#81
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/19/2020 10:18 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb : Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth as a retreat to magic. There were times when human scientists said "according to science, Bumblebees can't fly" No, sorry. That's a grossly distorted simplification of what was actually said. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/ or many other references. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:22:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. Has the sentence been disqualified? I'm keeping score here. I think Ralph is just making the unassailable point that believing or not believing in god is not the sin qua non of ethical behavior. There were plenty of ethical pre-Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ethics If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. Some religious people are deserving of mockery: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0LEzejbgvLU/hqdefault.jpg And again, the point is just that some people derive an ethical code and others have it foisted upon them. That's obvious when the example is any religion with canon law. -- Jay Beattie. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/19/2020 12:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:22:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. Has the sentence been disqualified? I'm keeping score here. I think Ralph is just making the unassailable point that believing or not believing in god is not the sin qua non of ethical behavior. There were plenty of ethical pre-Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ethics If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. Some religious people are deserving of mockery: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0LEzejbgvLU/hqdefault.jpg And again, the point is just that some people derive an ethical code and others have it foisted upon them. That's obvious when the example is any religion with canon law. -- Jay Beattie. Tammy Faye Bakker? You skipped the easy one - your local Oregon Bagwan! -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
writes:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 5:52:51 PM UTC-7, Steve Weeks wrote: On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote: What's the source of any human behavior? Either it's God or it's not -- there is no reason to separate moral/ethical codes from anything else. Simple: it's not. Morality is an evolved trait, and it is observed in some non-human species (primates, for one). Tribalism in animals is more or less universal and has nothing in common with morality. Some guy sent me a video of a lioness and her cub trying to make it across the savannah in a semidrought. An African elephant picked up the cub who was collapsed and carried it to the river. This while surprising was certainly not morality as we would know it. I think Mr. Weeks meant something more like the experimentally demonstrated fact that some animals get all bent out of shape by what seems to them unfair treatment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequi...ion_in_animals |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote: Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb : Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth as a retreat to magic. There were times when human scientists said "according to science, Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced in understanding insect flight. You are referring to a "theory" perhaps put forth by a collage student that proved that a bumble bee couldn't fly. Unfortunately or perhaps deliberately, the theory was based on a bumble bee being a fixed wing device when in fact it is not. A subsequent theory, that a bumble bee could fly, based on the bee being a moving wing device was also expounded which proved to be correct. Rather like the fact that Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous substance. Similarly, "it isn't possible in the length of time of this universe" is clearly not true. The human genome has developed in the time of this universe, and if we're too stupid to understand how, that's only a sign of our stupidity and not a sign the magic would be needed to create human beings. -- cheers, John B. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:32:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 5:34:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:05 PM, wrote: On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9:58:05 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 8:35:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 8:34 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? Yes, but that's not establishing religion or dictating how we worship -- or what we worship, at least not in the First Amendment sense. ... Most criminal laws fit with secular moral/ethical codes. I think you're sidestepping the question. What's the source of the secular moral/ethical codes? -- - Frank Krygowski Sidestepping even further, what's the source of religion -- and what is the source of religious prohibitions? In large part, religion is just the executive branch -- the enforcement mechanism for a lot of social norms, or even worse, the whims of those in power. Do you think Yahweh really gave hygiene tips to Moses? Yahweh had a thing about bodily discharges: http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bi...till%20evening You know, if I were Yahweh, I'd be more of a big picture guy and maybe delegate the whole hygiene thing to one of my subordinates. Worshiping another god will get you the death penalty (Exodus/Deuteronomy). That, I think, would present a constitutional problem. Imagine getting pulled over and hauled off for worshiping another god. Sales for Black Sabbath t-shirts would go down the toilet. Anyway, secular laws may track religious prohibitions, but that doesn't make them religious. They represent a consensus opinion that existed long before any modern religion. According to the wonderful world of WIKI, "One of the oldest-known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...e%20killed.%22 -- Jay Beattie. I think that the Jews had something like 622 religious laws. Jesus reduced these to just two - Remember thy lord thy God and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That should be simple enough for even a lawyer to understand. Loopholes. There are always loopholes. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I'm Catholic though perhaps lapsed, but MAN are there loopholes. I'm thinking that my wife is going to be doing God's dishes for at least half of an eternity in purgatory until she learns to clean something. In her Church of England style she thinks that all you have to do is say, "I'm sorry" and all is forgiven. And a Catholic can go to confession, tell the Priest his/her/its transgressions, say two Our Fathers and three Hail Mary's, make a good Act of Contrition and you are free to sin for another week. -- cheers, John B. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:46:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:55 PM, wrote: ... Some black telling me that I invented slavery is going to get a fist in his nose. Hmm. That's not very Christian. -- - Frank Krygowski Tell that to the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar were perpetually suppressed by Pope Clement V by the bull Vox in excelso in 1312, you idiot. -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Dog's Prayer | Simon Jester | UK | 0 | September 20th 19 09:58 PM |
Nativity Prayer of St. Augustine | Claire Towny | UK | 4 | December 25th 09 09:25 PM |
Chalkbot is as worthless as prayer. | Anton Berlin | Racing | 3 | July 8th 09 09:25 PM |
A short prayer.... | Callistus Valerius | Racing | 8 | June 12th 07 02:46 PM |
The Cyclists Prayer | Mark Johnson | UK | 3 | March 9th 05 08:24 PM |