Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

You may be missing the point.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7

“Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” Amos 3:6

“Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” Lamentations 3:38

God is the author of good and evil, therefore, Chaotic Neutral.

Also, given every living being on the planet was judged for Man's evil during the flood, I find the punishment of creatures incapable of judging right or wrong by human standards, evil.

Now, I'm going to squeeze this out before the rebuttal - You just got Crucifixed.

 

Correction then: God, being holy, holy, holy, offers the sinner salvation.

"Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Isaiah 6:3

And what is more chaotic that rewriting the laws of order? God only values the order that He creates and has no problem whatsoever dissing man's authority. (The tomb of Jesus was sealed by the Romans and God broke it open anyways.) So if God wants to re-order his order, he will.

 

You're unerringly loyal to an omnicidal maniac. Given the power indicated by any holy book that references Yahweh, and the "goodness" you credit this being with, what of this;

“And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.” Exodus 4:21

“And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.” Exodus 7:3

“And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.” Exodus 7:13

“And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.” Exodus 9:12

“And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:” Exodus 10:1

“But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.” Exodus 10:20

“But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.” Exodus 10:27

“And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.” Exodus 11:10

“And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD.” Exodus 14:4

“And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel…” Exodus 14:8

“I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, and upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.” Exodus 14:17

With all of that power, that knowledge, couldn't God have convinced the pharaoh to change his mind? To change his ways? YHWH took away the man's free will instead of showing him mercy.

There are plenty of accounts in the OT attesting to God's Omnidickery, and even the hebrew word "ra" is used to explain the actions in a moral light. "Ra" means evil.

 

They are judgments against wicked nations: whether it be the laying waste to Egypt's power or the genocide of the Canaanites, they are judgments by God against humanity.
The judgment of God is more acceptable to me than the judgment of man.
Since we are all humans, we all stand in the danger of God's Judgment. God gives grace and mercy to whom He wills because it is His choice. We are alive today because God permits it and not because we deserve to live. If God as the Potter decides to destory his pottery, who are we as the pottery to say otherwise?

 

Pottery with what appears to be free will. That you accept punishment for your nature from one judge (God) and deny it from another (man) is true hypocrisy.

On top of that, say there is a God. I could even make it work. God is a four-dimensional entity, meaning all secrets are revealed, travel to any location is instantaneous, and even miracles can be performed (tumors removed without cuts/injury/pain, items multiplied exponentially). There. Those are the minimum physics required. Thing is, we couldn't delineate between one and billions of these things, because we may as well be shapes on a piece of paper in the presence of a being/beings in 3 dimensions. How do we know this being created us? By dint of it saying so? That's not good enough for me, considering good and evil are sides of the same coin to whatever it is. I would hold my creator to the same moral light as it holds me. If it doesn't follow the same rules, it's a hypocrite. Nations aren't good or evil, people are, and if this God doesn't have the wherewithal to convince a bad person to be good every once and the while, what the hell?
I understand I won't be able to shake your faith, but I find your lack of anything other than "He's superior so everything he does is right," bogus.
I just thought you should know.

 

Watch out! Grossenschwamm is really feisty today.

 

At least I didn't whip out "your mom's beyond good and evil."

...wait. That seems oddly familiar to a random encounter with a pokemon.

 

Lucky you didn't otherwise I would of had to correct you by telling you it is mum.

 

I disagree. For example, say I proposed that there are Triple-Brained Grundlemeeps living on the moon, which are large yellow house-sized creatures with three brains. Now are you telling me that you need just as much conviction to say that there is no such thing as a Triple-Brained Grundlemeep, as I do to say "Yeah there is, and they live on the moon."? Of course not. There are an infinite number of concepts that you don't believe in right at this moment, for the simple reason that nobody has suggested them to you. But it's not because you have real conviction that the things don't exist. Belief IN something requires conviction. Lack of belief in something requires no conviction at all. I am an atheist because nobody has been able to convince me that God exists. Stop treating "God" as some extra special concept that requires active resistance. It's only an idea like any other.

Don't be obtuse. Slavery as it was practised is the wholesale capture of groups of people, and their forced labour. That is now illegal, and we have mechanical harvesters to do most of the work that slaves used to do. Having a low-paid job that you can freely leave at any time is not the same thing at all. Comparing the Federal Reserve to an 18th Century plantation owner is just insulting to the men and women who were worked to death as slaves.

