Question for believers: Are we within God's jurisdiction?

[zaangalewa]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

 

[Taz]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected. According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

Protection of natural law rights is not exclusive to government. It’s moral for any person to do that, and so by extension, any organization can be delegated the right to do that.

It’s important to understand that the only thing government adds is an exemption from morality - the “right” to do things no individual has a right to do. And what do we call something that no individual has a right to do? We call it wrong, immoral. Remove this license to act immorally, and what’s left is not government.

You do not have to police people personally, but I phrase my questions from that perspective to make clear that if you don’t have a right to do something, government doesn’t either; they are just people, and all people have the same rights. We can have a full-time protection and investigation agency, but they cannot have rights that individuals don’t have; or they are - by definition - an immoral institution.

If a government was funded morally, it would have to be funded voluntarily; as individuals do not have the natural law right to coerce people into giving them money. If was to protect, it could only act in defense of rights, not act as an authority over people; as no individual is an authority over anyone else.

So it could not tax, not draft, not limit movement or benign behavior in public spaces, not make any law which differs from natural law. Would you still call this organization “government” when it does not govern? When it exists only as an extension of individual rights and makes no claim to authority?

Men are not angels, which is precisely why it’s insane to create a seat of immense power, then choose some from among the imperfect throng to sit upon it. All this does is magnify man’s immorality (see all of history). A free society at least keeps the playing field level. Show me Stalin, Hitler, Mao, without governmental authority, and I’ll show you three misguided loudmouths with more bullets in their chests than murders under their belts.

See post #217

Yes, I read that. How does that refute what I said?

If rights are unalienable, people don't have the option to "give up the right to do everything they want in exchange for security", not even for themselves. And even if you could give up your own, you clearly have no right to force me to do so merely because I was born within your midst. Not to mention the idea of giving up rights in order to protect them is self-contradictory.

The terminology "do everything they want" is fishy here as well. Natural law doesn't give you the right to do everything, but merely everything that does not infringe upon the rights of others. The use of this phrase groups immoral action with moral action in a covert attempt to bridge the idea of giving up murdering and stealing with benign actions like crossing a border or walking around naked. It's a ploy to gain agreement on the former and thereby imply agreement on the latter. This kind of dishonesty indicates a knowledge that the argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

This is rational within the limits of what constitutes "proof" in modern times. However, Terence McKenna juxtaposed the notions of "the primacy of individual experience" with objective science as an "appropriate arbiter of all thought", and I think this is an idea worthy of some consideration. Man, after all, is a wholly subjective being. It may very well be the case that a person can prove God's existence to themselves, but to no one else.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

... Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. ...

To say so means you are an antidemocratic extremist. In a democracy all state power emanates from the people (= the voters).

It’s sad that simply describing reality makes one an extremist.

Reality?

Please tell me in what other scenario you would accept people delegating rights they don’t have themselves.

Human beings have all rights - including the right to make everything wrong, which causes bad consequences, that's all.

Can I grant my brother the right to use your car?

You can. But I fear he will think "My brother is an idiot" - if not, then he is an idiot.

Can you grant me the right to fire people from your local Wal-Mart?

You can fire whomever you like to fire in the next Wal-Mart. But who cares about?

Can we all get together and choose a delegate to kidnap every Asian child in our city?

Sure you can do so.

We can play pretend and act like this is valid and moral, but it’s just not.

A person must first HAVE a right before they can validly delegate it to someone else.

What a nonsense. "Everything is allowed" is the first unwritten basic law. Then start restrictions. The people make this restrictions.

This is simple logic, and when it comes to delegating power to punish with violence, it becomes a question of morality as well.

All state power emanates from the people. They decide what are the laws in the USA. That's not a question of morality - otherwise abortion would not exist for example.

What's being missed here is that government is a moral concept. It is the right to rule, not just the ability. This right is said to extend from the rights of individuals, the "consent of the governed". Using consent as a justification for governmental rule indicates the moral nature of the institution. This isn't my idea, it's what the founders of this nation openly intended.

However, the argument is fundamentally flawed - there is no validity to "consent of the governed". If rights are "unalienable" that means they cannot be removed from a person by any means, not even voluntary consent. You can't even give up your own rights, let alone condone infringement upon the rights of others.

