Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 10:30:10 AM
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 10:30:20 AM
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 10:44:54 AM
https://nypost.com/2021/08/17/taliban-kill-woman-not-wearing-burqa-after-vowing-to-honor-womens-rights/
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 18, 2021, 11:12:35 AM
Satan worshippers kill and eat four Russian teenagers
after stabbing each of them 666 times
Quote
A gang of Satan worshippers murdered four teenagers by stabbing each of them
666 times, police believe.
The number of wounds is the same as that revered by followers of the devil.
The three girls and one boy, all described as Goths and aged 16 and 17, were
allegedly forced to drink alcohol by the gang before they were attacked.
The killers then allegedly lit a bonfire under a tree near their cottage in Russia's
Yaroslavl region, 300 miles north-east of Moscow, where they cooked and ate their
victims' body parts.
The remains of Anya Gorokhova, Olga Pukhova, Varya Kuzmina and Andrei Sorokin,
who went missing from their homes in June, were discovered last month.
The body of a small rodent crucified on an upside-down cross was also found.
After arresting eight people in connection with the murders, police realised all four
victims had made phone calls to the flat of alleged gang leader Nikolai Ogolobyak,
a former church choir boy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056029/Satan-worshippers-kill-eat-Russian-teenagers-stabbing-666-times.html
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 12:23:05 PM
For the person who keep bringing up Satanism as a "valid recognized religion":
Satan worshippers kill and eat four Russian teenagers
after stabbing each of them 666 times
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056029/Satan-worshippers-kill-eat-Russian-teenagers-stabbing-666-times.html
The "Satanism" I "support" is the following:
https://thesatanictemple.com/
Try do some research lol.
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/what-is-the-difference-between-the-satanic-temple-and-the-church-of-satan
Also who decides what's a "valid" religion? Mormons came from a "cult" and are fairly new. There's many hundreds if not thousands of religions out there.
I would categorize the church of satan as one of the worst religions up there with islam.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 18, 2021, 01:06:55 PM
You pretend to lecture us all on religion.
You try to debate religion with "research."
This thread is for trolling purposes only.
(https://i.imgur.com/UeVu3kJ.jpg)
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 18, 2021, 01:12:30 PM
You have no experience with religion.
You pretend to lecture us all on religion.
You try to debate religion with "research."
This thread is for trolling purposes only.
(https://i.imgur.com/UeVu3kJ.jpg)
I think he actually is religious. He referred to "creation" in the other thread and not "evolution". He starts a religion thread. I think he's just in denial.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 18, 2021, 01:16:12 PM
I think he actually is religious. He referred to "creation" in the other thread and not "evolution". He starts a religion thread. I think he's just in denial.
Doesn't matter. He will argue until his fingers hurt just to play anyone who replies.
It's how trolls roll...
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 01:32:00 PM
I think he actually is religious. He referred to "creation" in the other thread and not "evolution". He starts a religion thread. I think he's just in denial.
Like said before the word creation is not religious... I can create things all day but a God had nothing to do with it...
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 01:34:09 PM
You have no experience with religion.
You pretend to lecture us all on religion.
You try to debate religion with "research."
This thread is for trolling purposes only.
I once believed in religion. Why does one have to have a religion to debate or discuss religion? I don't have to be female to discuss female civil rights. This came up because of the previous off topic thread.
Post by: aieahound on August 18, 2021, 02:15:31 PM
If I really wanted to piss everyone off and start pissing matches I would start a thread titled Religion.
And then declare one the worst and another the worst up there with worst, etc.
Shit. I agree with the Flappster on this one.
Although I must admit that members who interject religion into other posts may have invited it.
Does this count ?
Attack my shit. Rooted in Taoism.
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 18, 2021, 04:22:55 PM
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 18, 2021, 04:25:13 PM
I think he actually is religious. He referred to "creation" in the other thread and not "evolution". He starts a religion thread. I think he's just in denial.Not just a river in Egypt!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on August 18, 2021, 04:39:11 PM
Who died and made you god?
Who god ?
I don’t follow. Not unusual for me.
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 04:44:25 PM
Dude Religion? Seriously ?
If I really wanted to piss everyone off and start pissing matches I would start a thread titled Religion.
And then declare one the worst and another the worst up there with worst, etc.
Shit. I agree with the Flappster on this one.
Although I must admit that members who interject religion into other posts may have invited it.
Does this count ?
Attack my shit. Rooted in Taoism.
True maybe this just isn't a good topic to discuss. Figured since it was brought up off topic in another thread might as well make something to dump the topic in.
As for Taoism, I don't have much experience on it. And that's a GOOD thing. That means Taoism isn't trying to interject and influence my life.
People think I have a problem with religion, I don't as long as it doesn't affect me. You can believe in whatever you want that's your life.
That's why I think Islam is one of the worst religions, it seeks to dominate your life and makes rules, many I don't agree with.
Post by: aieahound on August 18, 2021, 04:49:14 PM
I got an interesting story about a serpent, Satan, Adam and Eve, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mohammed and false prophets as a commandment.
Hint: if you’re the greatest deceiver the world has ever known, just keep sending false prophets. (I think John the Baptist might have been legit. Satan had to derail that shit.) Bang. Hell is filling up.
Thought it up debating with Jehovah’s who used to come every week using the stuff they taught me.
The Elder’s finally after bringing up higher members to my house told the foot soldier to stop visiting.
I was kinda bummed.
Why would I talk to the kid when I can talk to his Father. The Creator.
Just my last 2 cents on this topic.
You cannot discuss Faith.
Politics. Religion. COVID Vaccination.
But it’s fun to see people get riled up in intellectual conversations.
Point. Counter-Point. I just like to ponder counter points when I lay my head down at night and sometimes I realize I was wrong. Or a point was made I hadn’t considered.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 18, 2021, 04:51:27 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on August 18, 2021, 04:55:32 PM
(Just F’ing with you.) :shaka:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 18, 2021, 05:05:47 PM
Chris kringle was a real person.
Jesus Christ (of Nazareth) was a real person. (5-6 BC)
St. Nicholas (28 AD) was a real person as well. He in effect became Kris Kringle.
During the reformation of the Protestant Church, praying to saints was discouraged. Over time, the name St. Nicholas (St. Nick) was changed to “Christkind” (German for “Christ-child”). That is where the name Kriss Kringle came from.
:geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 05:27:37 PM
Jesus Christ (of Nazareth) was a real person. (5-6 BC)
St. Nicholas (28 AD) was real person as well. He in effect became Kris Kringle.
During the reformation of the Protestant Church, praying to saints was discouraged. Over time, the name St. Nicholas (St. Nick) was changed to “Christkind” (German for “Christ-child”). That is where the name Kriss Kringle came from.
:geekdanc:
Many cults and religions are founded off real people. Doesn't make the religion on a whole legitimate though. Look at Mormons.
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 18, 2021, 05:47:06 PM
Who god ?Sarcastic response to somebody assuming a position of authority that they have not earned.
I don’t follow. Not unusual for me.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 18, 2021, 06:47:37 PM
Many cults and religions are founded off real people. Doesn't make the religion on a whole legitimate though. Look at Mormons.
See? You aren't here to share FACTS. You're here to drag on religion in general.
Period.
#TrollsGonnaTroll
(https://i.imgur.com/UeVu3kJ.jpg)
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 06:55:59 PM
See? You aren't here to share FACTS. You're here to drag on religion in general.
Period.
Can you dispute those facts? Or are you just going to scream troll cause you are wrong?
Can you list religions that don't have any real life important figures that are part of the myth?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 18, 2021, 07:02:30 PM
Can you dispute those facts? Or are you just going to scream troll cause you are wrong?
Can you list religions that don't have any real life important figures that are part of the myth?
Not playing into your little charade.
Go discuss religion somewhere else.
(https://i.imgur.com/UeVu3kJ.jpg)
Post by: omnigun on August 18, 2021, 07:04:16 PM
Not playing into your little charade.
Go discuss religion somewhere else.
You mean discuss religion in the religion thread? :wtf:
It's ok flapp you can be wrong sometimes. If you keep digging your hole you might reach China :rofl:
Post by: aieahound on August 18, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
Go discuss religion somewhere else.
I’m not backing anyone, right wrong or indifferent.
But that shit is kinda funny.
#Why4UserNames
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 18, 2021, 07:34:09 PM
I’m not backing anyone, right wrong or indifferent.He found jesus today
But that shit is kinda funny.
#Why4UserNames
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on August 18, 2021, 10:50:39 PM
If I really want bite on Omni’s bait…
I got an interesting story about a serpent, Satan, Adam and Eve, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mohammed and false prophets as a commandment.
Hint: if you’re the greatest deceiver the world has ever known, just keep sending false prophets. (I think John the Baptist might have been legit. Satan had to derail that shit.) Bang. Hell is filling up.
Thought it up debating with Jehovah’s who used to come every week using the stuff they taught me.
The Elder’s finally after bringing up higher members to my house told the foot soldier to stop visiting.
I was kinda bummed.
Why would I talk to the kid when I can talk to his Father. The Creator.
Just my last 2 cents on this topic.
You cannot discuss Faith.
Politics. Religion. COVID Vaccination.
But it’s fun to see people get riled up in intellectual conversations.
Point. Counter-Point. I just like to ponder counter points when I lay my head down at night and sometimes I realize I was wrong. Or a point was made I hadn’t considered.
Question for everybody who wants to do this stuff.
If you were Satan, how would you do it ?
Not a troll question.
Just a strategic question to ponder.
(so much for last 2 cents.)
P.S. Satan is just a kid too. Not the Father, or Mother or The Force.
Reference above
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 18, 2021, 11:19:25 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 19, 2021, 06:20:29 AM
Question for everybody who wants to do this stuff.
If you were Satan, how would you do it ?
Not a troll question.
Just a strategic question to ponder.
(so much for last 2 cents.)
P.S. Satan is just a kid too. Not the Father, or Mother or The Force.
Reference above
Wouldn't have to do a thing but wait. Over time humans would "screw" it up anyway. Religions just like stories evolve over time by those who say it. Look at religions today compared to old. The original Bible vs the teachings today. If a false prophet/religion is the only thing needed, everyone would be in hell after a thousand years. After 10 generations the religion wouldn't be the same as the one it started as. And there would be so many extra religions too. Just like the telephone game.
Post by: aieahound on August 19, 2021, 10:39:53 AM
Make a book deal titled "If I did it"
Had a delayed Laugh My Ass Off on that one.
Had to register.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 19, 2021, 12:37:23 PM
Had a delayed Laugh My Ass Off on that one.
Had to register.
When we go to Vegas, there are 2 Oyster Bars. 1 is way better than the other. The cab driver said to make sure you go to the good one, just refer to it as "at the hotel OJ got arrested at".
Post by: macsak on August 19, 2021, 12:44:19 PM
When we go to Vegas, there are 2 Oyster Bars. 1 is way better than the other. The cab driver said to make sure you go to the good one, just refer to it as "at the hotel OJ got arrested at".
just don't ask for the blue oyster...
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 19, 2021, 01:06:37 PM
just don't ask for the blue oyster...
They know you on a first name basis. Just say you know Dr.macsak and get VIP treatment.
Post by: macsak on August 19, 2021, 02:01:42 PM
They know you on a first name basis. Just say you know Dr.macsak and get VIP treatment.
"don't you know who i am!?!"
Post by: omnigun on August 20, 2021, 08:51:27 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 20, 2021, 10:14:03 AM
(https://preview.redd.it/iddgic871ii71.jpg?width=640&height=802&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e5585bad1835b1c3c891a46c05134223ab7e87a9)
Now you're posting screen grabs from some random guy on Twitter -- who doesn't even have a blue "certified" checkmark -- without adding any words of your own?
Didn't you blast Mac for doing that, even though his posts were not from "some random guy?" At least his were from a certified Twitter user posting sourced material.
#HypocrisyIsEasy
#NotSarcasm
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 20, 2021, 11:25:28 AM
"don't you know who i am!?!"Eh, you da guy! Andy Bumatai!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: RSN172 on August 20, 2021, 12:30:03 PM
Post by: ren on August 20, 2021, 12:34:05 PM
Can we get back to talking about guns now.
range too far...
no can handle training....hobbyist / collector now
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 20, 2021, 01:51:33 PM
Can we get back to talking about guns now.
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!! :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
:wave:
Post by: omnigun on August 20, 2021, 02:46:06 PM
Now you're posting screen grabs from some random guy on Twitter -- who doesn't even have a blue "certified" checkmark -- without adding any words of your own?
Didn't you blast Mac for doing that, even though his posts were not from "some random guy?" At least his were from a certified Twitter user posting sourced material.
#HypocrisyIsEasy
#NotSarcasm
One is medical centric, one is a meme. Don't take a doctor to figure that out.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 20, 2021, 03:09:15 PM
One is medical centric, one is a meme. Don't take a doctor to figure that out.
Still a hypocrite.
Please explain how your meme is "medical centric."
He's making a sarcastic remark concerning the inconsistency of the woman's comments to her use of corrective lenses.
Nothing "medical centric" about posting a judgmental comment.
Post by: mrgaf on August 20, 2021, 04:27:00 PM
If Omni is correct and there’s nothing but nothing when we pass on, no worries, lights out,
But if there is a God the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, and his kingdom in heaven then I have nothing to worry about as well and look forward to my eternal life in paradise with my lord and savior Jesus Christ. Hopefully Omni will be forgiven as well. :D
Post by: Glasser on August 20, 2021, 05:05:11 PM
Hopefully Omni will be forgiven as well. :D
arent you required to admit your sins and ask for forgiveness to get that bargain? just going by the myriad of previous incidents i dont see that happening.
Post by: mrgaf on August 20, 2021, 05:42:37 PM
arent you required to admit your sins and ask for forgiveness to get that bargain? just going by the myriad of previous incidents i dont see that happening.
Yup but you never know….. :D
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 20, 2021, 06:08:53 PM
arent you required to admit your sins and ask for forgiveness to get that bargain? just going by the myriad of previous incidents i dont see that happening.I can imagine at judgement stating "not proven in court".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 20, 2021, 06:11:39 PM
This is why I am agnostic. I try do decent in this life and who knows what's next.
Post by: mrgaf on August 20, 2021, 06:29:48 PM
If there was a god, we would all be judged on our actions. Cause as proven previously religions evolve too much over time and if a core need is to be worshipping the "right" god. Everyone is fucked. A god someone witnesses 1000's of years ago can't possible be the exact one people think about today.
This is why I am agnostic. I try do decent in this life and who knows what's next.
You are correct. No one is without sin and will have to be judged. Nobody’s perfect but like I said earlier if you’re rite and I’m wrong then no big deal however if I’m rite I’m good. to go!
8)
Post by: macsak on August 20, 2021, 07:37:50 PM
If there was a god, we would all be judged on our actions. Cause as proven previously religions evolve too much over time and if a core need is to be worshipping the "right" god. Everyone is fucked. A god someone witnesses 1000's of years ago can't possible be the exact one people think about today.
This is why I am agnostic. I try do decent in this life and who knows what's next.
in a court of law?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 20, 2021, 07:51:46 PM
arent you required to admit your sins and ask for forgiveness to get that bargain? just going by the myriad of previous incidents i dont see that happening.
I'm not a theologian, but ...
If not mistaken, only some churches require confession of sins to go to heaven, often through administration of the last rites. That was a tradition performed when possible just before someone died, whether on their death bed, before an execution, etc.
Based on the New Testament, the only thing required is that you believe that Jesus Christ is your Savior, and that he died on the cross for your sins. Period. No need to ask for forgiveness since his death preemptively forgave you all your sins.
That's what I learned anyway.
Quote
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
John 14:6
Post by: hvybarrels on August 20, 2021, 08:36:59 PM
Post by: Glasser on August 20, 2021, 08:58:02 PM
I'm not a theologian, but ...
If not mistaken, only some churches require confession of sins to go to heaven, often through administration of the last rites. That was a tradition performed when possible just before someone died, whether on their death bed, before an execution, etc.
Based on the New Testament, the only thing required is that you believe that Jesus Christ is your Savior, and that he died on the cross for your sins. Period. No need to ask for forgiveness since his death preemptively forgave you all your sins.
That's what I learned anyway.
John 14:6
When you meet St Peter at the gates he will have your internet browser history and a log of all your internet forum posts, just sayin'
Post by: mrgaf on August 21, 2021, 09:48:21 AM
When you meet St Peter at the gates he will have your internet browser history and a log of all your internet forum posts, just sayin':rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :shake:
Post by: QUIETShooter on August 21, 2021, 10:08:10 AM
When you meet St Peter at the gates he will have your internet browser history and a log of all your internet forum posts, just sayin'
But...but....I browse using the private feature....... :D
I know, I know....I'm F*cked....
Post by: aieahound on August 21, 2021, 10:12:23 AM
Although I didn’t accept Jesus so I may have to speak with the Entity in charge. Or the entire universe as the case may be. The Force.
Mac: I don’t look at porn or own any guns or reloading equipment…. :rofl:
Interesting interview below.
https://youtu.be/1SGOGH5-SCA
Post by: aieahound on August 21, 2021, 10:15:56 AM
Carlin.
>:Don’t have to like him but can’t ignore him.
(Unless you’re the Flappster. He can ignore anything that doesn’t agree with him except Umni.)
Post by: aieahound on August 21, 2021, 10:33:17 AM
Post by: omnigun on August 21, 2021, 10:34:20 AM
in a court of law?
Nope but science did.
Post by: aieahound on August 21, 2021, 10:48:54 AM
Tells them don’t eat an apple from the forbidden tree. ( I’m guessing as a test .)
Satan arrives in the form of a serpent and easily manipulates Eve into getting Adam to taste the forbidden apple.
Sin is born.
Somewhere along the line 10 commandments come into play.
False prophet is introduced.
Satan says jackpot and starts introducing false prophets.
Greek, Romans whatever… (even though they’re before the commandments rules might have been in play. God might have been warning us later. )
John the Baptist comes along and gets people to direct connect to God.
