Ancient Bible fragments reveal a forgotten history

Screw physics, I'm basing my entire understanding of the universe on this piece of paper.

Oh wait, that would be ridiculous!

Screw physics, I'm basing my entire understanding of the universe on this piece of paper.

Oh wait, that would be ridiculous!

lol

"If what I see with my own eyes contradicts this piece of paper... my eyes must be broken."

Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He wrote in a letter that he would be considered an atheist by a priest. His god was the univerese. And opposing religious dogma for any reason is not bigotry, just opposition. These documents prove nothing about the truth of any religion.

is it too much to ask for a little personal restraint and some respectful silence when one disagrees?

No one said a word about physics. While I vehemently oppose those who use religion to distort science, I also abhor those who denigrate religion simply because they do not believe. Academic integrity is admirable but bigotry in the name of science is just as bad as ignorance in the name of religion. Don't forget that scientific luminaries such as Albert Einstein made strong statements in support of their religious faith. In takes a very narrow mind to deny science in the name of religion; it takes a truly small mind to deny faith in the name of science.

CarolinaScotsman - I understand your reasoning, but your logic is incredibly bad.

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945.

Unfortunately, the religious have managed to make it politically incorrect to even question their beliefs, as if it is hands off. Well, it is not!

Why would you want to question non-falsifiable statements?

Btw, you are generalizing with "the religious have managed". I question that you have scholarly knowledge of all religions. Seems you mean "some religious have managed".

Again, religion and science are not separate domains.

Religion makes claims about our physical world all the time that can be debunked.

No, religion is poison, not to be respected. We should not respect irrational beliefs. Yes, some great people were religious, but this does not speak for the religion. Einstein made great contributions because he was a great scientist. A great mind denies faith, for faith requires little or no thought.

A great mind denies faith, for faith requires little or no thought. - trekgeek1

"The translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE is said to be one of the most lasting achievements of the Jewish civilization - without it, Christianity might not have spread as quickly and as successfully as it did,

The point is, debunking is no obstacle to religious belief while it is the cornerstone of science.

Very questionable statement this.

Maybe it applies to the ideal "Science"

Let's take the simple case of the existence of comets - by all known laws of physics, there shouldn't be any, not after 4 billion years.

Comets only have a lifespan of max 100K years so these objects should have disappeared from the scene long before man got to observe them. Yet here they are. So what do the scientists do in the face of such damning physical evidence? They find NO OBSTACLE to invent an Oort cloud to supply comets.

You don't get rid of willful ignorance by tolerating it in any way or any form. Information - good or bad has to stand up to ridicule.

No one said a word about physics. While I vehemently oppose those who use religion to distort science, I also abhor those who denigrate religion simply because they do not believe. Academic integrity is admirable but bigotry in the name of science is just as bad as ignorance in the name of religion. Don't forget that scientific luminaries such as Albert Einstein made strong statements in support of their religious faith. In takes a very narrow mind to deny science in the name of religion; it takes a truly small mind to deny faith in the name of science.

Someone might call my sister ugly. I might hit them. In a world that has seen myriad wars because of religion is it too much to ask for a little personal restraint and some respectful silence when one disagrees? Or if you must say something, simply state your own beliefs without making fun of or denigrating someone else.

This absolutely fabulous [as from fables] thing has never been observed and also from all known physics even if it does, the clumps it could supply would be of the wrong size and not enough in number.

Unfortunately, the religious have managed to make it politically incorrect to even question their beliefs, as if it is hands off. Well, it is not!

Why would you want to question non-falsifiable statements?

I agree with this post of your's almost 100% and you might find it interesting to know that Christ would have as well.

Maybe you should read a little of what He said instead of having an understanding of what He said based on the false teachers in the pulpits for pay.

Bibles are easy to find, you might try reading what Christ said for yourself. Peace.

I've said this before, religion and science are two totally seperate disciplines. Niether one should be judged by the other.

The Bible does depart from current laws of physics, but if God has the powers indicated in the Bible, then he would also have the power to change or at least temporarily suspend the laws of physics, space, and time...which would go a long way to explaining the discrepancies between the events of the Bible and the current laws of physics.

There are 45+ testaments that were excluded from the bible by Constantine and company.

Luke 16:17, Jesus declares that all the vicious, irrational laws of the Old Testament are binding forever.
Matt 18:25, advocation of slavery by Jesus.

Mark 6:11, threats of infanticide and genocide from your gentle Jesus.

The passage in question is a parable, also known as an analogy, and in itself does not show Jesus advocating slavery. You lie.

What is described here is divine judgment based on criminal acts and the fact that the people, such as yourself, have willfully rejected God's one and only option of forgiveness.

you want to fault God for enforcing moral law,

We eliminate murderers for the protection of those who are at least half-way decent.

The point of that parable was the enslavement of those who had an ideological disagreement with Christianity,

QC, answer me this.

Why would God give you a brain, and then tell you not to use it? Just answer that for me, clearly, succinctly, and in one post. No bullshit and scripture necessary, jsut tell me why he'd give you all the tools of reason and then punish you for using them. Don't say the devil does it, because that just leads right back to your "creator of everything, who has a plan".

And that doesn't make it a moral act

Why is it that people learn to write and sculpt and the first thing they do is write a "bible" and make an idol?

I know that love is a real thing though, but I can't prove it.

He wouldn't and doesn't.

It's precisely because I use my brain that I know and believe God exists.

You can't even read this passage correctly, of which the meaning is widely known and accepted in all denominations of christianity, and yet it requires about a second or third grade reading comprehension, and you can't even do that.

If you end up having to kill some lunatic in self defense

I know that love is a real thing though, but I can't prove it.
But you can demonstrate it

Justification is not morality

Oh yeah? Prove that you exist.

However, because murder does exist, good people sometimes have to kill evil people in order to prevent them from doing worse than they already have. I think this is pretty obvious, though for some reason you seem not to cmprehend this fact.

It is a realization and a cry that a great injustice has been done, and that those responsible must pay for their crimes.

