You have a very valid argument, but there's one aspect that's missing: just like with old-fashioned racketeering, it's not a one-time expense: fold to one patent troll and you'll have to fold to all.
The SCO case was different: it was basically a Microsoft vs. Linux fight by proxy that SCO could not have funded on its own.
This patent troll is more likely to go for the low-hanging fruit, so it seems smarter for him to not make himself an attractive target.
Uhm, it doesn't seem very fair to lump actual fraudsters in the same group as relatively innocent parodists. Once you start making people part with their money, it's a completely different situation.
That being said, tax relief does not result in net profit, just in lowering the effective costs of something you'd do anyway. So unless there's an added benefit, I would prefer not to cut up family members this way just for tax relief:-)
My "proof" of the presence of a higher being would be existence itself.
But then you are just shifting the problem. Now you think you know something about the existence of the universe, but you get another question: if a god created the universe, then what created this god? There is no answer to that question.
The thing I find very manipulative about religion is that it seems to answer questions by letting all answers end up in "god did it..." -- you start out with 1000 questions, you end up with just 1. The religion is then based both on finding answers to that question and not being able to do so completely.
to disproving as Christian claims.
Christian claims cannot be proven or disproven as they are not falsifiable. When inconsistencies in the bible are pointed out, it is said they are intentional. When bad behaviour of fanatics is pointed out, it is said they aren't real followers. When there is lack of proof, it is said that no amount of proof would be convincing anyway. Which means exactly do you give me to CHECK your claims, at least those that make your own religion (instead of e.g. Islam) true and others not?
That's not how it works. And no, I'd say he was giving the perfect example of a just god.
I quote: "He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD." -- did he or did he not perform some form of action before those children were brutally slaughtered? If you find it just to kill children "even" for blasphemy, then I sincerely question your ethics.
It was OK for them to die because they were sinful.
But then, is it OK in your view for me to die for being sinful too? You don't feel there may be anything wrong with that line of thinking?
The rules given to God's people only apply to God's people,...
But it is not possible to fulfill all rules without breaking those of the society we live in. When faced with breaking a legal rule or a biblibal rule, which will you prefer to break?
I'd like to see a judge pass down that judgement...
Nope, in the analogy, the judge is the one with low self-esteem and acts like a peeping tom in people's bedrooms and judges people based on what they do in the privacy of their own homes.
According to the gospels, the last words Jesus spoke on the cross where...
The problem is that in the gospels, he spoke different last words in each. How many last words can one speak. Also, in the resurrection story - one of the core elements of christianity - each gospel presents a different story. In one case, there was an earthquake (hard not to notice), in another case, there was an angel inside already, etc. Even if they were consistent with one another, it wouldn't mean much (Harry Potter is consistent too), but given the utter lack of clear information, it is irresponsible to attempt to base an accurate story on highly inaccurate sources.
Also, the bible mentions that Jesus had to be born in lineage of Joseph. Yet, two quite different lineages are given. On top of that, Joseph was merely the foster parent, since he did not impregnate Mary. If anybody today claimed a woman had been impregnated by a/the holy spirit, one would do DNA tests and quickly dismiss her claims as bogus. Back in those days, it was much easier to fool people into believing things.
The concept of "heaven" most people have isn't quite right.
I'm glad you have such authority about supernatural entities and places. Care to show me your credentials?
The idea of living in a world just like ours, but without all the problems, just takes my breath away.
Which is exactly the wishful thinking that encourages you to believe in what the bible says. You may call me a pessimist, but your bible tells me that the majority of humanity will end up in a very miserable place. In your vi
Everyone has sinned, and therefore deserves death.
Why is death the punishment for sin? In my view, people - like all living beings - simply die for completely natural reasons. However, that reality is too harsh for us, so we as humans invent a doctrine after the fact to "explain" why things happen. It does not change that 99.999...% of the time higher entities appear to have complete respect for the physical laws and consistencies of the universe.
The convenience of your claim is that it is set up in such a way that you don't have to prove anything. After all, you can always claim things like "that was done to test us". If there is anecdotal evidence that someone at some point healed a person, you (in a general sense) will embrace that as a miracle and proof.
Capital punishment for insulting God's messenger and, by implication, God himself.
And you think he was giving the perfect example of a forgiving and kind spirit when he summoned his god to kill people?
A child is just as guilty of their sin as an adult.
So in your view it was OK for them to die because of the choice of their leader who was not even democratically elected. On top of that, it is claimed that this leader's mind was "hardened" by this god. Not really fair...
As I said, I think God gaves laws for good reasons, not just because he was arbitrary.
Actually, the beastiality link was semi-intentional. If you accept that rule, you must also accept "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
The question is: assuming the laws in the bible are the only right ones, how would they apply to believers today? Is the current legal system blasphemous to higher forces for not imposing capital punishment?
The Bible doesn't recognize the same human rights as you do.
Which is why I don't recognize the bible as a source of truth or even wisdom. I prefer to read the works of actual philosophers of ancient Greek times. Some biblical laws may be right on target, but you can say the same about some islamic laws.... and that God's job anyway
You're saying it's (part of) his job to kill non-believers? Exactly how am I supposed to interpret that statement?
God isn't fond of adultery.
Perhaps he should have more self-esteem then and get out more and meet other people.
The basic point is the same - unless someone seeks God, they are not going to understand his message.
That argument is indeed used a lot when people comment on inconsistencies, direct contradictions, atrocities, etc. For example, can you tell me what the last words of Jesus were on the cross? Can you tell me what happened at resurrection?
Yes... if you WANT to believe something, then even the faintest trace will be acceptable. However, you might agree with me that the bulk of bible does not stand up to modern journalistic standards.
There are all sorts of fairly empty consolations you can say...
If and when I give consolation, I find it customary to talk about how I experienced that person, how that person's life (positively) impacted mine, etc. I find nothing empty about that. Conversely, I do not find it appropriate to go into detail about my view on religion and death when among mourning religious people.
BTW, the Bible doesn't say people go to hell when they die - it says that they go their after Jesus returns. When Jesus returns, all the dead will be resurrected - the believers will go with God, and the non-believers will be thrown (along with Satan, for whom hell was made) into hell.
Okay, you probably agree Jesus has not yet returned for the past 2000 years. The question is: where are the dead people of the past 20 centuries? Are they conscious in any form? If people die today, they are not actually in a heaven then? Will cremated people be resurrected too or only those who were buried and are still in a reasonabl
The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.
But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.
I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?
My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.
Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.
The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.
I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.
Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.
The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.
The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.
Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm
Having a servant who knows what freedom is, and chooses to serve anyway is something else.
But the mean thing is that the servant who chooses for that freedom gets severely punished for that choice. Only one real choice is given: serve or die.
"Humane" is a term that has little to do with justice.
No, but it does have to do with execution of that justice. If *our* (as in: us humans) laws and morals are based on that deity or the teachings of that deity, shouldn't he/she/it show the superlative of qualities we greatly respect in humans today?
The advantage God has over human legal systems is that God is infallible, which is probably the main argument I hear against the death penalty (and, incidentally, why I oppose it).
I'm against death penalty too: the system is fallible and I don't believe that further killing is a good thing. However, you could also argue that you're doing those people a favour: if the system on earth is fallible and they were unjustly killed (assuming the punishment itself is just), then surely they will be compensated in an afterlife?
What I find sort of surprising is that some people can be totally sure someone is going to heaven, yet still intensely mourn their death. It would make more sense to throw a party when someone starts living the eternal happy life.
What's wrong with simplistic?
The same thing that's wrong with thinking in black-and-white. Often, "not black" is seen as the same as "white".
Here's the line. Step over it, and you'll be punished. It's not a situation that requires a complex resolution.
If that is true, then it is odd that the legal profession is such a complicated one and that even people of exactly the same religion disagree so much with eachother about the exact interpretation. So, yes... it is "simple" to draw a line and say "don't cross it". The complexity is in defining that line and defining the appropriate punishment.
I can't remember at any stage saying God was flabbergasted, nor can I think of any doctrine that implies such.
Then perhaps you need to read the bible a bit more. My question is: did your god see it coming or did he not see it coming that Adam & Eve would eat from the tree?
Also: how is it possible that the knowledge of good & evil came from something created by an entity and yet that entity is claimed to have no actual knowledge of what he created... ?
The issue of "free will" is an interesting one: it means we are more powerful than a divine entity in the sense that - apparently - that entity cannot predict our thoughts. Yet... that entity is apparently capable of reading our thoughts.
"Disproving" things the other side in a debate never believed in the first place....
You appear to be a follower of biblical teaching (if not, then I stand corrected!) and my argument is with that teaching. If you agree with me that the bible should not be taken more seriously than a book of carefully selected fairytales, then we have very little to debate about.
If people don't acknowledge their sinfulness, and turn to God for salvation, then they will be seperated from him for eternity.
I don't have a problem with acknowledging my nature as a human being. When I see a nice-looking girl, I might think some thoughts for example:-) However, I see that as working as designed. I don't want to free myself from it as that would mean freeing myself from being a human being. My motto for this is: "I see human beings are inherently good. If I go to a hell for believing that, then at least I'll be in good company".
I believe that true "salvation" comes from accepting who you are and understanding why you (and others) do the things you do. I don't find merit in going so far as to reject your human nature in order to channel it.
As for claiming good morals cannot exist outside the scope of Christianity - I'm not sure exact
God didn't create a sinful people. He created innocent people with free will, who choose to rebel against him - sin.
So you are claiming that this all-powerful God was incapable to guess this nature or predict that this might in fact happen or that if he put the equivalent of a candy jar close to them, statistics would indicate that they would - at some point - eat from it? Also: exactly how does free will exist in a context without free information?
The punishment for sin is death (physical and spritual) - and because God is perfectly just, he cannot set aside punishment for someone simply because he loves them.
I think you'll find that capital punishment is seen as barbaric in many parts of the civilized world. Should we be worried when we as mortals are more humane than the "god" some people claim made us?
A price must be paid for sin,...
No, it doesn't. That explanation is simplistic.
So instead of taking the price out of our hide, he paid it himself. It was the solution to the paradox of being perfectly just and perfectly loving.
There is no paradox at all: people have natural tendencies and curiosity is a major one of them. The price isn't paid: people still die and people still get ill and bad things still keep happening. The only thing we "gained" is that we have some easy "explanations" for complex issues, get the feeling we actually know something about life (even if we have to resort to some invisible higher force), get an easy way to deny death and we may support institutions who claim to speak on behalf of an unchanging higher force, yet have to change what they say in order to keep up with science/reality/laws on child molestation. It doesn't help people defy death, it helps them feel it as acceptable.
Speaking of death as punishment, Adam and Eve supposedly lived for hundreds of years after their mistake. How strange that the perpetrator of a crime gets lower punishment that their descendants. Certainly, this was the crime of crimes, worse than murder, rape, torture, etc. But your "god" cannot really judge people because - being free of sin - he lacks fundamental knowledge of what makes people tick.
The wish to subject to the concept of a "good" and be part of a bigger something can be quite easily explained by psychology. Spiritual experience which you have no doubt experienced in order to make such strong claims can be explained neurologically and even triggered with a machine.
The real paradox is how your "god" can be all-powerful and all-knowing, yet be flabbergasted when his designs work exactly as he designed them? My explanation to this paradox is that man invented the concept of a god to satisfy his own (natural) needs. It certainly explains how this 100% just "god" manages to mess up so much and pin the blame on us humans.
And no, it hasn't changed the basic sinful nature of man - everyone is still born sinful. What Christianity claims is that when somebody sees their own sinfulness, realizes they can't fix it by themselves, and turn to God for forgiveness, that is when the change in nature takes place.
If that works for you, fine (believing in Santa certainly made my childhood more fun). But as is so often seen: those people think that that is the ONLY thing that works for anybody and even go so far as to claim that good morals cannot exist outside the scope of their own "god" or their own thinking. Interestingly (paradoxically to you perhaps), they rarely teach the merits of their views by example.
As to psychology and philosophy being more useful than religion, I would argue that all three can be equally "superstitious".
In that case, everything is as "superstitious" to you, but go ahead and make your argument why they are equally superstitious. The reason I said they were more "useful" was exactly because they don't require belief in unprovable higher forces or a complicated set of requires actions and thoughts to explain things, when more down-to-earth methods are available.
Perhaps you can explain the point for a greater Entity of creating sinful people and then "sacrificing" (a piece of) itself to itself so that it will change a rule that it itself created?
It has changed no aspect in this "sinful nature" whatsoever, just given some half-baked theory to explain why people are the way they are. Basic understanding of psychology and an interest in philosophy appears to be more useful than a complicated set of superstitious beliefs.
Actually, the only issue I have with Strobel is that he pretends to take a certain critical approach and turns out not to be critical at all (i.e. if he were, he would have bothered interviewing people with intelligent counterarguments). You mention Lee as recommended reading, but you seem to retract his book. Of course to someone who already shares his conclusion, all of his arguments are highly convincing since they "confirm" what they already believe.
While evolution theory might or might not have its issues, I see no merit in resorting to primitive superstition based on a "big guy in the sky who made everything" theory. As far as I can see, most enthusiastic argumentation against evolution is from religious people, who can hardly be called unbiased.
A misunderstanding that you may have is that being a scientist does not equate being an atheist. Being a scientist myself, I was able to see for myself that enough scientists happen to be religious. Some of those probably don't believe in evolution at all, others believe in deistic evolution, etc.
If former beliefs are of any relevant, then on that basis, theseguys and this one should be as convincing to you as your Strobel guy is intended to be to me.
Perhaps you can explain why Lee Strobel "forgot" to actually interview people with opposing ideas and good argumentations? It is rather easy to present your case as entirely correct if you do not present any actual counterarguments.
The good news is: now both the European and American slashdot posters can begin to realize how much they're getting screwed by their own governments and co-citizens (whether directly elected or not) and a sense of brotherhood, mutual understanding and feeling of overlap in common goals can once again come back into existence:-)
Your assertion is that your statements about the E.U. are true. My assertion as someone who lives here is that your statements about the E.U. are not true. However, even if you did live here, they would still not be true. The fact that you don't is illustrative. Based on what you said, I could quite easily guess that you did not live here.
Even IF I were foaming at the mouth about how all Americans are this or are that, your statements would STILL not be true. You're using two fallacies in one: instead of backing up your claims about the E.U. with e.g. links to neutral websites, you choose to instead discredit the person giving the criticism by trying to argue that I'm biased towards all people of your particular nationality.
If you keep claiming that my statements about the E.U. are false because of my alleged bias against Americans in spite of my repeated disagreeance with that bias, then it would be fair to say that the same process applies to you and your level of bias against the E.U. and its residents is at least the same as the one you perceive against yourself. That makes the whole argument moot.
You have tried to link to wikipedia once before and that link instead confirmed what *I* was saying, even though you claimed that "everything" wikipedia said contradicted with my use of certain terms.
Can you or can you not give links to websites that back up your point of view about the E.U.? If you can do so, the core of this argument is quite quickly settled and the rest is trivial detail.
You're just trying to be insulting, now.
It's not an insult if it's true.
Reread the posts you've made. They are absolutely filled with anti-American sentiment. It clouds over every post you've made.
Nonsense. You are the one who reads anti-American sentiment in everything. If people would write "I don't like hamburgers", you'd interpret that as anti-American too. You are the one taking initiative with displaying bias against the E.U. -- almost everything you have said about it is contradicted directly by facts on the ground.
IF I were to use a bias against you, I would mention your preference for dung-smelling farmland where your primary partners for conversation (and more?) are cows. That would be a bias that many city-dwellin' Americans would "share" with me. Yeehaw!
You don't make the rules.
Neither do you. I'm not obliged to look at all the AC posts of the other trolls.
... and resorted to attacks based on nationality... how unfounded your beliefs about Americans are
You are unable to read. Anyone following this thread can see that a) you are the one making/starting with general unfounded beliefs in Europeans and b) any "attacks" were against you and you alone.
Many times during this thread, you've mentioned how uneducated about Europeans we Americans are, and how this is borne out of xenophobia.
No, once again you are trying to divert attention away from my criticism of your points to "we Americans". I have mentioned this in at least several posts. Perhaps the problem is that the word "you", can be used both in a singular and plural form. I have clarified quite clearly several times that the singular form applied. Your beliefs about the E.U. are as inaccurate as your blind insistence that I claim that "you Americans" as a whole are uneducated about Europeans. As a site note, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc are (south-)Americans too.
You do not only hide behind "Anonymous Coward", you also try to hide behind a few hundred million people to diffuse the argument.
All the Europeans I have contact with are extremely condescending towards Americans in general.
Considering your attitude and the way you twist personal criticism into "we Americans", that does not surprise me one bit. Perhaps the American tourists that walk by here every day have a different view.
If you really identify yourself with your country of residence so much that any criticism pertaining to your personal views automatically applies to all residents in the entire country, then perhaps you are indeed very nationalistic.
From the get-go, you posted with the assumption that a) all Americans are dumb, and b) all Americans are xenophobes. You're too indoctrinated to believe otherwise now, I suppose.... in your world view.... other than my nationality AND you were calling me a xenophobe. I see now that you're incapable of believing anything else about Americans.
See my point above about you hiding behind "all Americans". It's nonsense. If you even are American at all (which I'm beginning to doubt), the issue I may have is with the various nonsense you claim. Your main retort seems to be "boo hoo, he's attacking ALL Americans". No kid, just you.
I said as much myself. Why anyone would choose the city over the country is beyond me.
Just like any accurate understanding of the topic at hand is beyond you. Exactly my point.
Who's setting up the strawman now?
You are, but I cut you off before it had a chance to materialize. Unlike your other strawman where you paint me as anti-American for disagreeing with your uninformed view of the E.U. and education therein.
In light of what I've just revealed to you about yourself,...
What I "revealed" is your strawman and does not exist.
isn't a result of the waves of anti-Americanism coming from Europe?
Ah, you retort by going "they started it!!!". Nice try, but alas.
It's an amusing conversation. It's sort of going like this:
AC: The E.U. is so-and-so T: No, it's not. You probably don't even live here. AC: Indeed I don't and I'm glad. T: It's obvious from your statements that you don't live here. AC: AHA, so ALL Americans are uninformed!?!? I am perfectly right. T: No, I didn't say that. I just criticized you and not hundreds of millions of other people I don't know. AC: I can understand why you say that, you're indoctrinated to hate us Americans and everything we say T: ???
Okay, so basically what you say largely applies to a scenario where there is an acute shortage of food, goods and land? So it would not bother you if OPEC countries decided sell oil for euroes instead of dollars or just stop production for a few days? Did you build your nuclear bunker yet?
Anyway.. even if what you say is true, it would still have no practical use to me as it doesn't encourage me to move out of the E.U. -- there is no point in discussing whether the U.S. is "better" or whether the E.U. is. You are constantly trying to lure me in this debate, while I merely point out your own lack of knowledge about several hundred million people. The only reason you insistingly believe that I mean to disparage all/most Americans is because you are the one who believes (by your own admission) that is the way I have been brought up to believe. Without getting into details of my own upbringing, I can say that it's more the reverse that was true.
Thank you for bringing in Wikipedia. It shows that the term "xenophobic" does apply: "3. The word Xenophobic is often used as a political insult against Racists, Isolationists, and Nationalists." -- now it can be argued whether a political insult is fitting to an insult to common sense. It does appear though, that I was mildly mistaken in my initial diagnosis: your phobia appears to be more for crowded places and too many people living in the same area. Since you cannot understand why people like to live in cities, there must "obviously" be something absolutely wrong with people who live in cities.
As for making statements about Americans: I say it again: you're the one trying to bend my posts into anti-American, while I merely point out the gross inaccuracies in your posts about a region of the world you do not live in. You do NOT represent all Americans and do not speak for them.
If you want to refer to other posts you made, then use an account.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonderful, now I feel 'young' again :-)
I think there's something to be said for low UIDs :-)
You have a very valid argument, but there's one aspect that's missing: just like with old-fashioned racketeering, it's not a one-time expense: fold to one patent troll and you'll have to fold to all.
