Topic: Health and Religion - page 38. (Read 210900 times)
Part of the point is, however long you live in this life, it is short compared with eternity. Get right with eternity, 'cause it is a long time to live there in a wretched, pathetic state.
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication.
Oh well at least he is somewhat funny. I must admit his little imaginary back and forth made me laugh.
Ultimately the inability or unwillingness of many atheists to even attempt an articulation of an integrated and coherent system of belief leads me to the conclusion that they are often hypocrites possessed by incomplete ideas and unwilling to explore the logical conclusions and assumptions of their own positions.
I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos recently as he is coming to my town next week and I have tickets to his presentation. I found this video on hypocrites particularly enlightening.
Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
Instead you use the metaphysics and philosophy to validate your condition. That is all you can do these days, I guess.
We cannot agree because we are talking about different things. Physics and metaphysics do not mix.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
If you want to argue about God existence first you have to define what 'God' is, then define what it means 'to exist'.
From where I stand, all religious conditions are psychological and in severe cases mental disorders. Fundamentalist religious freaks should be removed from society and locked up because they pose risk to themselves and others.
Being fascinated by the Bible is one thing, but to act out what the Bible recommends is criminal in most Western countries. I hope we can agree on that.
BTW, I don't know why Peterson is so fascinated with Dostoyevsky, I read Crime and Punishment, good book, I must say, but to say that there is something there to Rosolnikov's character and question of God, is a bit stretch. We go through our moral dilemmas based one what we believe. He would not kill the old lady if he used a simple principle: "Would my actions cause harm to others or myself?".
The problem is that you and many others won't take the time to critically analyze Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity... and the way they work together in this universe.
Entropy shows us that there was a beginning. If there wasn't a beginning, long ago everything would have dispersed, dissipated, and diffused into a gigantic mass of equilibrium, rather than the orderly mass of complexity that we have today. Stabs at suggesting that entropy is simply localized, and therefore not universal, are stabs that are contradicted by stellar observations all over the place.
Everything operates by C&E. This means that everything that happens has been set in place to happen that way, from the Beginning (entropy shows that there was a beginning). There are countless numbers of C&E actions, with nothing known to have happened without C&E. Everything is programming, nothing more. Even free will is artificial and programmed into us.
Complexity is so extremely great that we have artificial free will. And we barely realize it until we look at how C&E pervades everything.
Put these together, and you get God. How? Like this. The existence of the Beginning shows that something (or some non-thing) set the Beginning in place. C&E shows that it was very powerful to have set up something that would last as long as the universe by C&E action. Complexity is the key. Complexity of the universe, life, the human brain and mind, thought, the artificial free will, and everything else, shows that the Creator was intelligent beyond understanding, simply because our much lower intelligence exists via C&E, from the beginning.
Toss out your preconceived ideas of what the word "God" entails. Use the dictionary definition, but use the complete definition. Then consider all the vastness of our universe from the standpoint of the three major qualities that operate within it: C&E, entropy, and complexity. The Creator of the universe is God way beyond God in any way we can conceive of God.
When we honor Him even by simply realizing that He exists, He maintains our health in greater ways than normal, as a special gift to us for honoring Him.
First of all C&E only can be applied in temporal domain, i.e. when the cause predicates the effect. The time and space were created when the Big Bang happened. There was no time before the Big Bang so you cannot talk about the cause because there is no time for the cause to exist in.
Nobody knows for fact that BB happened.
When the physics of the universe was caused, time was caused right along with the rest of the physics. Nobody knows for a fact that C&E doesn't work outside of time and the physics of the universe. It simply might work differently.
We see C&E all around us. But we haven't seen anything else. It's your guess that there was no cause for time. Odds are dramatically and overwhelmingly against you.
Universe was not designed because it started as an explosion, it is still exploding in parts of the universe. The shear volume of space and time tells you that it was not designed. You do not design a system to have such positive feedback loops. It was an accident, not a design.
There is complete order in the physics of the universe. If there weren't, the universe would be an explosion, because explosions suggest lack of order. But the universe has order.
Explosions are designed. Some of them - nuclear - have a great amount of design in them.
Show us something that has design by accident, and I will show you something that has micro-design.
How do you go from complexity to God beats me? Nature is a violent set of events, a wild river that destroys its banks as it forms new shape and delivers new, slightly evolved species.
Removing the BB idea which has not been proven, and is far from being proven, leaves God.
Regarding your wild river idea, all the atoms and molecules and energies within the river are acting according to orderly C&E. It is only your idea that suggests that the wild river is disorderly.
Science helps us understand how nature actually works.
Religion explains nature without understanding it.
Those two will never be able to reconcile. No matter how hard you try.
Religious principles, like scientific principles, are nothing without someone for them to become active within. Therefore, at their base, science and religion are almost the same.
