Henotheism and Atheism

[ding]

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

Both you and I were born atheists of course. If you're failing to understand that then you've disqualified yourself as a worthy opponent to debate.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

If you're going to become an angry insulting Christian then you're beginning to make my point on why Christians oppose socially responsible behaviour, or socialism.

What do you teach your children when you teach them Christianity. Do you teach them to believe in the bible(s) in a way that is necessarily qualified by warnings to them that it's not the literal truth?

I've often wondered how young children of indoctrination age are able to understand the contradictions?

For instance, do Christian indoctrinated children ever come to their parents and ask if their bible is lying about Noah's ark, 6000 year old earth, etc?

Can you answer me as if I am a child asking one of the questions?

I doubt very seriously you were born believing that God does not exist. My point was that if you were born into a family that were not atheists then your beliefs were not influenced by being born into a family of believers and your belief that people only believe in God because they were born into a family of believers has been invalidated by your own life experiences.

As for your belief that I am being un-christian, let me point out to you that your attacking Christians is similar to whites attacking blacks, German's attacking Jews and heterosexuals attacking homosexuals. It's not a good look for you. I'm not going to waste my time refuting or correcting your unending parade of lies and half truths anymore than the blacks, Jews and homosexuals should have wasted their time correcting the lies and half truths of whites, Germans and heterosexuals. You are playing the robber bird game and I'm not going to let you play that game without having to defend your nest.

You are a socialist and socialists are evil despicable not worth the breath they breath individuals. I hope you all darwinize yourselves out of existence as soon as practical. And given that we are in an ice age and that you are from Canada and want the planet to be colder the 3 mile thick sheet of ice which is in your nation's future should wipe all existence of your people off of the planet. Just don't try going to Mexico as they WILL build a wall to keep your sorry, filthy despicable people out of their country.

No one is born believing anything.

No one is born knowing anything. They learn everything they know either through accepting it on the authority of others or through direct observation. In that regard everything is discovered. And no one is prevented from changing their minds just because they were taught something.

 

[BreezeWood]

I was born not believing that a god exists.

Bet you weren't a believer in physics, either.

Did you read what ding said?

And given that we are in an ice age and that you are from Canada and want the planet to be colder the 3 mile thick sheet of ice which is in your nation's future should wipe all existence of your people off of the planet. Just don't try going to Mexico as they WILL build a wall to keep your sorry, filthy despicable people out of their country.

No, I wasn't born a believer in physics. I was born not having a belief in physics.
That's distinct from saying that I was born already rejecting a belief in physics.

Why would we be talking about that?

Do you have any issue with anything I've said to you or to ding?

The only possible hint of an issue you've raised is with your comment on the Hebrews, pertaining to the writing of your bible.

I'm of the currently more popular opinion that it was written by Greeks, in the Greek language. If that's an issue to you then you could try to debate it. I may or may not answer you, because I find it of little importance for a bible that is fictional in that it's not literally believable.

You were born not knowing anything other than the instincts you were naturally given. If you weren't taught to be an atheist but were taught to believe in God, your own life experiences refute your argument that we believe in God because we were taught to believe in God.

Are you telling me that you find it offensive when people attack your core beliefs? That's ironic, eh?

.

your own life experiences refute your argument that we believe in God because we were taught to believe in God.

.
the belief in the metaphysical is inevitable however you are taught christianity and without your bible christianity would not exist.

if only for the sake of humanity, to either bury that book of forgeries and fallacies or make it worthy for more than lowlifes to have a reason to read it. to make it truly meaningful.

 

[surada]

Are you referencing the New Testament Book of Hebrews? If so, the original language was most likely Greek. However, if you are referencing the entire Old Testament, then the original language was Hebrew.

No, I'm obviously referring to the very first attempt at writing a bible. You'll need to research the question and then come to a better informed opinion.

Earlier, you showed a disinterest in discussing original language intent, insisting ancient law books be read through modern language and modern perspective. Shrug. Can't help you there, anymore than I can help a stubborn student who absolutely insists 1+1=4.

I showed no further interest because you had conceded that your bible(s) can't be taken as the literal word of the god. I've never insisted that any bible be read with anything other than a modern language interpretation, or without. I've so far been in agreement with any interpretations you've had to offer.

Bring yourself up to speed on modern biblical scholars now being of the opinion that the first writing of a christian bible was by the Greeks and in their language. Then if you wish to disagree, do so with some degree of understanding.

Greek was the lingua franca of commerce in Palestine because the cities of the Decapolis were prosperous and diverse.

Greek and Aramaic: Their role in First Century Palestine ...

Christian Truth is needed through Apologetics

The Truth of Christianity needs to be spread through Apologetics. We can do this by studying apologetic thoroughly and through social media. Jesus Christ himself was an apologtists because he dednded who he was. Help spread the goodnews the rightway.

www.christiantruththroughapologetics.com

...
Nov 19, 2020 · Greek most certainly would have been present in first century Palestine since officials of Rome and of Israel would need this lingua franca[1] (contact language) for official purposes. Herod the Great most likely would know Greek and his predecessors would, or at least have translators

268 verses of the Bible were written in a language called Aramaic.

