Issues of morality shut Christians up

by Greatest I am Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:47 pm

First topic message reminder :

Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

I know I have done well in an O. P. when Christians run from a discussion.

I wrote these two posts and got almost no response. Not a usual thing for my posts. This tells me that I hit the nail right on the head and Christians have no apologetics to refute my claim.

==========================

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God’s power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

=============================

God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott1...eature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqP_f...eature=related

I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.

I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.

I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psalm 49:7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that God’s first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?

==============================

This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.

Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.

Regards
DL

by Tosh Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:08 pm

Any information given by the police can be taken with a pinch of salt regarding numbers of crimes etc they change the methods of obtaining them to suit themselves.

Whereas your information is the gospel truth.

by snowyflake Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:39 pm

Polyglide is an expert on science, world affairs, politics and crime. I bow to your expertise, education and hubris, polyglide. One cannot argue with irrationality, ignorance or stupidity.

It would be far more reasonable if you just said 'in my opinion' especially when you don't have any facts to back up your statements. You just spout your own opinion based on your religious beliefs. This is not debate. This is just making unfounded, unsubstantiated statements.

Read a science book. Get some facts that can be verified to support your opinion. Then we can have a sensible discussion. As it stands, discussing evolution with you, someone who knows nothing about it, is pointless. Trying to educate you when you stubbornly refuse to look at the data is also pointless. You are unwilling to learn.

by Tosh Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:41 pm

This is not debate.

No debate there.

by Shirina Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:30 pm

Polyglide, you must have your head sunk deep into some apocalyptic cultist's website. I have told you repeatedly that the lives of people are actually getting better, and better all the time. More and more people are reaching the same quality of life that we have here in the West, and the world has not seen a major war since WWII. In fact, if you look around the world today, almost ALL of the violence is caused by warring religions and sectarian violence within the same religion. Sure, there are still starving people in places like Africa and rural Asia, but that's actually an improvement from the days when people were starving everywhere, including Europe and the Americas.

Unfortunately, however, I believe that you're one of those people who want the world to come to an end because you think Jesus is going to rapture you and the believers, and that's a dangerous mindset. You sit on this board and warn us about the End Times as if you and your apocalyptic friends think there is some external source for them. The reality is that it's not an external force -- you and your apocalyptists are the ones who are the most likely to usher in the very prophecies you think come from God. Blind religious zealotry will be the cause of a doomsday, should one occur, and your attitude is precisely the kind of attitude that could get us all killed. But I suppose that's the whole point of being an apocalyptist, isn't it.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:21 pm

by snowyflake Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:32 pm

The half-empty glass kind of girl meets Eeyore Smile

by ROB Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:54 am

Shirina wrote:
… the lives of people are actually getting better, and better all the time. More and more people are reaching the same quality of life that we have here in the West, and the world has not seen a major war since WWII.

List of wars, death toll by % world population

dates, estimated deaths, event, % world population
1207 – 1472, 30,000,000 - 60,000,000, Mongol Conquests, 7.5%–17.1%
1340 - 1368, 30,000,000 - 30,000,000, Yuan to Ming warfar, 6.7%
755 - 763, 13,000,000 - 36,000,000, An Lushan Rebellion, 5.5%–15.3%
1616 - 1662, 25,000,000, Ming to Qing warfare, 4.8%
1369 - 1405, 15,000,000 - 20,000,000, Conquests of Timur, 3.4%–4.5%
1939 – 1945, 40,000,000 - 72,000,000, World War II, 1.7%–3.1%
1851 - 1864, 20,000,000 - 100,000,000, Taiping Rebellion, 1.6%–2.1%
1914 - 1918, 15,000,000 - 65,000,000, World War I, 0.8%–3.6%

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Wars_and_armed_conflicts
__________________________________________________________________________________________

In 1207–1472, 1340–1368, 755–763, 1616–1662, 1369–1405, and 1851–1864, there were no Ma Deuces, tanks, Lancasters, Flying Fortresses, Superfortresss, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, aircraft carriers, Wildcats, Hellcats, Corsairs, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Zeros, Mosquitos, Me-109s, FW-190s, Me-262s, V-1s, and V-2s.

