Why is there religion???

[william.scherk]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Did those babies have it coming? Did their mother?

See Greg's earlier work on the travails of Egypt, the mandate to kill all first-born.  

[PDS]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Bob's not an idiot. If you say and/or imply you believe in "God" he takes you at your literal word. You have no argument to win on that level, especially when your statements get too broad. Many Jews gave up their belief in a Supreme Being because of the Holocaust. It's kind of hard to make sense of the idea that the victims of Nazism had it coming to them as did the additional 65 million victims of WWII-- and those were just the ones killed.

Looking through my father's files the day before yesterday, I found a poem written by my his mother--whom I never knew (she died in an accident in 1938)--lamenting the loss of her two baby boys in 1904. (Streetcar hit by a train in Defiance, Ohio. She also lost her sister and she was injured.) Did those babies have it coming? Did their mother?

--Brant

I look forward to Greg's answer to this question.   

[moralist]

16 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Bob's not an idiot. If you say and/or imply you believe in "God" he takes you at your literal word. You have no argument to win on that level, especially when your statements get too broad. Many Jews gave up their belief in a Supreme Being because of the Holocaust. It's kind of hard to make sense of the idea that the victims of Nazism had it coming to them as did the additional 65 million victims of WWII-- and those were just the ones killed.

Looking through my father's files the day before yesterday, I found a poem written by his mother--whom I never knew (she died in an accident in 1938)--lamenting the loss of her two baby boys in 1904. (Streetcar hit by a train in Defiance, Ohio. She also lost her sister and she was injured.) Did those babies have it coming? Did their mother?

--Brant

Sorry, Brant...

...but people like Bob who are pissed at God for the evil that people do, are idiots.

Babies who are not old enough to be personally responsible for their actions,

are subject to the consequences set into motion by the actions of their parents

who are personally responsible for them.

I don't understand how any of you could have children and not know this most basic fundamental fact of life.

 

Greg

 

 

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, moralist said:

Sorry, Brant...

...but people like Bob who are pissed at God for the evil that people do, are idiots.

Babies who are not old enough to be personally responsible for their actions,

are subject to the consequences set into motion by the actions of their parents

who are personally responsible for them.

I don't understand how any of you could have children and not know this most basic fundamental fact of life.

 

Greg

 

 

 

 

If G-D exists then It is what It is.  Epicurus  has proved (to my satisfaction) the G-D  is not both Good and Competent (if It exists at all).  So if G-D exists  then G-D is either un-Good  or incompetent.  That is a matter of logic,  not anger.  The Christians who claim both God is Good and God is Competent are selling a bogus package.   If G-D does not exist   then G-D is neither Good nor Competent.   The question of G-D's existence is empirically indeterminate.  No  evidence either way. Believe what you will. 

As to the human origins of Evil,  I have not a doubt.  The is no Evil in Nature.  Nature is what it is.  On the other hand  there are humans who know X is Evil but do X anyway for some X.

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If G-D exists then It is what It is.  Epicurus  has proved (to my satisfaction) the G-D  is not both Good and Competent (if It exists at all).  So if G-D exists  then G-D is either un-Good  or incompetent.  That is a matter of logic,  not anger.  The Christians who claim both God is Good and God is Competent are selling a bogus package.   If G-D does not exist   then G-D is neither Good nor Competent.   The question of G-D's existence is empirically indeterminate.  No  evidence either way. Believe what you will. 

As to the human origins of Evil,  I have not a doubt.  The is no Evil in Nature.  Nature is what it is.  On the other hand  there are humans who know X is Evil but do X anyway for some X.

Bob, you seem either to believe in God or are afraid or Him or respect Him for you spell God "G_D."

Agnosticism gets no respect around here for contributing to an argument for it's weaseling and corrupts attempts at rational discourse.

Are you an atheist? If not Greg is one up on you for he accepts God as a reality metaphor. Thus it makes no difference if he also believes in an old white guy with a beard up in the sky. He's also up on you for you refuse to understand and accept his use of God in these discussions as a metaphor for reality so you keep arguing with a straw man.

--Brant

[Peter]

G D is short for God Damn. Greg is a monster to gleefully report that it is the parent's fault for their murders. That is truly repugnant American Taliban reporting. If God or the pharaoh are believed to be the murderers and Greg agrees that there deaths are just or explainable because they were warned what does that say about Greg?

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[Brant Gaede]

9 minutes ago, Peter said:

G D is short for God Damn. Greg is a monster to gleefully report that it is the parent's fault for their murders. That is truly repugnant American Taliban reporting. If God or the pharaoh are believed to be the murderers and Greg agrees that there deaths are just or explainable because they were warned what does that say about Greg?

Peter

Oh, it's not that bad. Greg's brain doesn't work well enough to see your conclusion so he avoids moral opprobrium. It works pretty good elsewhere. My own brain would come up short if I tried to discuss advanced math with a math PhD and lecture him about what he knows and I have not a real clue, so I don't. The older I get the working smarter I get and the more I understand about what I don't understand--that is, how ignorant I am. I was hardly so modest when I was 12 years old.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Bob, you seem either to believe in God or are afraid or Him or respect Him for you spell God "G_D."