God exists in that small space behind and between your eyes, nowhere else.
You can talk all you want about the metaphysical God, but it will be always that. Your own thoughts and feelings. Nothing else.
That which you stated is your religion, nothing else. Sometime you might try stepping up to science, so you can see that BB hasn't been proven, but that God has.
Regarding health, placebo effect really works. But it works a lot better when you have a religion that says that God is helping you... rather than a religion that has no helper like God. Then on top of that, since God has been proven to us to exist, we know that God, Himself, works health.
You have an unhealthy religion in atheism or agnosticism.
In examining the aspects of health in religion, there are two things to note:
1. Religious teachings are normative
Religion provides teachings or guidance on the importance of maintaining health
2. There are real or visible religious behaviors and practices by the community
In terms of real behavior there are adherents of religion who do not pay attention to aspects of health
1. Religious teachings are normative
Religion provides teachings or guidance on the importance of maintaining health
2. There are real or visible religious behaviors and practices by the community
In terms of real behavior there are adherents of religion who do not pay attention to aspects of health
ANALYSIS: Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection; Alder Hey hospital steeped...
Via LifeSiteNews.com:
Via LifeSiteNews.com:
The source listed here lifesitenews is now reporting that the family is denying this claim. Probably/hopefully it's a false rumor spread by a foolish newspaper.
Alfie Evans’ Family Refutes Newspaper Report Claiming Alfie Was Given Four Unknown Drugs Just Before He Died
http://www.lifenews.com/2018/05/01/report-says-nurse-gave-alfie-evans-four-unidentified-drugs-two-hours-later-he-died/
BBC article:
Quote from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1137751.stm
The hospital at the centre of a row over organ retention has admitted for the first time that it gave organs from live children for research purposes in return for cash.
Liverpool's Alder Hey Hospital has admitted taking the organs and giving them to a pharmaceutical company in return for cash donations.
While the practice is thought not to be without precedent among hospitals, many parents, even those aware that organs are retained, may not know about the role of pharmaceutical companies in their disposal.
And the idea of "payment" in return for body parts still leaves many doctors uneasy.
Liverpool's Alder Hey Hospital has admitted taking the organs and giving them to a pharmaceutical company in return for cash donations.
While the practice is thought not to be without precedent among hospitals, many parents, even those aware that organs are retained, may not know about the role of pharmaceutical companies in their disposal.
And the idea of "payment" in return for body parts still leaves many doctors uneasy.
Read more at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1137751.stm.
At first, I thought that Religion cannot affects our Health But as I think of it, it somehow really affects. Religion offers a lot of beliefs that a person on it would acquire. These beliefs affects our mind in either positive and negative way. And that continues to our well being, where I believe in what you think can manifest on your health. That's what made me believe that somehow Religion really affects our health. But I would love to know more about it so I'll try to have some research about it.
ANALYSIS: Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection; Alder Hey hospital steeped...
Via LifeSiteNews.com:
Via LifeSiteNews.com:
The source listed here lifesitenews is now reporting that the family is denying this claim. Probably/hopefully it's a false rumor spread by a foolish newspaper.
Alfie Evans’ Family Refutes Newspaper Report Claiming Alfie Was Given Four Unknown Drugs Just Before He Died
http://www.lifenews.com/2018/05/01/report-says-nurse-gave-alfie-evans-four-unidentified-drugs-two-hours-later-he-died/
WATCH: CNN's Wolf Blitzer Says Slaughtering Kids in Yemen is Worth It Because It Creates Jobs
YEMEN: CNN Host Wolf Blitzer puts Jobs and Revenue above Human Lives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts8tEGie9Pw
Read more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/05/01/watch-cnns-wolf-blitzer-says-slaughtering-kids-in-yemen-is-worth-it-because-it-creates-jobs/.
According to an analysis from Unicef, more than 5,000 children have been slaughtered in the war, with the death toll from violence alone surpassing 10,000—as millions teeter on the brink of starvation. The number of casualties has only continued to increase, as a report from the United Nations noted that the parties involved are conducting operations "heedless of their impact on civilians."
As The Free Thought Project has reported, the current situation in Yemen is nothing short of genocide, as there are 7 million civilians in starvation, and 19 million out of the country's 27 million population "in need of some form of aid." Saudi Arabia has repeatedly facilitated famine, continued to murder children, and all of it is with the help and approval of the United States.
Just last week, TFTP reported on a bombing that took place at a wedding near Yemen's capital city of Sana'a. A report from the Associated Press which barely registered as a blip in the rest of the media claimed that the majority of people who were killed were "women and children who were gathered in one of the tents set up for the wedding party in the district of Bani Qayis."