This was basicly the "original" Holocaust, and based on context from the writings elsewhere in the Bible, somewhere on the order of 8 or 9 million Jews, perhaps even more, were killed

Well the screen name known as Skeptical Heretic certainly does exist

There is a church in St Joseph Missouri where they actually require members to submit the previous year's tax forms and then have a tithe direct withdrawn from the bank based on a percentage of income. I think that's just beautiful. ..They have guys rip telephone books in half and hold snakes on stage. The minister has a jet.

Moreover, if you would simply READ the entire Bible in context, and let scripture interpret scripture, you woldn't get so confused about what is going on.

You'll find elsewhere that we are told point blank that God does not punish the children for the sins of the fathers, and so on.

No matter how much of reality you can explain without invoking God, there is always a point at which our understanding of reality breaks down and you are left with only the possibility of something supernatural.

How do you even define existence, without being circular?

There weren't 8 or 9 million Jews at the time.

Now do you want to cite the passage that states that children won't be "killed" for the sins of the father?

there were several million at the time of the Exodus some ~800 years earlier.

There were also over a million million at the time of the census which David illegally performed, several hundred years earlier, and at that time.

He is not referring to any decendents who don't hate him...

The sum total of observed and demonstrated experience

And now we know for a fact you've never read the Bible...

This is exactly why I recently made a comment on here that no true Christian should attend "Church".

there were several million at the time of the Exodus

I accidentally typed Million twice,

You can read the thing for yourself, the numbering of the people in Exodus

several places in Judges and the book of...numbers

and in the kings and chronicles consistently gives the population well into the millions

only counting able-bodied, military age males

If you don't want to believe the historical documents of the people who were actually alive at the time

A prophet in the Bible posed much the same question, in rhetorical form, as part of God's indictment against the apostates in Israel, in Isaiah 44:9.

You see, the real prophet from the real God is mocking the fakes

Read the rest of the post in which I added the amounts given in the Bible of 1,100,000 plust 470,000 and then pointed out they only counted 10 of the 12 tribes, so I added those together and then "estimated" another 20% to figure for two more tribes, giving 1,900,000 military aged, armed, able-bodied males.

Moreover, if you would simply READ the entire Bible in context, and let scripture interpret scripture, you woldn't get so confused about what is going on.

There were never 2M jews in Goshen, per archeology. This one of the many facts which proves that your bible is full of lies.

Xerxes set out in the spring of 480 BC from Sardis with a fleet and army which Herodotus claimed was more than two million strong with at least 10,000 elite warriors named Persian Immortals. Xerxes was victorious during the initial battles

Why everyone assumes population in the ancient world was a few dozen is beyond comprehension.

Xerxes set out in the spring of 480 BC from Sardis with a fleet and army which Herodotus claimed was more than two million strong with at least 10,000 elite warriors named Persian Immortals. Xerxes was victorious during the initial battles

Just to put in perspective, the numbers are not without similar examples from the same time period.

"400 trillion"

Produce an example of the number 1 million from before the Greek empire in an original document. Won't happen....No, you can't.

2.Genesis 24:60
And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them

Then after just ten generations the population of the tenth generation alone has mulitplied 1000 times over the first generation.

...estimated population for certain geographies based on multiple verifiable methods as compared to the counts provided in your bible.

Yeah, let's not use a nation's own census to count their population at a given time frame. Let's just make up some number you pulled out of the air, about like all the other crap in modern dating and archeology.

SH made a mistake in asking you to show a passage that contradicted the passage he quoted about the sins of the fathers being visited on the sons

the funny thing though is that your response, though refuting his specific point

Yeah, let's not use a nation's own census to count their population at a given time frame. Let's just make up some number you pulled out of the air, about like all the other crap in modern dating and archeology.

You discarding the Biblical text accounts

And yeah, war and human sacrifice are probably, almost certainly, the number 1 and 2 reasons world population stayed as low as it did as long as it did.

The spartans, that all of modern western civilization idolize, used to take their new born babies and thow them out in the wilderness for a few days to see if they died.

I guess it's no wonder that a modern culture that worships greco-roman "classics" wouldn't find much of anything wrong with abortion after all.

And what is the obsession with cultures that practiced human sacrifice anyway?

And what is the obsession with cultures that practiced human sacrifice anyway?

Why would you want to question non-falsifiable statements?

The majority of the statements

And what is the obsession with cultures that practiced human sacrifice anyway?

You mean like Abraham?

Why would you want to question non-falsifiable statements?

The majority of the statements

...
Your statements are agreeable. Their juxtapositioning with my question, however, is not, as they are not answering that question.

I cannot speak for SH's motives, but I can speak for my own. QC is clearly past help and will not see the light of day no matter how many times he completely fails to argue on these boards (er, comment pages). However, others read these comments, and so it is worth addressing utterly false statements which he makes.

On average, those who claim secularism or atheism are more aware of the content of the Bible, probably because we have actually read it, as opposed to having it read to us selectively.

I wouldn't claim to "have actually read the Bible" as long as I don't have read the Greek and Hebrew sources.
That's opposed to have read some selected translations.
Read the stories of the septuagint and the hexapla to get an impression of the meaning of Bible translations.

For example: I can carve up all of GW Bush's speeches and selectively present them

So you're saying that people tend to ignore certain unpleasant parts of the bible in favor of other parts which they like? For example, we might not want to be too vocal about what the bible says about women and their place in life?

And what is the obsession with cultures that practiced human sacrifice anyway?

You mean like Abraham?

You know, let's remove Abraham, because he didn't actually do it and you can justify that however you want, but Christianity on the whole is based on human sacrifice.

Without a martyred Christ, there's no forgiveness for Christians.

because murder does exist, good people sometimes have to kill evil people in order to prevent them from doing worse than they already have

if you do not forgive everyone their trespasses then God won't forgive you of your trespasses. Lk. 11:4, Matt. 6:14.

Screw physics, I'm basing my entire understanding of the universe on this piece of paper.

Oh wait, that would be ridiculous!

I can never understand why true believers (who ARE NOT rank hypocrites at heart) even bother with self-defense, or medicine, or mourning for the dead: they should WELCOME and CELEBRATE death, as passage out of toil and into bliss!

loss of a friend

self defense is permitted as long as the intent is to neutralize an aggressor without killing them

Nothing prohibits the use of medicine

You can mock God all you want,

but you better be really sure you have it right.