Satan says can’t have that and sends Jesus with the verse quoted. No way to God but through him.
Only one third of the Earth population bites.
Satan then sends Mohammed as the next false prophet. Another third of the world bites.
Now Satan got two thirds of the world in hell.
Not to mention the Hindi and Buddhists who may also follow false prophets. Etc.
Do Jewish people have a prophet ? Moses ? I don’t know.
If you’re wrong, you might really be wrong.
Based on your own beliefs.
How does anyone put all their eggs into the basket of which prophet they follow ?
And not God or The Force or whatever the direct higher power is ?
Homeostasis. Equilibrium. Not an accident.
Post by: omnigun on August 21, 2021, 10:57:30 AM
Post by: Glasser on August 21, 2021, 11:10:00 AM
God creates Adam and Eve.
Tells them don’t eat an apple from the forbidden tree. ( I’m guessing as a test .)
Satan arrives in the form of a serpent and easily manipulates Eve into getting Adam to taste the forbidden apple.
Sin is born.
Somewhere along the line 10 commandments come into play.
False prophet is introduced.
Satan says jackpot and starts introducing false prophets.
Greek, Romans whatever… (even though they’re before the commandments rules might have been in play. God might have been warning us.)
John the Baptist comes along and gets people to direct connect to God.
Satan says can’t have that and sends Jesus with the verse quoted. No way to God but through him.
Only one third of the Earth population bites.
Satan then sends Mohammed as the next false prophet. Another third of the world bites.
Now Satan got two thirds of the world in hell.
Not to mention the Hindi and Buddhists who may also follow false prophets. Etc.
If you’re wrong, you might really be wrong.
Based on your own beliefs.
How does anyone put all their eggs into the basket of which prophet they follow ?
Buddha specifically said he was not a God and people shouldn't worship him, but they didn't listen.
But you bring up an important point, one that has always bothered me. Every culture has a Lucifer / Loki / Raven etc who stole Fire = Knowledge = Enlightenment from the Boss God and gave it to the lowly humans and gifted them Self Awareness. They were dumb animals until they given knowledge. How are the characters that unshackled Man from ignorance and let them rise above being Beasts somehow the Villains is these stories? Why is the Sheppard wanting everyone to be good little Sheep the hero?
Post by: hvybarrels on August 21, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Post by: aieahound on August 21, 2021, 11:27:27 AM
But you bring up an important point, one that has always bothered me. Every culture has a Lucifer / Loki / Raven etc who stole Fire = Knowledge = Enlightenment from the Boss God and gave it to the lowly humans and gifted them Self Awareness. They were dumb animals until they given knowledge. How are the characters that unshackled Man from ignorance and let them rise above being Beasts somehow the Villains is these stories? Why is the Sheppard wanting everyone to be good little Sheep the hero?
Because that threw off homeostasis and equilibrium.
The sheep had no shepherds. They knew how to be sheep and Rams.
Not the people, the sheep.
“How are the characters that unshackled Man from ignorance and let them rise above being Beasts”
Ponder that sentence for few minutes.
Think God thought if I make People smarter it will make this world better ?
Think this is just a failed experiment that God is watching ?
Animals/beasts are dumb ? That’s a presumptive statement.
People are a locust upon the Earth.
Equilibrium and homeostasis are the plan set in motion.
Just my opinion
Here’s a crazy off topic side bar.
Why only Asians and Caucasians went off the trail of equilibrium/homeostasis? (That was probably wrong. Could have a completely wrong conversation on that statement alone.)
And it spread like Covid when greed set in.
And when did this whole one God thing set in ?
Dammit. I need to read up.
Won’t change my beliefs though. :rofl:
Post by: hvybarrels on August 21, 2021, 11:59:50 AM
Post by: aieahound on August 21, 2021, 12:12:17 PM
Also important is why there are no new religions or recent proof.
Religion and proof.
Two words that should not be used in the same sentence.
How the fawk do you prove a religion ?
I could start a new religion tomorrow with proof being in nature. But it wouldn’t be proof.
Here’s a question for you folks.
Is evolution possible within the time frame they say it took place ?
All current species from a single cell organism ?
No evolution since humans have been around.
Adaptation yes. Evolution no.
Changed from fish to bird ?
Just stuff to think about.
Post by: Glasser on August 21, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
Because that threw off homeostasis and equilibrium.
The sheep had no shepherds. They knew how to be sheep and Rams.
Not the people, the sheep.
“How are the characters that unshackled Man from ignorance and let them rise above being Beasts”
Ponder that sentence for few minutes.
Think God thought if I make People smarter it will make this world better ?
Think this is just a failed experiment that God is watching ?
Animals/beasts are dumb ? That’s a presumptive statement.
People are a locust upon the Earth.
Equilibrium and homeostasis are the plan set in motion.
Just my opinion
Here’s a crazy off topic side bar.
Why only Asians and Caucasians went off the trail of equilibrium/homeostasis? (That was probably wrong. Could have a completely wrong conversation on that statement alone.)
And it spread like Covid when greed set in.
And when did this whole one God thing set in ?
Dammit. I need to read up.
Won’t change my beliefs though. :rofl:
A lot of Eastern Religions believe man can reach personal divinity. Something that would be impossible without knowledge of self and men were still automatic like animals.
Post by: omnigun on August 21, 2021, 12:50:37 PM
Religion and proof.
Two words that should not be used in the same sentence.
How the fawk do you prove a religion ?
I could start a new religion tomorrow with proof being in nature. But it wouldn’t be proof.
Here’s a question for you folks.
Is evolution possible within the time frame they say it took place ?
All current species from a single cell organism ?
No evolution since humans have been around.
Adaptation yes. Evolution no.
Changed from fish to bird ?
Just stuff to think about.
Well the stories of many religions would be possible to prove. Floods, miracles etc can be documented. Proving God is possible if he appears and proves his existence.
I agree with you that creationism isn't possible and we have no evidence of it.
Post by: groveler on August 21, 2021, 12:59:10 PM
Religion and proof.won't touch the religion stuff.
Two words that should not be used in the same sentence.
How the fawk do you prove a religion ?
I could start a new religion tomorrow with proof being in nature. But it wouldn’t be proof.
Here’s a question for you folks.
Is evolution possible within the time frame they say it took place ?
All current species from a single cell organism ?
No evolution since humans have been around.
Adaptation yes. Evolution no.
Changed from fish to bird ?
Just stuff to think about.
Evolution is interesting, but I think the explanation taught by secularists
is pure bull shit.
I find natural selection much more compelling, since we observe that.
But in all mankind is pretty ignorant.
I start with a few obvious ones in physics;
We don't know what gravity is and gravity is the only reason we exist.
You'd think we could figure out what gravity is and thus control it.
We can't.
Where did all the Hydrogen that is the building blocks( that is our present understanding).
of our entire universe come from? Some big explosion? Of what?
Can we make Hydrogen? Nope.
I pick those two because that is the building blocks of all matter as we know it.
Gravity and Hydrogen.
Man is still pretty ignorant and unfortunately arrogant.
Science is never settled, everything is going to change regardless
what we do, and though I'm not ready for AA, the Serenity prayer
comes to mind.
Amen
Just an old Hebrew word for you.
:thumbsup:
Post by: hvybarrels on August 21, 2021, 01:35:46 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 02:06:11 PM
If you're only interested in things that have been proven by others (e.g. a court of law), aren't you going on faith that the "scientists", judges, jurists, witnesses, processes, etc. are infallible, not lying and know everything they are telling you is based on repeatable, demonstrable evidence?
When you hear the CDC doctors and Fauci tell you to do one thing, but don't offer any data to PROVE those things are the BEST methods for providing safety, aren't you going on faith? Or, did you go read all the background papers and vet the credentials of the people performing all those studies? I highly doubt most people adamant about vaccines and masks have done any personal research other than Googling a few media outlets' regurgitation of that information.
People who trust Biden and Harris to lead the country have FAITH, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they have accomplished little in their lengthy political careers while making some monumental blunders.
Basically, anyone saying they only believe in proof, science or facts is a liar. They operate on faith all the time.
Did you go back over all the things that mechanic did to your car, or do you have faith they didn't make a mistake that can cause a crash?
Post by: QUIETShooter on August 21, 2021, 02:10:09 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 02:11:09 PM
I think aliens played a part in religions. :crazy: :wave:
Not proven .... :geekdanc:
Post by: hvybarrels on August 21, 2021, 02:15:05 PM
Not proven .... :geekdanc:
inna quart o law
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 02:22:56 PM
Progress is the religion of people who are stupid enough to believe that they know everything.
I know you're being a bit snarky, but that's not far from the truth.
Religion is an acknowledgment that one is not omnipotent ( :geekdanc:), and that there really are things in this vast universe that we as mere mortals do not know or understand.
When something is unexplainable, doesn't it make more sense to believe that things exist even without man's understanding? To think otherwise is to assume an arrogance that can lead to disaster.
Marie Currie discovered radiation and was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize. She died from her own discovery -- radiation poisoning. Smart enough to discover radium and polonium, but too ignorant to protect herself from their dangers.
The world thought The Titanic was unsinkable. That was a fact as far as all the experts were concerned. It only took one voyage to prove how wrong those experts were.
Religion doesn't have to explain how everything works or came to exist. It simply provides a placeholder for the things we have yet to learn, mainly so we retain a certain degree of humility and realism.
A man's got to know his limitations.
-- Dirty Harry.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 02:23:38 PM
inna quart o law
In a quart o' slaw.
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 21, 2021, 02:59:02 PM
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 21, 2021, 03:10:07 PM
Religion, by definition, doesn't require proof. It's based on faith. Faith is what keeps us going through life even when things seem completely hopeless.
If you're only interested in things that have been proven by others (e.g. a court of law), aren't you going on faith that the "scientists", judges, jurists, witnesses, processes, etc. are infallible, not lying and know everything they are telling you is based on repeatable, demonstrable evidence?
When you hear the CDC doctors and Fauci tell you to do one thing, but don't offer any data to PROVE those things are the BEST methods for providing safety, aren't you going on faith? Or, did you go read all the background papers and vet the credentials of the people performing all those studies? I highly doubt most people adamant about vaccines and masks have done any personal research other than Googling a few media outlets' regurgitation of that information.
People who trust Biden and Harris to lead the country have FAITH, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they have accomplished little in their lengthy political careers while making some monumental blunders.
Basically, anyone saying they only believe in proof, science or facts is a liar. They operate on faith all the time.
Did you go back over all the things that mechanic did to your car, or do you have faith they didn't make a mistake that can cause a crash?
The big difference is that, science can be proven by someone else. Like that YouTube example. If science and religion were lost for 1000 years only one could be found exactly the same again. Eventually with enough time the human species will become omniscient. There is no limit to science that we know of, we can solve all the mysteries of the universe.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 03:24:56 PM
The big difference is that, science can be proven by someone else. Like that YouTube example. If science and religion were lost for 1000 years only one could be found exactly the same again.
That's a hypothetical conclusion that has never been proven is all of history.
It's arrogance that makes you think that everything you know today won't change 1,000 years from now. Scientists discover new things and disprove old theories all the time.
It only took a few decades to prove Global Cooling and Global Warming were alarmist junk science. Those "scientific facts" would not have been "exactly the same in 1,000 years."
You like to cling to what is known and pushed as science, but you don't embrace the key, fundamental tenet that makes up what science represents: That we are to question everything and view results with skepticism, not as some immutable fact that can never be altered.
Funny how the same people screaming "SCIENCE!" think gender and sex are merely social constructs, even though they have been viewed as a scientific fact since recorded history. Yet, nothing we know today will change 1,000 years from now?
Just like religion, popular scientific knowledge evolves over time. Saying science won't change in 10 more centuries ignores the enormous changes that occurred in just the last 80 years.
In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon shrink in size, and eventually close, because, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
Shortsighted arrogance & ignorance.
Post by: Glasser on August 21, 2021, 03:35:20 PM
Keep drinking that bong water buddy.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/The_Scientific_Method.svg/520px-The_Scientific_Method.svg.png)
Post by: omnigun on August 21, 2021, 03:41:11 PM
That's a hypothetical conclusion that has never been proven is all of history.
It's arrogance that makes you think that everything you know today won't change 1,000 years from now. Scientists discover new things and disprove old theories all the time.
It only took a few decades to prove Global Cooling and Global Warming were alarmist junk science. Those "scientific facts" would not have been "exactly the same in 1,000 years."
You like to cling to what is known and pushed as science, but you don't embrace the key, fundamental tenet that makes up what science represents: That we are to question everything and view results with skepticism, not as some immutable fact that can never be altered.
Funny how the same people screaming "SCIENCE!" think gender and sex are merely social constructs, even though they have been viewed as a scientific fact since recorded history. Yet, nothing we know today will change 1,000 years from now?
Just like religion, popular scientific knowledge evolves over time. Saying science won't change in 10 more centuries ignores the enormous changes that occurred in just the last 80 years.
In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon shrink in size, and eventually close, because, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
Shortsighted arrogance & ignorance.
No matter the path science leads to the same universal facts and truths. The path there might look different but the end result is the same. It's also repeatable. Two people can find the same fact. You can experiment to prove it, it's not reliant on blind faith.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 04:03:45 PM
No matter the path science leads to the same universal facts and truths. The path there might look different but the end result is the same. It's also repeatable. Two people can find the same fact. You can experiment to prove it, it's not reliant on blind faith.
Christianity has been around for over 2,000 years. Like science, it has also evolved and been changed with the times. But the underlying, universal truths that comprise the religion remain the same.
Two people can search for the answers to life's philosophical questions and find the same conclusions. You can apply these principles to actual real world situations and prove they work with repeatable results. Many principles are captured in simple terms, like "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," or "you can't see the forest for the trees." Not to be taken literally, but to teach truths about the human condition. These truths haven't changed much over centuries.
I see no difference in the 2 processes, other than YOU have faith in one hypothetical premise, and not the other.
Post by: omnigun on August 21, 2021, 04:12:02 PM
Christianity has been around for over 2,000 years. Like science, it has also evolved and been changed with the times. But the underlying, universal truths that comprise the religion remain the same.
Two people can search for the answers to life's philosophical questions and find the same conclusions. You can apply these principles to actual real world situations and prove they work with repeatable results. Many principles are captured in simple terms, like "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," or "you can't see the forest for the trees." Not to be taken literally, but to teach truths about the human condition. These truths haven't changed much over centuries.
I see no difference in the 2 processes, other than YOU have faith in one hypothetical premise, and not the other.
It has evolved over time like science that is true. But would "god" allow that? I thought it was perfect from the beginning. Religion was used for morality. It still is. But it still is stuck in the past. As if science was based on flat earth. With today's technology we can disprove many of religions teachings. Religion can't do the same.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 04:36:01 PM
It has evolved over time like science that is true. But would "god" allow that? I thought it was perfect from the beginning. Religion was used for morality. It still is. But it still is stuck in the past. As if science was based on flat earth. With today's technology we can disprove many of religions teachings. Religion can't do the same.
Once again, you resort to hypothetical straw arguments nobody else is posting.
"I thought it was perfect from the beginning." That comment perfectly parallels your argument that "science won't change if it's lost for 1,000 years".
Science is perfect.
Religion changes.
LOL!
Post by: hvybarrels on August 21, 2021, 06:41:14 PM
Post by: macsak on August 21, 2021, 08:00:53 PM
I still laugh every time Moron says 'proven by science', 3.7 apparently didn't include any STEM.
Keep drinking that bong water buddy.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/The_Scientific_Method.svg/520px-The_Scientific_Method.svg.png)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 08:03:03 PM
i'm missing where "consensus" falls in this process...
And "Never changes, not even after 1,000 years without it."
Post by: omnigun on August 21, 2021, 10:26:05 PM
i'm missing where "consensus" falls in this process...
That's when a bunch of people come up with the same conclusion. Then it becomes a repeatable fact.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 21, 2021, 10:57:41 PM
That's when a bunch of people come up with the same conclusion. Then it becomes a repeatable fact.
Just like the consensus that the Earth is flat?
Gotcha.
Post by: hvybarrels on August 21, 2021, 11:35:44 PM
Post by: macsak on August 22, 2021, 06:22:15 AM
That's when a bunch of people come up with the same conclusion. Then it becomes a repeatable fact.
swooooooooosh
Post by: omnigun on August 22, 2021, 07:00:53 AM
Just like the consensus that the Earth is flat?
Gotcha.
Then people disproved it and it changed. A new concensus was formed. Science improves over time.
Post by: hvybarrels on August 22, 2021, 11:02:18 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 22, 2021, 12:40:44 PM
Then people disproved it and it changed. A new concensus was formed. Science improves over time.
But, you said science would endure for 1,000 years if rediscovered. That means it can't change.
You can't even stick with your own BS.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 22, 2021, 01:08:16 PM
But, you said science would endure for 1,000 years if rediscovered. That means it can't change.We call that goal post moving.
You can't even stick with your own BS.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on August 22, 2021, 03:25:34 PM
But, you said science would endure for 1,000 years if rediscovered. That means it can't change.
You can't even stick with your own BS.
Not even close. It might follow the same path. Them thinking its flat then disproven etc. In the end the correct answer will be found. Unlike religion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 22, 2021, 03:29:08 PM
Not even close. It might follow the same path. Them thinking its flat then disproven etc. In the end the correct answer will be found. Unlike religion.
Total BS.
100% hypothetical mumbo-jumbo that can't be proven.
Sounds like your science is a lot like religion.
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 22, 2021, 05:19:51 PM
We call that goal post moving.Can we even find the goalpost?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: mrgaf on August 22, 2021, 05:53:04 PM
(https://www.damajority.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/penisfestival.jpg)
This IS the goal post! :D
Post by: hvybarrels on August 22, 2021, 08:08:30 PM
(https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED882/5d591df8c124f.jpeg)
Post by: mrgaf on August 23, 2021, 05:15:58 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on August 23, 2021, 10:05:24 PM
Post by: omnigun on August 25, 2021, 04:25:41 PM
FYI this was about the "outrage" about the "demonic" shoes lilnas released.