Among members of Cutting Edge are several that just one hundred years ago would be “stuck like Chuck” in regards to debilitating or life-depriving diseases/conditions. Today, various specialists poke you, prod you, measure you, and pretty much bug you silly before telling you how they plan to keep you alive and relatively healthy. In 1912, Ol’ Doc Rasputin Jones would just say, “You’re gonna die.”

by snowyflake Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:56 am

Quoting old stories etc; written by man, is a waste of time as far as I am concerned, several men can see an action and you can have several entirely different stories covering the same event.

What is the entire bible but old stories written by men?

by polyglide Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:35 pm

My information is based on what I actually see and am certain of the facts relating to the matters in quesion before I consider the implications.

by Greatest I am Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:41 pm

polyglide wrote:My information is based on what I actually see and am certain of the facts relating to the matters in quesion before I consider the implications.

Can you trust what you see?

I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrMtRm3b8MU&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1wIEGnPWo

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavian and later through Constantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards
DL

by polyglide Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:56 pm

Actually you have a point.

Television and all the latest technology can make anything appear real and no doubt we have all been fooled at some time or another.

But no one can change the fact that I know when I see a tree and can actually feel it that, that is a fact.

The same applies to every living thing.

If someone says there are seven and you know for sure there are more then you base it on what you actually know and not what you hear et;

You will find numerous accounts of the life of Jesus and mostly by those with little real understanding.

The only real and accurate account will be evident at the Judgement Day.

You must wonder why there are so many different stories that conflict with each other and the reason is those putting forward their ideas are usually on an ego trip and want to tell thier story as they see it but without any foundation.

by Greatest I am Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:29 pm

You say that those who speak of things like a Judgement Day have little understanding yet give them credit for understanding that particular concept.

Seriously.

I guess that you miss the logic that if God created then all that he created would do exactly what they were created to do. You have God judging his own work and think he will find it lacking. How droll.

Regards
DL

by Guest Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:27 am

Greatest I am wrote:
… if God created then all that he created would do exactly what they were created to do.

Elohim’s Word:

Hebrew Bible

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness…” So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-27

Ha adama is created by Elohim into freedom of choice. Ha adama is free to choose Elohim or not Elohim. You are ha adama; accordingly, you are free to choose not Elohim. So speaks Elohim; so shall you be.

by Greatest I am Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:35 pm

Are you saying that God has a vagina and breasts?

If he made woman in his image then he must have. Right?

Regards
DL

by Tosh Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:18 pm

Hebrew Bible

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness…” So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohimcreated he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-27

The Hebrew Bible says no such thing, and inserting flawed Hebrew( ha adama) into a King James English translation for Christians does not make it any more authentic or accurate, you are intentionally misrepresenting the Hebrew Bible, please stop.

This is the untainted, unbiased and above all Hebrew translation of the Jewish Scriptures.

"Said God make man Our image to Our likeness, rule the fish of the sea the birds of the sky the cattle all the earth every creeping creeps on the earth".

God and his angels made " the human being " ( haadam).

by Shirina Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:20 pm

Television and all the latest technology can make anything appear real and no doubt we have all been fooled at some time or another.

Kind of like how you've been fooled by television and the latest technology into believing that the world today is so much worse than it was in, say, the year 1300?

by polyglide Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:38 pm

It is lttle wonder you have some strange ideas, you have not grasped the perfect engine concept.

God made Adam and Eve perfect for the life he intended for them and all that folowed.

He gave them the chance of the best possible life, the only stipulation being that they had to behave in a proper manner, just as the engineer who made the perfect engine told those who were to use it how it must be maintained, it was not the engineer's fault that the engine went wrong but those who chose not to follow the instructions.

Just as mankind has denied the instructions God told them would be the best way to have a fruitful life.

If God had made man incapable of choice then they would be robots.