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

IF so then prove it to yourself and make damn sure you get it right for you own sake

Quibble about the Bible all you want. Pick on mistakes and mis-understandings all you want. It is written in a way that makes no sense to unbelivers.

The Old Testament is the old agreement between God and man. Christ established a new agreement which is why the Jewish leaders at the time wanted Him dead.

I treat cancer patients of all beliefs and I do it with love and compassion for all.

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

Quibble about the Bible all you want.

Pick on mistakes and mis-understandings all you want.

It is written in a way that makes no sense to unbelivers.

Once someone comes to believe then they can understand it.

"My sheep know me and they hear my voice".

I treat cancer patients of all beliefs and I do it with love and compassion for all. I judge no one.

The look of peace on a believer's face as they pass into the next life

the look of terror on the unbeliver when they realized that they have made a terrible mistake.

You can mock God all you want

Can you prove God doesn't exist?

In this view, self defense is permitted as long as the intent is to neutralize an aggressor without killing them.

How does *anything* matter at all, when we're talking about ~70 years of lifespan vs. INFINITY in afterlife?

That would at least argue pretty solidly against capital punishment.

Well, there are a few sects who might beg to differ.

Who are you to presume to dodge bullets sent at you by the almighty and mysterious ghost?

Would you actually let all who believe in him be killed off in his name?

You're no different from any other fanatic with the propensity for violence written into your book, just waiting for the opportunity to be used... For your lovegod. Hypocrite.

It may be inconsequential relative to eternity, but in the present we feel the loss just like anyone else.

I do not believe in capital punishment.

Disagreement is common among people.

God's help in the form of human knowledge

Christ established a new agreement which is why the Jewish leaders at the time wanted Him dead.

And you just demonstrated your bigotry and hatred.

Believers should just keep their faith to themselves, its a personal choice anyway and when you speak/write in defense of it your reveal a little naivety if not outright ignorance

But WHY should you? Do you "feel the loss" every time you say goodbye to a friend in full knowledge that you'll see them again just a few days later?

"Feeling the loss" betrays a lack of true faith and conviction, IMHO. Same goes for the fear of death: true believers ought to be utterly fearless.

I do not believe in capital punishment.

Then don't you find it strange that a country like USA does, even while being overwhelmingly Christian and much more ardently religious than most others?

So is there a True Faith in a True Ghost?

God's help in the form of human knowledge

Isn't that the Forbidden Fruit?

Not really. Many people believe in an "eye for an eye". I cannot justify something I do not believe. Ask them to justify it to you.

No. The forbidden fruit was the knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge in general.

How does one choose between righteous martyrdom, vs. mortal life prolonged through mortal sin

Quibble about the Bible all you want. Pick on mistakes and mis-understandings all you want.

Sorry. Ive been through this condemnation before on this board. All religion is the belief in and dependence upon things which dont exist. I REJECT THIS.

Other admonitions regarding specific circumstances are widely regarded as making sure that death of Jesus went according to God's plan. In this view, self defense is permitted as long as the intent is to neutralize an aggressor without killing them.

And you just demonstrated your bigotry and hatred.

I have been courteous in my posts and I only ask the same in return

But as a Christian, of whatever sect you may chose, do you not have a scriptorial obligation to tell these "believers" that they're incorrect?

No. The forbidden fruit was the knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge in general.

But if within the bounds of faith all is to be judged, would that not leave all knowledge to be that of good and evil?

No because I can communicate with that friend.

My faith is not perfect because I am not perfect

Despite my fear, I will endure suffering.

You preach. This leaves you open to criticism.

And you choose to chastise:

And you just demonstrated your bigotry and hatred.

-'Judge not lest ye be judged.'

Religion is bigotry itself, as it invariably divides people up into 'us' and 'them'. And it causes the overpopulation which inevitably causes conflict, and brings this unholy equation to the fore.

I have been courteous in my posts and I only ask the same in return.

I don't think you realize just how dangerous and irresponsible your hobby can be.

We will find out at death.

And what if you couldn't? What if it were 2000 BC, and there was no post, no telephone, and no Internet? Do you honestly think you'd mourn every parting under such circumstances?

I don't even know what "imperfect faith" could mean. You either believe, or you don't. There's no in-between

What's a few vanishing moments of pain, compared to an ETERNITY of joy that follows?

We will find out at death.

Or will we? Buddhists, for instance, claim that at death you are wiped clean of all your memories and knowledge, and just get reincarnated as something else.

But now we have all but clinched the conclusion that the brain is both the hardware and software of the mind, and that as the brain fizzles out, so goes the person it embodied.

I suspect the fear of death will overwhelm people and will result in more atrocities in the search for immortality than anything religion has done to date.

You omitted your own judgmental statement that prompted my response.

People who seek power can corrupt anything, including science, as a means to their ends.

Someone might use your words in these posts as justification to persecute Christians, should you not apply the same caution to your words?

But as I said, religion is designed to create animosity among groups.

And again, this is one school of thought. Bill maher would tell you that the existance of even one enables the actions of the most malevolent to occur.

As long as a religion defines a set of adherents as separate from others, and that this separation confers some special privileges within it's membership and/or with some higher power, then it encourages abuse. And the major religions today all have this separation written into their instruction manuals.

No they don't. Not even all versions of Christianity have these tenets. Have you ever seen a violent fundamentalist Quaker?

Not at the present perhaps but the potential is always there. All it takes is a little conflict and a few indignant people to open their book to the appropriate chapter for justification.

Richard Nixon was a Quaker and the source of a great deal of violence.

That can be done with any book. Do you not recall the insanity that resulted from Nietzche's work? Orwell is the base model for the DPKR and that's fiction.

The People who wrote these books cared nothing about what happened to people once they were dead; they cared a great deal what those people did in this life, which is why they wrote those books. The evidence is what people have done because they were written, and the civilization that has been established as a result.

The problem with any ideology is when it becomes unquestionable and unchanging. Everything is questionable, everything including the very words you're stating against other questionable ideologies.

I suspect the fear of death will overwhelm people and will result in more atrocities in the search for immortality than anything religion has done to date.

You should talk to a Jain before you make such a wild assumption.

I'm not bound by scripture. You're the one Who judged my fair criticism unfairly.