Post by: Glasser on August 25, 2021, 04:54:50 PM
(https://d39eazhratf38c.cloudfront.net/Pictures/780xany/1/1/4/60114_150692_540261.jpg)
Post by: aieahound on August 25, 2021, 08:33:29 PM
I got an interesting story about a serpent, Satan, Adam and Eve, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mohammed and false prophets as a commandment.
Hint: if you’re the greatest deceiver the world has ever known, just keep sending false prophets. (I think John the Baptist might have been legit. Satan had to derail that shit.) Bang. Hell is filling up.
Why would I talk to the kid when I can talk to his Father. The Creator.
Point. Counter-Point. I just like to ponder counter points when I lay my head down at night and sometimes I realize I was wrong. Or a point was made I hadn’t considered.
No comments ?
Post by: hvybarrels on August 25, 2021, 09:55:10 PM
Why would I talk to the kid when I can talk to his Father. The Creator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZoYEr6NdmE
Post by: aieahound on August 25, 2021, 10:05:01 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on August 25, 2021, 10:26:16 PM
Post by: omnigun on August 30, 2021, 10:59:31 AM
https://www.atheists.org/2021/08/slattery-v-cuomo/
Post by: groveler on August 30, 2021, 02:21:12 PM
I love that scene, especially when he looks up and the rest of them do the same.I usually don't look up, I look over my shoulder,
at my 6.
:thumbsup:
Post by: omnigun on September 03, 2021, 12:42:29 PM
https://thesatanictemple.com/
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 07, 2021, 08:16:48 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/8qjirofio4i71.jpg?width=640&height=751&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=4b36bd322e31c50c9b796b090fb49d1ba30e0096)
The problem with tossing out all values that can be associated with religion is that you end up with no argument for any values. It is impossible to separate religious values from values in society without tossing all values. Science doesn't and cannot teach us values, they cannot justify why certain laws governing morality should exist. Beliefs of right and wrong are metaphysical, they cannot exist in the realm of science.
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 08:56:33 PM
The problem with tossing out all values that can be associated with religion is that you end up with no argument for any values. It is impossible to separate religious values from values in society without tossing all values. Science doesn't and cannot teach us values, they cannot justify why certain laws governing morality should exist. Beliefs of right and wrong are metaphysical, they cannot exist in the realm of science.
Why can't science teach you values? Its not beneficial for a society scientifically to have murder, rape, crime etc. From a purely scientific viewpoint that is a hindrance to science.
Post by: macsak on September 07, 2021, 09:16:16 PM
Why can't science teach you values? Its not beneficial for a society scientifically for murder, rape, crime etc. From a purely scientific viewpoint that is a hindrance to science.
are either of those sentences in English?
Post by: macsak on September 07, 2021, 09:17:06 PM
Why can't science teach you values? Its not beneficial for a society scientifically for murder, rape, crime etc. From a purely scientific viewpoint that is a hindrance to science.
science has nothing to do with values...
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 09:39:35 PM
science has nothing to do with values...
Yes it can, you can value things that provide a good benefit for science and humans without religion...
Post by: Glasser on September 07, 2021, 09:40:45 PM
Learning disability never read their literature.
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 09:41:45 PM
said the fake satanist.
Fake? I havent joined the Satanic Temple yet. I am tempted to, or atleast donate to their cause. Till then I officially identify as agnostic.
Post by: Glasser on September 07, 2021, 09:43:22 PM
Fake? I havent joined the Satanic Temple yet. I am tempted to, or atleast donate to their cause.
just pierce your dong and tell your parents you hate them, same result.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 07, 2021, 09:46:37 PM
Science is unable to quantify value judgements. Science can only tell us what "is", whereas values tell us what "ought to be."
Values are not scientific facts, because they can not be tested.
For example, one way to judge an outcome is to look for the best "individual well-being", but another way is to look for the best "greater good." Two different evaluations that can't be repeated or tested scientifically.
Example: Is it better that 5 soldiers risk their lives to rescue a hostage (individual well-being) or better to abandon the hostage rather than risk the lives of 5 soldiers. These are value judgements that can't be resolved through any scientific or empirical method.
The people who believe science can create a "religion" and define what is right or wrong are looking at a narrow list of examples that agree with their personal moral value judgments in each case.
Post by: Glasser on September 07, 2021, 09:49:55 PM
"Values" are judgmental evaluations that label a specific outcome as better or worse than another outcome.
Science is unable to quantify value judgements. Science can only tell us what "is", whereas values tell us what "ought to be."
Values are not scientific facts, because they can not be tested.
For example, one way to judge an outcome is to look for the best "individual well-being", but another way is to look for the best "greater good." Two different evaluations that can't be repeated or tested scientifically.
Example: Is it better that 5 soldiers risk their lives to rescue a hostage (individual well-being) or better to abandon the hostage rather than risk the lives of 5 soldiers. These are value judgements that can't be resolved through any scientific or empirical method.
The people who believe science can create a "religion" and define what is right or wrong are looking at a narrow list of examples that agree with their persoanl moral value judgments in each case.
here ya go right from the Satanic Temples own website. Notice how dumbass doesnt believe in any of their basic precepts?
III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ye5U_Et1jNk/maxresdefault.jpg)
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 09:50:59 PM
just pierce your dong and tell your parents you hate them, same result.
Nothing against my parents. They too are not really religious. Just cause you lived a religious life don't make mine bad. Unless you got molested by a priest or have daddy issues cause of your childhood.
Post by: drck1000 on September 07, 2021, 09:51:29 PM
science has nothing to do with values...pH values…like toxic, dude
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 09:52:30 PM
here ya go right from the Satanic Temples own website. Notice how dumbass doesnt believe in any of their basic precepts?
III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
I believe in all of those...I use science unlike you. I've never said you shouldn't be able to say stupid offending shit. And I also believe in freedom, unless that freedom encroaches on others.
Post by: Glasser on September 07, 2021, 09:55:48 PM
Nothing against my parents. They too are not really religious. Just cause you lived a religious life don't make mine bad. Unless you got molested by a priest or have daddy issues cause of your childhood.
(https://i.imgflip.com/2pooug.jpg)
Post by: Glasser on September 07, 2021, 09:57:42 PM
I believe in all of those...I use science unlike you. I've never said you shouldn't be able to say stupid offending shit. And I also believe in freedom, unless that freedom encroaches on others.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U75X3Vpr0Bc/maxresdefault.jpg)
Post by: macsak on September 07, 2021, 10:14:23 PM
Yes it can, you can value things that provide a good benefit for science and humans without religion...
NO
Post by: omnigun on September 07, 2021, 10:52:17 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/2pooug.jpg)
The satanic temple is not actually satanists....can't u learn 2 read?
Post by: hvybarrels on September 08, 2021, 12:24:17 AM
Post by: hvybarrels on September 08, 2021, 12:25:59 AM
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/c/c/3321d0b3a1c9c6119c6e5f989da5ebdf8f2bda249b08aa3a3b3ab760dfa897/source.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2F2ynRKBuTzr3Hi%2Fsource.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 06:49:38 AM
Since you can't have Satan without Jesus, wouldn't that make Satanist just another Christian denomination?
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/c/c/3321d0b3a1c9c6119c6e5f989da5ebdf8f2bda249b08aa3a3b3ab760dfa897/source.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2F2ynRKBuTzr3Hi%2Fsource.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
It's just another made up religion like all of them. Pick a random thing to worship. Slap a name on it.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 08, 2021, 08:15:42 AM
NOOf course the 1 guy here doesnt understand what values are.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 08:36:25 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 08, 2021, 08:45:36 AM
Dumbass just admitted he worships made up things. Not an epiphany for us, but maybe for him,
Most info he post is wrong, so that could fall under the "made up" category. So are we surprised?
Post by: hvybarrels on September 08, 2021, 08:49:08 AM
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 09:04:29 AM
Dumbass just admitted he worships made up things. Not an epiphany for us, but maybe for him,
Man that bus was really short to your skool eh. I just said I am agnostic. I don't worship anything. Much less made up human religions. There is no religion on earth that can be 100% correct. Look how much they have changed in the last 200 years. Lul. Keep worshipping false idols, wait isn't that against some of yalls religions? :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: ren on September 08, 2021, 09:05:23 AM
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 09:05:37 AM
Most info he post is wrong, so that could fall under the "made up" category. So are we surprised?
#fakenews
I would say the same to you. Most stuff you post is false. If covid is so mundane why wear masks? I know you got dem fancy ones. Mr .00000000000000001% death.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 09:07:50 AM
Why have a symbol of worship i.e. "temple" when you are the atheist?
I don't have a temple. Never go to church. Belong to none, But I do support the Satanic "Temple". You can give money to things you are not a direct part of if you support their cause. I've said repeatedly before if I were to pick a religion that would be it. Thankfully in Hawaii I don't have to make that choice we are not some kooky religious state. If I was in one of those I would have to support a religion out of necessity for my civil rights. Hence I would join them.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 08, 2021, 10:08:28 AM
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/7/c/f7161761866ec22b376119548267641d1f7c06380a14d7db037321bf5901ac/200.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FXwtIKC8Kp8lO0%2F200.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 10:32:41 AM
When you are Attention Seekologist but too unattractive for Instagram.
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/7/c/f7161761866ec22b376119548267641d1f7c06380a14d7db037321bf5901ac/200.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FXwtIKC8Kp8lO0%2F200.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
FTFY
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 11:43:02 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YrCFz0Kfc
Love that.
Used to tell my son that when he was growing up and we had to go to Home Depot, City Mill etc. and I made him come along.
“We’re on a mission from God” in the same Dan Akroyd cadence.
Hope it wasn’t blasphemous.
https://youtu.be/FuJpalsj9sQ
Relevant on multiple levels. :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 01:52:37 PM
Man that bus was really short to your skool eh. I just said I am agnostic. I don't worship anything. Much less made up human religions. There is no religion on earth that can be 100% correct. Look how much they have changed in the last 200 years. Lul. Keep worshipping false idols, wait isn't that against some of yalls religions? :rofl: :rofl:
Religions don't have to be 100% correct from a evidence-based viewpoint.
That's why they call it "faith."
But, we've been down that road many times, yet here you are -- still spouting the same anti-religion talking points.
For something that isn't real, you sure do spend a lot of time posting smack about it.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 01:56:53 PM
I don't have a temple. Never go to church. Belong to none, But I do support the Satanic "Temple". You can give money to things you are not a direct part of if you support their cause. I've said repeatedly before if I were to pick a religion that would be it. Thankfully in Hawaii I don't have to make that choice we are not some kooky religious state. If I was in one of those I would have to support a religion out of necessity for my civil rights. Hence I would join them.
Please point to a US state where you are required to choose a specific religion to have civil rights.
Back it up with something other than your beliefs and fake knowledge.
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 03:01:52 PM
Please point to a US state where you are required to choose a specific religion to have civil rights.
There’s a whole area of the Country known as the Bible Belt. Pro-2A but not so much civil rights in some instances.
Still completely disagree with Omni’s statement that you’d need to join a religion to get your civil rights. You’d just need to follow theirs.
Kind of like,Democrats in Hawaii.
Back it up with something other than your beliefs and fake knowledge.
Isn’t that Religion ? Beliefs and fake knowledge ?
Everybody is lucky you vowed not to respond to me anymore.
But the last question is for everyone.
Edit:
my bad gang he said he wouldn’t respond to me anymore.
And where the fawk did he just go ? I was saying religion in the Bible Belt, and elsewhere, can dictate politics just like the Democrats can dictate politics in Hawaii.
And he’s a LIAR ! ( to use his words)
After you lied about me, I'm not answering another comment from you.
Apparently he didn’t like my like last question open to everyone cause he didn’t reply to that one.
And I think he might be off his meds.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 03:29:37 PM
There’s a whole area of the Country known as the Bible Belt. Pro-2A but not so much civil rights in some instances.
Still completely disagree with Omni’s statement that you’d need to join a religion to get your civil rights. You’d just need to follow theirs.
Kind of like,Democrats in Hawaii.
Are you really that misinformed, or just being a Troll again? It's really had to tell.
If you believe that about the South, then (1) you've never lived there, and (2) you're more gullible than Omni using PayPal to buy gun parts.
The Bible Belt has its name for a reason, but not the reason people usually believe/make up in their minds.
It was first used by a journalist to identify the Southern states his commentary applied to. There's no official definition for the term, but most agree it defined the region of the US that had the highest percentage of Protestant-derived religions, churches and regular attendees. According to Stephen W. Tweedie, an Associate Professor Emeritus in the Department of Geography at Oklahoma State University, the Bible Belt is now viewed in terms of numerical concentration of the audience for religious television.
It's just one more tactic for people who tend to treat us all as members of classes and groups to define us. It has nothing to do with how anyone gets treated by the state or local governments.
Funny how you believe civil rights in the South are "not so much" "Pro-" (i guess that's what you meant). Funny how most civil rights legislation was voted into existence by Republicans, but somehow people equate the opposition with the South. All part of the South = Slavery = Jim Crowe = No Civil Rights narrative. In fact:
Quote
In presidential elections, the Bible Belt states of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina,
and Texas have voted for the Republican candidate in all elections since 1980; Oklahoma
has supported the Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1968, with
Republicans having carried every county in the state in all presidential elections since 2004.
Other Bible Belt states have voted for the Republican presidential candidate in the majority
of elections since 1980, but have gone to the Democratic candidate either once or twice since
then. However, with the exception of Mississippi, historical geographer Barry Vann shows that
counties in the upland areas of the Appalachians and the Ozarks have a more conservative
voting pattern than the counties located in the coastal plains.[29]
Southern = Mostly GOP Voting Patterns = Mostly Conservative = Republican Party = Pro-Civil-Rights
I find that most people are truly ignorant when it comes to the South. Slavery, Jim Crowe, Civil Rights marches and protests, desegregation, and so on are things of the past mostly instituted by Democrats. Much has changed, including the people in power.
So, unlike Hawaii and a few others maybe, Democrats do not dictate the politics or laws of all states in the "Bible Belt". Conservatives who believe in the predominate religious teachings of the South learn that everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Sounds like a great foundation for civil rights to me.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 03:53:09 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/HrLBBud.png)
Of course, that only looks at the religions associated with the prevalent ones in the "Bible Belt." When you look deeper into DC:
Religion in Washington, District of Columbia
56.9% of the people in Washington are religious:
- 17.5% are Baptist
- 3.2% are Episcopalian
- 15.4% are Catholic
- 0.7% are Lutheran
- 3.7% are Methodist
- 1.0% are Pentecostal
- 1.8% are Presbyterian
- 0.1% are Church of Jesus Christ
- 7.7% are another Christian faith
- 3.0% are Judaism
- 1.7% are an eastern faith
- 0.7% affilitates with Islam
Note: almost 57% of DC residents are religious.
Looking at the US in total:
Quote
Pew Research:https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-1-importance-of-religion-and-religious-beliefs/
Three-quarters of U.S. adults say religion is at least “somewhat” important in their lives,
with more than half (53%) saying it is “very” important.
Approximately one-in-five say religion is “not too” (11%) or “not at all” important in their lives (11%).
So, when one insults people who think religion is important, you're talking about over half the people in the country.
If Science is decided by consensus, why is Religion not?
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:01:28 PM
FTFY
Probably better looking than you. And I got an Instagram, not 100yrs old.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:02:14 PM
Religions don't have to be 100% correct from a evidence-based viewpoint.
That's why they call it "faith."
But, we've been down that road many times, yet here you are -- still spouting the same anti-religion talking points.
For something that isn't real, you sure do spend a lot of time posting smack about it.
They are FAR from 100% look at the bible. How much it changed. They had some really f-ed up stuff in it before.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:03:07 PM
Please point to a US state where you are required to choose a specific religion to have civil rights.
Back it up with something other than your beliefs and fake knowledge.
Texas, this whole danm convo in the past few pages. Where you been?
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:04:32 PM
Are you really that misinformed, or just being a Troll again? It's really had to tell.
If you believe that about the South, then (1) you've never lived there, and (2) you're more gullible than Omni using PayPal to buy gun parts.
The Bible Belt has its name for a reason, but not the reason people usually believe/make up in their minds.
It was first used by a journalist to identify the Southern states his commentary applied to. There's no official definition for the term, but most agree it defined the region of the US that had the highest percentage of Protestant-derived religions, churches and regular attendees. According to Stephen W. Tweedie, an Associate Professor Emeritus in the Department of Geography at Oklahoma State University, the Bible Belt is now viewed in terms of numerical concentration of the audience for religious television.
It's just one more tactic for people who tend to treat us all as members of classes and groups to define us. It has nothing to do with how anyone gets treated by the state or local governments.
Funny how you believe civil rights in the South are "not so much" "Pro-" (i guess that's what you meant). Funny how most civil rights legislation was voted into existence by Republicans, but somehow people equate the opposition with the South. All part of the South = Slavery = Jim Crowe = No Civil Rights narrative. In fact:
Southern = Mostly GOP Voting Patterns = Mostly Conservative = Republican Party = Pro-Civil-Rights
I find that most people are truly ignorant when it comes to the South. Slavery, Jim Crowe, Civil Rights marches and protests, desegregation, and so on are things of the past mostly instituted by Democrats. Much has changed, including the people in power.
So, unlike Hawaii and a few others maybe, Democrats do not dictate the politics or laws of all states in the "Bible Belt". Conservatives who believe in the predominate religious teachings of the South learn that everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Sounds like a great foundation for civil rights to me.
>republicans
>pro civil rights
Pick one brah.
While they do SOME rights well and better than the democrats they really fuck other ones up.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:06:21 PM
Notice that even in Washington, DC, where only 8% of the population identifies as Evangelical Protestant followers, half of DC said that religion is Very Important.