What is missing in all this matter is the Devil and the part he is playing but then it appears there are those who believe in evolution and that says all.

by Tosh Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:43 pm

It is lttle wonder you have some strange ideas, you have not grasped the perfect engine concept.

The Jewish Scriptures can only be interpreted by Jews, you are not a Jew, you have no authority to dictate what they mean.

You make a habit of speaking without authority, first science and now the Jewish Scriptures, your delusion knows no bounds.

Barking bonkers.

I have a feeling you are a throwback to your primate ancestors.

by polyglide Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:51 pm

You have a feeling, I understood from all your innane comments that you were devoid of any feelings.

From your photograph I assume you think you are a throwback, for heavens sake do not let any monkey here you say that the would be mortified that such a being insulted them.

by Tosh Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:58 pm

You have a feeling, I understood from all your innane comments that you were devoid of any feelings.

You and understanding are complete strangers, anyone who believes the Bible is literally true has learning difficulties.

From your photograph I assume you think you are a throwback, for heavens sake do not let any monkey here you say that the would be mortified that such a being insulted them. .

Nice juvenile comeback, shouldn't you be back at school learning everything...lolol.

Next. Very Happy

by Tosh Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:07 pm

Creationism as a mental illness: Robert Rowland Smith asks if creationists are sane

Hence creationism, the theory/superstition that, contrary to massive scientific evidence, the world began exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. Instead of deriving from millions of years of patient evolution, Adam and Eve popped out, fully formed, like characters from a Swiss cuckoo clock. Would you Adam and Eve it? Of course not. It's a myth, but like many myths it serves a psychological purpose which is to provide a storybook sense of simple origins, which allays people's fears. Those who believe this myth to be the truth are in a state of denial.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/breakfast-socrates/201003/creationism-mental-illness

:affraid:

by Tosh Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:10 pm

Belief in creationism ‘form of mental illness’
Fostering a belligerent belief in the fundamental tenets of Creationism often forms a large part of the profile of a person suffering from mental illness, according to Swedish researchers.

http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/2012/10/belief-in-creationism-form-of-mental-illness/

Oh dear, lock the doors...polyglide is on the loose.

by polyglide Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:16 pm

I do not have to go to school in the first place to recognise stupidity and lack of common sense both of which you must have masters degrees in.

You are way out of your depth, keep to the infantile stage and you may do better.

by Tosh Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:11 pm

I do not have to go to school in the first place to recognise stupidity and lack of common sense both of which you must have masters degrees in.

So sayeth the creationist with common sense...lol.

You are way out of your depth, keep to the infantile stage and you may do better. .

I am not the one claiming 99.9 % of scientists are all wrong, that is you stupid.

Basketball

by Guest Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:16 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Issues of morality shut Christians up
by Greatest I am on Tue 13 Nov 2012 - 13:35

Are you saying that God has a vagina and breasts?

If you had read and comprehended my words, you would have known what I am saying.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Issues of morality shut Christians up
by RockOnBrother on Tue 13 Nov 2012 - 4:27

Elohim’s Word:
Hebrew Bible

And Elohim said, “Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness…” So Elohim created ha adama in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-27
Ha adama is created by Elohim into freedom of choice. Ha adama is free to choose Elohim or not Elohim. You are ha adama; accordingly, you are free to choose not Elohim. So speaks Elohim; so shall you be.

As you can see, and should have been able to see Tuesday 13 November 2012 at 13:35, I am saying “Elohim’s Word”, “Ha adama is created by Elohim into freedom of choice”, “Ha adama is free to choose Elohim or not Elohim”, “You are ha adama; accordingly, you are free to choose not Elohim”, and “So speaks Elohim; so shall you be.”

Greatest I am wrote:
Are you saying that God has a vagina and breasts?

If he made woman in his image then he must have.

If you had studied the Hebrew word “צֶּלֶם, tselem”, translated “image” in Genesis 1:26-27, you would have realized the nonsensicalness of your question and your statement.

by Shirina Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:44 pm

God made Adam and Eve perfect for the life he intended for them and all that folowed.

