God ain't real

Happy_Killbot

@Sand Think religion and the religious are more moral than non-believers?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20149715

Think again.
Not only have we no evidence to suggest this, it could be argued that morality and religion just are, with no effect on morality whatsoever. In other words, people make moral or immoral decisions independently of religion.

You see, the problem with stories used to teach moral lessons is that they don't always convey the same message, and the message they do convey can not be understood by someone who does not already know that moral lesson. We only accept the parts of religion that we agree with, and deny the rest.

Let's compare you and Lori Alexander. You do not think that women should be forced into a marriage and made to only obey their husband's desires, she does. So what is going on here, if you both use the same source material to come to these conclusions? Does one of you know less about the texts, or are your interpretations different because of your subjective beliefs? Ones that you project onto the whole of Christianity despite the evidence to the contrary?

Science suggests that it is more likely that your god beliefs are egocentric, that is to say you are projecting your beliefs onto god.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955414

Now let's talk about 9/11. Is there any denying that this tragic event was in part caused by religious extremes? The men that carried this out believed that in doing so, they would be doing right in the name of Allah, and they would go to heaven in his name and get all the sex they could ever dream of. If we are to say that religion makes people more moral, then 9/11 needs a explanation!

Only religion can make good people do bad things.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

Whatever makes you happy.

Not all women can have a career first life later.

We all want women to have options, and accomplish all they can, but not all women are cut from the same stone.

As much as I would want all women to be CEOs of businesses.

Some women would not do well in that atmosphere as the same as some men.

Some people are happy working 9 to 5 and getting a paycheck and going home enjoying their family.

>>>The seventy weeks of Daniel doesn't disprove that the devil invented Jesus, in fact, it could be easily offered as evidence because presumably the devil could have known about the prophecy and used that to its advantage. Suppose that the real Jesus was born elsewhere, and the man who the Bible claims is Jesus is not? Isn't it possible, that since Barbarian tribes destroyed Rome, that the real Messiah was one of them, born hundreds of years later?  <<<

If Satan did do that with the same prophecy.

Then that means the real Messiah was there also.

The prophecy of Isaiah 61:1 needed to be read in the temple.

My question would be where is the real Messiah that read that scroll?

Also, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Satan did himself a very big disservice by building a fake Jesus.

Plus if you follow the Bible the Messiah is the bridge to God, not to be worshipped.

So if Satan built a false Messiah then he encouraged more worship to God.

John_C_87

@Happy_Killbot ;

9/11, or the Plane High jackings that ended in destruction of the World Trade Center and damage to the United State Pentagon. How likely is it the Muslims are to pick a date that signifies the basic idea of a wrong use in a general axiom of a none religious God? There are only two results in this axiom ( right 89,  wrong 911) coincidence?

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>Not only have we no evidence to suggest this, it could be argued that morality and religion just are, with no effect on morality whatsoever. In other words, people make moral or immoral decisions independently of religion.<<<

Nevertheless, morals have to be taught.

Without religion, science loses its value.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208723/

Morals have to be taught not nurtured.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201701/is-humanitys-moral-sense-inherited-or-nurtured

>>>Only religion can make good people do bad things.<<<

Are you sure science can't make good people do bad things?

It is very hard to kill someone with your hands.

Yet science invented the sword. Increase in kills.

Science invented the gun. Increase in kills.

Science invented the bomb. Big increase in kills.

Yet its religion fault? That is using religion as a scapegoat.

The majority of wars have nothing to do with religion.

The reason 9/11 happened is that USA was supplying arms to Muslim enemies to attack the Muslims so they can pit one rival against another.

Yet it is the Muslim's fault.

>>>You do not think that women should be forced into a marriage and made to only obey their husband's desires, she does. So what is going on here, if you both use the same source material to come to these conclusions? Does one of you know less about the texts, or are your interpretations different because of your subjective beliefs? Ones that you project onto the whole of Christianity despite the evidence to the contrary?<<<

No.