 

[Blues Man]

Denying that our evolutionary history has no bearing on people today is ludicrous because we haven't stopped evolving.

Re-read what I wrote. I said evolution (whether it be down through the ages or even what may be happening this very second) has very little--if anything--to do with how we live our life today. The choices I make today (within this 24 hour period) have nothing to do with evolution. I am who I am. If I choose to be grouchy, to not exercise, to not pray, to destroy or repair a relationship is on me, to keep or break commandments/laws has very little--if anything--on the choices I make for my life, my home, my family this day.

You are who you are in large part because of our evolution as a species.

 

[Blues Man]

SIns are nothing behaviors seen as unacceptable as deemed by society

Sins are nothing more and nothing less than not meeting the ideal. Sin has more effect on self than it has on society. Sin makes my life, and therefore me, less than I am capable of being.

Sucks to be you

 

[Blues Man]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

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.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a 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.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence 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. 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 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.

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.

These are your opinions. We have no idea what god is or isn't.

This universal code you claim that somehow exists outside of human beings is nothing but the culmination of our ability to imagine a behavior and its possible outcomes while never actually engaging in that behavior. Since all human brains evolved the same way then all human brains are capable of such thoughts.

In doing this we determined what would be the most acceptable outcome and we then taught these things to future generations. these ideas did not exist outside of the human experience nor did they predate the existence of humans.

Once again you are viewing the end result of the evolutionary process and saying that people have always been as they are today. This simply is not true.

Correct, I don't know what God is or God isn't. I even said, The closest I can come 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.

I believe to discover God one must start with some realistic perception of God. And that was the closest I could come to understanding God. People that argue there is no God are really arguing there is no God as that they can perceive. What they are really saying though is that they have no perception of God other than fairytales. Which is why everything they see is skewed to fairytales. So naturally they aren't looking for God. They only look at things to confirm their biases.

The universal code is logic and truth and exist independent of man. All humans are capable of seeing truth and logic if they are objective instead of subjective. The problem is that most people are not capable of being objective all of the time and about everything. Especially about themselves.

Humans are free to establish any standard they wish but they are not free to avoid the consequences of choosing a lower standard. Different standards have existed through out time and man has reaped what he has sown when he followed a lower standard.

Physiologically speaking, humans 10,000 years ago are pretty much the same as today but shorter. So I am not making the claim that people have always been as they are today. But for the past 10,000 years, man's intelligence probably has a similar distribution as we have today. Mind you I said intelligence and not knowledge. I do see repeating patterns of behavior and I do believe there are explanations for those patterns just as their are explanations for those behaviors. But what you have to know is that for almost any given thing there will usually be a distribution which always should be taken into account.

I don't assume there is a god to be discovered. And as I said before I don't think it matters if any gods actually exist or not. The beginning of the universe while interesting from both a physical and metaphysical perspective doesn't really matter either. Like I said we came into the theater after the movie started and we will leave before the movie ends so neither the beginning nor the end really matter as far as we human beings are concerned.

The oldest Homo Sapiens fossil has been dated to about 315,000 years ago and some anthropologists think H Sapiens may be as old a 500000 years.. 10000 years ago is the estimated period when agriculture began which also marked the end of the Neolithic Age.

So you make these sweeping statements like humans have always thought this or that but you are really only referring to the last 10 thousand years?

It is my position that our behaviors were evolving from at least 315,000 years ago and those behaviors from the very beginnings of H Sapiens emergence as a species are just as if not more important than anything that happened in the last 10000 years.

Sweeping statements, huh? Actually you saying I made sweeping statements is a sweeping statement. I was pretty specific which is the opposite if a sweeping statement.

As for you not believing it matters if one believes on God or not, you have never tested it. I have. I've walked both paths. You haven't. And despite your denial that religion offers functional advantages, Darwin disagrees.

So which is it man has always believed in the spiritual or man has believed in the spiritual only in the last 10000 years?

When you use words like always you are not just indicating a very specific point in history but rather are referring to ALL of history.

It's those pesky definitions again.

And you need to reread what I said.

I said I don't believe it matters whether gods exist or not.

Darwin wasn't a sociologist. Religion as a social institution provided a control on society not dissimilar to government.

Ummmm... always, at least once he became aware. But I only know that physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same now as he was 10,000 years ago. Could that have been earlier? Sure.

I know what you said and I know what you meant. And I know that you have never tested if it matters or not. I have. God, like all of reality is made manifest by mind.

If religion offered no functional advantage, then according to Darwin's principles, religion would have died out.

So it is your assertion that man has only been aware for the last 10000 years?

Now you say gods only manifest because of the human mind so then they must not have existed before men invented them.

Religion doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage. It offers a sociological advantage.

When humans were nomadic tribes it didn't matter if they believed in gods or not as far as their everyday survival was concerned.

Religion didn't become organized until we left the nomadic life behind and started living in larger and larger societies.

It was realized pretty quickly that as populations grew that controls were needed to ameliorate human behaviors religion was and still is one of those controls.