You're no different from any other fanatic with the propensity for violence written into your book, just waiting for the opportunity to be used... For your lovegod. Hypocrite.

I didn't make an assumption, just voiced a suspicion.

I can only hope that my suspicion never actually occurs.

You have no evidence that I behave in that manner. You have no knowledge of me other than what I have posted.

You have no evidence that I behave in that manner.

All you have is an assumption based on your stereotype of Christians.

Your criticism of ME is most certainly not fair

and is extremely judgmental.

Your attempts to justify your statements against ME as being fair criticisms lack credibility as well.

Sez you. Your capitulation lacks honor.

Luke 10:19
"I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you."

Victory. Schon wieder.

Interesting indeed. Note the inherent violence in this NT verse? God equates enemies- heretics- with vermin and says it's ok to trample them. Religionists- always us vs them.

Luke 10:20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.

Personally, I like the line "thou shall not kill" and the line "god is all-forgiving

I tend to take the stance that I don't know crap about all this stuff.

What's a few vanishing moments of pain, compared to an ETERNITY of joy that follows?

Then I hope to come back as a Blue Elephant so that we can debate about which color elephant is better;)

suspect the fear of death will overwhelm people and will result in more atrocities in the search for immortality

suspect the fear of death will overwhelm people and will result in more atrocities in the search for immortality

Why? Science isn't that far from stopping aging.

Seems pretty clear to me that the verse you chose, Luke 10:19, refers to spirits in the form of demons and Satan and not to men.

It's a metaphor you morons.

In the end, the decision to believe in God is simply a choice of hope over despair and purpose over the meaningless existence of random chemical reactions that happen to create stable pattern. I *choose* to have hope and meaning.

What satisfaction does science provide to sooth one's heart after the loss of a beloved child? What help is science when facing your death? To what extent is moral behavior reinforced by the idea that the soul is judged? Religion, not science, addresses these common human needs.

In the end, the decision to believe in God [...] I *choose* to have hope and meaning.
God is of the heart, not the mind, and He's here to stay.

That doesn't make its underlying premise of a Divine Being incorrect.

What satisfaction does science provide to sooth one's heart after the loss of a beloved child?

What help is science when facing your death?

To what extent is moral behavior reinforced by the idea that the soul is judged?

Religion, not science, addresses these common human needs.

In the end, the decision to believe in God is simply a choice of hope over despair

God is of the heart, not the mind, and He's here to stay.

Circular.
Everything is real because you can perceive it, and you can perceive it because it's real. Is perception even real?

Religion is a Cultural Institution that has been with Man since the beginning, and all signs are that it will stay. Why? Because it serves a fundamental need.

What satisfaction does science provide to sooth one's heart ... To what extent is moral behavior reinforced by the idea that the soul is judged?
...In the end, the decision to believe in God is simply a choice of hope over despair and purpose over the meaningless existence of random chemical reactions that happen to create stable pattern. I *choose* to have hope and meaning.

God is of the heart, not the mind, and He's here to stay.

Likewise, you can "choose" to rationally consider your actions and their consequences, and live your life mindful of both personal responsibility for your words and deeds,and your obligation to everything else -both living and inanimate- in the world.

Very much agree that there is a neurological need for spirituality

These New Atheists can't understand this - they don't recognize it in themselves

offer nothing to replace what they would excise from the human condition.

The non-rational inclinations, like empathy, compassion, emotions in general, cannot simply be denied/suppressed (we are thankfully not robots or Vulcans),

Failure to do so creates an imbalance, leaving part of the mind's desires un-fulfilled - a psychological deficit.

In other words, the modern tyranny of left-brain-only rationalism leads to an unhealthy and incomplete human mind.

We are in dangerous sociological and psychological territory

God was "speaking" to shepherds; I doubt they would have understood had he tried to explain a Big Bang, expansion, or his own statistical certainty in the evolution of Man.

So you're saying the all powerful God is not all powerful?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I can choose to have faith and you can choose not to. The only harm done is when I try to force my faith on you or you try to force your lack of faith upon me.

Rational and moral are mutually exclusive, IMO.

They have created a modern day crusade. They have created their own religion of disbelief. And like all religions, it tends to go awry when it tries to convert others.

Given the rise in influence over the last couple of decades of Fundamentalist Christianity, a strong dose of very vocal Atheism seems virtually required in order to restore balance to the"separation of church and state", don't you agree?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/secular-humanist-takes-on_n_512153.html

Religion is a Cultural Institution that has been with Man since the beginning, and all signs are that it will stay. Why? Because it serves a fundamental need.

To those of us who believe in God, He *is* real.

Trying to explain faith to a non-believer is like explaining love to a sociopath

I don't know how it can be done.

Some debate the veracity of the Bible and other texts to "prove" their point.

I never said I believe in literal interpretation of any text written by the hand of Man.

God was "speaking" to shepherds; I

I doubt they would have understood had he tried to explain a Big Bang

Religious texts serve only to stimulate the heart and mind.

Also, for those who are going to come in and start talking about rational reasons for altruism, I want to point out that, if it's rational, it serves one's self, and is no longer altruistic. I'm talking about pure, unreasonable sacrifice that is utterly self-destroying.

The literal stories must be interpreted according to one's own heart and mind.

It's hard work, but with success comes a peaceful soul.

My own.

Yes. Note, by the way, the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Trinity is widely ascribed to be derivative.

Faith does not displace reality

Emotions are by definition non-rational.

Heart and Mind vs Mind alone.

Absolutely not.

Faith can be found through philosophy, meditation, etc.

here are many paths to God

Folks who believe *their* path is superior to that of others are mistaken.

I have not asserted that my personal faith or the path that lead me is superior to any other.

And you don't know what you're talking about, but you obviously enjoy talking. Intra-tribal altruism and extra-tribal animosity are part of the human dynamic. They are genetic, instinctive in properly-functioning individuals.

Emotions are by definition non-rational.

They are part of defensive and motivational systems, good for initiating adrenaline and endorphins, and thus are very rational. Invoking Kant for any reason whatsoever is irrational, as he was full of crap.

Is this you Ryan? You tired of your old nick?

The genetic basis of intra-tribal altruism may or may not relate to the feeling one gets when an altruistic act is performed. I personally experience emotional inclinations towards intra- and extra-tribal altruism.

doing it without a rational cause, is perfectly valid, but is denied by a rationalistic worldview.