People are open to their own opinion. Just like people do with scientific facts, people come up with their own conclusions regardless of the conclusions of the experiment.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand You are avoiding the question.

If the bible specifically says that women should be subjugated by men, then why do you think it is okay for women to have jobs and not be bound to a husband through marriage?

The bible explicitly says this, are you going against the bible and inserting your own morals? If so, then how can we say morals come from the bible, if not then how do you explain the dependency between what you are saying and what the bible says?

As for the "Satan made up Jesus" bit, all I have to do is point out that the Catholic church also worships the mother Marry and many saints with high reverence, and point out that the 2nd commandment

" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness that in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Besides pointing out how this is polytheistic, it makes no room for such images and depictions of Jesus if he truly is the son of god.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand Another instance of not being able to have your cake and eat it to.

The article you provided is only pointing out that no philosophical knowledge truly comes from science, that is to say science can create a gun, but it can not tell you how to use it.

Science can tell you the best way to accomplish a certain goal, but it can not tell you what that goal should be.

SCIENCE INVENTED THE AIRPLANE, BUT THE AIRPLANE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.

You undermine your own proposition by suggesting that moral values can come from science, this is a dangerous delusion known as scientism, which I wholly disagree with. The only thing I disagree with more is when people deny science over their own personal ideology, or misuse science to try and prove a point.

Consider this analogy:

"Science has proven that a fetus is alive and a unique person from the moment of conception. Therefore abortion is murder"

"Science proves that a fetus can not feel pain and has no developed neural pathways until the 3rd trimester. Therefore abortion should be allowed until the 3rd trimester."

Both of these statements are a fallacy known as appeal to science.

What is wrong about this? It assumes that because science says something that it is automatically metaphysically true. What it ignores is the values behind those statements. In the first case, the value that life has inherent value is ignored, and in the second the values of avoiding suffering and personal autonomy are ignored.

When you say that "Yet science invented the sword. Increase in kills.

Science invented the gun. Increase in kills.

Science invented the bomb. Big increase in kills."

You are making this same faulty reasoning. You are ignoring the values you hold, which is that killing is inherently wrong.

Now I'm going to attempt to break your mind- all of those things were a Net positive for society, by far.

Consider, the ability to make iron and steel swords also made stronger farming tools, thus better crops and easier harvests.

Guns and gun powder required tedious machining work, that became a staple part of modern industrial practices.

The bomb, (atomic) was a revolutionary weapon, but the largest takeaway was nuclear power which now supplies a significant percentage of the earth's power.

Most parts of the modern smart phone were first developed for military use. The microprocessor was for guided missiles, the camera was for spy satellites, and GPS was for reconnaissance and navigation.

This is one of the reasons I support autonomous weapons, because even though I recognize they have the potential to make warfare more dangerous, I know that in a short time following their development that there will be civilian uses, some of which have yet to be thought of.

So in conclusion, science can not be held responsible for things done with the tools of science, because these things were motivated by the values of individuals. 

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>If the Bible specifically says that women should be subjugated by men, then why do you think it is okay for women to have jobs and not be bound to a husband through marriage?<<<

The Bible doesn't say women should submit to men.  It references Adam and Eve (husband and wife) and it always references husband and wife.

Wives need to submit to their husbands, meaning they are to yield to two competing ideas.

Why do I think it is okay for women to have jobs.

Because the Bible references women at Proverbs 31 having jobs and being honored, having their own businesses, dealing with real estate.

In fact, the Bible encourages this viewpoint of women. Which is totally against your claim of the Bible is misogynistic.

By showing other bible passages I am not trying to dismiss other passages I am trying to give the complete picture.

Not only does the Bible build a favorable picture of women, but there are also, books named after women, women prophetess, honor, and prestige given to women, and women used by God to save people (heroines).

I know you are taking words out of context in reference to the Bible.

You are trying to build something when it is nothing.