You are like a dog with a bone on this 10,000 year thing. The only claim I am making is that in the terms of intellect and physiology man hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 years. I make no other claims beyond that.

Religion offers FUNCTIONAL advantage. It is FUNCTIONAL advantage that determines if a trait will be retained or not. If there is no FUNCTIONAL advantage, then according to Darwin it is discarded.

Homo Sapiens is homo sapiens from a day ago or 200000 years ago.

Religion isn't a trait it's a social institution that didn't become organized until we moved from nomadic tribes to living in large stationary groups.

Religion acts as a control on the population and as the populace of a society grows those controls are beneficial to the long term success of the society. Religion does not help a person survive the rigors of life as a hunter gatherer.

I don't believe that physiologically speaking that homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago are the same as they are today. Do you have anything which supports that belief? I know there was little difference 10,000 years ago because there was a body recovered from the Alps that had been frozen and the comment that was made was that physiologically he was effectively the same as us today.

If you want to deny Darwin, that's your call. But it makes a ton of sense that believing in God has functional advantages that atheism does not have.

The only difference is the influence of society. Society has made us who we are more than mere evolution. You cannot separate modern man from the society he has lived in. Society is responsible for most of our belief systems. Everything from religion to morals and ethics has been shaped by societies and as those societies become more homogeneous the differences in those societies become less meaningful and will ultimately disappear.

This is the reason you think some patterns of thought are universal absolutes.

Again... from a natural selection perspective believing in God must have functional advantages that atheism does not have and that is why religion persists.

Again believing a gods has nothing to do with survival or evolution and more to do with the fact that as our intellect grew and our survival skills increased humans had more time to ponder things and one of the things human did was invent gods to explain things in the natural world.

I will propose that we didn't invent gods until we were so adept at survival that we had more time for activities other than merely surviving.

I never said it did. I said the reason religion persists is that religion provides a functional advantage that atheism cannot provide.

Only in a sense that it is a societal control.

What advantage do you have over an atheist?

Only in a sense that it is a societal control? Wrong. In the sense that it brings peace and joy through the storms of life.

The advantages believers have over atheists are peace and joy through the storms of life and meaning and purpose from being God's creatures; Meaning in God, Meaning in Creation, Meaning in Human Existence, Meaning in History, Meaning in Morality, Meaning in Justice, Meaning in Suffering and Meaning in Messianism.

You don't need religion to experience joy or weather the storms of life.

And You don't need religion to live a meaningful life.

There is no advantage to being religious.

 

[Blues Man]

If the universe has a purpose then I must have a purpose. If the universe has no purpose then I must have no purpose.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. If a constant presence of mind intentionally created the universe, then it was created for a purpose. If the universe was not created by a constant presence of mind then it would have not been intentionally created and it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do.

Do you agree?

So you think that your purpose is defined by something outside yourself?

You are operating on a big if and instead of regarding that if as a hypothetical you are operating as if that if then hypothetical condition is proven fact.

Purpose is not defined by the creator of anything. It is defined by the user.

The inventor of a wrench can try to tell me that the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a particular size nut. But if I use that wrench to strike a person in self defense I have defined the purpose of the wrench in that instant to be a weapon.

So purpose is subjective and defined by the person using a tool not the person who created the tool.

And I see nothing contradictory in believing the universe was not created for a purpose. The universe simply is what it is.

Purpose is defined by what something was made for. We were made to know and to create.

A hammer was made to hammer. A lawn mower was made to cut grass. The universe was made to create intelligence.

No purpose is defined by the intent of user.
I can use a knife to cut food, chop wood or stab a person. I decide the purpose of that knife.
If I use a lawn mower to kill a person than I defined that lawn mowers purpose in that instance.


And we do not how how the universe came to be so for a human being being so insignificant to claim he knows the purpose of the universe is outrageously arrogant and not to mention conceited.

As I said we humans have a penchant for grandiose thinking and we think so much of ourselves that we like to think we are the very image of a god and that the universe was made just for us.

I hate to burst your bubble but we are an insignificant life form in one galaxy among a couple trillion galaxies.

The purpose of a lawn mower is to cut grass no matter how many people you kill with it.

The purpose of a knife is to cut.

There is nothing special about humans. Being the pinnacle of creation means we are the most complex thing the universe has produced. The universe is an intelligence creating machine. Intelligence is written into the laws of nature and the fabric of existence.

I disagree.

If I use a wrench to pound a nail into a piece of wood I have defined the purpose of that wrench in that instant as a tool to pound a nail it doesn't matter to the wrench what its inventor designed it for and it certainly doesn't matter to me, the user of the tool. It is the intent of the person using a tool that defines its purpose and that purpose can change.

The universe isn't a machine.

With logic like that you could argue the purpose of a vagina is to hold cement.

So now we equate inanimate objects with actual body parts of living beings? With logic like that I could say that a gun kills people of its own volition.

It's your logic. You said you define purpose on how you use something. So if you used a vagina to fill it with cement you would be defining the purpose of a vagina to hold cement.

But I agree with you that it's illogical to define purpose that way.

