Zone1 What exactly did Jesus mean when He said "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do"?

[ding]

Mostly a coping mechanism to keep some people from losing their minds with fear and becoming destructive. It serves a purpose but we should grow out of it and become mature adults.

Incorrect. William James said it best, "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]

Mostly a coping mechanism to keep some people from losing their minds with fear and becoming destructive. It serves a purpose but we should grow out of it and become mature adults.

You oppose religion because it competes with the religion of atheism which is socialism and communism. Ron Paul said it best, "Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage."

 

[Red Front]

You oppose religion because it competes with the religion of atheism which is socialism and communism. Ron Paul said it best, "Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage."

I have nothing against good religion, which doesn't encourage blind belief and delusions. As an atheist and communist, I rely on what is real and take responsibility for my own morality. My ethics are reasoned, discussed, scrutinized, and debated, and hopefully, through that process of dialogue and analysis we can establish a fair and reasonable system of morality. My morals are based on reason and oriented always towards the preservation and flourishing of life, particularly human life.

 

[Red Front]

Incorrect. William James said it best, "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."

Religion is just an immature attempt to ignore reality and numb the pain and suffering of existence. Marx called it the opiate of the people and indeed that's exactly what it is. In the case of Christians, they are self-deluded, believing a book is "inerrant", flawless, divinely inspired, and that there is a god tyrant over them, dictating how they should think and live under the threat of eternal torment in hell or annihilation.

 

[ding]

Religion is just an immature attempt to ignore reality and numb the pain and suffering of existence. Marx called it the opiate of the people and indeed that's exactly what it is. In the case of Christians, they are self-deluded, believing a book is "inerrant", flawless, divinely inspired, and that there is a god tyrant over them, dictating how they should think and live under the threat of eternal torment in hell or annihilation.

It's ironic how socialism has co-opted Christianity by making moral arguments for man's happiness when all they really care about is satisfying their material needs and primitive impulses. We've already seen socialism's intolerance for rival religions.

 

[ding]

I have nothing against good religion, which doesn't encourage blind belief and delusions. As an atheist and communist, I rely on what is real and take responsibility for my own morality. My ethics are reasoned, discussed, scrutinized, and debated, and hopefully, through that process of dialogue and analysis we can establish a fair and reasonable system of morality. My morals are based on reason and oriented always towards the preservation and flourishing of life, particularly human life.

A morality that is only concerned with satisfying material needs and primitive animal impulses.

 

[Red Front]

It's ironic how socialism has co-opted Christianity by making moral arguments for man's happiness when all they really care about is satisfying their material needs and primitive impulses. We've already seen socialism's intolerance for rival religions.

I believe material needs are important but there is more to human life than simply eating, shelter, and having sex. What do you define as "primitive impulses"? Do we have any "primitive impulses" that should be satisfied? Are there any of them that contribute to our survival? Morality existed before Christianity, so atheists adopting moral principles that are life-affirming, contributing to our survival and well-being, has nothing to do with Christianity but is simply a rational, thoughtful response to a universe that is trying to kill us.

You on the other hand refuse to grow up and take responsibility for yourself, hence you consign yourself to an imaginary sky-daddy, who supposedly is going to grant you the privilege of living forever in heaven. Your head is in the clouds, rather than here on earth, where it belongs. You have this life, make the most of it.

 

[Red Front]

A morality that is only concerned with satisfying material needs and primitive animal impulses.

We should satisfy our material needs and whatever other needs we have, that are healthy and contribute to our survival and success. Human beings are intelligent, social animals, hence we also need to interact with others of our kind. We have emotional and psychological needs, that can only be addressed and satisfied by establishing healthy, friendly relationships with other human beings. What's wrong with that? What do you define as "primitive impulses"? Are all primitive impulses evil? What are they? Elaborate.

