Evidence of the Non-Physical

[ratiocinator]

why are only humans religious?

Not even sure that's true: 'Superstition' in the pigeon. Also: Agent detection.

Are you ever going to get to anything remotely resembling an argument or evidence for god or 'spirits'?

 

[ratiocinator]

If you were a little bit more introspective and wise, then you would appreciate the significance of of God's austerity in these circumstances. I feel that I am no better than Adam, the Canaanites, the Gentiles, nor any other Christian, who, by definition, considers themselves to be reprobate, like myself. We all deserve to die - thank God for His patience and mercy (grace is free).

Which doesn't really address any of the points. If everybody is a "reprobate", then that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw. If a god exists, and this its the case, said god should have done a much better job of creation.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are way too selective in your responses. Clearly being a slave in Moses' time 1400+- BC, was different than the connotation has today. If you were being sincere and read the entire pericope, you'd see the actual relationship between Master and Slave was more civil and respectful than what you are attempting to purport.

21 “These are the laws you are to set before them:

Hebrew Servants
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

And you actually think this is anything other than morally abhorrent?

 

[Sheldon]

I can .. humble themselves before God.

So all you have is an appeal to religious dogma? That is only a moral act if one can evidence a deity exists, and evidence that it is moral to do it. Otherwise I could claim revering mermaids is moral, theists don't revere mermaids, ipso facto theists are immoral. While all morals are subjective, the idea that atheists are not at least as moral as theists is a claim that requires evidence, not appeals to dogma. The original claim that one must read and adhere to the bible to be moral was the same appeal to religious dogma, that's why I asked that poster to give one example of a moral act that a theist could do that an atheist couldn't, all you did was try to support the unevidenced religious dogma from another religion, with a second unevidenced appeal to religious dogma.

Since we are talking about subjective ideas, at the very least you'd need to cite a level playing field. Something both atheists and theists broadly agreed was moral, like obeying the law for example, and the demonstrate some evidence that theists were more moral. Simply citing adherence to beliefs atheists do not hold is a no true Scotsman fallacy, like my revering mermaids example is of course.

 

[Sheldon]

It is a lifetime job. We never stop learning.
Clearly, there is literature, but that alone cannot give one a complete insight into religious belief.
Travel gives us a more rounded experience of how beliefs interact with the environments that people live in, and how belief impacts real living people.

The media can give us false impressions, as it is not the same thing as living in different places.
..just a couple examples of what I mean by "research".

So not really research then, just a string of subjective assumptions based on life experiences?

If you assert your belief is based on research, and what it to be regarded as more than an unevidenced argument from assertion, you'd need to show that research, and it would need to be submitted to some sort of peer review.

This would clearly involve at the very least the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

So beyond the bare claims you're making, where are the facts that your research has found to support them?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Since we are talking about subjective ideas, at the very least you'd need to cite a level playing field. Something both atheists and theists broadly agreed was moral, like obeying the law for example..

That's my whole point.
We can't agree on what is moral, as we claim different things.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This would clearly involve at the very least the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

If you think that I would want to present a thesis, proving that "insert my beliefs here" are valid, you must be off your rocker

My beliefs include the one that says "Many people will deny, whatever proofs are offered". which makes sense to me.

You see what you see, from your experiences in life, and I see what I see.
Experience has many forms..

 

[DNB]

So is torturing new born babies to death moral then?

How about owning slaves, is there any context where you think it is moral for one human to buy and own another?

Now you also asserted one has to abide by biblical texts to be moral, So I ask again, since you don't seem to have answered, can you name one moral action that a theist can do, that an atheist cannot?

Again, whatever injustices are rendered in this world, God will rectify the situation in due time.

I answered you about slaves - the Biblical notion of slave, had a different connotation than what we understand of it today. I gave you the entirety of the pericope in Exodus 21 - there was love and privileges between the slave and his master.

Yes, atheists are immoral by definition - they do not believe in the author of love, of which the word is meaningless without knowledge and acceptance of His existence. Don't take for granted the fact that just because you understand the concept of love, that that makes you a good person, or that that notion doesn't necessitate a source that is innately love.

 

[DNB]

As I patiently explained to you previously, the "who" part of your question is nonsensical and the only reason you're asking it is because you are encultured to your religion.