Agnosticism gets no respect around here for contributing to an argument for it's weaseling and corrupts attempts at rational discourse.

Are you an atheist? If not Greg is one up on you for he accepts God as a reality metaphor. Thus it makes no difference if he also believes in an old white guy with a beard up in the sky. He's also up on you for you refuse to understand and accept his use of God in these discussions as a metaphor for reality so you keep arguing with a straw man.

--Brant

Jewish custom. 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Bob, you seem either to believe in God or are afraid or Him or respect Him for you spell God "G_D."

Agnosticism gets no respect around here for contributing to an argument for it's weaseling and corrupts attempts at rational discourse.

Are you an atheist? If not Greg is one up on you for he accepts God as a reality metaphor. Thus it makes no difference if he also believes in an old white guy with a beard up in the sky. He's also up on you for you refuse to understand and accept his use of God in these discussions as a metaphor for reality so you keep arguing with a straw man.

--Brant

I am not convinced G-D exists.  However I  have no proof that G-D does not exist.  The question of the existence of G-D is empirically up in the air.

Now I do buy into Jewish ethics unreservedly.   Jewish Ethics is the Gold Standard of human ethical thinking.  That means I respect property, life and my default with non-hostile strangers is to be polite.   I subscribe to the Golden Rule as  R. Hillel stated it:  Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

I believe in settling all conflicts with others  by peaceful reasonable means - if possible.  I also believe what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.  

[Peter]

Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

Well, what schmuck would not subscribe to that? It is understandable on the playground level.

Now here is a mystery for Shalom, the Israeli detective (Seen on The BBC, Tuesdays at nine.) I have several cats, either male, or neutered, or both. Two females have lived I would guess in someone’s house or garage about a quarter a mile away across the 7 acre woods. They still “come home” a couple of times a month, but lately, they are here all the time. Shalom, it is your job to find out what has happened to turn their lives upside down. Don’t knock on doors and do not mention my name.

Shimon Mattityahu, The Beaver.

[Brant Gaede]

21 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am not convinced G-D exists.  However I  have no proof that G-D does not exist.  The question of the existence of G-D is empirically up in the air.

If you don't know you can't prove a negative what else you know about logic and reasoning is going to be pretty weak for its practical usability.

Empirically all negative propositions are up in the air--there are no other possible homes for them.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Jewish custom. 

So I asked my (Jewish) co-worker if I converted to Judaism if I'd get a Bar Mitzvah. "Nope," he replied. But the rabbi has this knife . . .

--Brant

that was the end of that

[moralist]

20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 G-D  is not both Good and Competent...

You have the freedom to blame God for the self inflicted consequences of your own incompetence, Bob.

Do you also angrily blame gravity because you're stupid enough to step off of a cliff? 

Same thing. Both are total abdications of personal responsibility for what your own actions set into motion.

 

(hint: the god you're angrily blaming doesn't exist...    )

Greg

[moralist]

12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am not convinced G-D exists.

...and nothing has the power to convince you except direct personal experience of the consequences of your own actions.

 

Greg

[Jonathan]

On May 12, 2016 at 11:58 AM, william.scherk said:

See Greg's earlier work on the travails of Egypt, the mandate to kill all first-born.  

OMG, Apey Jethro cracks me up! He has the brain power of a four-year-old!

We should try to find ways to get him and Tony to argue (more often than they have). There's nothing more fascinating than watching an argument between two excessively stupid, incoherent people, who are incapable of logic, having an argument in which neither is anywhere near to identifying reality and being right. It's fun to try to evaluate which is slightly less insanely, retardedly wrong.

J

[Max]

On Friday May 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I am not convinced G-D exists.  However I  have no proof that G-D does not exist.  The question of the existence of G-D is empirically up in the air.

Neither is there proof that Zeus doesn't exist, so the question of the existence of Zeus is also empirically up in the air. I just keep it simple and say that both don't exist.

[BaalChatzaf]

5 minutes ago, Max said:

Neither is there proof that Zeus doesn't exist, so the question of the existence of Zeus is also empirically up in the air. I just keep it simple and say that both don't exist.

I say I have no evidence for their existence. 

[anthony]

On 2016/05/12 at 6:58 PM, william.scherk said:

See Greg's earlier work on the travails of Egypt, the mandate to kill all first-born.  

Well, if anyone cares to understand what this concerns, Greg is right. Switch God for reality and take Faith out of the equation, and he's correct. That Biblical passage may be an object lesson to others not religious.

To give an example. Somebody said here once, "But no children deserved to die". I thought about that after, and concluded that there was a quasi-mystical premise in his use of that "deserved". I.e. I think, some atheists/agnostics still subconsciously carry the notion of a Higher Judge who decides what is Justice for mankind, based on our "Goodness". (I'm seeing more in this thread quite similar).