 

[BreezeWood]

the advent of life and the ensuing evolutionary development if not heavenly endowed are metaphysical and unavoidable whether confined in religious doctrines or political that does require purposeful pursuits or the specific species will succumb to extinction. and is most likely the subconscious origin for religion and its corruption - the desert religions.

 

[ding]

I believe material needs are important but there is more to human life than simply eating, shelter, and having sex. What do you define as "primitive impulses"? Do we have any "primitive impulses" that should be satisfied? Are there any of them that contribute to our survival? Morality existed before Christianity, so atheists adopting moral principles that are life-affirming, contributing to our survival and well-being, has nothing to do with Christianity but is simply a rational, thoughtful response to a universe that is trying to kill us.

You on the other hand refuse to grow up and take responsibility for yourself, hence you consign yourself to an imaginary sky-daddy, who supposedly is going to grant you the privilege of living forever in heaven. Your head is in the clouds, rather than here on earth, where it belongs. You have this life, make the most of it.

If believing in a sky daddy means believing that standards exist independent of man then I am guilty as charged. Atheism is the greatest existential threat to liberty and freedom precisely because atheists believe morals can be anything they say they are.

 

[ding]

We should satisfy our material needs and whatever other needs we have, that are healthy and contribute to our survival and success. Human beings are intelligent, social animals, hence we also need to interact with others of our kind. We have emotional and psychological needs, that can only be addressed and satisfied by establishing healthy, friendly relationships with other human beings. What's wrong with that? What do you define as "primitive impulses"? Are all primitive impulses evil? What are they? Elaborate.

What's wrong with that? Moral relativism, debauchery, etc. Primitive impulses are animal impulses. That's all you are right? There's no higher nature to man, right? We're just animals, right? It's all just electro-chemical responses in the brain, right?

 

[Red Front]

What's wrong with that? Moral relativism, debauchery, etc. Primitive impulses are animal impulses. That's all you are right? There's no higher nature to man, right? We're just animals, right? It's all just electro-chemical responses in the brain, right?

As humans, we are a unique species with a higher level of consciousness, cognitive abilities, and the capacity for creativity, empathy, and morality. Our ability to experience life and interact with the world around us is more than just a result of our individual physical properties and processes. There are emergent non-physical, subjective realities that arise from the interaction of those individual material properties and processes.

Reducing the human animal to its individual physical properties is a fallacy. While it is true that we are comprised of material properties and processes, it is not the whole story. The reductionist fallacy ignores the emergent properties and realities that arise from the interaction of those individual parts. For example, consider the notion of consciousness. Consciousness is not reducible to any individual physical property or process. It emerges from the functional relationship between individual parts of the brain. Our identity, personality, and ability to experience life and interact with the world around us are also emergent properties that cannot be reduced to any individual physical property or process.

As human beings, we experience the world subjectively. Our subjective experience arises from the emergent properties and realities that cannot be reduced to individual physical properties or processes. These subjective realities include our emotions, beliefs, desires, and values.

The emergence of subjective realities can be seen in the example of a computer. While a computer is made up of individual hardware components, it is not just the sum of its parts. The software that runs on the computer is an emergent property that cannot be reduced to any individual hardware component. Within the realm of software, there are other emergent properties and realities that are not physical. The emergence of non-physical, subjective realities is what makes us living, sentient human beings. Our ability to experience the world subjectively, and to have emotions, beliefs, desires, and values is what gives our lives meaning and purpose.

To reduce humans to their individual physical properties and processes is to deny the value of these emergent properties and realities. Yes, we are a form or type of animal, with its own unique set of emergent properties and realities that make us who we are. You make the mistake of reducing the human-animal, to its individual physical properties and processes. That's a falacy. Our consciousness, identity, personality, and ability to experience life and interact with the world around us are emergent properties that cannot be reduced to any individual physical property or process.

In conclusion:

What is the reductionist fallacy?

The reductionist fallacy is the belief that complex phenomena can be explained solely by understanding their individual components.

Why is it important to recognize emergent properties?