I do not use the vaginas of women.

A vagina is not a tool it was not invented by anyone. I don't think I should have to explain this to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

I did not say you would use a vagina to hold cement. I said if you did according to YOUR logic you would have defined the purpose of a vagina to be a container for cement. You said you define purpose by how you use something not by what that something was made for. Right? Those were YOUR words, right?

So tell me who invented the vagina?

Is the vagina a tool? Can someone other than the woman use her vagina ?

This line of thought is beyond ludicrous.

I never equated a body part with TOOL.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose of that tool by his INTENT.

I can use a bucket to mix cement even though the inventor of the bucket said the purpose of the bucket was to carry water.
I can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut.
I can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that I define by my intent.

No one invented the vagina just like no one invented logic. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

A vagina is not a tool. Some men use a woman's vagina without her permission. But it doesn't matter because I am employing YOUR logic that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

I agree that YOUR line of thought/logic - that purpose is defined by how something is used and not what it was intended for - is ludicrous.

I never said you equated a body part with TOOL. I am employing YOUR logic to show you how ludicrous it is to define purpose by how something is used and not what it was intended for.

The wielder of the tool does NOT define the purpose of that tool by his INTENT. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a bucket to mix cement. A bucket is a container. The purpose of a bucket is to contain. You arguing that the bucket was only designed to contain water shows you are biased and unable to be objective because you have a preference for an outcome. Which in this case is defining the rule by exception.

Yes, you can use a wrench to kill a person even though the inventor states the purpose of the wrench is to apply torque to a nut. That still doesn't mean the purpose of a wrench is to kill people. You are trying to define the rule through exception which is illogical.

Yes, you can use a rock which has no inventor as a tool for any number of purposes that you define by your intent. Which has no bearing on the conversation that the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence.

Man invented logic as a system of rules for correct inference.

The wielder of the tool defines the purpose with his intent and that has nothing to do with the inventor's purpose for inventing that tool.

Purpose is defined by the intent of the user.

The inventor's intent may have been to produce a tool to perform a certain function but that does not eliminate all the other ways that same tool can be used and only the person using the tool decide it's purpose by imposing his own intent.

In fact I'll argue that it is the human ability to use tools in ways other than the intent of the inventor that is one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.

So in order for the universe to have a purpose as you claim then there had to be a creator with the intent to create a universe that produces intelligent life forms. As we have yet to find any evidence of said creator.

Again... logic is an artifact of intelligence. Logic, like truth, is objective. Logic and truth cannot be anything man wants them to be. Logic and truth exist independent of man. Man did not invent logic or truth. Man discovered logic and truth just like Einstein discovered e=mc^2.

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Defining purpose solely on use is trying to define the exception as the rule. You can absolutely use a wrench to drive a nail and for that very limited point in time that would be its purpose but the rule is that that is not the purpose of a wrench. Only someone who is subjective would try to define that as the purpose of a wrench.

Yes, I believe the reason God created existence was intentional and was done so we could share in His existence. I believe the purpose of the universe was to create beings that know and create to share in God's existence. The evidence for this are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. So the evidence for God's existence is what God created. But to do that you would need to start with a realistic perception of God and then evaluate the only evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself.

It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

Seeing a relationship between mass and energy has nothing to do with mathematics or logic.

Mathematics was invented to describe phenomena in the physical world like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a falling object. No one "discovered" gravity.

But Newton invented the math to describe the motion of objects.

He did not discover motion and he invented calculus as a way to calculate approximate solutions using derivatives.

Discovering the phenomenon and representing that discovery mathematically absolutely does have something to do with logic and mathematics. Einstein discovered a discrepancy between Newton and Maxwell's discoveries using logic. He resolved that discrepancy using logic and represented that discovery numerically through mathematics.

Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

Newton discovered the phenomenon and used math as a tool to represent the phenomenon numerically. Newton did not invent the laws of physics. Newton discovered the laws of physics. The Laws of physics - like logical truths and mathematical truths and reality itself exists independent of man.

Mathematics was invented to describe the physical world. Mathematics did not exist before there were humans so it could not be discovered. The things mathematics was invented to describe existed before humans.

You are confusing mathematics with the things it describes

A^2 + B^2 = C^2 is a mathematical truth that was discovered. Man did not invent A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

Like I said before.... Mathematical truths - like logical truths and reality - exist independent of man. All theorems are discovered using logic and proven to be true. Mathematics are a tool used by man to represent physical phenomenon. Mathematical truths are discovered.

but man invented numbers and all the ways we know to manipulate them.

And 2 dimensional geometry is nothing but a mind game. There are a limited number of possibilities of joining 3 lines together to form a triangle. And once again you are confusing the thing the math describes with the thing itself.

The Pythagorean Theorem is not a right triangle it is the mathematical equation that describes the relationship of the sides of a right triangle and that math is a human invention just like a 2 dimensional right triangle is a human intellectual construct

Man named the numbers. Quantity of things was discovered. Counting was discovered. The manipulation of numbers is universal. Numerically representing physical phenomenon is universal. It's an artifact of intelligence. Mathematical theorems are mathematical truths. They are true everywhere and are universal.