Yes, there are limits on freedom, but they are determined by natural law; man has no power to alter them in any way. The limit on an individual's freedom is precisely the point at which his actions would infringe upon the rights of another. This is no different than two gravitational forces coming into opposition - it is a natural law, in other words, it is a description of reality itself. Man discovers rights and their limits; he does not create them.

 

[Taz]

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

This is rational within the limits of what constitutes "proof" in modern times. However, Terence McKenna juxtaposed the notions of "the primacy of individual experience" with objective science as an "appropriate arbiter of all thought", and I think this is an idea worthy of some consideration. Man, after all, is a wholly subjective being. It may very well be the case that a person can prove God's existence to themselves, but to no one else.

People see what they want to see, but self-delusion can't be thought of as proof, just fantasy.

 

[zaangalewa]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

What a nonsense: Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism and you are an atheist. An agnostics knows that not only theism is a belief (Christians never said anything else) but also atheism is only a belief, that's all. And you should in general not think I tolerate a Nazi like you. Your will to destroy people who don't share your belief in atheism is transparent to me. You are an extremely hateful person.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. ...

To say so means you are an antidemocratic extremist. In a democracy all state power emanates from the people (= the voters).

It’s sad that simply describing reality makes one an extremist.

Reality?

Please tell me in what other scenario you would accept people delegating rights they don’t have themselves.

Human beings have all rights - including the right to make everything wrong, which causes bad consequences, that's all.

Can I grant my brother the right to use your car?

You can. But I fear he will think "My brother is an idiot" - if not, then he is an idiot.

Can you grant me the right to fire people from your local Wal-Mart?

You can fire whomever you like to fire in the next Wal-Mart. But who cares about?

Can we all get together and choose a delegate to kidnap every Asian child in our city?

Sure you can do so.

We can play pretend and act like this is valid and moral, but it’s just not.

A person must first HAVE a right before they can validly delegate it to someone else.

What a nonsense. "Everything is allowed" is the first unwritten basic law. Then start restrictions. The people make this restrictions.

This is simple logic, and when it comes to delegating power to punish with violence, it becomes a question of morality as well.

All state power emanates from the people. They decide what are the laws in the USA. That's not a question of morality - otherwise abortion would not exist for example.

What's being missed here is that government is a moral concept.

Tell this your president Donald Trump and he will start to laugh. The only reason he is president was to tell people what they like to hear. And what they liked to hear had not a lot to do with moral.

It is the right to rule,

You confuse the words "might" and "right". A government is able to do with all the full own might wrong things.

You dhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATF08Q7K4jA

not just the ability. This right is said to extend from the rights of individuals, the "consent of the governed". Using consent as a justification for governmental rule indicates the moral nature of the institution.

Only because it exists a natural right of community for human beings - and this community needs rules and organization - makes nothing moral in context with this rules and organizations. Laws are able to be the extreme opposite of justice. Animals for example have also natural rights - but human beings ignore in most cases the natural rights of animals.

This isn't my idea, it's what the founders of this nation openly intended.

Are you sure you understand what they said? I don't have the feeling I do not think like one of your founders.

However, the argument is fundamentally flawed - there is no validity to "consent of the governed". If rights are "unalienable" that means they cannot be removed from a person by any means, not even voluntary consent. You can't even give up your own rights, let alone condone infringement upon the rights of others.

But no one has to accept a natural right, which you call "unalienable" right.

Yes, there are limits on freedom,

No.

but they are determined by natural law; man has no power to alter them in any way. The limit on an individual's freedom is precisely the point at which his actions would infringe upon the rights of another.

If I kill you then you are dead. Nothing can make you undead afterwards - and if I am lucky I will afterwards live a long happy life, well respected from all people - as for example a murderer of a member of my family did. This is not justice - but this world here has not a lot to do with justice. Nevertheless exists freedom.

This is no different than two gravitational forces coming into opposition - it is a natural law, in other words, it is a description of reality itself. Man discovers rights and their limits; he does not create them

We make laws because of moral - but laws are a formal structure (=a kind of blind stupid machine) and "moral" is a living spiritual structure. Sometimes it's good to be a liar - sometimes it's good to kill - sometimes it's good to steal. There's no natural law without exceptions. Sometimes moral is the crime and sometimes a crime is moral. That's why all the concepts of your founders and all our concepts will not work in the future, if the people don't believe in god any longer. More and more people see in human rights manmade rights and not natural rights. So I find it very important to fight for natural human rights. But in the end in a democracy the people will decide, which laws they like to have and what they like to see as a justifiable exception.

