Religion of peace via their man made "submission" strikes again

[Joy4Uall]

Be specific? You are not a person who can call another to produce what you can't, The proof systems of faith and science are different. Joy4Uall. I wish you well.

Provide a court-room level of evidence for your claims - it's as simple as that. If you do that, then you'll be even better than Jesus on that one issue, because in 2000 years god/Jesus/Allah have been incapable of providing a court-room level for their claims.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And theists smile at scientific humanist, pat them on the head, and wish them well.

If you were in Jesus' shoes, would you, like Scientific Humanists, have found the moral courage to simply take 15 seconds out of your life to say "write this down: end slavery w/in the next 30 years"? Scientific Humanists would, Jake, because we believe in doing what's best for the world. What about you?
Thanks.

Good on you. But you don't set the standard or measure or challenge for theists, is the point. You have no standing at all ethically or morally or legally to do so. Enjoy the day.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Watch and decide for yourself
1400 shocking years of Islam in 5 minutes - Muslims are scared of this!!!

Jesus ("Isa") is the messiah in Islam (Muslims believe that Jesus will return as a MUSLIM), so as a Scientific Humanist (we care for humanity greatly!) we'd of course, if we had Jesus' super-powers, have come down in the last 2000 years and educated, just educated, the Muslims that they (according to the Bible, that is) got Jesus all wrong. That would be best for the world, of course. It would largely end the Jihad/holy war, and the world would be a far more peaceful place.

Would you other folks have done that, like Scientific Humanists would have done (if you/we had those powers)?

 

[Joy4Uall]

And theists smile at scientific humanist, pat them on the head, and wish them well.

If you were in Jesus' shoes, would you, like Scientific Humanists, have found the moral courage to simply take 15 seconds out of your life to say "write this down: end slavery w/in the next 30 years"? Scientific Humanists would, Jake, because we believe in doing what's best for the world. What about you?
Thanks.

Good on you. But you don't set the standard or measure or challenge for theists, is the point. You have no standing at all ethically or morally or legally to do so. Enjoy the day.

Since you can't simply answer "yes" to that question, then I'd like to say to you that Scientific Humanism is a belief system that would move you to a higher moral plane - one that cares for humanity even more than you do. This is not a put-down to you, but rather just trying to show you that a more ethical/caring belief system exists, if you choose to embrace it.

[Again, the question was "If you were in Jesus' shoes, would you, like Scientific Humanists, have found the moral courage to simply take 15 seconds out of your life to say "write this down: end slavery w/in the next 30 years"?] Scientific Humanist care about the world to answer...."YES!". I believe in you, and think that someday you'll find that moral courage too, my friend.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

[Joy4Uall]

And theists smile at scientific humanist, pat them on the head, and wish them well.

Do you care enough for Scientific Humanists to say this prayer, my friend (we'd say it, how about you)? "God, I love Scientific Humanists, so please allow Scientific Humanists, at least the ones that are ethical, into heaven and avoid torture in hell. Thanks."

I care about you enough to have just now said this prayer "God, I love JakeStarkey, so please allow JakeStarkey, as long as Jake is ethical, into heaven and avoid torture in hell, even if he's not a believer in the particular one right actual god - whoever that might be. Thanks."

Jake, let's rise to the New Morality that Scientific Humanism espouses.

Thanks.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There are many incredibly stupid leftists (just as there are righties), and these ignorant idiots cannot evaluate Islam as an ideology, much less criticize it for the totalitarian supremacism it represents. . All they are capable of is their puerile little game of identity politics where they see Islamists of having brown skin and since they have brown skin, they must defend them.

It really isn't any deeper than that.

 

[Joy4Uall]

And theists smile at scientific humanist, pat them on the head, and wish them well.

If you were in Jesus' shoes, would you, like Scientific Humanists, have found the moral courage to simply take 15 seconds out of your life to say "write this down: end slavery w/in the next 30 years"? Scientific Humanists would, Jake, because we believe in doing what's best for the world. What about you?
Thanks.

Good on you. But you don't set the standard or measure or challenge for theists, is the point. You have no standing at all ethically or morally or legally to do so. Enjoy the day.

Actually, because I say this prayer, I follow the world's most loving belief system "god/Jesus, we love Jews so much that we beg of you to please let all ethical Jews out of hell, and let them join you in heaven."