Geometric shapes are everywhere and are universal. We didn't invent geometric shapes. We discovered geometric shapes.

Just one more thing we will not agree on.

Man did not "discover" the spatial relationships of objects in the natural world. Those objects and their relative spatial characteristics were always there as humans were evolving there was no discovery.

Man invented geometry as a way to quantify those spatial relationships. You once again confuse the language invented to describe something as the thing itself.

Your very statement that spatial shapes exist independent of man belies your belief that man did not discover them. Mathematical theorems are mathematical truths. They are true everywhere and are universal. Same as logic and truth.

You cannot discover something that has always been there.

If I use your logic I can say I discovered the Atlantic ocean because i was born next to it. Or i discovered trees because I grew up in a forest. Or maybe I discovered gravity because I fell down when i was a kid. One cannot discover what all people already are familiar with.

Math and geometry are the languages we invented to describe what we see in the world and their relationships to us and each other they are not the relationships themselves.
Analytical mathematical equations only approximately describe the real world, and even then only describe a limited subset of all the phenomena around us.

You cannot discover something that has always been there is some stupid ass logic, bro.

So if every person that ever lived knows what a tree is who "discovered " trees?

If every person that ever lived knows that a dropped or thrown object eventually falls to the ground who "discovered gravity"

People have been familiar with all these things as long as there have been people.

Newton invented calculus to describe the motion of objects. He didn't discover the motion of objects.

Your belief that you cannot discover something that has always been there is stupid ass logic and literally means that nothing can be discovered.

Who discovered water?

According to you water was never discovered. Just like nothing that has always been there has ever been discovered.

So tell me who discovered water. Or was water, since it has always been a part of all life on this planet and known my all life forms in some capacity by every life form on this planet something that didn't need to be "discovered" in order to be known ?

You really do like to equate the actual thing with the language we use to describe it be that words or math.

Again... based upon your logic, nothing is ever discovered.

So tell me who discovered water.

According to you no one did.

So you can't tell me who discovered water just admit it.

And yes no one discovered water because every life form that has ever existed on this planet knew what water was. No one had to tell prehistoric man that they needed water to survive.

Everyone discovers water, dummy. Every piece of knowledge is discovered; either through accepting it on authority or direct observation.

YEah OK

 

[Blues Man]

Clearly you were never a Catholic.

Clearly! I was born an atheist, as are all babies but I was born into a family living in a country that was mainly some brand of Christians.

Had I been born in a country that is predominantly Muslim then I would have likely been thoroughly indoctrinated into that superstitious belief and become powerless to escape from it.
You can equate the indoctrination of children into a religion as the same as a baby duckling imprinting on the first moving object it sees, as it's mother.

Christianity's future depends on the indoctrination by parents not failing. A child of 12 or 13 generally has become too smart to accept any of the bibles.

What do you teach your children? Read the bible but keep in mind that it's full of lies that can't be interpreted as the literal truth?

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

The fact is most people tend to follow the religion of their parents. And is choosing one flavor of Christianity over another the same thing as changing your religion? I don't think it is.

Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And the fact is most adults follow the religion of their parents.

And like I said changing one flavor of Christianity for another doesn't count as a change in religion.

 

[Blues Man]

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

Both you and I were born atheists of course. If you're failing to understand that then you've disqualified yourself as a worthy opponent to debate.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

If you're going to become an angry insulting Christian then you're beginning to make my point on why Christians oppose socially responsible behaviour, or socialism.

What do you teach your children when you teach them Christianity. Do you teach them to believe in the bible(s) in a way that is necessarily qualified by warnings to them that it's not the literal truth?

I've often wondered how young children of indoctrination age are able to understand the contradictions?

For instance, do Christian indoctrinated children ever come to their parents and ask if their bible is lying about Noah's ark, 6000 year old earth, etc?

Can you answer me as if I am a child asking one of the questions?

I doubt very seriously you were born believing that God does not exist. My point was that if you were born into a family that were not atheists then your beliefs were not influenced by being born into a family of believers and your belief that people only believe in God because they were born into a family of believers has been invalidated by your own life experiences.

As for your belief that I am being un-christian, let me point out to you that your attacking Christians is similar to whites attacking blacks, German's attacking Jews and heterosexuals attacking homosexuals. It's not a good look for you. I'm not going to waste my time refuting or correcting your unending parade of lies and half truths anymore than the blacks, Jews and homosexuals should have wasted their time correcting the lies and half truths of whites, Germans and heterosexuals. You are playing the robber bird game and I'm not going to let you play that game without having to defend your nest.

You are a socialist and socialists are evil despicable not worth the breath they breath individuals. I hope you all darwinize yourselves out of existence as soon as practical. And given that we are in an ice age and that you are from Canada and want the planet to be colder the 3 mile thick sheet of ice which is in your nation's future should wipe all existence of your people off of the planet. Just don't try going to Mexico as they WILL build a wall to keep your sorry, filthy despicable people out of their country.

No one is born believing anything.

