Can Atheists be Moral?

[cnm]

You think you can try it on here, because these people don't know you.

But, in hilarious fashion, these people do appear to know you. Anyway, why not stop seeking victim status: rather, give your opinion on the OP?

 

[Mindful]

 

[Mindful]

You think you can try it on here, because these people don't know you.

But, in hilarious fashion, these people do appear to know you.

Troll chromosomes. You fit in well.

 

[BreezeWood]

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

that is not true, metaphysical effects are both provable and evident, evolution is an example of the metaphysical presence in the universe.

Not unless you don't know what metaphysical means.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

Its entirely described in terms of the physical ...

nothing could be further from the truth.

they are interrelated ...

the transformation of one physical being into another is a metaphysical event -

 

[Mindful]

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

that is not true, metaphysical effects are both provable and evident, evolution is an example of the metaphysical presence in the universe.

Not unless you don't know what metaphysical means.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

Its entirely described in terms of the physical ...

nothing could be further from the truth.

they are interrelated ...

View attachment 244165

the transformation of one physical being into another is a metaphysical event -

Metamorphosis is beautifully typified by the caterpillar into butterfly.

Unless there's another example?

 

[BreezeWood]

Dithering Ding. No backbone.

Why? Because I wrote what I believe?

Did you just ask something? Surely not.

Is there something you would like to compromise over? I know how big your people are on compromising.

That was a question.

What "people"?

Jewish people?

.

Jewish people?

they have claimed to be christian ...

 

[BreezeWood]

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

that is not true, metaphysical effects are both provable and evident, evolution is an example of the metaphysical presence in the universe.

Not unless you don't know what metaphysical means.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

Its entirely described in terms of the physical ...

nothing could be further from the truth.

they are interrelated ...

View attachment 244165

the transformation of one physical being into another is a metaphysical event -

Metamorphosis is beautifully typified by the caterpillar into butterfly.

Unless there's another example?

.

Metamorphosis is beautifully typified by the caterpillar into butterfly.

what do you consider the cicada - some are underground 20 years before surfacing, turning into an avian and flying away - true faith and exercised were their doubt of its existence.

 

[Mindful]

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

that is not true, metaphysical effects are both provable and evident, evolution is an example of the metaphysical presence in the universe.

Not unless you don't know what metaphysical means.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.

Its entirely described in terms of the physical ...

nothing could be further from the truth.

they are interrelated ...

View attachment 244165

the transformation of one physical being into another is a metaphysical event -

Metamorphosis is beautifully typified by the caterpillar into butterfly.

Unless there's another example?

.

Metamorphosis is beautifully typified by the caterpillar into butterfly.

what do you consider the cicada - some are underground 20 years before surfacing, turning into an avian and flying away - true faith and exercised were their doubt of its existence.

I didn't know that.

 

[BreezeWood]

g.t. has evolution wrong ... same for james bond, neither realize information is transferred from one generation to the next is a metaphysical phenomenon proven by evolution's progression - from the initial life template.

 

[G.T.]

Hey Breezewood, just out of curiousity what do you understand the difference between metaphysics and physics to be?

 

[BreezeWood]

the metaphysical is not understood ... does not mean it does not exist, proof is abundant. such that physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth but to the general universe the same as the elements.

 

[G.T.]

the metaphysical is not understood ... does not mean it does not exist, proof is abundant. such that physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth but to the general universe the same as the elements.

Im asking you, in virtue of which characteristic do you understand metaphysics to be different from physics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

information is transferred from one generation to the next is a metaphysical phenomenon proven by evolution's progression

It is exactly not that. We explained it with genetic theory

 

[BreezeWood]

information is transferred from one generation to the next is a metaphysical phenomenon proven by evolution's progression

It is exactly not that. We explained it with genetic theory

.

It is exactly not that. We explained it with genetic theory

you explained what ff - there is no physical connection from one generation to the next.

 

[cnm]

there is no physical connection from one generation to the next.

What is a fertilised egg, a concept?

 

[hobelim]

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk after their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.

You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.