Most northern European countries are now secular by majority. The specific religions continue in other countries, but the atheists who live there don't go around acting in a religious way to compensate. They live their lives as atheists without giving the non-existence of God a second thought. They don't go to "atheist church" on Sundays or say "atheist prayers". They are without religion.

I didn't realise you were going to make it the crux of your argument. If you feel I misled you, then I apologise.

I dunno, this just doesn't seem like a good reason not to look for answers. Also, as a rule, humans tend to do silly things when they don't know the explanation for something. I'd rather drive out superstition with accurate science.

Yes, missing something. But it's a matter of degrees. The things that religious people claim are missing from science are enormous oversights which would fundamentally change the theories. e.g. The existence of a cosmic meddler who created everything in situ. That would mean that the entire big bang & expanding universe theory is completely wrong. You couldn't fix that with a small alteration - you'd have to throw the whole lot out and start again with something that fitted all the observed evidence even better. I don't think that is possible.

The thing that those theories have in common is that they were all first attempts based on small amounts of evidence, or in some cases no evidence at all. When more evidence was gathered, it didn't fit, and so a new theory had to be created to explain both the old and the new evidence. These days, there is a vast amount of evidence gathered to support the existing major theories, which are all ones which have displaced older theories and are now well entrenched. Any new theory would have to explain all that evidence even better, as well as the anomalous new evidence that was found. This is unlikely. Of course, I can't say it's impossible, but it's certainly the case that there haven't been any major discreditations in the last 50 years, and that's despite the rate of evidence gathering increasing.

It's really just the amount of evidence we have to support the major theories. I accept that this is something we could never be 100% certain about, but it certainly doesn't seem worth any serious consideration.

Okay - perhaps we agree on this then - that it's unlikely that any major theory will be overturned. But in that case, you should find it perfectly reasonable for people to make "dogmatic" statements about ghosts being impossible. Do you honestly think that it's at all likely that some revolutionary discovery will be made that shows that ghosts can exist after all? That all that work on neural mapping and psychology will turn out to have missed something so fundamental that the theories have to be changed completely? I find that unlikely.

- - - - - - - - - - -

At some point you have to bite the bullet and say "X, Y and Z are religious activities". Otherwise you could apply your argument to anything. What defines a football supporter? I'd say it's rooting for a particular team to win all its matches, and watching that team play. I don't consider myself a football supporter because I don't do either of those things. But you could argue that, well, not everyone who goes to a football match is supporting one of the teams playing - they might have been given the tickets as a gift. And some people cheer for more than one team. So it's not clear what being a football supporter entails. And therefore, it is difficult to decide whether Smuel is a football supporter or not. No, that's just being silly. I am not a football supporter. Nor am I religious.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that the following things are religious activities: Reading holy books in search of wisdom, performing rote prayers that supposedly bring you closer to God, gathering with others to worship God. People who do those things are "religious". Atheists do not do those things. Atheism is not a religion.

You know, you could counter my argument with one simple thing: Just name an activity that atheists do that non-atheists do not do. However, you can't do this. I know you can't, and you know you can't, because you understand perfectly well what I mean when I say "religious activity" and you also know that atheists do not do them, because you know what being an atheist entails. You just don't want to face up to it.

In other words - going to church is a religious activity. And you are correct - sometimes you will find that atheists go along with religious activities just to fit in. However, you can't give me an example of a religious person doing "atheist activities". Because there is no such thing. Because atheism is not a religion.

 

Man, science is, like, a complex, mechanical rose, you know? Fucking beautiful. The Scripture is just a dusty old book full stories, made up years ago for other people in another time.

 

Actually science is nothing like that, Transparent Painting. Get on board or shut the hell up.

 

I realise now that this whole time everyone's been arguing about the abrahamic tradition.

Dur, it's obviously wrong about creation, but it's good advice for personal hygeine. Just the ticket for managing tribes of dirty, angry idiots.

As for Jesus, a nonviolent godking in the middle of the most bloodthirsty empire that ever there was? Obviously, we should all invite this guy into our hearts, seriously. He's like the Dalai Llama, or Keanu Reeves or something. Gosh.

But, I'm way over in the pacific ocean, albeit in an english speaking country. This is asia, and our religions didn't have the benefit of a roman empire formalising doctrine in law and outlawing dissenting opinions about the scriptures.

