The Final Solution

[JeffTheLearner]

(Q) your like two pints short of being retarded, and you have no understanding. Do you really think that Christianity, and Judaism has a bad effect on daily life and civilization, your completely wrong. You think atheists are so wise beyond comprehension. Have you not noticed the big atheist experiment in Russia? When they systematically removed all churches, and turned them into museums displaying the propaganda of Darwinism. Russia is today one of the most impoverished, and H.I.V. infected civilizations on the face of the earth. Their men of honor are drunken fools and their leaders treat the people like animals as they starve and freeze to death. Look in America, California, one of the most anti-Christian states in are nation, the greatest part of the population are in poverty, murders, thefts, and rapes are off the charts. H.I.V. is ramped. Try raising kids in the area, and send them to public school and watch your well mannered child become the most spoiled, corrupt, ungrateful, spoiled jerk in all situations, watch as your daughter turns into a whore who works for free without enough sense to at least stand on the corner and get paid for it. As for your son, maybe he's gay and he likes other men, but I'm not going to tell him that, his teacher will. Your full of it (Q), your very distant from reality, and the funny thing is you think that Christians and Judeans are nuts.

 

[c20H25N3o]

c20

Because life on Earth is very important. A theist believes in an afterlife, a continuation of existence. If they were to deride any part of that life then they deride the whole life no matter which side of the physical realm they are in.

Let's look at what Cyperium has to say about that:

As such the world is necessary, that it is secondary don't mean that it is unnecessary and totally wrong and dull (and whatever bad you can call it), that it comes secondary just means that it doesn't come first.

We know we are all going to die, in this world, as such the world cannot come first - it is too flawed even to hold us.

Here we have a good example of the mindset I was referring. Cuperium is only interested in this world as a 'necessary' stepping stone to heaven. The fact that heaven is a fantasy is not the issue, but the fact that he considers life on Earth as flawed shows that he has very little interest in living as opposed to being dead. His primary concern to living is having faith in his god.

I read this in Cyperium's words. Please correct me Cyperium, if any of my understanding is wrong :

Cyperium is saying he has accepted the nature of """mortality""" . He understands why 'mortality' is necessary. There is too much bad stuff here in this world that you would not want to share immortality with. But to paraphrase Cyperium "That does not mean that I believe there is something wrong with the purpose of mortal existence and nor does it mean that I have given up on my purpose here."
Cyperium doesn't intend to ignore the bad stuff nor does he intend to contribute to it. He doesn't negate his mortal pupose but rather embraces it and chooses to 'love' as his personal mission.

"For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Corinthians 15:53-55 RSV)

It is this type of mindset that causes the many problems prevalent with religion.

What questions of mortality and immortality? They seem like fairly peaceful philosophies to me especially from one who espouses 'God is love'. Again I am puzzled why you blame the theists for halting progress. Perhaps you are confusing 'theists' with radical political types who hold a bible in one hand and a finger on a red button with the other? Might it not be a good idea to filter the two groups out if you find you are accusing the wrong person or groups of people?
I see no problem. Cyperium is not trying to halt anyones progress including his own.

It shows contempt for life and what nature has to offer. The real and the tangible of life are placed after that which is held as an ideal in the mind.

No, it shows a contempt for the evil that we see. Nature actually magnifies that evil by itself being so abundant with things that support us, rather than steal from us or kill us, such is the nature of evil. Theist's appreciate nature, not despise it.

Life then becomes meaningless and is wasted in pursuit of a death with promises of something better.

No. Cyperium went to pains to explain that it did not mean this to him.

This is not a continuation of existence, but instead is the beginning of an existence that has never been shown to exist.

Your going to have to expand on that. Not sure what you mean

:The more I realise how complex the nature of things are, the more I stand in awe of God.

But the fact is that when one understands nature more and more, they understand that nature does not reveal gods but instead reveals it for what it is.

Err? Just because science describes witnessed phenomena in great detail does not mean that it negates a 'first mover' postulated in a philosophical sense. Science ought not be concerned with the 'first movers' of philosophy but rather with documenting facts about the nature of the universe since that is within its scope.

I suspect that all theists would demand the halt of scientific progress, since that progress reveals less and less about the existence of gods.

It does no such thing. It reports on 'witnessed' phenomena in nature. Leave gods to the philosophers and religious.

C20: Are their any scientific projects that you personally would not support and why?

(Q): I support all scientific projects.

