Can Atheists be Moral?

[hobelim]

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 control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

They read about a talking serpent over and over again yet they still do not understand this human archetype. Its probably because they are it..

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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 they were in control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

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..

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]

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

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 they were in control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

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..

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.

we we we, us us us ...

How many of you are there?

 

[G.T.]

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

They read about a talking serpent over and over again yet they still do not understand this human archetype. Its probably because they are it..

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.

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.

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.

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

But if a person can't spot such an obvious allegory 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.

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]

Any mortal may have respect for a God.

 

[G.T.]

Any mortal may have respect for a God.

The sun farts purple over the up.

 

[RodISHI]

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

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 they were in control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

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..

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.

Very good description! Thank you Ding.

 

[RodISHI]

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

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 they were in control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

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..

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.

we we we, us us us ...

How many of you are there?

One body many members.

 

[hobelim]

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 they were in control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

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..

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.

we we we, us us us ...

How many of you are there?

One body many members.

Yes, but only one head.

Without it the body is dead.

 

[ding]

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

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 control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

How so?

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.

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.]

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.]

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]

Any mortal may have respect for a God.

The sun farts purple over the up.

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

 

[ding]

How would atheists know if they were moral?

Compassion

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

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.

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.]

Any mortal may have respect for a God.

The sun farts purple over the up.

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

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

 

[G.T.]

How would atheists know if they were moral?

Compassion

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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 they were in control of national policy, enacting laws, the justice system, or deciding whether or not to go to war?

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

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

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..

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.

we we we, us us us ...

How many of you are there?

We are all connected.

 

[G.T.]

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]

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.]

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

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

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.