GLASNOST
Gold Member
Your superstition is what you call common sense.For the universe to exist, there must be a creator..common sense..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your superstition is what you call common sense.For the universe to exist, there must be a creator..common sense..
It seems that I am not the first person to recognize the inherent bias of human beings... even human beings engaged in science.Why not just admit it. You have nothing to contribute to this subject.As long as human beings are involved it is impossible to remove human bias unless one is objective. So even science is not necessarily immune from bias.
Coming from someone whose avatar is a dog shitting on the American flag, I will take that for what it is worth.Your superstition is what you call common sense.For the universe to exist, there must be a creator..common sense..
Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.This is only true, if you first concede the presumption that "God" even exists. Without that presumption, your "purpose" for human beings is meaningless.
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.
The evidence is overwhelming...There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.
The evidence is overwhelming...There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.
You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?
So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.
So then you do believe that people do evil for evil's sake?Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.
So then you believe there is no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure?Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.By your logic the basis for all scientific investigation is meaningless too.
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.
ow convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?
The evidence is overwhelming...There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.
You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?
lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.
Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).No it's not. God has nothing to do with scientific research, and investigation. By the way, here is that proof you were asking about of me opposing Islam just as much as I oppose Christianity. You both worship the same magic skyman, although you would both deny that emphatically.
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.
The evidence is overwhelming...There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.
You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?
lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.
That's because Atheism doesn't rely on "brainwashing", that would be religion. it relies on indoctrination, and brainwashing from early childhood on.
Proving yet again that atheists are the first to reject science when it does not suit their agenda.Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?The basis for scientific analysis is observation and hypothesis. What is a hypothesis if it is not an assumption based on observation. In science one assumes a condition and then tests that condition and through observation which then is used as a basis to confirms or denies the hypothesis (i.e. the assumption).
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.
No it's not. The "method' you are suggesting is like telling a scientist, "If you wanna know if your new acne medicine works, inject yourself with it," No scientist with half a brain conducts experiments like that. You need a controlled test environment, objective observers to record results, and a detailed proposal of the expected results.ow convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?
That is usually how science experiments work. They have to be tested.
The evidence is overwhelming...There is no common sense to that claim at all, which is why it relies on "faith". Gravity exists. That is common sense. No faith required. Entropy occurs. Common sense. No faith required. See, faith is only required when there is no evidence. I choose to rely on evidence and objective fact, not faith, and superstition.
You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?
lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.
That's because Atheism doesn't rely on "brainwashing", that would be religion. it relies on indoctrination, and brainwashing from early childhood on.
Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx
The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin
1. de-moralize
2. destabilize
3. crisis
4. normalize
So scientists don't test their hypothesis?No it's not. The "method' you are suggesting is like telling a scientist, "If you wanna know if your new acne medicine works, inject yourself with it," No scientist with half a brain conducts experiments like that. You need a controlled test environment, objective observers to record results, and a detailed proposal of the expected results.ow convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?
That is usually how science experiments work. They have to be tested.
But, let's assume, just for the sake of argument that your methodology wasn't completely fucked up. I commit myself to God. I accept Jesus into my heart as lord and Saviour, I pray, and worship in the divine light of the Holy Spirit. Now, a month later, I am mugged, and robbed. This would be clear evidence that your premise was wrong, correct?
The evidence is overwhelming...
You have to kow I'm not gonna spend two hours watching some propaganda video. How about you give us the highlights?
lol, you won't even watch a 8 minute video by a former KGB Colonel which explains your subversive techniques.
That's because Atheism doesn't rely on "brainwashing", that would be religion. it relies on indoctrination, and brainwashing from early childhood on.
Communism is naturalized humanism. Karl Marx
The propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs. Vladimir Lenin
1. de-moralize
2. destabilize
3. crisis
4. normalize
Why do you bother repeating yourself, when you know that you are not willing to defend your bullshit?
Pseudo-science used to advance an agenda isn't science. You know, like Gay Conversion therapy. There is nothing scientific about that torture, but it does advance the Christian anti-homosexual agenda. I don't reject science. I reject propaganda masquerading as science. There's a difference.Proving yet again that atheists are the first to reject science when it does not suit their agenda.Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.The problem is that religion assumes a position for which there is no way to test objectively. What objective test is there for the existence of your invisible magic skyman?
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.
So you are against testing ideas and assumptions to prove their validity?Pseudo-science used to advance an agenda isn't science. You know, like Gay Conversion therapy. There is nothing scientific about that torture, but it does advance the Christian anti-homosexual agenda. I don't reject science. I reject propaganda masquerading as science. There's a difference.Proving yet again that atheists are the first to reject science when it does not suit their agenda.Nope. and don't bother posting those those articles about the pseudo-science "studies" trying to "prove" that infants are born with an "innate" sense of "right and wrong". I read them the last time you posted them, and after researching the sources of the studies dismissed them then.So then you do believe that we are born hardwired to know right from wrong?Not at all true. "Virtue" is a human ethical construct. Even your own Bible acknoweldges that there is not "natural" consequences of "virtue". Read Ecclesiastes sometime.Don't be silly. Of course we can test it. You just have never tried.
Do you really believe that if there is Creator, He would not leave a way for us to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. When people behave virtuously, predictable success will NATURALLY follow. When people behave without virtue, predictable failures will NATURALLY occur. This is nature accepting or rejecting us.
The problem with this Socratic proposition you are so fond of is that it relies on an outdated concept of "Good" and "Evil".Man is born with the ability to know right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. Men don't do evil for evil's sake, they do evil for the sake of their own good. So from this we can know that man prefers good over evil.
Again you are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that 'doing evil" has any consequences in nature.So getting back to the concept of nature rejecting us, how can we know if we are truly doing good or doing evil and rationalizing that we are doing good? The answer is simple... outcomes. Moral laws are not like physical laws. When you violate a physical law, the consequence is immediate. Not so for moral laws. The consequence of violating a moral law is not usually immediate, but since error cannot stand it will eventually fail. And when it does, if we are honest and paying attention we will come to know the error of our way and repent (i.e. transform). Thus evolving our consciousness (i.e. growing as human beings) and continuing our march towards the next leap in the evolution of matter.
How convenient. The test of the existence of God is to commit to the presumption that God exists. And, for how long do I need to commit to this presumption?We can test the assumption that God exists and is good by embracing His Spirit and worshiping Him in Spirit and Truth by dying to self and observing what happens when we do so. Only then will one see how everything is connected.