Sure, there's been politics in eastern religions, but there's a different mentality in general: That the concepts are merely concepts for individual growth, not actually concrete answers to be defended to the death.

The early christian rush to matyrdom did as much damage to the future of christianity as the fascist roman crackdown did, and I'm sure the abrahamic tradition can provide more examples of faith-to-the-death-and-completely-missing-the-point.

Here's what I think. Any scientific breakthrough or development, ever, depends upon a lot of people working peacefully together. Compared to crowd-control, the science is easy: just plodding through the process. World-views are more important than science itself.

You say a world-view should agree with scientific evidence, and I quite agree. You say human/english society is too grown up and sensible to need religion, I say enjoy your class-riots, old chap!

 

I feel like playing Civ 5. Anyone else got that game?

 

This thread is about the tea party being retarded, Zanza. Stop derailing.

 

Ok, here's where I disagree; You do.

Regardless of the concept, if it's been introduced, it takes as much conviction to fully agree or disagree with something. Why? Well, why not look at a few synonyms of conviction and see how they relate to what's going on;

You're of the persuasion that there is (are) no God (gods). You have confidence that your gathered experience refutes the supernatural. Your view is the result of a disagreement based on material evidence (or a personal notion).

There's a grey area between agree and disagree, but if you hypothetically believed there were these Grundlemeeps living on the moon, I'd be just as opposed to the idea as you're into it until you gave me solid proof, though an unknown concept's denial requires no conviction at all - just as you've said (because you can't deny something you don't know about). That doesn't mean once it's been introduced it requires no conviction to not believe in it. You're right, God is no more special than any human concept, and I never treated it that way. I know sarcasm is difficult to infer without emphasis in text, but believe me when I tell you my statement, "You're right, because God isn't like any of those things," was sarcasm.

But, when you disagree with an introduced concept, you're agreeing that it does not work/isn't factual. So yes, disagreeing/maintaining a diametrically opposed opinion requires conviction...though I guess we're both right, aren't we?

I'm not being obtuse, I'm giving you a point of view as a man living in the US. If you decide to leave a low-paying job for any reason, there's a good chance there's not a job out there paying more that what you were already making in this country. On top of that, prospective employers in relatively well paying fields here tend to only hire people with a bachelor's degree or higher, with an arbitrary amount of experience that can only be gained by working the job you're trying to get. If your skill set doesn't go beyond "cashier" or "retail," you're limited in your choice of jobs by a given skill set and the fact that most people can do the same job as you.
In effect, to make any amount of money in a low paying job, you're better off staying there until the job market opens up - and in light of that, screw you if you can't tolerate other people in person. Being forced to work a shitty job for minimum pay (that only covers your living expenses, probably in a hovel or crappy apartment), is functionally identical to slavery. Slaves worked simply for a place to sleep, and food. Sure, the overt physical abuse isn't there, but the threat of starving/being homeless is very real.

Being without a religion is not specifically atheist. Now, a word that would apply to "no religion" is non-denominational - these people believe in God/gods, but follow no religion. Though, there are many secular atheist groups on this planet, as in religions that don't require the belief in any deities. However, humanists are atheists with no religion.

I maintain that the mindset of a person, with or without theistic beliefs, is capable of being dogmatic, and in essence, similar in effect to a faithful person's adamance of any specific god's existence. However, one thing that does indeed unite atheists is the belief in no deity. There can be any number of reasons for that, as I've said, just like there are any number of reasons to follow a deity.

In spite of this, I don't have any argument for "atheism as a religion" any more, considering I did research - and as I already know all atheists don't think alike, there is no ritual or knowledge defining them but the meaning of the word, "atheist." Yeah, there are plenty of religious websites arguing for my previous point, but it's all hogwash because it hinges on all atheists being science-oriented. In short, I agree that atheism itself is not a religion.

