will always appear to the dead like a fire that will never go out.

Now I do not dispute that you are having a spiritual experience by engaging in such a vile and degrading practice.

Its just not a very good one.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Good for you. I hope you find what you are looking for. I studied them all too.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I don’t believe you do.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I can live with you believing whatever you want about me. No skin off my teeth.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




You don't believe that I believe in God because I do not believe in your false three in one edible mangod.

Thats fine with me.

According to your own holy book you are an idolator. You died in the very day that you first got down on your knees in deranged adoration before a lifeless cracker for spiritual life and in the twinkling of an eye you descended into the netherworld, the realm of the dead, where you have been tortured for decades day and night by the demons of your own unrestrained imagination condemning yourself to a prison forever at odds with reality that will always appear to the dead like a fire that will never go out.

I will never become an idolator and so I will never know what its like to be dead. I will never be flailing around in fire lake trying to convince someone else that I am saved.

Woe is me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> What is it that you believe I have tested?


The thing you said you tested. Ding,please try to follow a simple discussion.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I'm curious, is your basis that I worship a false God based upon the Old Testament?  

The God of Abraham?  

You aren't Jewish, are you?  So it's really odd that you would adopt the Old Testament as your authority, don't you think?


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What is it that you believe I have tested?
> ...


I know what it is, but you don't.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## ding (Apr 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It really drives you crazy that I don't argue you have to be Christian to go to heaven, doesn't it?

Just curious, is that what your father believes?  Does it bother you that that is his belief?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He doesn’t believe that. He knows Christianity is made up but he still believes there must be a god. Too perfect for there not to be. That makes perfect sense to him. He hopes there is a heaven for all the obvious reasons.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 3, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The Jews call bullshit on the messiah story but you have to defend the Jewish story because it’s your origins.

I love how you guys explain how it doesn’t matter what the Old Testament says just focus on the new


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Interesting choice of words. You only need to defend something because it is being attacked, right?  If you ask the Jews they will say they are the ones who feel attacked by Christianity. 

But getting back to your point, according to the Jews the messiah will come at the end of times  so It wasn’t time for them to accept Jesus as the messiah. 

Looks like I don’t need to say the OT doesn’t really matter after all.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Cool story, bro.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 4, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




My  conclusion that you worship a false God is based on several factors. The things that you say, what is actually written in the old and new testaments, and logic.

simple. Is this a surprise to you? You don't remember going over these subjects? Holy shit!

Now I'm curious. Why don't you already know whether I am Jewish or not even after I told you a dozen times? sheesh. And you don't believe that you are under the condemnation of God even though your mind is like a leaky bucket..Pity.

I told shimon once and he never forgot.  ask him.


Ask a priest.

Ask your matzo god.

Ask yourself what difference does it make. damn.


----------



## MedfordMan (Apr 4, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> MedfordMan said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



That seems to be a simple question.

I find it interesting you chose not to answer it.

it's also not an inappropriate question given your statement which prompted it.

I'm not a big fan of posters who state other people's beliefs, as they often do so erroneously for their own selfish ends, so I'm going to ask this as a question.

Do you believe that it's possible to avoid being a sinner simply by rejecting the concept of sin?

This is your opportunity to clear the air. While I'm open to any response, a lack of a direct response (in light of the evidence that caused me to posit) will naturally lead us to infer that this is true.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


The only way I can worship a false god in your eyes is for you to be Jewish.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Why don't you already know whether I am Jewish or not even after I told you a dozen times?



Because you are a liar?

You aren’t Jewish unless you lie about not being an atheist.

You aren’t an atheist unless you lie about being a Jew.

Hence the only thing that makes sense is that you are a liar. Probably about both.  An atheist who happens to be Jewish. There seems to be quite a few of them here.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 4, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




ahem.. no, there are many other possibilities one being that I heard what you profess to believe about God,  looked into your own holy book to see whether what you claim is true or false,  and decided quite easily in the second grade that your beliefs are basically insane.

I could be an ethnic Jew,  a religious Jew, an atheist, a hindu, muslim, buddhist, pagan, hedonist, witch, warlock,  cop, criminal, sinner or saint.

Anyway, what difference does it make to you?


----------



## hobelim (Apr 4, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you already know whether I am Jewish or not even after I told you a dozen times?
> ...




No, the only think that makes sense is that you are experiencing the disturbing symptoms of what ancient hebrew people  thought of as the death consequent to filling your mind with superstitious and irrational gobbledygook without thinking deeply about it at all.

You are writhing around perplexed by a mystery as if you never heard what I had openly told you many times before.

You may think that I do not believe in God but your inability to grasp simple concepts or retain information just serves to confirm my belief in God and provides verifiable evidence that his law remains in effect and is in full force.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


The difference is that unless you believe in the God of Abraham I can’t possibly be worshipping a false God in your eyes as you are literally quoting the OT and using the OT as the basis for your belief.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Brother, you are the one who hasn’t thought out your lies.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Says the atheist Jew who quotes the Bible.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You don’t believe God created the material world, right?

I ask this because every single time I have asked this question to you you dodge answering it.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 4, 2019)

MedfordMan said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > MedfordMan said:
> ...


.
you are who has not answered the questions presented to you ...



BreezeWood said:


> *what are the sins you can not stop committing*, you fool yourself by the 4th century christian religion - follow the true religion as prescribed by the Almighty, triumph over evil for admission to the Everlasting.





BreezeWood said:


> again, it is you who is unable not to be a sinner and *will not reveal what those sins are* ... and makebelive in a messiah you undoubtedly had a hand in crucifying to save you from your own just reward. as always, good luck christian.



_
-follow the true religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty, triumph over evil for admission to the Everlasting._


the above was my reply to your question ... and no, sinners are not welcome nor received simply by their delusional, self made 4th century religion if for no other reason.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 4, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




lol.... I told you. I am a believer. I just don't believe you.

I read the bible. I memorized the ten commandments. I heard about the death, hell, and destruction consequent to defying divine instruction.

I see and hear you openly and brazenly advocating idolatry. I  see that you have your reward already and so I believe.


Now what exactly is your obsession with Jews all about?

Can't get even one to lift their skirt for your perversions? Thats a shame. Must be very frustrating given how easy groveling on your knees before a sick 4th century Roman joke  is to you..

Maybe you should try harder, or just stop being an asshole.. If you don't everywhere you go people from all walks of life will line up to poke you in the eye.


----------



## ding (Apr 4, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Cool story. Do you believe God created the material world?


----------



## hobelim (Apr 5, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Maybe you should start a new thread if you want to discuss that question. This thread is about whether or not atheists can be moral.

So far two things have become abundantly clear in spite of the religiously addled garbage that comes out of your broken mind.

1. You are an atheist.

2. You are not moral.


Stand up and walk like a man ding. Admit who you are. You do not believe in the God of Abraham, Moses, all the prophets,  including Jesus the Jew.

You worship a trinity that became an edible man. How can you possibly deny what you openly profess to believe?

I will let you in on a little secret Ding. Thats not sane.

The truth is, you might as well be worshiping and eating a goat head.....and I am not criticizing or condemning you.


Come out of the closet already and openly be a proud Jew hating, anti Jesus,  trinity worshipping, mangod eating pagan if thats how you want to go through life.. No need to hide behind the veil of monotheism, pretend you love Jesus the Jew,  and walk around with a bible as a disguise.

Don't be shy. Let it all hang out. Its a free country!


----------



## ding (Apr 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> So far two things have become abundantly clear in spite of the religiously addled garbage that comes out of your broken mind.
> 
> 1. You are an atheist.
> 
> 2. You are not moral.



God probably agrees with both but for different reasons than you do. 

I never claimed to be a saint like you do.


----------



## ding (Apr 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Stand up and walk like a man ding. Admit who you are. You do not believe in the God of Abraham, Moses, all the prophets, including Jesus the Jew.


I really couldn't care less what you believe about me.  

I freely admit that I am no saint.  I freely admit that I am a sinner.  

I absolutely do believe in God and I believe in the accounts of the Old and New Testaments.

So much so that I believe that spirit created the material world... unlike you.


----------



## ding (Apr 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> You worship a trinity that became an edible man. How can you possibly deny what you openly profess to believe?


*I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY,
MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,
OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE.*
*I BELIEVE IN ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST,
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD,
BORN OF THE FATHER BEFORE ALL AGES.
GOD FROM GOD, LIGHT FROM LIGHT,
TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD,
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, CONSUBSTANTIAL
WITH THE FATHER;
THROUGH HIM ALL THINGS WERE MADE.
FOR US MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION
HE CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN,
AND BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS INCARNATE
OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
AND BECAME MAN.
FOR OUR SAKE HE WAS CRUCIFIED
UNDER PONTIUS PILATE,
HE SUFFERED DEATH AND WAS BURIED,
AND ROSE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCRIPTURES.
HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN
AND IS SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER.
HE WILL COME AGAIN IN GLORY
TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD
AND HIS KINGDOM WILL HAVE NO END.*
*I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT,
THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIFE,
WHO PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON,
WHO WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON
IS ADORED AND GLORIFIED,
WHO HAS SPOKEN THROUGH THE PROPHETS.*
*I BELIEVE IN ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC,
AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
I CONFESS ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE RESURRECTION
OF THE DEAD AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME.*
*AMEN.*


----------



## ding (Apr 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> I will let you in on a little secret Ding. Thats not sane.
> 
> The truth is, you might as well be worshiping and eating a goat head.....and I am not criticizing or condemning you.


You don't have enough faith that God created the material world so that he could experience the material world through us.

You don't have enough faith that God was born into this world to testify to the truth for us.

You don't have enough faith that God suffered death to reconcile justice with mercy for us.

And you don't have enough faith that God would manifest his spirit unto a host for us for no other reason than we had faith that he would.

I don't have those problems.


----------



## ding (Apr 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> Come out of the closet already and openly be a proud Jew hating, anti Jesus, trinity worshipping, mangod eating pagan if thats how you want to go through life.. No need to hide behind the veil of monotheism, pretend you love Jesus the Jew, and walk around with a bible as a disguise.
> 
> Don't be shy. Let it all hang out. Its a free country!


I've never been accused of being shy before.  

I'm a pagan?  Cool.  

I think it might be time for me to keep a running list of YOUR inconsistencies.  What do you think?


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 5, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > You worship a trinity that became an edible man. How can you possibly deny what you openly profess to believe?
> ...


.


ding said:


> I BELIEVE IN ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC,
> AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.




they had a good time of it in the 4th century tying (forging) everything together ... including bing. the sinner.

- which of the three above is one ...


----------



## hobelim (Apr 5, 2019)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Come out of the closet already and openly be a proud Jew hating, anti Jesus, trinity worshipping, mangod eating pagan if thats how you want to go through life.. No need to hide behind the veil of monotheism, pretend you love Jesus the Jew, and walk around with a bible as a disguise.
> ...


  Well, no actually. Sorry. To call you a pagan would be an insult to pagans.

Lets see.

You have the form and  shape of a flabby human being but an intelligence just slightly above that of a monkey.

You say you are a sinner, then claim that  because you believe that God is edible you eat him and are saved even though you don't stop sinning. I point out the absurdity of it all to you and then you call me an atheist Jew as if that makes your beliefs less insane.

Perhaps there should be a new creature added to the forbidden list on the divine menu.

Let us call it the spineless brown nosed dingbat, a vile and loathsome creature that crawls on its belly by day, and nests in the butt crack of the Nachash by night..

So let it be written. So let it be done.


----------



## ding (Apr 5, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


That’s a common argument of atheists but the reality is there is nothing new that the early Christians didn’t already believe and practice.


----------



## ding (Apr 5, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I don’t usually see atheists make the arguments of extreme religious fundamentalists but you and breezewood are the exceptions.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 6, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> That’s a common argument of atheists but the reality is there is nothing new that the early Christians didn’t already believe and practice.



you are wrong bing, your soliloquy was invented in the 4th century ...

_*
Christianity in the 4th century* was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire._


in fact over the entire 4th century that had no bearing from the 1st century perspective but represents a political objective that is disguised as a religion.

also to say you are a sinner is to modest, your above beliefs are evil in that you attribute them to a century and individuals that were persecuted for the exact opposite and you use their suffering to promote your own political views the opposite they died for.

they were not sinners, the 1st century and stood for collective charity they would rather have been killed than subject themselves to such an awful belief as those you portray, christianity.


----------



## ding (Apr 7, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


*Where did the Roman Catholic Church come from?*
The Church at Rome, which would later develop into what we know as Roman Catholicism, was started in the apostolic times (circa AD 30-95). Although we do not have records of the first Christian missionaries to Rome, it is obvious that a church existed there as the New Testament Scriptures were being written. St. Paul himself wrote an epistle to the church at Rome, and the Book of Acts records some of his dealings there. St. Clement of Rome (ca. 35-99), St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-108), and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) all speak as if St. Simon Peter ministered in Rome, serving as its first bishop (the term “bishop” is an English contraction of the biblical Greek word episkopos, often translated as “overseer” in modern Protestant translations of the New Testament). Tertullian (ca. 155-240) reported that Peter died in the same place as Paul, and it is commonly believed that Paul was martyred in Rome. Since both Peter and Paul were such important and prominent apostles, Rome became an important pilgrimage site for Christians who wanted to visit their graves and worship near where they were buried...

What Is Catholicism? - History, Tradition & Beliefs


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 7, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.
you do realize your soliloquy was written (for you) in the 4th century - what you profess to believe.


_The title Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or *Creed* of the *Apostles*) appears for the first time in a letter, probably *written* by Ambrose, from a Council in Milan to Pope Siricius in about AD 390 ... _


and has nothing to do with the events of the 1st century, that is you are a devout fraud, bing culpable to the persecution and victimization of the innocent since that time you have chosen for your life's path.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 8, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So my nephews get out of church and meet me and my dad at the cemetery. They are fighting and being mean to each other so I ask them how come they don’t leave church better people. 

I could understand if by Wednesday or Friday the message has already warn off but they just left church and they’re already not acting like good Christians.

One of them said the oldest one is the worst and he just goes to confession and gets forgiven.

See? You Christians think you can just say sorry once a week and just continue to be evil assholes. You aren’t really sorry if you are going to continue to be assholes but that’s exactly what y’all do.

And you tell yourselves it’s ok to be assholes because we are all assholes. Free pass on being assholes


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No. I don’t realize that. That’s what I have been trying to tell you. 

There are no fundamental beliefs that were not held by the early Christians.


----------



## basquebromance (Apr 8, 2019)

if Jesus came back tomorrow he wouldn't be an evangelical!


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No. That’s silly to extrapolate that and apply it to everyone. How old are your nephews?


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2019)

basquebromance said:


> if Jesus came back tomorrow he wouldn't be an evangelical!


I bet he would be a reformer though.


----------



## hobelim (Apr 8, 2019)

ding said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> > if Jesus came back tomorrow he wouldn't be an evangelical!
> ...




Yeah, just another sod Jew. lol....


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > basquebromance said:
> ...


Taz would have said sod heb.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2019)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Often times ignorance is insolent.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 8, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> There are no fundamental beliefs that were not held by the early Christians.



you just skirt the issue when facts present the issue differently than your contrived world view ... no, no one from the 1st century died for your soliloquy invented in the 4th century. 

the opposite, their triumph over evil was their purpose and were willing to die for the original religion of antiquity not yours.


----------



## ding (Apr 8, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Far from it. The facts show that all fundamental beliefs and traditions began with the early Christians. 

I wouldn’t expect a materialist like yourself to understand it.


----------



## rylah (Apr 28, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



An interesting subject, but I really don't understand that Greek(?) separation of morals and ethics, wouldn't know from where to approach.

My view is simple - there's truth beyond expression every soul, spirit agrees and yearns too.
Finding out and knowing, bringing the truth to consciousness is nothing if You don't act on it.
So there's actions (Mitzvah) and purpose, or as in Hebrew "the taste" of the action.

I come from a more holistic, Jewish, Jungian, Zen...duality in all of its expressions of atheism vs religiosity, morality vs crime, are insincere and infantile in a sense, it's all one truth of one reality. Don't confuse the finger pointing to the moon with the moon itself kinda thing.

Anyway too broad a subject for me, but if someone wants to spend time on the subject,
I suggest watching this exquisite exchange between these truly outstanding minds, discussing specifically the expression (or lack) of morality and ethics in modern culture:

*Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro: Religion, Trans Activism, and Censorship*


----------



## Mindful (Apr 28, 2019)

rylah said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...



I'm a fan of Peterson. He certainly put a liberal superior TV female presenter in her place, with his reasoned logic.

She just fell apart; and she admitted it.


----------



## cnm (Apr 28, 2019)

rylah said:


> in modern culture


A very small sample of modern culture.


----------



## Mindful (Apr 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > in modern culture
> ...



Go away.


----------



## cnm (Apr 28, 2019)

Stop being dull.


----------



## Mindful (Apr 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Stop being dull.



Take your spitballs and sideswipes technique back to the appropriate cess pit.

This is upstairs; incase you got lost in your trolling odyssey.


----------



## cnm (Apr 28, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Take your spitballs and sideswipes technique back to the appropriate cess pit.
> 
> This is upstairs; incase you got lost in your trolling odyssey.


Yeah, right.


Mindful said:


> Go away.


----------



## rylah (Apr 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > in modern culture
> ...



Unfortunately, in my view, the culture of an honest articulate debate and intellectual rigor have been massively downgraded and are lacking in the mainstream culture.

Genuine independent thinking was never the domain of majorities.


----------



## rylah (Apr 28, 2019)

Mindful said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



I think I saw that one.
One of Peterson's strongest Jungian tactics, is whenever the debate turns into mere projections and framing of character, to sincerely assume the side of the opponent and examine the following conclusions of their arguments together, rather as extreme opposites.

Old Jewish saying in the 2nd chapter of The Chapters of Fathers :"Make His desire Your desire, so that He will make Your desire His. Cancel your desire against His, so that He will cancel the desire of others against yours."

This is referring to G-d, where there's truth seeking You, but when dealing with people, one needs a strong spine to assume the desire of the other and still arrive at truth. The things Peterson finds common grounds with his opponents are the most common denominators to every human, he merely strives to arrive at truth that resonates with every human soul in his surrounding - and that is disarming.


----------



## Mindful (Apr 28, 2019)

rylah said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



These interviewers, I've been studying them, all have the same thing in common. Their questions are framed in a certain way, almost confrontational. Like hounding the person into a corner, to answer emotive questions about stuff that had never occurred to them. It's manipulative and dishonest.

In other words, putting words into one's mouth. It was sheer pleasure watching Peterson deflect this nonsense. There are others too. One of my favourites being Douglas Murray.


----------



## rylah (Apr 28, 2019)

Mindful said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Well, I don't mind interviewers harshly challenging their subjects for honesty sake and critical thinking.
I really respect those journalist who can do it in a rational manner and give the subjects the benefit of a doubt to argue their position. But in my view the integrity is lost when journalists abandon the neutral position to introduce their own opinions in the line of opposition rather than those of the real people involved.
It has become very narcissistic, what Peterson does is a good cure for those tendencies and he does it in a totally non-aggressive calm manner.

Murray is great, totally forgot about him, much more energetic and passionate, You can feel the guy is hurting for his people and the western culture, but still very rational and respectful.

Would love to see more people of their stature in European politics.


----------



## Mindful (Apr 28, 2019)

rylah said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...



Yes, those types.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

Peterson is a quack.


----------



## ding (Apr 29, 2019)

^ dunning effect


----------



## ding (Apr 29, 2019)

One can argue that if his goal is to discover objective truth he can never lose any argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

ding said:


> ^ dunning effect


^^  pseudo intellectual effect


----------



## ding (Apr 29, 2019)

^ says the one who is trying to be a pseudo intellectual.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

ding said:


> ^ says the one who is trying to be a pseudo intellectual.


Haha,poor Ding of CopyPasta.  Always lacking original thoughts.

Yes, peterson is a quack. Get your information and arguments elsewhere.


----------



## ding (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ^ says the one who is trying to be a pseudo intellectual.
> ...


I couldn’t be more happy for you to believe that.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha,poor Ding of CopyPasta. Always lacking original thoughts.
> 
> Yes, peterson is a quack. Get your information and arguments elsewhere.


You consider Peterson a quack.

So for YOU he is. But for most others Peterson is a brilliant learned thinker, academic and writer.  In any event you have yet to demonstrate Peterson is what you think he is, not surprisingly.

I hope this settles the matter for you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 29, 2019)

Yes. Atheists _can_ be moral although if hubris is immoral they are mostly not. 
For many run of the mill atheists it isn't enough to reject the concept of God. They must adopt a dismissive superior attitude about their atheistic attitudes. I don't know why they feel to need to be so insufferably smug.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 29, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> the bible....written by MEN!
> 
> when you quote the bible you are NOT quoting a god.
> 
> you are quoting primitive savages.


Not everyone born before a certain date is a "primitive savage". That you have to insist otherwise, despite all the evidence, doesn't say much for your positions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You consider Peterson a quack.


He absolutely is. And that is quite independent his beliefs. He is a quack who uses quack tactics. He prattles on and on about things he knows nothing about, and he tosses lies in that are easy to miss.

You don't have to take my word for it. Do a little searching....people have had fun analyzing his quackery and charlatan's tactocs..

I know it can be hard for a guy like you to take criticism of someone who says what you want to hear. But i assure you, he is a fraud. Any decent point he makes can be found elsewhere, without the accompanying, embarrassing nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 29, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> For many run of the mill atheists it isn't enough to reject the concept of God.


This is stupid. The "run of the mill" atheist simply does not accept a belief in any gods. You are just vomiting whatever pleases your own ears and fetishes.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is stupid. The "run of the mill" atheist simply does not accept a belief in any gods. You are just vomiting whatever pleases your own ears and fetishes.


It is stupid. I'm not complaining about atheists beliefs, per se but about the hubris and superior smugness many atheists display in places precisely like this one.

It's often not enough just to say I believe this or that. They have to ridicule and belittle while they are about it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He absolutely is. And that is quite independent his beliefs. He is a quack who uses quack tactics. He prattles on and on about things he knows nothing about, and he tosses lies in that are easy to miss.
> 
> You don't have to take my word for it. Do a little searching....people have had fun analyzing his quackery and charlatan's tactocs..
> 
> I know it can be hard for a guy like you to take criticism of someone who says what you want to hear. But i assure you, he is a fraud. Any decent point he makes can be found elsewhere, without the accompanying, embarrassing nonsense.


Okay. You have a bug up your ass about Jordan Peterson and I don't know why. There's no accounting for how people will love or detest someone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> per se but about the hubris and superior smugness many atheists display in places precisely like this one.


Well that is stupid also. Infinitely more arrogant is the claim that magical sky daddies exist without a shred of evidence. Amd even more arrogant is the magical threats..."bekieve this or suffer forever"....both infinitely more arrogant than any atheist tenet or belief. So those must really, really bother you.


----------



## ding (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > per se but about the hubris and superior smugness many atheists display in places precisely like this one.
> ...


There’s tons of evidence. It’s all around and in you. You just don’t accept it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


No, there isnt. You clearly have no concept of the meaning of that word.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that is stupid also. Infinitely more arrogant is the claim that magical sky daddies exist without a shred of evidence.


A really smart discerning person would infer God when noting the vast endless universe all around him. It didn't fall out of a box of Cracker Jacks one day.
But of course that's not you.



> Amd even more arrogant is the magical threats..."bekieve this or suffer forever"....both infinitely more arrogant than any atheist tenet or belief. So those must really, really bother you.


So you think God is an imaginary
non being, yet you feel threatened by the threat of eternal suffering?

Well that's interesting....and intellectually wildly inconsistent. Whether you acknowledge the hubris and smug self superiority of many atheists or not I can assure you it exists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> A really smart discerning person would infer God when noting the vast endless universe all around him


No he wouldn't. That's stupid. 



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> So you think God is an imaginary
> non being, yet you feel threatened by the threat of eternal suffering


Not at all. The intent, nonetheless, is a threat, so it is a threat. Dude, seriously, try to think this stuff through for at least a few seconds before you post.


----------



## ding (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Let’s see who has no concept of the word evidence. 

If you created something and I found it but didn’t know who created it, could I use it as evidence?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's a stupid, nonsensical  question.


----------



## ding (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Actually it isn’t. Look up the definition of evidence. If you created something I could use it as evidence. Tell me how it’s not evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ding, you aren't making any sense. Pure gibberish.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No he wouldn't. That's stupid.


No. I said a thinking person would. A person who knows everything has a source and nothing is uncaused. 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not at all. The intent, nonetheless, is a threat, so it is a threat. Dude, seriously, try to think this stuff through for at least a few seconds before you post.


How come you are threatened by an imaginary character? Do you feel like Aquaman may be coming for you?
That's really really strange.


----------



## ding (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Any tangible item can be used as evidence. What part of that doesn’t make sense to you?


----------



## ding (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The reality is that you have never made a serious attempt at studying the evidence you have at your disposal?  Why? Because you don’t believe it is evidence. That is circular logic and it led to intentional ignorance on your part.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 30, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> How come you are threatened by an imaginary character?




the tone of your threat is what is threatening, christian, your religion ...

.


----------



## ding (May 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > How come you are threatened by an imaginary character?
> ...


You are swinging at windmills, Don Quixote. 

But then again that’s what subversives do. They create drama and conflict where there is none.  

No one is trying to force you to believe.  No one is trying to convert you. 

So you create a straw man to justify your aggression. Thus proving that you believe in right and wrong even as you violate it. 

These are your steps. 