(https://i.imgur.com/HrLBBud.png)
Of course, that only looks at the religions associated with the prevalent ones in the "Bible Belt." When you look deeper into DC:
Religion in Washington, District of Columbia
56.9% of the people in Washington are religious:
- 17.5% are Baptist
- 3.2% are Episcopalian
- 15.4% are Catholic
- 0.7% are Lutheran
- 3.7% are Methodist
- 1.0% are Pentecostal
- 1.8% are Presbyterian
- 0.1% are Church of Jesus Christ
- 7.7% are another Christian faith
- 3.0% are Judaism
- 1.7% are an eastern faith
- 0.7% affilitates with Islam
Note: almost 57% of DC residents are religious.
Looking at the US in total:
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-1-importance-of-religion-and-religious-beliefs/
So, when one insults people who think religion is important, you're talking about over half the people in the country.
If Science is decided by consensus, why is Religion not?
If you look at that map the ones where religion is less important tend to be the ones that protect rights, like abortion. Coincidence?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/221454/share-of-religious-americans-by-state/
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 04:07:35 PM
They are FAR from 100% look at the bible. How much it changed. They had some really f-ed up stuff in it before.
Again, you're repeating yourself yet again.
Find something new to say, or rest on your earlier arguments. You feeling the need to report the same talking points signals your points are not that strong -- or else you would not feel the need to constantly post them.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:11:20 PM
Again, you're repeating yourself yet again.
Find something new to say, or rest on your earlier arguments. You feeling the need to report the same talking points signals your points are not that strong -- or else you would not feel the need to constantly post them.
Just because I bright it up and you have nothing to say doesn't make it not a valid argument. It being a constant issue is proof of its validity. Why do I need new arguments if the old are right.
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 04:14:29 PM
"Harmful Language" Trigger Warning Added To US Constitution On National Archives Website
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/harmful-language-trigger-warning-added-us-constitution-national-archives-website
Bunch of cartoon characters, hysterical crybabies.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0bmA2cWQAAJdCk?format=jpg&name=large)
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:16:42 PM
Oh yes it the Liberals that 'protect rights' ....
"Harmful Language" Trigger Warning Added To US Constitution On National Archives Website
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/harmful-language-trigger-warning-added-us-constitution-national-archives-website
Bunch of cartoon characters, hysterical crybabies.
That's why I said some....I guess u no can read go back skool.
Both sides suck for civil rights in different ways. Democrats police speech and feelings and republicans religion and your body.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 04:23:08 PM
Texas, this whole danm convo in the past few pages. Where you been?
Again, show me where you have to adhere to a specific religion to have civil rights.
Screaming "TEXAS!!" is not evidence.
The "convo" is about a specific law passed based on the SCIENCE of prenatal development, and the recognition that an embryo with a heartbeat is alive. Nothing in the law points to any religion or religious teachings. I read the entire law. It's based on the FACT that after Roe V. Wade, the Texas laws that prohibit and criminalize abortion unless the mother's life is in danger were never repealed and remain on the books. This new law seeks to define the parameters that allow an abortion in the state as well as the civil vs. criminal penalties involved to bring the statutes in line with federal law.
Also, it's "damn".
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 04:23:58 PM
Southern = Mostly GOP Voting Patterns = Mostly Conservative = Republican Party = Pro-Civil-Rights
Sarcasm ?
I find that most people are truly ignorant when it comes to the South. Slavery, Jim Crowe, Civil Rights marches and protests, desegregation, and so on are things of the past mostly instituted by Democrats. Much has changed, including the people in power.
So, unlike Hawaii and a few others maybe, Democrats do not dictate the politics or laws of all states in the "Bible Belt". Conservatives who believe in the predominate religious teachings of the South learn that everyone is equal in the eyes of God.
Lost me there chief. I got nothing against the South. Got friends from the South.
(No never been there except Texas, but my brother lived Kentucky and said the people are awesome )
Does religion affect their politics? Heck yeah it does. And the policies they pass.
And I’m pretty conservative.
Hawaii doesn’t matter. Just put a D next to your name on the ballot. Sam Kong proved that. His views never changed just the letter and he kicks ass.
So does your religious beliefs have to do with your political affiliation and inclination?
Christian = Republican, unless one is a charitable Christian then Democrat.
Agnostic = Democrat…..or Republican=Independent.
Buddhist = Democrat
Muslim = Democrat
Other=Democrat or Republican=independent.
There’s another question.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 04:31:01 PM
Again, show me where you have to adhere to a specific religion to have civil rights.
Screaming "TEXAS!!" is not evidence.
The "convo" is about a specific law passed based on the SCIENCE of prenatal development, and the recognition that an embryo with a heartbeat is alive. Nothing in the law points to any religion or religious teachings. I read the entire law. It's based on the FACT that after Roe V. Wade, the Texas laws that prohibit and criminalize abortion unless the mother's life is in danger were never repealed and remain on the books. This new law seeks to define the parameters that allow an abortion in the state as well as the civil vs. criminal penalties involved to bring the statutes in line with federal law.
Also, it's "damn".
"science" why is texas one of the few if any civilized places on earth with said science? The people who wrote the law sure are religious and cite it alot, maybe its just coincidence. Its okay religion will protect abortion rights...just like cakes.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 04:35:35 PM
>republicans
>pro civil rights
Pick one brah.
While they do SOME rights well and better than the democrats they really fuck other ones up.
Read a history book, Lazy.
The Republican Party was founded in order to end slavery. I think that beginning should cast the proper light on the rest of the party's beliefs from then on.
Dems:
- KKK
- Jim Crowe
- School Segregation
- Opposed nearly all Civil Rights legislation during the 1960s
Now, the Dems and the Media have brainwashed you and the nation into believing the Republicans are the racists. Where's the evidence?
Why do so many people have to create fake hate crimes supposedly by Conservatives and Republicans? Are there no actual hate crimes to use for their narratives?
Why do the Democrats continue to preach the soft bigotry of low expectations concerning Blacks and other minorities when the evidence is overwhelming that their accusations are baseless?
You need to go reread all the threads in which we discussed race and party politics. If you truly believe Republicans are the racists, you're just a fool, plain and simple.
Senator Robert Byrd of W. Virginia was the oldest living and longest serving Democrat in Congress before his death. He was also a Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan. Oh, and he was a lifelong Democrat. He died in June 2010 at age 92.
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 04:42:26 PM
That's why I said some....I guess u no can read go back skool.
Both sides suck for civil rights in different ways. Democrats police speech and feelings and republicans religion and your body.
Check that statement junior.
Republicans don’t police religion as far I’ve ever heard, read or seen.
Policies lean toward half their Christian values? Sure.
And I just read. (Is that pronounced read or read ?)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 04:43:10 PM
"science" why is texas one of the few if any civilized places on earth with said science? The people who wrote the law sure are religious and cite it alot, maybe its just coincidence. Its okay religion will protect abortion rights...just like cakes.
Why do you have no arguments other than "If every other nation is willing to jump off a building, then we should, too?"
How do you know the religious beliefs of the bills authors? You know them all personally?
Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and a self-affirmed Catholic -- as are many Democrats in Congress -- as is Joe Biden.
You seem to be a mindreader, able to pick out which official actions are based on religion, and which are not. I know I've heard Pelosi invoke her religious beliefs on occasion to rationalize her decisions. Haven't heard anyone (you) complain yet.
Seems religion is fine until a law is passed you don't agree with -- then you cry "pushing their religious beliefs!" Grow up. There will always be an overlap between Christian and other religious teachings with people's jobs. You can't sterilize the government of religious teachings and values any more than you can rid it of Socialism or Liberalism. Ideologies exist. Unless the law is demonstrably about religion, you have no legal basis to argue.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 08, 2021, 04:49:04 PM
Why do you have no arguments other than "If every other nation is willing to jump off a building, then we should, too?"
How do you know the religious beliefs of the bills authors? You know them all personally?
Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and a self-affirmed Catholic -- as are many Democrats in Congress -- as is Joe Biden.
You seem to be a mindreader, able to pick out which official actions are based on religion, and which are not. I know I've heard Pelosi invoke her religious beliefs on occasion to rationalize her decisions. Haven't heard anyone (you) complain yet.
Seems religion is fine until a law is passed you don't agree with -- then you cry "pushing their religious beliefs!" Grow up. There will always be an overlap between Christian and other religious teachings with people's jobs. You can't sterilize the government of religious teachings and values any more than you can rid it of Socialism or Liberalism. Ideologies exist. Unless the law is demonstrably about religion, you have no legal basis to argue.
TBH, IDK why you guys waste your time with him. It's obvious that there is some kind of disability that prevents rational thought. Then add in the inability to admit mistakes, move goal post, make stuff up, all falls under lack of ethics.
Post by: ren on September 08, 2021, 04:55:30 PM
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 05:23:38 PM
Check that statement junior.
Republicans don’t police religion as far I’ve ever heard, read or seen.
Policies lean toward half their Christian values? Sure.
And I just read. (Is that pronounced read or read ?)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. They force religion/religious morals on others.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 08, 2021, 05:37:53 PM
Sorry if I wasn't clear. They force religion/religious morals on others.
Name one thing only Republicans "forced" on you that is purely a religious moral.
Just one.
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 07:14:24 PM
Both sides suck
'both sides are bad' is the unoriginal pussy way to cop out of a position. Its called False Equivalence, and its what children do when caught in a corner. keep being lazy and stupid.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 08, 2021, 08:21:35 PM
Why can't science teach you values? Its not beneficial for a society scientifically to have murder, rape, crime etc. From a purely scientific viewpoint that is a hindrance to science.
Sure, science could study humanity and find that certain behaviors hinder society as a whole, but so what? That is still resting on the belief that it is good for society to live longer, have less fear, etc. You can say that rape is bad and that we should outlaw it because it harms society but then you are making the moral judgement that society should not be harmed and at that point you have left the realm of science. Science can say that eating broccoli helps you live longer but it cannot tell you that living longer is a good thing. All you are doing is kicking the can down the road there, you still need to confront the fact that at some point it comes to rest on a metaphysical argument, that it is a belief beyond what science can answer.
Plus what if we could show that rape benefitted society somehow, one could then make the argument that rape should be encouraged.
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 08:30:25 PM
Oppenheimer was VERY distraught he helped invent a device that could end life on earth. Einstein wasnt really pumped about it either.
https://youtu.be/lb13ynu3Iac
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 08:52:17 PM
They, of all people, knew what they were building.
Interesting question.
Post by: Glasser on September 08, 2021, 09:24:41 PM
Does that mean some go against their religion to pursue science ?
They, of all people, knew what they were building.
Interesting question.
Watch the video again. Right where he tears up... he was convinced by people that it was his 'duty' to create that weapon and he lived to regret it.
They literally didnt know what would happen when the first A-Bomb was detonated. More than half of the scientists thought the chain reaction would never stop and would shatter all matter on earth. There was a lot of regret by those people who figured out how to open a door they later wished they had left closed
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 10:29:53 PM
'both sides are bad' is the unoriginal pussy way to cop out of a position. Its called False Equivalence, and its what children do when caught in a corner. keep being lazy and stupid.
Or you don't have to be forced into picking either side and be an independent voter. Keep being a sheep.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 08, 2021, 10:31:41 PM
Quote
WASHINGTON — A Michigan State University sociologist reports in The Journal of Health and Social Behavior that religious participation affects suicide rates differently around the world, and in Latin America particularly, high religious involvement is associated with low suicide rates.https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2017/07/05/new-study-suggests-religion-affects-suicide-rates-differently-around-the-world/
Religion is good for your mental health.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 10:31:59 PM
Sure, science could study humanity and find that certain behaviors hinder society as a whole, but so what? That is still resting on the belief that it is good for society to live longer, have less fear, etc. You can say that rape is bad and that we should outlaw it because it harms society but then you are making the moral judgement that society should not be harmed and at that point you have left the realm of science. Science can say that eating broccoli helps you live longer but it cannot tell you that living longer is a good thing. All you are doing is kicking the can down the road there, you still need to confront the fact that at some point it comes to rest on a metaphysical argument, that it is a belief beyond what science can answer.
Plus what if we could show that rape benefitted society somehow, one could then make the argument that rape should be encouraged.
How is it a moral judgement that something that harms society is bad? Evolution etc can prove what is good and bad without the moral aspect. For the continuation of humanity certain actions are favored. Science indeed says living longer, healthier and smarter is good. That's the whole point of natural selection.
Post by: omnigun on September 08, 2021, 10:32:43 PM
https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/blog/2017/07/05/new-study-suggests-religion-affects-suicide-rates-differently-around-the-world/\
Religion is good for your mental health.
Is suicide bad?
Post by: aieahound on September 08, 2021, 10:41:09 PM
Fuck it. I’m gonna write it out.
WHAT THE FUCK !
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 09, 2021, 12:55:13 AM
Is suicide bad?
Depends on who we're talking about.
:geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on September 09, 2021, 07:05:13 AM
:wtf:
Fuck it. I’m gonna write it out.
WHAT THE FUCK !
It's a self freedom choice of your own body. Much like abortion. 👍 it doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms. I say it's up to choice. I'm pro euthanasia. And even selling organs etc. As the mantra goes, Your body your choice, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 09, 2021, 07:57:13 AM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 09, 2021, 07:45:13 PM
How is it a moral judgement that something that harms society is bad? Evolution etc can prove what is good and bad without the moral aspect. For the continuation of humanity certain actions are favored. Science indeed says living longer, healthier and smarter is good. That's the whole point of natural selection.
Because good and bad are subjective.
You asked is suicide bad? Depends who you ask If your goal is to propogate your species then yes it is bad, if it is to reduce the human population then it could be seen as good. If you die in the woods it benefits all the other bugs and animals that are going to come consume your body. If you are the head of the Taliban the US military might wish to take you out but other Taliban would wish you to not be killed.
It all boils down to a subjective moral judgement. You can argue that theft is bad, because it costs someone money, which means they have less to afford food, which means their kids might suffer hunger, which means they might have health problems which means etc etc etc. In the end it all ends up resting upon a subjective moral belief and science cannot prove a subjective thing to be a fact, that is the realm of the supernatural. Otherwise your belief that someone shouldn't be raped are equal to my belief that someone should be raped (not an actual belief of mine) So a real atheist has no real grounds arguing that certain actions are bad and should be made illegal. Richard Dawkins even had to admit this in one of his debates.
Post by: omnigun on September 09, 2021, 08:34:08 PM
Because good and bad are subjective.
You asked is suicide bad? Depends who you ask If your goal is to propogate your species then yes it is bad, if it is to reduce the human population then it could be seen as good. If you die in the woods it benefits all the other bugs and animals that are going to come consume your body. If you are the head of the Taliban the US military might wish to take you out but other Taliban would wish you to not be killed.
It all boils down to a subjective moral judgement. You can argue that theft is bad, because it costs someone money, which means they have less to afford food, which means their kids might suffer hunger, which means they might have health problems which means etc etc etc. In the end it all ends up resting upon a subjective moral belief and science cannot prove a subjective thing to be a fact, that is the realm of the supernatural. Otherwise your belief that someone shouldn't be raped are equal to my belief that someone should be raped (not an actual belief of mine) So a real atheist has no real grounds arguing that certain actions are bad and should be made illegal. Richard Dawkins even had to admit this in one of his debates.
Interesting points. Suicide would be good for natural selection. The weak killing themselves off. So that point doesn't really work. As for conflicting beliefs that does hold weight. But what if neither side has to be correct. If both only judged with science one "society" will have the most success. The one with rape and murder is most likely to end itself and the one without will "win". And that can define the rules and laws. Which would end up being science based. Animals have no morals yet they have "rules" that they follow.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 09, 2021, 09:54:03 PM
It's the cowards who make the decision to kill themselves but never attempt or keep failing.
I have a tough time labeling people who kill themselves as "weak."
If a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his teammates, is he weak?
If a man is facing a terminal illness which will end after a few months of agony -- agony he wants to spare his spouse/family/friends, is committing suicide a sign of weakness?
Not all suicides are depressed Millennials wanting to end their lives because Climate Change is going to kill them in
Post by: omnigun on September 09, 2021, 10:15:21 PM
Suicide actually takes strength to follow through.
It's the cowards who make the decision to kill themselves but never attempt or keep failing.
I have a tough time labeling people who kill themselves as "weak."
If a soldier throws himself on a grenade to save his teammates, is he weak?
If a man is facing a terminal illness which will end after a few months of agony -- agony he wants to spare his spouse/family/friends, is committing suicide a sign of weakness?
Not all suicides are depressed Millennials wanting to end their lives because Climate Change is going to kill them in1211109 years anyway.
Good points maybe weak isn't the best words. Dying can be good for evolution. If the death protects more people (soldier example). Also death itself can be neutral (cancer example) . As long as your death serves a positive purpose its good for humanity.
Post by: aieahound on September 09, 2021, 10:33:07 PM
Interesting points. Suicide would be good for natural selection. The weak killing themselves off. So that point doesn't really work. As for conflicting beliefs that does hold weight. But what if neither side has to be correct. If both only judged with science one "society" will have the most success. The one with rape and murder is most likely to end itself and the one without will "win". And that can define the rules and laws. Which would end up being science based. Animals have no morals yet they have "rules" that they follow.
Good points maybe weak isn't the best words. Dying can be good for evolution. If the death protects more people (soldier example). Also death itself can be neutral (cancer example) . As long as your death serves a positive purpose its good for humanity.
I could argue this whole thing…but it’s….
Warped Man ! :wtf:
Post by: ren on September 09, 2021, 10:55:27 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on September 09, 2021, 11:03:19 PM
I could argue this whole thing…but it’s….
Warped Man ! :wtf:
Exactly. Our society has been dominated by Fundamentalist Materialism and worshippers of Mammon. The results speak for themselves.
We need our religions back and the sooner the better!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rbxGOdNUQo&t=6s
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 09, 2021, 11:45:46 PM
Exactly. Our society has been dominated by Fundamentalist Materialism and worshippers of Mammon. The results speak for themselves.1 example of the lack of jesus.
