Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Procrastinator35]

Do you think all we do is read textbooks?

It does if that version is not supported by the available evidence and analysed by reputable, well regarded professional historians. Not rank amateurs who alter / twist evidence to fit their own world view or narrative.

As new evidence comes to light, most certainly. That evidence however needs to be critically analysed, evaluated and interpreted by reputable professional historians.

No, I'm sure that you've been to the occasional archaeological dig-site in your time & accidentally buried your flask in the process, given your specialty is ancient history n all.

Actually my honours thesis was on the very period in question, for which I did extremely well for.....It was also marked by 'Reputable scholars'.

Plenty of amateur sleuths who invest their time researching history for a hobby, become just as 'clued-up' to reading between the lines & making certain connections, that otherwise 'reputable professional historians' might do......The field is hardly a 'closed -shop'.....Even though tenured types would have us believe otherwise.

The short synopsis I have supplied you with initially is gaining much purchase nowadays among many so-called reputable types.....It is not as radical as you might otherwise imagine, beyond the world of the academic ivory tower.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

No, I'm sure that you've been to the occasional archaeological dig-site in your time & accidentally buried your flask in the process, given your specialty is ancient history n all.

Actually my honours thesis was on the very period in question, for which I did extremely well for.....It was also marked by 'Reputable scholars'.

Plenty of amateur sleuths who invest their time researching history for a hobby, become just as 'clued-up' to reading between the lines & making certain connections, that otherwise 'reputable professional historians' might do......The field is hardly a 'closed -shop'.....Even though tenured types would have us believe otherwise.

The short synopsis I have supplied you with initially is gaining much purchase nowadays among many so-called reputable types.....It is not as radical as you might otherwise imagine, beyond the world of the academic ivory tower.

Are you a teacher p35?

I have an image of you smoking a cigar and fogging up a pair of thick rimmed glasses, holding forth on Beyond Good and Evil.

 

[chelseacarlton]

There is no arguing with the perfectly indoctrinated. Through my eyes you are a puppet dancing on strings you will never see, and violently resist any who try to point it out. I guess I should just let the experts do all my reasoning for me, and parror exactly what they say, like you do huh? Im usually content to just watch the slow motion trainwreck as it unfolds but every now and then for some dumb reason I put my foot in it. When will I learn eh?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Rightio then!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Two dying Ebola patients were spirited out of a Congo hospital by their relatives on motor-bikes, then taken to a prayer meeting with 50 other people, potentially exposing them all to the deadly virus, a senior aid worker said on Thursday.

Both patients were vomiting and infectious and died hours after the prayer session in the river port city of Mbandaka, Dr. Jean-Clement Cabrol, emergency medical coordinator for Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), said. Democratic Republic of Congo is racing to contain an outbreak of the disease, which spreads through contact with infected bodily fluids including vomit and sweat. "The escape was organized by the families, with six motorcycles as the patients were very ill and couldn't walk," Cabrol told a news briefing in Geneva after returning from the affected region. "They were taken to a prayer room with 50 people to pray. They were found at two in the morning, one of them dead and one was dying. So that's 50-60 contacts right there. The patients were in the active phase of the disease, vomiting."

The patients got out of the isolation ward on Monday. Earlier reports did not give details of the escape or where they went afterwards. A third patient who left the ward survived. Health officials started trying to trace the motorcycle drivers and other people who came into contact with the patients as soon as the escape was reported, Dr. Peter Salama, head of emergency response at the World Health Organization (WHO), told Reuters on Thursday. "From the moment that they escaped, the (health) ministry, WHO and partners have been following very closely every contact," he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...o-prayer-meeting/ar-AAxKSev?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

[chelseacarlton]

Guess whom has argued maliciously and uneducably against stem cell research?

My friend died of cancer several years ago,if stem cell research had been allowed a decade before some of his other vastly grotesque treatments,he’d more than likely being kicking back drinking wine with me right now in the spa.
He would boasting about the dees 100+ point win last week.
But no,the religious campaigners are responsible for his untimely demise and sufferance and they enjoy it.
That’s one reason I want your morally depraved and wickedness eradicated!

 

[Baby Duck]

Guess whom has argued maliciously and uneducably against stem cell research?