1. Demoralize
2. Destabilize
3. Crisis
4. Normalization


----------



## Mike Dwight (May 1, 2019)

Atheists just depend on things like illogical self-interest, organization, I mean they must be self-motivated, and then attack these same qualities when they see it with churches.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 1, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You are swinging at windmills, Don Quixote.



its been a while, Quixote ... the fact is christianity is not a windmill, the christian bible is a political document disguised as a religion and serves to undermine the prescribed religion of the Almighty and the stated goal for admission to the Everlasting. so, no it is not a dream.




ding said:


> No one is trying to force you to believe. No one is trying to convert you.








you have been called out before bing, the gal above is not forgotten nor the crucifixion nor that your type have never faced the justice you deserve.




Mike Dwight said:


> Atheists just depend on things like illogical self-interest, organization, I mean they must be self-motivated, and then attack these same qualities when they see it with churches.



_*and then attack these same qualities when they see it with churches ...*_

if that were true of atheist to the extent of "churches" being the same the morality to triumph over evil would be for both the same as the spoken religion of antiquity prescribes.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> the tone of your threat is what is threatening, christian, your religion ...


Who is forcing you to carry a bible around or attend church?  How is a religion that has less and less members threatening anyone?


----------



## ding (May 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Karl Marx couldn’t have said that better. 

I bet you took that as a compliment.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I said a thinking person would.


And you were wrong. Thats just your way of soothing yourself without actually supporting any of your points. The appropriate, direct counter to that is, "no, thats what a retarded person does." No other response is required.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> How come you are threatened by an imaginary character?


I'm not. Pay attention, i already covered that..


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you were wrong. Thats just your way of soothing yourself without actually supporting any of your points. The appropriate, direct counter to that is, "no, thats what a retarded person does." No other response is required.


You should have just replied _"nuh-uh" _and repeated as necessary like other deep thinkers on a fifth grade level. The end effect would have been just the same.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I'm not. Pay attention, i already covered that..


You claim to feel threatened yet can't explain why. Until you explain why you haven't really covered anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You should have just replied _"nuh-uh"_


Right, exactly my point. That is the appropriate response to your stupid words. As if saying "any thinking person" supports your garbage....



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You claim to feel threatened yet can't explain why.


I did not claim that. 4th time now. This is like talking to a child. I said the intent was a threat.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, exactly my point. That is the appropriate response to your stupid words. As if saying "any thinking person" supports your garbage....


Yes....
Much like saying my contention, which I qualified with a clear reasoned response, is "garbage".
If what I said was _garbage _you forget to mention how that was so (assuming you are capable, which I truly doubt).

Nothing is garbage until someone can establish that as fact. I take it you are unable to do that. 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I did not claim that. 4th time now. This is like talking to a child. I said the intent was a threat.


What's the difference between an actual threat and an intended threat?
Without the actual ability to carry out a threat, which you believe is impossible, why should anyone feel threatened, speaking of trying to get through to a child. 

A five year old could threaten to beat me up. Should I feel threatened by that threat? Maybe your belief in the magical powers of atheism is not as strong as you believe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 1, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> If what I said was _garbage _you forget to mention how that was so


I dont have to do so. When you say, "any thinking person says...", thats not an argument. No other reaponse is required.

And then you show what a thinking man you are not by completely reversing my comments -- which were direct reaponses to your questions -- despite bwing corrected 3 times.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> What's the difference between an actual threat and an intended threat?


See what I mean? You are being very stupid. If a homeless person stopped you and said he was going to swallow ypur soul and raise your kids...would you feel threatened? No, you would laugh. But the crazy homeless person certainly believed his threat. That's what religious fools who make their magcial threats sound like to me. But you can be sure they believe every word. Oh, the arrogance...


----------



## ding (May 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > If what I said was _garbage _you forget to mention how that was so
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I dont have to do so.



You can’t.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, exactly my point. That is the appropriate response to your stupid words. As if saying "any thinking person" supports your garbage....


Then tell me how the universe with all it's workings, principles and laws got here. In a cereal box, maybe?

If you say,_ I don't know,  but I know it wasn't by some magical man in the sky,_ then you are lying and claiming some knowledge you can't possibly have. You simply don't know.
If you say the universe just exists and has always been here that's also false as nothing comes from nothing.

God is the only possibility that there is. You find it absurd but a universe that just happens to be, like a '67 AMC Gremlin on blocks on the dark side of the moon just happens to be, is even more absurd. Science has shown the Big Bang singularity gives a definite beginning point to the universe.

You just aren't a thinking, reasoning person. No shame in that. It's just not your thing. You aren't skilled.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> See what I mean? You are being very stupid. If a homeless person stopped you and said he was going to swallow ypur soul and raise your kids...would you feel threatened? No, you would laugh. But the crazy homeless person certainly believed his threat.
> That's what religious fools who make their magcial threats sound like to me. But you can be sure they believe every word. Oh, the arrogance...


In order for a threat to be effective it has to be capable of being carried out.  No one can send you to some hellish after life....especially since you don't even believe in such things.

Fearing them or feeling threatened is as foolish as me fearing some atheist mad man who says we all live in an endless void without reason or purpose that ends abruptly and eternally with death and nothing can possibly exist outside of whatever we can see or detect. Of course I reason that that's bullshit so I don't really pay attention to that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Then tell me how the universe with all it's workings, principles and laws got here.


What a stupid line you are taking. One doesn't have to know the correct answer to that in order not to accept a magical explanation for which there is no evidence, which is untestable, which yields no useful predictions,and qhich merely replaces one mystery with another. 

The correct answer is, "i dont know."  You should try it out.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What a stupid line you are taking. One doesn't have to know the correct answer to that in order not to accept a magical explanation for which there is no evidence, which is untestable, which yields no useful predictions,and qhich merely replaces one mystery with another.
> 
> The correct answer is, "i dont know." You should try it out.


I have. And I find it lacking. Something, some thing, caused it all because nothing comes from nothing and absurd as the idea of God is, the idea that the entirety of the universe _just exists _just because it does is a logical and intellectual cop out.

If your God is science you should realize that "it just is" is the most un-scientific thing I can think of. Einstein said he saw God in the rules and order that governs the universe. A supreme creating intelligence. 
I accept that.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> because nothing comes from nothing



you repeat your nonsensical, erroneous phrase that serves no purpose but to convince a simple mind of their own net worth ...

physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed, was it nothing ... or a metaphysical substance in physical form.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> you repeat your nonsensical, erroneous phrase that serves no purpose but to convince a simple mind of their own net worth ...


It's simple cause and effect on a cosmological
scale. Sorry you don't believe in universal self evident truths.You must be way too "smart" to fall for that trick.




> physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed, was it nothing ... or a metaphysical substance in physical form.


What can this possibly mean? Physiology...you mean the study of living organisms and their constituent parts? Nice babble.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > you repeat your nonsensical, erroneous phrase that serves no purpose but to convince a simple mind of their own net worth ...
> ...


.
- the functions and processes that create life.



BreezeWood said:


> physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed, was it nothing ... or a metaphysical substance in physical form.



your first response was without merit ... howabout answering the question, the nothingness you are obsessed by, cosmologically.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> your first response was without merit ... howabout answering the question, the nothingness you are obsessed by, cosmologically.


Cause and effect on a cosmological scale.  You do not recognize causality?


----------



## ding (May 2, 2019)

We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. 

The beginning of the universe would be no different.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 2, 2019)

ding said:


> We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.
> 
> The beginning of the universe would be no different.


Only God is uncaused because he exists outside the boundaries of the universe he is responsible for.


----------



## ding (May 2, 2019)

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Which means the solution to the first cause conundrum cannot be matter or energy because matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time and is not unchanging. Therefore, the solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing. Spirit is no thing. Spirit is an entirety different “thing.”  We being things we can’t possibly understand no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our 3rd dimension than we would in understanding no things which are capable of creating space and time out of nothing.   The closest we can come to understanding some “thing” like that would be consciousness without form or pure existence.

For any given thing there is a final state of fact.  This we know to be reality or objective truth. Once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way.  This is true for even when it wasn’t known to be that way. Thus objective truth or reality is eternal and unchanging. Truth is no thing. Truth could have always existed. Love is no thing. Love could have always existed. Ergo God is spirit; God is reality; God is truth; God is love; God is existence.


----------



## MizMolly (May 12, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


Certainly they can. I know atheists who live wonderful lives, treating all living beings with love and respect. I also know many so-called Christians who lie, gossip, steal, treat others with disrespect and are very judgmental. Being moral is not only for people who believe in a creator.


----------



## badger2 (May 15, 2019)

Ding: 'Thus objective truth or reality is eternal and unchanging.'

'From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone if in christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! ' (II Corinthians 5: 16-17)

Paul tells all of the rest what time it is and what to believe. Pauline toxic texts just keep on giving....fascism. 

The Evolution of a Pauline Toxic Text
The Evolution of a Pauline Toxic Text


----------



## badger2 (May 15, 2019)

#2571 states 'Einstein said he saw god in the rules and order that governs the universe.'

For Einstein's theory of relativity as a symbol for a fiction, see Deleuze, Bergsonism.
Bergsonism : Gilles Deleuze : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## ding (May 15, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Ding: 'Thus objective truth or reality is eternal and unchanging.'
> 
> 'From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone if in christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! ' (II Corinthians 5: 16-17)
> 
> ...


And yet at any point in time we can either be moving towards God, away from God or be static in our relationship with God.


----------



## danielpalos (May 15, 2019)

badger2 said:


> #2571 states 'Einstein said he saw god in the rules and order that governs the universe.'
> 
> For Einstein's theory of relativity as a symbol for a fiction, see Deleuze, Bergsonism.
> Bergsonism : Gilles Deleuze : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


That was before the Hubble telescope showed so many galaxies which we thought were stars. 

We should expect one intelligent life form in each galaxy.


----------



## badger2 (May 15, 2019)

Yes, at least one life form. defined as intelligent is it does not project its mythologies onto the cosmos.

 'Nature is not opposed to invention, invention being part of nature itself. Nature is opposed to myth.' (Deleuze)


----------



## badger2 (May 15, 2019)

ding has nothing to say about the fascist asshole, Paul, who attempts to dupe the mesmerized prisoners.
d's last post shows that there has been serious theological molestations done to the scapegoat. This excerpt reveals the contradictions in d's reasoning of moving toward or away from, and why telescopes also fail:

'The absolutely infinite cannot be de-fined as standing-out in relation to other things, nor even conceived as a determinate entity over against finitude as a whole, for then it would be represented as finite, i.e., as limited or bounded by another entity or entities that it is not, in which case it would not be absolutely unlimited. In the case of christianity, this philosophical insight comes into conflict with religious belief in a god who is represented as an infinite Person in a determinate relation with a finite world that he has created and (at least part of which) he plants to redeem. Jewish and Muslim religious scholars have similar difficulties.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)


----------



## badger2 (May 15, 2019)

Shults, continued:

'christian theologians, like their counterparts in other monotheistic traditions that originated in west Asia, have developed a variety of strategies for dealing with this tension within their religious coalitions. I will try to illuminate the motivation for such strategies, and explain the sense in which their failure secretes atheism.

The main point at this stage is that many theologians would not at all be offended at the idea of their discipline deals with that which is "beyond being." The problem they will have with Deleuze is his a-theism; that is, his denial of the reality of a specific kind on non-existent Entity, a personal and transcendent god who establishes moralistic codes for a religious coalition. As we will see in the following chapters, Deleuze is not a big fan of religion. From his first (acknowledged) book on Hume, in  which he equates religion with the fanciful and illegitimate use of extensive rules of association (Expressionism in Philosophy, 76), to his last book (with Guattari), in which he argues that monotheism and despotic, imperial States are intrinsically linked (What is Philosophy, 43), Deleuze rejected modes of argumentation that appeal to dogmatic images of an allegedly transcendent, morally relevant Entity.'


----------



## ding (May 15, 2019)

badger2 said:


> ding has nothing to say about the fascist asshole, Paul, who attempts to dupe the mesmerized prisoners.
> d's last post shows that there has been serious theological molestations done to the scapegoat. This excerpt reveals the contradictions in d's reasoning of moving toward or away from, and why telescopes also fail:
> 
> 'The absolutely infinite cannot be de-fined as standing-out in relation to other things, nor even conceived as a determinate entity over against finitude as a whole, for then it would be represented as finite, i.e., as limited or bounded by another entity or entities that it is not, in which case it would not be absolutely unlimited. In the case of christianity, this philosophical insight comes into conflict with religious belief in a god who is represented as an infinite Person in a determinate relation with a finite world that he has created and (at least part of which) he plants to redeem. Jewish and Muslim religious scholars have similar difficulties.'
> (Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)


My world doesn’t revolve around Paul.


----------



## ding (May 15, 2019)

badger2 said:


> ding has nothing to say about the fascist asshole, Paul, who attempts to dupe the mesmerized prisoners.
> d's last post shows that there has been serious theological molestations done to the scapegoat. This excerpt reveals the contradictions in d's reasoning of moving toward or away from, and why telescopes also fail:
> 
> 'The absolutely infinite cannot be de-fined as standing-out in relation to other things, nor even conceived as a determinate entity over against finitude as a whole, for then it would be represented as finite, i.e., as limited or bounded by another entity or entities that it is not, in which case it would not be absolutely unlimited. In the case of christianity, this philosophical insight comes into conflict with religious belief in a god who is represented as an infinite Person in a determinate relation with a finite world that he has created and (at least part of which) he plants to redeem. Jewish and Muslim religious scholars have similar difficulties.'
> (Shults, Iconoclastic Theology)


There are no errors in the possible state of relationships. There are logically only three possible states.


----------



## anynameyouwish (May 15, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> badger2 said:
> 
> 
> > #2571 states 'Einstein said he saw god in the rules and order that governs the universe.'
> ...



"We should expect one intelligent life form in each galaxy."

I wonder if there is any intelligent life in OUR galaxy.....?


----------



## BreezeWood (May 15, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > badger2 said:
> ...


.


anynameyouwish said:


> "We should expect one intelligent life form in each galaxy."





> The *Milky Way* is a barred spiral galaxy with a diameter between 150,000 and 200,000 light-years (ly). It is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars and more than 100 billion planets.



you don't think you might be overstating the possibility do you ... 100 billion to 1.

the physiology that sustains life on planet Earth is not native to the planet but developed as a substance long after the planets formation. that might conclude, anywhere the conditions are favorable life will evolve - from the metaphysical. and potentially in abundance.


----------



## anynameyouwish (May 16, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




I was making a joke......suggesting that, so far, including earth, we have found NO INTELLIGENT life....


just a joke....


----------



## sealybobo (May 16, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


How moral is it that anyone can do anything no matter how evil and even that person can become a member of Christianity and make it to heaven? 

They say it doesn’t work that way but it does. They just don’t realize.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 16, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> They say it doesn’t work that way but it does. They just don’t realize.



they do realize their dreadful history with a zeal to do more, not a remorseful one among them. their forged book is a magnet for mischievousness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> How moral is it that anyone can do anything no matter how evil and even that person can become a member of Christianity and make it to heaven?


It isn't. But if you were deluded into thinking you could have eternal life, well, we're all just placeholders here anyway for a timy slice of time. So what's the significance?


----------



## LittleNipper (May 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How moral is it that anyone can do anything no matter how evil and even that person can become a member of Christianity and make it to heaven?
> ...


Ridiculous!  You are giving the WRONG example in your suppression of the "CHRISTIAN MESSAGE".  Yes, GOD does forgive but through CHRIST. When One accepts the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE --- one becomes a NEW CREATURE.  SUCH an individual no longer hates his fellow man but wish them to be saved ALSO!. Repentance comes with the movement of the HOLY SPIRIT in the lives of those who make CHRIST LORD of their lives. The Atheist is the one suppressing the FACTS of TRUTH. They do not wish to see that suppression of the TRUTH is what bring us ignorance, and not seeing babies in the womb as people, and not seeing promiscuity as undermining marriage, and not seeing homosexuality as dysfunctional unity!  And then proceed to an acceptance that gender is whatever one wishes it to be. Such are paving the way for the ANTICHRIST to fool the nations!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 17, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Sorry, none of that matters. Just pray to baby Jesus, and that all goes away, per the immoral religion you love.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I see the attention seeking troll just cant help himself,,,


----------



## LittleNipper (May 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


 We are reaching the end of this AGE. Jesus is KING of kings and LORD of lords, and_ your _so-called "morality" will bring you only to the gates of hell.Your morality is one of  --believe what you wish, say what you want, do what you will ----- but keep your opinions to yourself,  will reap you nothing but confusion and a whirlwind.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 17, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> We are reaching the end of this AGE.


Haha...okay shaman...put down the goat sacrifice and slowly back away....


----------



## progressive hunter (May 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > We are reaching the end of this AGE.
> ...


spoken like a true troll,,,


----------



## LittleNipper (May 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > We are reaching the end of this AGE.
> ...


JESUS paid it ALL ---- ALREADY!


----------



## sealybobo (May 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How moral is it that anyone can do anything no matter how evil and even that person can become a member of Christianity and make it to heaven?
> ...



See, I'm a well grounded atheist.  I know that the Vegas shooter probably wasn't a Christian.  Probably didn't believe in God.  When I watch shows like Forensic Files or the First 48 I often find myself thinking that the person who murdered the victim probably could have used some religion growing up.  But really religion is unnecessary.  What he probably could have used was two good parents.

_“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan


----------



## sealybobo (May 17, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


We see it.  But are we free or not?  You want to legislate morality?  You will fail.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 17, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> What he probably could have used was two good parents.


He may have had two good parents. Mental illness is not something you can "parent away", especially when it sets in late in life.


----------



## sealybobo (May 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What he probably could have used was two good parents.
> ...


True.  He may also have had religion.  

But violence sanctified is deeply embedded in nearly every religion. Here are some examples:

In the Jewish bible, God kills innocent Egyptian children to teach the pharaoh a lesson.

Violence in the Name of God


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 17, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> JESUS paid it ALL ---- ALREADY!


All caps = infallible word of god.


----------



## sealybobo (May 17, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Jesus is just one of many religious heads.  Not the first and not even the last.  

Christians in the years after Jesus believed the end days were near.  Nothing happened in their lifetime.  Martin Luther in the 1500's was sure the end days were upon us.  Nothing.  

Humans will be on this planet for millions of years.  Thousands if Republicans are in charge.


----------



## sealybobo (May 17, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



You guys make such a big deal about one guy who was tortured 2000 years ago.  You think that one sacrifice is impressive?  It's so ridiculous to people on the outside of the cult looking in.  But we can see how you were brainwashed.

"Jesus paid it all.  LOL.  Yea well so did Jeffrey Dahmer's victims.  Jesus is the ultimate martyr.


----------



## danielpalos (May 17, 2019)

Can hypocrites be more moral than atheists?


----------



## MizMolly (May 17, 2019)

Religion and morality aren't bonded together. Why would anyone think that only "believers" are moral?


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You’re still talking about it.


----------



## sealybobo (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


I still talk about Zeus too so what?


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No you don’t.


----------



## sealybobo (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sure I do.  He's another ancient God man made up because instinctively primitive man invented an invisible actor because to them "there must be a god".  My dad basically lays out all the fatally flawed arguments every time we discuss.  Is he listening to logic, science and reason?  Nope.  Like you he cherry picks from science.

Jesus is just the current hip new religion.  Proof you don't get how long evolution takes is you don't see the evolution of religion.  Although slowly dying you don't realize Jesus wasn't the first and isn't even the last martyr.  We should all be talking about Joseph Smith and his myths about talking to God too.

See if you had the truth religion wouldn't need to lie.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Can’t say I have seen post about him before.


----------



## james bond (May 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Christians in the years after Jesus believed the end days were near. Nothing happened in their lifetime. Martin Luther in the 1500's was sure the end days were upon us. Nothing.



How do you know nothing would happen?  I suppose things were so bad that people thought the end times would come.  Sir Isaac Newton predicted 2060, but we do not know.

The atheists have their own catastrophic ending.  It doesn't make sense to me because on one hand they state it will come by AGW.  However, that is not the catastrophe.  They believe that an asteroid will hit the Earth.  I think that will come first.  I mean we see articles all the time of how close a gigantic asteroid came millions of miles close to Earth.  We also have supervolcanoes to worry about.  This is second, and the coup de gras is AGW.  Thus, it's the old evolutionary tale of how the dinosaurs were wiped off the face of the planet applied to humans.

The Bible theory says that we will die via a gamma ray explosion from deep space and the whole Earth will be engulfed in fire.  That will kill everybody.  However, the giant asteroid, supervolcano, and AGW won't get everyone.  There you go.


----------



## Hollie (May 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Christians in the years after Jesus believed the end days were near. Nothing happened in their lifetime. Martin Luther in the 1500's was sure the end days were upon us. Nothing.
> ...



There is no such thing as "bible theory".

Secondly, nowhere do any of the bibles say "we will die via a gamma ray explosion from deep space and the whole Earth will be engulfed in fire."

Since that is your fraud, kindly provide the exact citation for the above or just acknowledge your fraud and misrepresentation.

BTW, the events you describe above obviously contradict the fraud of a "fine tuned universe".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> Can’t say I have seen post about him before.


And,in a couple thousand years, people will be saying the same thing about the mythical Jesus character.


----------



## sealybobo (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



*I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.*


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Can’t say I have seen post about him before.
> ...


That sounds like you are wishing. 

Maybe there won’t be any of your kind.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Cool story, bro. 

I don’t have to disagree with everything every religion believes. You do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> That sounds like you are wishing.


No, it's a reasonable statement based on the evidence. Wishing is what theists do... ...prayers and all that hilarious magical nonsense.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > That sounds like you are wishing.
> ...


That’s your simplistic view of it. 

It’s wrong.  

Do you even realize how much of a nazi you are starting to sound like?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> It’s wrong.


Not a compelling argument...

You sound like an idiot.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It’s wrong.
> ...


Negative opinions about me by minimum wage workers doesn’t bother me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Haha,oh boy, here come the tears...hissy time...


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


It’s true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sure ding. Whatever you need to soothe yourself is fine by me. At least we aren't being treated to 4 pages of boilerplate CopyPasta...


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You wouldn’t have understood it even if you had read it. 

That’s why you can never refute it.


----------



## task0778 (May 21, 2019)

One does not need to be religious or believe in God to be a moral person.  Neither does one have to be an atheist/agnostic to be an intelligent person.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> You wouldn’t have understood it


Understood...what? The laughably bad book you referenced in the other thread?   Haha..that book is garbage.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn’t have understood it
> ...


You know this how?


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn’t have understood it
> ...


Let’s test it shall we?

Which database do you believe has more fossils in it?  

From 5 million years ago or 50 million years ago?

Which group do you believe has more gaps in evolutionary sequences?


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn’t have understood it
> ...


Now let’s talk about the use of proxies in science shall we?

Do you know what a proxy is and why it is used in science?


----------



## badger2 (May 21, 2019)

Current Example of Christian Mafia Arrogance

15 May 2019 County Defies Atheist Group's Demands, Keeps Crosses on Courthouse
County defies atheist group's demands, keeps crosses on courthouse — and then they're lit up at night like Christmas


----------



## badger2 (May 21, 2019)

Note that pastor Phil Harrington is expressing the colors of the nazi fylfot (red, white, black) as he argues for direct, in-your-face copulation of church and state.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

badger2 said:


> Note that pastor Phil Harrington is expressing the colors of the nazi fylfot (red, white, black) as he argues for direct, in-your-face copulation of church and state.


No one I know wants a theocracy. 

But the Nazis were far left.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No ding. I am not your assistant. If you have a point to make, you can make it all by your big boy self.


----------



## Mindful (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> badger2 said:
> 
> 
> > Note that pastor Phil Harrington is expressing the colors of the nazi fylfot (red, white, black) as he argues for direct, in-your-face copulation of church and state.
> ...



Is there something you know that I don't?


----------



## Moonglow (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> badger2 said:
> 
> 
> > Note that pastor Phil Harrington is expressing the colors of the nazi fylfot (red, white, black) as he argues for direct, in-your-face copulation of church and state.
> ...


That's why they left religion intact.


----------



## Moonglow (May 21, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > badger2 said:
> ...


Wrong question.


----------



## Mindful (May 21, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Oh no it isn't. It's very right.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The point was pretty obvious.  I’m sure even you got it. Do you need for me to explain it to you so you can understand?


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > badger2 said:
> ...


Volumes.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > badger2 said:
> ...


What are you yammering about?


----------



## Moonglow (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ecclesiastical elongation affermation


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


That was even more than less than helpful.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You made no point. Except for that one dumb thing you said about quadrupeds.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


They used what they learned from the fossils from the evolution of mammals to fill in the gaps of the evolution of tetrapods.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

ding said:


> tetrapods


"They" did? When? Thats not what scientists rely on, now.

And Chardin's book is pseudoscience.


----------



## ding (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > tetrapods
> ...


That work, which was foundational, was done decades ago. Work you besmirched when you besmirched a book you have never read.


----------



## sealybobo (May 22, 2019)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



If you don't agree with the main premise???

You're sugar coating the fact they are man made up lies.  And you believe this is evidence for God. Clearly it's evidence that we made him up.


----------



## ding (May 22, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I couldn’t disagree more. The evidence at our disposal says different. You’ve never examined the evidence.


----------



## badger2 (May 22, 2019)

Moonglow @ post 2641 says 'wrong question.' Harrington is duping the people for his photo-op (post #2635), and Freedom From Religion exposes this exclusive xian attempt to confiscate the rule of law. The nazi colors Harrington is wearing serve an important purpose.