 

[Taz]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

What a nonsense: Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism and you are an atheist. An agnostics knows that not only theism is a belief (Christians never said anything else) but also atheism is only a belief, that's all. And you should in general not think I tolerate a Nazi like you. Your will to destroy people who don't share your belief in atheism is transparent to me. You are an extremely hateful person.

Atheists are as deluded as theists, they both believe in something that they have no proof for. Making me agnostic. Suck it up, princess.

 

[zaangalewa]

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

What a nonsense: Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism and you are an atheist. An agnostics knows that not only theism is a belief (Christians never said anything else) but also atheism is only a belief, that's all. And you should in general not think I tolerate a Nazi like you. Your will to destroy people who don't share your belief in atheism is transparent to me. You are an extremely hateful person.

Atheists are as deluded as theists, they both believe in something that they have no proof for. Making me agnostic. Suck it up, princess.

The problem is I know that you are an unbelievable stupid idiot, because I am an agnostics on my own. Agnosticism is not a form of belief or a kind of religion - nor is agnosticism a creed nor speaks agnosticism about a probability between an existance or not existance of god nor is it a kind of psychology what to believe or not to believe. Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing. The only question in this context is: ¿Ignoramus aut ignorabimus? You are perhaps a Dawkinian atheists but not an agnostics - otherwise you would not attack continously people, who don't share your form of paradox belief.

 

[Taz]

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

What a nonsense: Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism and you are an atheist. An agnostics knows that not only theism is a belief (Christians never said anything else) but also atheism is only a belief, that's all. And you should in general not think I tolerate a Nazi like you. Your will to destroy people who don't share your belief in atheism is transparent to me. You are an extremely hateful person.

Atheists are as deluded as theists, they both believe in something that they have no proof for. Making me agnostic. Suck it up, princess.

The problem is I know that you are an unbelievable stupid idiot, because I am an agnostics on my own. Agnosticism is not a form of belief or a kind of religion - nor is agnosticism a creed nor speaks agnosticism about a probability between an existance or not existance of god nor is it a kind of psychology what to believe or not to believe. Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing. The only question in this context is: ¿Ignoramus aut ignorabimus? You are perhaps a Dawkinian atheists but not an agnostics - otherwise you would not attack continously people, who don't share your form of paradox belief.

"Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing."

Not so, in fact, I see no proof either way because there is none, but am open to changing my mind given real proof. In other words, I'm still searching for proof, so my knowledge is ever expanding. And I'm keeping an open mind, can't be any fairer than that.

 

[harmonica]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

believe in nothing???....you can't believe ''nothing''--ridiculous

 

[Brian Blackwell]

... Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. ...

To say so means you are an antidemocratic extremist. In a democracy all state power emanates from the people (= the voters).

It’s sad that simply describing reality makes one an extremist.

Reality?

Please tell me in what other scenario you would accept people delegating rights they don’t have themselves.

Human beings have all rights - including the right to make everything wrong, which causes bad consequences, that's all.

Can I grant my brother the right to use your car?

You can. But I fear he will think "My brother is an idiot" - if not, then he is an idiot.

Can you grant me the right to fire people from your local Wal-Mart?

You can fire whomever you like to fire in the next Wal-Mart. But who cares about?

Can we all get together and choose a delegate to kidnap every Asian child in our city?

Sure you can do so.

We can play pretend and act like this is valid and moral, but it’s just not.

A person must first HAVE a right before they can validly delegate it to someone else.

What a nonsense. "Everything is allowed" is the first unwritten basic law. Then start restrictions. The people make this restrictions.

This is simple logic, and when it comes to delegating power to punish with violence, it becomes a question of morality as well.

All state power emanates from the people. They decide what are the laws in the USA. That's not a question of morality - otherwise abortion would not exist for example.

What's being missed here is that government is a moral concept.

Tell this your president Donald Trump and he will start to laugh. The only reason he is president was to tell people what they like to hear. And what they liked to hear had not a lot to do with moral.