You told me I confused atheism with science, which I denied because I didn't. Asking you to specify ("You'll have to tell me where I said atheism and science are the same thing"), you quoted where I said "atheism is faith in science," and said that's where I had said it - but it still didn't match up. After I demonstrated how what I said didn't equal what I thought you read, I elaborated and you responded with "That's pretty clear cut to me, but I said you had confused the two, not that they were the same thing." That doesn't even make sense. Saying a particular world-view means the person following it has faith in something doesn't mean I'm confusing the world-view for an object of faith. Now, if I had started talking about "science" and instead used the word "atheism" (the atheistic method, for example) or vice versa, then yes - I would have confused the two words. If by you having "misled" me, you happen to mean you don't know what confusing two words looks like, then yes - that's what happened. However, all of that aside, it wasn't the crux of my argument, just something that still doesn't make sense.

Humans in general - not me. I am not "humans," and you'll find humans by and large tend to be stupid and easy to panic, while individuals are markedly different. I agree with you that quashing superstitious ideas with science is a good idea, but I'm not of a mindset that something unknown must be supernatural - I'm simply cautious as to revealing the exact answer on certain issues I'd rather not know.

I know the human mind's thought processes are driven by sensory input, resulting in electrical and chemical signals, while being variously influenced by any reasonably safe consumable (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc.) - but I fear that if the exact cause for specific abstract thoughts can be determined, it will perhaps lead to the control of thought and the end of free will. Therefore, and this may be simple paranoia, I fear for humanity upon the discovery.

I'm not arguing from a religious perspective here* - my life is dedicated to science, but I know there are unknowable things in this universe, and knowable things we haven't yet discovered. Saying modern scientific theories with less than 100 years of study to back them up won't be overturned because you don't think they can is silly. The Big Bang model I don't have a reason to dispute, but should a (possible) better explanation come along, I'd check it out.

*But in case you think religion prevents scientific discovery, the man who came up with the very foundation of the Big Bang theory (expanding universe along with the quintessential singularity), Georges Lemaitre - was a Catholic Priest.

*You'll have to read the snippet I quoted above this one to find that you said you thought it wasn't possible, i.e. impossible.
They weren't all first attempts, and actually, given the evidence backing them at the time, it wouldn't make sense for any other theories to take their place unless something absolutely smashing them came about - and it did. Actually, rather the opposite could be true; Someone (Jan Oort, 1932 and Fritz Zwicky in 1933) conceptualizes a crazy way out of left field theory (dark matter) and people say it's pretty crazy because they can't see the evidence. Then, in the late sixties/early seventies, a young astronomer (Vera Rubin) finds evidence corroborating the virial theorem (created by Zwicky) of dark matter using technology that didn't exist in the 30's. Why can't the same thing happen in our future, either adding on to, overturning, or bringing some crazy theory into acceptance?

Because you don't think it is? Our technology now is much more powerful than it was 100 years ago, and more efficient/more powerful tools of observation are being designed and built as we speak. Who's to say our ability to observe won't increase even further 100 years from now? As our observations increase in accuracy, you can bet there will be things we discover that hadn't been considered before and must then be added into whatever theory must be reworked to allow them, or used to formulate an entirely new theory.

Well, saying something is unlikely has never meant it was impossible, but I'm surprised you didn't use it any time you said something was impossible (while it was actually unlikely) in your entire post. However, I also find it unlikely.
Unfortunately, all evidence for supernatural phenomena is anecdotal at best (local legend, etc.), since images/video/audio can all be doctored/staged. Now, there are indeed some things that aren't yet explained by science, undoctored (and unstaged) video/audio/images that will show more than a simple artifact (while normally remaining rather amorphous {but admittedly "are said" to have been analyzed by unnamed "experts"}), but that doesn't mean I'd go as far as saying "Unexplained? I bet you mean, ghosts would explain it."

Personally, I haven't seen (or heard) anything as of yet unexplained by science pertaining to this in my waking life (well perhaps, but I also have a history of hallucinations), though I've had oddly specific dreams about dead pets if they died while I wasn't around. I know people I can actually trust (i.e. have no reason not to believe them) who say they have, as well;

My dad tells me he was visited by my uncle who died of cancer complications the moment he passed - "Will, I love ya - but I have to go." A dream, and the only person it happened to - but shortly after my dad had this dream my mother came in, woke him up, and told him my uncle had died.