'There's not much sense in making a moral case against nazism. Nazism is morality itself.'
(Nick Land, Making it with Death: Remarks on Thanatos and Desiring Production)

Harrington chose the wardrobe carefully and feels safe hiding behind the nazi fylfot colors, red, white and black, colors most easily seen on the open sea, the open sea of media politics. Does the reader actually have the cringing desire to live in one of these Texas towns? Good luck, Einstein.


----------



## Bezukhov (May 22, 2019)

There's this latest study.

*New Study Shows Atheists Just Want To Sin*

New Study Shows Atheists Just Want To Sin


----------



## ding (May 23, 2019)

Bezukhov said:


> There's this latest study.
> 
> *New Study Shows Atheists Just Want To Sin*
> 
> New Study Shows Atheists Just Want To Sin


Atheists just want to worship created things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> > There's this latest study.
> ...


No, that's embarrasingly stupid.

On the other hand, theists want to worship --even be enslaved by -- madeup gods and fairies and sky daddies.


----------



## ding (May 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Bezukhov said:
> ...


It’s totally true. Read my signature.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nah,it's crap you use to soothe yourwelf and to troll. Which shows that your faith is pretty shaky.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Read my signature.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah,it's crap you use to soothe yourwelf and to troll. Which shows that your faith is pretty shaky.



his signature is also how christians win elections, "they are socialists" - scaring the same people that need to read their book to believe in something, for them to vote in the same manner ... out of fear. and they have succeeded for centuries.


----------



## deanrd (May 23, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International


If a Republican Christian is what passes as "moral", thank God I'm a heathen.











I don't get what attracts people to the GOP agenda?  It has to be about race.  Because the fear Trump sows through racism is blinding.


----------



## Bezukhov (May 23, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> his signature is also how christians win elections, "they are socialists" - scaring the same people that need to read their book to believe in something, for them to vote in the same manner ... out of fear. and they have succeeded for centuries.



You don't understand the obsession that the vast majority of Christians have about elections. Most of them believe that Jesus' Kingdom will be established on Earth as soon as every elected office in America is held by Bible Thumping Republicans.


----------



## ding (May 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I use it to refute materialists like yourself.


----------



## ding (May 24, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It’s not hard to spot a Socialist. They’re the ones trying to subordinate religion.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 24, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> It’s not hard to spot a Socialist. They’re the ones trying to subordinate religion.



you're a joke bing, christianity is not a religion those people "subverted" the 1st century - you are their end product.

* they would rather do away with the forged documents of all three desert "religions" - altogether ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 24, 2019)

ding said:


> I use it to refute materialists like yourself.


No, you use it to soothe yourself.


----------



## ding (May 24, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The joke is on you.  I belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Based on traditional ecclesiology and devoted to apostolic teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and to prayer.

You seem to be devoted to critical theory.


----------



## ding (May 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I use it to refute materialists like yourself.
> ...


Not at all. I use it to educate others.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 24, 2019)

ding said:


> I belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Based on traditional ecclesiology and devoted to apostolic teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and to prayer.


No,you belong to a cult based on an iron age fairy tale.


----------



## ding (May 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Based on traditional ecclesiology and devoted to apostolic teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and to prayer.
> ...


Just because you can't expand your mind to contemplate the origin of existence doesn't mean others can't.  You have never seriously stopped to consider this because you lack the intelligence and curiosity to do so.  

But I bet you swallow the religion of socialism hook, line and sinker.  They like them dumb. 

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 24, 2019)

ding said:


> Just because you can't expand your mind to contemplate the origin of existence doesn't mean others can't.


Of course, this is precisely the opposite of what you do. To me, all possibilities exist. You, on the other hand, were brainwashed by a very specific, narrow pile of magical horseshit, and you have closed your mind to all other possibilities. I am infinitely more open minded than you, and infinitely more able to assimilate new inforamtion and to change than a cultist like you -- who thinks he found the only, absolute truth at age 3 in Sunday school -- will ever be. This would also explain your horrible grasp of modern science.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge (May 24, 2019)

Can Catholic priests he moral?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## james bond (May 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you can't expand your mind to contemplate the origin of existence doesn't mean others can't.
> ...



In this case, I agree with ding as he's smarter than you and you make up stuff using imagination.  It's you who believes in "a very specific, narrow pile of magical horseshit" and have closed your mind to all other possibilities.  I mean I thought you were describing yourself in #2671.

As for proving you wrong, you know very well that you can't have an_ infinite_ number of anything in our material world, so you have lied once more.


----------



## james bond (May 24, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> * they would rather do away with the forged documents of all three desert "religions" - altogether ...



That's what commies do.  Are you a commie?  You've already stated what they do in the Communist Manifesto.


----------



## james bond (May 24, 2019)

deanrd said:


> If a Republican Christian is what passes as "moral", thank God I'm a heathen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh my!  How delusional can you get deanrd haha?


----------



## james bond (May 24, 2019)

Do atheists think this is funny?


----------



## ding (May 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Just because you can't expand your mind to contemplate the origin of existence doesn't mean others can't.
> ...


I have forgotten more science than you ever knew. What are your scientific credentials?  You have none.

Militant atheists like yourself are the antithesis of open mindedness. 

Everything you see is skewed to fairytales even when it was shown that the account of Genesis is how ancient man passed down knowledge and history.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Do atheists think this is funny?
> 
> View attachment 262320



I think it’s funny, in a mordant sort or way, that folks such as you spend your lives in trembling fear of angry gods, devils, satans waving a pitchfork and other absurdities.


----------



## ding (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Do atheists think this is funny?
> ...


Quite the opposite, my dear. We celebrate a loving and a caring God.  Just as your people did for thousands of years before they forgot Him.


----------



## cnm (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It is stupid. I'm not complaining about atheists beliefs, per se but about the hubris and superior smugness many atheists display in places precisely like this one.
> 
> It's often not enough just to say I believe this or that. They have to ridicule and belittle while they are about it.


As you are doing?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 25, 2019)

Can theists self-reflect?


----------



## Meriweather (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> I think it’s funny, in a mordant sort or way, that folks such as you spend your lives in trembling fear of angry gods, devils, satans waving a pitchfork and other absurdities.


Yes, but be aware the majority of Christianity does not think along those lines.  In the decades I have been a Catholic, I've heard hell mentioned in homilies three times.  Christ focused on how discerning the word of God and following it; a belief that turning away from sin grants forgiveness from God; and how to get along in the close communities to which we belong--family, neighborhood, work and school environments, and to love the people in them.


----------



## anynameyouwish (May 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Do atheists think this is funny?
> 
> View attachment 262320




yes.


----------



## anynameyouwish (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > This is stupid. The "run of the mill" atheist simply does not accept a belief in any gods. You are just vomiting whatever pleases your own ears and fetishes.
> ...



"It's often not enough just to say I believe this or that. They have to ridicule and belittle while they are about it."

so it bothers you that some atheists behave like many conservative christians?

it bothers you that some  atheists behave like trump?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 25, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> "It's often not enough just to say I believe this or that. They have to ridicule and belittle while they are about it."
> 
> so it bothers you that some atheists behave like many conservative christians?
> 
> it bothers you that some atheists behave like trump?


There is no Christian equivalent to talk about a magical sky fairy or the meme of Jesus holding a dinosaur in his arms.
Atheists can be moral, perhaps. They just don't want to be when it's so much fun to ridicule and laugh at the beliefs of others. They seem to be perpetually frozen in time with the maturity level of  jr. high schoolers.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Can theists self-reflect?


_Answer:_ No, but they sure can project!


----------



## BreezeWood (May 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > * they would rather do away with the forged documents of all three desert "religions" - altogether ...
> ...


.


BreezeWood said:


> * they would rather do away with the forged documents of all three desert "religions" - altogether ...





james bond said:


> That's what commies do. Are you a commie? You've already stated what they do in the Communist Manifesto.




I would say they are not that specific however the goal to rid society of cancerous religions is correct. that does not require being a communist.

the religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty is one sentence long ... your false christian religion is a 10000 page forged document that recorded history demonstrates as being an uninterrupted conquest of persecution and victimization of the innocent and is one of the reasons for the establishment of the communist manifesto. is correct.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > "It's often not enough just to say I believe this or that. They have to ridicule and belittle while they are about it."
> ...



There is no historical evidence to suggest that religious people are any more “moral” than non-believers relative to Christianity or any other religion. Let's remember that religions have been the impetus for war, conquest and among the most horrendous acts of cruelty. 

As to ridicule directed at believers, well, yes that happens. Reading the rants of the literalist, fundamentalist, Ken Ham dinosaur park addled, science loathing thumpers in various threads is actually scary.

It doesn’t take long to become concerned with those who spend their lives in abject fear of angry gods and have the _Believe this_, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell, worldview

You don’t quite get that same message from the _Illiad_, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and korans and Mafioso Books of the Dead _do_ relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2019)

dear women, i have a Happy camper policy; how ethical is that.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> dear women, i have a Happy camper policy; how ethical is that.



That depends.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> There is no historical evidence to suggest that religious people are any more “moral” than non-believers relative to Christianity or any other religion. Let's remember that religions have been the impetus for war, conquest and among the most horrendous acts of cruelty.


Let's also remember that religion has been responsible for great healing, acts of kindness, charity and love.
The three greatest murderers of the 20th century, Mao, Stalin and Hitler, were all anti religious zealots. 
Was Hitler a Christian?
In case you were going to claim Hitler was Christian, the record shows that no, he wasn't despite giving it some lip service as he rose to prominence.



> As to ridicule directed at believers, well, yes that happens. Reading the rants of the literalist, fundamentalist, Ken Ham dinosaur park addled, science loathing thumpers in various threads is actually scary.


Thank you. That's been my only point. If atheists wish to be seen as the moral alternative to religion they might wish to
let some of their more hate filled brethren know stomping on other's dearly held views (regardless of whether you find them absurd or not) does not do much for your case.
Sam Harris is respected so much, in part, because he holds up a flag for atheism (which I respectfully disagree with) without ever resorting to childish inane mockery. How does he do it? 
He simply never cheapens his own arguments with juvenile hijinks. 



> It doesn’t take long to become concerned with those who spend their lives in abject fear of angry gods and have the _Believe this_, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – marshmallow in Hell, worldview.


I've seen this up close and reject this corruption of what Christianity is supposed to be.



> You don’t quite get that same message from the _Illiad_, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But plenty of people think Bibles and korans and Mafioso Books of the Dead _do_ relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.


Religious literalism is a problem that has plagued man kind for centuries. But generation by generation
we have seen more moderating views come to the forefront and the mainstream views of just fifty years ago are now
seen as out of step with much of society.
Atheists have their hard liners too. It's human problem, not a religious one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 25, 2019)

ding said:


> I have forgotten more science than you ever knew


No ding. I know you like to dance and prance and say this, but you say very dumb things about science.



ding said:


> Militant atheists like yourself are the antithesis of open mindedness.


You also love that "militant" term. You embarrass yourself every time you use it. "Militant" to you is anyone who doesn't accept your preferred magical fetish. Which, of course, makes you the ideological "militant". But, being the dishonest fraud you are, you think you provide cover for yourself by accusing others of that of which only you are guilty. You know, like 5 year old does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Let's also remember that religion has been responsible for great healing, acts of kindness, charity and love.


So those kind people would not have been kind, without their imagination telling them their sky daddy is telling them to be kind? That doesn't speak highly to their moral grounding. A better world will have people being kindto be kind, not in some tramsparent scam of an effort to preserve their imagined afterlife.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So those kind people would not have been kind, without their imagination telling them their sky daddy is telling them to be kind? That doesn't speak highly to their moral grounding. A better world will have people being kindto be kind, not in some tramsparent scam of an effort to preserve their imagined afterlife.


Like most atheists you completely disregard the moral and ethical development of cave dwelling humans just a step up from wolves, lions and bears.
Without the moral constraint of a God what would cause me to not bash in someone's skull and take his mate and children as my own to improve my condition in a harsh nasty kill or be killed environment?
Who is there to stop me? All living together in nice cooperative harmony won't get me a woman or the children I need to help me in my daily struggle for mere subsistence. 
It's certainly easier and more efficient to simply take what I would need to survive than
depending on the help, which or may not exist at the time, to get by somehow.

The threat of retribution for stealing someone's family from a God who can make thunder and fire would be a much more impressive deterrent and stick than the carrot of all living together in a Candy Land scenario where everyone just intuits that they must all be good and kind to each other, for some reason.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Without the moral constraint of a God what would cause me to not bash in someone's skull and take his mate and children as my own to improve my condition in a harsh nasty kill or be killed environment?


Haha,utter bullshit. We had already developed social behaviors, icluding empathy and cooperation. You are pulling things right out of your ass, now. What ape god do chimps worship, when they help each other and tend to their ill compatriots?

And your argument is stupid anyway. No longer are we ignorant, cave dwelling, isolated populations with no good transmission of culture and information. Now we can build on cumulative experience and knowledge and form much better morality than that possessed by ignorant, iron age goat herders. We dont need fake sky daddies to be moral (nor did we ever), and the morals we form through reason and scientific knowledge are far superior than those gleaned from our first and worst attempts at philosophy and morality, which is religion.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha,utter bullshit. We had already developed social behaviors, icluding empathy and cooperation. You are pulling things right out of your ass, now. What ape god do chimps worship, when they help each other and tend to their ill compatriots?


Chimpanzees hunt in packs and tear each other to pieces, at times. Chimp attack doesn’t surprise experts
They are highly aggressive and territorial. Come out of your Candy Land fantasy world.





> And your argument is stupid anyway. No longer are we ignorant, cave dwelling, isolated populations with no good transmission of culture and information. Now we can build on cumulative experience and knowledge and form much better morality than that possessed by ignorant, iron age goat herders. We dont need fake sky daddies to be moral (nor did we ever), and the morals we form through reason and scientific knowledge are far superior than those gleaned from our first and worst attempts at philosophy and morality, which is religion.


I am not talking about now, Poindexter, or didn't my example of cave behavior get through to you?
The point is God has always been a moderating force on human behavior whether you like it or not. 
You like to imagine we have outgrown a need for a higher moral calling but looking around that obviously is not so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Chimpanzees hunt in packs and tear each other to pieces, at times.


So do religious humans. We just had to mobilize against a band of genocidal religious freaks in syria and Iraq. And we can blame religion for much of that.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> didn't my example of cave behavior get through to you?


It was a made up nugget of bullshit. I specifically addressed it. Maybe slow down, big guy.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (May 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So do religious humans. We just had to mobilize against a band of genocidal religious freaks in syria and Iraq. And we can blame religion for much of that.


So do humans in general or have you not heard of the greatest mass killers of the 20th century?
Mao, Stalin, Hitler...not a fan of religion among them. 

You frequently mention the damage religion has done but never mention the good it has also done. That's more than a little dishonest.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It was a made up nugget of bullshit. I specifically addressed it. Maybe slow down, big guy.


Well unless you think homicide is a modern invention and people never killed each other in pre history I think you are the one throwing out nuggets of bullshit.

And in matters of bullshit I always defer to the master...that being you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> So do humans in general


Yes thank you. Wow, how can this possibly still happen, with all of these iton aged guides to morality floating about?



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You frequently mention the damage religion has done but never mention the good it has also done.


That's not try at all. You are makong stuff up. . I think  it was useful in organizing humans behind common causes.  Then again, so was slavery. Just as we have moved past stone tools, its time to mobe past the childish nonsense that is religion. We have better tools now.


----------



## ding (May 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No ding. I know you like to dance and prance and say this, but you say very dumb things about science.


We both know you can’t elaborate because everything I have written is true.


----------



## ding (May 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I have forgotten more science than you ever knew
> ...


You are militant in every sense of the word.

If you could get away with it you’d be a nazi.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > So those kind people would not have been kind, without their imagination telling them their sky daddy is telling them to be kind? That doesn't speak highly to their moral grounding. A better world will have people being kindto be kind, not in some tramsparent scam of an effort to preserve their imagined afterlife.
> ...



What's missing in your comment about moral and ethical development is that cave dwellers never had your version of the gods for guidance. Yet, somehow, they managed to survive,

Really? There was a time "before religion" and no one knew of gods?

Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, _somehow_ we didn't all kill one another because ahem -- we're clearly here. So there _must_ have been some morality.

The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to murder people?

If you answer no, then gods aren't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is _your_ personality fracture, not morality's weakness. Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do _before_ religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestors total lack of moral compass?

Plenty of civilizations who never heard of your particular religious myths operated under the same rules and codes of behavior and they did just fine-- in fact, better in many cases. Research a king of India named Asoka -- probably one of the greatest rulers of all time who established public education, functional welfare, medical support, etc.

And tell me, why is it we see rudimentary social structures in animals that don't really have any special creation? Why do higher apes adhere to "moralities" in terms of not blindly killing one another? I suppose you must believe that the gods have touched them as well.  Interestingly, I would like to see anyone use the primary Judeo gods as a role model for moral behavior. Just make a list of the things Yahweh has done, and then go on and try to live according to that morality. They are the example after all, right?

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people _do_ behave morally.


----------



## ding (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion.


Clearly you don’t know understand the implications of free will. We are left to our own device. The choice is implanted. Not the outcome.  We are free to choose immorality.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 25, 2019)

ding said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion.
> ...


That's entirely consistent with what Hollie said.. so you refuse to admit she was not only correct, but covered far more ground with fewer words.

Example:


Eric Arthur Blair said:


> The point is God has always been a moderating force on human behavior whether you like it or not.


So ding, why didn't you post that screed in response to Eric Blair rather than Hollie?
Morality was/is the subject, not free will.


----------



## buttercup (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> What's missing in your comment about moral and ethical development is that cave dwellers never had your version of the gods for guidance. Yet, somehow, they managed to survive,
> 
> Really? There was a time "before religion" and no one knew of gods?
> 
> ...



Because we all have a conscience.  An inner knowledge of 'Natural Law', which is God-given.   Unfortunately, it is possible to damage or mess up one's conscience, to the point of it being nearly gone.


----------



## buttercup (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Do atheists think this is funny?
> ...



We don't fear God in the way you are describing. And I have no fear of devils or the other stuff you mentioned.  Any other misconceptions you need to be cleared up?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 25, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Hopefully you'll address questions stemming from your denials:
By "We" are you including James?
Was James' cartoon not suggestive of what Hollie mentioned?
If not to promote such fears, why would James post that link ?


----------



## buttercup (May 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I only replied to her post, I didn't see all the previous posts in the discussion.  But I just took a quick look at that cartoon, and it doesn't look what you guys seem to think it's about.  Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like some rocker guy who wants to sell his soul for greatness... I don't see what that has to with Christians supposedly fearing?

We don't fear the enemy. Why would we? As the word says, the one who is in us is greater than the one in the world.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 25, 2019)

No previous post reading required, but I take it that:

1) You are presuming to speak for James with all of those "We"s.
2) You don't think James' cartoon was suggestive of what Hollie mentioned.
3) You have no idea why James linked that cartoon.

Then allow me to explain the cartoon. A devil is depicted taunting a stupid atheist. Why presume he's an atheist? Because his soul is described as worthless. Why stupid? Because after wishing aloud to be the greatest ever he sells his soul for only a box of crackers.

So "what that has to with Christians supposedly fearing?" It's a projection. Naturally both Christians and atheists would prefer everyone to be more like them. Many Christians do indeed fear devils so project that upon atheists. Initially, to circle their wagons by painting them as their enemy, and secondarily to try and convince atheists to fear devils too, thereby converting them to Christianity.


----------



## buttercup (May 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> No previous post reading required, but I take it that:
> 
> 1) You are presuming to speak for James with all of those "We"s.
> 2) You don't think James' cartoon was suggestive of what Hollie mentioned.
> ...



When I said we, I was talking about Christians in general.  I didn't have James in mind (I don't even know him.)

As for his cartoon, I _would_ have to read the discussion to see what he was trying to say with that. But I'm not a mind reader, so if you didn't already, you should just ask him why he posted that.

I almost never bring up satan or things like that to atheists, as it would be completely pointless.  I did mention militant pro-aborts being possibly demonically influenced on another thread, but I was just making an observation.  Again, I don't fear those things Hollie mentioned, because I don't have to, I know who the highest power is, and who has the last say.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 25, 2019)

Fair enough.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2019)

buttercup said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What's missing in your comment about moral and ethical development is that cave dwellers never had your version of the gods for guidance. Yet, somehow, they managed to survive,
> ...



Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by conscience. I think you're referring to a sense of right and wrong or a moral code, (to swing back to the thread topic).  

I would agree with some reservations. Attitudes change, worldviews change subject to events and challenges and societies flex and adjust to internal and external influences.

Of course, surely some basic morals work well from generation to generation, from society to society. Let's choose wanton murder as a behavior that is socially destructive to a successful species, and murder is rightfully consistently a moral issue that generally maintains its proscription (and sure some societies sabotage this, like the Nazis, or Stalin, and a number of Islamic societies etc.-- but those societies are doomed to fail. You just can't keep wantonly murdering your own constituents.). But other morals change for reasons both trivial and important. Slavery was once considered a perfectly acceptable aspect of many cultures but forced slavery is so heinous to the perspective of modern societies (at least some) that it has become morally reprehensible to allow it. So this could be categorized as a change of morality that is important.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 25, 2019)

Just an example from the git 'em quick before it's too late department!


----------



## james bond (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Do atheists think this is funny?
> ...



I guess I laughed because Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to God the Father.  We need to be pure to enter heaven.  As to it being mordant, I would think it's because humans think that Satan will deliver what one asks for if they sell their soul to him.  I assume they become bad.  However, that's a lie because Satan cannot grant such wishes.  People swear against God, but they should swearing against Satan.  Satan is quite powerful.  Do you think he influences you in your insistence of ID/creationists or whatever your worldview is?  Even when you write "god" in lower case, you honor Satan as he is the god of the world and prince of the power of the air.


----------



## james bond (May 25, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Just an example from the git 'em quick before it's too late department!



Are you complaining about this?  Making fun?  Being a God fearing person is good.  Then you won't fear Satan and death.


----------



## james bond (May 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?



Incest was okay before the Flood.  Our genetic makeup was pure enough so that people would not become deformed or have genetic disorders.  Afterwards, it was not fine as it produced what we have today.  Today, incest is not morally correct and verboten.


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> If not to promote such fears, why would James post that link ?



You misunderstand.  I would think it's a funny cartoon to Christians as explained in #2714.  I would think atheists would think it's funny, too, but not sure.  It's the ingrained stereotype of Satan.

If you think, I posted to promote fear of God to atheists, then you would be mistaken.  I don't think atheists will be swayed by that if they believe in no God.

I rather give evidence for God's existence than try to show Satan exists.  Satan exists, but you think he doesn't exist.  All that exists is the stereotypes of Satan or his mythology to you.  To me, Satan exists.  He's not a mythology, but I would not argue for you to believe in Satan.

ETA:  It doesn't meant that I won't argue for the existence of Satan.  I rather atheists/agnostics believe in God before Satan.  Satan would sway you to his side.


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Then allow me to explain the cartoon. A devil is depicted taunting a stupid atheist. Why presume he's an atheist? Because his soul is described as worthless. Why stupid? Because after wishing aloud to be the greatest ever he sells his soul for only a box of crackers.
> 
> So "what that has to with Christians supposedly fearing?" It's a projection. Naturally both Christians and atheists would prefer everyone to be more like them. Many Christians do indeed fear devils so project that upon atheists. Initially, to circle their wagons by painting them as their enemy, and secondarily to try and convince atheists to fear devils too, thereby converting them to Christianity.



My bad.  I didn't think of it that way at all.  The guitarist could be anyone.  If anything, I hoped it would lead to seriously discussing Satan since I learned that Satan isn't some entity that can be easily dismissed.


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

God = objective morality.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?
> ...



Why was incest okay after the flood? 

While the flood myth is disproven, literalists seem not to understand that the gods leaving only Noah and his immediate family alive to repopulate the planet requires incestuous / familial relations. 

Otherwise, the early Egyptian dynasties existed before the invention of your gods. There is no reason to believe that the Egyptians had any special biology that would have prevented birth defects from incestuous relations.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Then allow me to explain the cartoon. A devil is depicted taunting a stupid atheist. Why presume he's an atheist? Because his soul is described as worthless. Why stupid? Because after wishing aloud to be the greatest ever he sells his soul for only a box of crackers.
> ...



A child who cannot let go of their adolescent fears and superstitions is said to have never grown up. 

Satan is easily dismissed. It’s called adulthood.

The Easter Bunny is what you should fear.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> God = objective morality.



The catholic priesthood confirms that.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Substitute “_The Easter Bunny_” for “_Satan_”.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I find it equally fitting for both:

_I guess I laughed because Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to The Easter Bunny the Father.  We need to be pure to enter heaven.  As to it being mordant, I would think it's because humans think that The Easter Bunny will deliver what one asks for if they sell their soul to him.  I assume they become bad.  However, that's a lie because The Easter Bunny cannot grant such wishes.  People swear against The Easter Bunny, but they should swearing against The Easter Bunny.  The Easter Bunny is quite powerful.  Do you think he influences you in your insistence of ID/creationists or whatever your worldview is?  Even when you write "the easter bunny" in lower case, you honor The Easter Bunny as he is the god of the world and prince of the power of the air._


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

I love that "Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to God the Father. We need to be pure to enter heaven."

One might as well say,
Fuck mothers.
Long live the patriarchy!

Also, in light of the constant BS comparing of atheists with Nazis,
Long live Das Vaterland! Sieg Heil!

_Was ist des Deutschen Vaterland?
Ist’s Preußenland? Ist’s Schwabenland?
Ist’s, wo am Rhein die Rebe blüht?
Ist’s, wo am Belt die Möwe zieht?
O nein, nein, nein!
Sein Vaterland muss größer sein!.._


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Screed?  It wasn’t a screed. 