It is the right to rule,

You confuse the words "might" and "right". A government is able to do with all the full own might wrong things.

You dhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATF08Q7K4jA

not just the ability. This right is said to extend from the rights of individuals, the "consent of the governed". Using consent as a justification for governmental rule indicates the moral nature of the institution.

Only because it exists a natural right of community for human beings - and this community needs rules and organization - makes nothing moral in context with this rules and organizations. Laws are able to be the extreme opposite of justice. Animals for example have also natural rights - but human beings ignore in most cases the natural rights of animals.

This isn't my idea, it's what the founders of this nation openly intended.

Are you sure you understand what they said? I don't have the feeling I do not think like one of your founders.

However, the argument is fundamentally flawed - there is no validity to "consent of the governed". If rights are "unalienable" that means they cannot be removed from a person by any means, not even voluntary consent. You can't even give up your own rights, let alone condone infringement upon the rights of others.

But no one has to accept a natural right, which you call "unalienable" right.

Yes, there are limits on freedom,

No.

but they are determined by natural law; man has no power to alter them in any way. The limit on an individual's freedom is precisely the point at which his actions would infringe upon the rights of another.

If I kill you then you are dead. Nothing can make you undead afterwards - and if I am lucky I will afterwards live a long happy life, well respected from all people - as for example a murderer of a member of my family did. This is not justice - but this world here has not a lot to do with justice. Nevertheless exists freedom.

This is no different than two gravitational forces coming into opposition - it is a natural law, in other words, it is a description of reality itself. Man discovers rights and their limits; he does not create them

We make laws because of moral - but laws are a formal structure (=a kind of blind stupid machine) and "moral" is a living spiritual structure. Sometimes it's good to be a liar - sometimes it's good to kill - sometimes it's good to steal. There's no natural law without exceptions. Sometimes moral is the crime and sometimes a crime is moral. That's why all the concepts of your founders and all our concepts will not work in the future, if the people don't believe in god any longer. More and more people see in human rights manmade rights and not natural rights. So I find it very important to fight for natural human rights. But in the end in a democracy the people will decide, which laws they like to have and what they like to see as a justifiable exception.

Fantastic audiobook - Librovox does humanity a great service. I saw this at the beginning of the movie "The Trial", but was not sure I was interpreting it correctly. I would like to hear your interpretation.

You seem to be speaking of what is, and morality is about what should be. It behooves the moral person to act in such a way that he contributes to bringing about what should be. It behooves him to be the change he wishes to see in the world.

Yes, there is injustice, but this is not because man is evil by nature. It is because man is deceived by those few who are evil. Most voters think they do what is right, that they act in service of their society. Most supporters of government believe they support that which is necessary to protect the rights of themselves and their neighbors. They are wrong. They do quite the opposite.

We only choose our own actions, though we may try to persuade others. We must understand morality to make wise choices, for morality exists to guide us toward the long-term benefit of mankind. Every act of immorality has a short-term benefit; that's precisely why people act immorally. Government teaches us that immorality is cleansed, made moral, via its political process.

It is wrong to demand money from your neighbor by threat of violence in order to pay for you child's schooling. But it is thought right to do so by voting for delegates to do this very same thing via "taxation". It is wrong to drag your neighbor off to a cage in your basement for growing marijuana in his backyard. It is thought right to vote for someone else to do it. This is the great lie.

All evil begins with a deception, and the deception of government is that immorality may be laundered by its processes. Man commits evil and believes he is doing good. As the Christians say, "The devil is a liar".

 

[zaangalewa]

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

What a nonsense: Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism and you are an atheist. An agnostics knows that not only theism is a belief (Christians never said anything else) but also atheism is only a belief, that's all. And you should in general not think I tolerate a Nazi like you. Your will to destroy people who don't share your belief in atheism is transparent to me. You are an extremely hateful person.

Atheists are as deluded as theists, they both believe in something that they have no proof for. Making me agnostic. Suck it up, princess.