Including those of Josef Mengele? :bugeye:

peace

c20

 

[KennyJC]

I don't know why I am even bothering to speak to this Jeff the non-learner prat, but here goes:

You are confusing free secular societies with communist states forcing atheism on it's people. If you had anything between your ears you would see that countries with high levels of atheists/agnostics have healthier societies. Most countries that have high levels of religion are those that are impoverished and need religion to give them some comfort (that includes H.I.V. rampant countries, you utter fool).

I think beyond that of atheism forced on people by communists states, atheism/agnosticism is good for society as can be proven.

Keep talking Jeff, you're making a great case on how religion is bad for society.

 

[JeffTheLearner]

...alright where? Give me some examples.

 

[KennyJC]

...alright where? Give me some examples.

I would be happy to. Although you are exposing your idiocy by not even knowing. Almost all of Europe, particularly Scandinavia, Australia, Japan, Canada etc have some of the worlds highest levels of atheists/agnostic/non-religious, and these countries have good social performance.

In fact if you look at the list of top 50 atheist/non believer nations, you'll see that the ones with the least social problems are at the top of the list. This article is in this thread

This quote puts my point accross well.

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

 

[JeffTheLearner]

I bet your going to use Islamic nations who worship an over glorified moon idol/ god, and I bet your going to fail to mention how Muslims kill Christians, and Judeans as part of the religion, and then after reading this your going to want to mention the Catholic crusades, and then I'll remind you that if you read the bible, Catholicism is far from scripture in 90% of it practices, and they see the Pope as god on earth and they killed many for about 1500 years who had copies of the bible, and Christianity was distorted by them. But I wanted you to mention atheistic and agnostic nations as an example that are not so corrupt? Are you going to say France? Oh yea France there whole civilization is perishing because nobody will have children, everybody just wants to party and have sex with each other, Or are you going to bring up Sweden where rape of pets is a major epidemic. What? …what are your going to bring up?

 

[JeffTheLearner]

…Oh yea Japan where Aids is killing the population like flies, and see they also abort there children like there is no tomorrow, it is estimated that their whole civilization will be gone in couple generations. Yea your so smart, you know nothing and your full of it, you believe what you hear from inaccurate books and intentionally faulty news post, you think Christians are gullible, its ironic how you are more so.

 

[KennyJC]

I bet your going to use Islamic nations who worship an over glorified moon idol/ god, and I bet your going to fail to mention how Muslims kill Christians, and Judeans as part of the religion, and then after reading this your going to want to mention the Catholic crusades

You said it, not me...

But I wanted you to mention atheistic and agnostic nations as an example that are not so corrupt? Are you going to say France? Oh yea France there whole civilization is perishing because nobody will have children, everybody just wants to party and have sex with each other, Or are you going to bring up Sweden where rape of pets is a major epidemic. What? …what are your going to bring up?

It may come as a shock, but even secular nations are not perfect, but they statistically work better. Now it's up to you to prove otherwise beyond unsubstantiated claims of a whole country "perishing".

 

[Adstar]

Why would you propose theists end their lives prematurely?

It was, of course, a hypothetical question - I wouldn't wish 2/3 of the worlds population to all leap off a cliff or anything like that. I'm simply wondering why theists don't simply end it all so they can be with their god. If the afterlife is heaven, why do so many bother with their existence on Earth?

Man this is so basic. Killing yourself is sin to a Christian.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[stretched]

Quote Jeff:
"and then I'll remind you that if you read the bible, Catholicism is far from scripture in 90% of it practices"

* Just remember Jeff, that Christianity as it is known today (all denominations) rest on the foundations of Catholicism. The Church of Rome was supposedly founded by Peter after he moved to Rome.

"The church teaches that it was founded by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, some 50 days after Jesus' execution by the Roman Army, circa 30-APR CE. Peter is believed to have moved to Rome, been universally regarded as the first pope, and followed by a continuous succession of popes up to the present day." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_den1.htm)

* So without Catholicism you would have no Christianity. Keep an open mind.

 

[Adstar]

Christianity survived well enough for hundreds of years before the catholic religion was created. And it has survived in spite of the incredible efforts to destroy it by religions like catholicism.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[stretched]

The painfull fact is that without Catholicism, you or any other Christian would have no religion. I find it so amusing that you all cannot grasp this simple fact. What then was "Christianity" like, before the Church of Rome? Any contemporary literature you can point me to? (No, not the Bible)

 

[duendy]

On the contrary, God can be seen and heard through the works of creation.