First of all God has been a moderating force but not in the way Hollie imagines. God isn’t pulling any strings or controlling behaviors and actions. God’s moderation is in allowing us to experience the consequences of our behaviors and actions. It’s a self compensating feature of existence. 

The problem with most militant atheists is that they can’t accept God exists unless God does magic for them; unless God intervenes; unless God makes everything perfect. God has already made everything perfect. Everything is connected; everything works together for good. You people just can’t see it because you can’t see how good comes from bad.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I love that "Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to God the Father. We need to be pure to enter heaven."
> 
> One might as well say,
> Fuck mothers.
> ...


Actually we are told to be perfect not do perfect things. Many a saint has pondered the difference between the two. 

Everything works itself out in the end. It may or may not be to our liking, but if we dig deep enough we just might find that we didn’t get what we wanted but we got what we needed.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Do atheists think this is funny?
> ...


A lot of people read the Bible and think God was angry.  But that isn’t how your ancestors saw God. They saw God as a loving and caring God. 

It seems to me that you have lost the original meaning through time.  

Maybe that’s why so many Jews like you have forgotten God. 

The funny thing is that you are drawn to discussing God.  You literally can’t stop yourself from doing it.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> We need to be pure to enter heaven.



Do we?  Wasn’t that the point of reconciling justice with mercy through the cross?

Wasn’t the point of it all to allow Christ to carry our guilt so that we could be free to see ourselves as we really are so that we could change our ways?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Screed? It wasn’t a screed.


I hold a poetic license. It may or may not be to your liking, but if you dig deep enough you just might find that you didn’t get what you wanted but you got what you needed.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Screed? It wasn’t a screed.
> ...


I’m good with it either way. Everything works itself out in the end. Error can’t stand.  Eventually it falls. Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t participate in the conflict and confusion process.  We should. That’s how we discover objective truth.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > We need to be pure to enter heaven.
> ...


Here's some objective truth for ya then. I didn't say that. You've misquoted me. That's against the rules here. You are a bad Christian. Repent before it's too late!


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Did I say you did?  

Are you certain?

Or did I respond to what you wrote?  You did type it, right?

What exactly do you believe repent means anyway?  A lot of people think it means something other than what it does.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Do you know how to see objective truth?  Do you know the secret; the trick?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

Do you know how to read? Look up at it again.. "GRUMBLENUTS SAID".. No, I didn't. I quoted someone else saying that. Fear your retribution! Confess! Repent!


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> You did type it, right?


Wrong.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

Best hurry. The Easter Bunny sees all.. _Hop-pity hop._. HE'S COMING!


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)




----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Do you know how to read? Look up at it again.. "GRUMBLENUTS SAID".. No, I didn't. I quoted someone else saying that. Fear your retribution! Confess! Repent!


That was my point.  I was replying to the content of what you quoted.  Sheesh.  

So....  I ask the question, do we need to be pure? The point of reconciling justice with mercy through the cross was to make the impure pure.  

Christ has offered to carry our guilt so that we could be free to see ourselves as we really are so that we could change our ways.

Now do you understand?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You did type it, right?
> ...


Semantics.  

I'm just happy I was able to to make you better informed.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Best hurry. The Easter Bunny sees all.. _Hop-pity hop._. HE'S COMING!


Actually he pretty much leaves us to our own devices.  Life does most of the correcting.  After all we do live in a logical universe where successful behavior naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.  He let's us reap what we sow.   So at any point in your life your life is equal to the sum of the choices you made.  How is that not the greatest thing ever, amirite?

Think about it, if you go through life acting like an asshole, you get to experience the consequences of acting like an asshole.  It's fucking brilliant.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)




----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Christ has offered to carry our guilt so that we could be free to see ourselves as we really are so that we could change our ways.





> Semantics.


Exactly.
The meaning of "I didn't say that" differs completely from  "GRUMBLENUTS SAID".. 
The meaning of "You did type it, right?" is the direct opposite of "Wrong" (I did not type it.)
The meaning of "Semantics." is "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning."


> Think about it, if you go through life acting like an asshole, you get to experience the consequences of acting like an asshole. It's fucking brilliant.


Indeed, thus my first comment here. "Do theists ever self-reflect?" No time like the present, sinner! Do it! Admit you fucked up! Before it's too late!


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Christ has offered to carry our guilt so that we could be free to see ourselves as we really are so that we could change our ways.
> ...


I don't see how I did, amigo.  I replied to the comment of the quote.  Not you. You just provided the opportunity. 

But if you want to die on this battlefield, please carry on because I am just using it as a platform to get the message out that Christ died for our sins so that he could carry our burdens and free us to see the truth about ourselves.

What's your objective?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Christ has offered to carry our guilt so that we could be free to see ourselves as we really are so that we could change our ways.
> ...


Whether they do or not is irrelevant.  Our lessons will continue to be brought to us until we learn from them.  

Isn't it great living in a logical universe?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

> Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box *or alter the member names in "link-back" text..*



See it now?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Hey, hey, hey, hey
Ooh woh
Won't you come see about me?
I'll be alone, dancing you know it baby
Tell me your troubles and doubts
Giving me everything inside and out and
Love's strange so real in the dark
Think of the tender things that we were working on
Slow change may pull us apart
When the light gets into your heart, baby
Don't you, forget about me
Don't, don't, don't, don't
Don't you, forget about me
Will you stand above me?
Look my way, never love me
Rain keeps falling, rain keeps falling
Down, down, down
Will you recognize me?
Call my name or walk on by
Rain keeps falling, rain keeps falling
Down, down, down, down
Hey, hey, hey, hey
Ooh woh
Don't you try and pretend
It's my feeling we'll win in the end
I won't harm you or touch your defenses
Vanity and security
Don't you forget about me
I'll be alone, dancing you know it baby
Going to take you apart
I'll put us back together at heart, baby
Don't you, forget about me
Don't, don't, don't, don't
Don't you, forget about me
As you walk on by
Will you call my name?
As you walk on by
Will you call my name?
When you walk away
Or will you walk away?
Will you walk on by?
Come on, call my name
Will you call my name?
I say
(Lala la la lala la la)
Will you call my name?
As you walk on by


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> > Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box *or alter the member names in "link-back" text..*
> 
> 
> 
> See it now?


Good thing I never did that. 

But go ahead and report it.  This should be fun.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)




----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

So apparently Grumblenuts doesn't properly cite his quote and then blames me for his not citing his quote.

This guy has one hell of an external locus of control.  Oy Vey!


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Hey, hey, hey, hey
> Ooh woh
> Won't you come see about me?
> I'll be alone, dancing you know it baby
> ...




Shameless plagiarism now.. 



ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > > Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box *or alter the member names in "link-back" text..*
> ...



Your actions alone altered the name of the actual author of the quote. And if you want to report yourself, go right ahead. It's your ass on the line. Fear, fear, fear that Easter Bunny!


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, hey, hey, hey
> ...


So now you are accusing me of what you did?  

I bet your life is full of drama.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, hey, hey, hey
> ...


Why so mad, bro?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I love that "Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to God the Father. We need to be pure to enter heaven."
> 
> One might as well say,
> Fuck mothers.
> ...


It’s not so much that militant atheists have no morals. They think they are being moral when they try to subordinate faith in God. But then again, the nazis thought they were being moral too when they put the Jews in the ovens, bro.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

God loves the conflict and confusion process.  He created it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> So apparently Grumblenuts doesn't properly cite his quote and then blames me for his not citing his quote.





ding said:


> So now you are accusing me of what you did?





ding said:


> Why so mad, bro?



Do you have mental issues that preclude you from admitting to ever being wrong when clearly shown to be wrong ? If so, then I apologize for picking on you. If not, confess! Repent! The Bunny is coming!



ding said:


> God loves the conflict and confusion process. He created it.


Is that how you plan to rationalize your bad behavior at the Pearly Easter Basket Gates?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Just to be clear, not all atheists behave like the nazis.  Just the militant ones.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I love that "Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to God the Father. We need to be pure to enter heaven."
> 
> One might as well say,
> Fuck mothers.
> ...



I always found it odd that Christians compare atheists with Nazis when Nazi ideology was deeply rooted in both Christianity and to a lesser degree, the occult.

The Wehrmacht even had the inscription _gott_ mit uns (god is with us), on their belt buckles.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So apparently Grumblenuts doesn't properly cite his quote and then blames me for his not citing his quote.
> ...


I never claimed to be a saint, bro. I only claim to be awake. 

Your whole I misquoted you argument is bullshit. I snipped a pic of your post. 

You’re a sore loser.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > I love that "Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to God the Father. We need to be pure to enter heaven."
> ...


Whereas I just look to see who the aggressor is.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

The irony of the situation is when militant atheists claim the moral high ground to justify their attacks on beliefs of others. 

Apparently they are doing God’s work.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Just to be clear, not all atheists behave like the nazis.  Just the militant ones.


_Snore.. _Hollie rebutted that old saw way back. The statistics show we're the same at worst. Learn something!


ding said:


> Your whole I misquoted you argument is bullshit. I snipped a pic of your post.


Wrong post, "loser"


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, not all atheists behave like the nazis.  Just the militant ones.
> ...


Is it?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

#winning


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, not all atheists behave like the nazis.  Just the militant ones.
> ...


Your hatred of Christians is matched by the nazi's hatred of Jews.  Same difference.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Is it?


Yes, wrong post. But notice my use of quotes to credit someone else with saying the contents, not me.
Compare to your fuck up..


ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > We need to be pure to enter heaven.


Hurry! Confess! Repent! From what I hear that Easter Bunny has big, bitey, nasty teeth!
What, really? You're angry now?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Is it?
> ...


No fuck up, bucko.  I quoted directly from your post.  Deal with it.  

I'm pretty happy with how this exchange has gone.  You're the one harping on it.  If evah there was a sign, that's it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

If ever there was a person who simply couldn't deal with being wrong,.. that's you, sparky!


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> If ever there was a person who simply couldn't deal with being wrong,.. that's you, sparky!


Most people when confronted with a picture admit their defeat.  I like how you double down on stupid.  

This is the post I quoted.  It was written by you.  I quoted directly from it.  I did not alter the quote.  Quit your crying.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts intentionally denies examination because he is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of Grumblenuts . Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Grumblenuts seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Grumblenuts dismisses his defeats and ignores his  incongruities. Grumblenuts desires big government and uses big government to implement his morally relativistic social policies. Grumblenuts is religious. The religious nature of Grumblenuts explains his hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Grumblenuts dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. Grumblenuts sees no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Grumblenuts practices moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. Grumblenuts worships science but is the first to reject it when it suits his purpose. Grumblenuts can be identified by an external locus of control. Grumblenuts religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts practices critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what he does not believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. Grumblenuts  confuses critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something Grumblenuts never does.


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Why was incest okay after the flood?



Why don't you read my post again?


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The Easter Bunny can't talk .


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



My mistake. Substitute “_The Talking Snake” _for “_Satan”_


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Why was incest okay after the flood?
> ...



Why don’t you explain why the gods created the conditions where incest / familial relations were required.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

> Grumblenuts intentionally denies examination because he is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of Grumblenuts . Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Grumblenuts seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Grumblenuts dismisses his defeats and ignores his incongruities. Grumblenuts desires big government and uses big government to implement his morally relativistic social policies. Grumblenuts is religious. The religious nature of Grumblenuts explains his hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Grumblenuts dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. Grumblenuts sees no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Grumblenuts practices moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. Grumblenuts worships science but is the first to reject it when it suits his purpose. Grumblenuts can be identified by an external locus of control. Grumblenuts religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts practices critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what he does not believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. Grumblenuts confuses critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something Grumblenuts never does.



Quit your crying.

Unlike you, I easily admit to previously highlighting the wrong portion of the pertinent rule. I fucked that up. And, OMG, nothing just happened to me! Fear, fear, fear!


> You may selectively quote, *provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote.*





ding said:


> I did not alter the quote.


Your selective quote clearly changed both the context and meaning of the quote by falsely making me appear to be its author, sunshine. Best deal with it before your gods decide to deal with you!


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> > Grumblenuts intentionally denies examination because he is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of Grumblenuts . Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Grumblenuts seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Grumblenuts dismisses his defeats and ignores his incongruities. Grumblenuts desires big government and uses big government to implement his morally relativistic social policies. Grumblenuts is religious. The religious nature of Grumblenuts explains his hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Grumblenuts dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. Grumblenuts sees no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Grumblenuts practices moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. Grumblenuts worships science but is the first to reject it when it suits his purpose. Grumblenuts can be identified by an external locus of control. Grumblenuts religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts practices critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what he does not believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. Grumblenuts confuses critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something Grumblenuts never does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it didn’t. My comment was about how we are not expected to be pure.


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> A child who cannot let go of their adolescent fears and superstitions is said to have never grown up.
> 
> Satan is easily dismissed. It’s called adulthood.
> 
> The Easter Bunny is what you should fear.



We find that the Easter bunny is someone dressed up in a bunny suit and hands out colorful eggs, some of which have little toys or candy inside them.  It's a religious holiday, but also a secular holiday.  Satan doesn't have a holiday.  He doesn't sleep.  He's always working.  He's invisible, but even atheists think some people are possessed by evil.

I asked why atheists write 'god' in lower case.  Academics, like Richard Dawkins, write it in upper case.  For some reason, atheists on a variety of forums all like to write 'god' in lower case.  Later, I found out that Satan was "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."  Coincidence?  I think not.  Not when for some reason many, if not all, atheists like to write 'god' in lower case.

Then Satan is written in upper case.  Even you do it automatically.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

Fuck me. I fucked up the link to ding's fuck up too. Here's the right link and the kicker is that he went on to respond to his misquote as though I had been the author, getting himself all confuzzled in the process:


ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > We need to be pure to enter heaven.
> ...


Arguing the point with me instead of whoever wrote "We need to be pure to enter heaven."
LOL!


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > A child who cannot let go of their adolescent fears and superstitions is said to have never grown up.
> ...



It’s the will of the gods.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

"god" or "gods" - uncapitalized
"God" or "Satan" - capitalized.


> Although capitalization rules can be a bit tricky, rules for capitalizing proper nouns are pretty straightforward. First, though, it's important to understand the difference between _common nouns_ and _proper nouns_.
> 
> 
> Common nouns are the general names of people, places, and things. These types of nouns are usually not capitalized (unless they begin a sentence or are part of a title).
> ...


Gawd
Gawd


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

Can I get an informative on ^that, Hollie?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fuck me. I fucked up the link to ding's fuck up too. Here's the right link and the kicker is that he went on to respond to his misquote as though I had been the author, getting himself all confuzzled in the process:
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...


I never cared who the author was. The world doesn’t revolve around you.  

The response was based on content of the quote, not who the author is.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Fuck me. I fucked up the link to ding's fuck up too. Here's the right link and the kicker is that he went on to respond to his misquote as though I had been the author, getting himself all confuzzled in the process:
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...


Given that yours was the only post that made that point, there was no one else to respond to but you.

Your powers of observation and logic are sorely lacking.

But hey, let’s keep talking about this. I don’t mind.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

Sorry, your troll-like penchant for knee-jerk denial of the obvious has been more than satisfactorily exposed and explored. It was somewhat intriguing to see how long you could persist, but enough is enough. You are dismissed.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, your troll-like penchant for knee-jerk denial of the obvious has been more than satisfactorily exposed and explored. It was somewhat intriguing to see how long you could persist, but enough is enough. You are dismissed.


The obvious is that you wrote a post put part of it in quotes never made a citation and I replied to the content of what you wrote.

Had I been replying to the author of the quote instead of the content of the quote my response would have been that the author was too stupid to see that he wrote a post without providing a citation and then failed to address the content of the reply to his post. That’s what’s obvious to me.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Can we please get more intelligent and interesting people here instead of angry militant atheists who throw tantrums like spoiled children?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts intentionally denies examination because he is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of Grumblenuts . Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Grumblenuts seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Grumblenuts dismisses his defeats and ignores his  incongruities. Grumblenuts desires big government and uses big government to implement his morally relativistic social policies. Grumblenuts is religious. The religious nature of Grumblenuts explains his hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Grumblenuts dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. Grumblenuts sees no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Grumblenuts practices moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. Grumblenuts worships science but is the first to reject it when it suits his purpose. Grumblenuts can be identified by an external locus of control. Grumblenuts religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts practices critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what he does not believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. Grumblenuts  confuses critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something Grumblenuts never does.


Wow, even ding's most impressive fit of crying was stolen without attribution!

Bunny's 'bout to stomp on some shameless heathen trash!


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts intentionally denies examination because he is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of Grumblenuts . Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Grumblenuts seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Grumblenuts dismisses his defeats and ignores his  incongruities. Grumblenuts desires big government and uses big government to implement his morally relativistic social policies. Grumblenuts is religious. The religious nature of Grumblenuts explains his hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Grumblenuts dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. Grumblenuts sees no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Grumblenuts practices moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. Grumblenuts worships science but is the first to reject it when it suits his purpose. Grumblenuts can be identified by an external locus of control. Grumblenuts religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. Grumblenuts practices critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what he does not believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. Grumblenuts  confuses critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something Grumblenuts never does.
> ...


Ravi parodied my siggie.  

My signature line is well known at USMB. It’s got a history.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Ding’s signature:

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and  just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach.  Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership   Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements.  Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies.  Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another.  Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership.  They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking.  Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.  Something they never do.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

The fact that it perfectly describes grumblenuts just means he’s a filthy socialist.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Ravi parodied my siggie.


Yep, appears Ravi used that to ding you with. Because you're such a ding-a-ling. And then you stole his idea. With zero attribution. Because you're such a shameless idiot.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi parodied my siggie.
> ...


He’s a she. 

Nope. I’ve done it many time before Ravi did. She got that from me too. Next?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Getting back to the old biddy’s OP, the question shouldn’t be can atheists have morals, the question should be why should they?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The evidence thus far indicates that you stole _her_ idea. My apologies to Ravi. Your denials are predictable and worthless as ever since you provide zero corroborating evidence.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Believe whatever you want. I have a sneaking suspicion your ego needs the boost after that beat down.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

So according to the worldview of atheism there is no reason to be moral.  Therefore, they are moral because they co-opted it from the religious world view.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> So according to the worldview of atheism there is no reason to be moral.


Again, blind assertion. No corroboration. Equals worthless, purely ego driven pap.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So according to the worldview of atheism there is no reason to be moral.
> ...


Nope. Nothing special about humans, right?  

No different than any other animal. Do you see wolves apologizing to deer for eating them?

Besides this is classic Nietzsche.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They literally have no reason to believe in morals whatsoever.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

The reality.


> One of the first questions Atheists are asked by true believers and doubters alike is, “If you don’t believe in God, there’s nothing to prevent you from committing crimes, is there? Without the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like, can’t you?”
> 
> *Introduction*
> It is hard to believe that even intelligent and educated people could hold such an opinion, but they do! It seems never to have occurred to them that the Greeks and Romans, whose gods and goddesses were something less than paragons of virtue, nevertheless led lives not obviously worse than those of the Baptists of Alabama! Moreover, pagans such as Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius – although their systems are not suitable for us today – managed to produce ethical treatises of great sophistication, a sophistication rarely if ever equaled by Christian moralists.
> ...


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

To an atheist there is no such thing as evil. And since there is no such thing as evil, there is no such thing as good. To an atheist all they know is pleasure and pain.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Then you need to quote and credit Nietzsche with saying it. Simply your word is worth less than crap at this point.
> 
> The reality.
> 
> ...


I didn’t quote anything from him.  You want me to credit him for a quote I didn’t use?


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

So clearly atheists have no reason to be moral. So why should an atheist be moral?  That word really shouldn’t even mean anything to them.

Just what the heck is their standard?  How would they even know a line was crooked without first having an idea of what is straight.

Let’s take abortion. Atheist see pleasure as good and moral and pain as evil and immoral. So telling a woman that it is wrong to end a human life causes her pain and prevents her from having pleasure. So abortion is good and moral to an atheist. See how fucked up these people are.

I would have more respect for them if they just said the hell with your laws of common decency. I want as much pleasure as I can get and I don’t care who gets hurt. That I could respect because they aren’t ass fucking logic to make themselves feel better.

Which is why I ask why would they even need to be moral.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

I think it’s cool atheists have their websites so they can congregate for their religious services and be told what to believe. 

Of course I still don’t know why they need to rationalize their behaviors as moral. Makes no sense at all.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

The reality.


> It is hard to believe that even intelligent and educated people could hold such an opinion, but they do! It seems never to have occurred to them that the Greeks and Romans, whose gods and goddesses were something less than paragons of virtue, nevertheless led lives not obviously worse than those of the Baptists of Alabama! Moreover, pagans such as Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius – although their systems are not suitable for us today – managed to produce ethical treatises of great sophistication, a sophistication rarely if ever equaled by Christian moralists.
> 
> The answer to the questions posed above is, of course, “Absolutely not!” The behavior of Atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religionists included.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

Misinformation and Facts about Secularism and Religion


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Wow, you are really killing it. 

I woke up this morning hoping I would meet someone who couldn’t explain his own beliefs.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

Apparently having conversations isn’t high on the list of militant atheism.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

So we are all in agreement that atheists have no need to believe in or to be moral.


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

To an atheist there would be nothing wrong or immoral with having forced abortions.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 26, 2019)

.
it's bing who puts a worm on the hook, no moral regards at all. and does so compulsively ...


----------



## ding (May 26, 2019)

My bait is tasty. The weak minded cannot resist it.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


.


Hollie said:


> Why don’t you explain why the gods created the conditions where incest / familial relations were required.



or explain why they would corrupt the religion of antiquity with their false version of a family outing ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 26, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> it's bing who puts a worm on the hook, no moral regards at all. and does so compulsively ...


Yep, no morals while blathering on about others having no morals.
*Sarah*: So is bing crazy?
*Dr. Silberman*: In technical terminology, he's a loon.



> Can theists self-reflect?


Some of the most belligerent? Clearly no.


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> My mistake. Substitute “_The Talking Snake” _for “_Satan”_



Why do you put talking snake in caps?  See what I mean?

The snake can't talk either.  It's Satan talking through the snake.  That's how we know it was Satan.



Grumblenuts said:


> "god" or "gods" - uncapitalized
> "God" or "Satan" - capitalized.



The latter is the academic way to address the Abrahamic God unless referring to other religions with multiple gods or a lesser god.  In the case of atheists on the internet, many choose to refer to the Abrahamic God in lower case.  That refers to Satan, so inadvertently they are paying homage to Satan.  Coincidence?

Anyway, in response to Hollie and Grumblenuts, how does Satan influence us today?

He appeals to human's pride, interferes with the transmission of truth, and places false believers within the church.  We have divisions between Protestants and Catholics and there are those who do not believe in Jesus as Savior or Lord such as JW.  Jesus says that Satan is the father of lies.  Thus, the cartoon which I posted is a lie that that the guitarist believes that he will grant his wish to be the greatest in return for his soul.  Instead, he tricks him into a box of crackers.  (Maybe in the future, I'll post more Satan cartoons.)

Satan also has the power of death from Adam's original sin which gave him powers to be "god of the world."  Thus, Jesus saved us from Satan and provided us salvation with his ultimate sacrifice.

While Satan is the god of the world and is quite powerful, his power is limited in the presence of God.  One has to be self-controlled and alert or else they could fall under his temptations.  Satan tempts us while God warns us.  Temptation and warning are opposites.

The Bible says that “the whole world is under the control of the evil one” 1 John 5:19  "Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” 1 Peter 5:8.  Yet, Christians have a great hope for Jesus Christ and faith in Him to overcome Satan’s evil.  “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” 1 John 4:4.

Thus, when you are tempted to do wrong, you have to ask yourself how you are tempted?  Does a voice inside you egg you on to take the easy way out and cheat or disregard objective moral values?  If one does not believe in Satan, they will be easily swayed.

Atheists do not believe in God, either, so they do not receive the warnings and could end up being misled by Satan.  It causes arguments in objective moral values as well as secular/atheist science vs creation science.  How we write our laws gets into politics.  There "is" a reason why we are polar opposites.


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> "We need to be pure to enter heaven."



It's holy.  And who will make us holy by touching us on our shoulder?


----------



## james bond (May 26, 2019)

ding said:


> To an atheist there is no such thing as evil. And since there is no such thing as evil, there is no such thing as good. To an atheist all they know is pleasure and pain.



We are all created in God's image, so we all have an innate sense of what is right and wrong.  However, we do not always follow it whether due to temptation or our values.  If there is a difference between the two groups, then it has to do with objective moral values and what is written in the Bible.  In those situations, we go by what our laws state.  Unfortunately, it isn't what is written in the Bible anymore.  

We all know pleasure and pain, but I think pain is the great persuader.  We may be able to change one atheist's mind about Jesus, but the atheists state that every single atheist has to be convinced or else there is no God.  There's only one way that I know of to do that and Jesus, like gravity, stands before us.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> the atheists state that every single atheist has to be convinced or else there is no God.


In your dreams.


james bond said:


> Jesus, like gravity, stands before us.


Gravity stands? Who knew?


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> In your dreams.



In your nightmares.  I thought that was the best thing an atheist ever said.



Grumblenuts said:


> Gravity stands? Who knew?









Look at how mysterious gravity is.  Atheist scientists think it's the weakest force since a magnet can lift a piece of steel.  Is it really the weakest force when its force is felt across the galaxy?  Like gravity, we cannot escape Jesus no matter where we go in the universe.  Everyone has their day.


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

The pain.  Grumblenuts will this convince you or do you need butthurt?


