Phi for All

Rather than cherry-picking the ones you don't like? Do you enjoy your bacon, shellfish and rabbit? I don't blame you for glossing over the inconvenient laws. It seems pretty obvious that many were made without a hint of "divine guidance". My fave is from Deuteronomy, where you're fighting with another man and your wife intervenes to save you from a beating. If she grabs your privates, you're commanded to chop off her hand! So you agree it's a bad foundation for discerning right and wrong? For instance, I could make the case that Jesus was a petty, vindictive tyrant who went around cursing fig trees, withering them when he was hungry and they had no fruit, then told his disciples they could have that kind of power if they believed hard enough. Creepy, right?

This seems EXACTLY like what most religions do. An atheist has the advantage of understanding why something is wrong, not being tainted by priests telling them it's OK to own slaves from another land, or that women are unclean, or that you'll be damned eternally if your beard's not square. We also aren't hobbled by threats and coercion. "The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head" just shows us how INHUMAN actions are just wrong no matter who perpetrates the crime. Atheists have nothing to justify raping and pillaging in the name of a god over. We also don't suffer from the hypocrisy the religious often demonstrate wrt compassion and charity. And we don't suffer crises of faith where the foundations of our morality come into question. Being a decent human is a learned trait, and it's marred by the judgement most Christians impose on non-Christians. I argue that my morality isn't as fragile as yours, since it's based on what I've observed, not irrational fears about what hides from me and judges me and promises me eternal torture if I don't believe.

Certainly NOT moot. Better education opportunities in modern times would reduce the gullibility factor necessary to invent supernatural beings. Many modern folks have a more reasonable stance, especially wrt omnipotent beings who curse us for the flaws they supposedly created us with.

! Moderator Note Five pages on the subject seems sufficient, especially since we're now attracting those who have vested interests and want to avoid soapboxing. Thread closed.

As other members realize this new member has no interest in their replies, and is just pushing an anti-intellectual agenda, responses will dwindle. Preaching is boring, but enough members are discussing the topics that staff isn't going to pull the rug on what appears to be a good time.

I'm sorry if you were abused as a child, whatever form it took. It has certainly left some scars. Do you think your god encouraged Paul to discourage marriage for these reasons?

Not obvious. Extraordinary claim, citation needed.

I've not studied Hinduism as much as I have the Abrahamic religions. I don't need gods to explain anything or fill in the gaps in my knowledge. Oddly though, I can appreciate a many gods approach to religion much better than a single god approach. The Abrahamic god is a straight up asshole, imo, and that's all you get. Ganesh, however, is a patron of the sciences and arts, and if you don't like him, there are a couple of others. Infinite power seems better suited to a pantheon than a single entity, if you're going to believe in the supernatural.

This is yet another reason I use the word "trust" instead of faith wrt science. Faith is for religion, where the sources are unobservable so belief needs to ignore conditions. Trust always has conditions when it comes to what you believe.

Some of us prefer to trust in the things we believe. Gods are unobservable by choice, which is far too coincidental for me. It's OK that you don't understand gravity and prefer to make up some garbage rather than study science. Intellectual pursuits aren't for everyone, and I hope you find a lot of comfort in your invisible sky buddy. Truly.

! Moderator Note Pasting the same post twice? This is the very definition of soapboxing. If you're done with discussion, I'll need to close this.

We can keep it simpler. It's all belief because it's what people believe. The difference is what it's based on. Faith is based on belief in powers we don't observe but are convinced of their existence. Trust is based on belief in what can observe and quantify and explain scientifically. Wishful thinking is based on belief in what we hope is true. Faith might tell me I'll live eternally as some kind of heavenly soul being. Trust tells me my consciousness will fail as my body does, and when the body is dead "I" will cease to exist. Wishful thinking tells me some part of me will still be thinking thoughts after my body is gone. This is the way I've always defined belief.

It's no surprise that you don't understand, but I find your willful ignorance a bit disgusting. This is a debate you can have with yourself, as my ethical stance on abortion doesn't recognize your waffling and judgemental unreasonableness.

Before it can actually live separately from the woman?!

I've often wondered if divergence isn't a natural response to the many dichotomies present in modern societies. When everyone is telling you that your society is all about freedom, yet you experience the opposite, divergence from the norm seems like a reasonable response.

Sorry, neurodivergence defines human neurocognitive functions only. But your idea is valid when talking about people, so by all means let's talk about people.

! Moderator Note Are you still interested in discussing this topic?

Why would you spell anyone's name phonetically on a discussion forum? Most of us know how it's pronounced, so we don't need you to dumb it down for us (you also didn't spell it phonetically, you went out of your way to put "camel" in there for some reason). And if you hadn't noticed, your crowd (MAGA) loves to mispronounce anything that doesn't sound white or Christian, even though there are no white people in the Bible. It's done in derision, like non-white names are too stupid to bother with pronouncing them correctly.

Racist insult, that's how I read it. Purposely so.

The difference, of course, is that one can check the veracity of scientific theories. It doesn't matter what you were taught if it doesn't actually work that way. You make it sound like someone could practice science that was culturally accepted but didn't actually work. Another mistake you keep making about science is associating it with "truth". Truth is subjective; science and scientific theory is looking for the best supported explanations, not answers, and especially not "truth". Religion looks for truth, and tries to insist on it. Science is always looking to improve, so we don't etch things on stone tablets.

! Moderator Note This can't stay in a mainstream section without some supportive evidence, something that can be analyzed objectively. We need more than you waving your fist, especially if you're making claims about efficacy. Do this quickly, please.

And even your understanding of this is flawed, because you obviously haven't studied the theory of evolution, and seem unwilling to admit it. You even claim you understand it "often better" than those who have. Have you read up on the Dunning-Kruger studies? You're a novice in this area, yet you insist on criticizing it based on your limited knowledge. Is this a Christian thing? Do you feel some kind of superiority based on your faith that makes you think ridiculing something makes you better?

And this is demonstrably false. In fact, you've been corrected repeatedly on your poor understanding of the science you're ridiculing.

Just like you and evolution. How hypocritical is it of you to criticize those who understand what you don't?

Why do you want to use the same word to describe both an automobile accident and Heinrich Himmler?