If I ask you why "who" is so compelling for you, the only way you can answer this is to present culturally constructed rationales. These are meaningless outside of your religious culture and so not universally meaningful questions.

They're subjectively meaningful to you because, in their recursive logic, they reinforce your religious belief system.

Again, who or what established the laws of physics? Do other universes or galaxies abide by the same principles?

 

[DNB]

Sir Isaac Newton established the laws of gravity, as I said. It seems you don't see the significance. As I said, scientific laws are descriptive, and not prescriptive. Humans create scientific theories and these sometimes contain scientific laws. The theories are broad explanations of naturally occurring phenomena, and explain why certain aspects of the natural world are the way they are, scientific laws are much smaller and concise explanations of how certain aspects of those broad phenomena behave. They are both created by humans to help us understand how the natural world and universe work.

Last time, who established the laws of physics that the universe as we know it, abides by, irrespective of the interpretation?

 

[DNB]

Not even sure that's true: 'Superstition' in the pigeon. Also: Agent detection.

Are you ever going to get to anything remotely resembling an argument or evidence for god or 'spirits'?

where does religion come from?

 

[DNB]

Which doesn't really address any of the points. If everybody is a "reprobate", then that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw. If a god exists, and this its the case, said god should have done a much better job of creation.

define reprobate

 

[DNB]

And you actually think this is anything other than morally abhorrent?

Whatever?

 

[Sheldon]

If you think that I would want to present a thesis, proving that "insert my beliefs here" are valid, you must be off your rocker

Pointing out what you failed to do, doesn't remotely demonstrate an expectation on my part.

My beliefs include the one that says "Many people will deny, whatever proofs are offered". which makes sense to me.

Of course it does, religions are designed to protect the core beliefs from objective scrutiny in just such a fashion as this. However the word proof is hilarious, as a shred of objective evidence would be a good start.

You see what you see, from your experiences in life, and I see what I see.
Experience has many forms..

Indeed, but if you can't see the bias, or how closed minded this claim is:

My beliefs include the one that says "Many people will deny, whatever proofs are offered"

Then your experience is ringfencing beliefs from objective scrutiny. You are of course entitled to do this of course, but why would you?

 

[Sheldon]

Again, whatever injustices are rendered in this world, God will rectify the situation in due time.

You never answered my question, was it moral for your deity to torture King David's newborn baby, so that is suffered for 7 days until it died?

I answered you about slaves - the Biblical notion of slave, had a different connotation than what we understand of it today. I gave you the entirety of the pericope in Exodus 21 - there was love and privileges between the slave and his master.

Rubbish, it was clearly barbaric then as it is now, and the idea a perfectly moral deity couldn't see this ludicrous, however we can cut to the chase, is there any context under which you think it is moral for one human to buy or own another human? No semantics please.

Yes, atheists are immoral by definition - they do not believe in the author of love, of which the word is meaningless without knowledge and acceptance of His existence.

Well your morality is as subjective as anyone else's of course. Just because atheists don't accept your subjective claims for what is moral, doesn't make them immoral, and that is a good example of a no true Scotsman fallacy. You have espoused some pretty vile homophobia on here, and from my moral perspective that is deeply immoral.

Don't take for granted the fact that just because you understand the concept of love, that that makes you a good person, or that that notion doesn't necessitate a source that is innately love.

I have never claimed to understand the concept of love, on the contrary I explained it describes a range of complex emotions. Though the irony of you calming to know there a source that is innately love is pretty ironic. Especially as this "love" seems bound to archaic biblical diktat.

Do you care about preventing or avoiding unnecessary suffering? Many theists do not it seems. The late Albanian nun who went by the name Mother Teresa, seemed to believe suffering was not just necessary but to be encouraged, as it brought one closer to Jesus, her words obviously, and not mine. Even after she had secretly abandoned her theistic beliefs, and yet the church was quick to cash in on her celebrity, and canonise her, based on demonstrably false claims and outright chicanery.

Morality does indeed involve some perspective, but if one needs the saccharine promise of heaven or the ludicrous threat of hell, in order to abstain from and or condemn vile acts like rape and murder, then that infers something to me about that person.

