Zone1 Who Is Destroying The World?

[Jaxson]

It is less than clear that "religious people" have more than the most tenuous connection with "God".

It's the god they've made up in their minds, since there is no proof of god.

 

[there4eyeM]

It's the god they've made up in their minds, since there is no proof of god.

It is certain that they worship an image they have of "God". That there is much more to the universe than "meets the eye" is also certain.

 

[Clyde 154]

The different bibles and korans... have messed people up and you still quote it. We're made in god's image, so he must be a real asshole.

There is only "ONE" holy bible...........if you live by the precepts provided in its revelations "The World" would have no concerns. Its people (such as you) that make daily uninformed poor decisions (free will judgments) that have caused the chaos you mention. Provide the information found in the N.T. of Christ Jesus that promotes or authorizes anything you just stated that would "mess" the world up.....harm anyone, cause anyone to steal from another, murder another.....etc.,

Book, Chapter and Verse please. As the Holy Bible is the very source of Christian Doctrine, "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." -- Romans 10:17. If you can't provide a doctrine such as you OPINED that is the fault to all the worlds problems.......again, present the book, chapter and verser, if you cannot I call BS. Why? Because I have been endowed with FREE WILL and you are presenting a most illogical argument.

I find your charges most humorous when you charge Religion for messing people up............like they have no free will and are incapable of making decisions. And you do this in a most ironic way.........you attempt to persuade others of the value of your opinion. If there is no free will..........just how is persuasion applicable? Just how do you persuade others that you are more intelligent, more powerful, than the God of Creation? I choose door number 2.

Think about your argument in a logical and reasoned manner...........You claim that religion is to blame for mankind's problems, the impliation being......there is no God. If there is no God this material world is all there is to humanities existence. There can be nothing Supernatural (superior to the natural).......thus everyone's thought process is guided by nature and the physical laws thereof. Since there is no supernatural guiding force of morality........mankind and his thought process are made up of nothing more than matter....that makes choices/decisions as guided by the natural universe. Free will cannot exist in such a circumstance because mankind is totally dependent upon nature to guide his/her choices.

Darwinian Cultism in a nut shell. Survival of the fittest...might makes right.....its all about survival, there are no absolute moral codes of conduct. Each person acts depending upon the circumstance that naturally exist around him/her. No right, no wrong.......only programed reactions to a natural action.

The question then? What are the implications of such an opinion? If we can't make free will decisions, what would that indicate in relation to morality? What about crime, punishment established by society? The conclusion would be that people are no more guilty of committing crimes than a rock or a tree.........as its nature that guides their path.

In such a world with no free will.............just how does religion take on the burden of blame for natures acts?

 

[Jaxson]

There is only "ONE" holy bible...........if you live by the precepts provided in its revelations "The World" would have no concerns. Its people (such as you) that make daily uninformed poor decisions (free will judgments) that have caused the chaos you mention. Provide the information found in the N.T. of Christ Jesus that promotes or authorizes anything you just stated that would "mess" the world up.....harm anyone, cause anyone to steal from another, murder another.....etc.,

Book, Chapter and Verse please. As the Holy Bible is the very source of Christian Doctrine, "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." -- Romans 10:17. If you can't provide a doctrine such as you OPINED that is the fault to all the worlds problems.......again, present the book, chapter and verser, if you cannot I call BS. Why? Because I have been endowed with FREE WILL and you are presenting a most illogical argument.

I find your charges most humorous when you charge Religion for messing people up............like they have no free will and are incapable of making decisions. And you do this in a most ironic way.........you attempt to persuade others of the value of your opinion. If there is no free will..........just how is persuasion applicable? Just how do you persuade others that you are more intelligent, more powerful, than the God of Creation? I choose door number 2.

Think about your argument in a logical and reasoned manner...........You claim that religion is to blame for mankind's problems, the impliation being......there is no God. If there is no God this material world is all there is to humanities existence. There can be nothing Supernatural (superior to the natural).......thus everyone's thought process is guided by nature and the physical laws thereof. Since there is no supernatural guiding force of morality........mankind and his thought process are made up of nothing more than matter....that makes choices/decisions as guided by the natural universe. Free will cannot exist in such a circumstance because mankind is totally dependent upon nature to guide his/her choices.

Darwinian Cultism in a nut shell. Survival of the fittest...might makes right.....its all about survival, there are no absolute moral codes of conduct. Each person acts depending upon the circumstance that naturally exist around him/her. No right, no wrong.......only programed reactions to a natural action.