As The Free Thought Project has reported, the current situation in Yemen is nothing short of genocide, as there are 7 million civilians in starvation, and 19 million out of the country's 27 million population "in need of some form of aid." Saudi Arabia has repeatedly facilitated famine, continued to murder children, and all of it is with the help and approval of the United States.
Just last week, TFTP reported on a bombing that took place at a wedding near Yemen's capital city of Sana'a. A report from the Associated Press which barely registered as a blip in the rest of the media claimed that the majority of people who were killed were "women and children who were gathered in one of the tents set up for the wedding party in the district of Bani Qayis."
YEMEN: CNN Host Wolf Blitzer puts Jobs and Revenue above Human Lives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts8tEGie9Pw
Read more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/05/01/watch-cnns-wolf-blitzer-says-slaughtering-kids-in-yemen-is-worth-it-because-it-creates-jobs/.
...
My logic lead me to my position, not the other way around.
My logic lead me to my position, not the other way around.
Sorry I don't believe you.
If it was truly logic that led you to your position then you would engage me with logic not evasion. You would deconstruct my arguments to their logical foundations and highlight the assumptions I have made. Then you would present your challenge your own logical construct and argue for its superiority.
Instead you hide your own beliefs going to great lengths to avoid any discussion of what you actually believe in.
Immediately upthread I challenged your single moral principle as being incompatible with your denial of God. Do you rise up in defense with logic attempting to refute my claim and restore coherence to your worldview? No you retreat embracing incoherence to protect your disbelief.
The meaning of insanity in persons and nations - the primary need for restoration of sanity
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
As far as I can tell you have chosen to be sure of only one thing: that there is no God. This choice has consequences.
Modern Man is metaphysically insane
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/modern-man-is-metaphysically-insane.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Indeed, metaphysically insanity is the only true madness - it is the madness of having false assumptions about the basic nature of reality.
Modern man is sure of only one thing: that there is no God. That is why he is insane - because this metaphysical assumption leads to nihilism (unbelief in reality).
Once he is unsure of anything; he loses all possibility of a scale of judgment: so modern Man utterly believes things that not only aren't true, but cannot be true - and what is more he knows they are not true and cannot be true - but he believes them anyway (sort of) because, ultimately, nothing is true.
And he disbelieves common sense and his own experience because, after all - he might be insane, deluded, hallucinating... indeed Modern Man knows, deep down, that he is insane.
And therefore he cannot believe anything - or rather, he can disbelieve anything; no matter how obvious, no matter how much evidence or logic agrees with it.
Modern Man knows he is insane because he knows that he has made himself insane - by choice, by choosing to be sure of only one thing: that there is no God.
Therefore, Modern Man is completely to blame and responsible for his condition and situation - he initiated and perpetuates it; and fights tooth and nail to retain his insanity against the hourly onslaught of counter-evidence, rationality and basic conviction.
He could change at any moment in the twinkling of an eye - but he does not. So this is a moral insanity - insanity based upon evil.
The basic answer (not the complete answer - but the necessary start) is itself very basic - acknowledge the reality of God, of Deity.
Modern man is sure of only one thing: that there is no God. That is why he is insane - because this metaphysical assumption leads to nihilism (unbelief in reality).
Once he is unsure of anything; he loses all possibility of a scale of judgment: so modern Man utterly believes things that not only aren't true, but cannot be true - and what is more he knows they are not true and cannot be true - but he believes them anyway (sort of) because, ultimately, nothing is true.
And he disbelieves common sense and his own experience because, after all - he might be insane, deluded, hallucinating... indeed Modern Man knows, deep down, that he is insane.
And therefore he cannot believe anything - or rather, he can disbelieve anything; no matter how obvious, no matter how much evidence or logic agrees with it.
Modern Man knows he is insane because he knows that he has made himself insane - by choice, by choosing to be sure of only one thing: that there is no God.
Therefore, Modern Man is completely to blame and responsible for his condition and situation - he initiated and perpetuates it; and fights tooth and nail to retain his insanity against the hourly onslaught of counter-evidence, rationality and basic conviction.
He could change at any moment in the twinkling of an eye - but he does not. So this is a moral insanity - insanity based upon evil.
The basic answer (not the complete answer - but the necessary start) is itself very basic - acknowledge the reality of God, of Deity.
ANALYSIS: Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection; Alder Hey hospital steeped...
Read more at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-01-alfie-evans-executed-by-lethal-injection-organ-harvesting-alder-hey.html.
Watching in horror the "health care" murder of baby Alfie Evans over the last few days, I've been gathering an array of stories and sources to bring you a detailed, definitive report of what actually went down. Until that full report is ready, however, it seems urgent to share with you the conclusion of my research: I am convinced that Baby Alfie Evans was executed by lethal injection, and the hospital that murdered him appears to be the center hub of a multi-decade baby organ harvesting crime ring that saw 100,000 baby body parts harvested and illegally held in hospitals all across Britain. (See multiple news sources, below.)