My friend died of cancer several years ago,if stem cell research had been allowed a decade before some of his other vastly grotesque treatments,he’d more than likely being kicking back drinking wine with me right now in the spa.
He would boasting about the dees 100+ point win last week.
But no,the religious campaigners are responsible for his untimely demise and sufferance and they enjoy it.
That’s one reason I want your morally depraved and wickedness eradicated!

What objective moral imperative do you, an atheist, have to appeal to? You should be celebrating that you and yours have one less person to compete for food with, thus increasing the likelihood of survival of your spawn. Your friend was weak, you are strong. If you were at least consistent with your own worldview you would take the outlook I have prescribed instead of parading your false indignancy on an internet forum to generate discussion.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

What objective moral imperative do you, an atheist, have to appeal to? You should be celebrating that you and yours have one less person to compete for food with, thus increasing the likelihood of survival of your spawn. Your friend was weak, you are strong. If you were at least consistent with your own worldview you would take the outlook I have prescribed instead of parading your false indignancy on an internet forum to generate discussion.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

The only moral imperative you have is the self constructed one, made from your own weakness in trusting some combination of voices, old books made by simple people and delusion.

 

[Baby Duck]

The only moral imperative you have is the self constructed one, made from your own weakness in trusting some combination of voices, old books made by simple people and delusion.

I asked the question of them. Clearly you know the answer, dont like it and have decided to project it onto me. Morality has no place in the atheistic worldview. Sounds like an emotive response to me, should I dismiss it the way you do when you hear things you dont like?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I asked the question of them. Clearly you know the answer, dont like it and have decided to project it onto me. Morality has no place in the atheistic worldview. Sounds like an emotive response to me, should I dismiss it the way you do when you hear things you dont like?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Theists have no claim to morality. None.

 

[RupieDupie]

Are you a teacher p35?

I have an image of you smoking a cigar and fogging up a pair of thick rimmed glasses, holding forth on Beyond Good and Evil.

Ecce Homo

Being “good” = pleb mentality

 

[RupieDupie]

I asked the question of them. Clearly you know the answer, dont like it and have decided to project it onto me. Morality has no place in the atheistic worldview. Sounds like an emotive response to me, should I dismiss it the way you do when you hear things you dont like?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Ah yes, I’m in the position of being able to use the same answer to independently answer two posts

Being “good” = pleb mentality

 

[RupieDupie]

There was this one time I was walking down a corridor and further down the corridor two of my colleagues were walking towards me. So I waved and both waved back, saving me energy as I only had to wave once. Those were good times.

 

[Baby Duck]

Theists have no claim to morality. None.

They do, philosophers and theologians have discussed this for millenia. A creator gives us a foundation for knowing right from wrong. Atheism can only provide subjective personal opinions because there would be no ultimate purpose to life beyond survival, therefore anything can be permissible. These things are elementary and very well understood to philosophers. Its already been conceded. If you cant give me a worthwhile response beyond dodging every question put to you then I suggest you not reply at all.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

A creator gives us a foundation for knowing right from wrong. Atheism can only provide subjective personal opinions because there would be no ultimate purpose to life beyond survival, therefore anything can be permissible.

Most atheists are humanists; based upon a commitment to each other and this planet. It;s the rational acknowledgement we're all in this together.

There is nothing objectively true about theism. Someone was talking about looking at a flower and determining truth via that. Or some s**t.

 

[RupieDupie]

There was this one time I was walking down a corridor and further down the corridor two of my colleagues were walking towards me. So I waved and both waved back, saving me energy as I only had to wave once. Those were good times.

You see in optimisation theory a person might have x kgs of steel, t amount of time, to create y amount of product, with the goal of making profit. The optimal solution is the good solution, everything else is not as good, or even bad, relative to the goal.

In a society where the goal is to give a few jackasses many many munny, the best outcome is to have the many people believing that being meek, forgiving, and poor is virtuous.

 

[Baby Duck]

Most atheists are humanists; based upon a commitment to each other and this planet. It;s the rational acknowledgement we're all in this together.

There is nothing objectively true about theism. Someone was talking about looking at a flower and determining truth via that. Or some s**t.