Emergent properties are what make complex phenomena, such as consciousness and identity, possible. Without recognizing these emergent properties, we cannot fully understand the complexity of the world around us.

Can emergent properties be reduced to individual physical properties or processes?

No, emergent properties are the result of the functional relationships between individual physical properties and processes. They cannot be reduced to any individual component.

Why is it important to recognize the value of subjective realities?

Subjective realities, such as emotions, beliefs, desires, and values, are what give our lives meaning and purpose. Without recognizing their value, we risk reducing humans to mere physical objects.

How does the emergence of software on a computer illustrate the concept of emergent properties?

Software is an emergent property that arises from the functional relationship between individual hardware components.

 

[Clyde 154]

Can you point to a specific post or quote what I actually wrote that you believe was copy and pasted from the net?

There is no nourishment in chewing on a dry bone. I simply made a point..........your sentence structure and use of certain words vary from post to post.........especially when you can't justify your argument by the use of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Red Front]

If believing in a sky daddy means believing that standards exist independent of man then I am guilty as charged. Atheism is the greatest existential threat to liberty and freedom precisely because atheists believe morals can be anything they say they are.

You're playing mind tricks on yourself. Theists believe their deity is whatever or whoever they say it is. You're in the same boat as us atheists. My highest value is life itself, which actually exists because I and most likely, you, are alive and conscious. My morality is based upon the premise that life, especially human life, should be cherished and protected. Any pattern of thought and behavior that undermines human life, in any way, is considered immoral by atheists who share my values. You, on the other hand, base what is right or wrong, upon religious doctrines i.e. a "holy book", that often undermines human survival and progress. The foundation of your morality is even more subjective than mine because my moral foundation is the survival and flourishing of life. Life does exist, right? And don't you want to survive and thrive? Yes, you do, don't lie. Life and its success is the foundation of my morality, whereas yours is based upon religious mythology (a bunch of silly shit). An imaginary god entity that orders his followers to commit acts of infanticide.

 

[BreezeWood]

As humans, we are a unique species with a higher level of consciousness, cognitive abilities, and the capacity for creativity, empathy, and morality. Our ability to experience life and interact with the world around us is more than just a result of our individual physical properties and processes. There are emergent non-physical, subjective realities that arise from the interaction of those individual material properties and processes.

Reducing the human animal to its individual physical properties is a fallacy. While it is true that we are comprised of material properties and processes, it is not the whole story. The reductionist fallacy ignores the emergent properties and realities that arise from the interaction of those individual parts. For example, consider the notion of consciousness. Consciousness is not reducible to any individual physical property or process. It emerges from the functional relationship between individual parts of the brain. Our identity, personality, and ability to experience life and interact with the world around us are also emergent properties that cannot be reduced to any individual physical property or process.


As human beings, we experience the world subjectively. Our subjective experience arises from the emergent properties and realities that cannot be reduced to individual physical properties or processes. These subjective realities include our emotions, beliefs, desires, and values.


The emergence of subjective realities can be seen in the example of a computer. While a computer is made up of individual hardware components, it is not just the sum of its parts. The software that runs on the computer is an emergent property that cannot be reduced to any individual hardware component. Within the realm of software, there are other emergent properties and realities that are not physical. The emergence of non-physical, subjective realities is what makes us living, sentient human beings. Our ability to experience the world subjectively, and to have emotions, beliefs, desires, and values is what gives our lives meaning and purpose.


To reduce humans to their individual physical properties and processes is to deny the value of these emergent properties and realities. Yes, we are a form or type of animal, with its own unique set of emergent properties and realities that make us who we are. You make the mistake of reducing the human-animal (animal animal animal..hehehehe yes we are earthlinig-animals!), to its individual physical properties and processes. That's a falacy. Our consciousness, identity, personality, and ability to experience life and interact with the world around us are emergent properties that cannot be reduced to any individual physical property or process.

It is important to recognize the value of these emergent properties and realities. They are what make us human and give our lives meaning and purpose.