"The Biblical depiction of early Bronze Age culture up through the Axial Age, depicts the "essence" of women, (that is the Bible's metaphysical view of being and nature), of both male and female as "created in the image of God" with neither one inherently inferior in nature. Discussions of the nature of women are conspicuously absent from the Hebrew Bible. Biblical narratives do not show women as having different goals, desires, or strategies or as using methods that vary from those used by men not in authority. Judaic studies scholar David R. Blumenthal explains these strategies made use of "informal power" which was different from that of men with authority. There are no personality traits described as being unique to women in the Hebrew Bible. Most theologians agree the Hebrew Bible does not depict the slave, the poor, or women, as different metaphysically in the manner other societies of the same eras did." - Wikipedia

You are wrong about the Bible being misogynistic.

>>>I have to do is point out that the Catholic church<<<

Catholics are not followers of Christ.

>>>Besides pointing out how this is polytheistic, it makes no room for such images and depictions of Jesus if he truly is the son of God.<<<

Jesus as the son of God is not to receive worship either. Only the Father is God.

>>>So in conclusion, science can not be held responsible for things done with the tools of science, because these things were motivated by the values of individuals. <<<

You are proving my point for me.

I am not saying Science needs to be held responsible, I am saying it shouldn't be held responsible.

People need to treat the Bible similarly

The Bible should not be held responsible for the things done by the values of individuals.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand Maybe the bible doesn't specifically forbid women from having careers, but nowhere does it support it.

Did you read any of the Transformed wifes tweets? I think she disagrees with you, and she wrote a book on the matter. Did you?

"Catholics are not followers of Christ."
Catholics follow Christ and they are Christians, according to: Catholics.

"Jesus as the son of God is not to receive worship either. Only the Father is God."
Except that Jesus is considered to be part of the "holly trinity" and some Christians treat him as being part of god with the holly spirit. This comes down to ideological divides among Christians, who can't decide what there one "historically accurate" book means.

"I am not saying Science needs to be held responsible, I am saying it shouldn't be held responsible.

People need to treat the Bible similarly

The Bible should not be held responsible for the things done by the values of individuals."

Science doesn't tell people to kill, rape, murder, and fly into buildings. Religion does, so we can't give it the same moral pass we give science. You miss the point, science doesn't tell you to do anything, it just tells you what the facts are. Religion does tell you what to do, so giving it a pass is not possible.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>Maybe the bible doesn't specifically forbid women from having careers, but nowhere does it support it.<<<

It was the only book that talks about women dealing with real estate back in 717 BCE.

Proverbs 31:24 - "She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchants."

She runs her own manufacturing plant, and supplies merchants.

>>>Did you read any of the Transformed wifes tweets? I think she disagrees with you, and she wrote a book on the matter. Did you?<<<

This was something of the USA, not of the Bible.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history

But there is a statement, "there is no good news like bad news"

Meaning people don't buy a book that says the "Bible supports women having a job."

People buy the book that says "A Woman who has to fight against all odds, even the Bible"

>>>Catholics follow Christ and they are Christians, according to Catholics.<<<

Catholics follow the Trinity which is polytheistic. They have unlimited idols. You just pointed out they worship Mary.

Show me those scriptures then I may consider Catholic Christian.

>>>Except that Jesus is considered to be part of the "holy trinity" and some Christians treat him as being part of god with the holly spirit. This comes down to ideological divides among Christians, who can't decide what there one "historically accurate" book means.<<<

Once again the Trinity invented by Catholics, who are not Christian.

>>>Science doesn't tell people to kill, rape, murder, and fly into buildings. Religion does, so we can't give it the same moral pass we give science. You miss the point, science doesn't tell you to do anything, it just tells you what the facts are. Religion does tell you what to do, so giving it a pass is not possible.<<<

You mean False Religion does.

If people adhered to the Bible there would be no wars, no rape, no killing, no murder, and no plane into buildings.

I believe people who do not follow the bible need to bear responsibility for their actions.

There are people behind Science.

Science is behind the technology.

Science doesn't just give facts, it provides the invention, the design, and the machines to manufacture.

You are right, Science will get a pass but it shouldn't.