Have you ever wondered what life was supposed to be like for Adam and Eve? Were they just supposed to giggle and frolick around naked in a garden for eternity, bereft of any real purpose other than to stroke God's ego and create an incestual family?

It just doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:19 pm

Perhaps this is what you all meant to say.

"Value Theory

First published Tue Feb 5, 2008; substantive revision Tue May 29, 2012

The term “value theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states, or objective states of the world.

But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/

by Tosh Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:13 pm

Perhaps this is what you all meant to say.

Can you explain to all of us why we all meant to say what you have just googled ?

I personally cannot wait for this.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:31 pm

Then please keep your legs firmly crossed, to avoid embarassment.

by Guest Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:52 pm

Shirina wrote:
It just doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.

Life doesn’t make any sense.

Life is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Earth is concerned. The Earth is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Solar System is concerned. The Solar System is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Milky Way Galaxy is concerned. The Milky Way Galaxy is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the universe is concerned.

And the universe? Ah, the pinnacle of nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of anything save itself is concerned, and since doing anything, including existing, to ensure the survival of something nonsensical is nonsensical, the existence of the universe is nonsensical.

And so these poetic words are wise words:

Hebrew Bible

“Vanity of vanities”, says the Preacher, “vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”
What profit has a man in all his labor which he does under the sun?

One generation passes away, and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever. The sun also rises and the sun sets, and hastening to its place it rises there again. The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to its circuits. All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thereto they return again.

All things are wearisome; man cannot speak it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing.

Ecclesiastes 1:2-8

Now heed the red octagonal sign and come to a complete stop (not a “California stop”), make a U-turn, and go back, all the way back.

The universe is essential to the survival of the Milky Way. The Milky Way is essential to the survival of the Solar System. The Solar System is essential to the survival of the Earth. The Earth is essential to the survival of Life.

Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the universe is the survival of the Milky Way. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of the Milky Way, or (b) the universe has no purpose.

Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the Milky Way is the survival of the Solar System. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the Milky Way is the survival of the Solar System, or (b) the Milky Way has no purpose.

Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the Solar System is the survival of the Earth. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the Solar System is the survival of the Earth, or (b) the Solar System has no purpose.

Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the Earth is the survival of Life. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the Earth is the survival of Life, or (b) the Earth has no purpose.

Summation: Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (b) existence is meaningless.

by Shirina Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:04 am

either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (B) existence is meaningless.

Well, that's somewhat debatable. Granted, we're only in our infancy when it comes to exploring the universe, but thus far, it really doesn't appear that the universe is very conducive to life. Even if we were to find 100 planets with life on them in the next 50 years, those small motes of rock where life clings are but the tiniest fraction of the entire universe. One would think that if the purpose of the universe was to support life, there would be more of it.

Even so, it doesn't explain why I should believe that God created Adam out of dirt and Eve out of Adam's rib. That's the story that makes no sense.

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:03 am

Shirina wrote:
either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (b) existence is meaningless.
Well, that's somewhat debatable.

My statement, as delimited in my post (see underlined text below), is not reasonably debatable within the posted parameters. As nothing else has been posited hereon except that which I have posited, the options identified in the two quoted “either/or” statements are the only options currently on the table.

“Summation: Perhaps (or perhaps not) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life. If no other purpose is posited, and given that no other purpose has been posited on Cutting Edge, then insofar as can be ascertained from the body of data posted hereon is concerned, either (a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life, or (b) the universe has no purpose. Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence, or (b) existence is meaningless” (click here to view my entire post).

Shirina wrote:
Granted, we're only in our infancy when it comes to exploring the universe, but thus far, it really doesn't appear that the universe is very conducive to life.

It is proven fact that the universe is conducive to life. We are proof of this fact; every living thing on the Earth is proof of this fact. As the Earth is essential to survival of Life (on Earth), and the universe is essential to survival of the Earth, sans the universe, Life does not exist (on Earth). That’s conducive enough for my loved ones and me.