Its still just personal opinion. Humanism gives no objective basis for morality either. You can just as easily make a commitment to murdering everyone different to your group. It would be no more or less a moral thing to do than aiding each other. What im getting at is you can only prescribe whatever moral code and meaning to life that you personally feel is correct, but try as you might you just cannot ever give some sort of objective basis for it that transcends your own feelings. Not everyone will agree with your assertion that we are all in this together. How do you decide who is right? Your worldview simply fails to get off the ground when faced with reality, no one can actually live by it.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[chelseacarlton]

What objective moral imperative do you, an atheist, have to appeal to? You should be celebrating that you and yours have one less person to compete for food with, thus increasing the likelihood of survival of your spawn. Your friend was weak, you are strong. If you were at least consistent with your own worldview you would take the outlook I have prescribed instead of parading your false indignancy on an internet forum to generate discussion.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

I don’t know bd,but one thing I do know is that you are a scumbag for even entertaining the idea of replying to me in such a way.
I’ve lost many friends and relatives that would have had their lives lengthened and brightened due to the research that was not only thwarted here,but abroad.
My friend fought cancer for over 15 years,guinea pigging treatments vastly inferior to stem cell,he never once complained,he never once asked for pity,he was the strongest human spirit I’ve ever met.
I sat with him on many occasions thru these treatments and listened to an array of oncologists work their magic always with utmost grace,with a guy that was almost their equal,even as an untrained pleb.
If only we’d been allowed access to this research earlier,as every single oncologist reiterated,he’d be alive and well today.
That is a fact,another fact is that it was “always” religious ethics that stood firmly in the the way of this research and development.
I pity you your false bravado,I hope you never have to nurse a loved one through the things that I have!

 

[RupieDupie]

Most atheists are humanists; based upon a commitment to each other and this planet. It;s the rational acknowledgement we're all in this together.

There is nothing objectively true about theism. Someone was talking about looking at a flower and determining truth via that. Or some s**t.

Yep, people make a social contract it usually starts with “don’t rape other people”.

Goal = society
Optimal behaviour = don’t rape other people

Its still just personal opinion. Humanism gives no objective basis for morality either. You can just as easily make a commitment to murdering everyone different to your group. It would be no more or less a moral thing to do than aiding each other. What im getting at is you can only prescribe whatever moral code and meaning to life that you personally feel is correct, but try as you might you just cannot ever give some sort of objective basis for it that transcends your own feelings. Not everyone will agree with your assertion that we are all in this together. How do you decide who is right? Your worldview simply fails to get off the ground when faced with reality, no one can actually live by it.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

God commands a bit of killing in The Bible so it cannot be objectively evil.

 

[Baby Duck]

I don’t know bd,but one thing I do know is that you are a scumbag for even entertaining the idea of replying to me in such a way.
I’ve lost many friends and relatives that would have had their lives lengthened and brightened due to the research that was not only thwarted here,but abroad.
My friend fought cancer for over 15 years,guinea pigging treatments vastly inferior to stem cell,he never once complained,he never once asked for pity,he was the strongest human spirit I’ve ever met.
I sat with him on many occasions thru these treatments and listened to an array of oncologists work their magic always with utmost grace,with a guy that was almost their equal,even as an untrained pleb.
If only we’d been allowed access to this research earlier,as every single oncologist reiterated,he’d be alive and well today.
That is a fact,another fact is that it was “always” religious ethics that stood firmly in the the way of this research and development.
I pity you your false bravado,I hope you never have to nurse a loved one through the things that I have!

So, you have no answer for me then. Did you perhaps consider that maybe I found it offensive that you hold me personally and many like me responsible for the death of your friend, and tried to claim some moral high ground when you have no idea if the reaserch would have been beneficial or not? I had nothing to do with your friends death, and it really seemed a pathetic excuse to use the memory and legacy of this person as a reason to attack people you dont know.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Roylion]

A creator gives us a foundation for knowing right from wrong.

No. The notion of a "creator" is used by others in power of a social group to determine what they think is right and wrong within the bounds of that group. In other words they are cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally.

Morality is essentially a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

Attitudes to "marriage", "adultery", "blasphemy", "homosexuality", "incest" and others might be examples.

Atheism can only provide subjective personal opinions because there would be no ultimate purpose to life beyond survival, therefore anything can be permissible.

Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviours that constitute morality (i.e. a sense of "right and "wrong" - whaever those terms mean in themselves) evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). A creator is not necessarily needed to determine this and the only reason a creator would be invoked is to give those strictures or laws some gravitas or legitimacy in order to impose them on others.

For example the phenomenon of reciprocity in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. Other evolutionary biologists argue that morality is a suite of behavioural capacities, most likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). For example it has been convincingly demonstrated by zoologist Dr. Sanjida O'Connell that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.

Morality does not depend upon religion, nor the involvement of a "Creator".

 

[The Delusionist]

What objective moral imperative do you, an atheist, have to appeal to? You should be celebrating that you and yours have one less person to compete for food with, thus increasing the likelihood of survival of your spawn. Your friend was weak, you are strong. If you were at least consistent with your own worldview you would take the outlook I have prescribed instead of parading your false indignancy on an internet forum to generate discussion.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Is that how you would view the world if you didn't have religion guiding/forcing you to view the world differently?

If it isn't, why do you believe it of others?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The constant re-evaluating, re-interpretations, translations across milennia defies any attempt to paint it as 'objective'. It's genuinely juvenile that someone could be convinced of some higher power from looking at a flower, or noticing a shade of the night sky, or whatever bullshit has been brought up.

 

[Baby Duck]

Is that how you would view the world if you didn't have religion guiding/forcing you to view the world differently?

If it isn't, why do you believe it of others?

If I wanted to live consistently with what I believed then yeah sure. No one wants to live with such a callous outlook of their fellow man though, so very few people do actually live like that. Just the most rich and powerful take that view.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Baby Duck]

No. The notion of a "creator" is used by others in power of a social group to determine what they think is right and wrong within the bounds of that group. In other words they are cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally.

Morality is essentially a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

Attitudes to "marriage", "adultery", "blasphemy", "homosexuality", "incest" and others might be examples.



Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviours that constitute morality (i.e. a sense of "right and "wrong" - whaever those terms mean in themselves) evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). A creator is not necessarily needed to determine this and the only reason a creator would be invoked is to give those strictures or laws some gravitas or legitimacy in order to impose them on others.

For example the phenomenon of reciprocity in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. Other evolutionary biologists argue that morality is a suite of behavioural capacities, most likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). For example it has been convincingly demonstrated by zoologist Dr. Sanjida O'Connell that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.

Morality does not depend upon religion, nor the involvement of a "Creator".

Im speaking in a purely ontological sense. If we were to sit down and try to think our way through this carefully. I understand the social dynamic a shared belief in a god creates. Its why I have argued that religion was vital to social cohesion. Some people here insist otherwise, but history shows that assertion to be wrong. So, if we sit and set God, a maximally supreme being that is the objective standard, as our axiomatic principle we can reason from there. You dont actually HAVE to believe in any God to do this. Its a thought experiment. If we sit down and use our own feelings on anything as the standard to reason from we will come up with a hugely diverse range of opinion, none of which could be said to be more right or wrong than the other.

Anyone could equally argue that permitting your neighbours in times of scarcity to drink from your waterholes and collect food from your area is dangerous to your survival. Kill them, let them starve or help them would not even enter the domain of morality, it would simply be a decision to make based on survival. Following that through logically all manner of atrocities would be perfectly fine morally since morality is really only predicated on your personal survival. Why then do we have feelings? What manner of selection process could possibly give rise to emotional sensetations? And if they are just a product of natural processes, how can we trust them at all? How could a blind and indifferent universe produce thinking and feeling creatures from dead, non-thinking and non-feeling matter?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Baby Duck]

The constant re-evaluating, re-interpretations, translations across milennia defies any attempt to paint it as 'objective'. It's genuinely juvenile that someone could be convinced of some higher power from looking at a flower, or noticing a shade of the night sky, or whatever bullshit has been brought up.

I think that attitude mainly comes from this idea that we are just so enlightened now, and there are very little mysteries left for us to discover. Why exactly would a flower express perfect and elaborate mathematical patterns anyway? Why something that is cognizable to the human mind rather than something random that makes no sense? Im sure the pollenating insects couldnt give two hoots just how elaborate a flower is.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app