We need our religions back and the sooner the better!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rbxGOdNUQo&t=6s
Im pretty sure he's in the closet about it too.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on September 10, 2021, 06:13:08 AM
Lack of empathy is an indicator of anti-social behavior. Why would anyone associate "fun times" with a person like that?
I'm fairly sociable, are you projecting? :geekdanc:
Post by: drck1000 on September 10, 2021, 06:54:29 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 10, 2021, 08:52:37 AM
Sociopath =/= anti-social
I got a friend who's anti social. He;s currently in quarantine because he has CV. He loves it. No need interact with people daily due to not going to work. Pretty much a vacation for him. So far he's fine, so vacation.
Post by: drck1000 on September 10, 2021, 09:06:18 AM
I got a friend who's anti social. He;s currently in quarantine because he has CV. He loves it. No need interact with people daily due to not going to work. Pretty much a vacation for him. So far he's fine, so vacation.No desire to interact is different than the inability to interact well in a social environment.
Heck, there are many times, as I've gotten older, that I am 100% fine just cruising by myself. In fact, there are many times that I look forward to it. I wouldn't call myself anti-social, but there are times when I look forward to quiet time to veg out by myself. I do very much enjoy being around friends and family, but not like some friends who were going nuts when we were in the height of shutdown. I was just fine.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 10, 2021, 09:50:51 AM
No desire to interact is different than the inability to interact well in a social environment.
Heck, there are many times, as I've gotten older, that I am 100% fine just cruising by myself. In fact, there are many times that I look forward to it. I wouldn't call myself anti-social, but there are times when I look forward to quiet time to veg out by myself. I do very much enjoy being around friends and family, but not like some friends who were going nuts when we were in the height of shutdown. I was just fine.
That's age. The older we get, the more we want to stay home and do nothing. Compared to in the early 20's and go out every night,. Damn hooligans (while shaking fist in the air)
Post by: drck1000 on September 10, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
That's age. The older we get, the more we want to stay home and do nothing. Compared to in the early 20's and go out every night,. Damn hooligans (while shaking fist in the air)Did you just call me OLD?!?! ???
Or lazy? :grrr:
Haha. But I'm both. . .
Post by: QUIETShooter on September 10, 2021, 10:18:02 AM
GO, GO, GO!!!
Now as an old fut I still like go. (But only to the bathroom......) :D
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 10, 2021, 10:19:46 AM
Did you just call me OLD?!?! ???
Or lazy? :grrr:
Haha. But I'm both. . .
At least I used "we" and not "you". :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on September 10, 2021, 10:22:20 AM
When I was young all I like do is GO!!Yeah, there was a time when I would go out almost every night except for Sunday and maybe Monday. But that was a LONG tiem ago.
GO, GO, GO!!!
Now as an old fut I still like go. (But only to the bathroom......) :D
At least I used "we" and not "you". :rofl:You still young. Your joints don't creek/scream
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 10:50:26 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 10, 2021, 10:55:26 AM
Yeah, there was a time when I would go out almost every night except for Sunday and maybe Monday. But that was a LONG tiem ago.
You still young. Your joints don't creek/scream
Funny you should say that, because a few months ago when squatting, the knees started to creek. And I take a bunch of joint supplements for years and wear knee sleeves. But age is finally catching up.
Post by: groveler on September 10, 2021, 10:58:33 AM
That video above is disturbing.Agreed and they all vote Democrat whether they know it or not.
:popcorn:
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 10, 2021, 11:00:36 AM
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 10, 2021, 11:15:38 AM
Sociopath =/= anti-socialMaladjusted, Antisocial, and Darn-mean! Tom Thumb
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 10, 2021, 11:17:08 AM
Post by: macsak on September 10, 2021, 11:51:37 AM
That video above is disturbing.
that channel has a whole series of videos...
Post by: Glasser on September 10, 2021, 12:25:03 PM
My wife travels mainland for work a lot. And noticed the difference in crackheads up there compared to here. HI druggies are more chill compared to the mainland.
Dallas TX the homeless addict beggars want to tell you a 15 minute story about why they need to borrow a dollar. A bunch of them carry a folder with documents to 'prove' their particular plight was unavoidable.
It's a lot of work. They aren't even making minimum wage. Gotta respect the salesmanship and covering their bases.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 02:36:46 PM
Dallas TX the homeless addict beggars want to tell you a 15 minute story about why they need to borrow a dollar. A bunch of them carry a folder with documents to 'prove' their particular plight was unavoidable.
It's a lot of work. They aren't even making minimum wage. Gotta respect the salesmanship and covering their bases.
Same thing all over California. One yelled at me from 5 rows over in a parking lot. I had no idea who he was yelling at until he came over to where i was getting into my car. He proceeded to tell me a long story about his problems and why he just needed 5 dollars for gas and would send it to me if I gave him my name and address. "Sure. Here's my money, and here's my personal information that I would never hand out to strangers I don't know." :wacko:
I'm sure their goal is to be so pitiful and long-winded, that you'll pay them just to shut them up so they'll be on their way and leave you alone.
Seems the general population has the impression that only someone in real need would have the guts to beg for money, so most just give up the cash -- story or no story. Given that, it's no wonder panhandling has become an actual vocation.
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 03:50:25 PM
I would bet a bunch are. But that’s my thought.
What does it have to do with anything ?
Haven’t formed an opinion on that yet.
Pondering.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 04:17:46 PM
Think these people are Religious ?
I would bet a bunch are. But that’s my thought.
What does it have to do with anything ?
Haven’t formed an opinion on that yet.
Pondering.
I'd answer your question, but then I'd have to explain it to you.
Not my job.
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 07:48:47 PM
So don’t worry about it.
Google seems to be the extent of your thought process.
I thought you weren’t replying to my posts because I allegedly lied about you.
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 08:13:51 PM
Thinking about it:
What makes a person religious in the eyes of the religion?
What makes a person religious in their own eyes ?
If you kill someone intentionally but later accept Jesus or Mohammed or whoever are you later absolved if you confess your sins?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 08:16:56 PM
You can’t explain anything I can’t google.
So don’t worry about it.
Google seems to be the extent of your thought process.
I thought you weren’t replying to my posts because I allegedly lied about you.
For someone who pretends he can Google (we know your Google-Fu is very, very weak), you sure do ask a lot of questions.
Then many of them you repeat many times as if demanding an answer.
I'm going to reply whenever I feel like it. Just like you are going to Troll 90%+ of your time on here.
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 08:17:53 PM
It wouldn’t be trolling.
If you ask a question no one can answer, it was a good question.
Ponder.
After you lied about me, I'm not answering another comment from you.
Does that make you a liar ?
Go ahead and answer that one.
Oh dang. Direct question. We’ll never get an answer.
But isn’t lying a sin ?
Or you can Umni it and just say you changed your mind.
Goal post moved !
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 08:33:10 PM
What makes a person religious ?
Thinking about it:
What makes a person religious in the eyes of the religion?
What makes a person religious in their own eyes ?
If you kill someone intentionally but later accept Jesus or Mohammed or whoever are you later absolved if you confess your sins?
Edit: or rape a kid or whatever heinous act.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 10, 2021, 08:50:15 PM
Stop replying.
It wouldn’t be trolling.
If you ask a question no one can answer, it was a good question.
Ponder.
Does that make you a liar ?
Go ahead and answer that one.
Oh dang. Direct question. We’ll never get an answer.
But isn’t lying a sin ?
Or you can Umni it and just say you changed your mind.
Goal post moved !
I'm just feeding the troll so everyone else can see what an AHole you are.
Nothing more.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Post by: aieahound on September 10, 2021, 09:55:40 PM
After you lied about me, I'm not answering another comment from you.
Does that make you a liar ?
Going to Hell or just four Our Fathers ?
Religious?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 10, 2021, 11:19:54 PM
Interesting points. Suicide would be good for natural selection. The weak killing themselves off. So that point doesn't really work. As for conflicting beliefs that does hold weight. But what if neither side has to be correct. If both only judged with science one "society" will have the most success. The one with rape and murder is most likely to end itself and the one without will "win". And that can define the rules and laws. Which would end up being science based. Animals have no morals yet they have "rules" that they follow.
Sure, you could use science to determine what values lead to a society to have the most "success" but it can never establish something as right or wrong. You could say that rape doesn't lead to a successful society but you can't argue that rape is bad. You can't even prove why we should aim for a "successful" society.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 11, 2021, 12:14:06 AM
Sure, you could use science to determine what values lead to a society to have the most "success" but it can never establish something as right or wrong. You could say that rape doesn't lead to a successful society but you can't argue that rape is bad. You can't even prove why we should aim for a "successful" society.
What if someone uses faulty science or doesnt understand what the science is saying? Can they still use it to determine their values/morals/ethics?
Then should 1 correct their beliefs once shown their understanding of what the science is stating is wrong? And what if theyre still too dumb to understand?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on September 11, 2021, 04:06:58 AM
Post by: omnigun on September 11, 2021, 07:57:53 AM
Sure, you could use science to determine what values lead to a society to have the most "success" but it can never establish something as right or wrong. You could say that rape doesn't lead to a successful society but you can't argue that rape is bad. You can't even prove why we should aim for a "successful" society.
Why do you need to know if something is right or wrong. Thats the question. Does that matter? As for a successful society, evolution and natural selection will "aim" for that regardless. Theres no need to "try". It will happen over time.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 12:10:26 PM
Why do you need to know if something is right or wrong. Thats the question. Does that matter? As for a successful society, evolution and natural selection will "aim" for that regardless. Theres no need to "try". It will happen over time.
Lawyers have the training and ability to argue either side of a case and win regardless of the truth.
I can see how the lawyers that raised you set you adrift in the sea of life without a compass to guide you. To you, everything is "gray area", because you don't have a moral foundation upon which to build your judgements.
In your world, right and wrong are determined by whoever makes the most convincing case to you. And your anti-religion bias ensures that anyone offering an argument based on their values of right and wrong will be dismiss out of hand while you accuse them of shoving their religion down your throat.
Nobody can convince you you're wrong, because you refuse to entertain the possibility that someone who believes in God can ever be right.
Post by: aieahound on September 11, 2021, 03:19:50 PM
I can see how the lawyers that raised you set you adrift in the sea of life without a compass to guide you. To you, everything is "gray area", because you don't have a moral foundation upon which to build your judgements.Wow. You post like you actually know him.
In your world, right and wrong are determined by whoever makes the most convincing case to you. And your anti-religion bias ensures that anyone offering an argument based on their values of right and wrong will be dismiss out of hand while you accuse them of shoving their religion down your throat.
Nobody can convince you you're wrong, because you refuse to entertain the possibility that someone who believes in God can ever be right.
Do you ?
And how can anyone be right or wrong in a religion thread ?
Except….science determining values is malarkey, in my opinion.
Just look at nature.
But science is not religion. Hopefully folks don’t elevate it to such because it changes all the time.
Courtesy is a dying art.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 03:23:44 PM
Wow. You post like you actually know him.
Do you ?
And how can anyone be right or wrong in a religion thread ?
And science determining values is malarkey, in my opinion.
Just look at nature.
But science is not religion. Hopefully folks don’t elevate it to such because it changes all the time.
Courtesy is a dying art.
You need a new hobby, TrollBoy. Stalking me is just pathetic.
Courtesy? LOL!! What a hypocrite!
"But science is not religion. Hopefully folks don’t elevate it to such because it changes all the time. "
You forgot "in my opinion." :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Post by: aieahound on September 11, 2021, 03:26:06 PM
It’s getting embarrassing for you.
Your low hanging fruit attacking low hanging fruit. Umni not me to be clear.
(Well I don’t know if you’re embarrassed but you should be.)
Edit: in my opinion.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 03:28:27 PM
You really don’t have any answers.
It’s getting embarrassing for you.
Your low hanging fruit.
All you're posting are questions -- No answers -- sprinkled with emotional feelings about what you questioned.
And stalking me like the little AHole Troll we all know you to be.
Grow up, little TrollBoy.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 11, 2021, 04:35:19 PM
Wow. You post like you actually know him.If u been reading his post since last year, u will know him.
Do you ?
And how can anyone be right or wrong in a religion thread ?
Except….science determining values is malarkey, in my opinion.
Just look at nature.
But science is not religion. Hopefully folks don’t elevate it to such because it changes all the time.
Courtesy is a dying art.
Flapp is on to something that would explain a lot. Either that or Glassers hypothesis of a disability.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 04:59:54 PM
If u been reading his post since last year, u will know him.
Flapp is on to something that would explain a lot. Either that or Glassers hypothesis of a disability.
Thanks for seeing through the AHole Troll's attack.
Omni displays quite a few symptoms of arrested development, lack of moral and ethical values, and a deep desire to always be right (narcissism).
The #1 influence is not the Internet, but parents. Kids imitate them and model themselves in their parents' images. It only stands to reason that his personality, lack of moral character and need to argue is a learned behavior.
Even when he apologizes, he offers rationalizations and excuses -- assuming the apology was even sincere.
Anyone who makes it beyond their 20th birthday and can't understand right and wrong has been raised by parents with the same deficiency. That, or they were brainwashed during their school years.
It's fine to accept that others might not have the same morals as you, but to be so completely lacking in your own ideals of right and wrong is just scary. For someone "not afraid" to voice an opinion, he has been unable to make a judgement on whether certain issue positions are right or wrong based on his personal values.
In short, if he's never been told what to think, he argues that nobody's values should be used to decide.
Post by: omnigun on September 11, 2021, 06:07:31 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 06:30:15 PM
I was raised by excellent parents. I've made my morals quite clear, sad you can't understand them. Every position I have taken a stance. The thing about lawyers is its based on facts and science and what can be proved. Right and wrong is subjective and constantly changing.
"Facts & Science" = Morals
Morals = "Right and Wrong"
"Right & Wrong" = "subjective"
If morals comprise what's right & wrong and are subjective, how can facts and science be the basis of morals?
Circular reasoning that contradicts itself.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 11, 2021, 06:31:00 PM
What if someone uses faulty science or doesnt understand what the science is saying? Can they still use it to determine their values/morals/ethics?
Then should 1 correct their beliefs once shown their understanding of what the science is stating is wrong? And what if theyre still too dumb to understand?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Certainly a possibility. I think when slavery was practiced they actually thought black people were lesser beings which, in their minds at least, justified their domination.
Some monkey species also comit rape, so maybe it is beneficial, which set of data do we use?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 11, 2021, 06:34:14 PM
Why do you need to know if something is right or wrong. Thats the question. Does that matter? As for a successful society, evolution and natural selection will "aim" for that regardless. Theres no need to "try". It will happen over time.
That isn't a justification to outlaw things though. Other animals in the animal kingdom commit rape, and I think that it could be argued that rape is beneficial in certain circumstances even among humans, like for example raping the enemy.
Science cannot provide a justification or a basis of what something is right or wrong, that is the bottom line. An atheist has no other recourse than to say something should be illegal because "I don't like it"
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 11, 2021, 06:43:46 PM
Certainly a possibility. I think when slavery was practiced they actually thought black people were lesser beings which, in their minds at least, justified their domination.Science also said blacks cant see well at night (tuskegee airmen).
Some monkey species also comit rape, so maybe it is beneficial, which set of data do we use?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on September 11, 2021, 06:58:33 PM
If u been reading his post since last year, u will know him.
Flapp is on to something that would explain a lot. Either that or Glassers hypothesis of a disability.
I’ve read them.
And it still blows my mind they get under members skin.
Ignore him? Doesn’t seem like many are trying that strategy. And he loves it.
Except some which I address directly ( see suicide comment by him. That one kinda blew my mind. )
Keep people’s parents out of it.
Parents. That’s considering a kid has two parents, or a parent, at home with time to spend with them.
Disability I don’t know. Can people rag on disabilities ? Clearly they can. But should they ?
That’s morality and ethics.
Omni displays quite a few symptoms of arrested development, lack of moral and ethical values, and a deep desire to always be right (narcissism).
Flapp junior ?
Ethics and morality ?
Check Flapp’s positive transactions. First one is with himself. Mauidog. Ethical ?
I’ll answer. No.
Liar ? I’ll let you folks judge.
Post by: Glasser on September 11, 2021, 07:03:34 PM
Post by: macsak on September 11, 2021, 07:46:33 PM
"Facts & Science" = Morals
Morals = "Right and Wrong"
"Right & Wrong" = "subjective"
If morals comprise what's right & wrong and are subjective, how can facts and science be the basis of morals?
Circular reasoning that contradicts itself.
i bet he says he's still not wrong...
Post by: omnigun on September 11, 2021, 08:16:40 PM
"Facts & Science" = Morals
Morals = "Right and Wrong"
"Right & Wrong" = "subjective"
If morals comprise what's right & wrong and are subjective, how can facts and science be the basis of morals?
Circular reasoning that contradicts itself.
Subjective in today's world. Look how many times what's deemed
fine before gets changed to being wrong.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 08:43:53 PM
Subjective in today's world. Look how many times what's deemed
fine before gets changed to being wrong.
So, are you suggesting you don't live in "today's world," and that your arguments and definitions "are not wrong today" as long as they "might possibly be right one day?"
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 08:48:03 PM
Anyone who is listening to me and taking my opinions seriously needs to sign a release. I take zero responsibility for anyone who takes seriously a single thing I say even when I am 100% correct, which is most of the time.
Omni takes zero responsibility for any and everything he says, too.
:geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on September 11, 2021, 08:51:40 PM
So, are you suggesting you don't live in "today's world," and that your arguments and definitions "are not wrong today" as long as they "might possibly be right one day?"
No my beliefs are not the same adopted by the majority in "todays" world. Ruled by religion and social justice warriors etc.
Post by: aieahound on September 11, 2021, 08:55:40 PM
Highly recommended reading.