It has always been clear that the Alder Hey children's hospital sought to accelerate the death of Alfie Evans while silencing his parents through a sustained attack consisting of threats and intimidation tactics. Now, Life Site News is report that Alfie Evans was injected with four different drugs by hospital staff just two hours before he died. This, of course, was after several days of being starved to death and denied water. Virtually the entire corporate-controlled media has withheld this information from the public for a variety of nefarious reasons that I will discuss in another post.
Via LifeSiteNews.com:
UK toddler Alfie Evans allegedly died within hours of receiving four different drugs from a nurse at Alder Hey hospital, Italian media is reporting…
[A] nurse entered the child's cubicle after his father Tom had been called aside and gave him four drugs. A source close to the family told LifeSiteNews that these were injections that were administered to Alfie after Tom had been summoned for an unusual middle-of-the-night meeting with the hospital. The child died two hours later.
Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.
Alder Hey hospital doctors had previously conveyed to the Evans' family in a legal document how they intended to use a drug cocktail that included Midazolam and Fentanyl as part of Alfie's "end of life care plan." Side effects of the drugs included respiratory depression. Tom Evans called it an "execution plan" for his son.
Keep in mind that the hospital forced Alfie's parents to read a so-called "hostage letter" to the press, and they stated that the family would be punished because of the poor attitude of the parents who apparently didn't go along with the hospital's plan to murder their baby. As LifeSiteNews reports:
The day prior to Alfie's death, Tom Evans read to the press outside the hospital what is now being called by many a "hostage letter." In what appeared to be a forced statement, Tom read out a letter calling all the supporters of Alfie to go home and resume their lives. He thanked the hospital staff for their care of Alfie, even though just hours earlier he had attempted to have them charged with conspiracy to murder his son.
It has always been clear that the Alder Hey children's hospital sought to accelerate the death of Alfie Evans while silencing his parents through a sustained attack consisting of threats and intimidation tactics. Now, Life Site News is report that Alfie Evans was injected with four different drugs by hospital staff just two hours before he died. This, of course, was after several days of being starved to death and denied water. Virtually the entire corporate-controlled media has withheld this information from the public for a variety of nefarious reasons that I will discuss in another post.
Via LifeSiteNews.com:
UK toddler Alfie Evans allegedly died within hours of receiving four different drugs from a nurse at Alder Hey hospital, Italian media is reporting…
[A] nurse entered the child's cubicle after his father Tom had been called aside and gave him four drugs. A source close to the family told LifeSiteNews that these were injections that were administered to Alfie after Tom had been summoned for an unusual middle-of-the-night meeting with the hospital. The child died two hours later.
Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.
Alder Hey hospital doctors had previously conveyed to the Evans' family in a legal document how they intended to use a drug cocktail that included Midazolam and Fentanyl as part of Alfie's "end of life care plan." Side effects of the drugs included respiratory depression. Tom Evans called it an "execution plan" for his son.
Keep in mind that the hospital forced Alfie's parents to read a so-called "hostage letter" to the press, and they stated that the family would be punished because of the poor attitude of the parents who apparently didn't go along with the hospital's plan to murder their baby. As LifeSiteNews reports:
The day prior to Alfie's death, Tom Evans read to the press outside the hospital what is now being called by many a "hostage letter." In what appeared to be a forced statement, Tom read out a letter calling all the supporters of Alfie to go home and resume their lives. He thanked the hospital staff for their care of Alfie, even though just hours earlier he had attempted to have them charged with conspiracy to murder his son.
Read more at https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-01-alfie-evans-executed-by-lethal-injection-organ-harvesting-alder-hey.html.
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
I do not think you are arrogant because you don't believe in God. I think you are arrogant because you insist that your non-belief is the only logical position when it clearly is not.
If you were not arrogant you would be interested in deeply exploring the logical worldview and that results from competing a priori beliefs and exploring how they map to reality. You would also be deeply interested in analyzing your own worldview and subjecting it to the same process.
I don't mean to be insulting but you did imply that I have a mental disorder and needed to be "removed from society and locked up" so I don't think you have grounds to complain.
Your own worldview starts solidly enough with "To me if an action causes harm to yourself or other living organisms (humans included) it is immoral." Yet from there you prematurely stop your reflection assuming that this solitary metaphysical claim along with science is sufficient.
A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world.
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I am an engineer.
What you are asking is beyond my expertise.
If you want to talk science, I'm all yours.
No that may be your profession but that is not who you are.
You are Nietzsche's bloodless scholar a puppet for the ideas you so vociferously promote.
To borrow the words of Peterson you are a performative contradiction one who claims to live by an ethical code and then does not follow that code to its logical conclusion.
What you are is a hypocrite.
Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8
That is rich!!! LOL
A puppet, eh?
You have no idea who I am. I've been indoctrinated into Roman Catholic faith since my birth, was forced to study it until cows came home...
Guess what, then I turned 12 and started asking questions which no clergy could answer.
All religions are products of human imagination, desire to create a common goal, something to strive for. They create an instant trust among followers and distrust of disbelievers.
My logic lead me to my position, not the other way around. Your dogmatic metaphysical 'logic' is not logic an engineer or scientist can follow.
You can kick and scream, but in the end it is you that is empty handed. Not one tiny bit of evidence of God existence. Not one shred.
As I said multiple times, if the christian god was the real deal and there was evidence proving it you would see muslims and other religious people turn to Christianity all the time yet it doesn't happen just like people don't suddenly stop believing in their god to believe in another one because no one is looking for proof or evidence, they were indoctrinated that way just like you coincube.
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
I do not think you are arrogant because you don't believe in God. I think you are arrogant because you insist that your non-belief is the only logical position when it clearly is not.
If you were not arrogant you would be interested in deeply exploring the logical worldview and that results from competing a priori beliefs and exploring how they map to reality. You would also be deeply interested in analyzing your own worldview and subjecting it to the same process.
I don't mean to be insulting but you did imply that I have a mental disorder and needed to be "removed from society and locked up" so I don't think you have grounds to complain.
Your own worldview starts solidly enough with "To me if an action causes harm to yourself or other living organisms (humans included) it is immoral." Yet from there you prematurely stop your reflection assuming that this solitary metaphysical claim along with science is sufficient.
A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world.
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist. I am an engineer.
What you are asking is beyond my expertise.
If you want to talk science, I'm all yours.
No that may be your profession but that is not who you are.
You are Nietzsche's bloodless scholar a puppet for the ideas you so vociferously promote.
To borrow the words of Peterson you are a performative contradiction one who claims to live by an ethical code and then does not follow that code to its logical conclusion.
Unfortunately that makes you a hypocrite.
Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication.
Oh well at least he is somewhat funny. I must admit his little imaginary back and forth made me laugh.
Ultimately the inability or unwillingness of many atheists to even attempt an articulation of an integrated and coherent system of belief leads me to the conclusion that they are often hypocrites possessed by incomplete ideas and unwilling to explore the logical conclusions and assumptions of their own positions.
I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos recently as he is coming to my town next week and I have tickets to his presentation. I found this video on hypocrites particularly enlightening.
Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
Instead you use the metaphysics and philosophy to validate your condition. That is all you can do these days, I guess.
We cannot agree because we are talking about different things. Physics and metaphysics do not mix.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
If you want to argue about God existence first you have to define what 'God' is, then define what it means 'to exist'.
From where I stand, all religious conditions are psychological and in severe cases mental disorders. Fundamentalist religious freaks should be removed from society and locked up because they pose risk to themselves and others.
Being fascinated by the Bible is one thing, but to act out what the Bible recommends is criminal in most Western countries. I hope we can agree on that.
BTW, I don't know why Peterson is so fascinated with Dostoyevsky, I read Crime and Punishment, good book, I must say, but to say that there is something there to Rosolnikov's character and question of God, is a bit stretch. We go through our moral dilemmas based one what we believe. He would not kill the old lady if he used a simple principle: "Would my actions cause harm to others or myself?".
The problem is that you and many others won't take the time to critically analyze Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity... and the way they work together in this universe.
Entropy shows us that there was a beginning. If there wasn't a beginning, long ago everything would have dispersed, dissipated, and diffused into a gigantic mass of equilibrium, rather than the orderly mass of complexity that we have today. Stabs at suggesting that entropy is simply localized, and therefore not universal, are stabs that are contradicted by stellar observations all over the place.
Everything operates by C&E. This means that everything that happens has been set in place to happen that way, from the Beginning (entropy shows that there was a beginning). There are countless numbers of C&E actions, with nothing known to have happened without C&E. Everything is programming, nothing more. Even free will is artificial and programmed into us.
Complexity is so extremely great that we have artificial free will. And we barely realize it until we look at how C&E pervades everything.
Put these together, and you get God. How? Like this. The existence of the Beginning shows that something (or some non-thing) set the Beginning in place. C&E shows that it was very powerful to have set up something that would last as long as the universe by C&E action. Complexity is the key. Complexity of the universe, life, the human brain and mind, thought, the artificial free will, and everything else, shows that the Creator was intelligent beyond understanding, simply because our much lower intelligence exists via C&E, from the beginning.
Toss out your preconceived ideas of what the word "God" entails. Use the dictionary definition, but use the complete definition. Then consider all the vastness of our universe from the standpoint of the three major qualities that operate within it: C&E, entropy, and complexity. The Creator of the universe is God way beyond God in any way we can conceive of God.