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > My mistake. Substitute “_The Talking Snake” _for “_Satan”_
> ...



When it comes to talking snakes, you will need to discuss that with other like-minded cranks as you cower in fear before your gods. 

Why did the men who wrote your books of tales and fables use a snake instead of a..... oh, I don’t know.... a bird or a gopher?


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > To an atheist there is no such thing as evil. And since there is no such thing as evil, there is no such thing as good. To an atheist all they know is pleasure and pain.
> ...



Actually, people have created their gods in their own image. 

That’s why the western images of the jeebus are of a tall, light-haired, fair-skinned, Caucasian looking hippie. 

Why do you think the jeebus is not portrayed as a chubby Buddha?


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > In your dreams.
> ...



Why do you insist you know what atheist scientists think when you obviously don’t understand science or what scientists think?


Why do you have this need to threaten people with your gods?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 27, 2019)

So little appreciation for the effort it took to stick that damned thing up there in everyone's face and to keep it from falling over. If they hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 27, 2019)

Will there be a Second Coming of Big Butter Jesus?


> According to report I just heard on Fox 19. Fire crews on the scene. ..
> Channel 5 just reported that Monroe Police verified that Touchdown Jesus is on fire. ..
> Yes, Jesus is on fire, came across police scanner ..
> I HOPE someone got pics! Not that I like seeing Jesus on fire mind you...but "Big Butter Jesus" has become kind of a national joke. It's like the Stay-Pufft Marshmallow man going up in flames. ..
> Jesus is gone. I've just got a report that all that is left is the metal shell, but the actual "butter" is all melted.


\


----------



## ding (May 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Misinformation and Facts about Secularism and Religion


Secular humanists are so happy they are here trying to subordinate the faith of others?  

Why is it that they never make this comparison of the ultimate secular humanist countries; the communist countries?

Because in those societies they redefine what good means and it is diametrically opposed to what is good and just.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > My mistake. Substitute “_The Talking Snake” _for “_Satan”_
> ...


.


james bond said:


> It's Satan talking through the snake - the snake can't talk either



as pointed out why would eve listen to a snake without alarm as opposed to a non threatening sensual species ... if it was possessed - it is your interpretation from the written account that misconstrues the message of choice in the pursuit of the appropriate triumph and reward.

the fable as written is satanic and it is the desert religions that have created the corruption and their adherents that refuse to correct their wrongs as prescribed by the true religion of antiquity. in pursuit of the Everlasting that is the moral objective of all beings.


----------



## danielpalos (May 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dear women, i have a Happy camper policy; how ethical is that.
> ...



want to "role play being a reference librarian so you can get me referenced"?


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Actually, people have created their gods in their own image.



More reading comp issues.  God created man in his image which is moral.  With evolution, it's racist.










Anyway, I suppose you have a point if it's RACISM.


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

ding said:


> Secular humanists are so happy they are here trying to subordinate the faith of others?




Annoying devils?


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> as pointed out why would eve listen to a snake without alarm as opposed to a non threatening sensual species



Adam and Eve were just created and didn't know how these animals were supposed to be.


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Will there be a Second Coming of Big Butter Jesus?





Grumblenuts said:


> So little appreciation for the effort it took to stick that damned thing up there in everyone's face and to keep it from falling over. If they hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!








They got a better statue now which is standing in front of you.  Like gravity.

Lux Mundi (statue) - Wikipedia


----------



## Third Party (May 27, 2019)

Atheists can be moral just as priests can be amoral. Depends on how you think and how you act.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, people have created their gods in their own image.
> ...



Just more of your cut and paste desperation. 

You ran away when tasked with addressing why western images of the jeebus depict a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned Caucasian looking man.

You don’t like the idea of a dark-skinned, middle eastern looking jeebus? 

It seems you’re a “racist”.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, people have created their gods in their own image.
> ...



Fitness for survival has nothing to do with racism. 

You’re reduced to cutting and pasting cartoons. That serves only as a means to display your ignorance regarding evolutionary theory. 

Why do make such a display of your ignorance on a public message board?


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You don’t like the idea of a dark-skinned, middle eastern looking jeebus?



Jesus probably had Aramaean features.  It is the type of genetics that could produce black and white peoples as they spread from the Garden of Eden in the Middle East to Africa and other parts of the world.  More evidence for Jesus and creation.

In contrast, evolution starts with black people.  How do they become lighter skinned people through natural selection?  You keep overlooking how Darwin produced social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the Holocaust, Planned Parenthood, and more.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You don’t like the idea of a dark-skinned, middle eastern looking jeebus?
> ...



How do you know the jeebus had Aramaean features? Can you define Aramaean features?

Oh, and evolution didn’t start with black people. 

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh.


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Atheists can be moral just as priests can be amoral. Depends on how you think and how you act.



Atheists/agnostics lack God's objective morality as stated in the Bible.  Thus, we end up fighting over laws in politics, what science tells us, and how our worldviews affect our lives.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 27, 2019)

ding said:


> God isn’t pulling any strings or controlling behaviors and actions.


Ah, the clockwork god. Yet you believe that magical miracles happened. You really need to get your story straight.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists can be moral just as priests can be amoral. Depends on how you think and how you act.
> ...



The gawds have objective morality?

I can see that. Meting out death, destruction, wiping out humanity because it was a disappointment, promoting incest / familial relations, yes, good, wholesome values, the stuff objective morality is made of.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 27, 2019)

ding said:


> Secular humanists are so happy they are here trying to subordinate the faith of others?


No, that's stupid and whiny. Ideas dont have feelings. You don't get a special pass on your ridiculous magical claims just because you say they are "special" to you. Furthermore, none of these people knocked on your door. You put your ideas on public display on a public forum. If having them scrutinized hurts your little fee fees, them you need to find a different hobby. I don't see evidence based thinkers whining about you peddlers of magical horseshit that you are hurting their feelings. But i suppose having all the evidence at their backs affords them that luxury.

When all you have is, "magic, 'cause I say so!", then any criticism of that magical horseshit becomes an attack on your personal credibility. That's YOUR problem.


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You love to complain even though I answer your questions, but hope for the best.
It’s Not Just Black & White

What people did it start with then?  If you ask what ape-humans looked like, then you get thousands of artist interpretations, but most are dark skinned people of Africa afaik.

No one knows what you are talking about in our conversations most of the time since you just address things to me like I'm suppose to understand by osmosis.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I wasn't surprised you dumped a link to one of the most notoriously silly fundie Christian ministries. 

You have maintained elsewhere, repeatedly that man descended from monkeys. Are you suggesting monkeys are “black”?


----------



## BreezeWood (May 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > as pointed out why would eve listen to a snake without alarm as opposed to a non threatening sensual species
> ...


.


james bond said:


> Adam and Eve were just created and didn't know how these animals were supposed to be.



_*- were just created ...


*_
that soon, and a baby is held responsible for their decisions without reciprocity for any learned experiences. good luck on that bond, the instructions being premature to accountability.

that is not correct there is latent manifestation involving serpents and evil throughout the desert religions eve chose to hear the serpent is the issue the creature did not speak was a hapless bystander victimized for illicit future references, satan - the same function as the forgeries in their written text chosen by their adherents that those of true religion accountability work to correct as prescribed from antiquity.

morals exist for whoever pursues the true spoken religion far from historical norms and accomplishes the goals it provides.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


From the link > "So how can such “black” and “white” twins—though quite rare—be explained?" 
OMG, quick! Dazzle those incredibly gullible sheeple with pure BS!


----------



## ding (May 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > God isn’t pulling any strings or controlling behaviors and actions.
> ...


I believe with God all things are possible. 

But what miracles are you referring to exactly?


----------



## ding (May 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Secular humanists are so happy they are here trying to subordinate the faith of others?
> ...


You misspelled accurate and spot on. 

The only one babbling on about magic is you.  Specifically that you want God to show you some magic.


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> From the link > "So how can such “black” and “white” twins—though quite rare—be explained?"
> OMG, quick! Dazzle those incredibly gullible sheeple with pure BS!



What don't you believe -- we all come from one race?  Tower of Babel?  Adam and Eve?  The Bible?  I'm giving you credit for the b&w fraternal twins, but maybe I'm giving you too much as it is.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 28, 2019)

JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!



You're just making assertions which doesn't mean a whole hill of beans.

Believing in Jesus, the Trinity, or Christianity is faith-based.  I suppose the people parts of the Bible are faith-based, but the other parts are science.  Science backs up the Bible.

Anyway, if you believe in evolution, then it's faith-based.  Science does not back up evolution haha.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 28, 2019)

ding said:


> I believe with God all things are possible.


Correct, you believe in magic.

And no, i don't want any gods to show me some magic, nor would i be dumb or gullible enough to think something was "magic!"  if i saw something odd. I will leave the delusions to the delusional, like you.


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!
> ...



Actually no. Science does not “back up the Bibles”.


Despite your intent to disparage science because of its ability to learn and flex and always self-critique it's knowledgebase, you're actually describing its beauty.

Religion, on the other hand, plods along dogmatically, refusing to change, or only doing so begrudgingly. An eccentric use of science is usually short lived. But the miracles of the bible? Absurdities by definition (else they wouldn't be considered miraculous)? Those are believed for thousands of years regardless or in spite of any evidence.

Unfortunately, there are those limited souls who obsess exclusively on a haphazard compilation of writings arbitrarily edited and dubiously translated by flawed human beings as if it _were_ an excusive and infallible literal message from a god to the exclusion of ongoing revelation through scientific inquiry. Such a fixation upon a single imperfect literary work is, of course, a common form of idolatry.

Religious claims fall under the general heading of “feeling” or “spiritual” based doctrine. Genesis – to pick an example, is a religious claim by definition, and cannot be shown to have any evidence. This clearly and inarguably separates it from science. "God created this and that" is not science, it's a theistic claim. You may “feel” that miracles as depicted in various holy texts are true and inerrant, but I challenge you to provide evidence for any of it. In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise?  How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there?  How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate?  Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men ascend golden staircases to heaven?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 28, 2019)

_And James is buy-eye-ing a stairway to h.._ _Oh, do you believe in magic... ba ba ba ba bah!_ That reminds me, hmm.. With all these believers around, how come ya never see anyone buying up those proverbial bridge offers? Well, maybe they do..


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I believe with God all things are possible.
> ...



No, you dumb-arse.  It's with Jesus all things are possible.  However, you have to believe that it can happen first.

(And Magic quit on the Lakers or else he woulda been fired lol.)


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Actually no. Science does not “back up the Bibles”.



I don't think I asked you a question.  What a mess you are.  You are dismissed.


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> And James is buy-eye-ing a stairway to h..




I'm spiritually blessed, thank you.  Do you know where you are going to?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually no. Science does not “back up the Bibles”.
> ...



Here you are as usual, angry and emotive. 

Where does science back up talking reptiles? 950 year old humans? Where does science document humans living for nine and a half centuries? Where does science confirm a 6,000 year old planet?


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Ahhh, so I order to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?

Well, isn’t _that_ convenient.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I believe with God all things are possible.
> ...


Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do. 

You absolutely do require God to perform magic for you before you will believe. It is literally the only thing I that will sway you.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Not exactly.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

Hollie said:


> to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?
> 
> Well, isn’t _that_ convenient.


Historically true as well since Christianity apparently began with three travelling "wise men" or "magi" {hucksters} "bearing" magical magnet fragments from a fallen "star"  [meteor], wowing people along the way by demonstrating their properties with intertwined fantastic fables and pagan wisdom. Happen upon some poor woman having a baby in a manger and the rest is recorded history, ahem, fantasy.  Perhaps literally the first snake oil salesmen.

Except magnets are of actual practical use beyond a placebo effect.  But I digress, LOL!


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?
> ...


Critical theory at its finest.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!


Do you believe that all behaviors have equal outcomes? 

Or do you believe that some behaviors naturally lead to success and some behaviors naturally lead to failure.

If you believe the latter, then you do believe in faith based nonsense.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > JC on a cracker,.. I don't believe any religionist, faith based nonsense!
> ...


I believe you're highly irrational and incoherent. Here's an idea, when you want to say something, just say it!

Example, instead of the weird dichotomy constructed above, reach down, grab your balls, and try:
_I believe {something or other having to do with "outcomes"} because {something or other}._ 
Boom, done. Honest and straightforward, albeit likely still weird. At least you'd be saying _something_.

What's are "outcomes"?
Why do you associate them only with "behavior"?
Are people required or can groundhogs apply?
What is "success" or "failure"?
Why do you care?
Why should I care?


----------



## james bond (May 29, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Ahhh, so I order to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?



Nope.  See, it's not that hard to answer another poster's question.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> See, it's not that hard to answer another poster's question.


See, don't suggest it's hard. Problem solved. Next..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do


Of course you do. You just use different descriptions for it than the word "magic", because you think your magical fetish is special.



ding said:


> You absolutely do require God to perform magic for you before you will believe.


100%, ass backwards wrong. One could never provide evidence of magic, inherently. But you keep deluding yourself, despite being corrected...it is your top skill, after all....


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh, so I order to believe in the jeebus, I must first believe in magic?
> ...



If it's not so hard, why do you avoid doing so?

It's just so convenient that you sidestep and evade when you're tasked with actually addressing your specious claims.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Critical theory at its finest.


Try learning something instead of just flapping your gums:


> Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences.


In other words, it does not logically apply to anything beyond the realm of philosophy or the social sciences. Unlike belief in jeebus, evolution is deduced from scientific study of hard, physical evidence.


> _Subjective’_ and_ ‘Objective’_ sound very similar, but in fact they mean two very different things. ‘Subjective’ refers to information that is based on personal opinions, and ‘Objective’ refers to information that is based on factual evidence. They’re essentially descriptors for information or writing that help you decide whether they’re worthwhile sources.


Critical thinking is abstract, but forced into one sentence:


> Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment.


Unlike jeebus theory,


> A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.





> Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.


----------



## james bond (May 29, 2019)

> Unlike jeebus theory,



It's the Jesus theory and that is the correct and true answer.  There is only one truth, the creationists here have provided the evidence, and science backs up the Bible.

I can't help it if the atheists here can't answer simple questions, nor have normal reading comprehension, and are delusional about their "faith-based" beliefs.  Like, at least one of the posters keep mentioning, they believe in _magic_.

Do they have morals?  Probably not, but I'm not the one to judge unless I am a juror on one of the trials they were arrested for.


----------



## james bond (May 29, 2019)

What about Carl Sagan?  He was a skeptic.




 

My take.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2019)

P


james bond said:


> > Unlike jeebus theory,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. Science does not back up the bibles. Naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

The development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation tales and fables. ID'iot creationism has no plausible means to investigate its claims of supernatural creation. ID'iot Creationism doesn't even present a tentative hypothesis or a beginning of a framework to explain how magic and supernaturalism answers anything. So what useful role can "it happened by supernatural means" have in advancement of knowledge? 

Arguments for ID'iot creationism only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I believe you are playing games. 

We live in a logical universe where every effect has a cause. So it should not be a surprise that how we behave has consequences; both positive and negative. In fact, the basis for motivational based interviewing, which most Fortune 500 companies use to decide who to hire or not to hire, are successful and failed behaviors. 

You can pretend to not understand what I am explaining to you but we both know you are just playing games. You ought to be able to use your own experiences as a guide.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

In life how we behave is important. If you believe this then you believe in faith based nonsense.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

If you believe that two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people, then you believe in faith based nonsense. 

If you have to ask what does a better relationship mean or what does honest and dishonest mean, then you are most likely a dishonest person who knows he has lost the argument and needs to resort to playing games.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do
> ...


Let’s test this. 

What evidence would you accept for the existence of God?


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Critical theory at its finest.
> ...


Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice of criticizing what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. You confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something you don't seem capable of doing.

Critical theory is not logical at all.  Critical theory has no valid application except to inflame.  Which is why you practice it.  

God loves science.  He created it.  It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.  That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.  After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body.  Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose.  So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same.  We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence.  We are obsessed with making smart things.  So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too. 

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a  requisite for intelligence to arise.  If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist.    The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created.  One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable.  One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy.  That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe.  It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder.  But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the  material world so that minds with bodies could create too. 

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information.  Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence.  Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence.  The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.  The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.  The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect.  Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose.  The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose. 

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world.  Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales and magic that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing.  So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense.  The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there  has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey.   The formation of space and time followed rules.  Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics.  These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible.  These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world.  The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct.  Space and time were created from no thing.  Spirit is no thing.  No thing created space and time.

Now it's your turn to tell me why you don't believe God exists?


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I don’t but it’s ok that you believe I do
> ...


Have you considered that it only seems like magic to you because you can't comprehend what exists outside of space and time?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Hmm...seeing him create a planet and then, explaining to me how he did it. Then, doing it again, while I watched.  A small request. That would be fairly persuasive. But still, I woild suspect I was hallucinating or delusional (a foreign concept to you, no doubt). So he would then have to do it again for me and a panel of scientists, at least 10 or 20 more times.  

But that still wouldn't mean I would worship him or even like him. If the nasty rag that is the bible is to be believed, he has a lot of explaining to do before i even think about not considering him to be a vile, nasty little god.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


He's already done that.  He created existence.  Everything which unfolded since the beginning of space and time were according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.  The creation of planets was just one part of that creation.

It seems to me that you are rather judgemental.  That alone would not be so bad but you are making a judgement without knowing him.  Most of your opinions are built upon faulty interpretations which were never placed in the proper context because you suffer from bias.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> He's already done that.


Yes, you already said that. But I dont believe you. So uou asked me what it would take to believe you. And i told you. And, in true ding mental midget fashion, you ignore my answer in favor of retreatong to your circular nonsense.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


As I clearly stated and you've predictably ignored: "{Critical theory} does not logically apply to anything beyond the realm of philosophy or the social sciences. Unlike belief in jeebus, evolution is deduced from scientific study of hard, physical evidence." In other words, you can play word games with your beliefs until the cows come home. I don't give a crap. I'm an atheist. I simply disbelieve. I don't believe you. Your job then, since you're the one making the positive assertion, is to convince me that some god exists. I've made clear that that will require a scientific, methodological approach involving a coherent scientific proposal backed by hard, repeated, and easily reproduced experimental findings applicable to the proposed claims at a minimum. Kindly shit can all that philosophical flatulence. That will get you nowhere with me.


> Now it's your turn to tell me why you don't believe God exists?


Yes, I'm going to quote others here because they, of course, worked long and hard to put it tersely, comprehensively, and coherently:


> So far, everyone who has tried to scientifically prove that God exists has failed. While it's technically true that this doesn't mean that no one ever _will_ succeed, *it is also true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge rational or even serious reasons to bother believing.*





> After evaluating all the scientific evidence--the studies done by reputable institutions on the power of prayer; the writings of philosophers who have puzzled over the problem of God and of good and evil; the efforts of biblical scholars to prove the accuracy of holy scriptures; and the work of biologists, geologists, and astronomers looking for clues to a creator on Earth and in the cosmos--Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. He convincingly shows that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but scientific observations actually point to his nonexistence.


And don't kid yourself that I'm trying to convince you of anything. You're convincingly unreachable. I respond to satisfy the curious reader alone.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > He's already done that.
> ...


I didn't ignore your answer.  I explained to you that he has already done that.  Here is my basis for that belief.  Do you have a basis for your belief that he didn't?



> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.  That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.  After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body.  Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose.  So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same.  We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence.  We are obsessed with making smart things.  So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
> 
> 
> We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> ...


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


My job isn't to convince you that God exists.  My job is to counter you.  And since you can't provide a basis for any of your beliefs and since I did.  I win.  

All you can do is practice critical theory.  You can't describe what you believe.  You can't explain the basis for your beliefs.  I can and did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> I win.


Haha, precisely how every discussion with ding ends.

Ding, if declarations of victory were actual victories, you would be a 12 star general in the Idiocracy Army.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I win.
> ...


The fact that you can only hurl insults tells me that you know I won. 

It is literally a measure of my success.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes ding. You won. Again. 

*pats ding's head


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


This is pretty simple. When you don’t have a valid response you make insults. So you literally demonstrate that you know you have lost.  People who win have no need of making insults. Their winning is satisfaction enough.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ding, you dont have to explain your self delusion to me. I already understand it. You are a dime a dozen and a very simple character.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I am explaining it for your benefit.  So that you can know when you are losing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 29, 2019)

Lets put a spotlight on the unlogic of the charlatan ding:

God created planets. What would make you believe this?

Normal person: if god repeated it several times for me.

Ding:He already did that. Therefore, god. Therefore, i win.

Haha...my brain needs a shower after every time i waste my time reading this fraud's unlogic.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Lets put a spotlight on the unlogic of the charlatan ding:
> 
> God created planets. What would make you believe this?
> 
> ...


Insults aren't the only thing that tells me you know you have lost.  Misstating my beliefs tells me that you know you have lost too. 

So now let me repost my winning argument which you will cry that I am copying and pasting.



> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose.  That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.  After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body.  Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose.  So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same.  We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence.  We are obsessed with making smart things.  So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
> 
> 
> We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> ...


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Lets put a spotlight on the unlogic of the charlatan ding:
> 
> God created planets. What would make you believe this?
> 
> ...


So do you have any basis for believing that spirit did not create the material world because I just explained mine.  #winning


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> My job isn't to convince you that God exists.


Logically it is. You can deny, conflate, weasel, dodge, and attempt to reverse till the cows come home. You're wrong.


> When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a _burden of proof_ to justify or substantiate that claim
> _{snip}_
> One way in which one would _{you}_ attempt *to shift the burden of proof* is *by* *committing a logical fallacy* known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true
> _{snip}
> ...


Indeed, a single example to demonstrate your positive assertion and you're left pitifully grasping at straws. I assert no claim regarding existence. All I assert is lack of belief. I simply don't believe any supernatural claim and will not until you scientifically produce sufficient credible evidence to convince me otherwise. Go fish.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > My job isn't to convince you that God exists.
> ...


Logically, it isn't.  I couldn't care less what you do.  I'm only here to counter you.


----------



## ding (May 29, 2019)

This is the basis for my beliefs.  If only the militant atheists had a basis for their beliefs that didn't come from Karl Marx then maybe they would share theirs.



> *Point #1: Genesis is the allegorical account of the history of the world that all people share.*
> 
> 
> The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.
> ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If so, I provided all the pertinent logic any sane person would require. So, congrats, you just blew your chance, loser.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 29, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Lets put a spotlight on the unlogic of the charlatan ding:
> ...


.


ding said:


> So do you have any basis for believing that spirit did not create the material world



the metaphysical is responsible for life, there is no material that is not living your problem other than being a forged christian is believing all beings destiny's are not the same.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 29, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> the metaphysical is responsible for life, there is no material that is not living


Now that makes sense to me. Requires a non-standard or redefinition of life, but I'm game. All dink's appeals to "space time" and so-called "laws of thermodynamics" aside, what kills me most is the name dropping of famous physicists who would never describe biblical time frames of "creation" as accurate if even possible, GIVEN they accepted and argued for any of the universe beginning theories discussed. Desperate, wishful thinking induced crap.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I don't believe I did.  I provided the basis for my beliefs.  I made my case.  You never made yours.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > the metaphysical is responsible for life, there is no material that is not living
> ...


Really?  That makes sense to you?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Really? That makes sense to you?


I'm intrigued by the concept and open to pondering it further. Unlike your nonsense.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Really? That makes sense to you?
> ...


I don’t really care what you believe.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> I don’t really care what you believe.


Then don't ask me questions, moron.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I don’t really care what you believe.
> ...


Why not?


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Historically true as well since Christianity apparently began with three travelling "wise men" or "magi" {hucksters} "bearing" magical magnet fragments from a fallen "star" [meteor], wowing people along the way by demonstrating their properties with intertwined fantastic fables and pagan wisdom. Happen upon some poor woman having a baby in a manger and the rest is recorded history, ahem, fantasy. Perhaps literally the first snake oil salesmen.
> 
> Except magnets are of actual practical use beyond a placebo effect. But I digress, LOL!



Your first paragraph is pretty wacko.  It's difficult enough dealing with the false teachers placed in the church, but you're a pagan.  At least, ding is bringing your true self out more.

I have some magnet stories such as atheist/secular scientists think that gravity is weak because of it or they're wrong about what causes the magnetic field (different topic for another day and in the s&t forum).


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Hollie said:


> No. Science does not back up the bibles.



Wrong again.  Real science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  I've checked.  Can I help it your worldview precludes you from true religion?  Atheism isn't a true religion.  It is based on false religion and false science.  For example, God does not exist.

I've said it many times ad nauseum.  You do not have the intellectual capacity to separate ID and creation science, so that is why I consider you looney.  They are separate groups.  Religious groups have separate groups, many which are cults, so it's difficult enough to keep those separate.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> I have some magnet stories such as atheist/secular scientists think that gravity is weak because of it or they're wrong about what causes the magnetic field (different topic for another day and in the s&t forum).


Oh, "what causes the magnetic field", Einstein?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Can Theists Be Logical?


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I have some magnet stories such as atheist/secular scientists think that gravity is weak because of it or they're wrong about what causes the magnetic field (different topic for another day and in the s&t forum).
> ...


It originates in the core of the earth. Some believe it is an iron core. Others believe it is a nuclear reactor core. The main difference to us is how much longer it will continue to create a magnetic field.  If it is nuclear it has a much shorter remaining life. But we’ll all be gone long before it plays out.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Can Theists Be Logical?


Yes. 

Can militant atheists stop being emotional?


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> God created planets. What would make you believe this?



Genesis, but ding doesn't believe in Genesis.  He must think it's the Big Bang haha.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Not you. The other moron.