Not if it is an expression of genetic predisposition and part of a survival mechanism. In that case it would be entirely rational, understandable, and explainable.

Likewise, you can "choose" to rationally consider your actions and their consequences, and [...] -both living and inanimate- in the world.

[....]tyranny of left-brain-only rationalism leads to an unhealthy and incomplete human mind. We are in dangerous sociological and psychological territory.

Urges are rational now? they are biologically valid, sure, but how do they fit into the definition of rational that is high-order cognitive function?

My point was that there is no need to subcontract volition out of either side or the middle of that dual nature to some supernatural agency.

To do so is a crutch, a rationalization, an abdication of personal responsibility, and not -as you would have it- some enhancement or enoblement of that duality.

Sounds like rationalization of non-rational thought patterns. Rational behavior involves acting in accordance with logical thought, not urges (rationalized post facto or otherwise).

Most are evolved phenomena and often function to protect us when our reason and conscious thought cannot. They compliment these things. They help us survive by leading us toward rewarding things and away from dangerous ones. In this respect they make sense; they are rational; they benefit us when functioning properly and when we understand their function. ... And the oversized human brain is woefully prone to all manner of defect, damage, and degradation. It is by no means natural, and this can explain much of irrational human behavior.

No it involves acting in accordance with our best interests.

No it involves acting in accordance with our best interests.

And this is where I would draw the line between rational and moral. A truly moral action is done without regard for self-interest.

I would rather die than kill to protect myself - though I would kill to protect the weak, whales, etc.

...hard to imagine where your sort of theoretical, self-destructive pacifism would benefit anyone but your own lyrical self-perception.

Modern atheists seem to have created their own religion

Not one in 500 can understand 'string theory' or 'quantum mechanics' but they will rush to embrace it because it comes wrapped with all the trappings of a religion

That is, one must accept the inexplicable

One must understand that there are fundamental flaws in the religion that will someday be illuminated

Modern atheists don't find it sufficent to merely not believe though, they seem bent on converting others to their disbelief.

They have created a modern day crusade.

but I'm being authentic in that I don't feel very worthy of the air I breathe or other resources in a dying world, but don't presume to project that lack of self-worth onto others.

That needs cuddly, warm, fuzzy bunnies, etc.

Emotions are by definition non-rational.

Rationality is self-interest-oriented.

you must agree, considered non-rational.

- I would sacrifice myself for any number of things and often without a good reason.

YOU can't handle the idea that half of your mind might be dormant, but I say it is.

Agreed re: Vulcan practice - you're _trying_ to be Vulcan, 100% logical,

and trying to convince yourself that reality offers you all you need.

Someday that will catch up with you, and your certainty about your rationalistic worldview will be shaken.

This is a problem that we don't share and perhaps it is this perception that is causing you such discontent.

And this is where I would draw the line between rational and moral. A truly moral action is done without regard for self-interest.

I give you ones because you are dismissive,

I don't know what else you mean, seriously.

Emotions are by definition non-rational.

Your definition. They promote survival and I find that rational. Or at least a survival trait.

Rationality is self-interest-oriented.

That is just plain wrong. Rationality is about using REASON instead of always depending on emotion.

Well, then I question your perception, because I truly am both

I'm just not vitriolic in dismissing the religious

nor certain that pure reason is good for the human mind.

Well, then I question your perception, because I truly am both

the non-rational ones are instinct, intuition and emotion.

It is considered rational to use reason in one's self-interest.

Who the hell claimed it was?

God will no longer exist because he is incompatible with Reason and Science. He will be gone and the people will finally be at peace. Heaven will have come to earth.

It is also considered rational to use reason in the interests of others. The one does not preclude the other no matter how often you act as if it is otherwise.

Your sockpuppet. It clearly exists to give you fives and you opponents ones.

I have not yet begun to flame.

Ethelred

Reason and Science to replace g/God is what I see throughout this thread.

I don't act in any such way,

but we are talking spirituality on this thread

Your use of the term 'dialectic', when other words would work better, shows you have a Marx fixation

all of which are authentic facets of self that must be synthesized within a reasonable worldview to maximize "spiritual" fulfillment.

It is chemical no matter how you slice it.

For all life fulfillment is reproduction.

Look at just how many of the religious in the US are hard core Right Wingers, which a pretty cold political position.

I create my warmth when I say "the suffering of others is not OK". I transcend my chemicals. That is a spiritual belief. Chemically, the suffering of others is irrelevant.

but we scorn theory that cannot be substantiated with observation.

Faith in God has been proven to sustain Man by it's long run over history.

This fact IS proven in much that same way as science sometimes "proves" something via statistics.

"The major religions are falling away, one by one" Organized religion will fade in favor of "Spirituality" or Deism amongst thinkers, but it will always have a home amongst "the masses."

"...Convincing yourself that they had contact with a god." Nope, based on God speaking directly to ME, not others.

Faith in God has been proven to sustain Man by it's long run over history.

"Prove the Bible isn't just myth." I beleive it IS largely myth. It was simply one tool of many in my search. It does not define my God.

No, religion is poison, not to be respected.A great mind denies faith, for faith requires little or no thought.

"The major religions are falling away, one by one" Organized religion will fade in favor of "Spirituality" or Deism amongst thinkers, but it will always have a home amongst "the masses."

A great mind denies faith, for faith requires little or no thought.

"The major religions are falling away, one by one" Organized religion will fade in favor of "Spirituality" or Deism amongst thinkers, but it will always have a home amongst "the masses."

You couldn't be more wrong. Christianity and Islam are growing world wide. A very odd thing is that Christianity tends to grow the fastest where there is the most hostility towards it. I don't know why, just happens.

By the way, any Scientist worth his weight will tell you that it will never be possible to observe the universe as it was before the big bang (Big Bang = ture btw). The only way science will ever explain what was before is by Theory, which will never be provable and will have to be taken on, yep, Faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue

morality is pre-rational in origin (though not in understanding - see rationalization), and god is just one name given (and extended, manipulated infinitely by religion) to the pre-rational self.