Psalm 19 (NIV)

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard. [a]


duendy[[[[[[[[[[[[no there is a distinct difference between the concept of an omni-scient 'creator/architect/ 'God' who is apart from his creation, and the pre-patriarcal concept of a Goddess whose body IS Nature/immanence......Otherwise, how do you explain the Jdaic Christian persecutions of peoples who DID understand Nature to be alive, and many pf their rituals expressed there deep reverance for Nature?...ie actions speak louder than words.....let me ask you C2O.....if you've explianed this elsewhere, pease foreward link)-----what is te Christian vision? i actually asked ths in a tread i created and its disappeared. do you blieve in the Augustian idea of a future 'City of God'.....i remember you claiming that in the end days it will be followed b a time where 'fleshy pursuits' will be a thing of the past....please tell me about this?

This business about theists thinking they are better off dead is not common to theists per se. Maybe to a few religious nutter clerics trying to convince young people to strap a backpack on their backs and go meet 42 virgins or whatever but these people are in a minority and have political agendas. Note that they encourage others to do their dirty work but don't seem to want a quick serving of 42 virgins themselves




Because life on Earth is very important. A theist believes in an afterlife, a continuation of existence. If they were to deride any part of that life then they deride the whole life no matter which side of the physical realm they are in. Love is important now.



Hey I think science is great. I wouldn't be on a site like this if I wasn't fascinated by things science. The more I realise how complex the nature of things are, the more I stand in awe of God.




I am sure there are those who use religious arguments to further their political points and increase their political standing. This does seem to be the way in America from what I have readand I sympathise with those that are atheistic and have to put up with political hypocrisy in the name of religion.

Having said that, there were a few scientific projects that would never have gotten my personal approval even before I became a christian such as anything involving cultivating embryos for research. I felt that way long before I became a christian. A bit of a pro-lifer at heart.




Well let's not get hung up on the semantics of what belief is. You hold a different understanding to theists lets say. Try and judge each theist on his or her own merits and discern for yourself whether they are trying to halt scientific progress.

Be objective (Q). Are their any scientific projects that you personally would not support and why?

Thanks

c20

<)>((((((<>)(LLL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~()

 

[c20H25N3o]

no there is a distinct difference between the concept of an omni-scient 'creator/architect/ 'God' who is apart from his creation, and the pre-patriarcal concept of a Goddess whose body IS Nature/immanence......Otherwise, how do you explain the Jdaic Christian persecutions of peoples who DID understand Nature to be alive, and many pf their rituals expressed there deep reverance for Nature?...ie actions speak louder than words

The bible is very clear on the issue as pointed out in the psalm I quoted above. Nature is an expression of God's creative nature. I have no idea why some people persecute others in the name of God or whatever. As for me, nature is like a painting that reveals much about the loves of the artist that painted it.

.....let me ask you C2O.....if you've explianed this elsewhere, pease foreward link)-----what is te Christian vision?

The Christian vision is to become Christ-like. Please see 'Jesus' in the bible for a definition of Christ-like A Christian has received the Holy Spirit to help him achieve this vision upon believing in Jesus and Jesus' message.

do you blieve in the Augustian idea of a future 'City of God'.....i remember you claiming that in the end days it will be followed b a time where 'fleshy pursuits' will be a thing of the past....please tell me about this?

I believe that what is mortal must become immortal. For now we have a mortal body to live on a mortal earth. One day our bodies will be transformed into eternal bodies prepared for eternal life. I am not particulary interested in the detail of the eternal kingdom. The promise of eternal life is enough for me.
As for the 'fleshy pursuits' bit, I was refering to having an eternal body that would not be subject to the desires prevalent in a mortal environment.

Imagine not needing food, water or shelter in this life. How many constraints would you have were that the case? Imagine having a body with no limitations!

peace

c20

 

[duendy]

The bible is very clear on the issue as pointed out in the psalm I quoted above. Nature is an expression of God's creative nature. I have no idea why some people persecute others in the name of God or whatever. As for me, nature is like a painting that reveals much about the loves of the artist that painted it.

me::::i cannot speak for how you interret it...tho you do betray what i mean at the end of your post, which i'll referto later......Thereason peoples were persecuted is because of COMPETETION plain and simple. for you faith poists A 'God' whose the 'creator of Nature. and that 'he' is the authority. any othr beliefs would not be tolerated. also your faith demonizes the Goddess. althoug it seems to pay a certain homag to the Female, as with th 'Virgin Mary'...really it is the Female wit all her wildness taken out!....


The Christian vision is to become Christ-like. Please see 'Jesus' in the bible for a definition of Christ-like A Christian has received the Holy Spirit to help him achieve this vision upon believing in Jesus and Jesus' message.