By saying this prayer, we show the after-life judge ("god", if any), that we are likely more loving than any other belief system, so our chances of a good "after-life" would be better than most any other belief system - assuming that "god" is a kind and fair judge. If one refuses to say that prayer, then "god" would not see them as loving as Scientific Humanists are, and their "after-life" chances would not be as favorable. It would please a fair/loving god for you to say that most loving of prayers, obviously.

Will you join us in saying this most loving of prayers, Jake? I believe in you, I know you're capable of saying it.

Peace.

Love.

Compassion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Scientific humanism", a term without meaning in fact, can be simply avoided by asking its believers to solve the following: can God create a weight S/He can't lift. Neither logic nor symbols nor language exists to answer the problem. I wish those who feel and believe as Joy4Uall a wonderful Easter Day.

 

[Joy4Uall]

"Scientific humanism", a term without meaning in fact, can be simply avoided by asking its believers to solve the following: can God create a weight S/He can't lift. Neither logic nor symbols nor language exists to answer the problem. I wish those who feel and believe as Joy4Uall a wonderful Easter Day.

There are a lot of things god can't do, so he's not all powerful as advertised, I'm afraid.
That's why we bring forward good stuff like "love your neighbor", but not the illogical/unscientific stuff like "god is all-powerful!"
We do know that god can't "defeat chariots of iron", according to the Bible: "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Judges 1:19

He also can't give us the final cure for cancer - or at least he's not as compassionate as Scientific Humanists because he works hard every day to keep from giving humanity said cure.
Jake, can you say "yes" to this question? Scientific Humanists care so much about humanity that we of course say "yes":
If you had Jesus' alleged all-knowing/all-powerful skills, would you have given humanity the final cure for cancer w/in 100 years of his death?

Scientific Humanists answer "yes", because our criteria for a decision is often "what's best for humanity?". We'd love it, Jake, if that could be YOUR criteria as well. A more loving criteria. If so, then you'll have moved beyond even someone as great as Jesus - that would be very very helpful in pleasing an after-life judge ("god", if one exists) after you die - otherwise "god" would say "why didn't you say you'd give the final cure for cancer, Jake - you don't seem to be very loving towards your fellow human?" That's risky on your part - not erring on the side of love.

 

[Joy4Uall]

... God create a weight S/He can't lift. ........

If god can't do that, then god is not all-powerful.
We'll bring forward the belief in a particular unique "god" when one can prove to a court-room level of evidence that he's the one true "god" out of the 5000 on offer...here's a list of 5000 gods, all have the same level of evidence for them, so no one particular "god" can be believed, of course: God List - Partial (5000 gods) public.pdf

We can't in good faith bring forward in our Scientific Humanist belief the belief in god/Jesus if god/Jesus can't give more court-room level for his divinity/existence than, say, Ra, or Wotan, or Allah, or Nanook, or Copia, etc. It's kind of rude for him to not do that, by the way - especially if he's going to send people to brutal torture for not beating lottery-like odds and picking the one true god out of the 5000+ on offer. That's simply not fair, of course

I've enjoyed our chats, and I wish you well, my friend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joy4Uall demonstrates above she has neither the language or the symbols or the logic to answer a simple question.

Scientific Humanism rests, inevitably, on the belief system of fallible human beings.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Scientific humanism", a term without meaning in fact, can be simply avoided by asking its believers to solve the following: can God create a weight S/He can't lift. Neither logic nor symbols nor language exists to answer the problem. I wish those who feel and believe as Joy4Uall a wonderful Easter Day.

Yet there is scientific method and there is secular humanism, and no secular humanist capable of even the most rudimentary form of scientific method would defend Islam by attacking Christianity for being even remotely similar in message.

That is your entire M.O. whenever the subjects arise, and your sophistry on the subject is indicative of either a mind incapable of rationality or an intentionally dishonest disposition.

One might as well point to a raindrop and an atom bomb and declare them no different because they both fall from the sky.

 

[ding]

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

The GOP does not believe in absolutely no abortion.

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Scientific humanism", a term without meaning in fact, can be simply avoided by asking its believers to solve the following: can God create a weight S/He can't lift. Neither logic nor symbols nor language exists to answer the problem. I wish those who feel and believe as Joy4Uall a wonderful Easter Day.