The question then? What are the implications of such an opinion? If we can't make free will decisions, what would that indicate in relation to morality? What about crime, punishment established by society? The conclusion would be that people are no more guilty of committing crimes than a rock or a tree.........as its nature that guides their path.

In such a world with no free will.............just how does religion take on the burden of blame for natures acts?

"Think about your argument in a logical and reasoned manner", ok then prove to me there's an invisible god who cares what we do. That would be the logical starting point.

 

[Jaxson]

It is certain that they worship an image they have of "God". That there is much more to the universe than "meets the eye" is also certain.

Sure, but the part about an invisible god who cares what we do hasn't been proven yet.

 

[Clyde 154]

"Think about your argument in a logical and reasoned manner", ok then prove to me there's an invisible god who cares what we do. That would be the logical starting point.

Why should "I" have the burden to prove anything? Its "YOUR" attempt to prosecute a charge..........go for it, prove there is no God. Its your negative to prosecute and convict via a presentation of objective, testable, reproduicble facts in evidence that prove God does not exist.

If there is no God as you opine without evidence........then free will is non existent, and your argument falls on its face proving that it is YOU as guided by nature that is destroying the world (according to your logic or lack thereof). But then again if freewill does not exist.......you are not capable of chosing to believe there is no God. The term Atheist.....simply means an absence in a belief of deity. Its a faith within itself. Just how do you decide without free will? If such a belief is not faith based........then prove there is no God.

Reality: who is to blame for the world's disorders, "For the wrath of God (your so called religion is to blame) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrightesousness of people who supress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God has made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, being understood by what He has made, so they are without excuse." -- Romans 1:18-20

In simple terminology. Man sees the Universe, the reality that surrounds them.........witnesses it every day of his/her life, yet man is incapable of explaing the very origins of this reality, this effect that came into existence via an uncomprehenisble CAUSE. Basic Science.........every effect must be the result of an equal or superior CAUSE, the law of causality.

End your arugment prove there is no God, no super (superior) natural (to nature) Cause for all things visible in this reality called THE UNIVERSE. Simply present the evidence and explain just what caused the energy that you would call the Cosmic Egg that exploded violently and created everything by pure chance. Explain how Hydrogen and Hellium "evolved" into mankind. Explain through the scientific method how 1 noble gas (helium), that can't bond and hydrogen over billions of years evolved into humanity.

Really: Do your research........supposedly ALL THINGS physical originated from STARS. What 2 gasses make up the majority mass of a STAR/SUN? Has there ever been any scientific evidence that Gas can transform itself into physical matter? Ever?

Show me this experiment conducted via the scientific method where gas is transformed into physical mass/matter........into EARTH/ROCK

Always good for a belly laugh........the illogical atheist. First you argue that Religion is responsible then you deny the existence for the source of all the religions in the world, A BELIEF a supernatural force transends humanity.

Which is it.........UP OR DOWN, NORTH OR SOUTH?

As I stated eariler........I choose door No. 2, reason and logic v. a fairy tale of a self creating universe from NOTHING, according to Stephen Hawking.

 

[Jaxson]

If there is not........then free will is non existent, and your argument falls on its face proving that it is YOU as guided by nature that is destroying the world (according to your logic or lack thereof).

Always good for a belly laugh........the illogical atheist. First you argue that Religion is responsible then you deny the existence for the source of all the religions in the world, A BELIEF a supernatural force that transends humanity.

Which is it.........UP OR DOWN, NORTH OR SOUTH?

Why would free will not exist if there's no god who cares what we do? Where's the logic in that?

 

[Clyde 154]

Why would free will not exist if there's no god who cares what we do? Where's the logic in that?

Because you are a product of nature and driven by nature as explained by the Darwinian cult. There is no morality in nature, therefore......without a foundation for a moral compass (if you deny morality transcends mankind and nature).....then you act only as nature intends. Free Will is an illusion......it can't possibly exist having evolved naturally.

If this is not true.........explain how MORALITY as based upon free will evolved without transcendence of a superior cause? Show us morality in nature, the capacity to determine right from wrong independently. Morality does not exist in nature, nor does free will...........nature is random with animals acting only by instinct..........this is what Darwin would have you believe about man, there is no morality, its all about might makes right, survivial of the fittest.......you act only as nature intends for you to act in order to survive and reproduce.

Simple terms: Its a matter of logic when considered to its logical conclusion. The law of the excluded middle explains, nothing can be true and false at the same instant. Either something is based upon truth and exists or its negation exists. Simpler? You can't have your cake and eat it to.