These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Ohhh so I cannot find Jewish folks who believe in the God of the Bible..


ahhhhkayyyyyy


You're just being an apologist because you found a few things in the Bible and youre incapable of reconciling them.

#1. Allegories that convey common sense wisdom.

#2. Direct commandments to worship a God.

#3. Ridiculous contradictions.


And in order for you to reconcile all of that, you use a presupposed apologetic that it all falls under #1, which it doesnt and thats established based on the History and testimony.

I'm sure you can find many Jews who believe in God. They just won't ever believe that he became a human being or is edible.

I think your argument should be with people who profess to believe such nonsense.

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible.

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

You cannot use the same terrible reasoning and mock one and not the other because that's hypocritical, and lacks something like a spine.

Hey man. I do mock the literal the symbolic and your dismissal of it all as nonsense. There was nothing mysterious or ridiculous about Jesus speaking in figurative terms and clearly identifying bread as a metaphor for teaching. He was speaking in code like all oppressed people, criminals and ordinary people do when they want to communicate in secret.

The preexisting metaphor for the word of God, bread from heaven, became the flesh of Jesus, a new metaphor for teaching from God.

The body of any persons teaching is easily proven to exist, even easy to consume and digest even if a symbolic or literal eating of the teacher ritual is ridiculous and accomplishes nothing..

If you adopt the body of any persons teaching then that body is in you and with you.

The words of the law are figurative, the subjects hidden, and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. In kosher law, the flesh of one creature or another whether clean or unclean is a metaphor for teaching. This is the subject of kosher law. This reveals the wisdom of God. This is the Body of Christ.

Jesus taught and demonstrated by example the only right way to understand and fulfill the laws demands that removes the burden of the law, death, (the curse for failing to heed the instruction), reveals the wisdom of God, and fulfills the promise of eternal life for anyone who accepts that teaching and acts on it.

This is my flesh.

Now its in you, like a flame in the brush of a deadwood forest on a windy day, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

 

[G.T.]

You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.

These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Ohhh so I cannot find Jewish folks who believe in the God of the Bible..


ahhhhkayyyyyy


You're just being an apologist because you found a few things in the Bible and youre incapable of reconciling them.

#1. Allegories that convey common sense wisdom.

#2. Direct commandments to worship a God.

#3. Ridiculous contradictions.


And in order for you to reconcile all of that, you use a presupposed apologetic that it all falls under #1, which it doesnt and thats established based on the History and testimony.

I'm sure you can find many Jews who believe in God. They just won't ever believe that he became a human being or is edible.

I think your argument should be with people who profess to believe such nonsense.

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible.

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

You cannot use the same terrible reasoning and mock one and not the other because that's hypocritical, and lacks something like a spine.

Hey man. I do mock the literal the symbolic and your dismissal of it all as nonsense. There was nothing mysterious or ridiculous about Jesus speaking in figurative terms and clearly identifying bread as a metaphor for teaching. He was speaking in code like all oppressed people, criminals and ordinary people do when they want to communicate in secret.

The preexisting metaphor for the word of God, bread from heaven, became the flesh of Jesus, a new metaphor for teaching from God.

The body of any persons teaching is easily proven to exist, even easy to consume and digest even if a symbolic or literal eating of the teacher ritual is ridiculous and accomplishes nothing..

If you adopt the body of any persons teaching then that body is in you and with you.

The words of the law are figurative, the subjects hidden, and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. In kosher law, the flesh of one creature or another whether clean or unclean is a metaphor for teaching. This is the subject of kosher law. This reveals the wisdom of God. This is the Body of Christ.

Jesus taught and demonstrated by example the only right way to understand and fulfill the laws demands that removes the burden of the law, death, (the curse for failing to heed the instruction), reveals the wisdom of God, and fulfills the promise of eternal life for anyone who accepts that teaching and acts on it.

This is my flesh.

Now its in you, like a flame in the brush of a deadwood forest on a windy day, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Man, your psychobabble is not really any more coherent than a literalist. At the end of the day, the same idea applies: God is not proven. YHWH is not proven.