I believe that what is mortal must become immortal. For now we have a mortal body to live on a mortal earth. One day our bodies will be transformed into eternal bodies prepared for eternal life. I am not particulary interested in the detail of the eternal kingdom. The promise of eternal life is enough for me.
As for the 'fleshy pursuits' bit, I was refering to having an eternal body that would not be subject to the desires prevalent in a mortal environment.

Imagine not needing food, water or shelter in this life. How many constraints would you have were that the case? Imagine having a body with no limitations!

peace

c20

as i sad, the rest of your post ompletely reveals the HUGE diference between a Goddess Stream of te insight of immanence, and the God stream concept of a transcendental 'God'

if we just pay attention to these two abstract terms , ie., 'mortal'& 'immortal'. now in my understanding there is no problem. for i understand that 'mortal' is always WITH 'immortal', like a dance, an evolving spiral dance. to imagine you can dispense wit one abstract is absurd to my unerstanding. mifght as well imagine you can have 'hot' witout 'cold', 'wet' without 'dry'.....for how can you KNOW dry less you know wet...???? think about it.

your faith wants to put Nature right. it wants to 'spiritualize' it. get rid of all the 'messiness'...other mystical faiths wanted to ESCAPE Nature entirely. and wciencism claims that the only thing we can know is deat..'when yer dead yer dead'

and this is what i am sayig. all those belief sysems in tei own way--using different references but meaning same tin--seek to ESCAPE Nature. but i am saying, Nature is alive and Intelligent AS IT IS. what is at fault is mindsets which dont realize this, and then go and create utter mayhem with Nature, all species including humans, precisely because they feear Nature.

 

[c20H25N3o]

your faith wants to put Nature right.

I watch the caterpillar turn into a lifeless cocoon , I watch the butterfly emerge from that lifeless cocoon. I take some meaning from that. If that is 'spiritualising nature' then I can only conclude that it is 'natural' for me to do that. I do not see how that is undermining nature?

peace

c20

 

[(Q)]

c20

There is too much bad stuff here in this world that you would not want to share immortality with... Cyperium doesn't intend to ignore the bad stuff nor does he intend to contribute to it.

But, that is exactly the problem, he is contributing. The reason there is 'bad stuff in this world' is a direct result of theist thought and decision making processes molding and shaping society over the centuries. Let the atheists run the world and you'll see things change dramatically. It would take time to undo the damage done, of course, as we would need to see a swing in the thought processes of people in realizing their existence is finite and their time on Earth is precious.

No, it shows a contempt for the evil that we see.

The concepts of good and evil are theist and are relatively meaningless. If you see evil in the world, it is the direct cause of theists.

Nature actually magnifies that evil by itself being so abundant with things that support us, rather than steal from us or kill us, such is the nature of evil.

Impossible, nature is reality and has nothing to do with the theist concepts of good and evil.

Cyperium went to pains to explain that it did not mean this to him.

No, all he did was attempt to justify the concepts of theists over nature. He said that nature and this world are secondary to his belief in god and the afterlife. He, and many others like him, will never see the true nature of the world and will waste their lives pursuing their ideals as opposed to embracing the real and the tangible.

Your going to have to expand on that. Not sure what you mean

Sorry, you mentioned the afterlife was a continuation of existence. In other words, death is a beginning of a new kind of existence, that with god, right? If our time is finite, then there is no beginning of that existence.

Just because science describes witnessed phenomena in great detail does not mean that it negates a 'first mover' postulated in a philosophical sense.

True, but the concept of a 'first mover' has yet to have anything valid to support it. And of course, there are a myriad of arguments against that concept as well. It is certainly a possibility, but one that cannot stand on its own against the evidence of a 'self starting' universe and the logic supporting it.

Science ought not be concerned with the 'first movers' of philosophy but rather with documenting facts about the nature of the universe since that is within its scope.

That is exactly what science does. And someday, science may provide us with enough understanding and information to support a theory of 'first movement.'

Leave gods to the philosophers and religious.

I would very much like to do that, unfortunatley, those philosophers and the religious have a tendency to control the decision making processes of those who are in power, who make decisions based on their beliefs that directly affect me. For example, one simply needs to turn to the city of Kansas to see such a decision making process in motion, creationism vs. evolution.

Including those of Josef Mengele?

Mengeles experiments were highly questionable, at best, from a scientific point of view.

I was under the impression that when you asked me if I supported ALL scientific projects, you meant those not conducted by the insane.

I might be impressed with a number of leadership qualities Hitler possessed, but that doesn't mean I supported his methods and ideals.

I could ask a similar question to you in regards to those who conducted the Inquisitions.

 

[(Q)]

Man this is so basic. Killing yourself is sin to a Christian.