Science fails to adhere to this scripture, 1 Corinthians 10:24 - "None of you should be looking out for your own interests, but for the interests of others. "

Science makes technology that is specifically designed to do those bad things.

Because safeguards needed to be placed in those planes, to prevent those things.

Technology is available to prevent an accidental shooting or wayward children from taking other people's guns and using them.

It is very difficult to kill people without a gun.

People claim they would use other things if they did not use the item.

Why don't we place guns on every light pole if it is really the people, not the technology?

Because having access to technology creates disaster.

That is why they arrest the drug dealer as well as the drug user.

Science is power.

With great power comes great responsibility.

So you are right science will get a pass, but it shouldn't.

It is just as complicit as the one pulling the trigger.

It is an accomplice and it is an enabler.

The person giving facts about how to rob a bank is locked up with the person who follows through.

Facts are very deadly, that's why spies are killed.

So yes science bears responsibility.

Dee

@Sand


***** Once again the Trinity invented by Catholics, who are not Christian.

I used to be a Roman Catholic and we used to say the very same about non Catholics.

*****You mean False Religion does.

That’s untrue , the Bible clearly states how one is to treat homosexuals , how to buy , treat and own people as property etc , etc , denial of such leaves the Christian embracing absurdities. People like those in the Westboro Baptist church are actually following the Bible as written as are Muslims who are members of ISIS it’s all there in plain print 

*****If people adhered to the Bible there would be no wars, no rape, no killing, no murder, and no plane into buildings.

It’s the teachings of the Bible led Christians to rob , loot and pillage as approved by the Bible after all they were spreading the word to heathens historically speaking 

*****I believe people who do not follow the bible need to bear responsibility for their actions.

Which is why I and others do , a religious book is the excuse historically  one used  to demonise ,  victimize and brutalise others in the past  

Happy_Killbot

@Sand You know, there is a study by the PEW research center that concluded that Christian persons know less on average about religion than atheists and agnostics.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/21/among-religious-nones-atheists-and-agnostics-know-the-most-about-religion/

If I were you I would take a critical look at all the claims you just made and get back to me when you find out why everything you just said is dumb, because I'm tired of you avoiding the hard questions only to give factually incorrect answers for the easy ones.

The idea of "false religion" is so cliche that I don't even know where to begin.

Nope, I changed my mind- all religions are false religions.

RickeyD

@Łåśåğñūţ ; Without Jesus Christ as your Lord to mediate your sin and provide you a pardon from death in sin and Hell, you will die in your sin and ultimately lose your soul and body in Hell. God is real, God is relevant and without Jesus, you will live and die in futility.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; Yes, you are...and unless you repent of your sin, you will surely die in that sin and lose your soul in Hell forever.

ZeusAres42

@RickeyD

It seems like no one is interested in your posts and taking you seriously anymore. But, if you got nothing better to do with your time then so be it I guess; that's your problem.

RickeyD

@ZeusAres42 ; I'm here out of obedience to my Lord simply to warn you that you're dying in sin and you're headed to death in Hell unless your humble yourself and repent and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord for the mediation of your sin; otherwise, you have no hope!

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD If hell turns out to be real, then I can hardly wait to torture you for the rest of eternity when it turns out I am right about the whole "devil invented Jesus" thing, and you are forced to submit under my whip and sword.

Based on some of your other posts, I might be disappointed however, because I suspect you would like it.

MayCaesar

@RickeyD

It does not take too much thinking to realise that "Become a Christian, or you will suffer" is not a narrative that is going to convert many people these days. In fact, among your accomplishments on this website so far are only one person turned from agnostic to atheist, and another person turned from Christian to some kind of anti-theist - both saying that you decided them.

If you truly want to convert someone, that explain to people how much becoming a Christian will make their life better than it is now. Scaring people with fantasy stories does not cut it any more in the 21st century.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar This guy, @RickeyD is so bad that anyone can use stuff from his blog to turn people away from religion.

I guess the whole: "Love thy neighbor" stuff is lost on him, and he doesn't even realize it.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

@Dee

I stand corrected.