Nor is zeus, or Jesus at all. I dont really care what you think about the aim of a fairy tale.

 

[hobelim]

These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Ohhh so I cannot find Jewish folks who believe in the God of the Bible..


ahhhhkayyyyyy


You're just being an apologist because you found a few things in the Bible and youre incapable of reconciling them.

#1. Allegories that convey common sense wisdom.

#2. Direct commandments to worship a God.

#3. Ridiculous contradictions.


And in order for you to reconcile all of that, you use a presupposed apologetic that it all falls under #1, which it doesnt and thats established based on the History and testimony.

I'm sure you can find many Jews who believe in God. They just won't ever believe that he became a human being or is edible.

I think your argument should be with people who profess to believe such nonsense.

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible.

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

You cannot use the same terrible reasoning and mock one and not the other because that's hypocritical, and lacks something like a spine.

Hey man. I do mock the literal the symbolic and your dismissal of it all as nonsense. There was nothing mysterious or ridiculous about Jesus speaking in figurative terms and clearly identifying bread as a metaphor for teaching. He was speaking in code like all oppressed people, criminals and ordinary people do when they want to communicate in secret.

The preexisting metaphor for the word of God, bread from heaven, became the flesh of Jesus, a new metaphor for teaching from God.

The body of any persons teaching is easily proven to exist, even easy to consume and digest even if a symbolic or literal eating of the teacher ritual is ridiculous and accomplishes nothing..

If you adopt the body of any persons teaching then that body is in you and with you.

The words of the law are figurative, the subjects hidden, and not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. In kosher law, the flesh of one creature or another whether clean or unclean is a metaphor for teaching. This is the subject of kosher law. This reveals the wisdom of God. This is the Body of Christ.

Jesus taught and demonstrated by example the only right way to understand and fulfill the laws demands that removes the burden of the law, death, (the curse for failing to heed the instruction), reveals the wisdom of God, and fulfills the promise of eternal life for anyone who accepts that teaching and acts on it.

This is my flesh.

Now its in you, like a flame in the brush of a deadwood forest on a windy day, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Man, your psychobabble is not really any more coherent than a literalist. At the end of the day, the same idea applies: God is not proven. YHWH is not proven.

Nor is zeus, or Jesus at all. I dont really care what you think about the aim of a fairy tale.

lol...I understand that and its fine by me. Still I find it rather stupid to try to discredit a fairy tale by saying there is no proof that God exists. He really is a character in a book that anyone can read. Do you need proof for that?

Thats would be like hearing about the pied piper and then demanding proof of his existence without even trying to discern the teaching conveyed by reading and thinking deeply about what was written. Either way, whatever you believe or don't believe, whether you understand the lessons of the past or fail to, you will pay the piper.

At the end of the day, lol, whether you like it or not, our entire society, perceptions of good and evil, crime and punishment, who lives and who dies, who is admired and who is hated, is based on the ideas of perverse and irrational people who claim to believe it all yet have not thought any more deeply about scripture than you have.

How do you intend to deal with that fact if you really don't care and can't be bothered to take a stand about what is the right or wrong way to understand what was written? Find a hole in a wall, crawl inside and die?

Go ahead and continue to tell everyone that they are wrong without having the slightest clue about what is right while openly admitting that you don't give a crap and see how far you get you intellectually lazy and morally deficient bastard.

 

[cnm]

Still I find it rather stupid to try to discredit a fairy tale by saying there is no proof that God exists. He really is a character in a book that anyone can read. Do you need proof for that?

Like Tinker Bell? Do you clap your hands?

 

[cnm]

At the end of the day, lol, whether you like it or not, our entire society, perceptions of good and evil, crime and punishment, who lives and who dies, who is admired and who is hated, is based on the ideas of perverse and irrational people who claim to believe it all yet have not thought any more deeply about scripture than you have.

How do you intend to deal with that fact if you really don't care and can't be bothered to take a stand about what is the right or wrong way to understand what was written?

Haven't you just implied a position entered irrationally cannot be changed rationally?