Should religion be eliminated

[ding]

From what was created.

But how does that tell you the number of gods involved?

You believe it is logical that there are multiple creators?

The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

I think it's logical not to leap to any conclusions yet before getting some kind of real data.

You prove nothing about the number of gods with you other statements.

We have all the data we are going to get. We can study what was created to learn about how it was created. When we do this we discover that space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of nature which means the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time. Laws which predestined intelligence to arise and evolve. Specifically physical, biological and moral laws.

You are without excuse.

Again, you spout a personal opinion, not supported facts. Just know the difference, that's all.

It is totally supported by facts. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, general relativity, quantum mechanics, law of conservation, entropy, etc.

You are the one shitting all over science.

 

[ding]

Then any revenue they EARNED and were not given would be taxed.

I'm still waiting for your proof that gifts are considered to be revenues or earnings or incomes.

That's not what I was talking about, ever.

If you give money to a church and do not receive anything in return other than their thanks, it is a gift. Do you even IRS?

You receive a speech, like tons of people give all the time for money and have to declare it. We're talking HYPOTHETICALLY, I thought you got that?

Really?

You do realize that you don't have to donate.

So some people are getting it for free. So since you can get it for free, what you give them is called a gift.

Do you even logic?

Lots of people get in for free at any event. Anything else?

Everyone can hear the sermon for free.

I am still waiting for that link of yours.

 

[Taz]

But how does that tell you the number of gods involved?

You believe it is logical that there are multiple creators?

The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

I think it's logical not to leap to any conclusions yet before getting some kind of real data.

You prove nothing about the number of gods with you other statements.

We have all the data we are going to get. We can study what was created to learn about how it was created. When we do this we discover that space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of nature which means the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time. Laws which predestined intelligence to arise and evolve. Specifically physical, biological and moral laws.

You are without excuse.

Again, you spout a personal opinion, not supported facts. Just know the difference, that's all.

It is totally supported by facts. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, general relativity, quantum mechanics, law of conservation, entropy, etc.

You are the one shitting all over science.

If it's real science, then link it to some. That's how this shit works here. If you don't, it's personal opinion. Know the difference.

 

[Taz]

That's not what I was talking about, ever.

If you give money to a church and do not receive anything in return other than their thanks, it is a gift. Do you even IRS?

You receive a speech, like tons of people give all the time for money and have to declare it. We're talking HYPOTHETICALLY, I thought you got that?

Really?

You do realize that you don't have to donate.

So some people are getting it for free. So since you can get it for free, what you give them is called a gift.

Do you even logic?

Lots of people get in for free at any event. Anything else?

Everyone can hear the sermon for free.

I am still waiting for that link of yours.

Man, you're an idiot. I'm out of this topic.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you give money to a church and do not receive anything in return other than their thanks, it is a gift. Do you even IRS?

You receive a speech, like tons of people give all the time for money and have to declare it. We're talking HYPOTHETICALLY, I thought you got that?

Really?

You do realize that you don't have to donate.

So some people are getting it for free. So since you can get it for free, what you give them is called a gift.

Do you even logic?

Lots of people get in for free at any event. Anything else?

Everyone can hear the sermon for free.

I am still waiting for that link of yours.

Man, you're an idiot. I'm out of this topic.

Lost again, eh?

You know if you approach discussions with a desire to learn from one another instead of as a fight, you both win

 

[Taz]

You receive a speech, like tons of people give all the time for money and have to declare it. We're talking HYPOTHETICALLY, I thought you got that?

Really?

You do realize that you don't have to donate.

So some people are getting it for free. So since you can get it for free, what you give them is called a gift.

Do you even logic?

Lots of people get in for free at any event. Anything else?

Everyone can hear the sermon for free.

I am still waiting for that link of yours.

Man, you're an idiot. I'm out of this topic.

Lost again, eh?

You know if you approach discussions with a desire to learn from one another instead of as a fight, you both win

Only one problem, ding is an idiot who can't learn that it's only a personal opinion if you can't back it up properly, with views on religion that are almost as dumb as mormons views are.

 

[The Irish Ram]

adapt them to the modern world.

a·dapt
verb
make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.


Christ says to do the opposite of what you recommend:

1. Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.

2. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

3. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

4.Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

The "modern world" is an abomination to the Lord. Heed His voice and do not adapt His word to the world. His word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so apparently God thinks His word is as germane now as it was then. He said not add to it or take away from it or modify it to conform the times we live in. He wants us to do the opposite. Christ and the world are diametrically opposed.