In conclusion:

What is the reductionist fallacy?

The reductionist fallacy is the belief that complex phenomena can be explained solely by understanding their individual components.



Why is it important to recognize emergent properties?

Emergent properties are what make complex phenomena, such as consciousness and identity, possible. Without recognizing these emergent properties, we cannot fully understand the complexity of the world around us.


Can emergent properties be reduced to individual physical properties or processes?

No, emergent properties are the result of the functional relationships between individual physical properties and processes. They cannot be reduced to any individual component.



Why is it important to recognize the value of subjective realities?


Subjective realities, such as emotions, beliefs, desires, and values, are what give our lives meaning and purpose. Without recognizing their value, we risk reducing humans to mere physical objects.



How does the emergence of software on a computer illustrate the concept of emergent properties?

Software is an emergent property that arises from the functional relationship between individual hardware components.

That's a falacy. Our consciousness, identity, personality, and ability to experience life and interact with the world around us are emergent properties that cannot be reduced to any individual physical property or process.

can not be reduced to any - property or process ... try, the desert religions -

their argument of immorality in fact is what is found in their books of forgeries and fallacies to coerce their subject to servitude and blind obedience guided by nefarious purposes.

 

[Clyde 154]

I have nothing against good religion, which doesn't encourage blind belief and delusions. As an atheist and communist, I rely on what is real and take responsibility for my own morality. My ethics are reasoned, discussed, scrutinized, and debated, and hopefully, through that process of dialogue and analysis we can establish a fair and reasonable system of morality. My morals are based on reason and oriented always towards the preservation and flourishing of life, particularly human life.

Who defines Morality? Laws define what a society accepts or rejects as being moral. Its not nature.........if man evolved from lower lifeforms as claimed by all Darwinian Cultists (which is a dogmatic religion in and by itself.......as the theory can not be proven to be a FACT of science).......where did man come up with the idea of law and morality, its not found in nature? Morality must, by reason and logic be transcendent of nature.

The obvious fact is that something superior to the human race established and defined morality as demonstrated.......otherwise morality would be subject to personal whims and would vary from person to person........nation to nation. Example: One society or sub culture might decide to legalize Murder, Robbery, Rape.......pedohilia......another nation or society might make all the above illegal, yet both according to the theories of evolution would be correct as there would be no golden rules, no universal standard as exists in all the civilized nations of the world......might would make right and it would be survival of the fittest as propagated by Darwin. People would be free to act as they would, the world would be in total anarchy.

For example: The United States of America, its entire system of jurisprudence and a great portion of the US Constitution used Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone greatly referenced the Judeo/Christian philosophy from the Holy Scriptures, most specifically.....the 10 commandments. Blackstone's literally works sold more in the United States than they did in England.

 

[BreezeWood]

Who defines Morality? Laws define what a society accepts or rejects as being moral. Its not nature.........if man evolved from lower lifeforms as claimed by all Darwinian Cultists (which is a dogmatic religion in and by itself.......as the theory can not be proven to be a FACT of science).......where did man come up with the idea of law and morality, its not found in nature? Morality must, by reason and logic be transcendent of nature.

The obvious fact is that something superior to the human race established and defined morality as demonstrated.......otherwise morality would be subject to personal whims and would vary from person to person........nation to nation. Example: One society or sub culture might decide to legalize Murder, Robbery, Rape.......pedohilia......another nation or society might make all the above illegal, yet both according to the theories of evolution would be correct as there would be no golden rules, no universal standard as exists in all the civilized nations of the world......might would make right and it would be survival of the fittest as propagated by Darwin. People would be free to act as they would, the world would be in total anarchy.

For example: The United States of America, its entire system of jurisprudence and a great portion of the US Constitution used Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone greatly referenced the Judeo/Christian philosophy from the Holy Scriptures, most specifically.....the 10 commandments. Blackstone's literally works sold more in the United States than they did in England.

so wrong, all beings on planet earth evolve is poof of moral similarities - for the spiritual content of metaphysical physiology that emerged on earth when conditions became conducive for life and its progression.

