Science isn’t always the answer.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.

False. At the heart of this debate is whether or not we give any fucks to magic.

 

[forkup]

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

 

[ding]

the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.

False. At the heart of this debate is whether or not we give any fucks to magic.

I didn't see magic anywhere in my analysis.

Is that the best you can do?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't see magic anywhere in my analysis.

Right, your analysis was wrong from the getgo. i just covered that.

 

[ding]

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

 

[ding]

I didn't see magic anywhere in my analysis.

Right, your analysis was wrong from the getgo. i just covered that.

Actually you didn't.

You don't possess the intellectual capacity to mount an intelligent response.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

The reason being, that was his opinion. Of course, outside the scope of narrow, cherry picked rhetoric, in what we call "reality" there is a good reason public health and education and and individual rights are humanism, normalized.

 

[ding]

the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.

False. At the heart of this debate is whether or not we give any fucks to magic.

Let's look at the arguments side by side, ok?

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

False. At the heart of this debate is whether or not we give any fucks to magic.

 

[ding]

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

The reason being, that was his opinion. Of course, outside the scope of narrow, cherry picked rhetoric, in what we call "reality" there is a good reason public health and education and and individual rights are humanism, normalized.

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

 

[ding]

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

It was for good reason that Karl Marx said that communism is naturalized humanism.

The reason being, that was his opinion. Of course, outside the scope of narrow, cherry picked rhetoric, in what we call "reality" there is a good reason public health and education and and individual rights are humanism, normalized.

Vladimir Lenin said, "the propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs."

What do you think that means?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't see magic anywhere in my analysis.

Right, your analysis was wrong from the getgo. i just covered that.

Actually you didn't.

You don't possess the intellectual capacity to mount an intelligent response.

Sure ding. Or, i think your argument is a really sweet and simple attempt to argue that spirit created everything. Knock yourself out. I am not going to sift through your dubious premises again (you forgot, you have copy pasted this about 1000 times). Anything can be argued. Your logic may be valid, but i do not find it to be sound. Cute argument, but i have no need for it.

I also have no use for an argument that concludes no spirits exist or have existed. It's frivolous fluff, either way. Enjoy your mental bubble gum.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

Wow, the inverse error and the bait and switch. Charlatan level 100.

 

[ding]

I didn't see magic anywhere in my analysis.

Right, your analysis was wrong from the getgo. i just covered that.

Actually you didn't.

You don't possess the intellectual capacity to mount an intelligent response.

Sure ding. Or, i think your argument is a really sweet and simple attempt to argue that spirit created everything. Knock yourself out. I am not going to sift through your dubious premises again (you forgot, you have copy pasted this about 1000 times). Anything can be argued. Your logic may be valid, but i do not find it to be sound. Cute argument, but i have no need for it.

I also have no use for an argument that concludes no spirits exist or have existed. It's frivolous fluff, either way. Enjoy your mental bubble gum.

If you could prove how it was frivolous fluff using logic, you would. But you can't. All you can do is wave your arms.

 

[ding]

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

Wow, the inverse error and the bait and switch. Charlatan level 100.

ummm... no. It is historical proof that Karl Marx was correct when he said that communism is naturalized humanism.

 

[ding]

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

Wow, the inverse error and the bait and switch. Charlatan level 100.

What exactly do you believe that Vladimir Lenin meant when he said, "the propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you could prove how it was frivolous fluff using logic, you would. But you

I have. Ding, you have, like, 4 copypastas that everyone has seen. 1000 times. We have been over this ground already.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

Wow, the inverse error and the bait and switch. Charlatan level 100.

What exactly do you believe that Vladimir Lenin meant when he said, "the propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs."

His intent in saying it was to get rid of the competition. Lenin was the new god. Pick up a history book, my man.

Similarly, you would be wrong to call north korea an atheist state. The Uns are gods. Its the most religious state on the planet.

 

[ding]

If you could prove how it was frivolous fluff using logic, you would. But you

I have. Ding, you have, like, 4 copypastas that everyone has seen. 1000 times. We have been over this ground already.

Then show me a rebuttal, because it has yet to be rebutted by anyone.

Which is why you will keep seeing it. Winning hands get played.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you could prove how it was frivolous fluff using logic, you would. But you

I have. Ding, you have, like, 4 copypastas that everyone has seen. 1000 times. We have been over this ground already.

Then show me a rebuttal, because it has yet to be rebutted by anyone.

Which is why you will keep seeing it. Winning hands get played.

Sure!

 

[ding]

History says otherwise. There has never been a communist state that wasn't a militant atheist state.

Wow, the inverse error and the bait and switch. Charlatan level 100.

What exactly do you believe that Vladimir Lenin meant when he said, "the propaganda of atheism is necessary for our programs."

His intent in saying it was to get rid of the competition. Lenin was the new god. Pick up a history book, my man.

Similarly, you would be wrong to call north korea an atheist state. The Uns are gods. Its the most religious state on the planet.

Ummm... no, humanists are materialists. In fact it goes back to the two mutually exclusive options for the creation of existence; material or spirit.