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm...seeing him create a planet and then, explaining to me how he did it. Then, doing it again, while I watched. A small request. That would be fairly persuasive. But still, I woild suspect I was hallucinating or delusional (a foreign concept to you, no doubt). So he would then have to do it again for me and a panel of scientists, at least 10 or 20 more times.
> 
> But that still wouldn't mean I would worship him or even like him. If the nasty rag that is the bible is to be believed, he has a lot of explaining to do before i even think about not considering him to be a vile, nasty little god.



He already explained it, but you missed it.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


^ dunning effect


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > God created planets. What would make you believe this?
> ...


What is it I don’t believe about Genesis?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Can Theists Be Logical?
> ...


^ dumbing effect


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Not you.



Since you speak opposit-ism, I must be a genius.  The magnetic field is caused by plate tectonics which was explained by creation scientist, Alfred Wegener.


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > the metaphysical is responsible for life, there is no material that is not living
> ...



LMAO.  BW thinks atoms are living matter.  Boy, do I have a bridge to sell to you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> The magnetic field is caused by plate tectonics which was explained by creation scientist, Alfred Wegener.


Thanks. Hilarious!







Hmm, "caused by plate tectonics"?


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Not you.
> ...


Why are you attempting to force your religious superstitions on others?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Can Theists Be Moral?


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



That's a great question. I think that the angry, bible thumping, ignorance-is-a-virtue, examples of Christian fundamentalists in these threads reflect negatively on Christians and religious folks. I do have friends who hold religious beliefs but neved use those beliefs like a bloody truncheon to convert others.

I think it's important we understand that human knowledge is still paltry and unsure, especially when compared to the vast spans of energy, matter, and time that encompass us. We have made some astounding discoveries and gained some amazing insights into the fundamental workings of nature, but there is much left to be discovered. 

Knowledge and _reason_ will open those doors to understanding, not cowering before angry gods, subjet to superstitious beliefs.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Hollie said:


> I think it's important we understand that human knowledge is still paltry and unsure, especially when compared to the vast spans of energy, matter, and time that encompass us. We have made some astounding discoveries and gained some amazing insights into the fundamental workings of nature, but there is much left to be discovered.



Like most geniuses, Dollard is quite the eccentric, but also easily remains the most educated person in the world regarding the now extinct science of electricity. Without the Aether there could be no movement of electricity. That should be obvious yet we've been brainwashed into somehow believing otherwise. Dielectricity and magnetism seem abstract as well, but it's all really much simpler than the crap we've been led to believe for far too long.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


That’s still the dunning effect.


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The magnetic field is caused by plate tectonics which was explained by creation scientist, Alfred Wegener.
> ...



 You can't tell the difference between a magnet and magnetic field.  What else are you missing besides that hole in your head?


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Like most geniuses, Dollard is quite the eccentric, but also easily remains the most educated person in the world regarding the now extinct science of electricity. Without the Aether there could be no movement of electricity. That should be obvious yet we've been brainwashed into somehow believing otherwise. Dielectricity and magnetism seem abstract as well, but it's all really much simpler than the crap we've been led to believe for far too long.




Can you explain dielectricity and magnetism?  I remember this scene.

And why does Dollard think conservation of energy is false.

And you want Hollie to comment on this.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Why do you think that iron bar is hanging onto that horseshoe magnet? Invisible glue? Smoke and mirrors? Jeebus?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Can you explain dielectricity and magnetism? I remember this scene.


No, not to you. Not even to my own satisfaction yet. When asked something like that Dollard generally responds with a recommendation of ten years reading and self-deprogramming to start. Then he rattles off a bunch of essential authors and titles. I'm too old and busy to do all that but I've read and seen plenty enough to convince me he's been right all along. I'd read his books first if you really want to know. Plenty of his stuff available for free online as well.


james bond said:


> And why does Dollard think conservation of energy is false.


For starters... by definition, the first and second laws of thermodynamics only hold in "closed systems." Unfortunately, there's no such thing. All real systems leak. All are thus "open."


> The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the total entropy of an isolated system


Brrrp.. no such thing!


> Because of the requirement of enclosure, and the near ubiquity of gravity, strictly and ideally isolated systems do not actually occur in experiments or in nature. Though very useful, they are strictly hypothetical.[1][2][3]
> 
> Classical thermodynamics is usually presented as postulating the existence of isolated systems. It is also usually presented as the fruit of experience. Obviously, no experience has been reported of an ideally isolated system.


Of course the Aether is left unconsidered as well.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Like most geniuses, Dollard is quite the eccentric, but also easily remains the most educated person in the world regarding the now extinct science of electricity. Without the Aether there could be no movement of electricity. That should be obvious yet we've been brainwashed into somehow believing otherwise. Dielectricity and magnetism seem abstract as well, but it's all really much simpler than the crap we've been led to believe for far too long.
> ...



Your babbling about the second law of thermodynamics is classic ID'iot creationist babbling about what they don't understand. 



You will find a lenghty discussion here:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability


Dont be an accomplice to the fear and ignorance furthered by the ID'iot creation ministries.


----------



## rightwinger (May 30, 2019)

Atheists are the finest people on earth

They rescue cats from trees and help old ladies across the street


----------



## Magnificat (May 30, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


Give one example where God did any of that.


----------



## Moonglow (May 30, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


_*Herem*_ or _*cherem known as God's Law.*_


----------



## Magnificat (May 30, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


I said to give me an example. Which passage of Scripture mentions it?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Herem (war or property) - Wikipedia


----------



## Magnificat (May 30, 2019)

Still waiting for an example of how God violated this.


----------



## Magnificat (May 30, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Atheists are the finest people on earth
> 
> They rescue cats from trees and help old ladies across the street


And they kill their own babies.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists are the finest people on earth
> ...


Far fewer than theists do.


> Many abortion patients reported a religious affiliation—24% were Catholic, 17% were mainline Protestant, 13% were evangelical Protestant and 8% identified with some other religion. Thirty-eight percent of patients had no religious affiliation.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Still waiting for an example of how God violated this.


Provided example from the Book of Joshua:


> And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will *utterly destroy* their cities.


Supposedly "the LORD" did, so was equally responsible. So much for _Thou shalt not kill. Love thy neighbor. Blaa, blaa, blaa.._


----------



## Magnificat (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 a Christian would never have an abortion unless,  perhaps,  it would have severe genetic issues or the life of the mother was threatened. Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not make them one.  A Christian obeys God.  God says abortion is murder.  Therefore, someone who has an abortion is probably not a Christian. Tbeer are countless false Christians out there.
THEY are the ones having the abortions.


----------



## Magnificat (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for an example of how God violated this.
> ...


You have no understanding of Scripture. I'd explain it to you,  but I'm sure I'd only be wasting my time.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...



It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> God says abortion is murder


What Does the Bible Really Say About Abortion? - Freedom From Religion Foundation


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Freedom from religion foundation ?


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

Hollie said:


> It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.


Similar to how a subset of woodchucks will invariably chuck the wood out of a different subset of woodchucks who don’t meet some standard of chucking that different woodchucks define as the standard way woodchucks must chuck wood.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It’s always interesting how a subset of religionists will define out of the religion a different subset of religionists who don’t meet some standard of religion that different religionists define as the standard that religionists must meet.
> ...


Yep. But humans differ from animals because not only do we have a sense of right and wrong but we expect everyone to understand the difference between right and wrong and then we do something very peculiar; when we violate the law of right and wrong, instead of abandoning the concept, we rationalize that we didn’t violate it.

Do you know why I told you that?  Because it is exactly what you are doing. I’d have more respect for you if you said the hell with your invisible code of common decency, I don’t care if they are killing human lives.

Then you would at least be fucking honest about it. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that you are right, they aren’t really ending a human life.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.


Yep, if you sliced open a woman and sewed "a defenseless child" into her womb both would likely die and that would be bad. 


> Biologically, a *child* (plural: *children*) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Well said. Bet you suck the fun out of social gatherings like none other.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I do.  

Actually I'm pretty fun to be around.  I've got a good sense of humor.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Seriously though, why would you care about right and wrong as an atheist?

I'm not asking that to be insulting.  I'm asking that because one of my proofs for God is man's inability to abandon the concept of good and evil.

In fact, it is this peculiar behavior which led me to there might be a God.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


.


> bond: LMAO. BW thinks atoms are living matter. Boy, do I have a bridge to sell to you.



it is bond that does not through their forged beliefs understand the simple steps to physiological life from living matter -

all matter is composed of the periodic elements all of which are viable by definition.






certain elements combine to create organic molecules





molecules combine to form compounds, eventually forming a cell



 .
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




that evolve, metaphysically into physiological beings ...

there is nothing in the universe that is not alive. all life has a metaphysical equation for its existence that also continues to evolve. and a set standard that must be adhered to. from whence we came.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.
> ...


Pro Tip: Any response is not necessarily a good response.  


> Biologically, a *child* (plural: *children*) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty


Not according to every embryology textbook written.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.



as before bing how does that religion construe a vasectomy as any different than an abortion. in application as a solution. the solution you choose - did you ask your priests permission.


----------



## ding (May 30, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Only you would take exception with someone saying that you don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 30, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


'Cause you've checked them all. Obviously. _{Cough..}_ Bullshit!
Here, since you don't like straight Wikipedia, this must be your speed:


> An *embryo* is an animal or a plant in its earliest stage of development.
> 
> The embryo of vertebrates is defined as the stages between the first division of the fertilized egg to the birth or hatching.
> 
> ...


Words have purpose. Just because some idiots can't keep 'em separated and/or smush them all together for political purposes doesn't mean they're technically correct, making sense, or helping anyone but themselves when doing so.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



It definitely sounds like you do not know or else you would've told us.  Since you brought it up, maybe whoever took the picture did glue what looks like two metals together.  You posted the pic.  What are we looking at?


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Atheists are the finest people on earth



They join the Satanic Temple and support Hollywood values more than what you said.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



Hollie, I'm sorry but am putting you on ignore.  You keep lumping ID and creation science together when I explained and asked many times to not do so.  You are not capable of recognizing two separate groups.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> For starters... by definition, the first and second laws of thermodynamics only hold in "closed systems." Unfortunately, there's no such thing. All real systems leak. All are thus "open."



How do you know that "All real systems leak?"  'All are thus "open?"'



Grumblenuts said:


> > The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the total entropy of an isolated system
> 
> 
> Brrrp.. no such thing!



Haha.  It's a scientific law, so what makes you so sure there is no such thing?



Grumblenuts said:


> Of course the Aether is left unconsidered as well.



You lost me.  What does aether have to do with all this?


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



You should get in bed with Grumblenuts and whisper it in his ears.  Watching him explain away science is hilarious.  He sounds like another atheist nutjobber.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > God says abortion is murder
> ...



So now you are using highly biased source to back up your stupidity?


----------



## Hollie (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



It’s probably for the best that you take such a tactic as retreat. That’s a common theme for the ID’iot creationist cabal.


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


You can prove me wrong by finding just one.  Good luck with that.  

Even your own quote proves my point... An *embryo* is an animal or a plant in its earliest stage of development.

Humans are animals so a human embryo is a human in its earliest stage of human development.  

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."  Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


As plainly described, you are looking at an iron bar hanging onto a horseshoe magnet. Ultimately the attraction is a manifestation of electricity as are all physical phenomena, but more specifically, you're witnessing a magnet exerting magnetic force upon an iron bar due to their mutual magnetic field interactions. To really learn something here's some Dollard from long ago:


> PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LINES OF FORCE
> Consider the space between poles of a magnet or capacitor as full of lines of electric force. See Fig.1. These lines of force act as a quantity of stretched and mutually repellent springs. Anyone who has pushed together the like poles of two magnets has felt this springy mass. Observe Fig.2. Notice the lines of force are more dense along AB in between poles, and that more lines on A are facing B than are projecting outwards to infinity. Consider the effect of the lines of force on A. These lines are in a state of tension and pull on A. Because more are pulling on A towards B than those pulling on A away from B, we have the phenomena of physical attraction. Now observe Fig. 3. Notice now that the poles are like rather than unlike, more or all lines pull A away from B; the phenomena of physical repulsion.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> You can prove me wrong by finding just one. Good luck with that.


You mean find an embryology text that doesn't conflate the word "child" with "embryo" or with "fetus"? Sure, I may just look for one of those some day.. when I'm really bored and have nothing better to do.. Point stands in any case. They are clearly defined generally as distinct for good reason and conflated for political purposes alone.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Humans are animals so a human embryo is a human in its earliest stage of human development.


Right. An embryo not a "child."


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


Biased in favor of truth as opposed to your creation.com bias for fantasy? Stupid is simply attacking a source instead of addressing the content, which in this case amounts to biblical quotes. You can't dispute their accuracy so you attempt smearing the source instead. _Snore..

Freedom From Religion Foundation_ - love reading that name! Like a breath of fresh air! Thanks for continuing to repeat it!


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Yeah, sounds good. Let's find a room, BreezeWood. We could privately (immorally?) compare notes to better frighten the shit out of goobers like James..


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> How do you know that "All real systems leak?" 'All are thus "open?"'


Links were provided. Are you allergic to reading, reason, AND logic? If not, try some!


james bond said:


> Haha. It's a scientific law, so what makes you so sure there is no such thing?


WTF? Same response!


james bond said:


> You lost me. What does aether have to do with all this?


The Aether is the necessary background medium through which all energy exchange takes place. Boats need water in order to move. It's that simple and obvious.

Aaron Murakami explains a bit here:

In great depth here, but *it'll cost ya!
*(well worth it)


----------



## Magnificat (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Magnificat said:
> ...


I believe they call that doubling down on stupid. Some liberals are really good at it.  Or should I say bad at it?


----------



## Magnificat (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Humans are  animals so a human embryo is a human in its earliest stage of human development.
> 
> "An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


You're wasting your breath.  These people know that they are ending a human life.  They simply don't care.  Why else are they trying to get legislation passed for post birth abortions?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> post birth abortions?


You're wasting your breath and everyone's time.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Only you would take exception with someone saying that you don’t need to follow a religion to know that ending the life of a defenseless child is wrong.



did you get permission to have your vasectomy ...


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


.


james bond said:


> You should get in bed with Grumblenuts and whisper it in his ears. Watching him explain away science is hilarious. He sounds like another atheist nutjobber.



you have a habit of selective responses as though half your brain is dead, -

are the elements alive or not.


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Why would I?  I'm not hung up on the form of religion like you are.


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Humans are animals so a human embryo is a human in its earliest stage of human development.
> ...


"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You can prove me wrong by finding just one. Good luck with that.
> ...


They use different names for different stages of the human life cycle.  But they all say that human life begins at conception.  Not one says otherwise.  How could they?  They are human and they are living.  


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council


----------



## Magnificat (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Excuse me?


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Magnificat said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


My post was a direct reply to Breezewood.  Who is hung up on the form of religion.


----------



## Magnificat (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Magnificat said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ah.  OK. Couldn't tell who you were replying to.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So? That was never the issue. A child is not a fetus. Say that and we're done. Nothing in dispute otherwise. Never was, except in your mind apparently.


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Congratulations.  A child is not a fetus.  Now if you will only recognize that abortions are explicitly designed to terminate a human life.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Congratulations. A child is not a fetus.


Lord have mercy. At long last. Praise the lord! Some lord or other. Lord Kelvin?


ding said:


> Now if you will only recognize that abortions are explicitly designed to terminate a human life.


I'll grant you "designed to terminate" and "life" in general, but too many other useful purposes to presume "explicitly" and certainly not limited to "human life." The main purposes regarding humans (pregnant women) are made much clearer here:


> *Abortion* is the ending of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.[note 1] An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently "induced miscarriage". The unmodified word _abortion_ generally refers to an induced abortion.[1][2] A similar procedure after the fetus has potential to survive outside the womb is known as a "late termination of pregnancy" or less accurately as a "late term abortion".[3]


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations. A child is not a fetus.
> ...


No.  Abortion is the termination of a human life.

Why do you keep dehumanizing human life?

Can your conscience not take you believing you are ending a human life?


----------



## Magnificat (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why are you such a dumbass?


> Induction of abortion in cattle is a common procedure and is done for a variety of reasons. Heifer calves may become pregnant at a very early age, predisposing them to dystocia as well as retarded growth during pregnancy and during the subsequent lactation.


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And???


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Why would I? I'm not hung up on the form of religion like you are.



the 1st century religion of antiquity is only 6 words long - the triumph of good vs evil.

you did not answer the question, did you receive permission for your vasectomy ...


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


And "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner


----------



## ding (May 31, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I did answer the question.  Why would I?


----------



## Magnificat (May 31, 2019)

I guess liberals don't care about them unless they can vote.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So???


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

> No. Abortion is the termination of a human life.





> Edwards says the majority of feedlots feeding heifers palpate incoming heifers. Some feedlots forego palpation and simply mass abort all heifers upon arrival with a prostaglandin. However, pregnancies over 120 days of gestation may not be affected by prostaglandin alone.  "Most feedlots would prefer to feed open heifers, but due to location, timing or lack of willing veterinarians to perform the pregnancy exam, they may or may not get them palpated," he says.


Do you seriously think either "Keith L. Moore" or "Dr Jerome LeJeune" would argue with Edwards there and say "No. Abortion is {limited to} the termination of a human life"?
Apparently so. Because you're such a dumbass.

_And "After fertilization has taken place a new cow has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner_

Why do you hate cows? I guess anti-choice nuts don't care about cows even if they can vote.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



So it's an iron bar instead of two magnets, but whatever.  How did the horseshoe magnet come to be?  Are you saying that one has to have electricity in order to have magnetic force?  There does not appear to be any electricity in the horseshoe magnet.


----------



## Hollie (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> > No. Abortion is the termination of a human life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can’t say I’m surprised at the Keith Moore copy and paste.

Keith Moore is a quack.

Embryology in the Quran - Professor Keith Moore


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> How did the horseshoe magnet come to be?


How magnet is made - material, manufacture, making, history, used, dimensions, machine, History, Raw Materials


james bond said:


> Are you saying that one has to have electricity in order to have magnetic force?


No.


james bond said:


> There does not appear to be any electricity in the horseshoe magnet.


Duh.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Links were provided. Are you allergic to reading, reason, AND logic? If not, try some!



Can't you answer my question by explaining what you know?  You said "All real systems leak."  What are you referring to?  The engine oil from my car?  I can show you that it isn't leaking.  If it does leak, then I can have it repaired so it isn't leaking.



Grumblenuts said:


> Are you allergic to reading, reason, AND logic? If not, try some!



Just what am I suppose to get out of it.  I'm not a mind reader.  Why can't you explain what you know in order to convince others?  Otherwise, I'm wasting my time.  Why should I read something which you cannot explain?  That isn't an argument to convince me of something.



Grumblenuts said:


> WTF? Same response!



Haha.  So far, you haven't explained anything, but only dodging questions.  I can explain thermodynamics to you.  It's about heat transfer.  We see heat flow from a hot place (source) to a cold one.  Nothing happens on the planet or universe without it.  Do you want me to go on to SLOT?



Grumblenuts said:


> The Aether is the necessary background medium through which all energy exchange takes place. Boats need water in order to move. It's that simple and obvious.



Sounds like thermodynamics w/o heat transfer.  So where does one get aether?  I mean if I have a boat, then I go to a river or ocean to use it (work).


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > > No. Abortion is the termination of a human life.
> ...


Seriously, the mother is given no consideration, nor is the baby once born. The fetus is all anyone's supposed to give a shit about. Fuck that!


----------



## Hollie (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



We’ve had nearly 50 years of Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise that most Americans agree with. I can’t help but notice that the religious extremists are the ones attempting to force their beliefs on all others.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Why can't you explain what you know in order to convince others


Have been. There's a practical limit. I've given you plenty to study, chew on, and find your own answers. Do it.. or don't.. whatevs..


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > How did the horseshoe magnet come to be?
> ...



Why can't you explain in your own words, so I know what you are getting at?  Are you incapable of explaining basic concepts such as how a horseshoe magnet came to be so we can discuss?  An intelligent person can express their ideas so others can understand.

Well, what I read from your Dollard example was there was electricity flowing so that an electromagnetic field was created.  With your magnet how is the magnetic force being generated?  Are you saying Dollard is wrong now since there is no electricity haha?

I'm also trying to lead you to a larger magnetic field.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

Your responses indicate you've read little and comprehended nothing. It's abstract stuff. You may begin to get it in ten years IF you start actually studying now..


----------



## Hollie (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



How a horseshoe magnet came to be?

Well, once upon a time there was iron ore mined from the earth and then a talking snake convinced a young lady that fruit theft was a good idea.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Have been. There's a practical limit. I've given you plenty to study, chew on, and find your own answers. Do it.. or don't.. whatevs..



All right, I won't waste my time.  You're not very convincing or interesting.  Did that guy on youtube, some store owner or businessman, you believe in do an experiment?  Where is his aether?  We know that any useless concept with no evidence supporting it will be ignored.  There's your DUH.  

I presented you with my car as example of a closed system of thermodynamics.  Heat transfer occurs and the car does work.  The same with a boat.  Your duh stuff is obviously lacking and I was right about the hole in your head.  Good day, sir.


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Your responses indicate you've read little and comprehended nothing. It's abstract stuff. You may begin to get it in ten years IF you start actually studying now..



Haha.  I just showed from our back-and-forth that you've read little and did not comprehended anything.  You cannot explain what you believe to others.  Did you graduate high school?  I'm serious.

Maybe if you explained and it sounded interesting, then I may have read what you linked.


----------



## Frannie (May 31, 2019)

Mindful said:


> I like this idea:
> 
> 
> Let’s say we have a few hundred gods to choose from and a few thousand religions.


Do you have evidence that hundreds of thousands to billions of lines of genetic code wrote themselves in the mud one day, just because?


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > I like this idea:
> ...


One day? What's the hurry with you people?


----------



## Frannie (May 31, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


You cant answer without invoking God

Excellent post


----------



## james bond (May 31, 2019)

So my point is, the Earth is surrounded by a _powerful_ magnetic field.  This magnetic field is due to electric currents in its metallic core.  (Not aether as some wacktards here believe haha).  Anyway, we have learned that Earth's surface is covered with rock plates moving on magma underneath.  This plate tectonic action helps to generate the electric currents in the metallic core.  Without Earth's magnetic field to shield us from the harsh solar wind, we would not last very long.  However, the Earth's magnetic field is decaying.  This decay of the magnetic field is one of the strongest evidence for Bible's young earth creation theory.  If Earth was 4.6 billions years old, then we'd be toast as the magnetic field would be gone.  Science backs up the Bible.  There you go.

Earth's Magnetic Field


----------



## Hollie (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> So my point is, the Earth is surrounded by a _powerful_ magnetic field.  This magnetic field is due to electric currents in its metallic core.  (Not aether as some wacktards here believe haha).  Anyway, we have learned that Earth's surface is covered with rock plates moving on magma underneath.  This plate tectonic action helps to generate the electric currents in the metallic core.  Without Earth's magnetic field to shield us from the harsh solar wind, we would not last very long.  However, the Earth's magnetic field is decaying.  This decay of the magnetic field is one of the strongest evidence for Bible's young earth creation theory.  If Earth was 4.6 billions years old, then we'd be toast as the magnetic field would be gone.  Science backs up the Bible.  There you go.
> 
> Earth's Magnetic Field





The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology.

Henry M. Morris


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I did answer the question. Why would I?



you did not answer the question whether you received permission from your priest to have a vasectomy ...

there is no difference between a vasectomy and an abortion - is why, sinner.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> So my point is, the Earth is surrounded by a _powerful_ magnetic field.  This magnetic field is due to electric currents in its metallic core.  (Not aether as some wacktards here believe haha).  Anyway, we have learned that Earth's surface is covered with rock plates moving on magma underneath.  This plate tectonic action helps to generate the electric currents in the metallic core.  Without Earth's magnetic field to shield us from the harsh solar wind, we would not last very long.  However, the Earth's magnetic field is decaying.  This decay of the magnetic field is one of the strongest evidence for Bible's young earth creation theory.  If Earth was 4.6 billions years old, then we'd be toast as the magnetic field would be gone.  Science backs up the Bible.  There you go.
> 
> Earth's Magnetic Field


.


james bond said:


> This decay of the magnetic field is one of the strongest evidence for Bible's young earth creation theory. If Earth was 4.6 billions years old, then we'd be toast as the magnetic field would be gone. Science backs up the Bible. There you go.



since it is not gone you obviously are wrong - there was not a magnetic field before a solid surface ... molten metallic core not withstanding being its own source for electrical impulses.




> The *sun's magnetic field* has two poles, like a bar *magnet*. The poles flip at the peak of the solar activity cycle, every 11 years. A solar wind composed of charged particles carries the *magnetic field* away from the *sun's* surface and through the solar system. The *sun* is not a solid ball, but rather like a fluid -


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

Plate tectonics have had precious little influence on the Earth's magnetic field, so forget all that crap. The pertinent Wikipedia page sure makes for great reading compared to the "creation science" nonsense. Still a bit of a mess however. For example, what we intuitively sense to be a "magnetic field" is beautifully represented by this image:







The Wiki captions that "An artist's rendering of the structure of a magnetosphere. 1) Bow shock. 2) Magnetosheath. 3) Magnetopause. 4) Magnetosphere. 5) Northern tail lobe. 6) Southern tail lobe. 7) Plasmasphere." {note image is cropped because the one actually shown won't show here}

If you imagine a bar magnet there instead of the Earth, it's easy to see the influence of the two opposing poles travelling through space with one lobe in the lead fighting off the solar wind while the trailing one gets inflated due to the drag. Now if you also picture a thin flat disc bisecting the Earth, or any magnet (with linearly opposed poles, a "dipole") taking its place, and extending well beyond its surface, that disc represents the dielectric plane.