 

[Red Front]

Who defines Morality? Laws define what a society accepts or rejects as being moral. Its not nature.........if man evolved from lower lifeforms as claimed by all Darwinian Cultists (which is a dogmatic religion in and by itself.......as the theory can not be proven to be a FACT of science).......where did man come up with the idea of law and morality, its not found in nature? Morality must, by reason and logic be transcendent of nature.

The obvious fact is that something superior to the human race established and defined morality as demonstrated.......otherwise morality would be subject to personal whims and would vary from person to person........nation to nation. Example: One society or sub culture might decide to legalize Murder, Robbery, Rape.......pedohilia......another nation or society might make all the above illegal, yet both according to the theories of evolution would be correct as there would be no golden rules, no universe standard as exist in all the civilized nations of the world......might would make right and it would be survival of the fittest as propagated by Darwin. People would be free to act as they would, the world would be in total anarchy.

For example: The United States of America, its entire system of jurisprudence and a great portion of the US Constitution used Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone greatly referenced the Judeo/Christian philosophy from the Holy Scriptures, most specifically.....the 10 commandments. Blackstone's literally works sold more in the United States than they did in England.

You ignored many of the points I made in that post. Should I ignore you now? Perhaps I should, but for the sake of others, I won't.

The argument presented is flawed and based on a misunderstanding of the nature of morality and the role of laws in society. Here are some points to consider:

1. Morality is not defined solely by laws. While laws can reflect the moral values and principles of a society, they are not the only source of morality. Morality encompasses a broader set of values and principles that can guide individual behavior and decision-making, regardless of whether or not they are reflected in laws.
2. The claim that morality must be transcendent of nature is not supported by reason and logic. Morality is a human construct that arises from the social and cultural context in which individuals exist. It is not a fixed or immutable set of principles that exists independent of human society.
3. The theory of evolution does not promote the idea that might makes right or that anything goes. Evolutionary theory explains the origin and development of biological organisms, not human morality or social systems.
4. The notion that without a universal standard for morality, the world would be in total anarchy is a false dichotomy. Moral values and principles can be grounded in reason and empathy, and can be shared across cultures and societies without requiring a universal standard.
5. The reference to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England and the Ten Commandments as the basis for American law is a selective and historically inaccurate interpretation of the development of American jurisprudence. While Judeo-Christian philosophy has had an influence on American law, the legal system is also shaped by a range of other cultural and historical factors.

In conclusion, the argument presented is flawed and based on a limited understanding of the nature of morality and the role of laws in society. Morality is a human construct that arises from a social and cultural context, and is not necessarily fixed or immutable. The notion that without a universal standard for morality, society would descend into anarchy is a false dichotomy that ignores the possibility of shared values and principles grounded in reason and empathy.

Ironically, clyde fails to grasp the fact that his Christian morality is just as subjective as mine, due to the fact that he and his church (human beings) subjectively decided that the bible is the inerrant word of a personal god who they have conjured up in their minds. At least my morality is based upon reason and empathy, or in other words, the survival and flourishing of human life. Human beings created systems of law and morality, and likewise created Christianity and the bible, with all of its theological suppositions and claims. I prefer for my morality to be based on reason and empathy, rather than religious mythology (a bunch of infantile, stupid shit).

 

[Red Front]

There is no nourishment in chewing on a dry bone. I simply made a point..........your sentence structure and use of certain words vary from post to post.........especially when you can't justify your argument by the use of the Holy Scriptures.

"Holy" and "scripture" according to whom?

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

The Romans, yes. They acted blindly at the behest of the Jews.

"And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

And they [i.e., Gentiles] shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him [emphasis mine]: and the third day he shall rise again." -- Matthew 20:17-19

Gentiles -- that is, bad Gentiles, as opposed to good Gentiles -- killed Jesus.