The context was a war in the ME in which one population gave total support to their leaders' aggression - against another country, 10000 X more powerful militarily and who could crush them easily, but who'd rather live in peace. Children died in that conflict. Ongoing and since then, I have seen a dozen film clips of 6+ y.o. kids being trained with toy weapons in military tactics and filled with hatred to kill Jews , while Gazan women and mothers look on fondly and applaud them. They are fully behind creating their kids' empty futures and likely sacrifice. 

"Deserve". "Consequences". Dead simple: one deserves punishing consequences if one tries to thwart reality at all, or too often. ("God's Punishment"). The consequence of anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-value actions is that something is lost or someone gets hurt. (Distinct from this, are unforseen accidents, which will happen with the best will and rationality in the world). But if you take your child into a tiger's cage, you deserve the consequences. If you can't identify and assess ("God's authority") facts and ignore one warning after another and evade the evidence of your eyes, you are naturally going to sacrifice a child, your purported 'value', and in reality, you deserve it. You deserve your child's death, by not placing value in him (and initially yourself).

At far less extreme levels of danger, one should not project one's own values and assume all other parents equally value their children as highest value; children are innocent dependents who sometimes do pay for immoral, self-less parents.

[BaalChatzaf]

41 minutes ago, anthony said:

Well, if anyone cares to understand what this concerns, Greg is right. Switch God for reality and take Faith out of the equation, and he's correct. That Biblical passage may be an object lesson to others not religious.

To give an example. Somebody said here once, "But no children deserved to die". I thought about that after, and concluded that there was a quasi-mystical premise in his use of that "deserved". I.e. I think, some atheists/agnostics still subconsciously carry the notion of a Higher Judge who decides what is Justice for mankind, based on our "Goodness". (I'm seeing more in this thread quite similar).

The context was a war in the ME in which one population gave total support to their leaders' aggression - against another country, 10000 X more powerful militarily and who could crush them easily, but who'd rather live in peace. Children died in that conflict. Ongoing and since then, I have seen a dozen film clips of 6+ y.o. kids being trained with toy weapons in military tactics and filled with hatred to kill Jews , while Gazan women and mothers look on fondly and applaud them. They are fully behind creating their kids' empty futures and likely sacrifice. 

"Deserve". "Consequences". Dead simple: one deserves punishing consequences if one tries to thwart reality at all, or too often. ("God's Punishment"). The consequence of anti-reality, anti-mind, anti-value actions is that something is lost or someone gets hurt. (Distinct from this, are unforseen accidents, which will happen with the best will and rationality in the world). But if you take your child into a tiger's cage, you deserve the consequences. If you can't identify and assess ("God's authority") facts and ignore one warning after another and evade the evidence of your eyes, you are naturally going to sacrifice a child, your purported 'value', and in reality, you deserve it. You deserve your child's death, by not placing value in him (and initially yourself).

At far less extreme levels of danger, one should not project one's own values and assume all other parents equally value their children as highest value; children are innocent dependents who sometimes do pay for immoral, self-less parents.

In physical reality there is no "deserving".  There is just cause and effect.  Morality is a  human artifact.  There not a trace of morality in physical laws. 

[Brant Gaede]

human beings are moral beings because of their biology. Biology is the result of physical laws.

Moral is the basic category. The two subsidiary categories are moral and immoral. Some say there's a third--the amoral.

Your morality as an "artifact" is the true artifact. Morality is thoroughly a part of human nature as in the aforementioned "basic category." Morality as a human construct is validated by how well it matches up to man qua man (not men, not women, not children).

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

OMG, Apey Jethro cracks me up! He has the brain power of a four-year-old!

We should try to find ways to get him and Tony to argue (more often than they have). There's nothing more fascinating than watching an argument between two excessively stupid, incoherent people, who are incapable of logic, having an argument in which neither is anywhere near to identifying reality and being right. It's fun to try to evaluate which is slightly less insanely, retardedly wrong.

J

Doesn't sound like the quest for the Holy Grail.

--Brant

[moralist]

57 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In physical reality there is no "deserving". 

If that's true...  there can be no objective right and wrong. There can only be subjective opinions... none of which have any greater validity than any other.

Bob's  secular dream world... a world devoid of Conscience or moral accountability..

 

Greg

[moralist]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

. Switch God for reality and take Faith out of the equation, and he's correct.

There's no problem for me to substitute objective reality for God and to remove faith, because I don't have faith in God. I know He exists by my own direct personal experience of His physical and moral laws which govern the operation of objective reality.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, moralist said:

If that's true...  there can be no objective right and wrong. There can only be subjective opinions... none of which have any greater validity than any other.

Bob's  secular dream world... a world devoid of Conscience or moral accountability..

 

Greg

I know the difference between human made and natural made.  You apparently do not....  There is nothing in the physical laws of nature that has moral import.