Instead, what they caption "Computer simulation of the Earth's field {etc}" is really simply depicting lines of force, not a field.






This is repeating the same error we were all taught, that sprinkling iron filings around a magnet will show you the field. It doesn't. All you get is a two dimensional slice of the "lines of force" which {like the image above} are actually three dimensional but the inverse of the field supposedly being illustrated. Virtually useless.

So, to best quickly witness what magnetism really looks like and how it actually works, I recommend the undisputed champion of obsession with magnets, Ken Wheeler. No one has worked harder to understand magnetic forces and visually convey that knowledge. He's compiled a massive volume of images that are compelling and incredibly beautiful. He has some great quotes as well. Unfortunately his writing is often less than coherent, self-aggrandizing, and acerbic, especially in regard to Einstein. So far over the top it really gets annoying in many sections of his free book here. So read at your own risk. If you can make it all the way through, like I forced myself to once, you deserve a medal and will gain much for the effort. He also has an interesting short video up now.. with stupid background music.. so turn the sound off if you want to see his detailed, computer generated model.


----------



## Grumblenuts (May 31, 2019)

Or.. you can try to follow this:


LOL!


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Yeah, you'd swear abortions must have increased or something instead of decreasing. As I've related before, what really cemented my atheism was prolonged verbal abuse from a minister when I was like 12 years old at most, pissed that I refused to "accept the Lord Jesus Christ as" my "personal" something and "savior" or similar malarkey.. at that very instant.. because he had grown impatient.. I was taking too long to decide in his opinion.. he wouldn't be driving me to Christian Brigades any more.. even though he would still be picking up some of my neighbors.. "Well thanks, fuck it then!" I told myself and haven't lost a wink of sleep over it since.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> there is no difference between a vasectomy and an abortion - is why, sinner.



The subject was abortion, not a vasectomy.  It goes to show the wacktards have come out the woodwork in this thread.  You need to have your penis removed immediately due to oft chance of breeding..


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Or.. you can try to follow this:
> 
> 
> LOL!



What a wacktard you are.  I tried to listen to you, but you cannot explain what you believe.  Now, you are attempting and failing miserably at trying to explain your position.  You still can't in your own words.  You, sir, are an official looney tunes wacktard.  I would believe you are a product of two monkeys hahahaha.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Seriously, the mother is given no consideration, nor is the baby once born. The fetus is all anyone's supposed to give a shit about. Fuck that!




STOP GIVING US YOUR STUPID PREACHING!!!  Both are given consideration.  How is the baby given _any_ if they are terminated before birth?


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

So what about that horseshoe magnet?  What I was trying to lead Grumblenuts to was that it was a rock  from a rock layer magnetized by Earth's magnetic field.  Thus, it has + and - polarity and while its magnetism is slowly decaying, it remains strong enough to lift the small metal bar from the surface.  '

Earth's magnetic field is caused by normal freely decaying electrons in water.  Their polarity was aligned by God, in the beginning, so it caused a jump start mechanism for Earth's magnetic field.  Yet, like the horseshoe magnet, creation scientists know that Earth's magnetic field is decaying; they've known this since the 1800s.  However, secular/atheist scientists think Earth is billions of years old due to evolution.  We all know that Earth's magnetic field would decay to nothing in long time, so they came up with the dynamo theory.  No such thing.

More evidence for a young Earth and that it backs up the Bible.  I suppose being right is the truth, so one has to try to be as right as possible or truthful to be moral.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> So what about that horseshoe magnet?  What I was trying to lead Grumblenuts to was that it was a rock  from a rock layer magnetized by Earth's magnetic field.  Thus, it has + and - polarity and while its magnetism is slowly decaying, it remains strong enough to lift the small metal bar from the surface.  '
> 
> Earth's magnetic field is caused by normal freely decaying electrons in water.  Their polarity was aligned by God, in the beginning, so it caused a jump start mechanism for Earth's magnetic field.  Yet, like the horseshoe magnet, creation scientists know that Earth's magnetic field is decaying; they've known this since the 1800s.  However, secular/atheist scientists think Earth is billions of years old due to evolution.  We all know that Earth's magnetic field would decay to nothing in long time, so they came up with the dynamo theory.  No such thing.
> 
> More evidence for a young Earth and that it backs up the Bible.  I suppose being right is the truth, so one has to try to be as right as possible or truthful to be moral.



It’s a sad thing that ID’iot creationists are duped by the charlatans at fundamentalist cults.


----------



## ding (Jun 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Saying that abortion is the termination of pregnancy sounds better to you than saying abortion is designed to terminate a human life. 

Your conscience needs to see it that way.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> So what about that horseshoe magnet?  What I was trying to lead Grumblenuts to was that it was a rock  from a rock layer magnetized by Earth's magnetic field.  Thus, it has + and - polarity and while its magnetism is slowly decaying, it remains strong enough to lift the small metal bar from the surface.  '
> 
> Earth's magnetic field is caused by normal freely decaying electrons in water.  Their polarity was aligned by God, in the beginning, so it caused a jump start mechanism for Earth's magnetic field.  Yet, like the horseshoe magnet, creation scientists know that Earth's magnetic field is decaying; they've known this since the 1800s.  However, secular/atheist scientists think Earth is billions of years old due to evolution.  We all know that Earth's magnetic field would decay to nothing in long time, so they came up with the dynamo theory.  No such thing.
> 
> More evidence for a young Earth and that it backs up the Bible.  I suppose being right is the truth, so one has to try to be as right as possible or truthful to be moral.


Well to this point you're failing miserably at the being "right as possible" part and your truthfulness doesn't look great either.. must be immoral. But incredibly dumb is what stands out most. You and ding make quite the pair.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, it's called being accurate (truthful). The term abortion really does apply to any animal capable of pregnancy. Don't like cows? Eat worms.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

Hollie said:


> It’s a sad thing that ID’iot creationists are duped by the charlatans at fundamentalist cults.


It is sad seeing almost anyone get duped. Not funny. Hard enough as it is with the military / industrial / prison complex, the Koch brothers, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Trump, all fundies, money lenders.. doing their damnedest to dupe as many as possible every day. Keep pulling some gullible in while pitting all against one another. Divide and conquer. Damn the environment, ill gotten gains full speed ahead...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

https://stateofbelief.com/wp-content/audiofiles/2019/State_of_Belief_060119.mp3


> Now, here’s what you’ll hear on this week’s _State of Belief Radio._ The last time our host and our guest met was some thirty years ago. The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, President Emeritus of Interfaith Alliance and host of State of Belief Radio had walked away from the increasingly radicalized and politicized religious right that had long been his home. *The Rev. Robert Leonard Schenck was a leader in that political takeover of White American Evangelical Christianity.*
> 
> The fruits of that takeover are everywhere today. A woman’s right to choose has all but disappeared in a growing number of states, and Roe v. Wade is in the political religious right’s crosshairs. Extraordinary new interpretations of “religious liberty” are being used to codify every form of anti-gay discrimination you could think of. And guns are worshipped as a divine right, with rhetoric that would make the golden calf blush.
> 
> At the same time, persons of faith and of no faith are uniting as they haven’t since the Civil Rights Era to resist, in moral and ethical terms, assaults on the most vulnerable and marginalized among us. The stories are so inspiring that even mainstream media has begun to acknowledge a resurgent “religious left.”


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

..The silence is deafening..


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > there is no difference between a vasectomy and an abortion - is why, sinner.
> ...


.


james bond said:


> The subject was abortion, not a vasectomy. It goes to show the wacktards have come out the woodwork in this thread. You need to have your penis removed immediately due to oft chance of breeding..



that is a very poor reply understandable from a forged christian, the question whether they had asked their priests permission was also relevant for the sociopath, misogynistic bing.

vasectomy is the same as abortion as the same as birth control, one is not superseded by another the illicit morals are encountered by the pretentious ... your disguised 10000 pg document is incomplete and you know it.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

ding said:


> Saying that abortion is the termination of pregnancy sounds better to you than saying abortion is designed to terminate a human life.
> 
> Your conscience needs to see it that way.



I doubt this has anything to do with conscience as it's legal up to a certain point.  Life begins from that point on.  In ancient times, babies and children were routinely killed.

To play devil's advocate, what is moral about putting a mother to jail for murder?


Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > So what about that horseshoe magnet?  What I was trying to lead Grumblenuts to was that it was a rock  from a rock layer magnetized by Earth's magnetic field.  Thus, it has + and - polarity and while its magnetism is slowly decaying, it remains strong enough to lift the small metal bar from the surface.  '
> ...



You're the one who posted a pic of a horseshoe magnet, but could not tell us in simple terms how it was created.  What a simpleton you are.  I doubt you graduated high school.

Next, you post how magnetism works according to Eric Dollard and cannot answer questions about it.  More evidence of you being a simpleton and why you cannot explain what Dollard is teaching in his figure.

Moreover, I can't even discuss Earth's magnetic field with you, but somehow you know by the aether (which you do not know how to get, nor explain what it is, nor explain anything basically) that you can criticize other people. 

The intelligent people here should have gotten that secular/atheist scientists are wrong about the dynamo theory and Earth's magnetic field because they assume long-time.  OTOH creation scientists understand that Earth's magnetic field will decay away in around 2800 years.  That will cause problems, so it isn't a bad idea to see if we can find another planet to colonize.  Can we be multiplanetary?  That said, what is NASA more concerned about?  Finding aliens on Mars lol.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> abortion as the same as birth control



What kind of beyond wacktard are you?  Explain yourself in front of all these people.  Birth control is preventing conception or pregnancy.

It just goes to _prove_ what I have been saying about you being a wacktard, atheist, and immoral.  Birth control is preventing conception or pregnancy.  If one has to get an abortion, then it is too late.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > abortion as the same as birth control
> ...


.


james bond said:


> Birth control is preventing conception or pregnancy.



abstinence is yet a choice and a distinction humans may have over other species otherwise the physical interventions are all the same including abortion - your half dead brain is lacking, have you received permission from a priest for any remark you have made in reference to reproductive hegemony ... because it is not written in your forged christian bible the christian has no other recourse than their corrupt clergy for their "moral" guidance. 

1st century jesus did not use abstinence ... the priests are heretics.

the atheists are the misogynists. christians.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> the atheists are the misogynists.


Why's that?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > the atheists are the misogynists.
> ...


.
that was meant to read the misogynistic christians are the atheist - bond, the namecaller ...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

Just to be clear, you're saying instead of blaming atheists James should be blaming the Christian Bible and their corrupt clergy's "moral" guidance?
Misogynistic Christians are James's atheist?

Well, I gather that's part of what you're saying anyway. If you get a chance to listen to this
https://stateofbelief.com/wp-content/audiofiles/2019/State_of_Belief_060119.mp3
I'd love to hear your thoughts. It's way better than it seems at first..


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> abstinence is yet a choice and a distinction humans may have over other species otherwise the physical interventions are all the same including abortion - your half dead brain is lacking, have you received permission from a priest for any remark you have made in reference to reproductive hegemony ... because it is not written in your forged christian bible the christian has no other recourse than their corrupt clergy for their "moral" guidance.
> 
> 1st century jesus did not use abstinence ... the priests are heretics.
> 
> the atheists are the misogynists. christians.



For birth control, I think you have the right idea in vasectomy for men.  Not for abortion.

With abortion, it has to only to do with the woman.  The man gets off scot-free.  We should make the man responsible for the child, too.  That usually mean money from both sides in raising the child in a care home.  We take care of our stray dogs and cats better.  My idea would be to sterilize the male if they cannot pay, i.e. won't support the child.  If the woman gets into another unwed pregnancy of her free will, then she would be sterilized.  Bringing a second parentless child into the world has its consequences.

This avoids the stupid murder argument against abortion.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Just to be clear, you're saying instead of blaming atheists James should be blaming the Christian Bible and their corrupt clergy's "moral" guidance?
> Misogynistic Christians are James's atheist?
> 
> Well, I gather that's part of what you're saying anyway. If you get a chance to listen to this
> ...



Like I said earlier, you two should get a room together to whisper these nothings haha.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, you're saying instead of blaming atheists James should be blaming the Christian Bible and their corrupt clergy's "moral" guidance?
> ...


.


james bond said:


> you two should get a room together



is that you and bing praying to your made up 4th century jesus, messiah - no wonder they have not returned, they never existed.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)




----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> is that you and bing praying to your made up 4th century jesus, messiah - no wonder they have not returned, they never existed.



No, I just don't want to see this in the forum.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > is that you and bing praying to your made up 4th century jesus, messiah - no wonder they have not returned, they never existed.
> ...


.


james bond said:


> No, I just don't want to see this in the forum.



see what - your cartoon ... good idea.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> see what - your cartoon ... good idea.



The cartoon shows how Satan influences us.  If you tell it to get lost when he tempts you, then you will be better off for it.

Our conscience, our sense of justice is tied to our morals and that is evidence of God.  He made us in his image.  Deep down we know that there is a God.  What disrupts this is Satan's temptations.  Now, you may prefer to discuss things with Grumblenuts, but you end up with me.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > see what - your cartoon ... good idea.
> ...


Satan doesn’t influence “us”. That you spend your life in fear of ancient myth and superstition is your nightmare to deal with. Don’t presume your irrational fears and superstitions are shared by others.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

> For more than 30 years I worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. As an evangelical minister, I was deeply engaged in the world of the religious right, beginning with my vote for Ronald Reagan for president in 1980. I believed he would appoint Supreme Court justices committed to protecting unborn children, and Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986, fulfilled my expectations. Later, when President George Bush nominated to the court another strong pro-lifer, Clarence Thomas, I led a vigil at our church to pray for his confirmation.


_- More -_


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> > For more than 30 years I worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. As an evangelical minister, I was deeply engaged in the world of the religious right, beginning with my vote for Ronald Reagan for president in 1980. I believed he would appoint Supreme Court justices committed to protecting unborn children, and Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986, fulfilled my expectations. Later, when President George Bush nominated to the court another strong pro-lifer, Clarence Thomas, I led a vigil at our church to pray for his confirmation.
> 
> 
> _- More -_



They should overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal.  That will save the infant.  However, there has to be more done such as making the father pay in raising the child such as child support to a orphanage or mother, or else forced vasectomy.  The mother has contribute, too, unless she raises the child herself, or else forced sterilization.  Raising one child is not going to bankrupt you.  If it happens again with her of her _free will_, then she should be sterilized.  Same with the father.  It's stupid to put them in jail for murder.

That solves the argument against the poor having harder lives due to unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 1, 2019)

That said, now the grown ups:


----------



## james bond (Jun 2, 2019)

The grown ups have done their talking.  It's just you and BW left with your whispers to each other.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > > For more than 30 years I worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. As an evangelical minister, I was deeply engaged in the world of the religious right, beginning with my vote for Ronald Reagan for president in 1980. I believed he would appoint Supreme Court justices committed to protecting unborn children, and Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986, fulfilled my expectations. Later, when President George Bush nominated to the court another strong pro-lifer, Clarence Thomas, I led a vigil at our church to pray for his confirmation.
> ...



Ahh, government sterilization. Good plan. 

You bump into things and fall down a lot, right?


----------



## ding (Jun 2, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Sounds like fartsmoke to me.  

The act of abortion by design is to end a life. In humans, which is what we are discussing, that life is a human life.


----------



## ding (Jun 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that abortion is the termination of pregnancy sounds better to you than saying abortion is designed to terminate a human life.
> ...


It is the conscience which requires dehumanization to rationalize the unnecessary and unjustified taking of a human life. 

You don’t need to throw momma in jail.  The doctor will do.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> The grown ups have done their talking.  It's just you and BW left with your whispers to each other.


I don't see the angry bible thumpers as being the grownups. In fact, considering the history of angry bible thumpers and the horrific acts of cruelty they have inflicted in humanity, I would think the angry bible thumpers are the last people who should be spewing their cheap moralizing.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 2, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> The act of abortion by design is to end a life. In humans, which is what we are discussing, that life is a human life.



_*that life is a human life ...*_







your remarks reflect an unconscionable forgery written in the 4th century christian religion that has served no purpose but self gratification for the selfish and illiterate.

the religion of antiquity encompasses the Garden and all its inhabitants - what is done to one is the same for all others. were the triumph the reasonable conclusion, not that of christianity.


----------



## ding (Jun 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Wrong. My comments reflect the Natural Law which is written in the hearts of all men. 

If there had never been a bible or any religious texts for that matter the law of right and wrong would still be written in our hearts.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > > For more than 30 years I worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. As an evangelical minister, I was deeply engaged in the world of the religious right, beginning with my vote for Ronald Reagan for president in 1980. I believed he would appoint Supreme Court justices committed to protecting unborn children, and Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986, fulfilled my expectations. Later, when President George Bush nominated to the court another strong pro-lifer, Clarence Thomas, I led a vigil at our church to pray for his confirmation.
> ...



Why make abortion illegal? That would tend to negatively impact the availability of young boys used by the Catholic Church for their pedophilia syndicate.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 2, 2019)

Continuing..


> Over the last decade, I have changed my view on Roe. I’ve come to believe that overturning Roe would not be “pro-life”; rather, it would be destructive of life. I have witnessed firsthand and now appreciate the full significance of the terrible poverty, social marginalization and baldfaced racism that persists in many of the states whose legislators are now essentially banning abortion. If Roe is overturned, middle- and upper-class white women will still secure access to abortions by traveling to states where abortion is not banned, but members of minorities and poor whites will too often find themselves forced to bear children for whom they cannot adequately care.
> 
> *What is “pro-life” about putting a woman in a situation where she must risk pregnancy without proper medical, social and emotional support? What is “pro-life” about forcing the birth of a child, if that child will enter a world of rejection, deprivation and insecurity, to say nothing of the fear, anxiety and danger that comes with poverty, crime and a lack of educational and employment opportunities?*


----------



## mascale (Jun 2, 2019)

Any reliance on a deity, with basis in the Western Holy Bible or Koran, fails at simple arithmetic.  The relevance right now is the threat of the new tariffs against Mexico as a sanction regarding Immigration policies.  The tariff is a regressive tax, aka usury.

The widely unknown Moses Atrocity was in fact the Sanctification of Usury.  Israel could not use it against one another, (usury is lethal, and commonplace(?)).  Israel could only screw foreigners instead, (Deut 23:19-2).  It appears elsewhere, and so is even in the Bible(?).  Now it is a Current Events, policy and news:  And directly so applied.  There appears to be Jews in the Trump family, no clergy so-state this Sunday morning.

Post-Hellenic New Testament opines the usury problem and a remedy of usury.  That comes along maybe 1500 years later.  Matthew 25:14-30 is about the Foreclosure Crisis, and how deeply hated Las Vegas real estate agents really were(?).  People provided less to start with cannot possibly keep up with provided more:  In the context of the usury at the Exchangers, generally a fixed percentage. People unable to keep up tend to be cast out even of any Market Place.  In Matthew 20:  1-16, an equal amount Cost-of-Living Adjustment is shown.  Regardless of any amount originally provided, the Living Wage amount for the day is paid to everyone equally.

Instead of a depleted marketplace, everyone has something to take to the marketplace, just like everyone else.

So the Deity-Sanctified method is actually condemned, remedied, and never so-stated.

Koran merely condemns wealth from Riba.

Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Keynes and Friedman take note of the stories at all.

Subsequent McGovern-Nixon, Republicans created the per child equal amount tax credit as a remedy for the regressive Payroll Tax.  In the 1986 US Tax Reform, Reagan signed on to raising and indexing the personal exemptions and standard deduction. Clinton Expanded the Child Credit.  Obama made the Make Work Pay Equal Amount tax credit refundable.   That Bush had relied on the outdated arithmetic of tax cuts to relieve a recession.  In the foregoing years, more and more filers actually had zero income tax liability, and so the economy failed.

Even today and yesterday and so on:  No clergy anywhere will make the report.

Accepting Deity existence is accepting of the horror of the sanctified method only. The Republicans took the Obama plan away.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many find solace now in Holy Smoke!)


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 2, 2019)

mascale said:


> The widely unknown Moses Atrocity was in fact the Sanctification of Usury.


That fits the bill. Explains why chucking the "Old Testament" was really deemed necessary. The new, improved Jesus model. Stuffing the old, angry "God" safely away, out of potential reach, etc.


----------



## ding (Jun 2, 2019)

The belief that the Jews of antiquity saw God as angry is in error.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 2, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> If there had never been a bible or any religious texts for that matter the law of right and wrong would still be written in our hearts.



no, you are a christian, it is not written in your heart it is replaced by your 10000 pg forged document - the persecution and victimization of the innocent is what is written in your heart.


and you have not answered if your priest gave you permission for the solution you chose.


----------



## ding (Jun 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The Natural Law is written into the hearts of everyone.  Deal with it.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 2, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



The only truly moral people are Agnostics.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 2, 2019)

OnePercenter said:


> The only truly moral people are Agnostics.


Are agnostics more moral than atheists? If so, how so? Why capitalize the word "agnostics"?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2019)

right wing bigotry is merely the moral turpitude of false pride.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 2, 2019)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> The Natural Law is written into the hearts of everyone. Deal with it.



not yours ...

that is not the teachings of the 4th century christian bible, christian in fact your book claims the opposite. self deception does make it easier to skirt moral standards, you make that readily obvious in your responses.

did your priest give his response in writing for your baby killing vasectomy.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 2, 2019)

OnePercenter said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> ...


A true moralist does what the Creator would have that one do and not what the individual believes is the correct course of action... Morality hinges on eternal truth.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 2, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> right wing bigotry is merely the moral turpitude of false pride.


Bigotry rests in the eyes of a bigot, as they do not comprehend their own hypocrisy


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 2, 2019)

> But there is something else about the eye which impresses us still more than these wonderful features which we observed, viewing it from the standpoint of a physicist, merely as an optical instrument,—something which appeals to us more than its marvelous faculty of being directly affected by the vibrations of the medium, without interference of gross matter, and more than its inconceivable sensitiveness and discerning power. It is its significance in the processes of life. No matter what one’s views on nature and life may be, he must stand amazed when, for the first time in his, thoughts, he realizes the importance of the eye in the physical processes and mental performances of the human organism. And how could it be otherwise, when he realizes, that the eye is the means through which the human race has acquired the entire knowledge it possesses, that it controls all our motions, more still, and our actions. There is no way of acquiring knowledge except through the eye. What is the foundation of all philosophical systems of ancient and modern times, in fact, of all the philosophy of men? I am I think; I think, therefore I am. But how could I think and how would I know that I exist, if I had not the eye? For knowledge involves consciousness; consciousness involves ideas, conceptions; conceptions involve pictures or images, and images the sense of vision, and therefore the organ of sight. But how about blind men, will be asked?_{etc}_


Nikola Tesla. Over 100 years ago.


----------



## ding (Jun 2, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Vasectomies don’t kill babies. Learn some science. 

The law of right and wrong is written into the hearts of everyone.


----------



## james bond (Jun 2, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> No, it's called being accurate (truthful). The term abortion really does apply to any animal capable of pregnancy. Don't like cows? Eat worms.



How can that be truthful?  Are you really trying to be as right as you can?  We do euthanize sick animals or when there are too many animals, it is fine to hunt them, but not humans.  Are you suggesting that we euthanize humans and that it's fine to kill killers?  I'm for both.  It should be legal to euthanize sick humans who are not capable of living on their own or surviving in pain.  As for the murders and killers, bring back hanging.  Bring back the electric chair.  They do not deserve mercy killings like euthanisation for sick humans.  Humans and animals are different.


----------



## SandSquid (Jun 2, 2019)

Absolutely athiests can be moral and Christians can be sinful.


----------



## james bond (Jun 2, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Nikola Tesla. Over 100 years ago.



Did he think the electricity flowed outside the wire?  The path of less resistance?  What we find in that electrical wire is in strands and not a solid copper wire.  What does this do?

So far, this is the only interesting thing you brought up.  At least you could explain it unless you're going to bring in aether lol.

ETA:  IOW, are you being as truthful as you can be in what you believe as observational science?  That would be the moral thing.


----------



## james bond (Jun 2, 2019)

ding said:


> It is the conscience which requires dehumanization to rationalize the unnecessary and unjustified taking of a human life.
> 
> You don’t need to throw momma in jail. The doctor will do.



We can't toss the doctor in jail for doing something legal.  Abortion up to a certain time is legal.  That said, I don't believe in throwing people in jail for capital murder over this.  There has to be a better way if abortion is made illegal to an extent, overturning Roe v. Wade, and deciding over the rights of the fetus v. the rights of the mother.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's called being accurate (truthful). The term abortion really does apply to any animal capable of pregnancy. Don't like cows? Eat worms.
> ...





> ac·cu·rate
> _adjective_
> 
> 1.
> ...





> Humans and animals are different.


Humans differ from other animals. All humans are animals. People are all human. A legal definition of "person" obviously differs from that of "human being."  Seemingly careless or ignorant use of "human being" is also an insult to our Native "Indians," the Inuit in particular.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 2, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


.


LittleNipper said:


> A true moralist does what the Creator would have that one do and not what the individual believes is the correct course of action... Morality hinges on eternal truth.



if their beliefs are unsound they will not triumph as prescribed by the Almighty, something christianity is incapable of accomplishing relying instead on a madeup forged document.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It is the conscience which requires dehumanization to rationalize the unnecessary and unjustified taking of a human life.
> ...



Roe vs. Wade already establishes reasonable compromises between the rights of the mother and the rights of the State to intercede on behalf of the fetus. 