One can produce endlessly vague and vapid platitudes about love, but what value are they if such a person can condemn other human beings as an abomination or unnatural just because they happen to have been born gay for example. Or label them immoral, because they don't share your beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

Again, who or what established the laws of physics? Do other universes or galaxies abide by the same principles?

Science establishes the laws of physics, they are descriptive not prescriptive.

 

[DNB]

You never answered my question, was it moral for your deity to torture King David's newborn baby, so that is suffered for 7 days until it died?

Rubbish, it was clearly barbaric then as it is now, and the idea a perfectly moral deity couldn't see this ludicrous, however we can cut to the chase, is there any context under which you think it is moral for one human to buy or own another human? No semantics please.

Well your morality is as subjective as anyone else's of course. Just because atheists don't accept your subjective claims for what is moral, doesn't make them immoral, and that is a good example of a no true Scotsman fallacy. You have espoused some pretty vile homophobia on here, and from my moral perspective that is deeply immoral.

I have never claimed to understand the concept of love, on the contrary I explained it describes a range of complex emotions. Though the irony of you calming to know there a source that is innately love is pretty ironic. Especially as this "love" seems bound to archaic biblical diktat.

Do you care about preventing or avoiding unnecessary suffering? Many theists do not it seems. The late Albanian nun who went by the name Mother Teresa, seemed to believe suffering was not just necessary but to be encouraged, as it brought one closer to Jesus, her words obviously, and not mine. Even after she had secretly abandoned her theistic beliefs, and yet the church was quick to cash in on her celebrity, and canonise her, based on demonstrably false claims and outright chicanery.

Morality does indeed involve some perspective, but if one needs the saccharine promise of heaven or the ludicrous threat of hell, in order to abstain from and or condemn vile acts like rape and murder, then that infers something to me about that person.

One can produce endlessly vague and vapid platitudes about love, but what value are they if such a person can condemn other human beings as an abomination or unnatural just because they happen to have been born gay for example. Or label them immoral, because they don't share your beliefs.

Homosexuality is an abomination, and those who endorse its practice is as equally vile.
God was just for what He did to David's child.
Slaves were treated well under the auspices of the Mosaic Law. That is self-evident when the Law allows the slave to stay with his master by his own volition, due to the love that each have for each other. You need to learn how to read context.

 

[DNB]

Science establishes the laws of physics, they are descriptive not prescriptive.

Hey Mr. Pedantic, just answer the question.

 

[rational experiences]

As a spiritual human I don't name rational as the reason creation. Creation... of it came from a higher place.

I would quantify a perfect place with a perfect being made an imperfect choice.

Hence if perfection existed why would it change.

The status would impose variables in its own body.

Father explained it as you brother human man adults spirituality our problem. Not a scientist motivated by I want. By a teaching only. Is the truth.

Reasoning to be reasonable.

Three states existed in balance first. The eternal owning no space no change all eternal. The eternal being's who communicated to each other. The moving language. In and out of their bodies.

You have to own three as a perfect balance to be allowed to cause one change.

And they did. Their one change was only O held gods as sounds forming held mass of eternal.

Which meant their surrounds changed.

In space vision there are lots of spirit images man imaged. As you knew why already.

O God you said held eternal sound masses changed the highest condition of perfect balance and caused creation.

The creator was hence O.

Now if you want to own arguing O is not zero it is pre owned mass.

O no numbers in it just mass as a creator.

You however said what was missing nothingness as empty space pressure a figurative circle could own god to minus mass as just a human. Just a theist who is trying to destroy spatial pressure around earth.

As your claim time is on a line not a circle. As you count not O circular twenty four but billions.

Lying actually.

As you owned two circles O earth a planet rotating as a circle around the sun to quote earth time.

Earth time is all we experience.

You tried to give infinity a time line to somehow theory earths non presence. If he found what he said is what holds fusion as fusion.

In your mind space infinite is the next status of your greed. Only About I will tell you all I will own it.

When in reality two human's had sex why you live.

No man owned nature. You bullied us to a status of I own.

You never owned creation. It owned itself.

 

[rational experiences]

A theist confesses what they believe in first.

O mass where we exist is first.

He places theory as no presence just space and time. Meaning what I believe in achieving. What a confess of Sion meant.