Can you be smarter than even “God”?

[Joy4Uall]

This is precisely why girlies need to close down their Hershey Bar Road and not allow any traffic there.

Too many bi's with AIDS.

If mostly STRAIGHT people got some deadly disease, and LGBT noticeably less so, would you condemn straight people, to be intellectually consistent, my friend?

You probably have LGBT family, or friends, or co-workers, etc. - but your (apparent) hatred of them won't allow them to open up to you and love you as much as they would if you were a Scientific Humanist. Open your heart....please....do it for the world.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yes, you can - "god" in the Bible and Islamic texts says to kill gays, which isn't so smart - in fact it's downright immoral, hurtful, and shameful! Clearly if you choose to follow the Scientific Humanist belief of "love gays, as equals", then you are indeed smarter than "god" if "smarter" means doing what's best for the world, what's legal, what's simply morally correct. Gays have not harmed you, so it's smart to not give our children a book that says to kill them just for being who they are.

"Love gays as equals"....we believe that. Now THAT'S a loving belief system! I hope that Christians can raise their level of love to this new higher level - I believe in them.

So you're gay then?

That's not very smart.

Anything that is a pain in the azz means you are doing it all wrong.

I'm honestly not gay, but Scientific Humanism teaches no hatred (unlike the Bible), so we didn't bring forward anti-gay wording like the Bible (and Hindu texts, and Islamic texts, and Zoroastorian texts, etc.) has. We love too much to do that, and would love those other belief systems to join us in a revolution of love - loving LGBT, ditching ancient hatreds. We have faith in their innate goodness.

LGBT are wonderful people, make great parents, etc., and have contributed greatly to the world...here's a gigantic list of famous LGBT people: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people - Wikipedia

Replace hatred for gays with love for gays - that's the Scientific Humanist way.

Peace.

Can we agree that Scientific Humanism's belief of "treat gays equally" is better for the world and more loving that the Bible/Qur'an's belief of killing gays and not letting gays into "heaven", and torturing them in "hell" (all for the way "god" made them)?

Let's err on the side of....love.

Let's err on the side of your arrogance greatly outweighs your intelligence.

.

Let's err on the side of your arrogance greatly outweighs your intelligence.

let's not, and hope you go back to your comic book ... and stay there.

 

[Marion Morrison]

This is precisely why girlies need to close down their Hershey Bar Road and not allow any traffic there.

Too many bi's with AIDS.

If mostly STRAIGHT people got some deadly disease, and LGBT noticeably less so, would you condemn straight people, to be intellectually consistent, my friend?

You probably have LGBT family, or friends, or co-workers, etc. - but your (apparent) hatred of them won't allow them to open up to you and love you as much as they would if you were a Scientific Humanist. Open your heart....please....do it for the world.

Strawman argument. They don't!

Next!

 

[ding]

When did this place turn into such a hate christian forum ?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Not sure. It was already that way when I got here. Not to worry, these things have a way of working themselves out. Error cannot stand, eventually it fails.

Correct! Yes, the error of the earth being 6000 years old (the Biblical geneologies add up to about 6000 years) "cannot stand, eventually it fails" is being corrected by The Book Of Scientific Humanism as this excerpt clearly shows


With these 6 words are you smarter than any prophet?



One reason we're only 70-80% Muslim, and 70-80% Buddhist, etc., and not 100%, is because even though we love many things they say, we assume that if the prophets knew big things like where we go when we die they'd also know how old their god's favorite creation was (earth)! They would have been the first to tell the world how old the earth actually - instead, scientists were the first to correctly inform us of that. The Biblical geneologies imply the world is 6000 years old, for example, so they are off by 75,000,000%. In your life you're never been off about anything by 75,000,000% - so you're doing better than the Biblical prophets. The Hindu texts say the earth sits on the back of elephants on top of a giant space turtle - so like the Bible, they are less credible than Scientific Humanism. Six simple words - "earth is 4.5 billion years old" - is all that would have had to have been said to give any religion instant credibility - centuries ahead of it's time, and so convincing that millions of non-believers over the years would then been more likely to have believed in the religion, and therefore avoided the brutal torture that is meted out to non-believers.

A loving god would of course do that, and you as a Scientific Humanist would of course have done that - because you "love everybody, equally", as the Book of Scientific Humanism states.