My girlfriend's brother overdosed on heroin and was cremated, and his ashes were split among family. She had a dream after getting his ashes that he was paddling up a river toward her in a canoe, and he said, "Spread my ashes." She told the dream to her aunt, who oddly enough had the same dream. Now, her brother loved the water and boats, but had never paddled up a river or ever been in a canoe.
Her step-father's dead mother called, about 11 years ago, while she was living in her mother's house (as in, my girlfriend's mom's house {I didn't know how else to word the sentence}). When she called, she spoke to my girlfriend's mom and said, "Hi Carol." Recognizing the voice, Carol incredulously asked if it was her dead mother in law (can't remember her name). The caller on the other end hung up. Gary (the step-father) asked who was on the phone, but was also completely trashed. When he was told who it was, he said "Well, can you give me the phone the next time my mother calls?" And he passed out. I didn't get to speak with Gary (because he's a bit of an abusive dick and got kicked out), but my current girlfriend, her mother, and her biological grandmother corroborate the story.

Evidence? Kinda - but not admissible. Now, could something other than ghosts account for this? Sure! Though I'm uncertain of any as of yet known scientific phenomena that would explain an identical dream in two or more people, the type of phone call I listed (though an anonymous prank caller with a very accurate recording or an uncanny ability to impersonate dead people would work), or even a dream occurring simultaneously with the death of anyone/thing and involving that specific person/animal "saying" goodbye, unless it's possible to subconsciously know something like that - as it happens - during sleep. Sure, you can have a dream about a relative/loved one/pet dying or being dead, but the sheer coincidence of having the dream the very moment it happens is rather odd.

Given I have no evidence other than anecdotal, I don't expect you to believe it (or that I'm even telling the truth). You shouldn't accept belief of something so bizarre without solid proof - as you yourself know. As far as I'm concerned, these events are not always scientifically explained, and I find them curious.

The "science" regarding this sort of phenomenon, parapsychology - is bogus. There really isn't a reasonable explanation for why it would happen in the first place. Though the experience of such things isn't (always) disputed, the reality of the experience is.

 

Just looking for someone to play civ 5 with me.

 

My computer is dead, and I'm not about to install a game on my dad's iMac.

 

Why has no-one asked Gross what the deal with his apparent aversion to using colons is?

 

Well, since you indirectly asked so nicely;

A) I enjoy dashes, but have no dash key/have not learned how to create a dash using keyboard commands, therefore use the much less correct hyphen (though the hyphen itself can be considered an en dash in lieu of the longer em dash). A dash can be used any place that a colon might go, however.

B) I'm reticent in the use of a colon since mine stopped working properly.

 

This is about the only thing left that we disagree about. I think what you're doing is manipulating the language to make it seem like atheism is belief in something, whereas it's actually the absence of belief in something. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it's not. The default position on any concept is absence of belief. You didn't believe in Triple-Brained Grundlemeeps before I mentioned them, and now you still don't believe in them. What changed? Nothing. Your level of belief stayed constant.

If God is just another concept, which you agree is the case, then the same rules apply. Yes, atheists can be dogmatic, meaning that they refuse even to consider the evidence for something before deciding that the evidence doesn't convince them. But it's a position of refusing to let new belief in, rather than believing strongly in the absence of whatever they're considering.

See, you're doing the same thing here. You're starting from the position that the supernatural requires evidence to dispute it. It doesn't - it requires evidence to support it. Without evidence to support it, it disputes itself, so to speak.

Think about how science operates. You said that when dark matter was first proposed, nobody believed it - it was only after evidence was gathered that they came to accept it. They didn't need to gather "evidence to dispute it" in order not to believe - the default position was lack of belief.

Okay, so why were scientists so convinced that the dark matter theory was incorrect? You are right - they had some level of conviction about something. But it was that they had conviction in their current theories, and dark matter didn't fit into those. It's not that they had "conviction in the absence of dark matter", it's that they had "conviction in other theories which preclude dark matter". When the concept of dark matter was introduced, their line was "this doesn't fit with what I believe in", not "I strongly disbelieve in this". So sure, atheists can have conviction, but they have conviction in theories which preclude God, or the supernatural. The dogma is in adhering too closely to what they already believe, and not being open-minded enough to consider alterations to their favoured theories.

The reason that this is an important distinction is because religious people try to cast atheism as a belief system, and then say "there, see, atheists are just as bad as we are" and then try to get creationism given equal time as evolution in schools on the basis that "they're both valid theories". Atheism is not a belief system - it is the absence of religious beliefs. Treating it as a religion is giving ammunition to idiots. Fight the lie.