When we honor Him even by simply realizing that He exists, He maintains our health in greater ways than normal, as a special gift to us for honoring Him.
First of all C&E only can be applied in temporal domain, i.e. when the cause predicates the effect. The time and space were created when the Big Bang happened. There was no time before the Big Bang so you cannot talk about the cause because there is no time for the cause to exist in.
Universe was not designed because it started as an explosion, it is still exploding in parts of the universe. The shear volume of space and time tells you that it was not designed. You do not design a system to have such positive feedback loops. It was an accident, not a design.
How do you go from complexity to God beats me? Nature is a violent set of events, a wild river that destroys its banks as it forms new shape and delivers new, slightly evolved species.
Science helps us understand how nature actually works.
Religion explains nature without understanding it.
Those two will never be able to reconcile. No matter how hard you try.
God exists in that small space behind and between your eyes, nowhere else.
You can talk all you want about the metaphysical God, but it will be always that. Your own thoughts and feelings. Nothing else.
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
I do not think you are arrogant because you don't believe in God. I think you are arrogant because you insist that your non-belief is the only logical position when it clearly is not.
If you were not arrogant you would be interested in deeply exploring the logical worldview and that results from competing a priori beliefs and exploring how they map to reality. You would also be deeply interested in analyzing your own worldview and subjecting it to the same process.
I don't mean to be insulting but you did imply that I have a mental disorder and needed to be "removed from society and locked up" so I don't think you have grounds to complain.
Your own worldview starts solidly enough with "To me if an action causes harm to yourself or other living organisms (humans included) it is immoral." Yet from there you prematurely stop your reflection assuming that this solitary metaphysical claim along with science is sufficient.
A true and honest evaluation would require you to fully build out your worldview and hold it up against alternatives. If you did so you would realize that your own ethic honestly followed would lead you to also accept God because at a minimum belief that you were being observed by God would minimize deviations from your ethic in the face of temptations. Ultimately via your own value system rejecting God is immoral because it increases the probability and amount of immoral action in the world.
Another problem is that you fail to recognize the limitations of science. Science cannot analyze your moral statement above because your claim is not a scientific one. Similarly, science cannot really provide the answers you claim it does about God because science a priori excludes all reference to divine.
What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.
Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.
*
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?
Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).
So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.
*
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.
Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.
How did this perception arise?
1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).
Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.
(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)
2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.
*
And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.
Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.
A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication.
Oh well at least he is somewhat funny. I must admit his little imaginary back and forth made me laugh.
Ultimately the inability or unwillingness of many atheists to even attempt an articulation of an integrated and coherent system of belief leads me to the conclusion that they are often hypocrites possessed by incomplete ideas and unwilling to explore the logical conclusions and assumptions of their own positions.
I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos recently as he is coming to my town next week and I have tickets to his presentation. I found this video on hypocrites particularly enlightening.
Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8
Problem is that you guys refuse to use science to analyze the possibility of God existence. Science is clear on the subject.
Instead you use the metaphysics and philosophy to validate your condition. That is all you can do these days, I guess.
We cannot agree because we are talking about different things. Physics and metaphysics do not mix.
You think I am arrogant and I dismiss your psychological claims to God existence. Problem is that we don't define "existence" to mean the same thing.
If you want to argue about God existence first you have to define what 'God' is, then define what it means 'to exist'.
From where I stand, all religious conditions are psychological and in severe cases mental disorders. Fundamentalist religious freaks should be removed from society and locked up because they pose risk to themselves and others.
Being fascinated by the Bible is one thing, but to act out what the Bible recommends is criminal in most Western countries. I hope we can agree on that.
BTW, I don't know why Peterson is so fascinated with Dostoyevsky, I read Crime and Punishment, good book, I must say, but to say that there is something there to Rosolnikov's character and question of God, is a bit stretch. We go through our moral dilemmas based one what we believe. He would not kill the old lady if he used a simple principle: "Would my actions cause harm to others or myself?".
The problem is that you and many others won't take the time to critically analyze Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity... and the way they work together in this universe.
Entropy shows us that there was a beginning. If there wasn't a beginning, long ago everything would have dispersed, dissipated, and diffused into a gigantic mass of equilibrium, rather than the orderly mass of complexity that we have today. Stabs at suggesting that entropy is simply localized, and therefore not universal, are stabs that are contradicted by stellar observations all over the place.
Everything operates by C&E. This means that everything that happens has been set in place to happen that way, from the Beginning (entropy shows that there was a beginning). There are countless numbers of C&E actions, with nothing known to have happened without C&E. Everything is programming, nothing more. Even free will is artificial and programmed into us.
Complexity is so extremely great that we have artificial free will. And we barely realize it until we look at how C&E pervades everything.