Tao of Pooh if you’re only gonna read one. (Taoism explained based on Winnie the Pooh)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 11, 2021, 08:55:56 PM
No my beliefs are not the same adopted by the majority in "todays" world. Ruled by religion and social justice warriors etc.
Just when you thought he couldn't get any worse, he posts this ^^^.
I thought you only used facts and data in your decision-making.
What beliefs do you hold that are not the same adopted by the majority in "today's" world?
You think today's WORLD is ruled by religion and social justice warriors? You need to travel outside Hawaii and get to know what "today's world" actually looks like.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 11, 2021, 09:03:04 PM
Just when you thought he couldn't get any worse, he posts this ^^^.He thinks by not going with the majority, makes him special and correct. Like how socialist scream about socialism, while wearing nike, have a smart phone, and drinking starbucks.
I thought you only used facts and data in your decision-making.
What beliefs do you hold that are not the same adopted by the majority in "today's" world?
You think today's WORLD is ruled by religion and social justice warriors? You need to travel outside Hawaii and get to know what "today's world" actually looks like.
Same way he thinks hes helping the planet by being green, even though he isnt doing anything most of us here already are doing.
Feelings over reality.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 11, 2021, 09:03:28 PM
So, are you suggesting you don't live in "today's world," and that your arguments and definitions "are not wrong today" as long as they "might possibly be right one day?"Goal post moving later.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on September 11, 2021, 09:54:42 PM
Goal post moving later.
That’s running with the goal post.
Serpentine. Serpentine.
Morals and ethics change with science?
Some. Possible. Abortion. Science convinced some people to change their morals and hence their ethics.
Shouldn’t kill every whale, beaver, Buffalo, little white furry seal pup. (They’ll run out so maybe economic and not moral.)
But rare.
Morals are learned and, unbelievable to many here that I’m gonna use the word, felt.
Ethics? Gotta follow your morals.
IMO.
Post by: Glasser on September 11, 2021, 10:13:44 PM
The Tao of Pooh and the Te of piglet.
Highly recommended reading.
Tao of Pooh if you’re only gonna read one. (Taoism explained based on Winnie the Pooh)
And if those light you up the extended course syllabus includes
(https://images.macmillan.com/folio-assets/macmillan_us_frontbookcovers_1000H/9781593971540.jpg)
And if you want to do some serious Hot yoga for the brain that will 100% pull a mental hammy move on to ..
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/82QAAOSwadlf52g5/s-l640.jpg)
and
(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1445186102i/48626._UY630_SR1200,630_.jpg)
Sadly the illiterate dumbass would find R.A.Wilson iconoclatic ideas right up xhis alley, but knowledge and understanding is out of reach for the disabled.
Post by: macsak on September 11, 2021, 10:21:31 PM
The Tao of Pooh and the Te of piglet.
Highly recommended reading.
Tao of Pooh if you’re only gonna read one. (Taoism explained based on Winnie the Pooh)
i recommend the movie "the tao of steve"...
Post by: hvybarrels on September 11, 2021, 10:55:09 PM
https://youtu.be/SMhwddNQSWQ
Post by: aieahound on September 11, 2021, 11:17:30 PM
i recommend the movie "the tao of steve"...
https://youtu.be/9UefQYjG7rM
I ‘m running through every scene I can find on YouTube and laughing my ass off.
I call it the law of natural progression in romance. (Not his list to be clear.) which is kind of what the Tao is.
But in a weird way the Tao of Pooh is actually religious.
If a philosophy can count as religion.
And one can see how they fit in to the Force.
Or Mac right here. :rofl: :shaka:
https://youtu.be/1Q3q37LrMwk
Holy crap. here’s one for Umni (kind of tutorial video.) first half at least,
https://youtu.be/8l0bWJpsc0Y
Post by: groveler on September 12, 2021, 04:24:45 AM
That’s running with the goal post.In my philosophy classes I was taught there are two kinds of ethics.
Serpentine. Serpentine.
Morals and ethics change with science?
Some. Possible. Abortion. Science convinced some people to change their morals and hence their ethics.
Shouldn’t kill every whale, beaver, Buffalo, little white furry seal pup. (They’ll run out so maybe economic and not moral.)
But rare.
Morals are learned and, unbelievable to many here that I’m gonna use the word, felt.
Ethics? Gotta follow your morals.
IMO.
Professional ethics
and moral ethics.
Professional ethics are man made and can be changed as men see fit to do so.
such as the "Holocaust in WW II. it was perfectly legal and ethical in those men's
beliefs. Much like modern Democrats and their fascination with abortion.
Moral ethics are God given and only God can change them.
My example would be the ten commandments, most of whom describe our entirety
of laws. don't murder, don't steal, don't fuk your neighbor over, et al.
It is actually pretty simple.
it is the Midrash that has made it all so complex.
:worship:
It is really that simple.
Post by: macsak on September 12, 2021, 05:48:43 AM
I ‘m running through every scene I can find on YouTube and laughing my ass off.
I call it the law of natural progression in romance. (Not his list to be clear.) which is kind of what the Tao is.
it's a GREAT movie, you should rent it from blockbuster
lol, you'll never guess who "dave" in the first scene is exactly like...
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 12, 2021, 07:19:27 AM
Ordered logo dress socks from the last blockbuster a few months ago. 45mins south of Portland, OR.
Netflix had a good docu about them. Directed by kevin smith.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 12, 2021, 10:50:28 AM
Im pretty sure that i can say, im the most recent member here to buy something at blockbuster.
Ordered logo dress socks from the last blockbuster a few months ago. 45mins south of Portland, OR.
Netflix had a good docu about them. Directed by kevin smith.
Another victim of Natural Selection ....
I'm shocked any of the stores survived as long as they did.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 12, 2021, 11:18:07 AM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Glasser on September 12, 2021, 11:52:46 AM
But in a weird way the Tao of Pooh is actually religious.
If a philosophy can count as religion.
And one can see how they fit in to the Force.
Taoism looks at religion as one of the fall back positions, many steps down from true 'goodness? / correctness ?'. Fear of reprisals from disappointed gods is a not what should dictate behavior. Taoism also isnt a big fan or 'Kindness' or 'Justice' as anchor points for decision making either.
"True Tao can never be talked about" but since we are trying to, the basic premise is to become aware that all things have 2 opposing sides, neither is better than the other, they cannot be separated from each other because they are actually one and the same. Get good at that and it spirals out like fractals further and further and further ......
(https://c.tenor.com/c1VH1XPRnucAAAAC/trippy-illusion.gif)
Post by: omnigun on September 13, 2021, 12:15:39 PM
Lul religion
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 13, 2021, 12:27:24 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/eqsuoitqebn71.jpg?width=640&height=823&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8bab40bb7a351a678155a2dfee0f5221197596bf)
Lul religion
You have no idea what that billboard's message actually is.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 13, 2021, 12:35:34 PM
You have no idea what that billboard's message actually is.
A guy who say's he isn't religious, sure does post a lot about them. Now he's posting scriptures. He's in Jesus denial.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 13, 2021, 12:37:36 PM
A guy who say's he isn't religious, sure does post a lot about them. Now he's posting scriptures. He's in Jesus denial.
He's busy Googling the passage so he can then tell us HIS OPINION of the message being conveyed on the billboard.
Post by: omnigun on September 13, 2021, 12:45:01 PM
He's busy Googling the passage so he can then tell us HIS OPINION of the message being conveyed on the billboard.
Don't need google, tis quite obvious what it means.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 13, 2021, 12:46:23 PM
Don't need google, tis quite obvious what it means.
No. It's not.
You're so lazy.
Post by: omnigun on September 13, 2021, 12:50:43 PM
No. It's not.
You're so lazy.
I wasted my time and poisoned my internet search history but here.
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
The ancient prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of the Messiah and revealed much about His roles.
Basically the dude said it about Jesus coming. Painting Trumps picture with that quote is akin to calling Trump Jesus...
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 13, 2021, 12:54:38 PM
No. It's not.
You're so lazy.
See again, for someone who doesn't like/believe religion, he sure knows a lot about it. He doesn't even have to google it and knows the meaning.
I'll say instead of being at the range on a Sunday, he's at church.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 13, 2021, 12:57:13 PM
I wasted my time and poisoned my internet search history but here.
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
The ancient prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of the Messiah and revealed much about His roles.
Basically the dude said it about Jesus coming. Painting Trumps picture with that quote is akin to calling Trump Jesus...
Your conclusion is incorrect.
The Joint Heirs refers to a biblical reference. If we are all God's children, then we are also all heirs to His Kingdom. That means we are also all sons and daughters of God -- the same as Jesus. The rewards Jesus inherited in God's kingdom are NO DIFFERENT than the inheritance waiting for all of us.
They are not equating Trump with Jesus. They are simply using his former position in government to support the passage that mentions government. They could have placed Bush, Obama or Biden on the billboard, and the message would not change.
What they did do is confuse the anti-religion people like you thinking they know everything they need to know about the Bible. You basically fell for a troll -- using your TDS to trigger you.
Post by: aieahound on September 13, 2021, 02:12:05 PM
King James Version
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Why use that text on the billboard ?
Doesn’t match the cite.
Makes like they’re quoting Romans 8:17.
I don’t know enough about it though.
Could they be deceptively leading the religious who don’t read the Bible ?
Making them think it’s a Bible quote ?
And if it’s a quote of Isiah 9:6 wouldn’t that be blasphemy? And wouldn’t they cite it ?
Isaiah 9:6
King James Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
They used that language. Wouldn’t that be clear reference to Jesus? And Trump’s picture next to it.
Church of Trump?
Trumpianity ?
This not directed at you Flapp. Just anyone that can an post intelligible response.
Of course you can take a shot at an intelligible response.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 13, 2021, 03:32:46 PM
Romans 8:17
King James Version
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Why use that text on the billboard ?
Doesn’t match the cite.
Makes like they’re quoting Romans 8:17.
I don’t know enough about it though.
Could they be deceptively leading the religious who don’t read the Bible ?
Making them think it’s a Bible quote ?
And if it’s a quote of Isiah 9:6 wouldn’t that be blasphemy? And wouldn’t they cite it ?
Isaiah 9:6
King James Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
They used that language. Wouldn’t that be clear reference to Jesus? And Trump’s picture next to it.
Church of Trump?
Trumpianity ?
This not directed at you Flapp. Just anyone that can an post intelligible response.
Of course you can take a shot at an intelligible response.
You assumed the citation (Bible reference) applies to the large text. It took a few minutes, but you figured it out.
BTW, there's no such noun as "cite." "Cite" is a verb.
The billboard is not about Trump. It's about the "Joint Heirs".
I think the billboard did exactly what they wanted. They got people's attention, made you think/research, and maybe try to find out more about the group.
I would not be surprised if Trump's people have the billboard removed or changed assuming Trump did not approve the use of his likeness. It has happened before.
https://www.jhkm.org/
Post by: omnigun on September 16, 2021, 01:10:53 PM
:rofl: :rofl:
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/09/16/survey-90-of-atheists-have-been-vaccinated-but-only-57-of-white-evangelicals/
Post by: hvybarrels on September 16, 2021, 02:11:51 PM
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/4/2/2c60d5849b49d5ecd3d67e3dcac1c86fa7613ae22b0aa6d6193a8b57980391/Scientism.jpeg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.allanturner.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F09%2FScientism.jpeg%3Ffit%3D600%252C480&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 16, 2021, 03:03:59 PM
It's much easier to mold someone's thinking if they have no preexisting, deeply held personal convictions.
If the only thing that guides you is "whatever the law says," you're following one belief: that the people running government are smarter than the rest of us, and our obedience is required.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 17, 2021, 09:27:17 PM
What if science said that rape was beneficial to society?
Post by: omnigun on September 18, 2021, 06:53:24 AM
So Omni,
What if science said that rape was beneficial to society?
I'm assumimg that science has thoroughly proven that fact. Then it should be allowed.
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 18, 2021, 08:58:37 AM
So Omni,That's what happens when you don't have values or morals to keep you in check.
What if science said that rape was beneficial to society?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 18, 2021, 09:15:33 AM
That's what happens when you have values or morals to keep you in check.Science doesnt instill values/ethics/morals.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 18, 2021, 09:17:29 AM
Science doesnt instill values/ethics/morals.Edited! Oops
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 18, 2021, 02:33:35 PM
I'm assumimg that science has thoroughly proven that fact. Then it should be allowed.
I remember in the 1970s, science told us by the year 2000 we'd have more people on the planet than we could feed, and that people would be in constant war over food and other resources.
They also said we only had enough oil to meet rising demand until the mid-1990s. Then we'd all be cooking over flames and reading by candle light.
What was the scientific solution for these problems? Cut down on the population -- birth control, abortions, forced sterilizations, .....
It never occurred to the scientists and the people who believe whatever they are told that these predictions could be WRONG.
What if someone took it upon themselves to kill off 100 million people or more to make life sustainable for the rest? Given those dire predictions, science would have agreed with that plan.
These are the problems encountered when playing God. Unless you have perfect information and perfect predictive insight into the future, any actions you take may not fix the problem -- and it'll be too late to undo the moral atrocities committed in the name of "science."
Sometimes the very thing you did to avert a crisis could be what ushers in an even worse crisis.
The Old Lady and the Fly should be required reading for everyone. It's a lesson for all, that sometimes the cure is worse than the illness.
Post by: drck1000 on September 18, 2021, 03:02:48 PM
Science doesnt instill values/ethics/morals.That's if sociopaths appreciated what those are. . .
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on September 18, 2021, 03:06:40 PM
I remember in the 1970s, science told us by the year 2000 we'd have more people on the planet than we could feed, and that people would be in constant war over food and other resources.
They also said we only had enough oil to meet rising demand until the mid-1990s. Then we'd all be cooking over flames and reading by candle light.
What was the scientific solution for these problems? Cut down on the population -- birth control, abortions, forced sterilizations, .....
There were varying estimations, but generally speaking they are turning out to be correct give or take a few decades. It's just that people like Al Gore and Elon Musk got involved and turned everyone off by running a giant climate scam. What we are witnessing now is that process playing out, except instead of wiping out large chunks of humanity the enacted solution was financialization. This made it appear as if fracking was somehow going to save us even though it was always a giant money pit, and converted the productive economy into a casino economy of funny money that is rapidly losing value due to the fact that there is way too much cash and not enough resources that is supposedly represents.
They turned to Mammon to solve our problems, and now we all have to pay the price for following the economist cult.
(https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/9/4/9d251ee4adc27f0ad5239b31b609aa205572719b8a785b29d4c2f98461749c/937f3c0d8283cda2f3b3632ec87e5bc8.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F93%2F7f%2F3c%2F937f3c0d8283cda2f3b3632ec87e5bc8.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 18, 2021, 03:21:25 PM
There were varying estimations, but generally speaking they are turning out to be correct give or take a few decades. It's just that people like Al Gore and Elon Musk got involved and turned everyone off by running a giant climate scam. What we are witnessing now is that process playing out, except instead of wiping out large chunks of humanity the enacted solution was financialization. This made it appear as if fracking was somehow going to save us even though it was always a giant money pit, and converted the productive economy into a casino economy of funny money that is rapidly losing value due to the fact that there is way too much cash and not enough resources that is supposedly represents.
They turned to Mammon to solve our problems, and now we all have to pay the price for following the economist cult.
The alarmists did then what they continue to do now. They take the worst case scenario, and try to create a crisis. It's done out of some sense of fear, graft or need to control.
What they continue to forget is that the information they are using may not be accurate. in the case of food supplies, new technologies increased harvests multiple times over. Genetically modified seeds grow in the harshest climates. Irrigation has grown with the use of solar and wind turbine power sources.
In the case of oil, new reserves have been discovered. The vast oil supply under the US has been once again allowed to be tapped. Fracking retrieved oil that was before left within the rock layers. Uses for natural gas, once viewed as a waste product of drilling and refining, can be used to power vehicles and generators.
These dire predictions always have the caveat "using current estimates" or something similar, meaning "if what we know now doesn't change." In practice, there always seems to be something major that we didn't know then.
I trust science to the point where the data can be empirically verified. When it comes to predictions of weather systems, technologies and so on, I always leave the door open to new information.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 18, 2021, 03:23:19 PM
The apocalyptic predictions did a lot of damage by covering up the rolling disaster kludging along right before our eyes.
Post by: omnigun on September 18, 2021, 03:54:27 PM
I remember in the 1970s, science told us by the year 2000 we'd have more people on the planet than we could feed, and that people would be in constant war over food and other resources.
They also said we only had enough oil to meet rising demand until the mid-1990s. Then we'd all be cooking over flames and reading by candle light.
What was the scientific solution for these problems? Cut down on the population -- birth control, abortions, forced sterilizations, .....
It never occurred to the scientists and the people who believe whatever they are told that these predictions could be WRONG.
What if someone took it upon themselves to kill off 100 million people or more to make life sustainable for the rest? Given those dire predictions, science would have agreed with that plan.
These are the problems encountered when playing God. Unless you have perfect information and perfect predictive insight into the future, any actions you take may not fix the problem -- and it'll be too late to undo the moral atrocities committed in the name of "science."
Sometimes the very thing you did to avert a crisis could be what ushers in an even worse crisis.
The Old Lady and the Fly should be required reading for everyone. It's a lesson for all, that sometimes the cure is worse than the illness.
That's true, but in the end science is correct. The thing about science is you can make whatever claims you want. You have to prove them. Those people did not prove it. Theories do not make science.
That's why I said if it could be proven then it should be allowed. Key word proven.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 18, 2021, 07:52:47 PM
I'm assumimg that science has thoroughly proven that fact. Then it should be allowed.
So rape is potentially not wrong?
I think you will have a hard time convincing atheists to admit that. There are many times I have heard that atheists can be good without god. The want to claim the morality of religion without god.
Post by: omnigun on September 19, 2021, 09:53:15 AM
So rape is potentially not wrong?
I think you will have a hard time convincing atheists to admit that. There are many times I have heard that atheists can be good without god. The want to claim the morality of religion without god.