I think I've pinpointed the heart of our disagreement, and it centers on my opinion that emotions, intuition, and instinct are non-rational

I think any of these things would qualify as similarly non-rational:
To believe that there is a portion of the human mind that cannot be reduced to neurochemistry.

To believe that nature has intrinsic value (i.e. above and beyond usefulness to humanity).

To believe that life has a purpose.

To believe in universal morality.

To believe it is good to protect the weak.

To believe truth is a worthwhile pursuit.

To believe suffering is inherently bad and pleasure inherently good.

These are important from a spiritual perspective,

but mostly nonsense from a scientific one.

They are probably non-falsifiable.

It would be irrational to believe such things as the above in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary

A great mind denies faith, for faith requires little or no thought.

Thats ignorant.

It might be said that belief in the non-falsifiable is spirituality,

, while belief in the falsified is religion - or maybe too clever by half?

Anyway, what prompts belief in these principles is an emotional requirement or intuitive "sense."

parts of our brain that function symbolically and emotionally

especially when they're beneficial to the individual or society

And so when I say "tyranny of rationalism" I'm talking about those that would force me to defend my "spiritual" beliefs from a purely rational (conceived of and justified by pure reason, not emotion or intuition) position

Apologies if I have been seen

I use dialectic in the Hegelian sense

I transcend my chemicals

That is a spiritual belief

Chemically, the suffering of others is irrelevant.

For humans that is a choice.

Why go to the trouble to dispute any of the more silly implications of the Gaia hypothesis

unless its doing harm, leave it alone -

"That is BELIEF not reality." Right. A nourishing belief.

I beleive it IS largely myth. It was simply one tool of many in my search. It does not define my God.

"Then why believe it if you don't really beleive it." See above.

Perhaps, but my beliefs in God and science are reconciled in an internally consistant model.

That's all we can REALLY say about much of modern physics as well.

based on God speaking directly to ME, not others

The population of all inmates in all prisons is dwarfed by the number of believers.

By definition, and depending on their "crime" of course, they are not believers

Prove to me that relativity, quantum mechanics, expansion, etc. are "Truth."

Man will observe without internal contradiction.

that is beyond our perception and/or our ability to observe.

Given this, is Physics Absolute Truth or a Self-Consistent Model ?

and my Physics/God model is self-consistent.

I have spent some little time here trying to explain my own story.

any more that Physics/Math can prove that there isn't some underlying truth that is beyond observation.

but we scorn theory that cannot be substantiated with observation.

Thus, the "truth" of Science is inherently limited to human observation,

and we will never "prove" anything beyond our limited perception.

Faith in God has been proven to sustain Man by it's long run over history.

This fact IS proven in much that same way

God simply helps me "feel good" about all things rooted in emotion.

My model does not contradict science, is internally consistent, and makes me feel good without doing harm.

at least until someone can prove there is no information outside human perception.

It all seems to come down to you wanting to engage in fuzzy thinking because you think it meets your emotional needs. Fine, just don't mistake it for reason.

HE didn't - that's his point, unreasonable things are valid to the human condition.

A sense of fairness an emotion but it boils down the golden rule which IS rational.[/q[ boils down? backwards. golden rule is a rationalization of emotion.

Morality is rooted entirely in self-awareness

and is self-awareness rational? pre-reflective cogito is what sartre called it.

It all seems to come down to you wanting to engage in fuzzy thinking because you think it meets your emotional needs. Fine, just don't mistake it for reason.

A sense of fairness an emotion but it boils down the golden rule which IS rational.

Morality is rooted entirely in self-awareness

No, a plea for recognition that there *are* things beyond knowing.

we may know every single pigment, varnish, brush, and technique used to create the Mona Lisa, but that doesn't mean Da Vince didn't paint it!

golden rule is a rationalization of emotion.

Not non-rational at all. We evolved those emotions because they improve our odds of survival thus it is rational to go along with a time tested formula....You need to learn a bit about evolution then. And game theory and a lots other things you missed in that set of false dichotomies.

No, the golden rule is a rationalization of the basic animal instinct to not kill your family, neighbors, children, etc. If you can identify with it, don't do bad things to it. Hence why we don't eat our pets (for the most part).

that instinct is experienced emotionally.

that instinct is experienced emotionally.

Which is chemically controlled. So you've circled right back into rational with your inability to comprehend complex emergent systems. No metaphysics are necessary. Everything is a physical process. We're not exploring the where any longer, we're exploring the how.

(cont)
in other words, without moral agents acting with pre-rational conceptions of right/wrong, there can be no morality, which is why states are almost always amoral. without the "non-rational" thing frytoy is talking about, might basically makes right. someone said before that morality is rational. no. reason can serve moral ends, but whether that happens is not a question of rationality, or, if it is, then the rational thing to do is generally to serve yourself or your tribe (and therefore yourself).

morality is pre-rational in origin (though not in understanding - see rationalization), and god is just one name given (and extended, manipulated infinitely by religion) to the pre-rational self.

just whether that means that any/every emergent feeling or thought SHOULD be rationalized, which might in some cases negate the original emotional requirement.

Your 'pre-rational' is what science has shown us is genetic predisposition,

also, where is the line drawn on emergent mental properties?

are they all rational thoughts?

are emotions emergent?

in humans and animals?

and chemically-controlled is not "rational", but explainable.

a rational process originates with the reflective process of thinking, and that excludes everything physical.

rational is apparently what you're calling anything we can explain with science, which is silly.

pre-reflective cogito is what sartre called it.

No, thinking is a physical process.[/q[
yes but resulting ideas are non-physical. i was talking about physical events in the universe, not ideas that originate in the mind.

How so?

because when talking about the human mind, we have to speak about the nature of the origin of ideas. some are a product of rational, reflective thought, some are not, and evolutionarily pre-date that capability. both sets of things can be explained through the rational process of science, but not all that science explains is inherently rational (again, produced by a rational agent) - just the explanations are.

Well they should. Rage is an emotional feeling. If you can examine it and break it down to find the reason for it you can control it and be a better person. Some people use religion to do that, but that's not necessary. It's a crutch in my opinion. Adoration can be unfounded and lead you to folly. If you can rationally break it down and recognize what it is you can determine proper courses of action. It may sound mechanical, but it is no more mechanical than dancing. It's rather fun at times. Then you can talk to other people about it and get feedback, forming stronger communities with better understanding of each other with more honesty.

yes but resulting ideas are non-physical.

some are a product of rational, reflective thought, some are not, and evolutionarily pre-date that capability.

reason can be effectively used immorally, and you're removing the intuitive/emotional barrier to doing that.