No one is born knowing anything. They learn everything they know either through accepting it on the authority of others or through direct observation. In that regard everything is discovered. And no one is prevented from changing their minds just because they were taught something.

There is a difference in man kind and a single man.

 

[ding]

you are excluding the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is.

Actually I didn't. Like I said before... I started my journey by looking at the only two options which exist; God created existence (aka space and time) or existence created itself. So, no. I did not exclude the possibility that the universe has no purpose and just is. In fact what I have said before is this...

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.

So I started my evaluation from two possible mutually exclusive positions; 1. the universe was created by God intentionally and has a purpose. And 2. the universe was not created by God and has no purpose.

So you are wrong again.

When you start with a preconceived and arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities you cannot come to any conclusions that are not preconceived or arbitrary.

They aren't arbitrary. There are the only two options which exist. All other options will simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options. The fact that you can't name another possible option which does not simplify to one of these two mutually exclusive options proves that your statement that I started with an arbitrary set of just 2 possibilities is WRONG. You can always prove me wrong by naming another possibility which does not simplify to one of the only two options which exist.

Are these two options preconceived? Well I did start with everything I could think of and they all simplified into one of these two mutually exclusive options. So it was only preconceived like all evaluations are preconceived when one is trying to list all of the options. It was not preconceived in the manner you are suggesting which is to mean biased. If I were biased I would only consider one of these two options like YOU have done.

The fact that we cannot conceive of more than 2 options is proof that we are limited in our thinking and are most likely physically incapable of understanding the processes of the inception of the universe. We are beings that can only perceive 3 dimensions but we live in a space that has at least 4 dimensions. For all we know, the only way to grasp the inception of the universe is to be able to perceive that 4th dimension.

If we were 2 dimensional beings living in a 3 dimensional space we would think that anything entering our 2 dimensional world from the third dimension would simply appear as if from nowhere and we would only ever be able to perceive a 2 dimensional cross section of that thing.

My dog will never comprehend prime numbers and she evolved out of the same stuff humans did. It is therefore not only reasonable to assume but also probable that the human brain has its own limitations.

The invention of a god to explain what we do not comprehend is a human characteristic and we've done that very thing throughout our existence

There no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a 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.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence 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. 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 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.

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.

These are your opinions. We have no idea what god is or isn't.

This universal code you claim that somehow exists outside of human beings is nothing but the culmination of our ability to imagine a behavior and its possible outcomes while never actually engaging in that behavior. Since all human brains evolved the same way then all human brains are capable of such thoughts.

In doing this we determined what would be the most acceptable outcome and we then taught these things to future generations. these ideas did not exist outside of the human experience nor did they predate the existence of humans.

Once again you are viewing the end result of the evolutionary process and saying that people have always been as they are today. This simply is not true.

Correct, I don't know what God is or God isn't. I even said, The closest I can come 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.

I believe to discover God one must start with some realistic perception of God. And that was the closest I could come to understanding God. People that argue there is no God are really arguing there is no God as that they can perceive. What they are really saying though is that they have no perception of God other than fairytales. Which is why everything they see is skewed to fairytales. So naturally they aren't looking for God. They only look at things to confirm their biases.

The universal code is logic and truth and exist independent of man. All humans are capable of seeing truth and logic if they are objective instead of subjective. The problem is that most people are not capable of being objective all of the time and about everything. Especially about themselves.

Humans are free to establish any standard they wish but they are not free to avoid the consequences of choosing a lower standard. Different standards have existed through out time and man has reaped what he has sown when he followed a lower standard.

Physiologically speaking, humans 10,000 years ago are pretty much the same as today but shorter. So I am not making the claim that people have always been as they are today. But for the past 10,000 years, man's intelligence probably has a similar distribution as we have today. Mind you I said intelligence and not knowledge. I do see repeating patterns of behavior and I do believe there are explanations for those patterns just as their are explanations for those behaviors. But what you have to know is that for almost any given thing there will usually be a distribution which always should be taken into account.

I don't assume there is a god to be discovered. And as I said before I don't think it matters if any gods actually exist or not. The beginning of the universe while interesting from both a physical and metaphysical perspective doesn't really matter either. Like I said we came into the theater after the movie started and we will leave before the movie ends so neither the beginning nor the end really matter as far as we human beings are concerned.

The oldest Homo Sapiens fossil has been dated to about 315,000 years ago and some anthropologists think H Sapiens may be as old a 500000 years.. 10000 years ago is the estimated period when agriculture began which also marked the end of the Neolithic Age.

So you make these sweeping statements like humans have always thought this or that but you are really only referring to the last 10 thousand years?

It is my position that our behaviors were evolving from at least 315,000 years ago and those behaviors from the very beginnings of H Sapiens emergence as a species are just as if not more important than anything that happened in the last 10000 years.

Sweeping statements, huh? Actually you saying I made sweeping statements is a sweeping statement. I was pretty specific which is the opposite if a sweeping statement.

As for you not believing it matters if one believes on God or not, you have never tested it. I have. I've walked both paths. You haven't. And despite your denial that religion offers functional advantages, Darwin disagrees.

