Topic: Do you believe in god? - page 152. (Read 316048 times)

Hi, Fluffer. Be a good little kid, and go out and play.

I am naturally human. As such, I display traits that some want to attribute to a transcendental (constructed) being. In doing so, these characters claim control over others, in claiming they act on behalf of the transcendental being by forcing laws on others and thereby forfeit their true nature, as humans. These characters have become artificial and unnatural.

Freedom and God
...
Freedom is the right of the individual to choose how he controls himself, so long as he respects the equal rights of every other individual to control and plan his own life. Freedom is thus not the ability to do whatever you want. It is self-control, and self-government, no more, no less.
...
The evolution of the social contract is a progressive climb to systems with increased overall freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increased the overall cooperative activity and freedom the system permitted.

Oh yeah, well my penis didn't "learn" how to get this rock hard and long. It has a consciousness of its own because it keeps chasing slutty women around even though I keep trying to tell it how much trouble that behavior ends up causing.

No point, you've already shot that one down in flames yourself.

Even one cellular organisms display patterns of learned behavior. You don't need a "spirit" to have moral traits - all you need is an example. The idea of me having (being) a "spirit", a consciousness that will continue after death is a fallacy. My consciousness will die with me. Consciousness in the sense of what it contributes to morality is learned behavior. All humans learn by example as they start life at 0 and take it from there on wards. This is the way of nature.

Freedom is neither license nor anarchy: It does not mean chaos or the use of tooth and nail. Freedom does not give any man or group the right to steal, to use fraud or aggressive force or threats of same to get what one wants.

Thus "freedom is self-control" leads to the conclusion that as acting individuals, we must respect the rights and boundaries of others. In other words, every individual should control his or her actions such that they do not aggress or invade against other individuals or their rightfully owned properties. "Freedom" as "self-control" points up the dual nature of human existence: of the Self (mind, soul, and spirit) housed in a physical body. Human beings require both spiritual freedom and physical liberty

A person is responsible for every action he takes and for every action he refuses to take. Thus, he is responsible for commissions and omissions, and whether these are good or bad. The individual is the responsible unit. Responsibility cannot be collectively delegated. Each person is responsible in exactly the same way and to the same degree that every other person is.

Imagine for a moment a world in which there was no murder or theft. In such a world, there would be no need for armies, or police, or weapons. Men and women and children could walk anywhere, at any time of day or night, without any fear of being killed or robbed. Imagine further a world in which no one coveted what belonged to their neighbor; a world in which children honored their mother and father and the family unit thrived; a world in which people obeyed the injunction not to lie. The recipe for a good world is all there—in these ten sublime commandments.

But there is a catch. The Ten Commandments are predicated on the belief that they were given by an Authority higher than any man, any king, or any government. That’s why the sentence preceding the Ten Commandments asserts the following: “God spoke all these words.”

You see, if the Ten Commandments, as great as they are, were given by any human authority, then any person could say: “Who is this man Moses, who is this king or queen, who is this government to tell me how I should behave? Okay, so why is God indispensable to the Ten Commandments? Because, to put it as directly as possible, if it isn’t God who declares murder wrong, murder isn’t wrong. Yes, this strikes many people today as incomprehensible, even absurd. Many of you are thinking, “Is this guy saying you can’t be a good person if you don’t believe in God?”

Let me respond as clearly as possible: I am not saying that. Of course there are good people who don’t believe in God, just as there are bad people who do. And many of you are also thinking, “I believe murder is wrong. I don’t need God to tell me.” Now that response is only half true. I have no doubt that if you’re an atheist and you say you believe murder is wrong, you believe murder is wrong. But, forgive me, you do need God to tell you. We all need God to tell us. You see, even if you figured out murder is wrong on your own, without God and the Ten Commandments, how do you know it’s wrong? Not believe it’s wrong, I mean know it’s wrong? The fact is that you can’t.

Because without God, right and wrong are just personal beliefs. Personal opinions. I think shoplifting is okay, you don’t. Unless there is a God, all morality is just opinion and belief. And virtually every atheist philosopher has acknowledged this.

Another problem with the view that you don’t need God to believe that murder is wrong is that a lot of people haven’t shared your view. And you don’t have to go back very far in history to prove this. In the twentieth century millions of people in Communist societies and under Nazism killed about one hundred million people—and that doesn’t count a single soldier killed in war.

So, don’t get too confident about people’s ability to figure out right from wrong without a Higher Authority. It’s all too easy to be swayed by a government or a demagogue or an ideology or to rationalize that the wrong you are doing isn’t really wrong. And even if you do figure out what is right and wrong, God is still necessary. People who know the difference between right and wrong do the wrong thing all the time. You know why? Because they can. They can because they think no one is watching. But if you recognize that God is the source of moral law, you believe that He is always watching.

So, even if you’re an atheist, you would want people to live by the moral laws of the Ten Commandments. And even an atheist has to admit that the more people who believe God gave them—and therefore they are not just opinion—the better the world would be.

In three thousand years no one has ever come up with a better system than the God-based Ten Commandments for making a better world. And no one ever will.

There are others who would not agree with limited "modern" science in this regard - 15 minutes.

The Folly of Machine Consciousness (FULL) - Health Ranger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzNAy84OBY

I disagree with the argument from religion and its transcendental argument. It is my belief that humans are intrinsically moral whilst they are at the same time completely natural. I reject a transcendental argument with its postulate of a non physical transcendence - this is a mere construct, a superfluous idea - without a direct basis in physical existence, which is what I believe is in fact the only existence that is, and reality and all it implies (see wiki for details) as well. The world is as it is in its natural state and this reality make morality possible. There is no other basis to have this moral value we find in humans. I name the nonphysical aspects of reality the emergent qualities of personhood. No need to interject metaphysical (imaginary) constructs here. We are indeed connected to each other in a network, but its all natural.

"Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally." - Dennis Prager

Since you can't seem to explain any rebuttal you might have, it is you who are proving yourself scientifically inadequate. But that's okay. Since the science stands, there isn't any rebuttal for it.

Science is guesswork

Those are not scientific nor proofs.

Here are some links to both, the scientific proof, and overwhelming evidence that God exists. If you don't understand the science, you can easily see the evidence of nature.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380

While the proof gives knowledge that God exists, why should I believe Him? In fact, how do I know that He is even talking to me? The history of the way the Bible came into existence makes it an impossible-to-have-happened book. Since the Bible is impossible, yet exists, it has been guided by God to be His Word to people.

Before god exist earth already made up by science. But when god comes he created everything on this planet like animals and other ting that you eating on this earth . God is the reason why we here and why still keep breathing on this planet i thank god that i am blessed.

Please send the men in white coats for this dude ..
You have lost the plot .
What the smartest man 100 years ago knew is nothing to what a 12 year old child knows now ..
SO GROW UP NUTTER  

We know that pre-rational people exist. Pre-rational people, as I’m defining it, are concrete operational or worse. (Worse would be preoperational/magical and sensorimotor/archaic).
...
The rational person can try to explain how things look to the pre-rational. They will not succeed. Either you can see the validity of a logical argument, or you cannot. If I say if p, then q, p, therefore q and you say ‘no it’s not,’ all I can do is stare at you.