If its proven yeah. I doubt you can do that. Morals come and go but science lasts forever. Back in the old days they did rape and pillage. Now its considered wrong. What's to say there won't be a change of morals later? But science if proven will be the same regardless of morals. Whether we follow science is another story...
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 19, 2021, 10:09:37 AM
If only people who participated in each had good morals and followed it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on September 19, 2021, 10:27:02 AM
Post by: hvybarrels on September 19, 2021, 10:52:51 AM
It's easy to forget the problems with Might Makes Right when you feel like the mighty one.
Those problems inevitably catch up with everyone who uses that justification.
Religious knowledge is meant to save us from our own selfishness and stupidity
Well the good religions anyway...
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/5/5/0ad36003d82dcdc1b167ff28a2294de0a30d658b994c81346665d1b1f207ef/Estos-GIFs-de-Game-of-Thrones-te-acompa%C3%B1ar%C3%A1n-hasta-que-empiece-la-pr%C3%B3xima-temporada-ramsay-bolton.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmott.pe%2Fnoticias%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2FEstos-GIFs-de-Game-of-Thrones-te-acompa%25C3%25B1ar%25C3%25A1n-hasta-que-empiece-la-pr%25C3%25B3xima-temporada-ramsay-bolton.gif&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=1)
Post by: omnigun on September 19, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
Science justified what hitler did. Science justified treatment of blacks (Tuskegee airmen, segregation, etc...). And now in hindsight, we know science was wrong.
If only people who participated in each had good morals and followed it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
There wasn't science. It was fake news. Do you have peer reviewed studies accepted throughout the scientific community that justified those actions?.
Post by: aieahound on September 19, 2021, 03:22:11 PM
It is what it is at the time.
Good and bad are not even part of it. If it kills you, it kills you. If it makes you live longer it makes you live longer.
If you get an abortion, the thing inside is gone.
Those are facts.
Right or wrong, good or bad, now we’re no longer in science. We’re into religion or moral beliefs.
Can argue was it alive or does it matter. That’s a moral discussion. Science supports both sides.
I think morals are rooted in religion, many of them in many cultures.
Even if one is not religious, most highly likely if they have morals they are rooted in a religion.
Post by: drck1000 on September 20, 2021, 12:38:39 PM
Speaking of GoTThat scene was savage. One of the best endings to an episode in the entire series.
It's easy to forget the problems with Might Makes Right when you feel like the mighty one.
Those problems inevitably catch up with everyone who uses that justification.
Religious knowledge is meant to save us from our own selfishness and stupidity
Well the good religions anyway...
SNIP
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 20, 2021, 09:08:19 PM
If its proven yeah. I doubt you can do that. Morals come and go but science lasts forever. Back in the old days they did rape and pillage. Now its considered wrong. What's to say there won't be a change of morals later? But science if proven will be the same regardless of morals. Whether we follow science is another story...
But the underlying question is whether there is something factually moral regardless of fickle human evolving beliefs. Are there things that are truly morally wrong and will always be no matter whether it is popular opinion or not. Science along cannot address that. The entire notion of justice is based on right and wrong, not merely illegal or illegal (a legal definition).
Why should I not rape and pillage as long as I can get away with it?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 20, 2021, 09:14:18 PM
Quote
Logan's Run is a science fiction novel by American writers a William F. Nolan andhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run
George Clayton Johnson. Published in 1967, the novel depicts a dystopic ageist
future society in which both population and the consumption of resources are maintained
in equilibrium by requiring the death of everyone reaching the age of 21. The story
follows the actions of Logan, a Sandman charged with enforcing the rule, as he tracks
down and kills citizens who "run" from society's lethal demand—only to end up "running"
himself.
Nothing "wrong" with this plan.
"Trust the science and the government. They have your well-being at heart."
Post by: omnigun on September 20, 2021, 10:18:45 PM
But the underlying question is whether there is something factually moral regardless of fickle human evolving beliefs. Are there things that are truly morally wrong and will always be no matter whether it is popular opinion or not. Science along cannot address that. The entire notion of justice is based on right and wrong, not merely illegal or illegal (a legal definition).
Who should I not rape and pillage as long as I can get away with it?
I don't think there is truly such thing as basic morals. Religion encouraged immoral actions in the past. Some encourage it now in the present. Societies rose and fell with various immoral actions and laws. The only thing that can remain constant is proof if something is good or bad for a species. That can be proven with science. Everything else is opinion.
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 12:23:13 AM
Ponder……
Read what you wrote and argue against it……..
If you have no argument against it. Keep pondering……
Chess. You should always be able to argue against yourself unless it’s a fact ( limited applications)
And be two moves ahead or ready to learn.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 07:10:12 AM
And just because some book or teachings condoned or accepted some actions, doesn't make it more or less moral/immoral.
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 07:11:22 AM
Just like one can not believe in religion, I guess one can not believe in morals. However, in this case, I don't think some understand or appreciate that morals are.
And just because some book or teachings condoned or accepted some actions, doesn't make it more or less moral/immoral.
Who decides morals and why is it different for everyone?
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 07:12:36 AM
Dude.Me tinks me undahstahnds where the poster is coming from. But like many previous posts, just wanting to argue, they double down and the BS rises to the surface and totally undermines the argument. . .
Ponder……
Read what you wrote and argue against it……..
If you have no argument against it. Keep pondering……
Chess. You should always be able to argue against yourself unless it’s a fact ( limited applications)
And be two moves ahead or ready to learn.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 07:13:22 AM
Who decides morals and why is it different for everyone?mmm, ok. I'll play.
What is moral? Or what are morals?
Without looking it up on google. . .
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 07:33:02 AM
mmm, ok. I'll play.Why play? We know what ever answer given will be off.
What is moral? Or what are morals?
Without looking it up on google. . .
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 07:37:06 AM
Why play? We know what ever answer given will be off.I have a few minutes before meetings. . . seeing how my rope a dope skills are.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 07:39:20 AM
mmm, ok. I'll play.
What is moral? Or what are morals?
Without looking it up on google. . .
A challenge eh. Hmmm morals are actions or social rules on what is right and wrong.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 07:44:54 AM
A challenge eh. Hmmm morals are actions or social rules on what is right and wrong.You sure now? Final answer. Nothing mistyped, miscommunicated, etc?
Post by: hvybarrels on September 21, 2021, 08:03:43 AM
They figured out that a certain set of rules kept societies more or less stable, while others who did not follow the rules rapidly went down the toilet.
Unfortunately today way too many people do not understand what a powerful and useful tool myths are, and either take them literally or dismiss them altogether.
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/c/b/c7e48115e99967eca9f52590d1f4de2a7a80a397fb69fbcc01228945998483/1*uo6HIEQEUPUKzlgd_zpfDg.jpeg?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmiro.medium.com%2Fmax%2F640%2F1*uo6HIEQEUPUKzlgd_zpfDg.jpeg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 08:12:29 AM
Occasionally over the ten thousand of years (possibly longer) there were scribes who observed the many disasters during the cycles of history.Like literally, dude.
They figured out that a certain set of rules kept societies more or less stable, while others who did not follow the rules rapidly went down the toilet.
Unfortunately today way too many people do not understand what a powerful and useful tool myths are, and either take them literally or dismiss them altogether.
SNIP
But seriously, stuff like the 10 plagues of Egypt (et al) is interesting to me. I'm interested in ancient Egypt, mostly for the pharaohs and mummies and stuff, but all of that history, and what came before them is super interesting to me.
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 08:14:58 AM
Just like one can not believe in religion, I guess one can not believe in morals. However, in this case, I don't think some understand or appreciate that morals are.
And just because some book or teachings condoned or accepted some actions, doesn't make it more or less moral/immoral.
#science
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 08:17:11 AM
Dude.
Ponder……
Read what you wrote and argue against it……..
If you have no argument against it. Keep pondering……
Chess. You should always be able to argue against yourself unless it’s a fact ( limited applications)
And be two moves ahead or ready to learn.
based on his/her/its history of posts on this forum, that's not gonna happen
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 08:19:31 AM
#scienceAnd it's
#followthescience\
bruh
#ismacsakwrong? ???
:rofl:
Post by: hvybarrels on September 21, 2021, 08:24:18 AM
Like literally, dude.
But seriously, stuff like the 10 plagues of Egypt (et al) is interesting to me. I'm interested in ancient Egypt, mostly for the pharaohs and mummies and stuff, but all of that history, and what came before them is super interesting to me.
It's way more interesting than anything that comes out of the mainstream entertainment machines these days. So much to unpack.
The S&G story for example. Was it really fireballs from heaven that destroyed the place?
Or could it have been something like a LACK OF MORALITY in the armed forces that made discipline impossible also contributed to a series of events where the cities they were supposed to protect burned to the ground?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSVFQh3ebUw
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 08:30:19 AM
And it's
#followthescience\
bruh
#ismacsakwrong? ???
:rofl:
for the followers of "some dude on twitter", it's "sciency sciency science!"
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 08:42:47 AM
You sure now? Final answer. Nothing mistyped, miscommunicated, etc?
Yes.
A challenge eh. Hmmm morals are self actions/rules or social rules on what is right and wrong.
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 08:45:22 AM
Occasionally over the ten thousand of years (possibly longer) there were scribes who observed the many disasters during the cycles of history.
They figured out that a certain set of rules kept societies more or less stable, while others who did not follow the rules rapidly went down the toilet.
Unfortunately today way too many people do not understand what a powerful and useful tool myths are, and either take them literally or dismiss them altogether.
I do agree in the past without true science they used myths and religions to keep people and society in check. This is why I also believe religion is false. It was a tool of the past.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 08:47:46 AM
Yes.Ok. Now look up the definition of morals, including discussion from academics.
Then also look up "societal norms". . .
And then come back. . .
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 08:49:04 AM
Yes.
lol
you say it's your final answer, and then you edit it
goalposts are mobile...
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 08:52:18 AM
Ok. Now look up the definition of morals, including discussion from academics.
Then also look up "societal norms". . .
And then come back. . .
I was basically spot on...
A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do
Moral refers to what societies sanction as right and acceptable. Most people tend to act morally and follow societal guidelines. ... Morality describes the particular values of a specific group at a specific point in time
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 08:53:14 AM
It's way more interesting than anything that comes out of the mainstream entertainment machines these days. So much to unpack.Yeah, I've been watching a lot of shows on ancient Egypt, WWII, etc. Many from the early 2000. Digressing, but the subject of WWII is a very complex issue, especially well before US jumped in. The who and who were "beligerants" and how that changed over the years. I found accountings from say the British and other nations even more interesting.
The S&G story for example. Was it really fireballs from heaven that destroyed the place?
Or could it have been something like a LACK OF MORALITY in the armed forces that made discipline impossible also contributed to a series of events where the cities they were supposed to protect burned to the ground?
SNIP
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 08:54:42 AM
I was basically spot on...Did you look up the definition of morals? :facepalm:
A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do
Moral refers to what societies sanction as right and acceptable. Most people tend to act morally and follow societal guidelines. ... Morality describes the particular values of a specific group at a specific point in time
Anyways, look up the definition and make the link to what you posted above.
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 08:59:34 AM
I was basically spot on...
A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do
Moral refers to what societies sanction as right and acceptable. Most people tend to act morally and follow societal guidelines. ... Morality describes the particular values of a specific group at a specific point in time
i fail to see the word "science" in any of that...
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 09:00:36 AM
Yeah, I've been watching a lot of shows on ancient Egypt, WWII, etc. Many from the early 2000. Digressing, but the subject of WWII is a very complex issue, especially well before US jumped in. The who and who were "beligerants" and how that changed over the years. I found accountings from say the British and other nations even more interesting.
focus bud
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 09:05:45 AM
focus budyour a beligerant
Strange, that comes up with the red spell-check thing. I don't recall seeing that on that previous post. . .
And yes, I did the your on purpose. . .
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 09:07:51 AM
your a beligerant
Strange, that comes up with the red spell-check thing. I don't recall seeing that on that previous post. . .
And yes, I did the your on purpose. . .
*you're. focus. Damn work laptop.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 09:20:24 AM
*you're. focus. Damn work laptop.#purposelynofocus
#isaiditiownedit
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 10:10:20 AM
Did you look up the definition of morals? :facepalm:
Anyways, look up the definition and make the link to what you posted above.
From google.
Also
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/morals
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 10:20:35 AM
From google.Definition of morals, not someone's explanation/commentary. . .
Also
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/morals
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 10:25:27 AM
Definition of morals, not someone's explanation/commentary. . .
Essential Meaning of moral
1: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
The church takes a strong stand on a number of moral [=ethical] issues.
The author avoids making moral judgments.
See More Examples
2: based on what you think is right and good
He felt that he had a moral obligation/responsibility/duty to help the poor.
He's a man with strong moral convictions. [=a man who believes strongly that some things are right and others are wrong]
We're confident she has the moral fiber/fortitude to make the right decision.
3: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
moral conduct
Their behavior was not moral.
a moral young man [=a young man who tries to behave in a moral way]
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 10:29:21 AM
I'll give you some more to work with. . .
Quote
mor·al
/ˈmôrəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
Similar:
virtuous
good
righteous
upright
upstanding
high-minded
right-minded
principled
proper
honorable
honest
just
noble
incorruptible
scrupulous
respectable
decent
irreproachable
truthful
law-abiding
clean-living
chaste
pure
blameless
sinless
Opposite:
immoral
bad
dishonorable
2.
holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
"he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"
noun
1.
a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
"the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
Similar:
lesson
message
meaning
significance
signification
import
point
precept
teaching
2.
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
"the corruption of public morals"
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 10:29:25 AM
Definition of morals, not someone's explanation/commentary. . .
Facepalm
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 10:31:23 AM
FacepalmHold on. . . give it some time. Kinda like Novocain
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 10:37:21 AM
Essential Meaning of moral
1: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
The church takes a strong stand on a number of moral [=ethical] issues.
The author avoids making moral judgments.
See More Examples
2: based on what you think is right and good
He felt that he had a moral obligation/responsibility/duty to help the poor.
He's a man with strong moral convictions. [=a man who believes strongly that some things are right and others are wrong]
We're confident she has the moral fiber/fortitude to make the right decision.
3: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
moral conduct
Their behavior was not moral.
a moral young man [=a young man who tries to behave in a moral way]
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
Ok, now take that definition and apply to your earlier statements on morals. . .
I'll give you some more to work with. . .
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 10:40:29 AM
just popped up in my youtube suggestions
"they" are watching us
jordan peterson on science religion and values
he even mentions "consensus"
and says "but that's not how we do science"
but he's just some dude on youtube...
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 10:41:32 AM
i fail to see "science" here...Stop being a novocain block. . .
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 10:44:44 AM
Stop being a novocain block. . .
no notrealdoctor uses novocaine any more
lidocaine, mepivicaine, articane, or marcaine...
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 10:46:38 AM
no notrealdoctor uses novocaine any moreyou are ar-cane. . .
lidocaine, mepivicaine, articane, or marcaine...
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 11:31:58 AM
Ok, now take that definition and apply to your earlier statements on morals. . .
I'll give you some more to work with. . .
Statement of science or the statement that started this chain?
I am aware that its not tied to science, I've been arguing that it should be.
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 11:35:49 AM
I am aware that its not tied to science, I've been arguing that it should be.
Just to clarify, Religion and Morals should be derived from science ?
If so…
Hope you have your next 19 answers ready and have already argued with yourself.
(Hint: you already”proved” science is immoral with your rape scenario. Unless morals are tied to science. Then extrapolate to murder, etc, etc, etc….)
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 11:38:32 AM
Just to clarify, Religion and Morals should derived from science ?
Not religion, just morals. Religion is basically the antithesis of science. Blind faith that is unprovable.
Morals you can run studies that can prove what is good or bad for a civilization. Don't need religion to play that role anymore.
We should play chess one day, I was fairly good way back in highschool. Was the top of my small school.
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 11:43:10 AM
And away we go.
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 11:46:52 AM
Not religion, just morals. Religion is basically the antithesis of science. Blind faith that is unprovable.
Morals you can run studies that can prove what is good or bad for a civilization. Don't need religion to play that role anymore.
We should play chess one day, I was fairly good way back in highschool. Was the top of my small school.
ok, now that you have finally said it (semi) clearly, morals should be (in your opinion) or are based on science?
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 21, 2021, 11:49:40 AM
I have a few minutes before meetings. . . seeing how my rope a dope skills are.Hands can't hit what your eyes don't see, float like a butterfly and sting like a bee
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 11:50:56 AM
"omni's arguments about how he feels what religion is, and not talking about specific deities or worships".
I mean if someone saw this title and wanted to see the debate as to which god is better and stuff like that, they are in for an awakening.
Omni-ism is all over this thread.
X person brings up A point. Omni chimes in as usual with the opposite feelings.
X,Y, Z persons then brings up B point to counter Omni's feelings, omni moves goal post or brings up another moot info to back up his feeling
X,Y, Z, persons bring up point C to counter again, and goal post moved or like actions
Then 17 pages later and repeat as necessary.
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 12:02:34 PM
ok, now that you have finally said it (semi) clearly, morals should be (in your opinion) or are based on science?
In my opinion they should be. They are not directly linked to science. People obviously used some science and disguised it as religion etc.
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 12:04:03 PM
The title of this thread should be changed from religion to:
"omni's arguments about how he feels what religion is, and not talking about specific deities or worships".
I mean if someone saw this title and wanted to see the debate as to which god is better and stuff like that, they are in for an awakening.
Omni-ism is all over this thread.
X person brings up A point. Omni chimes in as usual with the opposite feelings.
X,Y, Z persons then brings up B point to counter Omni's feelings, omni moves goal post or brings up another moot info to back up his feeling
X,Y, Z, persons bring up point C to counter again, and goal post moved or like actions
Then 17 pages later and repeat as necessary.
This is a catch all thread. Anything related to religion. Morals relate.