 

[Jaxson]

Because you are a product of nature and driven by nature as explained by the Darwinian cult. There is no morality in nature, therefore......without a foundation for a moral compass (if you deny morality transcends mankind and nature).....then you act only as nature intends. Free Will is an illusion......it can't possibly exist having evolved naturally.

If this is not true.........explain how MORALITY as based upon free will evolved without transcendence of a superior cause? Show us morality in nature, the capacity to determine right from wrong independently. Morality does not exist in nature, nor does free will...........nature is random with animals acting only by instinct..........this is what Darwin would have you believe about man, there is no morality, its all about might makes right, survivial of the fittest.......you act only as nature intends for you to act in order to survive and reproduce.

Simple terms: Its a matter of logic when considered to its logical conclusion. The law of the excluded middle explains, nothing can be true and false at the same instant. Either something is based upon truth and exists or its negation exists. Simpler? You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Gorillas for one, live in social groups and help each other with food, grooming, defence... In lots of species one parent will stay with the babies and one will go get food for everyone, just like humans... There is even homosexuality in nature.

"There is no morality in nature, therefore" you make unfounded claims and make up your own logic.

My cat's have free will. I let them out and it's up to them if they want to come back, and when.

 

[Clyde 154]

Gorillas for one, live in social groups and help each other with food, grooming, defence... In lots of species one parent will stay with the babies and one will go get food for everyone, just like humans... There is even homosexuality in nature.

"There is no morality in nature, therefore" you make unfounded claims and make up your own logic.

My cat's have free will. I let them out and it's up to them if they want to come back, and when.

Yeah.............being a mother and protecting your children and bloodline is not natural therefore it must be morality? Nature has 3 objectives......life (the innate requirement to find nourishment/food), reproduction (the innate requirement to reproduce the bloodline....nature makes sure by having certain species come into HEAT ......an overwhelming need to engage in sex, unlike mankind that can and does plan for reproduction and a continued bloodline) and protection of the bloodline, and its all based upon INSTINCT not morality.

Example: A lion lies on a flat rock out of the sun.......just relaxing, along comes a Gazelle, the lion simply allows this animal to pass unmolsted........while just yesterday it ambushed and killed another one just like this one. What's the difference? Yesterday......the lion was hungry, it acted on instinct, today it was simply relaxing form the large meal it had yesterday........there was no consideration for the life of the prey or empathy toward another animal.........both were simply surviving.

What's strange? Its only humanity that can decide to kill the same children that nature requires that any mother protect (an example of determining right from wrong and making a choice.....only man decides to ABORT a gestating example of life within its species).

You gave an example of a primate being social as an example of morality? I wonder if the chimp that was raised and trained had any cognition to right and wrong when it ate its masters face off?

Morality begins and ends with the ability to comprehend and act on acquiring the knowledge that defines RIGHT FROM WRONG. No animal knows the difference.........some animals can be trained but even then this training takes root because mankind rewards certain actions and punishes certain actions in animals, its not because the animal comprehends right from wrong.

Question who told man that its wrong to murder, steal, cheat, etc...........with a commonality all across the civilized world of the same traits that define morality in society. There can be no law of morality without a lawgiver.......who is that lawgiver if it does not exist in nature?


You just contradicted Darwinian cult propaganda by making a claim that its not the survival of the fittest........but survival by having a moral compass.

Define: The law of the excluded middle.

 

[ding]

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 LOGICAL reasons. 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 and are LOGICAL. Ergo morals are an artifact of intelligence and that's why morals exist in human beings and not in other animals to the degree that they exist in humans.

 

[Jaxson]

Yeah.............being a mother and protecting your children and bloodline is not natural therefore it must be morality? Nature has 3 objectives......life (the innate requirement to find nourishment/food), reproduction (the innate requirement to reproduce the bloodline....nature makes sure by having certain species come into HEAT ......an overwhelming need to engage in sex, unlike mankind that can and does plan for reproduction and a continued bloodline) and protection of the bloodline, and its all based upon INSTINCT not morality.

Example: A lion lies on a flat rock out of the sun.......just relaxing, along comes a Gazelle, the lion simply allows this animal to pass unmolsted........while just yesterday it ambushed and killed another one just like this one. What's the difference? Yesterday......the lion was hungry, it acted on instinct, today it was simply relaxing form the large meal it had yesterday........there was no consideration for the life of the prey or empathy toward another animal.........both were simply surviving.

What's strange? Its only humanity that can decide to kill the same children that nature requires that any mother protect (an example of determining right from wrong and making a choice.....only man decides to ABORT a gestating example of life within its species).

