What do you mean with that?mysogenic ignorance
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you mean with that?mysogenic ignorance
Yes, that is why I don't believe God was invented. I believe God announced Himself and that is why we have the Bible. And his words that are in the Bible and that things go as told in the Bible, is in my opinion evidence for the God.Q: Why was God invented? There's neither objective evidence nor need for Him.
If it is not living, it is dead.How can non-organic matter be "dead?"
How? Why do you think so? Why can't the same be seen in nature nowadays?It seems life absolutely did arise from non-organic matter.
In that case the people nowadays called socialists are not really socialists, because they think other people should pay taxes. By your definition, people who work should get their whole wage, without government stealing half of it.Socialists/Communists believe those who generate wealth should be its beneficiaries.
It is interesting that in capitalism there is limited company that can be owned also by the workers, which makes it truly possible that laborer owns also the tools. In communism it is actually the government that owns and usually in communism the government is the one leader of the nation. Interesting thing is, it seems workers don't commonly want to own shares of the company they are working, perhaps they should more often do so, if they want to be deciding also how the company acts and get the profit (getting wage is also a way to get part of the profit).It's Capitalism, and the owner of the laborer's tools ("means of production") that takes the profit and shares only enough to keep the laborer poor and tied to the job. You've got it all backwards.
That what is in the Bible. And it is objective, because it is based on the idea of love other as yourself, which means you do others what you want to be done to you. For example, if you steal, you want others to steal from you and by stealing you give the same right for others.
You don't really have much control over how people respond to your posting unless they violate the sites Terms of Service. By posting here, you give implicit consent to have your words evaluated. All you can do is stop posting or stop reading the responses when you do.
Why would I? That's in large part why I participate here. This is something I posted last month:
"This what draws me to RF more than anything out - observing how other minds process information. Creationists are the richest but not the only source material. The anti-vaxxers, MAGA's defending Trump, climate deniers, and people trying to reconcile contradictory scripture are interesting to observe."People have asked why bother - you're never going to change any of those minds - and I tell them that I know that and that that is not my purpose. I have referred to it as "tapping the glass" as with an aquarium to see the reaction. "For whatever reason, I have never gotten tired of this activity. I find that kind of thinking endlessly fascinating and wonder why some people are that way (the groups I just named) while others are very different in their approach to processing information, trusting reason and empiricism to find answers and gain knowledge."
Your posting has been a rich source of material to analyze. You refuse to cooperate when I ask you to discuss what makes you so hostile to atheists and why you continually change "I neither claim that gods do or don't exist" to "You believes God doesn't exist". I asked you several times each whether you were aware of any of these things to try to decide whether it was due to a cognitive defect - some kind of blindness - which would elicit empathy, or a form of trolling, which would do the opposite, or a third option if there was one, but you declines to answer or acknowledge seeing the questions, which helps me decide what the correct answer is.
I shared those tentative conclusions with you for any corrections or objections you might have, but your response was the same - crickets. Since you elect to have no input there, you've had none, and I've stopped asking you - until now. I will ask again below.
This is the kind of thing that I called endlessly fascinating to me. I really can't explain that behavior. When I imagine myself on the other end of such questions, I can't imagine ignoring it. My responses would express concern for why anybody thought such things about and an effort to explain myself. Even if the answer were something I wanted to conceal, I would still respond with something like, "I prefer to not discuss that." I can't imagine any scenario in which I would do what you've done.
But you're far from alone. I've been through this with about a dozen other RF posters with questions like, "What are you hoping to accomplish here with creationist apologetics? Are you hoping to convince the scientifically literate of anything? Are you performing for an imagined audience of one to martyr yourself and curry favor?"
But nobody responds. Never. Not even once. How mysterious that is to me,
I just left this about two hours ago on another thread. I don't expect an answer there, either:
"Why do you keep writing posts like this? Why do any of you MAGA bring your echo chamber talking points to a forum like this? Who is your intended audience and what is your goal? If it's other MAGA, are you virtue signaling? They already agree with you, so what else could it be?If it's the non-MAGA contingent, do you think that you can garner some sympathy for Trump or change such minds depicting him as the victim? If so, you really don't understand them, which is suggested when you call them deranged."
So why keep asking? Because I think that there are other people with enough in common with me that some will find this phenomenon as intriguing as I do once they are aware of it. And maybe - just maybe - somebody asked will have the courage to acknowledge seeing the comment.
How about you? Does reading this change anything for you?
********
And completely unrelated, my wife and I were at a restaurant Tuesday night when a cover of a familiar song came on at a very low volume - just enough to make out some of the melody, but none of the words. All I could make out was "uh huh huh huh huh" in the opening of the song and in the choruses, which I Googled: "uh huh huh huh song" and got these as hits, none of them the song I meant.
Julia Michaels - Uh Huh
Tinashe - Uh Huh (Official Video)
Uh Huh Uh Huh TikTok Song
What song is 'That's the way uh huh uh huh, I like it uh ...
I had a very vague recollection of the name of the band - two words, maybe one foreign - but with no lyrics and no band name, I was stuck.
Apparently, there's an app Shazam that can identify a song if you can hum the melody, and I could, but I didn't want to download the app.
