L
Leela
Guest
…Another example of a Catholic refusing to look into Galileo’s telescope.
If you change your mind, you can analyze the data for yourself
hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Best,
Leela
- Status
If you change your mind, you can analyze the data for yourself
hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
I imagine that Mother Teresa got a lot of personal satisfaction from her work, though there is significant evidence that she suffered from severe clinical depression at times.Like Mother Teresa did.
Best,
Leela
J
JDaniel
Guest
This is the sort of statement that provides us with another example of how you “blow” people off of this thread and does not endear you to having your arguments highly regarded.
I guess, if I have no choice but to answer, that I should provide documentation that is not only “relevant” to the subject matter herein, but, actually provides data that refutes yours:
adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious
Look, your position is tenuous, at best. It is forcing you to provide data sources that really have no bearing on the discussion - except by tenuous inference. The source you provide has to do with a whole lot of other factors, but, as you pointed out, very little to do with causality by religiosity.
It is forcing you to “justify” these sources that everyone on this thread can read for themselves. The largest countries that are primarily atheist, non-religious, agnostic, secular humanist, are China and Russia. Those countries have murdered so many this-side-of-the-womb people it’s almost unfathomable. It’s just so clear to most of us that what you’re arguing sounds delusional.
I have read a lot of your posts, here and there. Sometimes you do tend to appear delusional. You have been asked other questions by other members and have, for whatever reasons, decided not to answer them.
This is discussion. I see very little, if any, ad hominems towards you. When you run out of argument, start another thread on another subject.
JD
R
reggieM
Guest
Interestingly, none of these countries were founded as an atheistic nation. The principles that govern them all emerged from religious societies and remain the ruling traditions in every case. Atheism contributed virtually nothing to the origin and development of those places.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
for me if the data doesn’t fit i change it, if that don’t work i spin it to fit the argument i already believe, if that doesn’t work then obviously those who don’t agree with me must be unreasonable and biased.
but thats just me:thumbsup:
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
psychology is hardly science from which one can draw concrete conclusions for the mental state of any single individual.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
It doesn’t promote the “human flourishing” of the strong-man who could be MUCH better off if he simply steals and oppresses the weak for his own benefit.
I’m sure you meant the “human flourishing” of the most number of people possible, but that is simply an unnecessary condition of this “social contract” which benefits he who can do best for himself.
Contracts can always be rewritten, as they are tools of men.
Morality is not a contract. It is a dictate. I realize you don’t think that morality is anything but a human “agreement/contract”, but you’re simply wrong in that.
The reason for the “cycle of suffering” that is the contract idea of morality is due to it’s baselessness. Contracts are written, they are obeyed, they are abused, they are abrogated, there is violence, there is fatigue of violence, there is unwritten contract, there is newly written contract, lather, rinse, repeat.
Genocide is utterly rational. It is the utter destruction of an enemy. A nonexistent group of people can’t be a threat in the future. The rationale is perfect and simple.
Though the rationale is perfect the means and the result are not good. Why? Only because “murder is bad”.
If murder was judged as good or bad for it’s rationality, murder has a very good argument for being quite a good thing.
It is perfectly rational to condemn a person because they are seen as a threat, which is what “of a particular race” actually means!
It is wrong, but it’s perfectly rational.
Rationality only concerns itself with the terms that it wants to concern itself with.
The terms under consideration for a murderer are, “can I get away with this” (the “workings” scalar valuation of success), and the “what’s in it for me” (another “workings” scalar valuation of loss/gain) terms.
The murderer is perfectly rational in weighing that which his rationality, ungoverned by anything, considers to be proper terms for his situation.
But why is it wrong? Simply because of the directive that “murder is wrong”. That “bringing to ground” statement is the ONLY basis for claiming that murder is wrong, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with rationality.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Which is why there is no “human evolution” other than in the supernatural.
You wouldn’t perhaps be a eugenicist, would you?
:shamrock2:
J
JDaniel
Guest
And, don’t forget, “ignorant”, “self-deluded”, and “muddy thinkers”!