Put these together, and you get God. How? Like this. The existence of the Beginning shows that something (or some non-thing) set the Beginning in place. C&E shows that it was very powerful to have set up something that would last as long as the universe by C&E action. Complexity is the key. Complexity of the universe, life, the human brain and mind, thought, the artificial free will, and everything else, shows that the Creator was intelligent beyond understanding, simply because our much lower intelligence exists via C&E, from the beginning.
Toss out your preconceived ideas of what the word "God" entails. Use the dictionary definition, but use the complete definition. Then consider all the vastness of our universe from the standpoint of the three major qualities that operate within it: C&E, entropy, and complexity. The Creator of the universe is God way beyond God in any way we can conceive of God.
When we honor Him even by simply realizing that He exists, He maintains our health in greater ways than normal, as a special gift to us for honoring Him.
Keeping faith at a moderate level, religion can bring benefits such as lowering blood pressure, boosting the immune system and prolonging the life span.
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication.
Oh well at least he is somewhat funny. I must admit his little imaginary back and forth made me laugh.
Ultimately the inability or unwillingness of many atheists to even attempt an articulation of an integrated and coherent system of belief leads me to the conclusion that they are often hypocrites possessed by incomplete ideas and unwilling to explore the logical conclusions and assumptions of their own positions.
I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos recently as he is coming to my town next week and I have tickets to his presentation. I found this video on hypocrites particularly enlightening.
Nietzsche on how to spot Hypocrites - Jordan Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taF8yk7MRV8
LOL. You guys are in a cult.
...
I think you all have lost your mind. I really do.
...
Now you are just letting your anti-religious hatred get the better of you.
You asked a question and I provided three slightly different but interestingly similar answers.
Between the three of them probably capture the views of several billion of your fellow thinking and reasoning human beings and your reply is that I am in cult?
You should turn that criticism on yourself.
Here is a simplified mathematical summary of our recent discussions.
CoinCube: If A then B.
af_newbie: A is false.
CoinCube: A cannot be disproven.
af_newbie: A is false.
CoinCube: Not A leads to terrible consequences.
af_newbie: A is false. Extinction and death is inevitable.
CoinCube: You have not presented an alternative to A.
af_newbie: A is false... Humans suffer therefore Not A.
CoinCube: Here are three different reasons Humans may suffer yet A.
af_newbie: You are in A CULT! ... A is false
CoinCube: Have a nice day?
af_newbie: A is false.
More like:
CoinCube: If A then B.
af_newbie: A does not exist
CoinCube: A might exist, you are wrong. You are looking in the wrong places.
af_newbie: Provide any evidence that A exist.
CoinCube: I cannot. Nobody can. You cannot prove that A does not exist or that A does exist.
af_newbie: So what are we talking about?
CoinCube: Methaphysical substrate that is embedded in all of us.
af_newbie: Say whaat? Sorry, I just fell of my chair. I am back.
CoinCube: Metaphysics supplements science and allows us to learn the real truth about A
af_newbie: But I am convinced that A does not exist. What do I do wrong? Where is my mistake?
CoinCube: Well, it does, all of us are made in the image of A
af_newbie: Sorry, we have to take 5 here, your medication is coming...
CoinCube: Ok, let's talk some more, meanwhile watch some videos about methaphysical attibutes.
af_newbie: Yeah, sure. Take it easy. Don't drive any heavy machinery.
CoinCube: Ok. God Bless. 'Angels on your body'...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9-Wcy6zzQ
What's the matter? You can't come up with anything logical, so you start to badmouth and criticize Coincube, right? Sounds like you have been on too much medication.
Why do people care so much about religion?
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2018/04/why-do-people-care-so-much-about.html?m=1
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2018/04/why-do-people-care-so-much-about.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Because they Do.
Naturally, people care more about religion than any other 'big idea' - more than about politics, nations... and certainly more than about their own comfort, convenience, peace and prosperity.
Naturally...
But it is probable that the reader finds this an incredible, perhaps ridiculous, idea. Probable that he looks within himself and observes: "Well, I don't care much or anything about religion!"
That may well be true. Because this blog is read mostly in the West, in developed nations, among the intellectual or leadership class - and this class of people (including you, me...) are mentally sick.
They (we) are insane - as can be seen from their behaviour; which is not just passively indifferent to the primary realities of life (marriage, family - as well as religion); and passively doing nothing to sustain the living conditions they supposedly value (for example science, technology, education, law have all been allowed to become destroyed, utterly, by politics) -- but they are also strategically destroying themselves and their living conditions by multiple active means...
(I mean: Politically correct leftist policies of many types from socialism, multi-culti, diversity, antiracism, and the sexual revolution; through mass immigration, through the global warming fraud, to deliberate incitement of civil and international conflict by systematic propaganda of resentment, entitlement, fear...)