Six simple words. Not ONE prophet ever correctly knew the age of their god's favorite creation - but you do, so when you tell your children the "earth is 4.5 billion years old", you're smarter than all the prophets. Every. Single. One. As a Scientific Humanist you'll believe in yourself that much.
Center for Scientific Humanism: Search results for 6000

Maybe you should stop reading the Bible literally. But then you wouldn't have much of a strawman argument, right? Let me ask you this, do you believe that the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions?

 

[Joy4Uall]

This is precisely why girlies need to close down their Hershey Bar Road and not allow any traffic there.

Too many bi's with AIDS.

If mostly STRAIGHT people got some deadly disease, and LGBT noticeably less so, would you condemn straight people, to be intellectually consistent, my friend?

You probably have LGBT family, or friends, or co-workers, etc. - but your (apparent) hatred of them won't allow them to open up to you and love you as much as they would if you were a Scientific Humanist. Open your heart....please....do it for the world.

Strawman argument. They don't!

Next!

It's a hypothetical question, designed to get you to realize that hatred for gays because of AIDS is illogical, mean, and not what's best for the world.
When in doubt, choose love, not hatred.
Good words to live by, Marion Morrison.

PS The Duke is greatly missed.

 

[Joy4Uall]

.......
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible literally. .......

So can we both agree that Scientific Humanism was CORRECT in believing that THIS story should also not be taken literally, ding, and is just a metaphor for, say rebirth (but is not literally true)?
a magic man is born in a "virgin birth", can walk on water, will magically return after being dead thousands of years, and magically give people who simply "believe in him" (but not others) "eternal life" up in an invisible magic place in the sky.

Can we agree that it's interesting, but like other unscientific things in the Bible, not to be taken literally, like you seem to be (smartly) advising? Can we agree to be intellectually consistent like Scientific Humanism teaches?

 

[Joy4Uall]

Right at this moment "No" is leading "Yes" by 50%.....but no one has shown where the statements in the OP (which believes "yes") are wrong - condemnation of the OP, but no specifics as to where exactly it (apparently) gets it all wrong. That's a good sign for an OP, generally, I find.

 

[ding]

.......
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible literally. .......

So can we both agree that Scientific Humanism was CORRECT in believing that THIS story should also not be taken literally, ding, and is just a metaphor for, say rebirth (but is not literally true)?
a magic man is born in a "virgin birth", can walk on water, will magically return after being dead thousands of years, and magically give people who simply "believe in him" (but not others) "eternal life" up in an invisible magic place in the sky.

Can we agree that it's interesting, but like other unscientific things in the Bible, not to be taken literally, like you seem to be (smartly) advising? Can we agree to be intellectually consistent like Scientific Humanism teaches?

do you believe that the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions?

 

[Meane]

Who were the eight people in Noah's arc?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am sure that god has his good points, but the fact that he is bi-polar is not one of them. Yes, he loves me, but he has no problem condemning me to eternity of damnation and hell, without taking responsibility that he created me. Frankly, he sounds like a republican who can not reconcile himself to abortion....

 

[Meane]

Right at this moment "No" is leading "Yes" by 50%.....but no one has shown where the statements in the OP (which believes "yes") are wrong - condemnation of the OP, but no specifics as to where exactly it (apparently) gets it all wrong. That's a good sign for an OP, generally, I find.

I think your question is wrong. God's wisdom does not express itself the way a person's does, and one created by God cannot travel on a discourse that God did not intend.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Right at this moment "No" is leading "Yes" by 50%.....but no one has shown where the statements in the OP (which believes "yes") are wrong - condemnation of the OP, but no specifics as to where exactly it (apparently) gets it all wrong. That's a good sign for an OP, generally, I find.

I think your question is wrong. God's wisdom does not express itself the way a person's does, and one created by God cannot travel on a discourse that God did not intend.

Say, what?

 

[IsaacNewton]

My book would be clear enough that my followers would know they are never to behead their fellow humans, burn them at the stake, stone them to death, molest children, or any other form of killing or debauchery on your fellow man. There wouldn't be room for interpretation, I'd make that shit as clear as a Chilton's auto manual with diagrams and images. Anyone that tried to profit from my book in any way would be cleaning the latrine at Shawshank Prison forever. And if I was watching 12,000 Jews a day being gassed to death in gas chambers I would immediately say "ok, enough of this batshit, here I am I've put a stop to all of it".

