Why do the God-haters persist?

[daws101]

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

Word salad.

and no dressing!

 

[HUGGY]

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

when walking on water

Good grief. Are you goofs still trying to push THAT?

This is the reality of spirituality... Some of you people on the god squad are seriously mentally ill.

Nobody walked on water. Nobody was dead for three days and just jumped up and moved a huge stone to escape his burial place. The dozen or so miracles produced by jesus just did not happen. Period.

That's where you goofballs blew it. It wasn't good enough that Jesus was a good man and acted in a way that was highly commendable. You just had to throw in the hocus pocus.

We with both feet on the ground like to call these feats.. Hallucinations.. All that shit was just made up out of whole cloth.

If YOU believe that crap then you cannot be trusted to distinguish fact from myth.

 

[BreezeWood]

A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.
Well done.
A completely aborted syllogism.

Yes.


... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.

but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -

it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own destiny.

Word salad / and no dressing!

1+1 = 5

HUGGY: This is the reality of spirituality ... Nobody walked on water.

no christian anyway -

the Triumph of Good over Evil is a contrast in force no different than gravity and could when mastered lead to levitation.

yes, a reality of Spirituality.

.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.

I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith. there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".

You have completely misinterpreted the comment. I've said nothing remotely close to what you seem to have inferred. Nowhere did I say religious people can't be ugly. Nowhere did I superimpose religion over faith or equate religion and spirituality. How you arrived at these conclusions, I honestly have no idea.

Culturally, our concepts of what is "good" or what is "evil" is very often rooted in some religious or spiritual belief, whether we recognize it as such or not. Case in point, your own sentiments here. Not that "people online being ugly" is actual "evil" in any sense of the word, you have a perception of people "being ugly" because they aren't behaving in the way you perceive as "good." Now, what is your perception of "good" based on, and on what basis have you determined they were "ugly" to you? Most likely, from the concept of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." You see them as not upholding that compact, which is rooted in a religious teaching.

Another example... You probably don't believe it is cool for your husband or boyfriend to cheat on you. If you are married, you'd probably expect your husband to be loyal. This is rooted culturally in religious beliefs regarding adultery. In other cultures, men have multiple wives, so it is not viewed as "disloyal" for your husband to be with another woman. And likewise, this is culturally accepted because of religious beliefs.

If you were around for 9/11, you likely saw something "evil" happen that day. Men flew planes full of innocent people into the WTC buildings. However, in another culture and based on completely different religious underpinnings, this same event was seen as "good" and not "evil" at all. These men were martyrs and saints in the eyes of many. Our perceptions of what is "good" and what constitutes "evil" are very much rooted in a cultural understanding which is very often based on religious or spiritual beliefs.

I agree wholeheartedly.
I couldn't have written a better post to describe the completely subjective nature of the beliefs that a fictitious spirituality could guide one to. No objective truth is being revealed, only the consensus of a culture.
Well done!

 

[orogenicman]

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.
Well done.
A completely aborted syllogism.

Yes.


... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.

but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ?

Erm, what? If you are referring to the coriolis effect, it is caused by the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of the mass experiencing the effect. Granted, I know a lot of people who have called hurricanes evil but dude, they are just weather.

the Triumph of Good over Evil is a contrast in force no different than gravity and could when mastered lead to levitation.

Only while simultaneously sucking on helium-filled balloons.

 

[thebrucebeat]

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.
Well done.
A completely aborted syllogism.

Yes.


... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.

but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -

it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own
.

You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
You start with a completely unsupported premise.
"Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
So your argument is doomed before you begin.
I understand.
Basic logic comes next semester for you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do we need to now?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Who says we need to?

Rational people recognize evil. Good is a far more subjective concept, yet all save sociopaths recognize evil.

Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School.

No, it is not logical. IF there were no evil, then there would be no need at all to recognize the difference between good, and that which does not exist, Your question is akin to demanding how we know the difference between dogs and unicorns. The simple answer is one exists, the other doesn't.

The excuse that evil must exist so that we can know good is that kind of crap that Catholic schools feed second graders; it's illogical pablum.

Doesn't look like that's what I posted and I generally post what I am saying.

Did Light create Dark?

No one claims that light is the master creator of all, yet is that not your claim of God? If God created all that is, as Christians claim, then God created evil. To what purpose?

Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good.

False.

They believed that the EVIL they perpetrated ultimately served a higher good. There is a significant distinction between these propositions.

Well, yes he most certainly did. It's written in his own words. He called it the "Final Solution" and believed he was forming the perfect race. His perception was, killing the Jews was a good thing that needed to be done to cleanse humanity. Many agreed with him. Many still do.

Ah, so you have never read a solid history of Hitler and the Third Reich.

I understand.

Hitler was a master manipulator. His use of rhetoric was astounding. Antisemitism offered Hitler a vehicle to ride to power upon. But Hitler was a meth addict, and by the time that the final solution came about, no longer rational. Hitler was no longer able to distinguish right from wrong by that point.