So, what parts of His word would you modify to conform to today's moral direction? Leaning on your understanding, which verses should I scratch out of the book to bring it into the 21 century, and what would you tell me to add to fit in to today's liberalism?

 

[ding]

ding is an idiot

^ dunning effect

 

[ding]

If you give money to a church and do not receive anything in return other than their thanks, it is a gift. Do you even IRS?

You receive a speech, like tons of people give all the time for money and have to declare it. We're talking HYPOTHETICALLY, I thought you got that?

Really?

You do realize that you don't have to donate.

So some people are getting it for free. So since you can get it for free, what you give them is called a gift.

Do you even logic?

Lots of people get in for free at any event. Anything else?

Everyone can hear the sermon for free.

I am still waiting for that link of yours.

Man, you're an idiot. I'm out of this topic.

revenue: In accounting, revenue is the income that a business has from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. Revenue is also referred to as sales or turnover. Some companies receive revenue from interest, royalties, or other fees.

income: money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through investments.

gift: a thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present.

 

[ding]

You believe it is logical that there are multiple creators?

The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

I think it's logical not to leap to any conclusions yet before getting some kind of real data.

You prove nothing about the number of gods with you other statements.

We have all the data we are going to get. We can study what was created to learn about how it was created. When we do this we discover that space and time were created from nothing according to the laws of nature which means the laws of nature existed before the creation of space and time. Laws which predestined intelligence to arise and evolve. Specifically physical, biological and moral laws.

You are without excuse.

Again, you spout a personal opinion, not supported facts. Just know the difference, that's all.

It is totally supported by facts. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, general relativity, quantum mechanics, law of conservation, entropy, etc.

You are the one shitting all over science.

If it's real science, then link it to some. That's how this shit works here. If you don't, it's personal opinion. Know the difference.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085v1.pdf

http://quiet.uchicago.edu/capmap/slaclatex.pdf

Exact solutions of Einstein's equations - Scholarpedia

https://www.researchgate.net/public...quation_by_metric_of_Hyperbolic_3D_Space-time

[1707.04909] Solutions of Einstein Field Equation for an Extra-Dimensional Anisotropic Metric with Two Scale Factors

 

[well named]

What kind of secular institutions?

Just as an example: western systems of law and jurisprudence, and particularly the importance they give to principles like due process, equal protection, presumption of innocence, standards of evidence, and so on. I think scientific institutions are another good example, i.e. in relation to epistemological principles, open-mindedness, following evidence where it leads, and so on.

Bear in mind that in the post you were responding to I was talking about taking the best of various institutions, both secular and religious, so when I appeal to institutions like science and law I'm not suggesting that they are perfect anymore than I am suggesting that religions are. I'm talking about them making valuable secular contributions to society.

 

[ding]

What kind of secular institutions?

Just as an example: western systems of law and jurisprudence, and particularly the importance they give to principles like due process, equal protection, presumption of innocence, standards of evidence, and so on. I think scientific institutions are another good example, i.e. in relation to epistemological principles, open-mindedness, following evidence where it leads, and so on.

Bear in mind that in the post you were responding to I was talking about taking the best of various institutions, both secular and religious, so when I appeal to institutions like science and law I'm not suggesting that they are perfect anymore than I am suggesting that religions are. I'm talking about them making valuable secular contributions to society.

Seems to me the ones you are describing about teaching morals are more about being reactive than proactive.

 

[well named]

Christ says to do the opposite of what you recommend

I'm not a Christian, so unsurprisingly I don't view those injunctions the same way that you do. Although to be fair I wouldn't have viewed them the same as you do even when I was a practicing Christian.

So, what parts of His word would you modify to conform to today's moral direction?

I'm not sure if this is intended to be purely rhetorical or not, but I'm going to refrain from answering here because I think we're starting from such different assumptions that it's probably not useful, but also because it's off-topic for this thread anyway, I think. I guess if you wanted to make some other thread about Biblical hermeneutics or the interpretation of those passages I might participate in it.

 

[well named]

Seems to me the ones you are describing about teaching morals are more about being reactive than proactive.

It's been a few days so I've lost track of things somewhat, but I don't think I was talking only about morals, and I don't really follow the point of your reactive vs proactive distinction.

 

[ding]

Seems to me the ones you are describing about teaching morals are more about being reactive than proactive.

It's been a few days so I've lost track of things somewhat, but I don't think I was talking only about morals, and I don't really follow the point of your reactive vs proactive distinction.

Would you agree that religions teach civility and morals? If so, that would be an example of being proactive.

Would you agree that governments punish violations of civility and morality? If so, that would be an example of being reactive.