Shirina wrote:
Even if we were to find 100 planets with life on them in the next 50 years, those small motes of rock where life clings are but the tiniest fraction of the entire universe. One would think that if the purpose of the universe was to support life, there would be more of it.

This “one” would think and does think that the universe supports life just fine. I took approximately twenty thousand breathes of precisely oxygenated air in the last twenty-four hours, and I remain alive.

Shirina wrote:
Even so, it doesn't explain why I should believe that God¹ created Adam² out of dirt³ and Eve⁴ out of Adam's rib.⁵

Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).
Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).

Shirina wrote:
That's the story that makes no sense.

The story of life makes no sense. From my post:

“Life is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of earth is concerned. Earth is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Solar System is concerned. The Solar System is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Milky Way Galaxy is concerned. The Milky Way Galaxy is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the universe is concerned” (Click here to view my entire post).

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:31 am

Then please keep your legs firmly crossed, to avoid embarassment..

I take that as a no then, oh well, so much for original thought, maybe you just like singing " I am what I am " to be different and get noticed.

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:24 pm

Life doesn’t make any sense. Life is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Earth is concerned. The Earth is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Solar System is concerned. The Solar System is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the Milky Way Galaxy is concerned. The Milky Way Galaxy is in fact nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of the universe is concerned. And the universe? Ah, the pinnacle of nonsensical, serving no purpose whatsoever insofar as the survival of anything save itself is concerned, and since doing anything, including existing, to ensure the survival of something nonsensical is nonsensical, the existence of the universe is nonsensical.

Texas, you don't half waffle on, I get the impression your verbosity and flatulence is intended to disguise the weakness of your arguments.

Meaning and purpose are concepts of consciousness, relating any of these concepts to non-conscious phenomena makes no sense. The universe, life or any other physical cause and effect has no purpose or meaning in of itself, if it is not conscious of its own existence.

Fortunately I am a conscious being and I can create meaning and purpose to make sense of my existence, I fail to see the sense in creating meaning and purpose on behalf of non-conscious phenomena.

With these facts in mind lets have a look at your summation:

(a) the purpose of the universe is the survival of Life,

No, the universe is not conscious.

(b) the universe has no purpose.

Yes, because it is not conscious.

Accordingly, either (a) survival of Life is the meaning of existence,

Not only is this a non-sequitur, it is nonsensical, and I haven't a clue where this conclusion comes from or even what it means.
The meaning of existence is to exist, consciousness creates meaning to existence, the survival of life is one of the purposes of conscious existence.

or (B) existence is meaningless.

[/quote][/quote]

Existence is meaningless to everything that is not conscious of its own existence.

So my rebuttal is simple, there is a relationship between consciousness, meaning and purpose, and this relationship must involve other conscious beings to make sense, therefore the meaning and purpose of conscious life is the relationship between yourself and others.
Which is what religion( false idols) in a round about way tries to teach us, but wraps it up in primitive voodoo, it uses God as the catalyst to encourage and promote this relationship, the fellowship of man.

Where I disagree with Texas is I believe Judaism was always a metaphor, I do believe the authors had worked out the meaning of life and the purpose of existence, they just adapted contemporay beliefs to get the message across.

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:08 pm

Tosh wrote:
… your… flatulence…

Any “flatulence” you perceive is due to malodorous emanations streaming up from the orifice beneath your nose directly into your nostrils.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:30 pm

Any “flatulence” you perceive is due to malodorous emanations streaming unhindered from the orifice beneath your nose directly into your nostrils.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

.

lol, at least you are talking to me again, albeit in rather heated terms.

Flatulence is not that bad an insult, no worse than repeating your mantra ad nauseam, both are intended to irritate, you should know me better and turn the other cheek.

Apart from that, wotcha think of my atheistic philosophy ?

Not too far away from good old Moses, methinks. He just didn't realise where it all came from, and it comes from our social genes and our consciousness expanding these principles.

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:39 pm

I accept monkeys and evolution are not as romantic as children of an allmighty father, but one day we will not need any false idols to get the message.

I actually think the evolution of our consciousness is a heroic epic, we have come a long way from our primitive behaviour as hunter-gatherers in Africa.