Yet there is scientific method and there is secular humanism, and no secular humanist capable of even the most rudimentary form of scientific method would defend Islam by attacking Christianity for being even remotely similar in message. That is your entire M.O. whenever the subjects arise, and your sophistry on the subject is indicative of either a mind incapable of rationality or an intentionally dishonest disposition. One might as well point to a raindrop and an atom bomb and declare them no different because they both fall from the sky.

The Holy Spirit of peace and promise, on this of all days, did not softened your hardened Pharisaical type heart. Lean on the Lord, stop judging others by your limited understanding, and work on your prayer life. You appear a very unhappy person. Ding would do well to do the same.

 

[ding]

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

The GOP does not believe in absolutely no abortion.

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

How about the scientific evidence that you existed 14 billion years ago when space and time were created? Do you want to discuss that? Or how about the scientific evidence that the laws of nature pre-ordained that beings that know and create would arise? Do you want to discuss that? Or maybe we could discuss your scientific credentials to even be a scientific humanist? Can we discuss that too?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Scientific humanism", a term without meaning in fact, can be simply avoided by asking its believers to solve the following: can God create a weight S/He can't lift. Neither logic nor symbols nor language exists to answer the problem. I wish those who feel and believe as Joy4Uall a wonderful Easter Day.

Yet there is scientific method and there is secular humanism, and no secular humanist capable of even the most rudimentary form of scientific method would defend Islam by attacking Christianity for being even remotely similar in message. That is your entire M.O. whenever the subjects arise, and your sophistry on the subject is indicative of either a mind incapable of rationality or an intentionally dishonest disposition. One might as well point to a raindrop and an atom bomb and declare them no different because they both fall from the sky.

The Holy Spirit of peace and promise, on this of all days, did not softened your hardened Pharisaical type heart. Lean on the Lord, stop judging others by your limited understanding, and work on your prayer life. You appear a very unhappy person. Ding would do well to do the same.

Is you mission here to troll, or are you simply incapable of a single rational thought?

 

[Joy4Uall]

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

The GOP does not believe in absolutely no abortion.

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)

 

[Joy4Uall]

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

The GOP does not believe in absolutely no abortion.

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

How about the scientific evidence that you existed 14 billion years ago when space and time were created? Do you want to discuss that? Or how about the scientific evidence that the laws of nature pre-ordained that beings that know and create would arise? Do you want to discuss that? Or maybe we could discuss your scientific credentials to even be a scientific humanist? Can we discuss that too?

Any discussion like that would discuss, first, my friend, "should be bring forward Jesus' divinity because he approved of Adam/Eve - and Adam/Eve have been shown by science to be false, because the earth is not 6000 years old."

"Original sin" is predicated on Adam/Eve/talking-snake being correct, and since science shows us that story (although probably well-intended) is not true, then Jesus dying on the cross to absolve us of "original sin" is not relevant. So Scientific Humanism did of course not bring forward the divine Jesus....but the philosopher Jesus ("love your neighbor", etc.) is pretty cool. Scientific Humanism takes the best, most ethical, and scientifically-correct parts of the top 10 belief systems and brings those parts forward. Your children deserve that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Scientific humanism", a term without meaning in fact, can be simply avoided by asking its believers to solve the following: can God create a weight S/He can't lift. Neither logic nor symbols nor language exists to answer the problem. I wish those who feel and believe as Joy4Uall a wonderful Easter Day.

Yet there is scientific method and there is secular humanism, and no secular humanist capable of even the most rudimentary form of scientific method would defend Islam by attacking Christianity for being even remotely similar in message. That is your entire M.O. whenever the subjects arise, and your sophistry on the subject is indicative of either a mind incapable of rationality or an intentionally dishonest disposition. One might as well point to a raindrop and an atom bomb and declare them no different because they both fall from the sky.

The Holy Spirit of peace and promise, on this of all days, did not softened your hardened Pharisaical type heart. Lean on the Lord, stop judging others by your limited understanding, and work on your prayer life. You appear a very unhappy person. Ding would do well to do the same.

Is you mission here to troll, or are you simply incapable of a single rational thought?

Obviously your heart remains hardened to the Truth.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Joy4Uall demonstrates above she has neither the language or the symbols or the logic to answer a simple question.

Scientific Humanism rests, inevitably, on the belief system of fallible human beings.

But "fallible human beings" wrote the Bible, correct?