Hence why they can be irrational. They do not have an origin from anywhere other than the physical underlying processes.

not disputing that

Then what exactly are you trying to argue?

You either have morality hardwired in your chemistry or you don't

but the nature of this hard-wiring is not known and may never be fully understood.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6626935.ece

http://jeremylent.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/a-false-choice-reductionism-or-dualism/

Looselyhuman doesnt know how to play well with others. Typical of antisocial philos and noobs. Next comes self-uprating by phoney sockpuppets of the sockpuppet.

Retribution acts on the same reward centers in the brain as drugs do, did you know that?

this one's even closer to my argument:

It seems you would then propose that the complexity is explained by some spiritual component. This is just another "god-in-the-gaps" argument.

that doesn't mean neurological processes aren't 100% physical.

It's ironic that your source proposes a false dichotomy exists, when its own argument is an actual false dichotomy.

no, just that human dignity and this complexity are interwoven, and a reductionist model undermines that dignity

are 100% rational - so morality is in essence rational - that is what i disagree with

Rational morality is simply a sum total of actions that ensure the survival of the species rather than the individual.

There's nothing more rational than the will to survive.

"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."

the origin of morality is clearly pre-rational;

was huge to people like kant,

o we rationalize morality, and pretend our moral values are based on reason instead of pre-rational empathy.

without moral agents acting with pre-rational conceptions of right/wrong, there can be no morality,

and god is just one name given (and extended, manipulated infinitely by religion) to the pre-rational self.

HE didn't - that's his point, unreasonable things are valid to the human condition

boils down? backwards. golden rule is a rationalization of emotion.

your definition. my morality is less interested in human survival than the integrity of the biosphere. that's a personal choice, and also partially based on the emotions i feel while watching the global ecosystem collapse.

which flows directly into my argument that rationality is inherently immoral, and concerned only with self-interest. i seek a higher purpose, foolishly or otherwise.

and is self-awareness rational?

re-reflective cogito is what sartre called it.

once we reduce every inclination to a rational basis, then no non-rationally defensible inclination is valid, and i go back to the melian debate.

that doesn't mean neurological processes aren't 100% physical.

....morality is in essence rational - that is what i disagree with.

pfc consciousness and animate consciousness - i claim the latter is a major source for innate human morality.

Doesn't change anything. It's still physical, therefore theoretically knowable to every detail, therefore rational.

Us nerds here on Physorg know enough to make sense of all this without generalizations, aka philosophy.

Maybe its got something to do with free will?

They don't know themselves or human nature well enough.

No biosphere, no survival. You are still focused on human survival.

We must discover and describe nature with reason.

The Golden Rule is pure reason.

Morality and empathy are two different things.

That is wrong. Its EMOTIONS not unreasonable things. The unreasonable things, religion for instance, are not valid

you need to learn how to communicate your ideas in the broadly accepted way.

i seek a higher purpose, foolishly or otherwise.

/facepalm. I'm done. It appears you're trying to argue hippy logic rather than any form of intellectual theology.

They don't know themselves or human nature well enough.

yes i agree that's a problem, one that applies at least as well to hardcore rationalists as to those who know to depend on their emotions and intuition as well as their reason.

then I use reason to train myself to become the complete person I want to be...This is an argument because you think there is an impenetrable wall between reason and emotion.

No biosphere, no survival. You are still focused on human survival.

you assume i see humanity as a necessary part of the biosphere.

nature just is, we can explain it rationally or irrationally

ayn rand? sounds like it, which is exactly the type of immoral rationalism to which i'm diametrically opposed.

science alone against the world, on war footing, demonizing and dehumanizing your irrational enemies, dogmatically pushing reductionist theories of mind. crusader certainty.

not one single comment that was on topic.

It looks like you pseudo-atheists are a bunch of trolls.

Seriously though, you rationalist atheists should hang it up.

You spout on about rationality and the cold hard facts of nature, and then turn around and grossly contradict yourselves and then babble on about morality and how rational it is.

If not, why talk out of both sides of your mouths?

There's no morality in atheism, at least not in the typical sense on the word.

The golden rule is rational?" Really?

I suppose in the right circumstances it might be

but why should what others feel about my actions matter unless it benefits me?

Can't hurting other people's feelings be beneficial to me?

Isn't avoiding having my own feelings hurt always beneficial?

So screw your, "the golden rule is rational,"

I really don't get you so-called atheists

You don't have to have more than two brain cells to know that Xtianity espouses the golden rule

so have you ever considered that people are a product of their environment

wouldn't it make sense to "dash thy little ones against the stones?

Such action would prohibit that society's ideas from spreading, i.e. survival of the fittest.

Mass genocide might be a little bit of a stretch(mostly because it isn't necessary), but a little cleansing of both the genetic and social pools would be most rational.

Yet, you guys stand in opposition to what is rational based solely on your irrational morality.

You sit there and smugly accuse the Xtians of believing in a "vapor God."

Well, at least they have an excuse, but how do you justify your vapor morality?

By proxy of association with your lunacy, I'm ashamed to call myself an atheist.

Yet, you guys stand in opposition to what is rational based solely on your irrational morality. You sit there and smugly accuse the Xtians of believing in a "vapor God." Well, at least they have an excuse, but how do you justify your vapor morality?

By proxy of association with your lunacy, I'm ashamed to call myself an atheist.

Actually, I am quite capable of making up my own mind as to the quality of the article. But, what would have been the point of opening a discussion of the article after you guys ruined the thread?

Well you know, just trying to blend into the environment.

No, if you could read you would see that I immediately tell you why. Mostly, because you aren't doing so well at it. Personally, I belive you're closet theists. You sure seem to be pulling your irrational beliefs from somewhere. And you, Ethelred, have already admitted there might be a God. So, I guess that explains you.

So why are there so few Atheists in prison?

Circumstances don't enter into it. It makes sense.

Try assuming the opposite for a moment.