Now you seem to be agreeing with my point.

I wouldn't go that far.

No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.

True, my opinion doesn't make your thesis flawed, your faulty logic does.

 

[emilynghiem]

You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
You start with a completely unsupported premise.
"Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
So your argument is doomed before you begin.
I understand.
Basic logic comes next semester for you.

Yes and no, Bruce.

There is both the subjective concepts and labels of what is good and what is evil
that are indeed relative to individuals, I agree with you on that part.

But there is also a proveable distinction between the
ENERGY that is associated with good as opposed to evil.

The "positive energy" in healing prayer and therapy based on "forgiveness"
is measurably distinct and clashes with
the "negative energy" in self-willed sorcery, occult, witchcraft and other such
spiritism-based practices that rely on manipulation and not healing the root cause.

Doctors researching the process of spiritual healing and prayer
have noted the conflict and danger involved in mixing these two "distinct"
types of energies.

If just what these doctors have observed, in studying the difference in healing
prayers and processes, is not enough to establish a "scientific difference" in energy,
you could look up the studies on "forgiveness and unforgiveness," and see the
difference that these make on people's health and the correlation with illness.

another friend of mine points out the negative reactions in the body to FEAR,
as opposed to LOVE, so you could measure the differences there scientifically.

Yes Bruce it is relative what labels of Good or Bad
humans assign to these differences.

But the differences themselves can be scientifically distinguished
and proven to have different energy and different effects.

There is a provable difference between "positive" and "negative"
or whatever we call these things.

The subjective part is how we judge and throw on labels,
because of our relative experiences and perceptions that, of course, is biased and flawed.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
You start with a completely unsupported premise.
"Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
So your argument is doomed before you begin.
I understand.
Basic logic comes next semester for you.

Yes and no, Bruce.

There is both the subjective concepts and labels of what is good and what is evil
that are indeed relative to individuals, I agree with you on that part.

But there is also a proveable distinction between the
ENERGY that is associated with good as opposed to evil.

The "positive energy" in healing prayer and therapy based on "forgiveness"
is measurably distinct and clashes with
the "negative energy" in self-willed sorcery, occult, witchcraft and other such
spiritism-based practices that rely on manipulation and not healing the root cause.

Doctors researching the process of spiritual healing and prayer
have noted the conflict and danger involved in mixing these two "distinct"
types of energies.

If just what these doctors have observed, in studying the difference in healing
prayers and processes, is not enough to establish a "scientific difference" in energy,
you could look up the studies on "forgiveness and unforgiveness," and see the
difference that these make on people's health and the correlation with illness.

another friend of mine points out the negative reactions in the body to FEAR,
as opposed to LOVE, so you could measure the differences there scientifically.

Yes Bruce it is relative what labels of Good or Bad
humans assign to these differences.

But the differences themselves can be scientifically distinguished
and proven to have different energy and different effects.

There is a provable difference between "positive" and "negative"
or whatever we call these things.

The subjective part is how we judge and throw on labels,
because of our relative experiences and perceptions that, of course, is biased and flawed.

I am sure you are prepared to cite these peer reviewed "studies" that conclusively prove your premise.
Now two of you are starting with equally unsupported premises. You further limit good and evil to the effects of prayer. Not the same discussion at all.
Relative experiences and perceptions are what cause the positive and negative reactions to stimuli, making that healing process as subjective as any other description of good and evil.

 

[Boss]

Why do we need to now?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Who says we need to?

Rational people recognize evil. Good is a far more subjective concept, yet all save sociopaths recognize evil.

Rational people recognize evil only because there is something to compare it to. If there were no such thing as "good" and everything was "evil" you wouldn't recognize it as evil. Likewise, if everything was "good" and nothing was "evil" you'd never comprehend something as "good" because there would be no comparative basis. Good compared to what?

Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School.

No, it is not logical. IF there were no evil, then there would be no need at all to recognize the difference between good, and that which does not exist, Your question is akin to demanding how we know the difference between dogs and unicorns. The simple answer is one exists, the other doesn't.

Right, if there were no evil, then we would have no concept of "good" because everything would be good by default. I've not presented a question, it's an argument, and nothing like the analogy you've made here. It's completely logical and what is illogical is the idea that we would be able to recognize something as "good" if there were nothing to compare it with.

The excuse that evil must exist so that we can know good is that kind of crap that Catholic schools feed second graders; it's illogical pablum.

It's not an "excuse" it's reality and logic. Evil exists because good exists and we can subjectively compare them to rationalize one from the other. If either did not exist, the other would also not exist. If there were no such thing as darkness, there would be no such thing as light. It is because darkness exists that we can distinguish light and visa versa.

No one claims that light is the master creator of all, yet is that not your claim of God? If God created all that is, as Christians claim, then God created evil. To what purpose?

God didn't create evil. Evil exists necessarily because good exists. We can rationalize evil only because good exists. If there were no good, there could be no evil, and visa versa.

Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good.
False.

They believed that the EVIL they perpetrated ultimately served a higher good. There is a significant distinction between these propositions.

Not true, they religiously believed they were doing something good. They did not view it as evil, they did not have the perception that it was evil. As a matter of fact, they believed they were flying planes into the symbol of evil. You have a different perception.

Ah, so you have never read a solid history of Hitler and the Third Reich.

I understand.

Hitler was a master manipulator. His use of rhetoric was astounding. Antisemitism offered Hitler a vehicle to ride to power upon. But Hitler was a meth addict, and by the time that the final solution came about, no longer rational. Hitler was no longer able to distinguish right from wrong by that point.

Ah, but I have. Insulting me is not making your point. Mein Kampf (meaning, My Struggle) was published (vol. 1) in 1925, years before Hitler came into power. In it, Hitler used the main thesis of "the Jewish peril", which posits a Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. The narrative describes the process by which he became increasingly antisemitic and militaristic, especially during his years in Vienna. The racial laws to which Hitler referred resonate directly with his ideas in Mein Kampf. Hitler stated that the destruction of the weak and sick is far more humane than their protection. However, apart from his allusion to humane treatment, Hitler saw a purpose in destroying "the weak" in order to provide the proper space and purity for the strong.

Now you seem to be agreeing with my point.

I wouldn't go that far.

No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.

True, my opinion doesn't make your thesis flawed, your faulty logic does.

But it is your logic that is faulty, as I've demonstrated. Your inability to see your own faulty logic is not my problem and there isn't much I can do about it. You're arguing the glass could be half full if only the glass did not exist.

 

[daws101]

since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.

A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.
Well done.
A completely aborted syllogism.

Yes.


... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.

but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -

it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own destiny.

Word salad / and no dressing!

1+1 = 5

HUGGY: This is the reality of spirituality ... Nobody walked on water.

no christian anyway -

the Triumph of Good over Evil is a contrast in force no different than gravity and could when mastered lead to levitation.

yes, a reality of Spirituality.

.

1+1 can sometimes equal 5 or in the case of octomom many more...

 

[thanatos144]

Belief in God is important. Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.

tapatalk post

 

[BreezeWood]

A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.
Well done.
A completely aborted syllogism.

... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.

but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -

it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own
.

You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
You start with a completely unsupported premise.
"Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
So your argument is doomed before you begin.
I understand.
Basic logic comes next semester for you.

what makes you think Good and Evil are subjective and not the same forces derived as gravity ?

thebrucebeat: No one is without sin. No not one.

it is your subjection that is illogical - Christian ...

not the premise of a nonphysiological existence extent to its conception at birth, for those willing to exercise the abilities granted at Creation culminating as a Triumph, with due Judgment for the Admission to the Everlasting. and necessarily by a sinless being.

.

 

[HUGGY]

Belief in God is important. Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.

tapatalk post

So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence? Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters. Open atheists are unelectable.

You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.

Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.

Maybe you should try a more honest approach? No...wait...you can't. It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.

 

[thebrucebeat]

... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.

but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -

it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own
.

You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
You start with a completely unsupported premise.
"Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
So your argument is doomed before you begin.
I understand.
Basic logic comes next semester for you.

what makes you think Good and Evil are subjective and not the same forces derived as gravity ?

thebrucebeat: No one is without sin. No not one.

it is your subjection that is illogical - Christian ...

not the premise of a nonphysiological existence extent to its conception at birth, for those willing to exercise the abilities granted at Creation culminating as a Triumph, with due Judgment for the Admission to the Everlasting. and necessarily by a sinless being.

.

I didn't say anything about good and evil. I said the initial premise was unproven so led to an unsupportable conclusion.
Emotions always cloud a good thought process.
The rest is such a complete rhetorical train-wreck that it is impossible to respond to.
Do you know what subjection means? How did you mean to use it?

 

[thanatos144]

Belief in God is important. Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.

tapatalk post

So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence? Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters. Open atheists are unelectable.

You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.

Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.

Maybe you should try a more honest approach? No...wait...you can't. It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.

I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions

tapatalk post

 

[HUGGY]

Belief in God is important. Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.

tapatalk post

So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence? Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters. Open atheists are unelectable.

You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.

Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.

Maybe you should try a more honest approach? No...wait...you can't. It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.

I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions

tapatalk post

Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.

 

[thanatos144]

So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence? Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters. Open atheists are unelectable.

You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.

Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.

Maybe you should try a more honest approach? No...wait...you can't. It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.

I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions

tapatalk post

Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.

Who are you lying to me or you?

 

[orogenicman]

I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions

tapatalk post

Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.

Who are you lying to me or you?

I am an atheist and the only thing I've ever promised of myself or asked of others is honesty in human relations. What about you?

 

[thanatos144]

Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.

Who are you lying to me or you?

I am an atheist and the only thing I've ever promised of myself or asked of others is honesty in human relations. What about you?

you demand all other believe in your religion....