So which is it man has always believed in the spiritual or man has believed in the spiritual only in the last 10000 years?

When you use words like always you are not just indicating a very specific point in history but rather are referring to ALL of history.

It's those pesky definitions again.

And you need to reread what I said.

I said I don't believe it matters whether gods exist or not.

Darwin wasn't a sociologist. Religion as a social institution provided a control on society not dissimilar to government.

Ummmm... always, at least once he became aware. But I only know that physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same now as he was 10,000 years ago. Could that have been earlier? Sure.

I know what you said and I know what you meant. And I know that you have never tested if it matters or not. I have. God, like all of reality is made manifest by mind.

If religion offered no functional advantage, then according to Darwin's principles, religion would have died out.

So it is your assertion that man has only been aware for the last 10000 years?

Now you say gods only manifest because of the human mind so then they must not have existed before men invented them.

Religion doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage. It offers a sociological advantage.

When humans were nomadic tribes it didn't matter if they believed in gods or not as far as their everyday survival was concerned.

Religion didn't become organized until we left the nomadic life behind and started living in larger and larger societies.

It was realized pretty quickly that as populations grew that controls were needed to ameliorate human behaviors religion was and still is one of those controls.

You are like a dog with a bone on this 10,000 year thing. The only claim I am making is that in the terms of intellect and physiology man hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 years. I make no other claims beyond that.

Religion offers FUNCTIONAL advantage. It is FUNCTIONAL advantage that determines if a trait will be retained or not. If there is no FUNCTIONAL advantage, then according to Darwin it is discarded.

Homo Sapiens is homo sapiens from a day ago or 200000 years ago.

Religion isn't a trait it's a social institution that didn't become organized until we moved from nomadic tribes to living in large stationary groups.

Religion acts as a control on the population and as the populace of a society grows those controls are beneficial to the long term success of the society. Religion does not help a person survive the rigors of life as a hunter gatherer.

I don't believe that physiologically speaking that homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago are the same as they are today. Do you have anything which supports that belief? I know there was little difference 10,000 years ago because there was a body recovered from the Alps that had been frozen and the comment that was made was that physiologically he was effectively the same as us today.

If you want to deny Darwin, that's your call. But it makes a ton of sense that believing in God has functional advantages that atheism does not have.

The only difference is the influence of society. Society has made us who we are more than mere evolution. You cannot separate modern man from the society he has lived in. Society is responsible for most of our belief systems. Everything from religion to morals and ethics has been shaped by societies and as those societies become more homogeneous the differences in those societies become less meaningful and will ultimately disappear.

This is the reason you think some patterns of thought are universal absolutes.

Again... from a natural selection perspective believing in God must have functional advantages that atheism does not have and that is why religion persists.

Again believing a gods has nothing to do with survival or evolution and more to do with the fact that as our intellect grew and our survival skills increased humans had more time to ponder things and one of the things human did was invent gods to explain things in the natural world.

I will propose that we didn't invent gods until we were so adept at survival that we had more time for activities other than merely surviving.

I never said it did. I said the reason religion persists is that religion provides a functional advantage that atheism cannot provide.

Only in a sense that it is a societal control.

What advantage do you have over an atheist?

Only in a sense that it is a societal control? Wrong. In the sense that it brings peace and joy through the storms of life.

The advantages believers have over atheists are peace and joy through the storms of life and meaning and purpose from being God's creatures; Meaning in God, Meaning in Creation, Meaning in Human Existence, Meaning in History, Meaning in Morality, Meaning in Justice, Meaning in Suffering and Meaning in Messianism.

You don't need religion to experience joy or weather the storms of life.

And You don't need religion to live a meaningful life.

There is no advantage to being religious.

William James sees it different.

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.​

 

[ding]

Clearly you were never a Catholic.

Clearly! I was born an atheist, as are all babies but I was born into a family living in a country that was mainly some brand of Christians.

Had I been born in a country that is predominantly Muslim then I would have likely been thoroughly indoctrinated into that superstitious belief and become powerless to escape from it.
You can equate the indoctrination of children into a religion as the same as a baby duckling imprinting on the first moving object it sees, as it's mother.

Christianity's future depends on the indoctrination by parents not failing. A child of 12 or 13 generally has become too smart to accept any of the bibles.

What do you teach your children? Read the bible but keep in mind that it's full of lies that can't be interpreted as the literal truth?

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

The fact is most people tend to follow the religion of their parents. And is choosing one flavor of Christianity over another the same thing as changing your religion? I don't think it is.

Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

And the fact is most adults follow the religion of their parents.

And like I said changing one flavor of Christianity for another doesn't count as a change in religion.

Again... Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

 

[ding]

So you were born an atheist because your family were atheists? Otherwise, your life has just defeated your own argument.

Both you and I were born atheists of course. If you're failing to understand that then you've disqualified yourself as a worthy opponent to debate.

I teach my children not to be like you. Critical theory is a failed behavior.

If you're going to become an angry insulting Christian then you're beginning to make my point on why Christians oppose socially responsible behaviour, or socialism.