The problem is I know that you are an unbelievable stupid idiot, because I am an agnostics on my own. Agnosticism is not a form of belief or a kind of religion - nor is agnosticism a creed nor speaks agnosticism about a probability between an existance or not existance of god nor is it a kind of psychology what to believe or not to believe. Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing. The only question in this context is: ¿Ignoramus aut ignorabimus? You are perhaps a Dawkinian atheists but not an agnostics - otherwise you would not attack continously people, who don't share your form of paradox belief.

"Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing."

Not so, in fact, I see no proof either way because there is none, but am open to changing my mind given real proof. In other words, I'm still searching for proof, so my knowledge is ever expanding. And I'm keeping an open mind, can't be any fairer than that.

The problem of your Dawkinsian thoughts is it that you think a special form of ways how human beings are able to think - the idea empirism - is the holy grail or the real Quran of your belief atheism - but it is not. God is able to exist and not to exist the same time - but we are not able to think this. That's a gigantic problem if we like to be reasonable human beings. So if you use agnosticism not as a philosophy but as a kind of spiritual belief then you are without any doubt wrong, because a contradictory premise leads always only to true results. This is not reasonable. Natural scientist live for example from things which are able to go wrong: from results of experiments. What we are able to ask and to know in natural science is for example that the universe started to exist with all energy including all natural laws. What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists. Only because some questions have nothing to do with natural science makes atheism not to the only possible religion and natural scientists not to a Dawkinsian priest caste of atheism.

 

[zaangalewa]

To say so means you are an antidemocratic extremist. In a democracy all state power emanates from the people (= the voters).

It’s sad that simply describing reality makes one an extremist.

Reality?

Please tell me in what other scenario you would accept people delegating rights they don’t have themselves.

Human beings have all rights - including the right to make everything wrong, which causes bad consequences, that's all.

Can I grant my brother the right to use your car?

You can. But I fear he will think "My brother is an idiot" - if not, then he is an idiot.

Can you grant me the right to fire people from your local Wal-Mart?

You can fire whomever you like to fire in the next Wal-Mart. But who cares about?

Can we all get together and choose a delegate to kidnap every Asian child in our city?

Sure you can do so.

We can play pretend and act like this is valid and moral, but it’s just not.

A person must first HAVE a right before they can validly delegate it to someone else.

What a nonsense. "Everything is allowed" is the first unwritten basic law. Then start restrictions. The people make this restrictions.

This is simple logic, and when it comes to delegating power to punish with violence, it becomes a question of morality as well.

All state power emanates from the people. They decide what are the laws in the USA. That's not a question of morality - otherwise abortion would not exist for example.

What's being missed here is that government is a moral concept.

Tell this your president Donald Trump and he will start to laugh. The only reason he is president was to tell people what they like to hear. And what they liked to hear had not a lot to do with moral.

It is the right to rule,

You confuse the words "might" and "right". A government is able to do with all the full own might wrong things.

You dhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATF08Q7K4jA

not just the ability. This right is said to extend from the rights of individuals, the "consent of the governed". Using consent as a justification for governmental rule indicates the moral nature of the institution.

Only because it exists a natural right of community for human beings - and this community needs rules and organization - makes nothing moral in context with this rules and organizations. Laws are able to be the extreme opposite of justice. Animals for example have also natural rights - but human beings ignore in most cases the natural rights of animals.

This isn't my idea, it's what the founders of this nation openly intended.

Are you sure you understand what they said? I don't have the feeling I do not think like one of your founders.

However, the argument is fundamentally flawed - there is no validity to "consent of the governed". If rights are "unalienable" that means they cannot be removed from a person by any means, not even voluntary consent. You can't even give up your own rights, let alone condone infringement upon the rights of others.

But no one has to accept a natural right, which you call "unalienable" right.

Yes, there are limits on freedom,

No.

but they are determined by natural law; man has no power to alter them in any way. The limit on an individual's freedom is precisely the point at which his actions would infringe upon the rights of another.

If I kill you then you are dead. Nothing can make you undead afterwards - and if I am lucky I will afterwards live a long happy life, well respected from all people - as for example a murderer of a member of my family did. This is not justice - but this world here has not a lot to do with justice. Nevertheless exists freedom.