Then a word came to me: Spandau. And I remembered Spandau Ballet.
So, I searched that (they're Brits, not German), didn't recognize any of the titles, but the first one I clicked on was it - a song called True. Maybe some of you figured that out already. I thought that I would never find this song.
Anyway, here it is. It should sound familiar to anybody old enough to know 80's pop music. By the eighties, I wasn't listening to new bands - music had changed more than I liked beginning with disco, so this one, Thomson Twins, Duran Duran, and similar bands are largely unknown to me except maybe one song each:
I like the song very well, but it and that band weren't part of my world. I grew up listening to the Beatles, Stones, Clapton, Allman Brothers, the Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, and Fleetwood Mac. I took up electric guitar with a vengeance beginning in the early seventies. The music I liked featured guitar improvisation, and could be danced to most of the time, but wasn't dance music.The Spandaus were huge in the UK in the early 80s. I would never have expected them to stand the test of time, but they have; probably because there is a timeless quality to their slightly soulful ballads.
According to Wiki:If that song has a message, btw, it's that truth is something the heart, not the head, recognises.
Yes.Perhaps just being human leads to immoral behavior.
So then, can the non-religious become moral agents?
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior.
Hopefully. I still think its original source is the God.That idea is also found outside the Bible.
Nice. So, do we agree it is objective?And to believe in the idea doesn't require to believe in the Bible.
So I believe in the idea, but not the Bible.
Hopefully. I still think its original source is the God.
Nice. So, do we agree it is objective?
So you refer to the Bible when it comes to objective morality. A book written by people based on what they believe. It is based on the idea of people: you do to others you want to be done to you. In your last sentence there is another want.That what is in the Bible. And it is objective, because it is based on the idea of love other as yourself, which means you do others what you want to be done to you. For example, if you steal, you want others to steal from you and by stealing you give the same right for others.
The fact that you agree about a certain trait or foundation of morality doesn't mean it's objective.Nice. So, do we agree it is objective?
I don't think God tortures anyone. But, can you answer, why should God give eternal life for evil people? Is there some good reason why God should allow evil to continue forever?
Right, because the only alternative to genocide and infanticide is "giving eternal life".How? Can you say why God should give eternal life for all?
Ok, so in that case there was no actual slaves by Biblical rules,
LOLbecause according to the Bible, people were not allowed to kidnap anyone, which makes it impossible to take a slave against persons own will.
Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16
The so-called "golden rule" is not at all original nor exclusive to abrahamic religion.That what is in the Bible. And it is objective, because it is based on the idea of love other as yourself, which means you do others what you want to be done to you. For example, if you steal, you want others to steal from you and by stealing you give the same right for others.
Hopefully. I still think its original source is the God.
It is common sense. It is "objective" only in the sense that if we are going to care about having our social group survive and thrive, valuing the idea is going to make surviving and thriving a lot more successful / easier.Nice. So, do we agree it is objective?
Uh-huh, God has always existed so no humans have existed without God existing. And Abraham was not the first prophet sent to mankind. He wasn't even a messenger, he was a prophet, one of thousands.You are demonstrably incorrect as this idea shows up EVERYWHERE in human history. Including before the advent of abrahamic religion and / or in places where they never heard of it.
Uh-huh, God has always existed so no humans have existed without God existing. And Abraham was not the first prophet sent to mankind. He wasn't even a messenger, he was a prophet, one of thousands.
God≠ Bible.
Bible≠ God
Bible is simply a book that is related to the revelation of God. That's all. The same person who sent the revelation created you with your ability to love and to know right from wrong. All that is from God. Even your ability to deny it (free will) is from God.
The person I'm responding to explicitly claimed the bible as being the source.Uh-huh, God has always existed so no humans have existed without God existing. And Abraham was not the first prophet sent to mankind. He wasn't even a messenger, he was a prophet, one of thousands.
God≠ Bible.
Bible≠ God
Bible is simply a book that is related to the revelation of God. That's all. The same person who sent the revelation created you with your ability to love and to know right from wrong. All that is from God. Even your ability to deny it (free will) is from God.
And.So you refer to the Bible when it comes to objective morality. A book written by people based on what they believe. It is based on the idea of people: you do to others you want to be done to you. In your last sentence there is another want.
How is this objective morality if you derive it from what people want?
If your morality has its foundation in value, desire, preference, opinion etc. then it is not objective. It is subjective.
It is objective by the idea that whatever right you take, you give also to others. There is no double standard, or someone who has more rights that other people have. Also it leads to the same conclusion from both sides. For example, no one wants something to be done to them, against their own will, therefore doing something against others will is objectively wrong, because everyone agrees with it.No. What is objective to you?
That is true, it is not objective because I agree with it. It is objective because you can't argue against it.The fact that you agree about a certain trait or foundation of morality doesn't mean it's objective.
How could anyone say God has moral responsibility? Have you moral responsibility? Who gives it to you? I can't demand anything from God. I can't demand anything even from you.Your dodge is noted. Try and answer the question.
The question was not about evil etc. It was about your claim that god doesn't have any moral responsibility towards humans because "he made them" and therefor can do what he wants with it.
Yes, only alternative to death is eternal life.Right, because the only alternative to genocide and infanticide is "giving eternal life".