In fact - religion is the One And Only Big Idea that people naturally, spontaneously care about.
Delete religion (or alternatively corrupt, subvert and invert it) and the result is simple demotivation and despair - alleviated by self-distraction, aimed-at suicide.
Our culture has deleted religion. Modern political 'substitutes' simply don't work - because nobody really cares about politics.
They just don't - politics is almost-entirely a mixture of covert selfishness, idle gossip and projection; which are insufficiently strong motivators - and insofar as politics is a real motivator it is feeble, unstable, subjective - useless for the heavy-stuff of living.
*
Why do people care so much about religion?
Why wouldn't they? Because religion is real (albeit distorted fragments of reality); and religion is about truth, life, consciousness - the fundamental assumption - and these are necessary.
And nothing else except religion even tries to provide them.
Of course there has been frequent, massive and hostile disagreements about religion in the past... but never the idea that religion didn't matter.
Never that religion was purely subjective.
Never the idea that religion could simply be deleted from Man and Society, and this deletion would actually improve Man and Society!...
That's just crazy. As religious people can see all around.
It amounts to the cardinal sign of insanity - lack of insight... The non religious are so crazy that they cannot perceive the fact - it's the one fact they cannot perceive; despite the chaos in their minds and the chaos all around.
So crazy that each individual supposes he is the only sane thing in a mad universe...
And the escape begins with recognising that fact.
Naturally, people care more about religion than any other 'big idea' - more than about politics, nations... and certainly more than about their own comfort, convenience, peace and prosperity.
Naturally...
But it is probable that the reader finds this an incredible, perhaps ridiculous, idea. Probable that he looks within himself and observes: "Well, I don't care much or anything about religion!"
That may well be true. Because this blog is read mostly in the West, in developed nations, among the intellectual or leadership class - and this class of people (including you, me...) are mentally sick.
They (we) are insane - as can be seen from their behaviour; which is not just passively indifferent to the primary realities of life (marriage, family - as well as religion); and passively doing nothing to sustain the living conditions they supposedly value (for example science, technology, education, law have all been allowed to become destroyed, utterly, by politics) -- but they are also strategically destroying themselves and their living conditions by multiple active means...
(I mean: Politically correct leftist policies of many types from socialism, multi-culti, diversity, antiracism, and the sexual revolution; through mass immigration, through the global warming fraud, to deliberate incitement of civil and international conflict by systematic propaganda of resentment, entitlement, fear...)
In fact - religion is the One And Only Big Idea that people naturally, spontaneously care about.
Delete religion (or alternatively corrupt, subvert and invert it) and the result is simple demotivation and despair - alleviated by self-distraction, aimed-at suicide.
Our culture has deleted religion. Modern political 'substitutes' simply don't work - because nobody really cares about politics.
They just don't - politics is almost-entirely a mixture of covert selfishness, idle gossip and projection; which are insufficiently strong motivators - and insofar as politics is a real motivator it is feeble, unstable, subjective - useless for the heavy-stuff of living.
*
Why do people care so much about religion?
Why wouldn't they? Because religion is real (albeit distorted fragments of reality); and religion is about truth, life, consciousness - the fundamental assumption - and these are necessary.
And nothing else except religion even tries to provide them.
Of course there has been frequent, massive and hostile disagreements about religion in the past... but never the idea that religion didn't matter.
Never that religion was purely subjective.
Never the idea that religion could simply be deleted from Man and Society, and this deletion would actually improve Man and Society!...
That's just crazy. As religious people can see all around.
It amounts to the cardinal sign of insanity - lack of insight... The non religious are so crazy that they cannot perceive the fact - it's the one fact they cannot perceive; despite the chaos in their minds and the chaos all around.
So crazy that each individual supposes he is the only sane thing in a mad universe...
And the escape begins with recognising that fact.
LOL. You guys are in a cult.
...
I think you all have lost your mind. I really do.
...
Now you are just letting your anti-religious hatred get the better of you.
You asked a question and I provided three slightly different but interestingly similar answers.
Between the three of them we probably capture the views of several billion of your fellow thinking and reasoning human beings and your reply is that I am in cult?
You should turn that criticism on yourself.
Here is a simplified mathematical summary of our recent discussions.
CoinCube: If A then B.
af_newbie: A is false.
CoinCube: A cannot be disproven.
af_newbie: A is false.
CoinCube: Not A leads to terrible consequences.
af_newbie: A is false. Extinction and death is inevitable.
CoinCube: You have not presented an alternative to A.
af_newbie: A is false... Humans suffer therefore Not A.
CoinCube: Here are three different reasons Humans may suffer yet A.
af_newbie: You are in A CULT! ... A is false
CoinCube: Have a nice day?
af_newbie: A is false.
Jump to: