[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I can only conclude from your persisting insistance that atheism is a religion that you are a “wolf”…
[/quote]
Indeed I am.
And I eat atheists just for the sheer thrill of it. I like the sound of their bones crunching. But I have noticed I never get to feast on a backbone for some reason.
[/quote]
Eh, you should probably ease off on the junk food a bit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I think it’s silly to entertain the belief that god does not exist.
I think it’s equally silly to entertain the belief that god does exist.
That is why I do neither.[/quote]
But you believe in morality? love? beauty? your own existence? self? free will? predestination?
You really shouldn’t believe in anything then. All knowledge starts the same way with a belief in something without proof.[/quote]
Free will, no. Predestination, no. Morality, yes/no. Love and beauty, yes.
If you believe our existence is predicated on the existence of god than all is god.
If such a belief is irrelevant everything that happens happens on its own accord.
[/quote]
So a first cause is silly, but love and beauty aren’t?
What proof have you?
[/quote]
My experience of it.[/quote]
AHAHAHA!!!
That is the vaguest, most ridiculous, unsound, fact-less claim I have ever heard. You’re belief is downright silly.
It’s “magic”. No evidence or proof, just magic.[/quote]
A measurable [in the case of love] physical experience is laughable but believing in an unseen, unprovable god is serious business?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was explaining how all law is religious in nature, and you seemed to think that meant we could do without religion, and in context of the discussion, law. Or that’s what I got from your question.
Did you mean to ask, why we need religion outside of the law?[/quote]
Law needs weight of force behind it, that is true. While in the past religion was perfectly suited for that job, it is no longer required for that service.
[/quote]
It was never required for the purpose, though it was used for that. Your setting up a classic strawman. If you can make religion just a set of rules with a big bad boogie man to enforce them then you can create a reason there is no need for it. But relgion isn’t about that and it really never has been. There are rules in it, but it’s not about the rules.
Most athletes haven’t
You can’t fix stupid.
[quote]
If we could just wave religion goodbye, “Farewell Religion, thanks for everything!”, and move on that would be great.
But that’s not going to happen, is it?[/quote]
What would be so great? You wouldn’t be bothered anymore…That little voice in your head that compels you relentlessly in these conversations would suddenly stop?
You already know humans are wired to be religious in biology. You blow up all the churches, kill all the religious and religion would re-emerge, perhaps unguided or with out the benefit of divine revelation, but it would continue. You sound very much like Marx who thought that if everybody would just cooperate together, there would be no need for the haves and have-nots. Needless to say that was an epic fail. [/quote]
No pat, I’m a sad lonely guy who has nothing else to do on a friday night than to sit in his bedroom talking to you about these issues.[/quote]
Damn man, you live in Amsterdam. Go puff some hay and nail you a hooker.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You equate law with religion, so that makes sense. A system of law however carries the force of repercussion, so no divine authority needed.[/quote]
To have laws you must agree upon a morality.
There is no discernible difference, when forcing that morality on others through law, whether you directly claim god’s authority, like in when the declaration or independence declared human rights, or if you vaguely site “conscience” and “social good”, like Stalin.
You are assuming divine authority when you force your morals on others.[/quote]
Sane and rational people have no problem agreeing upon morality. It’s the weak of mind who require the fear of god to keep them in check.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I think it’s silly to entertain the belief that god does not exist.
I think it’s equally silly to entertain the belief that god does exist.
That is why I do neither.[/quote]
But you believe in morality? love? beauty? your own existence? self? free will? predestination?
You really shouldn’t believe in anything then. All knowledge starts the same way with a belief in something without proof.[/quote]
Free will, no. Predestination, no. Morality, yes/no. Love and beauty, yes.
If you believe our existence is predicated on the existence of god than all is god.
If such a belief is irrelevant everything that happens happens on its own accord.
[/quote]
So a first cause is silly, but love and beauty aren’t?
What proof have you?
[/quote]
My experience of it.[/quote]
AHAHAHA!!!
That is the vaguest, most ridiculous, unsound, fact-less claim I have ever heard. You’re belief is downright silly.
It’s “magic”. No evidence or proof, just magic.[/quote]
A measurable [in the case of love] physical experience is laughable but believing in an unseen, unprovable god is serious business?[/quote]
LOL @ “physical experience”. What physical measurable are there then?
You do realize this is the same basic argument most people have for a belief in god right. And that you are arguing for something that is just as applicable to something you called silly not a moment ago, right?
I mean, I was starting this of sarcastically not expecting you to really bite on this, but you are “jumping into the bear trap with both legs” at this point.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
No pat, I’m a sad lonely guy who has nothing else to do on a friday night than to sit in his bedroom talking to you about these issues.[/quote]
Damn man, you live in Amsterdam. Go puff some hay and nail you a hooker.[/quote]
I may puff some hay, but a hooker is not my thing, lol.
Early shift again tomorrow; I need my sleep.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You equate law with religion, so that makes sense. A system of law however carries the force of repercussion, so no divine authority needed.[/quote]
To have laws you must agree upon a morality.
There is no discernible difference, when forcing that morality on others through law, whether you directly claim god’s authority, like in when the declaration or independence declared human rights, or if you vaguely site “conscience” and “social good”, like Stalin.
You are assuming divine authority when you force your morals on others.[/quote]
Sane and rational people have no problem agreeing upon morality. It’s the weak of mind who require the fear of god to keep them in check.[/quote]
And this is different that the fear of ultimate power of the mystical collective, how?
And lol, at labeling people as strong minded because they agree with you, and weak minded if they don’t. That line right there is an instant PWI classic.
“if everyone was smart like me, everything would be awesome.”
Again, you don’t want no religion, you want everyone to have your own.
If everyone were a neo-nazi, there could be piece too.
No one agrees on morality, no one.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A measurable [in the case of love] physical experience is laughable but believing in an unseen, unprovable god is serious business?[/quote]
LOL @ “physical experience”. What physical measurable are there then?
You do realize this is the same basic argument most people have for a belief in god right. And that you are arguing for something that is just as applicable to something you called silly not a moment ago, right?
I mean, I was starting this of sarcastically not expecting you to really bite on this, but you are “jumping into the bear trap with both legs” at this point.[/quote]
“Falling in love” is caused by an increase in dopamine, norepinephrine and oxytocin in the brain. It’s a well studied phenomenon. I’m surprised you don’t know this, tbh.
Beliefs can affect similar structures in the brain, and “warm fuzzies” are the result. This explains why so many people think their beliefs are true since they feel their bodies respond.
It’s a great placebo effect and a testament to what the mind is capable of.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You equate law with religion, so that makes sense. A system of law however carries the force of repercussion, so no divine authority needed.[/quote]
To have laws you must agree upon a morality.
There is no discernible difference, when forcing that morality on others through law, whether you directly claim god’s authority, like in when the declaration or independence declared human rights, or if you vaguely site “conscience” and “social good”, like Stalin.
You are assuming divine authority when you force your morals on others.[/quote]
Sane and rational people have no problem agreeing upon morality. It’s the weak of mind who require the fear of god to keep them in check.[/quote]
And this is different that the fear of ultimate power of the mystical collective, how?
And lol, at labeling people as strong minded because they agree with you, and weak minded if they don’t. That line right there is an instant PWI classic.
“if everyone was smart like me, everything would be awesome.”
Again, you don’t want no religion, you want everyone to have your own.[/quote]
No more religion is a pipe dream, I realise that, but I can still dream, can’t I?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A measurable [in the case of love] physical experience is laughable but believing in an unseen, unprovable god is serious business?[/quote]
LOL @ “physical experience”. What physical measurable are there then?
You do realize this is the same basic argument most people have for a belief in god right. And that you are arguing for something that is just as applicable to something you called silly not a moment ago, right?
I mean, I was starting this of sarcastically not expecting you to really bite on this, but you are “jumping into the bear trap with both legs” at this point.[/quote]
“Falling in love” is caused by an increase in dopamine, norepinephrine and oxytocin in the brain. It’s a well studied phenomenon. I’m surprised you don’t know this, tbh.
Beliefs can affect similar structures in the brain, and “warm fuzzies” are the result. This explains why so many people think their beliefs are true since they feel their bodies respond.
It’s a great placebo effect and a testament to what the mind is capable of.[/quote]
There are measurable physiological symptoms of a religious event too.
But if that defines love, love is a chemical reaction in your brain. Eating chocolate is love too.
You seem to contradict yourself. You are quoting these physiological symptoms as proof of your belief in love, while discounting those same things in religious experience. Is the physiological response evidence or not?
If not, love is silly, if so, god is not silly.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If everyone were a neo-nazi, there could be piece too.
No one agrees on morality, no one. [/quote]
No, well, we’re proof of that, lol!
No one can seem to agree on which god to believe in either.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You equate law with religion, so that makes sense. A system of law however carries the force of repercussion, so no divine authority needed.[/quote]
To have laws you must agree upon a morality.
There is no discernible difference, when forcing that morality on others through law, whether you directly claim god’s authority, like in when the declaration or independence declared human rights, or if you vaguely site “conscience” and “social good”, like Stalin.