Feel free to discuss which magic man in the sky is better or not. I'll side with neither exist. My opinion remains the same all religions on earth are false. There may be a higher power who knows.
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 01:13:55 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 21, 2021, 01:14:43 PM
This is a catch all thread. Anything related to religion. Morals relate.
Feel free to discuss which magic man in the sky is better or not. I'll side with neither exist. My opinion remains the same all religions on earth are false. There may be a higher power who knows.
A majority of people on the PLANET believe in God.
All major religions are monotheistic.
Even more believe religion has a beneficial purpose in society.
Sounds like a consensus. According to you, that's no different than "science".
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 01:18:31 PM
“ Marx’s actual words regarding religion deserve reflection. My best translation of those words is as follows: “Religion is the opium of the people. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.”
Overall, Marx is speaking not as a man of faith but rather as a secular humanist. However, he does appear to suggest a largely positive role religion could play in an exploitative and alienating society. Human beings have the distressing habit of killing one another because of religious differences, and some of our most religious citizens wear the biggest of blinders. But Marx is right that our society can use a “heart” and a “soul” wherever we might find it.”
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 01:20:03 PM
Not religion, just morals. Religion is basically the antithesis of science. Blind faith that is unprovable.
Morals you can run studies that can prove what is good or bad for a civilization. Don't need religion to play that role anymore.
We should play chess one day, I was fairly good way back in highschool. Was the top of my small school.
big fish, small pond...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 21, 2021, 01:35:58 PM
Found this interesting.
“ Marx’s actual words regarding religion deserve reflection. My best translation of those words is as follows: “Religion is the opium of the people. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.”
Overall, Marx is speaking not as a man of faith but rather as a secular humanist. However, he does appear to suggest a largely positive role religion could play in an exploitative and alienating society. Human beings have the distressing habit of killing one another because of religious differences, and some of our most religious citizens wear the biggest of blinders. But Marx is right that our society can use a “heart” and a “soul” wherever we might find it.”
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/
Karl Marx created the blueprint for achieving Communism.
Communism has failed every single time it's been tried.
I don't find anything Marx thought "interesting."
He saw religion as a means to help accomplish the move to Socialism, and eventually Communism, even though religion itself was not accepted in his ideology.
Marx "stole" the concept "I am my brother's keeper" and incorporated it into his Manifesto. The entire foundation of Communism is based on the importance of the collective, with the individual wants and needs being less important. The "brother's keeper" parable is a very familiar and important aspect of Christianity. The more you align Communism with the moral duties already taught in religion, the more palatable Communism becomes. The comfort level associated with adopting something new increases if the new thing is patterned after something you're already comfortable with.
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 01:46:53 PM
I don't find anything Marx thought "interesting."
He saw religion as a means to help accomplish the move to Socialism, and eventually Communism, even though religion itself was not accepted in his ideology.
Marx "stole" the concept "I am my brother's keeper" and incorporated it into his Manifesto. The entire foundation of Communism is based on the importance of the collective, with the individual wants and needs being less important. The "brother's keeper" parable is a very familiar and important aspect of Christianity.
Because your mind is closed.
Upon reading, looks like you found some of Marx writings interesting.
He makes good points in the quote I posted.
I’m not a communist or marxist. Heck I’m not even a socialist. Heck I’m not even a Democrat but wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m a Republican.
But when someone makes interesting points, they are interesting points.
Religion is the opiate of the people.
But is not bad because it gives them hope, heart and soul.
They can live in the misery and suffering but also get through tragic times and keep hope.
My interpretation.
I’m not evaluating communism.
This isn’t a political thread.
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 01:57:58 PM
A majority of people on the PLANET believe in God.
All major religions are monotheistic.
Even more believe religion has a beneficial purpose in society.
Sounds like a consensus. According to you, that's no different than "science".
A consensus of idiots is still a bunch of idiots. Consensus of subject matter experts is what counts.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 02:04:35 PM
ok, now that you have finally said it (semi) clearly, morals should be (in your opinion) or are based on science?Got "distracted". . . anyways I think connection made, but still deflecting. . .
Hands can't hit what your eyes don't see, float like a butterfly and sting like a beeMoving tahget. . .
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 02:06:12 PM
big fish, small pond...Must be from super small pond. Talking in circles. . .
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 02:10:24 PM
A consensus of idiots is still a bunch of idiots. Consensus of subject matter experts is what counts.
Who’s the subject matter experts on the science of morals ?
And what did they find our morals should be?
Rape. Good for procreation?
Murder. Good for population control?
Robbery/stealing. Good. Re-distributes wealth?
Incest. OK once, maybe twice, but too many generations bad as in-breeding ?
Etc.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 02:18:31 PM
Who’s the subject matter experts on the science of morals ?Well, the Courts, of course!
And what did they find our morals should be?
Rape. Good for procreation?
Murder. Good for population control?
Robbery/stealing. Good. Re-distributes wealth?
Incest. OK once, maybe twice, but too many generations bad as in-breeding ?
Etc.
Or no, is it scientists?
Wait, no, dammit, I'm confused now. . .
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 21, 2021, 02:20:46 PM
Because your mind is closed.
Upon reading, looks like you found some of Marx writings interesting.
He makes good points in the quote I posted.
So, you read minds now? Is this a recent talent, or have you always been able to tell other people what they think?
:popcorn:
I took several quarter-length classes in High School on Russia and Socialism. Not something I find "interesting". Just facts.
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 02:20:51 PM
Who’s the subject matter experts on the science of morals ?
And what did they find our morals should be?
Rape. Good for procreation?
Murder. Good for population control?
Robbery/stealing. Good. Re-distributes wealth?
Incest. OK once, maybe twice, but too many generations bad as in-breeding ?
Etc.
To my knowledge no comprehensive studies have been done. As flapp pointed out most of the world are religious so they force those morals on others.
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 02:24:37 PM
Determine what our morals should be based on the scientific method ?
What about the bottom questions from the prior post which you actually started pages ago.?
With the theory that rape could be morally good based on science.
Direct questions.
Or are you gonna pull a Flapp ?
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 21, 2021, 02:26:15 PM
Got "distracted". . . anyways I think connection made, but still deflecting. . .Moving goalposts!
Moving tahget. . .
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 02:27:26 PM
Moving goalposts!Never got to my piece de resistance. . . I was gearing up for it, even with tweedle dee (CMO) and tweedle dum (macsak) distracting me. . . ;D
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 02:29:31 PM
To my knowledge no comprehensive studies have been done. As flapp pointed out most of the world are religious so they force those morals on others.
is that proven in a court of law? consensus?
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 02:30:07 PM
Never got to my piece de resistance. . . I was gearing up for it, even with tweedle dee (CMO) and tweedle dum (macsak) distracting me. . . ;D
focus
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 02:36:52 PM
focus#needmorefreetime
#droppingadeucetakesonlysolong
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 02:50:37 PM
is that proven in a court of law? consensus?
Have you seen the laws? The official government things that has the word "god" in it.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 02:53:46 PM
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 02:54:35 PM
Have you seen the laws? The official government things that has the word "god" in it.
so now you are saying morals = laws?
goalposts are moved again...
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 02:55:58 PM
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 03:01:50 PM
so now you are saying morals = laws?
goalposts are moved again...
No the post was referring in reference of the religious imparting religion on the government.
But also yes to answer your question, most morals are laws.
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 21, 2021, 03:11:21 PM
so now you are saying morals = laws?Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!
goalposts are moved again...
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 03:20:00 PM
Who’s the subject matter experts on the science of morals ?He means his "experts" that he believes in. All others are wrong.
And what did they find our morals should be?
Rape. Good for procreation?
Murder. Good for population control?
Robbery/stealing. Good. Re-distributes wealth?
Incest. OK once, maybe twice, but too many generations bad as in-breeding ?
Etc.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on September 21, 2021, 03:24:36 PM
Never got to my piece de resistance. . . I was gearing up for it, even with tweedle dee (CMO) and tweedle dum (macsak) distracting me. . . ;DThings 1 & 2! Would that make you the cat in the hat?
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 21, 2021, 03:33:26 PM
Have you seen the laws? The official government things that has the word "god" in it.
Hawaii's State Constitution never mentions God. It's the only state that does not. Hawaii’s constitution makes reference to the divine only in its preamble, which states that the people of Hawaii are “grateful for Divine Guidance.”
The US Constitution does not mention God. It only mentions religion in the First Amendment, and that reference includes the restriction on the state of establishing a religion or making religion a requirement for holding office. The Declaration of Independence does refer to our Creator, but that could be interpreted to mean whatever you think of as your Creator, including Nature or whatever else (Could it be ...... Satan?).
So, which "government things" that apply to Hawaii "has the word 'god'" in them?
Don't include things like "In God We Trust" on our money. That's not an official policy or law. It's just artwork -- a slogan.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 03:44:30 PM
Hawaii's State Constitution never mentions God. It's the only state that does not. Hawaii’s constitution makes reference to the divine only in its preamble, which states that the people of Hawaii are “grateful for Divine Guidance.”If the federal reserve is not owned by the government, they printing god on money is ok right?
The US Constitution does not mention God. It only mentions religion in the First Amendment, and that reference includes the restriction on the state of establishing a religion or making religion a requirement for holding office. It does refer to our Creator, but that could be interpreted to mean whatever you think of as your Creator, including Nature or whatever else (Could it be ...... Satan?).
So, which "government things" that apply to Hawaii "has the word 'god'" in them?
Don't include things like "In God We Trust" on our money. That's not an official policy or law. It's just artwork -- a slogan.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: QUIETShooter on September 21, 2021, 04:21:46 PM
big fish, small pond...
Reminds me of that Robby Benson movie long ago: "One on One" with Annette O'Toole.
Poor F**ker thought he was badass until he came across the big leagues...... :rofl:
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 04:30:47 PM
No the post was referring in reference of the religious imparting religion on the government.
But also yes to answer your question, most morals are laws.
in your opinion? or is this consensus?
proven in a court of law?
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 05:07:21 PM
If the federal reserve is not owned by the government, they printing god on money is ok right?
In God we trust.
Everyone else Cash.
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 05:16:59 PM
Hawaii's State Constitution never mentions God. It's the only state that does not. Hawaii’s constitution makes reference to the divine only in its preamble, which states that the people of Hawaii are “grateful for Divine Guidance.”I say "swear to God" quite often. Does that make me religious? Or uh. . . nvm. Don't want to get struck by lightning. . .
The US Constitution does not mention God. It only mentions religion in the First Amendment, and that reference includes the restriction on the state of establishing a religion or making religion a requirement for holding office. It does refer to our Creator, but that could be interpreted to mean whatever you think of as your Creator, including Nature or whatever else (Could it be ...... Satan?).
So, which "government things" that apply to Hawaii "has the word 'god'" in them?
Don't include things like "In God We Trust" on our money. That's not an official policy or law. It's just artwork -- a slogan.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 06:36:25 PM
I say "swear to God" quite often. Does that make me religious? Or uh. . . nvm. Don't want to get struck by lightning. . .Made many chicks call to god. Does that make me a pastor?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aieahound on September 21, 2021, 07:14:03 PM
We’re there any miracles ?
Post by: macsak on September 21, 2021, 07:29:18 PM
Made many chicks call to god. Does that make me a pastor?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
oh god, please let this be over quickly!
thank you god!
Post by: drck1000 on September 21, 2021, 07:48:23 PM
Made many chicks call to god. Does that make me a pastor?Did you notice their “bored face” ::)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
:rofl:
“Thank you Lord for the waitress in South Bend. You know the one, she kept calling your name.” ;D
Post by: hvybarrels on September 21, 2021, 07:48:34 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HVeEBdqioB8
Post by: omnigun on September 21, 2021, 08:11:52 PM
The court system uses a God reference. I think becoming president too. Swearing on them bibles.
The Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
To mention some. You already said most states and technically all mention God or a creator. FYI creator for a non religious person, would be what? Their parents?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 21, 2021, 08:52:54 PM
I don't think there is truly such thing as basic morals. Religion encouraged immoral actions in the past. Some encourage it now in the present.
How would you make the argument that what a religion did was immoral from a basis where real morals cannot exist. It becomes a self defeating argument.
Now to your question about how do we know what are the true moral values; that is a very hard question BUT that does not have a bearing on whether true moral values exist. They can escape our full understanding and yet be real.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 21, 2021, 09:18:43 PM
The Declaration states that the people have God-given rights and that a form of government that becomes tyrannical can be altered or abolished.
The court system uses a God reference. I think becoming president too. Swearing on them bibles.
The Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
To mention some. You already said most states and technically all mention God or a creator. FYI creator for a non religious person, would be what? Their parents?
Please show where The Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "God-given."
Please show where the Declaration of Independence is used as the basis for a single law -- Federal, state or local.
Using the term "In the year of our Lord" has zero to do with any religious application in government.
Quote
The phrase “in the year of our lord” is a translation of the Medieval Latin Anno Domini, which
means “in the year of the lord.” If you want to say “in the year of our lord,” it would be Anno
Domini Nostri. The full original phrase is Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi", which translates
to "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ".
This calendar era used in both the Gregorian and Julian calendars is based on the traditionally
reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, with AD counting years from the
start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the era. There is no year zero in
this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC. This dating system was devised
in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor. It came into wide usage after the year 800.
The year 2021 AD is literally saying "In the year of the Lord." This has absolutely nothing to do with government, and everything to do with how the people devising the modern calendar annotated the years.
I bet you used that abbreviation more than once, but you had no idea what AD actually means.
I asked how any of what I listed affected HAWAII. Other state's Constitutions don't have anything to do with our laws, nor with the federal laws that affect this state.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 21, 2021, 10:58:15 PM
Please show where The Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "God-given."Basically another omni type reply. Posted unrelated stuff to the question so he is not wrong in his mind.
Please show where the Declaration of Independence is used as the basis for a single law -- Federal, state or local.
Using the term "In the year of our Lord" has zero to do with any religious application in government.
The year 2021 AD is literally saying "In the year of the Lord." This has absolutely nothing to do with government, and everything to do with how the people devising the modern calendar annotated the years.
I bet you used that abbreviation more than once, but you had no idea what AD actually means.
I asked how any of what I listed affected HAWAII. Other state's Constitutions don't have anything to do with our laws, nor with the federal laws that affect this state.
Ask question/state A.
Omni replies with "water is wet".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 22, 2021, 12:03:13 AM
Basically another omni type reply. Posted unrelated stuff to the question so he is not wrong in his mind.
Ask question/state A.
Omni replies with "water is wet".
He is like most Millennial know-it-alls. They think they know the Declaration of Independence and Constitution because they had a test in school, but they can't isolate which parts belong to which document, nor understand the full context of each segment because they are too focused on the "offensive religious" words that trigger them.
It's sad. This is how the nation ends. Our anti-American education system wants to program these Lemmings to follow the Liberal-Socialist-Progressive ideology.
Post by: aieahound on September 22, 2021, 05:17:33 PM
know-it-alls.
Did you really use that term on someone else? :rofl:
#IsItTrollingIfIt’sTrue
#PotCallsKettle
(Stupid ass Hashtag crap. Isn’t that Millenial ?)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 22, 2021, 05:20:07 PM
Did you really use that term on someone else? :rofl:
#IsItTrollingIfIt’sTrue
#PotCallsKettle
(Stupid ass Hashtag crap. Isn’t that Millenial ?)
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Post by: ren on September 22, 2021, 07:25:04 PM
The "Satanism" I "support" is the following:
https://thesatanictemple.com/
Try do some research lol.
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/what-is-the-difference-between-the-satanic-temple-and-the-church-of-satan
Also who decides what's a "valid" religion? Mormons came from a "cult" and are fairly new. There's many hundreds if not thousands of religions out there.
I would categorize the church of satan as one of the worst religions up there with islam.
Can't save them from themselves. I support suicide. I was mostly worried about the innocents. Most people had the opportunity to get vaxxed so it's not a supply issue. Hospital statistics show most vaxxed live. With current treatments it's even better. While the ideal world would still have the innocents protected and their freedom restored I come to realize my input won't really change much especially here. So f it, let them die.
Post by: aieahound on September 22, 2021, 07:35:45 PM
Context.
Dots connect.
And I’m not even a conservative.
Post by: omnigun on September 22, 2021, 09:20:46 PM
That both the agnostics and that religion support freedom? True freedom of one's self?
Post by: aieahound on September 22, 2021, 09:49:03 PM
Satanic Temple….
And I’m not even Religious.
Edit:
If you’re agnostic, figure the shit out for yourself.
Seems like you already have and it’s a little bit freaky.
Depression…treatable in most cases…don’t want this conversation to go there but thought it needed to be said.
Freedom ?
:wtf:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 22, 2021, 11:09:27 PM
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
After all the insults about religion, and all the hateful comments saying religious people "force their beliefs down others throats," it's difficult to believe he is actually an agnostic based on the possible definitions.
He never once as far as I have read acknowledged the possibility that he's wrong about God's existence.
He's not skeptical -- he's adamant (no, not the 1980s singer!).
He's far from doubtful. His opinion is unwavering and does not leave room for any possibility that religion is right about anything.
To call himself an agnostic is just one more sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about when discussing religion.
If there was a god, we would all be judged on our actions. Cause as proven previously religions evolve too much over time and if a core need is to be worshipping the "right" god. Everyone is fucked. A god someone witnesses 1000's of years ago can't possible be the exact one people think about today.
This is why I am agnostic. I try do decent in this life and who knows what's next.
That comment doesn't fit the definition of agnostic. He doesn't believe there is a God, so he is by definition an Atheist.
He says he "try do decent" and "who knows what's next", but he constantly insults, denigrates and belittles AS A GROUP anyone who truly believes in religion. He uses the same "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Magic Man in the Sky" insults as all atheists.
Nobody who actually hold the humble opinion that he might be wrong mocks those who hold those same beliefs upon which he claims to be agnostic. One can't say, "I don't know if there's a God" while having nonstop arguments defending the atheist position that there is no God.
He's about as much an agnostic as he is a moderate.