You gave an example of a primate being social as an example of morality? I wonder if the chimp that was raised and trained had any cognition to right and wrong when it ate its masters face off?

Morality begins and ends with the ability to comprehend and act on acquiring the knowledge that defines RIGHT FROM WRONG. No animal knows the difference.........some animals can be trained but even then this training takes root because mankind rewards certain actions and punishes certain actions in animals, its not because the animal comprehends right from wrong.

Question who told man that its wrong to murder, steal, cheat, etc...........with a commonality all across the civilized world of the same traits that define morality in society. There can be no law of morality without a lawgiver.......who is that lawgiver if it does not exist in nature?


You just contradicted Darwinian cult propaganda by making a claim that its not the survival of the fittest........but survival by having a moral compass.

Define: The law of the excluded middle.

Now back up what you just said with some real science, links and all. I'll wait.

 

[Jaxson]

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 LOGICAL reasons. 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 and are LOGICAL. Ergo morals are an artifact of intelligence and that's why morals exist in human beings and not in other animals to the degree that they exist in humans.

That's your personal opinion. So what?

 

[BreezeWood]

There is only "ONE" holy bible...........if you live by the precepts provided in its revelations "The World" would have no concerns. Its people (such as you) that make daily uninformed poor decisions (free will judgments) that have caused the chaos you mention. Provide the information found in the N.T. of Christ Jesus that promotes or authorizes anything you just stated that would "mess" the world up.....harm anyone, cause anyone to steal from another, murder another.....etc.,

Book, Chapter and Verse please. As the Holy Bible is the very source of Christian Doctrine, "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." -- Romans 10:17. If you can't provide a doctrine such as you OPINED that is the fault to all the worlds problems.......again, present the book, chapter and verser, if you cannot I call BS. Why? Because I have been endowed with FREE WILL and you are presenting a most illogical argument.

I find your charges most humorous when you charge Religion for messing people up............like they have no free will and are incapable of making decisions. And you do this in a most ironic way.........you attempt to persuade others of the value of your opinion. If there is no free will..........just how is persuasion applicable? Just how do you persuade others that you are more intelligent, more powerful, than the God of Creation? I choose door number 2.

Think about your argument in a logical and reasoned manner...........You claim that religion is to blame for mankind's problems, the impliation being......there is no God. If there is no God this material world is all there is to humanities existence. There can be nothing Supernatural (superior to the natural).......thus everyone's thought process is guided by nature and the physical laws thereof. Since there is no supernatural guiding force of morality........mankind and his thought process are made up of nothing more than matter....that makes choices/decisions as guided by the natural universe. Free will cannot exist in such a circumstance because mankind is totally dependent upon nature to guide his/her choices.

Darwinian Cultism in a nut shell. Survival of the fittest...might makes right.....its all about survival, there are no absolute moral codes of conduct. Each person acts depending upon the circumstance that naturally exist around him/her. No right, no wrong.......only programed reactions to a natural action.

The question then? What are the implications of such an opinion? If we can't make free will decisions, what would that indicate in relation to morality? What about crime, punishment established by society? The conclusion would be that people are no more guilty of committing crimes than a rock or a tree.........as its nature that guides their path.

In such a world with no free will.............just how does religion take on the burden of blame for natures acts?

- according to the whims of the particular one being used ... or was clyde holding one when he slid into the lite of day - at birth ...

 

[Clyde 154]

Now back up what you just said with some real science, links and all. I'll wait.

Wait all you want.........its you that claimed that animals can comprehend right from wrong and have a moral compass based upon the concept of morality. Science is your supposed realm, you should have no problem presenting the objective, observable, reproducible facts in evidence that demonstrate that aniamls can reason between right and wrong. Go for it.

The example that you attempted to use to define Morality........a mother protecting its offspring, is not based upon morality..........or you would have to admit that any Woman that aborts her child by choice.........is IMMORAL by natures standards. So.....self contradictory.

Why do all so called atheists attempt to project the burden of Proof upon others when its they that ACCUSES but are incapable of PROSECUTING their accusations and demand that others prove their negative opinions? Could be......they possess no evidences of the positions they claim are true? In order to be an atheist.......one would require to be in possession of the knowledge that God cannot exist, or admit their unbelief is faith based void of evidence.....so oxymoronic

Its simple: Only man on earth is made in the "image" of God (Genesis 1:26)........God is a spirit (John 4:24)......thus, the image that reflects God in man...i.e., IMAGE is the spirit that animates the flesh of man and makes him a living being, that image came from God when He breathed life into mankind (Genesis 2:7).........and only man can become like God in self determining Right from Wrong, Good from Evil.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of US (the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to know good and evil; " -- Genesis 3:22

No animal can be Good or Evil. The question you asked or rather demand that I address with your negative false primise......i.e., logical fallcy (morality exists in nature).....is addressed by Common Sense. Have you ever seen an animal put on trial for breaking any of the actions that society has determined is illgeal by making Common Law by majority consensus?