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

 

[Meane]

My book would be clear enough that my followers would know they are never to behead their fellow humans, burn them at the stake, stone them to death, molest children, or any other form of killing or debauchery on your fellow man. There wouldn't be room for interpretation, I'd make that shit as clear as a Chilton's auto manual with diagrams and images. Anyone that tried to profit from my book in any way would be cleaning the latrine at Shawshank Prison forever. And if I was watching 12,000 Jews a day being gassed to death in gas chambers I would immediately say "ok, enough of this batshit, here I am I've put a stop to all of it".

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

What would you have done/did when they killed the Jews? If you have a good heart it is your purpose to do good not to expect the world to be perfect.

 

[Joy4Uall]

.......
Maybe you should stop reading the Bible literally. .......

So can we both agree that Scientific Humanism was CORRECT in believing that THIS story should also not be taken literally, ding, and is just a metaphor for, say rebirth (but is not literally true)?
a magic man is born in a "virgin birth", can walk on water, will magically return after being dead thousands of years, and magically give people who simply "believe in him" (but not others) "eternal life" up in an invisible magic place in the sky.

Can we agree that it's interesting, but like other unscientific things in the Bible, not to be taken literally, like you seem to be (smartly) advising? Can we agree to be intellectually consistent like Scientific Humanism teaches?

do you believe that the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions?

That's too broad of a question to give a great answer to, I'm afraid. Sorry.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Right at this moment "No" is leading "Yes" by 50%.....but no one has shown where the statements in the OP (which believes "yes") are wrong - condemnation of the OP, but no specifics as to where exactly it (apparently) gets it all wrong. That's a good sign for an OP, generally, I find.

I think your question is wrong. God's wisdom does not express itself the way a person's does, and one created by God cannot travel on a discourse that God did not intend.

Please briefly address each of the 4 points in the OP, since I know that when you do that you'll see that the OP is right. I assume that you would have, for example, found it in your heart to just FORGIVE the people, instead of killing virtually all innocent babies and killing virtually all (they are innocent) animals, too. God/Christians are generally pretty loving, but Scientific Humanists love humanity, and animals, even more than God/Christians do - the world's most loving overall belief system....so an even better role models than God/Christians (who are well-intended, however, we believe.)

This is going to be a great week.

 

[Joy4Uall]

My book would be clear enough that my followers would know they are never to behead their fellow humans, burn them at the stake, stone them to death, molest children, or any other form of killing or debauchery on your fellow man. There wouldn't be room for interpretation, I'd make that shit as clear as a Chilton's auto manual with diagrams and images. Anyone that tried to profit from my book in any way would be cleaning the latrine at Shawshank Prison forever. And if I was watching 12,000 Jews a day being gassed to death in gas chambers I would immediately say "ok, enough of this batshit, here I am I've put a stop to all of it".

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

What would you have done/did when they killed the Jews? If you have a good heart it is your purpose to do good not to expect the world to be perfect.

Let me jump in here - the best solution is to not bring forward the parts of the Bible were the god/heroes approve of killing innocent people, or killing people of other faiths. Your children deserve this. Moses and Elijah slaughtering people is not the best thing to teach our children - it teaches that killing is the best solution, but killing is not the best solution.

 

[Joy4Uall]

My book would be clear enough that my followers would know they are never to behead their fellow humans, burn them at the stake, stone them to death, molest children, or any other form of killing or debauchery on your fellow man. There wouldn't be room for interpretation, I'd make that shit as clear as a Chilton's auto manual with diagrams and images. Anyone that tried to profit from my book in any way would be cleaning the latrine at Shawshank Prison forever. And if I was watching 12,000 Jews a day being gassed to death in gas chambers I would immediately say "ok, enough of this batshit, here I am I've put a stop to all of it".

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

You sound just like a Scientific Humanist!

 

[Divine Wind]

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

No. Human beings are limited by their own minds and mortality. Most people can barely comprehend the size of their own planet much less the size of the entire Universe. Mortal versions of "God" and/or existence beyond the physical are limited by our own abilities. It's akin to asking a dog to explain the Theory of Relativity. It can't be done because the dog doesn't have the ability to talk, much less comprehend the idea.

 

[Joy4Uall]

.....

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

You are more compassionate than even their god is. That's impressive. I assume that you are more compassionate than their god is because you are driven by love for humanity, and by fairness (one reason why you oppose eternal torture for ethical non-believers like Gandhi, I'm sure.)

If people could just be as loving as you are, then the world would be a better place (and no US President would say that a book that says "kill the infidels wherever you find them" is a great book - like Obama did.) He was well-intended, but not as compassionate as you are. You have zero-tolerance for violent verses - and your way is the best, of course.