This is no different than two gravitational forces coming into opposition - it is a natural law, in other words, it is a description of reality itself. Man discovers rights and their limits; he does not create them

We make laws because of moral - but laws are a formal structure (=a kind of blind stupid machine) and "moral" is a living spiritual structure. Sometimes it's good to be a liar - sometimes it's good to kill - sometimes it's good to steal. There's no natural law without exceptions. Sometimes moral is the crime and sometimes a crime is moral. That's why all the concepts of your founders and all our concepts will not work in the future, if the people don't believe in god any longer. More and more people see in human rights manmade rights and not natural rights. So I find it very important to fight for natural human rights. But in the end in a democracy the people will decide, which laws they like to have and what they like to see as a justifiable exception.

Fantastic audiobook - Librovox does humanity a great service. I saw this at the beginning of the movie "The Trial", but was not sure I was interpreting it correctly. I would like to hear your interpretation.

When I was in school I had very hard discussion with a teacher who tried me to force to make an interpretation of this words of Kafka. My interpretation was very short: Kafka said exactly what he liked to say. He said this in the shortest and best possible way.

You seem to be speaking of what is, and morality is about what should be.

No. I hate it to speak about moral because lots of people have only moral for others. God says "Don't kill" - men make an encyclopedia with 123 books out of this and write the 124th while they kill gods creation.

It behooves the moral person to act in such a way that he contributes to bringing about what should be. It behooves him to be the change he wishes to see in the world.

Don't try to be your own enemy. Ask god if you have such a problem. He will answer or give you a sign. Then speak with real friends about this what you think what his answer is.

Yes, there is injustice, but this is not because man is evil by nature.

Not? Do you think it is justice that so many people died in the WTC? Some do so for example.

It is because man is deceived by those few who are evil. Most voters think they do what is right, that they act in service of their society. Most supporters of government believe they support that which is necessary to protect the rights of themselves and their neighbors. They are wrong. They do quite the opposite.

We only choose our own actions, though we may try to persuade others. We must understand morality to make wise choices,

No. Be just simple wise. Start now immediately to be wise.

for morality exists to guide us toward the long-term benefit of mankind. Every act of immorality has a short-term benefit; that's precisely why people act immorally. Government teaches us that immorality is cleansed, made moral, via its political process.

Alexander the great was a damned drunken murderous asshole is not the interpretation of historians although he was a damned drunkard and murderous asshole.

It is wrong to demand money from your neighbor by threat of violence in order to pay for you child's schooling.

Maybe - maybe not. Depends on the concrete situation.

But it is thought right to do so by voting for delegates to do this very same thing via "taxation".

Now it is nonsense what you say here. We force here in Germany everyone to send his children to school and everyone has to pay for. Here in Germany for example the public schools are in most cases excellent schools and the private schools are in most cases worse schools.

It is wrong to drag your neighbor off to a cage in your basement for growing marijuana in his backyard. It is thought right to vote for someone else to do it. This is the great lie.

I do not understand what you are speaking here about. In general produces marijuana brain damages, which can be very very drastic. Its good to avoid alcohol and drugs.

All evil begins with a deception, and the deception of government is that immorality may be laundered by its processes. Man commits evil and believes he is doing good. As the Christians say, "The devil is a liar".

... but who tells a Nazi where the next Jew lives is also not a good man. Sometimes the truth is it's better to be a liar.

 

[zaangalewa]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

So what? Atheism is also only a belief. The paradox is in this case to believe not to believe. The normal atheistic prejudice is "Atheists are intelligent. Believers are stupid."

believe in nothing???....you can't believe ''nothing''--ridiculous

I believe for example god made the universe out of nothing and it expands into nothing. This form of belief is about 1700 years old. If god made it in another way then this drives me not nervous - his choice - but how to find out how he made it really? Perhaps it could be a good idea to make a renaissance and to build universes - ah sorry: universities - and to teach physics and meta-physics?

 

[Taz]

You can't prove god and you can't prove god couldn't be possible. Making agnosticism the thinking person's position. Just like me.

What a nonsense: Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism and you are an atheist. An agnostics knows that not only theism is a belief (Christians never said anything else) but also atheism is only a belief, that's all. And you should in general not think I tolerate a Nazi like you. Your will to destroy people who don't share your belief in atheism is transparent to me. You are an extremely hateful person.

Atheists are as deluded as theists, they both believe in something that they have no proof for. Making me agnostic. Suck it up, princess.