Not bad for simple monkeys.

by Guest Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:25 pm

Tosh wrote:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
.
lol…

I once invested my mind’s capabilities in unethical behavior towards folks that had one me no harm. The fsact that my behavior was perfectly illegal mitigates not the tears and the grieving for those I wronged that spring forth esac and every time my acts enter my thoughts. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”; I speak from personal experience.

A fine mind intentionally wasted by one so gifted as you evokes no laughter from me; such squander, conversely, evokes tears. I mourn for your mind; thus, I mourn for you.

Tosh wrote:
… at least you are talking to me again, albeit in rather heated terms.

Whatever “heated terms” you might see belong to their originator; sadly, you are that originator. Once upon a time, not so long ago, you joined intellectual and moral integrity to your mind, and I looked forward to your posts. Until such time, if ever, you return to that practice, there is and will be little said by me to you.

Insofar as my reluctance to address the remainder of your post is concerned, about two years two months ago, circa mid-September 2010, you voiced your understanding of the inherent congruence of Big Bang and Genesis 1:1. Your circa mid-September 2012 departure from public expression of this congruence signaled a downward spiral from what you once chose to be and what you now choose to be. Whenever you resurface, I will rejoice; until then, I mourn.

by Shirina Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:34 pm

It is proven fact that the universe is conducive to life. We are proof of this fact; every living thing on the Earth is proof of this fact.

But we're not talking about "Earth," we're talking about the universe.

Think of it this way. Hundreds of sailors were trapped in bowels of the USS Oklahoma when it capsized during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Some of those sailors were able to stave off their inevitable doom by finding air pockets within the ship. But they were going to die ... and did die ... as the air ran out. Now, by your logic, an upside down battleship filled with water is conducive to human life because of a few temporary air pockets that kept sailors alive for a few more hours.

Earth is a temporary air pocket in a ship filled with water. Sooner or later, humanity will be made extinct, most likely by the universe that you claim supports life. An asteroid or comet impact, being nailed with a gamma ray burst (note a star called WR 104*), the sun running out of fuel and expanding into a red supergiant, the moon moving into such a high orbit that it no longer controls earth's wobble, climate cycles, and a wide range of other dangers ... and *some* of them are as inevitable as the air running out for those sailors. It's only a matter of time.

In addition, this tiny little blue sphere we call home is such an infinitesimally small part of the overall universe -- a universe that is hostile to life everywhere else we've looked, including the other 400 or so planets we've discovered so far.

However, I know what you're getting at. You're trying to say that the universe allows life to exist, even if it's only on this one singular planet. That is true. But that does not mean the universe is necessarily conducive to life any more than a battleship filled with water is conducive to life even if sailors are clinging to life within it.

As for the universe having a purpose, well, whatever purpose it does have, we've assigned to it. But I very much doubt it's chief purpose is to support life. Otherwise, it would be far more abundant than it is. Have you ever gone camping, pulled out the old tent in the basement only to find the canvas covered with mold? Yuck! Yet no one would say that the chief purpose of a tent is to support mold growth. Know what I mean?

Take care, Rock.

*Some info on star W 104 from astronomer Phil Plait: LINK

by Tosh Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:41 pm

Texas,

You did me harm.

I was not the originator.

My intellectual and moral integrity mirrors those that choose to debate with me.

Genesis possesses some similarities with the Big Bang, the BB does not stipulate something from nothing nor the first cause, my position has never altered.

None of this will change your mind, it is not an attempt to change your mind, you are from Texas, you do not change your mind.

I accept this with sadness.

by Shirina Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:45 pm

Not mentioned in my post (click here to view my entire post).

Rock, my original post, to which you responded, had to do with the nonsensical accout of Adam and Eve. None of those things may have been mentioned in your post, but they were mentioned in mine, and the story was the initial topic of my post.

Perhaps it is I who should have taken your post apart and exposited all of the things you said in your post that wasn't mentioned in mine. Very Happy

by Sponsored content