Pretty stupid isn't it.

I don't care if it benefits you. I care that it is the right thing to do.

Some people might punch you in the nose for being a prick.

Or perhaps you wrote that VERY badly.

That isn't even what we are talking about. We are talking about treating others as you would want to be treated.

You don't seem understand the concept of the Golden Rule.

So because YOU aren't rational we should get screwed.

You REALLY don't comprehend the Golden Rule.

Also learn about paragraphs.

Fortunately I have MORE than two brain cells

I am also aware that I push the Golden Rule

and I find it rational.

That you don't is your failure.

Would you like to discuss the Golden Rule again? You seem unclear on the concept.

Must be why you don't think its rational.

You don't even know the words.

You mean like so many NON-Agnostics do? You are a sick puppy to advocate things like that.

Must have got your morals from the OLD Testament.

Put that in practice and my state has this nice unused gas chamber.

I already have. That's how I can so easily spot your b.s.

Morality in the form of the Golden Rule IS rational

Another stupid idea of yours. I suppose SOME people are smug in their thinking.

More like sad that you waste so much time on something that doesn't exist.

This time use a dictionary when you run across words and concepts you don't understand. Like morals, logic, reason, the Golden Rule, prison populations, percentage, probabilities and pretty much anything with more than three syllables

Clearly you aren't an Atheist and CERTAINLY not an Agnostic.

You seem to be yet another hit and run

Now if you actually want to discuss things can the hate speech

quit being irrational about the Golden Rule.

In other words Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated.

Your post is not the stupidest I have seen nor even the most illegible.

You can improve on both. All you have to do is START THINKING.

Or you could go the other way and try to get that elusive jaw droopingly stupid post that shows up every now and then.
Such as the idiot that said Obama is black because he chose his parents that way.

But, what would have been the point of opening a discussion of the article after you guys ruined the thread?

Well you know, just trying to blend into the environment.

Personally, I belive you're closet theists.

You sure seem to be pulling your irrational beliefs from somewhere.

And you, Ethelred, have already admitted there might be a God. So, I guess that explains you.

HAHAHA! That's funny.

you assume both that only immoral people are in prison and that all immoral people are in prison

Also, my charge was that there is no morality in atheism

but all you have shown is that there is religion in prison.

I think I will spare myself.

Yes, they do. And No, it doesn't.

Now why would I want to do that?

I would rather treat everyone the way that benefits me the most.

This is the rational approach.

Your approach is based on some inexplicable ideal that you don't seem to be able to let go of.

Yea, just like alot of the stuff you've been saying.

You have separated moral correctness (right) from anything that seems logical.

It's your irrational process for arriving at what's right that is driving me up the wall

You would be better off if you would go ahead and give your morality serving deity a name

you wouldn't have to run around contradicting yourself all the time

Or you could try adopting a more logical philosophy

I really wanted to save the prison issue for Sceptic Heretic, but I will say this.

I think I'll call your bluff on this one.

Go ahead and demonstrate your "golden rule" for me.

No, but you certainly interpreted it VERY poorly.

You really are quite illiterate.

I presented you with a scenario where it is in my interest to treat others differently from how I would like to be treated.

That is exactly what we are talking about

I understand it fine. I just don't agree with it.

Go peddle your relativism elsewhere. I suugest you take it to the Xtians

You both believe in a god

and the golden rule

You seem to have more in common with those guys than with atheists

No, because you aren't rational you follow the golden rule.

I comprehend it fine. What I don't comprehend is why you follow it

Although, I have to note it hasn't helped you much.

Yes, I am fairly sure you have atleast 5 or 6.

Here I was thinking that you might not be aware that the illogical crap you were spouting was actually the golden rule.

The day you overcome this you will be much better off

That I don't is my success, and also part of the reason why I'm not speaking like a blathering idiot.

No, no I wouldn't.

No matter how many times you 'claim' it's rational, it will still be illogical

No, that would be because it isn't rational

mostly of which were efforts to squash and keep the ideas of others from spreading?

Heck, some of you guys even expressed that those who dissented should just remain silent.

No, I don't think you have any qualms about squashing the ideas of others.

I'll address that later when I get to your gas chamber comment.

But even if I had there would at least be some logical explanation for my morals,

Oh, wait I forgot that you conviently have an unnamed god

I see. More of that golden rule of yours is it?

You don't want to get your hands dirty, so you just put it off on the state.

Nope, no gas chamber for either of us, not when we have the state to do our dirty work.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to demonstrate it.

Well, if the comments I have read in this thread weren't smug, then the authors did a pretty poor job of conveying their ideas

Your golden rule is certainly a waste of time.

No thanks.

Ummmm... wouldn't that work better the other way around?

You're not consistent with your own beliefs,

especially considering that you don't know me.

I may hang around if you continue to amuse me.

You first. Or doesn't the golden rule apply to you?

The only thing rational that can be said about your precious golden rule is that it is quite illogical.

Nah, how about I treat them the way they 'deserve' to be treated?

sisting that the golde rule is rational, while providing no evidence to back up your statement,

I'd have to say it's deffinitely one of the stupidest I have ever read.

Whoa now Tonto!

Because Obama has both a white parent and a black parent, he has the rare privilege of being able to claim the race of whichever parent he chooses.

only recognize him as black because that is how he advertises himself.

So, the author's point is both valid and funny.

you obviously missed the fact that this was a joke.

So, I'll expect to be seeing you on the front row in Logic-101.

a few questions about the Golden Rule that is apparently held in such high esteem... should a masochist treat others as he or she wishes to be treated? if someone wishes to be treated as "master", how does the Golden Rule apply?

how is saying "the golden rule isn't the pinnacle of morality, but it is the fundamental baseline" any different than "nice rule of thumb?"

to put it in the context of your rephrasing of the the Golden Rule of Thumb, if i'm fine with spending a third to a half of my year performing compulsory labor to pay off the state's credit card bill, does that make it okay to confiscate the product of your labor whether you like it or not?

i must confess i'm drawn to contentious environments, and despite being a shameless know-it-all some small part of me always enjoys the challenge of being proven wrong.

how is saying "the golden rule isn't the pinnacle of morality, but it is the fundamental baseline" any different than "nice rule of thumb?"