The problem is I know that you are an unbelievable stupid idiot, because I am an agnostics on my own. Agnosticism is not a form of belief or a kind of religion - nor is agnosticism a creed nor speaks agnosticism about a probability between an existance or not existance of god nor is it a kind of psychology what to believe or not to believe. Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing. The only question in this context is: ¿Ignoramus aut ignorabimus? You are perhaps a Dawkinian atheists but not an agnostics - otherwise you would not attack continously people, who don't share your form of paradox belief.

"Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing."

Not so, in fact, I see no proof either way because there is none, but am open to changing my mind given real proof. In other words, I'm still searching for proof, so my knowledge is ever expanding. And I'm keeping an open mind, can't be any fairer than that.

The problem of your Dawkinsian thoughts is it that you think a special form of ways how human beings are able to think - the idea empirism - is the holy grail or the real Quran of your belief atheism - but it is not. God is able to exist and not to exist the same time - but we are not able to think this. That's a gigantic problem if we like to be reasonable human beings. So if you use agnosticism not as a philosophy but as a kind of spiritual belief then you are without any doubt wrong, because a contradictory premise leads always only to true results. This is not reasonable. Natural scientist live for example from things which are able to go wrong: from results of experiments. What we are able to ask and to know in natural science is for example that the universe started to exist with all energy including all natural laws. What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists. Only because some questions have nothing to do with natural science makes atheism not to the only possible religion and natural scientists not to a Dawkinsian priest caste of atheism.

"God is able to exist and not to exist the same time", you can't prove that, so it's meaningless.

"What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists." Gravity is what made everything in the universe, it built everything by pulling things together. The "why" is a philosophical matter, not something that by default leads to an invisible being who cares if we worship it and that can only be found by reading a book...

 

[zaangalewa]

What a nonsense: Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism and you are an atheist. An agnostics knows that not only theism is a belief (Christians never said anything else) but also atheism is only a belief, that's all. And you should in general not think I tolerate a Nazi like you. Your will to destroy people who don't share your belief in atheism is transparent to me. You are an extremely hateful person.

Atheists are as deluded as theists, they both believe in something that they have no proof for. Making me agnostic. Suck it up, princess.

The problem is I know that you are an unbelievable stupid idiot, because I am an agnostics on my own. Agnosticism is not a form of belief or a kind of religion - nor is agnosticism a creed nor speaks agnosticism about a probability between an existance or not existance of god nor is it a kind of psychology what to believe or not to believe. Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing. The only question in this context is: ¿Ignoramus aut ignorabimus? You are perhaps a Dawkinian atheists but not an agnostics - otherwise you would not attack continously people, who don't share your form of paradox belief.

"Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing."

Not so, in fact, I see no proof either way because there is none, but am open to changing my mind given real proof. In other words, I'm still searching for proof, so my knowledge is ever expanding. And I'm keeping an open mind, can't be any fairer than that.

The problem of your Dawkinsian thoughts is it that you think a special form of ways how human beings are able to think - the idea empirism - is the holy grail or the real Quran of your belief atheism - but it is not. God is able to exist and not to exist the same time - but we are not able to think this. That's a gigantic problem if we like to be reasonable human beings. So if you use agnosticism not as a philosophy but as a kind of spiritual belief then you are without any doubt wrong, because a contradictory premise leads always only to true results. This is not reasonable. Natural scientist live for example from things which are able to go wrong: from results of experiments. What we are able to ask and to know in natural science is for example that the universe started to exist with all energy including all natural laws. What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists. Only because some questions have nothing to do with natural science makes atheism not to the only possible religion and natural scientists not to a Dawkinsian priest caste of atheism.

"God is able to exist and not to exist the same time", you can't prove that, so it's meaningless.

"What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists." Gravity is what made everything in the universe, it built everything by pulling things together. The "why" is a philosophical matter, not something that by default leads to an invisible being who cares if we worship it and that can only be found by reading a book...

You said something. I read it and I knew immediately that I am really one of the worst idiots the world ever had seen. Congrats. You wan. God is not existing. Be happy. Bye Bye.

 

[Taz]

Atheists are as deluded as theists, they both believe in something that they have no proof for. Making me agnostic. Suck it up, princess.

The problem is I know that you are an unbelievable stupid idiot, because I am an agnostics on my own. Agnosticism is not a form of belief or a kind of religion - nor is agnosticism a creed nor speaks agnosticism about a probability between an existance or not existance of god nor is it a kind of psychology what to believe or not to believe. Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing. The only question in this context is: ¿Ignoramus aut ignorabimus? You are perhaps a Dawkinian atheists but not an agnostics - otherwise you would not attack continously people, who don't share your form of paradox belief.

"Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing."

Not so, in fact, I see no proof either way because there is none, but am open to changing my mind given real proof. In other words, I'm still searching for proof, so my knowledge is ever expanding. And I'm keeping an open mind, can't be any fairer than that.

The problem of your Dawkinsian thoughts is it that you think a special form of ways how human beings are able to think - the idea empirism - is the holy grail or the real Quran of your belief atheism - but it is not. God is able to exist and not to exist the same time - but we are not able to think this. That's a gigantic problem if we like to be reasonable human beings. So if you use agnosticism not as a philosophy but as a kind of spiritual belief then you are without any doubt wrong, because a contradictory premise leads always only to true results. This is not reasonable. Natural scientist live for example from things which are able to go wrong: from results of experiments. What we are able to ask and to know in natural science is for example that the universe started to exist with all energy including all natural laws. What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists. Only because some questions have nothing to do with natural science makes atheism not to the only possible religion and natural scientists not to a Dawkinsian priest caste of atheism.

"God is able to exist and not to exist the same time", you can't prove that, so it's meaningless.

"What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists." Gravity is what made everything in the universe, it built everything by pulling things together. The "why" is a philosophical matter, not something that by default leads to an invisible being who cares if we worship it and that can only be found by reading a book...

You said something. I read it and I knew immediately that I am really one of the worst idiots the world ever had seen. Congrats. You wan. God is not existing. Be happy. Bye Bye.

Your concession is duly noted. Even though I never said that god wasn't existing, just that there's no proof yet to say that.

 

[zaangalewa]

The problem is I know that you are an unbelievable stupid idiot, because I am an agnostics on my own. Agnosticism is not a form of belief or a kind of religion - nor is agnosticism a creed nor speaks agnosticism about a probability between an existance or not existance of god nor is it a kind of psychology what to believe or not to believe. Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing. The only question in this context is: ¿Ignoramus aut ignorabimus? You are perhaps a Dawkinian atheists but not an agnostics - otherwise you would not attack continously people, who don't share your form of paradox belief.

"Agnosticism limits our knowledge! We don't know whether god is existing or not existing."

Not so, in fact, I see no proof either way because there is none, but am open to changing my mind given real proof. In other words, I'm still searching for proof, so my knowledge is ever expanding. And I'm keeping an open mind, can't be any fairer than that.

The problem of your Dawkinsian thoughts is it that you think a special form of ways how human beings are able to think - the idea empirism - is the holy grail or the real Quran of your belief atheism - but it is not. God is able to exist and not to exist the same time - but we are not able to think this. That's a gigantic problem if we like to be reasonable human beings. So if you use agnosticism not as a philosophy but as a kind of spiritual belief then you are without any doubt wrong, because a contradictory premise leads always only to true results. This is not reasonable. Natural scientist live for example from things which are able to go wrong: from results of experiments. What we are able to ask and to know in natural science is for example that the universe started to exist with all energy including all natural laws. What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists. Only because some questions have nothing to do with natural science makes atheism not to the only possible religion and natural scientists not to a Dawkinsian priest caste of atheism.

"God is able to exist and not to exist the same time", you can't prove that, so it's meaningless.

"What we don't know and what we are not able to ask in natural science is why it exists." Gravity is what made everything in the universe, it built everything by pulling things together. The "why" is a philosophical matter, not something that by default leads to an invisible being who cares if we worship it and that can only be found by reading a book...

You said something. I read it and I knew immediately that I am really one of the worst idiots the world ever had seen. Congrats. You wan. God is not existing. Be happy. Bye Bye.

Your concession is duly noted. Even though I never said that god wasn't existing, just that there's no proof yet to say that.

You said something. I read it and I knew immediately that I am really one of the worst idiots the world ever had seen. Congrats. You wan. God is existing. Be happy. Bye Bye.