Shados said:Poot, it's less that they're uneducated and more that they, like the rest of us, are more or less driven by natural selection. If your kids are unlikely to survive, you get this powerful instinctual psychological drive to have more of them, so that at least some continue the line.
So then why do gays even exist, if he hates them so much.
Also, then: find me where it (the bible) says God hates gays.
I take it you haven't heard about _why?god goes and spends like fourteen billion years on creating this elaborate ruse to make us think the universe and everything in it could have come about by the laws of physics, and then he goes and fucks it all up by impregnating some random woman. I mean, why the hell would you bother?
What if he did? What if he did it hundreds of years ago? Would it not then make you a fool?God has yet to make an appearance and teach the masses about how, exactly, he works.
Okay, but that makes God immoral. It does not affect the morality of the religion.Your god creates people knowing full well they'll be tortured for eternity, tells them if they don't live up to things he has guaranteed they won't live up to they deserve it, and then punishes them for it,
Your god creates people knowing full well they'll be tortured for eternity, tells them if they don't live up to things he has guaranteed they won't live up to they deserve it, and then punishes them for it,
avoid posting a link that has .com or .net or such as a cited source, they can be unreliable, sites such as .edu and .gov are generally more reliable in validating or unvalidating a point.
Some have strict regulations about what they publish but the majority do not, and not just in the .com and .net top level domains. Universities often allow their users to publish their own personal web sites.Reason why I left that in there, not "anyone" can put up whatever they want on domains like that, for the most part its controlled and generally accepted statements, data, ideas etc. that are placed there.
Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia foundation in general, are all .org. Also, Wikipedia is highly moderated. The admins there can block IPs and accounts. Not to mention the hoards of people who willingly devote their time to reverting abuse.One of the reason's wikipedia is .com
I don't recognize any current methods of measuring qualification. Mostly because there really isn't anybody who is qualified to regulate qualification itself.But based on your statement then it is utterly useless to cite anything at all online if you actually believe what you said applies to any and all sites, for that matter
Not marijuana, no, because it does not interest me.Would you actually watch experiments upon experiments of something like marijuana being performed and furthermore understand the results and properly interpret their meaning?
Most people will keep on using their 'facts' interpreted in such a way to prove their point. There isn't anything that can be done about this. In reality, a fact is just a generally accepted opinion. Case and point: Around 1000+ years ago it was a fact that the world was flat and one could fall off the edge.
A fact is something that's true and proven. So no.
Well note that something is proven by the technology/science of the time
Some things in the past were considered truth and proven since they didn't know how to disprove it
To make it more accurate, and to remove your inaccurate information.
God creates people knowing full well what each of their choices will bring, and gives them free will to make said choices that will either give them eternity in peace, or eternity being tormented. The consequences of their choices are deserved, because they are the consequences of THEIR choices. "Responsibility" and all that.
However, God knows that mankind is not capable of making all the right choices, and that mankind is faulty, and fallible, and being a merciful God who in his full right and authority doesn't need to have anything to do with his creation, or even care, which would inevitably drive them to Hell by their own choices anyway...
He offers a solution. A pardon.
Accept the pardon, and be free from Judgement, in which case God will work in your life to make you not just acceptable, but deserving by all the moral standards of man, and acceptable by the standard of God.
However, accepting the pardon is also a choice, and is infact, the prime choice. You are brought before the court of life and given the choice, a pardon, or jail time for your crimes.
It is up to the defendant to accept freedom, or accept his chains. God will set you free, or he will dish out the consequences of your actions, of which you have fully earned by your choices.
It is not his fault, if you refuse the pardon. It is yours as the defendant.
This is the nature of God, in regards to this situation. He does not put you in a hopeless situation, without giving you a way out of it.
The above statement is the nature of God according to Christian belief.
God is not mercifull. He is Vengefull. God partakes every single emotion or description. God is both good and bad. Basically like 2 coins. Everything which exists must have its alter ego or balance. Blah blah blah yeh its like Feng shui and ying and yang w/e
All religions are simply guide lines or a good lifestyle. Nothing more.
This is because people need something to base their views of. It is rare they suddenly create a vision from nothing of what they want to be or what they want to do without external intervention. This is why religion have these figures as a must for a balance to which people can measure themselves.
... For you cannot define evil or good without a view point. So its just 2 substance or variables which we choose to decide which is which and measure. Simply just get a balance and you cant go wrong that is the idea.
The 1 and 5th quote is both what i meant. But meh.
The billions of people who died for there religion are the people who took religion seriously The fools and extremist or the ones who died for there country and religion was just used as a name for the war. Which was actually based of human greed.
Every View is not made up by a human . And you cannot say you make it up as you go along. Everyone has there own view. But this view is created not from genetics which are unique or can be similliar in case of twins. This view is created from people growing up and life experiances. Now this is unique. Thus every view somone has though of is due to external factors and not internal.
The reason why i didn't use 2 sides of the same coin instead of 2 coins is because lucifer is diffrent to god
Of course the god would force an angel to disobey him. Anyway 4th quote >.<
No war is fought over religion. -- None. religion is mask for other reasons. I>E the Crusades Pope urban just wanted more influence in the east. So he sent europeans to aid the byzantium forces.
The only real ever possible considered religious war would be the war of terrorism. But thats all extremist idiots who just want total domination. So its the leaders personal greed and undenyable ignorance. not the religion itself
"The proof of religion is that people make it up as they go along"
That is exactly the same with science. They make it up as they go along
1. The Roman catholic church is a bad example. And the "Leaders of a religioN" Are usually wrong. I cannot agree with the catholic church.