 

[well named]

Would you agree that religions teach civility and morals? If so, that would be an example of being proactive.

Would you agree that governments punish violations of civility and morality? If so, that would be an example of being reactive.

I've already agreed to the first, so sure. I think your analysis is too simple though. If religions teach morality, they also punish violations, e.g. by ostracizing adherents who fail to adhere to religious norms, or by excluding non-members or would-be members who violate those norms, e.g. churches which will not tolerate openly gay members. Legal enforcement is not the only type of enforcement. Conversely, I mentioned scientific institutions, many of which are involved with education, a proactive endeavor by your definition. Further, the elements of law which I highlighted are not only concerned with crime and punishment, they are general principles which guide decision making in a proactive way as well. Both the legal institutions and the scientific institutions I mentioned promote values as well as teaching and enforcing norms. I could have also brought up other secular institutions concerned with the promotion of the arts, or social justice activism, or the like.

I think all of the above just reflects the fact that the two poles you identified are really interrelated in practice, both for religious and non-religious institutions.

 

[sealybobo]

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

You know this how?

If someone is truly seeking guidance from above, do you think he would turn his back on them because they did not address him by the correct name. God goes by many names. He only cares that we seek him. He'll take care of the rest. It's not always a straight line.

He only cares that we seek him? You know this how?

 

[sealybobo]

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Why would one have to be accountable to god?

If God exists, then one would be accountable to Him because He made the universe and everything in it, including you.

Therefore, the post is saying that people choose not to believe in God because they do not wish to be accountable for their actions.

Where is the proof that we are accountable to an invisible being?

It is inside you. That's why you believe so strongly about justice.

I’m watching this old submarine movie destination Tokyo with Cary Grant. The kid asks if there really is a god. The older guy reassured him by saying yea sure some people don’t believe god is real but I know he’s real just like I know there’s salt in the water surrounding us.

That was enough to reassure the dope. Maybe if an atheist was there to set the kid straight or at least give him some logic facts science and reason. And the truth is none of us know. Even you have doubt. You don’t think you do because you want to believe so bad you do.

 

[sealybobo]

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

How do you know there's only one god?

Or any "god" at all, for that matter.

All they have is stories from their ancestors that they couldn't imagine are made up. Impossible they say but the truth is, their religion was made up by some 11 dudes 2000 years ago. Or, the stories were turned into facts 1500 years ago. Whoever did it someone lied.

So we should be able to say hold on a minute. Who is this god creature you are referring to? And unless this creature can pass the 5 simple rules of science, it should be thrown out as bullshit.

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.

(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

And perhaps the most important rule of all...

(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.

Science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves, and each other.

If you believe science is so important, what have you done to further your understanding of science?

I don’t suggest the scientific community is making up global warming. You godly people are destroying this planet.

What do I do? I spread logic facts science and reasoning. I promote a secular society. I vote democratic. I don’t support churches.

 

[ding]

Would you agree that religions teach civility and morals? If so, that would be an example of being proactive.

Would you agree that governments punish violations of civility and morality? If so, that would be an example of being reactive.

I've already agreed to the first, so sure. I think your analysis is too simple though. If religions teach morality, they also punish violations, e.g. by ostracizing adherents who fail to adhere to religious norms, or by excluding non-members or would-be members who violate those norms, e.g. churches which will not tolerate openly gay members. Legal enforcement is not the only type of enforcement. Conversely, I mentioned scientific institutions, many of which are involved with education, a proactive endeavor by your definition. Further, the elements of law which I highlighted are not only concerned with crime and punishment, they are general principles which guide decision making in a proactive way as well. Both the legal institutions and the scientific institutions I mentioned promote values as well as teaching and enforcing norms. I could have also brought up other secular institutions concerned with the promotion of the arts, or social justice activism, or the like.

I think all of the above just reflects the fact that the two poles you identified are really interrelated in practice, both for religious and non-religious institutions.

I don't believe they do punish people for violating morals. We have confession for that. Besides we sin all the time. There wouldn't be anyone left in the church if it is as you say. I submit that you are describing the exception and not the rule.

I have a very dear friend who is gay and attends church and takes communion with what he affectionately refers to as his "wife" who is a man. His pastor knows full well they are gay. He isn't ostracized and he attends a very conservative parish. I believe that you are painting all religions wrongly with a broad brush based on extreme examples.

Putting that aside, religion does teach civility and morality and they do not have the power to punish violations. Whereas secular institutions do not teach civility and morality. They punish violations of civility and morality. So the only education they offer is adherence through punishment. You know we have lots of prisons filled with people that prove my point, right?