The majority of Americans do not support the extremist views of you hyper-religious types.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

Yes, the hyper-religious minority are convinced they are the only moral ones or hyper-moral. This moral superiority grants them licence to incessantly judge and preach down to everyone else in circular reasoned, crybaby fashion. The beauty of this fantasy is that it requires no actual learning, self-reflection, critical thought, shame, etc, and so conveniently privileges the already loud mouthed and most privileged. Wealthy white men of little conscience. So what is morality?


----------



## james bond (Jun 3, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> People are all human.



And a fetus is human according to God's objective moral values.  Thus, we overturn Roe v. Wade and the people responsible get a chance to start over, but it comes at a price.  People need to be responsible and free.  I'm not like ding putting doctors in jail as murderers.  I can't believe I am saying this, but it even fits evolution haha.  Survival of those who can and are willing to support their breeding.  If you can't and won't support your breeding, then you get sterilized (vasectomy or tubal, both outpatient procedures).



Grumblenuts said:


> Wealthy white men of little conscience. So what is morality?



Come now, you don't have to be wealthy to support one child.  It's more than one where it starts to dent your wallet.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

It seems to me that the one stuck bearing the little pisser for nine months, the one far more likely to provide the milk it will initially demand, the bulk of the butt maintenance, nurturing,.. the vast majority of work, responsibility, and sacrifice in other words.. that person alone should decide what's best for the both of them. Now if that person wants to involve or consult someone else, a loved one, a doctor, a religious person or institution... fine. But short of that no fucking man should ever be allowed to decide for a woman what she does with her internal fetus. Her fetus. It should be considered her personal property* until born or otherwise expelled from her body. Providing the sperm is nothing but a pleasure by comparison. Not work. Not being responsible. Not sacrifice. It should count for nothing.

_*{Part of her body actually, but perhaps in more legal terms..}_


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, the hyper-religious minority are convinced they are the only moral ones or hyper-moral. This moral superiority grants them licence to incessantly judge and preach down to everyone else in circular reasoned, crybaby fashion. The beauty of this fantasy is that it requires no actual learning, self-reflection, critical thought, shame, etc, and so conveniently privileges the already loud mouthed and most privileged. Wealthy white men of little conscience. So what is morality?


Good thing you aren’t being morally indignant. 

Yet again proving God does exist.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It is the conscience which requires dehumanization to rationalize the unnecessary and unjustified taking of a human life.
> ...


If they violate the law, you can almost guarantee the doctor will go to jail.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Good thing you aren’t being morally indignant.
> 
> Yet again proving God does exist.


Yet again, no self-reflection. I know what I am...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > People are all human.
> ...



Where have the gods established any moral values?

All of the books making claims to gods are written by men, none of whom have ever spoken with the gods.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Nor borne any children, ahem, fetuses.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Yep. I can't help but notice that so many of the posts from the religious extremists in these threads, (men), absolve men of any responsibility for a woman's pregnancy and then choose to strip the woman of any choice regarding the termination of the pregnancy.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > People are all human.
> ...


.


james bond said:


> I can't believe I am saying this, but it even fits evolution haha. Survival of those who can and are willing to support their breeding.









- are blindly destroying the Garden they belittle in their forged and made up religion and are selfrighteously leading humanity to an undeserved extinction by their misuse of the gifts given them. understanding nature is an anathema to all three desert religions, those people that comprise their congregations.

not to mention the slaughter they incur daily for the above gluttonous subsistence.


----------



## james bond (Jun 3, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> It seems to me that the one stuck bearing the little pisser for nine months, the one far more likely to provide the milk it will initially demand, the bulk of the butt maintenance, nurturing,.. the vast majority of work, responsibility, and sacrifice in other words.. that person alone should decide what's best for the both of them. Now if that person wants to involve or consult someone else, a loved one, a doctor, a religious person or institution... fine. But short of that no fucking man should ever be allowed to decide for a woman what she does with her internal fetus. Her fetus. It should be considered her personal property* until born or otherwise expelled from her body. Providing the sperm is nothing but a pleasure by comparison. Not work. Not being responsible. Not sacrifice. It should count for nothing.
> 
> _*{Part of her body actually, but perhaps in more legal terms..}_



These people are not the fittest.  They can't make good decisions nor can they pay for their vices.  The best is sterilization if they cannot support the fetus and infant.  Child support does a good job in getting them to pay and collect.  Society is set up nicely for that.  We just do not want these people _breeding_.  They aren't put in jail for murder, nor their doctors, and they are free to carry on.

Studies have shown that if you jail or kill these people for "murder one" like what some of the religious right are wanting, then others will just take their place.  This is what happens to stray animals.  Sterilization is an effective and humane tool to control our pregnancy rates of those who cannot support a child.  It's a humane form of birth control for those who can't and won't support a child.


----------



## james bond (Jun 3, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...



The only part that I am using from the Bible is that "life begins at conception" and it's God's objective moral law; it's like the ten commandments.  We do not want just the rich to get richer and the poor to continue getting pregnant.  Those are the facts of life.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


Maybe they could reform themselves given more tax breaks?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Where, in any of the bibles is the claim that "life begins at conception" ?


----------



## james bond (Jun 3, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Maybe they could reform themselves given more tax breaks?



For the rich?  Why not?  Simple outpatient procedure.  Maybe they'll make a house call for extra haha.


----------



## james bond (Jun 3, 2019)

What's strange about God is that he's _unpredictable_.  Life is unpredictable.  God has his word and objective moral values, but he won't go the way you think he will go.  Thus, you have to be ready in life for CHANGE.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


This must be it!:


> 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
> 
> 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


"Morality" baby!

Say whaa? Still don't see it? GWB had the answers:
“I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.”
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
“Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across the country.”
“Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican.”
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


.


james bond said:


> The only part that I am using from the Bible is that "life begins at conception" and it's God's objective moral law; it's like the ten commandments. We do not want just the rich to get richer and the poor to continue getting pregnant. Those are the facts of life.



_*and it's God's objective moral law; *_ 






that is not covered by the desert religions


*"life begins at conception" 
*
the truth be told with the first breath - and what is the sterilization all about those issues are no different than an abortion which in itself is a solution to a biological anomaly - 

are any of the christians getting in writing from their priests their flagrant disregard for church doctrine ... why not post one for giggles.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> What's strange about God is that he's _unpredictable_.  Life is unpredictable.  God has his word and objective moral values, but he won't go the way you think he will go.  Thus, you have to be ready in life for CHANGE.



Yes. The gods are unpredictable. That's because humans are unpredictable and humans invented the gods.

So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal / moral laws of the gods are not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46

"_Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession_."

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway, right?

Can you enlighten me on how the gods resolves such a conflict?

Thanks.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 3, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > The only truly moral people are Agnostics.
> ...



Agnostics don't embrace or deny the existence of the unknown or the unknowable.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Good thing you aren’t being morally indignant.
> ...


I live for self reflection. 

But the fact that everyone wants to be considered moral even though they don’t agree on what’s moral is the proof you have been searching for.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

You people can wave your arms all you want but the pendulum has clearly begun to swing back.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 3, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



You mean the creator as written in man made scripture? I can think of $1.2T reasons why religious provocateurs would want you to believe that.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

OnePercenter said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


Karl Marx said essentially the same thing.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 3, 2019)

ding said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Big deal.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


Karl thought so too.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Knew him well, did you?


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Just through what he wrote. His writing reminds me of you. But then again his writing reminds me of most Europeans.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Gosh. You're quick, aren't you?

His writing was in German.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

Mindful said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


German, huh?  That’s in Europe, right?  

It’s been translated. 

April says hey. She misses you.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



There's such a place as Europe?


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 3, 2019)

Of course atheists can be moral. Morality is acting within social norms. Religion is but a pathway towards morality; tried and true for the most part, but right and wrong are defined by society, not a church denomination.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> Morality is acting within social norms.


That would be nice. We could all sit back, relax, and just wait for others to act before judging their character. No, that will never do. Far too many bigots and thought police in our midst. And religion has certainly never helped in that regard. Truth is science has proven theists to be no more moral than atheists.


----------



## Mindful (Jun 3, 2019)

Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.
—Dostoyevsky


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.
> —Dostoyevsky


How is that different than what I have written before?

But he is wrong. The man continues to believe he loves.


----------



## ding (Jun 3, 2019)

Everything is choice.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 3, 2019)

Why do women care so much? Nothing they do can be serious. One way or then the other. Ya so I make all corresponding comments with who was number one statistically and discussing statistical top accomplishment and collaboration among any professor or student trying to make any Moral actions, who happens to be a woman. Oh well, can't tell anybody about this, there's some secrets somebody has to tell me that I'm asking they're telling me I was telling them that they were telling me.


----------



## Third Party (Jun 3, 2019)

Yes, they have to be. Without a religion, they can't be immoral.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 3, 2019)

Didn't the Queen revoke Jedi-Ism as a Charity as having no Moral code? Don't people compliment their Excellent Appearances with Religious adherence and community? Whether they like the Members of that community or not? Or they are all empty smiles or not? Or all the girls in Detroit are mean or not? Third Party? The Morality should provide distinction and direction rather than Liberty.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 3, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Yes, they have to be. Without a religion, they can't be immoral.


I think you're onto something there.. maybe just on something.. LOL


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2019)

.
choice is like faith, unless they are realized the exercise is meaningless - triumph is required to bear the fruits of success. the metaphysical, evolution is no less a staircase of triumphant results. morals are the required ingredient somehow for the equation to jell.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Self-reflection is nothing more than feeling sorry for ones self. If you want to make something of your life, then stop reflecting and do something.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 3, 2019)

ding said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Please post the quote.


----------



## james bond (Jun 4, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.
> —Dostoyevsky



Teddy: You don't want the truth. You make up your own truth! Like your police file. It was complete when I gave it to you. Who took out the 12 pages?
Leonard: You, probably
Teddy: No, it wasnt' me. See, it was you!
Leonard: Why would I do that?
Teddy: To create a puzzle you could never solve!

Teddy: Lenny, you can't trust a man's life to your little notes and pictures
Leonard: Why not?
Teddy: Because your notes could be unreliable
Leonard: Memory's unreliable
Teddy: Oh, please!
Leonard: No, no, really! Memory's not perfect. It's not even that good. Ask the police. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. The cops don't catch a killer by sitting around remembering stuff. They collect facts, they make notes and they draw conclusions. Facts, not memory. That's how you investigate. I know. It's what I used to do. Look, memory can change the shape of a room. It can change the colour of a car and memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation. They're not a record. They're irrelevant if you have the facts. 

Teddy: So you lie to yourself to be happy - there's nothing wrong with that, we all do it. 

Leonard: I take it I've told you about my condition.
Teddy: Only every time I see ya. 

Leonard: I don't think they'd let someone like me carry a gun.
Teddy: I fucking hope not.

Natalie: What's the last thing that you do remember?
Leonard: My wife..........
Leonard: My wife...
Natalie: That's sweet.
Leonard: ..............dying.


----------



## james bond (Jun 4, 2019)

OnePercenter said:


> If you want to make something of your life, then stop reflecting and do something.



I've loved and been loved.  Not 20,000+ on average of celebs or rich and famous people with hollywood values, but it was more than enough.


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2019)

OnePercenter said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...




...in order to charm the golden birds, out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbours in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love. (Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness which will lead the fly to the glue-pot. General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability and to say to him: Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the conditio sine qua non; you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in providing for your pleasure, I fleece you.)
Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
3rd paragraph
Human Requirements and Division of Labour, Marx, 1844


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2019)

OnePercenter said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


No.  That's almost as foolish as when you asked me to provide Karl Marx's quote.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 4, 2019)

OnePercenter said:


> Self-reflection is nothing more than feeling sorry for ones self.


Perhaps in the dingbat's case, but no, you're barking nonsense. Promoting the opposite - _Look at me, I'm the epitome of success {because I say so}. And I did it all on my own. You just need an attitude adjustment, son. Got to dig deep and pull yourself up by your bootstraps! Like I did! - _Yeah right, Donald. As if this MB and country needed even more of that shit right now. Btw, pain in the ass to remember I know, but it's "one's self" or "oneself" not "ones self." Ones and twos are plural not possessive.

Ironically, it is the "Onepercenters"  and up who suffer most from such obliviousness and delusions of grandeur. You have to get to the one percent of the one percent to be in the big leagues. To really be "in the club" - of megalomaniacal basket cases, with some rule proving exceptions of course, but I digress. No one sane escapes self-reflection. We've evolved into social animals, like it or not. No one self reflects in this sense to an unhealthy degree like the the rich.



> This instinct to measure and compare doesn’t disappear once people have an obscene amount of money. “The problem is, _Am I doing better than I was? _is only [moving people in] one direction, which is up,” Norton says. And if a family amasses, say, $50 million but upgrades to a neighborhood where everyone has that much money (or more), they feel a lot less rich than if they had stuck to the peer comparisons they were making tens of millions of dollars ago. Hence the ever-shifting goalposts of wealth and satisfaction.
> 
> The research Norton has conducted illustrating this phenomenon is dispiriting. In a paper published earlier this year, he and his collaborators asked more than 2,000 people who have a net worth of at least $1 million (including many whose wealth far exceeded that threshold) how happy they were on a scale of one to 10, and then how much more money they would need to get to 10. “All the way up the income-wealth spectrum,” Norton told me, “basically everyone says [they’d need] two or three times as much” to be perfectly happy.



Notice how we never stop comparing ourselves to others in terms of happiness or success. That's a form of self-reflection that's inherited. We have no choice. Just part of our human condition. No, the kind of self-reflection one needs to worry about has to to do with regularly applying "the Golden Rule" to check oneself, not to feel sorry for themself. To the contrary, when one preaches their gospel, as I'm fully aware of doing here, and regularly fails to credit others with possibly having a better, more informed and nuanced, "considerate" perspective on the matter than themself - that's lacking self-reflection. Repeatedly barking crap while making plain that you'll never really listen to or seriously consider alternate perspectives.

I estimate at least 50% of USMB members fit that mold. A far, far higher percentage than the public at large. Politics draws a lot of real assholes, misfits, the mentally ill. Also some of the most brilliant and compassionate. That's life in the big city.


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2019)

At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. Choose wisely.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 4, 2019)

..after going for a long walk on a short pier.. he oozed sapiently..


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2019)

Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to worse outcomes and some behaviors lead to better outcomes.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 4, 2019)

I had a dog once. It died.


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2019)

Successful behaviors naturally lead to success.


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Self-reflection is nothing more than feeling sorry for ones self.
> ...


^ dunning effect


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 4, 2019)

I had a dog once. It died.


----------



## ding (Jun 4, 2019)

Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 5, 2019)

In the HBO Chernobyl series, which is highly documentary, a pregnant woman keeps visiting her heavily radiated husband in the hospital as he deteriorates to mush, ignoring everyone yelling at her to stay away and not to touch him. So when the baby arrives it lives for only four hours. After testing the woman seems fine. The fetus had apparently absorbed all the radioactive tissue.

Interesting how the mother was "naturally" spared and the fetus "naturally" sacrificed in bible thumping terms. Apparently the gods, given a choice, naturally select viable, full grown women over fetuses while the "Failed behaviors" of anti-choicers only lead to Hell.


----------



## james bond (Jun 5, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> In the HBO Chernobyl series, which is highly documentary, a pregnant woman keeps visiting her heavily radiated husband in the hospital as he deteriorates to mush, ignoring everyone yelling at her to stay away and not to touch him. So when the baby arrives it lives for only four hours. After testing the woman seems fine. The fetus had apparently absorbed all the radioactive tissue.
> 
> Interesting how the mother was "naturally" spared and the fetus "naturally" sacrificed in bible thumping terms. Apparently the gods, given a choice, naturally select viable, full grown women over fetuses while the "Failed behaviors" of anti-choicers only lead to Hell.



Jeez, Grumblenuts, the woman lost her husband and baby as they turned to mush.  It's like you losing your penis that way.  Did she end up killing herself?


----------



## ding (Jun 5, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> In the HBO Chernobyl series, which is highly documentary, a pregnant woman keeps visiting her heavily radiated husband in the hospital as he deteriorates to mush, ignoring everyone yelling at her to stay away and not to touch him. So when the baby arrives it lives for only four hours. After testing the woman seems fine. The fetus had apparently absorbed all the radioactive tissue.
> 
> Interesting how the mother was "naturally" spared and the fetus "naturally" sacrificed in bible thumping terms. Apparently the gods, given a choice, naturally select viable, full grown women over fetuses while the "Failed behaviors" of anti-choicers only lead to Hell.


Now, now, now, if you want to use a tv show to ignore the reality that behaviors have consequences, then please be my guest.  What could possibly go wrong with divorcing yourself from reality? 

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are one of those people who when things go well it’s all you and when things go poorly it’s always someone else’s fault.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 5, 2019)

I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you have both been living in la-la land, deliberately, and for a long, long time. Now pipe down. I'm interested in hearing from the interesting people.


----------



## ding (Jun 5, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you have both been living in la-la land, deliberately, and for a long, long time. Now pipe down. I'm interested in hearing from the interesting people.


Usually it’s the people who don’t see themselves as successful who take issue with failed behaviors naturally leading to failure.


----------



## ding (Jun 5, 2019)

It’s funny how some people believe life isn’t fair.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 5, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you have both been living in la-la land, deliberately, and for a long, long time. Now pipe down. I'm interested in hearing from the interesting people.


.


Grumblenuts said:


> I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you have both been living in la-la land ...



the dark side do not want to know the truth ...


----------



## james bond (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you have both been living in la-la land, deliberately, and for a long, long time. Now pipe down. I'm interested in hearing from the interesting people.



Next, you'lll be telling us she's Catholic and had two very, very, very large life insurance policies to cover such occurrence.  What happened to her?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> Next, you'lll be telling us she's Catholic and had two very, very, very large life insurance policies to cover such occurrence. What happened to her?


Great job being an insensitive asshole and go fuck yourself.

The harrowing true story of Chernobyl's Vasily Ignatenko and his pregnant wife Lyudmilla.


----------



## james bond (Jun 6, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> the dark side do not want to know the truth ...



Of course, we do.  We're not atheists.


----------



## james bond (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Next, you'lll be telling us she's Catholic and had two very, very, very large life insurance policies to cover such occurrence. What happened to her?
> ...



Finally, you are able to tell us in _your own words_ a story we are interested in, but it's full of hurrible innuendos about Christians and their Biblical morality.  Where was your morality in all this?

I won't get a straight answer, so look at how I have to wrench an answer outta you haha.  Obviously, the woman didn't know what she was doing and up against.  We have pregnant women who do the same themselves to poison their infants with drugs, alcohol, and worse.  We also have atheist commies, their scientists, and doctors in the story who kept it from the firefighters and their families.

Is BW gonna call this an abortion or birth control?

What are you gonna be complaining about after this?  Beotching is the only way atheists and libs feel like they are thinking and doing something to better _their_ wackturd world.


----------



## ding (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Next, you'lll be telling us she's Catholic and had two very, very, very large life insurance policies to cover such occurrence. What happened to her?
> ...


I bet you’re one of those people who believe they are moral.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> to tell us


Asshole: One lacking the balls to speak for themself.


----------



## james bond (Jun 6, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > to tell us
> ...



My my.  I must've hit a nerve.  I hadn't finish getting answers to my questions.  Wasn't even at the point of making a comment on the documentary, but did have comments on your presentation haha.

In California, we cannot speak for those who want nuclear power as it has been made illegal by the Democrats.  I suppose it can be very dangerous from your documentary, but it would be a calculated risk.  Had I gotten the Homer Simpson job, it would've been at the one at San Luis Obispo where the plant has been shut down.  Still need people to work the shutdown for years.  Beautiful area.


----------



## james bond (Jun 7, 2019)

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I think we are getting to the cause  of why Grumblenuts brought up the new HBO Chernobyl tv miniseries and claimed it was "highly documentary," but posted some other link.  The show is fiction haha.  Mighty noble of him.  May his penis turn to mush.

*The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People*
The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 7, 2019)

Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and 'Environmental Progress'
What a dick.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 7, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.
> 
> This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.
> 
> Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International



I have a question.  How can we call ourselves a Christian nation when 77% of our citizens are pro choice?

Is abortion cool with Christians?

Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 7, 2019)

is a warfare-state economy moral if conducted on a for-profit basis?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 7, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> is a warfare-state economy moral if conducted on a for-profit basis?


when adequately spun by pathological liars ... pugs.


Trump Administration Plans to Sell More Than $2 Billion of Arms to Taiwan

and how evenly are the profits shared after the 1% grab their 92% markup before they show a profit ... and day traders, myself, being in and out without ever lifting a finger higher than a key on a keyboard.


----------



## james bond (Jun 11, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> What a dick.



I got more info.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but didn't.  We should have had safe, clean nuclear power since the 1970's.  Instead, we got almost five decades of coal powering our power grid, and with it, gigatons of carbon dioxide, coal dust, and other toxic chemicals pumped into our atmosphere.  I included CO2 just to tweak your nose Grumblenuts.

"Chernobyl" is yet another attempt by a liberal network, in this case HBO, to scare the hell out of people.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> We should have had safe, clean nuclear power since the 1970's.



Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster - Wikipedia







not to mention nuclear waste disposal ... just believing is all it takes for some. lowlife's. liberal haters.


- solar power, electric automobiles - grudgingly, even the lowlife's begin to catch on "over time".


----------



## james bond (Jun 11, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We should have had safe, clean nuclear power since the 1970's.
> ...



*DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN LINK YOU DUNDERHEAD???!!!???!!!*

"accident had been foreseeable, and that the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), had failed to meet basic safety requirements such as risk assessment, preparing for containing collateral damage, and developing evacuation plans. On 12 October 2012, TEPCO admitted for the first time that it had failed to take necessary measures for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants."


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


.


james bond said:


> DID YOU EVEN READ YOUR OWN LINK YOU DUNDERHEAD???!!!???!!!



yes, they built the atomic reactor along the sea coast - with your blessing ... to being with.



james bond said:


> "Chernobyl" is yet another attempt by a liberal network, in this case HBO, to scare the hell out of people.



- it is theirs,TEPCO etc and your incompetence why nuclear power is the ultimate threat to humanity.




james bond said:


> -TEPCO admitted for the first time that it had failed to take necessary measures for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants."



the same fear you have bond for writing correctly the events of the 1st century or giving credits to your 4th century document that are of your own making.

attacking liberalism, your distaste for holywood values is your own perverse worldview you attempt to justify as from the 1st century which is diametrically its opposite meaning as you dishonestly portray through your 4th century document.


----------



## james bond (Jun 12, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> it is theirs,TEPCO etc and your incompetence why nuclear power is the ultimate threat to humanity.



TEPCO should have made safety its prime concern.  They were worried about lawsuits to stop them from the greens and they weren't ready to handle a tsunami disaster.

Thus, you were wrong and it wasn't another Chernobyl.  Chernobyl was an _accident_ and much was learned from it.  It made nuclear power safer for those in the future.  That one, the nuclear power group should take responsibility in order to make reactors more safe.

*The Chernobyl mini-series was another attempt by a liberal network, in this case HBO, to scare the hell out of people.*


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > it is theirs,TEPCO etc and your incompetence why nuclear power is the ultimate threat to humanity.
> ...


.


james bond said:


> The Chernobyl mini-series was another attempt by a liberal network, in this case HBO, to scare the hell out of people.




again as always you ignore the nuance's of posts rather than giving a substantive response ... here, another chance for giggles -


BreezeWood said:


> - attacking liberalism, your distaste for holywood values is your own perverse worldview you attempt to justify as from the 1st century which is diametrically its opposite meaning as you dishonestly portray through your 4th century document.




and your objection is without merit in regards to nuclear power, just ask yucca mountain. whatever lessons learned or not learned, your excuse for japan and the people that allow a nuclear reactor to be built on an ocean shore.


----------



## james bond (Jun 12, 2019)

BreezeWood said:


> and your objection is without merit in regards to nuclear power, just ask yucca mountain. whatever lessons learned or not learned, your excuse for japan and the people that allow a nuclear reactor to be built on an ocean shore.



Just what are you going by?  Are you going by what I post or did you see the _fictional_ mini-series? 

I saw the documentary of the aftermath on Fukushima.  I didn't use that to argue against what happened at Chernobyl.

I'm going by Grumblenuts posts and reading about the miniseries on another forum.  It wasn't a documentary, but a tv miniseries based on a true story.  His posts were a bit misleading.  I'll have to watch it when I get a chance.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


not enough tax breaks to ensure the latest safety equipment can used in situations like these?

i would rather cut the cost of taxes for that, than a firm trying to lower their costs to the maximum extent possible including the costs of regulatory safety.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Jun 13, 2019)

james bond said:


> Thus, you were wrong and it wasn't another Chernobyl. Chernobyl was an _accident_ and much was learned from it. It made nuclear power safer for those in the future. That one, the nuclear power group should take responsibility in order to make reactors more safe.


They were much the same. Watch the damn series, sparky. The parallels far outweigh the distinctions. Both were "accidents" waiting to happen due to poor design and risk assessment. Both tried to BS their way out of admitting to the public that there was any problem for as long as they could. That's predictable and made the damage much worse. More unnecessary death. suffering, long term radioactive mess to deal with, less readily available evidence to learn anything from. All deliberate to avoid responsibility. Nothing has changed. Same stupid record the industry's been spinning from day one.


----------



## noonereal (Jun 14, 2019)

Mindful said:


> *Can Atheists be Moral?*




I think the question that needs to be answered is, can the religious be moral?


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 14, 2019)

noonereal said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > *Can Atheists be Moral?*
> ...


 Because GOD created man in His own image, we can understand that there is morality. And since GOD also created those who have chosen to become atheists, they also have to think in terms of morality.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 14, 2019)

we have ethics; the right wing is too morally challenged, anyway.


----------