JD:thumbsup:
S
Swan
Guest
Somehow you keep managing to miss my point. Which is:
no evidence I offer regarding the validity of the Bible or on any other subject on which we disagree will meet with your approval, so why bother. Also, none of this can bee proven definitely - at least to my satisfaction. Back to the Bible, you believe it so you quote is a authority and fact. It is all you need. I don’t believe it and doubt anything I can say or any experts I could quote (i.e., Bart Erman and his many works, Andrew D. Benson’s “Origens fo Christianity and the Bible”), or refer you to will alter your opinion. You will simply lable them anti-Chrisitan and move on. Which is fine. But you need to realize that by not being open to sources I like and you don’t (and vise versa) we are at a standstill. That was my closing point. I’ll direct you to Leela’s UN report and the response it got here. No one liked it so the UN is suspect so it must be nonsense. It you think their methods should be investigated, have at it - after all, you’re the one who has problems with them. Leela keeps getting called because you don’t like her sources - but you won’t, will you, since they support ideas contrary to your own. You call her sources (and would do so to mine) biased, but the ones you provide are also biased - but you agree with those biases so don’t see the problem. Finding a source everyone can agree on can be tricky and time consuming. So far on this thread it’s been a fruitless search. I see where this is going and you should too. It’s a circle, repetitive and degenerating in civility with every revolution.
We just have to agree to disagree - our debate - if that’s what you want to call it - is going nowhere.
As to my personal story, I’ve shared parts of it on other threads. I’m not always in the mood to do so. I’m bipolar, by the way, moods are a major part of my life. My beliefs are based on personal experience, reason/study, and observation of the world and those in it - now and historically. I’ve found the two authors mentioned above to be excellent scholars. You will no doubt find them heretics. So be it. You wanted some names that influenced me, there’s a couple. There is an entire website for ex-Christians with list and reviews of books and links to scholarly papers, etc. In case you want to read up on what the other side thinks. I was raised on your side and read and studied for decades, so I’m well aware of the “evidence” and theories, just so you know. And I’ve found them lacking. But, that’s just me.
Like I said before, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, just explain how I feel. I don’t even agree with the atheists here since I’m agnostic. It’s find if you don’t agree. What bothers me is your repeated insistance that I continue in the circular, going nowhere, repetitive exercise. If I felt it would lead to anything, I would. But I don’t.
S
St_Gregory
Guest
I really don’t see what is meant by “goodness” (and thus “moral” which is a branch of goodness) outside of the idea of God.
I’m obviously naturally biased but I honestly don’t get what an Atheist means by “good” if there is no ultimately good object (God) to latch onto - goodness becomes meaningless without God (I think anyway)
I’m obviously naturally biased but I honestly don’t get what an Atheist means by “good” if there is no ultimately good object (God) to latch onto - goodness becomes meaningless without God (I think anyway)
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
personal stories are not germane to any of the subjects about which we converse.Somehow you keep managing to miss my point. Which is:
no evidence I offer regarding the validity of the Bible or on any other subject on which we disagree will meet with your approval, so why bother. Also, none of this can bee proven definitely - at least to my satisfaction. Back to the Bible, you believe it so you quote is a authority and fact. It is all you need. I don’t believe it and doubt anything I can say or any experts I could quote (i.e., Bart Erman and his many works, Andrew D. Benson’s “Origens fo Christianity and the Bible”), or refer you to will alter your opinion. You will simply lable them anti-Chrisitan and move on. Which is fine. But you need to realize that by not being open to sources I like and you don’t (and vise versa) we are at a standstill. That was my closing point. I’ll direct you to Leela’s UN report and the response it got here. No one liked it so the UN is suspect so it must be nonsense. It you think their methods should be investigated, have at it - after all, you’re the one who has problems with them. Leela keeps getting called because you don’t like her sources - but you won’t, will you, since they support ideas contrary to your own. You call her sources (and would do so to mine) biased, but the ones you provide are also biased - but you agree with those biases so don’t see the problem. Finding a source everyone can agree on can be tricky and time consuming. So far on this thread it’s been a fruitless search. I see where this is going and you should too. It’s a circle, repetitive and degenerating in civility with every revolution.
We just have to agree to disagree - our debate - if that’s what you want to call it - is going nowhere.
As to my personal story, I’ve shared parts of it on other threads. I’m not always in the mood to do so. I’m bipolar, by the way, moods are a major part of my life. My beliefs are based on personal experience, reason/study, and observation of the world and those in it - now and historically. I’ve found the two authors mentioned above to be excellent scholars. You will no doubt find them heretics. So be it. You wanted some names that influenced me, there’s a couple. There is an entire website for ex-Christians with list and reviews of books and links to scholarly papers, etc. In case you want to read up on what the other side thinks. I was raised on your side and read and studied for decades, so I’m well aware of the “evidence” and theories, just so you know. And I’ve found them lacking. But, that’s just me.