No problem, repent your sins and you'll be in heaven with your god.

 

[c20H25N3o]

c20:There is too much bad stuff here in this world that you would not want to share immortality with... Cyperium doesn't intend to ignore the bad stuff nor does he intend to contribute to it.

(Q):But, that is exactly the problem, he is contributing. The reason there is 'bad stuff in this world' is a direct result of theist thought and decision making processes molding and shaping society over the centuries. Let the atheists run the world and you'll see things change dramatically. It would take time to undo the damage done, of course, as we would need to see a swing in the thought processes of people in realizing their existence is finite and their time on Earth is precious.

I have to disagree. Cyperium is responsible for his actions and his actions alone, as am I and as are you. What he believes personally, has no bearing on the influence others have on 'our world'. Maybe the political architects use religion for their own ends but Cyperium's belief is seperate to that. It is the political architects that you have issue with, not Cyperiums beliefs. Why don't you attack the actual political architects for their hypocrisy? Is it just easier to attack an abstract belief system because then it doesn't have to get personal?

C20: No, it shows a contempt for the evil that we see.

(Q): The concepts of good and evil are theist and are relatively meaningless. If you see evil in the world, it is the direct cause of theists.

When my child asks for a loaf of bread, should I give him a snake? If not why not?

c20:Nature actually magnifies that evil by itself being so abundant with things that support us, rather than steal from us or kill us, such is the nature of evil.

(Q): Impossible, nature is reality and has nothing to do with the theist concepts of good and evil.

Nature encompasses 'everything'. I am a part of nature and I clearly see with my own eyes what is right and wrong. Giving a child a snake when they have asked for bread would be an evil act. Perhaps nature only created atheists and theists came from..... ??????

c20: Cyperium went to pains to explain that it did not mean this to him.

(Q): No, all he did was attempt to justify the concepts of theists over nature. He said that nature and this world are secondary to his belief in god and the afterlife. He, and many others like him, will never see the true nature of the world and will waste their lives pursuing their ideals as opposed to embracing the real and the tangible.

If Cyperium prepares himself for immortality by pursuing a self-less life dedicated to loving others in this life, I cannot see where your objection is?

c20: Your going to have to expand on that. Not sure what you mean

(Q): Sorry, you mentioned the afterlife was a continuation of existence. In other words, death is a beginning of a new kind of existence, that with god, right? If our time is finite, then there is no beginning of that existence.

Yes there is a continuation of existence, but this new kind of existence isn't really new at all. We will still have the same 'I' that currently looks through a glass darkly to see the things of God, only then we will see fully. Our time of seeing God dimly is finite.

c20: Just because science describes witnessed phenomena in great detail does not mean that it negates a 'first mover' postulated in a philosophical sense.

(Q): True, but the concept of a 'first mover' has yet to have anything valid to support it. And of course, there are a myriad of arguments against that concept as well. It is certainly a possibility, but one that cannot stand on its own against the evidence of a 'self starting' universe and the logic supporting it.

When you get to the bit before planck-time then come back to me on it. Until then you are just postulating right?

c20: Science ought not be concerned with the 'first movers' of philosophy but rather with documenting facts about the nature of the universe since that is within its scope.

(Q): That is exactly what science does. And someday, science may provide us with enough understanding and information to support a theory of 'first movement.'

Some day. Let's discuss it further then.

c20:Leave gods to the philosophers and religious.

(Q):I would very much like to do that, unfortunatley, those philosophers and the religious have a tendency to control the decision making processes of those who are in power, who make decisions based on their beliefs that directly affect me. For example, one simply needs to turn to the city of Kansas to see such a decision making process in motion, creationism vs. evolution.

Love does not seek it's own way. That's my take on it. I don't know these other philosophers and religious people that you speak of.

I think the questions/answers about what scientific experiments one would support are not worth arguing about between you and I as individuals

Like I said, whilst I might think that if my girlfriend got pregnant by me, it was 'our' responsibility to have that baby and support it, there would be very little preventing her from seeking an abortion if that was her will. Now if I could not even prevent that (because I do not seek my own way), what is it that I am having such an influence over?

peace

c20

 

[(Q)]

Imagine not needing food, water or shelter in this life. How many constraints would you have were that the case? Imagine having a body with no limitations!

Yes, its fun to imagine those things and gives one a warm fuzzy feeling all over, especially when faced with the finality of death.

I believe that what is mortal must become immortal. For now we have a mortal body to live on a mortal earth. One day our bodies will be transformed into eternal bodies prepared for eternal life.

Sorry to say that sounds very much like you're in denial.