Show me these animals that have been put on trial........for murder, theft, etc...........

Laws do not establish morality..........they reflect the morality or lack thereof in any society. Laws define immorality. There can be no laws without a lawgiver, just who is nature's lawgiver, that defines morality for all animals? Animals are incapable of sin. Thus, God does not judge aniamls (WP?) for their lack of comprehending right from wrong.......only man is judged in absolute measures of morality. The exact reason that athesits exist.........they can't stand the idea of being judged based upon their abilities to comprehend right from wrong.


What does God say about arguing with FOOLS? "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding...........a fool simply wants to express his opinion." -- Pr. 18:2

 

[BlackSand]

Happy to provide some entertainment: that which is required for man’s survival I took to be good in Rand's view. Therefore, whatever a thinking/rational man does to survive is good. Hitler tried to do that for a whole nation in opposition to lesser nations, ergo, he was a good man.

.

Killing for survival may be antisocial but not always evil.

Killing for the sake of genocide, using it to turn your people against each other,
and oppressing anyone who objects under penalty of death is a bit closer to evil than good in my humble opinion.

But I can see where you would rather ignore the evil in attempts to justify ignorance over rational thought.

.​

 

[Clyde 154]

.

Killing for survival may be antisocial but not always evil.

Killing for the sake of genocide, using it to turn your people against each other,
and oppressing anyone who objects under penalty of death is a bit closer to evil than good in my humble opinion.

But I can see where you would rather ignore the evil in attempts to justify ignorance over rational thought.

.​

Murder is evil..........killing someone with premeditation in order for selfish reasons. Animals are incapable of evil.....animals kill by instinct to survive or preserve their bloodline.

Killing by man can be justified. As described by the Christ, "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another......." -- John 15:13

It was God that first delivered the concept of Capital Punishment for Crimes against humanity (Genesis 9:6).......and carried forth into the New Testament covenant (Romans 13:1-4)

Jesus even commanded His disciples to sell their garments and purchase weapons for self defense when He sent them on missions into lands that were known to be occupied by theifs/bandits and murderers (Luke 22:36)

Self defense of life and property are justified by Christian Doctrine .............as per the parable taught by Jesus -- (Luke 11:21)

 

[BlackSand]

Murder is evil..........killing someone with premeditation in order for selfish reasons. Animals are incapable of evil.....animals kill by instinct to survive or preserve their bloodline.

Killing by man can be justified. As described by the Christ, "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another......." -- John 15:13

It was God that first delivered the concept of Capital Punishment for Crimes against humanity (Genesis 9:6).......and carried forth into the New Testament covenant (Romans 13:1-4)

Jesus even commanded His disciples to sell their garments and purchase weapons for self defense when He sent them on missions into lands that were known to be occupied by theifs/bandits and murderers (Luke 22:36)

Self defense of life and property are justified by Christian Doctrine .............as per the parable taught by Jesus -- (Luke 11:21)

.

Thanks for the Bible lesson and good luck on your Holy Crusade.

However ... If you have to quote the Bible to express your ability to come about a rational thought of your own ...
I don't think you really understand the concept ... You are just using someone else's words.

He gave you a brain ... Try to use it every now and again.

.​

 

[onefour1]

Satan and the WEF are trying their best to destroy the world.

 

[onefour1]

Murder is evil..........killing someone with premeditation in order for selfish reasons. Animals are incapable of evil.....animals kill by instinct to survive or preserve their bloodline.

Killing by man can be justified. As described by the Christ, "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another......." -- John 15:13

It was God that first delivered the concept of Capital Punishment for Crimes against humanity (Genesis 9:6).......and carried forth into the New Testament covenant (Romans 13:1-4)

Jesus even commanded His disciples to sell their garments and purchase weapons for self defense when He sent them on missions into lands that were known to be occupied by theifs/bandits and murderers (Luke 22:36)

Self defense of life and property are justified by Christian Doctrine .............as per the parable taught by Jesus -- (Luke 11:21)

The killing of Jesus Christ was the most unjust act ever done on this earth. Yet the compensation for the injustice brought upon the Christ was that he won the right to forgive sin.