Like I said before, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, just explain how I feel. I don’t even agree with the atheists here since I’m agnostic. It’s find if you don’t agree. What bothers me is your repeated insistance that I continue in the circular, going nowhere, repetitive exercise. If I felt it would lead to anything, I would. But I don’t.
like i previously posted, you must have a reasoned argument or some evidence for your assertion, you at no time have presented one.
we are not making circular arguments, because you are not making any arguments you are just making assertions, thats called blogging
you have provided no sources for me to like or not like. nor do i remember posting any sources for you to judge
nor have i quoted the bible to you as an authoritative source for anything that i can remember.
nor have i asked who your influences are, or what books you read.
i do have a problem with the UN report, based on its statistical probability, as have others.
(interested parties may review posts #196, #197 and succeeding posts on this thread)
posts are recorded. if i have done any of these things simply show me.
i don’t have a perfect memory
either provide the posts that support your continuous assertions, or consider that you may have me confused with another poster.
good day
S
Swan
Guest
I guess I’m confused. You continual call for me to post sources led me to assme (bad) that you had posted your own sources - thus your call for quid pro quo. So, I guess you had and thus confused the sources that have been posted with you. Sorry. But as I say, your call for some sort of back up I assumed was to respond to yours, I didn’t realize that you hadn’t posted any either.
We seem to be at cross purposes. I was simply dialoging - I wasn’t debating and posting evidence, for the reasons stated in my previous posts. You at one point mentioned personal experience and I thought you wanted a summation mine as some sort of explanation for my beliefs. Clearly, we are not understanding each other. I did mention a couple of authors in my previous post, which you didn’t mention so perhaps didn’t see or don’t care to discuss. That’s fine. But I did at least post a couple of works that I think are valid.
I keep responding to you in an effort to just understand what it is you want me to say, in a true spirit of openess and coexistance. It seems my every attempt at explanation only leads to more misunderstanding. I’m not blaming you or taking the blame, I just think we truly misunderstand each other and at this point I just don’t have the time of the mental/emotional energy to continue. I’m sorry if this disappoints you. I was only giving my thoughts, blogging, as you call it. I never meant this to be a master’s thesis or a call for converts.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
once again no evidence or arguments for your assertionsI guess I’m confused. You continual call for me to post sources led me to assme (bad) that you had posted your own sources - thus your call for quid pro quo. So, I guess you had and thus confused the sources that have been posted with you. Sorry. But as I say, your call for some sort of back up I assumed was to respond to yours, I didn’t realize that you hadn’t posted any either.
We seem to be at cross purposes. I was simply dialoging - I wasn’t debating and posting evidence, for the reasons stated in my previous posts. You at one point mentioned personal experience and I thought you wanted a summation mine as some sort of explanation for my beliefs. Clearly, we are not understanding each other. I did mention a couple of authors in my previous post, which you didn’t mention so perhaps didn’t see or don’t care to discuss. That’s fine. But I did at least post a couple of works that I think are valid.
I keep responding to you in an effort to just understand what it is you want me to say, in a true spirit of openess and coexistance. It seems my every attempt at explanation only leads to more misunderstanding. I’m not blaming you or taking the blame, I just think we truly misunderstand each other and at this point I just don’t have the time of the mental/emotional energy to continue. I’m sorry if this disappoints you. I was only giving my thoughts, blogging, as you call it. I never meant this to be a master’s thesis or a call for converts.
if any thing you said was true you could provide evidence of these “phantom” posts,
since you do not i am forced to say you must have me confused with another poster, ma’am
good day
C
crowonsnow
Guest
You’ve simply taken your own innate sense of goodness and objectified it into a god. “God” is a label or category for what you call “good.” That’s how your brain presently has things organized.
I’m free to love my son because I know there is no god, nothing to get in the way. If there was a god my love would be dependent on the existence of this god, which would constitute a barrier between us. My love would be provisional, not unconditional. That’s how my brain is organized.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
frankly how do you know he or any one else has an innate sense of goodness?
if he "organized his brain differently would G-d disappear and then by extension then entire world?
of course not, so your analogy would be false in this case,
and how would G-d be a barrier,
your free to love or not love, thats your free will isn’t it?
further what quality of G-d leads you to believe that He might be cause your love to be provisional?
J
JDaniel
Guest
So, the converse must be true (since it exists): if there was a person that commited especially heinous crimes, would he take his innate sense of badness and objectify it into the devil?
But, how would the badness come about?
By abberation? What sort of abberation? How would it overcome that which is “innate”?
But, the sense of goodness was innate: meaning inherent, universal.
How could that happen?
JD
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i really want to ask him what the meaning of is is, ala bill clinton 1999 or so
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Gregory,
Do you need an object of perfect beauty to know what beauty is?
Best,
Leela
R
reggieM
Guest
You need an object of imperfect beauty to know what perfect beauty is.
- Status