What do you teach your children when you teach them Christianity. Do you teach them to believe in the bible(s) in a way that is necessarily qualified by warnings to them that it's not the literal truth?

I've often wondered how young children of indoctrination age are able to understand the contradictions?

For instance, do Christian indoctrinated children ever come to their parents and ask if their bible is lying about Noah's ark, 6000 year old earth, etc?

Can you answer me as if I am a child asking one of the questions?

I doubt very seriously you were born believing that God does not exist. My point was that if you were born into a family that were not atheists then your beliefs were not influenced by being born into a family of believers and your belief that people only believe in God because they were born into a family of believers has been invalidated by your own life experiences.

As for your belief that I am being un-christian, let me point out to you that your attacking Christians is similar to whites attacking blacks, German's attacking Jews and heterosexuals attacking homosexuals. It's not a good look for you. I'm not going to waste my time refuting or correcting your unending parade of lies and half truths anymore than the blacks, Jews and homosexuals should have wasted their time correcting the lies and half truths of whites, Germans and heterosexuals. You are playing the robber bird game and I'm not going to let you play that game without having to defend your nest.

You are a socialist and socialists are evil despicable not worth the breath they breath individuals. I hope you all darwinize yourselves out of existence as soon as practical. And given that we are in an ice age and that you are from Canada and want the planet to be colder the 3 mile thick sheet of ice which is in your nation's future should wipe all existence of your people off of the planet. Just don't try going to Mexico as they WILL build a wall to keep your sorry, filthy despicable people out of their country.

No one is born believing anything.

No one is born knowing anything. They learn everything they know either through accepting it on the authority of others or through direct observation. In that regard everything is discovered. And no one is prevented from changing their minds just because they were taught something.

There is a difference in man kind and a single man.

It's the same for everyone though. Even the ones who first discovered it and then passed that knowledge on. That's how knowledge works. Knowledge is discovered.

 

[Meriweather]

You are who you are in large part because of our evolution as a species.

Sounds like you believe in predestination. What I do today became predestined with the advent of mankind. Nothing I can do today as an individual is my individual choice, as it has all been predestined by evolution?

 

[Meriweather]

Sucks to be you

Quite the opposite. I don't have to settle for "Good enough". I can grow beyond.

 

[Donald H]

No one is born knowing anything.

In your ignorance you've used a double negative but the intent isn't lost because it's expected.

That's wrong and shallow thinking again by you ding. Think it over for a while and then come back and tell us why you're so wrong.
Or come back insisting you're right and then I can embarrass you once again.

 

[Donald H]

Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

No, not exactly and not true in the sense of this conversation. Childhood indoctrination determines whether a person will grow up believing religious superstitions, in most cases even whem the person is reasonably intelligent. (IQ90+- minimum)

Even so, an average intelligence (100) will very often need to reconcile his beliefs by claiming the bible is fictional.

Keeping in mind that it's most likely true that about 40% of Americans consider their bibles to be the literal word of their god.

 

[ding]

No one is born knowing anything.

In your ignorance you've used a double negative but the intent isn't lost because it's expected.

That's wrong and shallow thinking again by you ding. Think it over for a while and then come back and tell us why you're so wrong.
Or come back insisting you're right and then I can embarrass you once again.

Actually I did not use a double negative. The word "knowing" is not a negative, dummy. Neither is the word "anything."

"No one is born knowing anything" is the same as saying "everyone is born knowing nothing." The embarrassment is all yours but that is to be expected of someone with a socialist education.

 

[ding]

Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe.

No, not exactly and not true in the sense of this conversation. Childhood indoctrination determines whether a person will grow up believing religious superstitions, in most cases even whem the person is reasonably intelligent. (IQ90+- minimum)

Even so, an average intelligence (100) will very often need to reconcile his beliefs by claiming the bible is fictional.

Keeping in mind that it's most likely true that about 40% of Americans consider their bibles to be the literal word of their god.

For almost all things there will usually be a distribution. On the case of beliefs changing as one gets older this is certainly the case. Everyone grows up and eventually decides for themselves what is important for them to believe. That is absolutely a correct statement. It does not presume a change will take place nor does it presume a change won't take place. It merely states the fact that as we get older we own our beliefs.

Of course coming from someone with a socialist background it is easy to see why blaming things on other people is so enticing.

Which is probably why your statements presume not only that they will change but that they will change away from the beliefs that you yourself were raised with. Which is probably why you keep avoiding acknowledging that your beliefs changed. Of course you are so myopic you assume that everyone else will see things like you do because of your superior intelligent, right? You don't believe you can ever possibly be wrong about anything, right?. What is your level of education that I should just accept everything you believe as gospel? Shouldn't I at least evaluate your credentials first before I accept everything you believe without question?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

SIns are nothing behaviors seen as unacceptable as deemed by society

At best. "Sin" is a silly, magical concept invented when people didn't understand anything about the world or about human behavior. The concept is a child's toy that we need to put away, now that we have grown up.

 

[Moonglow]

Even the Abrahamic god seems to think there are other gods since he stated in the 10 Commandments that there will be no other gods before him and that he is jealous of other gods

I wonder if they have a corporate structure?