2. Religion is not the cause of a war. But ofc it takes place in a war. In war you want high moral so every country says that God is on your side to the troops. Thus increasing the morale. They use religion as a boost. It is the people who misuse religion who cause the issues not the religion itself.
I.e People who missuse guns are the ones who cause the problems no the guns themselves.
3. Your wrong Religion is regullary challanged, but the difference between religion is and science is that Science is constantly evolving and has no solid base. Religion has a solid base and therefore does not need to evolve. Religion has already explained the universes creation and made a simple answer for everything. While science only tries to overcomplicate things.
4. Extremists are rare and the minority of religions. There maybe a few burnings but this is more of a scare factor used in religious countries for a Facist state. You cannot compare a Free democratic religious community and a Facist community. This is not down to religion but down to freedoms and righs and the way the country is ran.
Again it is the people misusing the religion for something it is not. When in the Bible does it say KILL ALL THE DEFILERS> when in Any holy book does it saction killing.
Not any holy book of the main religions sanction killing as a justifiable act. IT is but the people who say GOD WILL MAKE YOU GO TO HEAVEN FOR KILLIG THE MUSLIMS (Crusades) Etc etc Not the religion itself. SO it is not religion it is the Leaders who are corrupt.
You cannot argue against something due to flaws in human nature and the human part of it. For Religion as a whole is unhuman. And does not relate to how we want to percieve it. Religion is religion it is only people who make it anything worse than it is. For they use the words and quote them wrongly and try to find loop holes or insuation of kill everyone who is a defiler or non believer. These are the extremists. Religion was always meant to be taken lightly. Never 100% Fact.
This obvious due to the outlandish stories. I.E Noah's ark - A 600 year old man -.- who took 2 of every animal (Manging to capture the billions of animals- Then amazingly to feed them carry weeks worth of food on the ship. Look after every animal with just his familly and everything else). This is obvs not true and should be taken metaphorically.
You think poor people who donate improve the popes lifestyle. Have you ever been to the vatican. Not much changes and there is a good amount of money of the popes which goes to charities. Such as the Catholic orphanges funded by the Catholic church.
(Although in a religious way the Roman Catholic Church is Corrupt and wrong-The pope shouldn't even be the pope) this is another story for a later date.
Religion is the oldest form of government and the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it dictates the dos and don'ts of people and teaches them as to how they shall think and percieve the world around them. It doesn't function very well when it's taken lightly, the number of spin-offs of each church in the US is proof of that.Religion was always meant to be taken lightly. Never 100% Fact.
Yes, it is.Your argument of denying them knowledge isn't founded in logic,
Now supposing you'd said that it wasn't relevant, I'd totally agree with you. But that's not what you said. You asserted your opponent was rambling illogically. This brings me to question your reading comprehension.Limiting the amount of knowledge a person has convenient access to, that's... a worse crime than theft.
I have spent time in the tulpa.info community.You are over-complicating the issue, where you claimed I was simplifying it. Simply because piracy and internet rights are related doesn't mean they are one and the same.
I'm not actually seeing how what he said was supposed to benefit him in any way. (' - ')What you're doing is derailing the thread for your own favour.
Not really.Your argument would be more convincing if you knew the difference between "your" and "you're".
"This kitten is dieing.""the discussion about this kitten has NOTHING to do with this kitten".
Hard to argue with that logic.
Everything I reply to is an opportunity to make a legitimate point I think ought to be made. :VI really hate "quote-game" threads, but i see no other way to reply.
Yes, yes it kind of literally does do that. This is why scientists design experiments that way they do. They want to get rid of the inherent bias the scientists conducting the experiment have as a mere property of them having an opinion.Being in favor of a side doesn't make your opinions biased. It means you have an opinion.
Highly appreciated.Let me make sure not to speak in absolutes because you'll make me have to reiterate what I'm saying to make the same point.
It shows.It's not even a debate for me, just stating my opinions.
As a general rule, freedom is an ability, while liberty is a civility.How does fighting piracy go against freedom?
God forbid a judge has to think to do his job properly.If you make an exception once you will have to keep making the exception in similar cases.
Where foundation ends, subversion begins.The law is founded in a bedrock of solid principles.
Why not? People make deals for their friends and family all the time. Why would you expect fair and just treatment?I wouldn't expect special circumstances, or some unusual behaviour in the justice system. I would expect punishment for my family member.
This is an impossibility as morals are based on position and ability. A pauper will always have less liberty with morals than a rich king.
Fladdermasken said:A set of morals that doesn't conflict with the survival of civilization. :V
Define "survival" and "morality". Are we talking the entirety of civilization, as a whole? Dead? And by 'morality', are we talking the overarching societal structure and code of "do good, punish evil", however 'evil' and 'good' are defined in said culture?...Which do you choose?
Right, the means discarding the old morals. You're choosing survival as more important.A set of morals that doesn't conflict with the survival of civilization. :V
My posit remains: What if?This is an impossibility as morals are based on position and ability.
You're confusing luxury and liberty.A pauper will always have less liberty with morals than a rich king.
Yes, everyone. Or enough people to the point where the remaining people can't recreate civilization and eventually go extinct.Define "survival" and "morality". Are we talking the entirety of civilization, as a whole? Dead?
Sure, if that's what morality means to you.And by 'morality', are we talking the overarching societal structure and code of "do good, punish evil", however 'evil' and 'good' are defined in said culture?
That's generally when other humans are the ones oppressing you. What I posit is a case where there will be done left to carry on your legacy of principles. Does death remain valuable when it is civilization as a whole?There's something to be said for dying for your beliefs, holding fast & true to certain principles even unto death.
Yes but I'm also doubting any societal investment in those old morals if they push civilization so off balance it capsizes.Right, the means discarding the old morals. You're choosing survival as more important.