You are assuming divine authority when you force your morals on others.[/quote]
Sane and rational people have no problem agreeing upon morality. It’s the weak of mind who require the fear of god to keep them in check.[/quote]
And this is different that the fear of ultimate power of the mystical collective, how?
And lol, at labeling people as strong minded because they agree with you, and weak minded if they don’t. That line right there is an instant PWI classic.
“if everyone was smart like me, everything would be awesome.”
Again, you don’t want no religion, you want everyone to have your own.[/quote]
No more religion is a pipe dream, I realise that, but I can still dream, can’t I?[/quote]
Again, you can dream, but you aren’t being honest with yourself. You dream of a religion of government and social conscience, you don’t dream of no religion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A measurable [in the case of love] physical experience is laughable but believing in an unseen, unprovable god is serious business?[/quote]
LOL @ “physical experience”. What physical measurable are there then?
You do realize this is the same basic argument most people have for a belief in god right. And that you are arguing for something that is just as applicable to something you called silly not a moment ago, right?
I mean, I was starting this of sarcastically not expecting you to really bite on this, but you are “jumping into the bear trap with both legs” at this point.[/quote]
“Falling in love” is caused by an increase in dopamine, norepinephrine and oxytocin in the brain. It’s a well studied phenomenon. I’m surprised you don’t know this, tbh.
Beliefs can affect similar structures in the brain, and “warm fuzzies” are the result. This explains why so many people think their beliefs are true since they feel their bodies respond.
It’s a great placebo effect and a testament to what the mind is capable of.[/quote]
There are measurable physiological symptoms of a religious event too.
But if that defines love, love is a chemical reaction in your brain. Eating chocolate is love too.
You seem to contradict yourself. You are quoting these physiological symptoms as proof of your belief in love, while discounting those same things in religious experience. Is the physiological response evidence or not?
If not, love is silly, if so, god is not silly.[/quote]
Love is a word that describes a change in brain chemistry. Beliefs do the same thing. They affect the brain. That does not mean the beliefs are true.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If everyone were a neo-nazi, there could be piece too.
No one agrees on morality, no one. [/quote]
No, well, we’re proof of that, lol!
No one can seem to agree on which god to believe in either.[/quote]
The first cause seems to be about the only common thread.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A measurable [in the case of love] physical experience is laughable but believing in an unseen, unprovable god is serious business?[/quote]
LOL @ “physical experience”. What physical measurable are there then?
You do realize this is the same basic argument most people have for a belief in god right. And that you are arguing for something that is just as applicable to something you called silly not a moment ago, right?
I mean, I was starting this of sarcastically not expecting you to really bite on this, but you are “jumping into the bear trap with both legs” at this point.[/quote]
“Falling in love” is caused by an increase in dopamine, norepinephrine and oxytocin in the brain. It’s a well studied phenomenon. I’m surprised you don’t know this, tbh.
Beliefs can affect similar structures in the brain, and “warm fuzzies” are the result. This explains why so many people think their beliefs are true since they feel their bodies respond.
It’s a great placebo effect and a testament to what the mind is capable of.[/quote]
There are measurable physiological symptoms of a religious event too.
But if that defines love, love is a chemical reaction in your brain. Eating chocolate is love too.
You seem to contradict yourself. You are quoting these physiological symptoms as proof of your belief in love, while discounting those same things in religious experience. Is the physiological response evidence or not?
If not, love is silly, if so, god is not silly.[/quote]
Love is a word that describes a change in brain chemistry. Beliefs do the same thing. They affect the brain. That does not mean the beliefs are true.[/quote]
So eating chocolate is love?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
No more religion is a pipe dream, I realise that, but I can still dream, can’t I?[/quote]
Again, you can dream, but you aren’t being honest with yourself. You dream of a religion of government and social conscience, you don’t dream of no religion.[/quote]
If you redefine “religion” as something without the divine aspect, then I guess you’re right!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If everyone were a neo-nazi, there could be piece too.
No one agrees on morality, no one. [/quote]
No, well, we’re proof of that, lol!
No one can seem to agree on which god to believe in either.[/quote]
The first cause seems to be about the only common thread.[/quote]
This world is filled with myths about the first cause.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
No more religion is a pipe dream, I realise that, but I can still dream, can’t I?[/quote]
Again, you can dream, but you aren’t being honest with yourself. You dream of a religion of government and social conscience, you don’t dream of no religion.[/quote]
If you redefine “religion” as something without the divine aspect, then I guess you’re right![/quote]
However you want to rationalize your worship of state.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If everyone were a neo-nazi, there could be piece too.
No one agrees on morality, no one. [/quote]
Think about that. If everyone were a neo-nazi. That would mean everyone.