The SCO case was different: it was basically a Microsoft vs. Linux fight by proxy that SCO could not have funded on its own.
This patent troll is more likely to go for the low-hanging fruit, so it seems smarter for him to not make himself an attractive target.
Uhm, it doesn't seem very fair to lump actual fraudsters in the same group as relatively innocent parodists. Once you start making people part with their money, it's a completely different situation.
Oops, meant to reply to the parent of this post.
That being said, tax relief does not result in net profit, just in lowering the effective costs of something you'd do anyway. So unless there's an added benefit, I would prefer not to cut up family members this way just for tax relief :-)
I'd suppose that the taxes would apply to remaining family, not the deceased person.
If I'm solving a problem for a customer in the shower
As a general rule, hours where one is naked should not be considered work time.
Nuking in general is a losing proposition. The principles of MAD still apply. Nukes are most valuable when never used.
Wow, you have a rather high userID ;-)
My slashdot UID is a lot lower than yours. What's my reward? ;-)
My "proof" of the presence of a higher being would be existence itself.
...
But then you are just shifting the problem. Now you think you know something about the existence of the universe, but you get another question: if a god created the universe, then what created this god? There is no answer to that question.
The thing I find very manipulative about religion is that it seems to answer questions by letting all answers end up in "god did it..." -- you start out with 1000 questions, you end up with just 1. The religion is then based both on finding answers to that question and not being able to do so completely.
to disproving as Christian claims.
Christian claims cannot be proven or disproven as they are not falsifiable. When inconsistencies in the bible are pointed out, it is said they are intentional. When bad behaviour of fanatics is pointed out, it is said they aren't real followers. When there is lack of proof, it is said that no amount of proof would be convincing anyway. Which means exactly do you give me to CHECK your claims, at least those that make your own religion (instead of e.g. Islam) true and others not?
That's not how it works. And no, I'd say he was giving the perfect example of a just god.
I quote: "He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD." -- did he or did he not perform some form of action before those children were brutally slaughtered? If you find it just to kill children "even" for blasphemy, then I sincerely question your ethics.
It was OK for them to die because they were sinful.
But then, is it OK in your view for me to die for being sinful too? You don't feel there may be anything wrong with that line of thinking?
The rules given to God's people only apply to God's people,
But it is not possible to fulfill all rules without breaking those of the society we live in. When faced with breaking a legal rule or a biblibal rule, which will you prefer to break?
I'd like to see a judge pass down that judgement...
Nope, in the analogy, the judge is the one with low self-esteem and acts like a peeping tom in people's bedrooms and judges people based on what they do in the privacy of their own homes.
According to the gospels, the last words Jesus spoke on the cross where...
The problem is that in the gospels, he spoke different last words in each. How many last words can one speak. Also, in the resurrection story - one of the core elements of christianity - each gospel presents a different story. In one case, there was an earthquake (hard not to notice), in another case, there was an angel inside already, etc. Even if they were consistent with one another, it wouldn't mean much (Harry Potter is consistent too), but given the utter lack of clear information, it is irresponsible to attempt to base an accurate story on highly inaccurate sources.
Also, the bible mentions that Jesus had to be born in lineage of Joseph. Yet, two quite different lineages are given. On top of that, Joseph was merely the foster parent, since he did not impregnate Mary. If anybody today claimed a woman had been impregnated by a/the holy spirit, one would do DNA tests and quickly dismiss her claims as bogus. Back in those days, it was much easier to fool people into believing things.
The concept of "heaven" most people have isn't quite right.
I'm glad you have such authority about supernatural entities and places. Care to show me your credentials?
The idea of living in a world just like ours, but without all the problems, just takes my breath away.
Which is exactly the wishful thinking that encourages you to believe in what the bible says. You may call me a pessimist, but your bible tells me that the majority of humanity will end up in a very miserable place. In your vi
Everyone has sinned, and therefore deserves death.
... and that God's job anyway
Why is death the punishment for sin? In my view, people - like all living beings - simply die for completely natural reasons. However, that reality is too harsh for us, so we as humans invent a doctrine after the fact to "explain" why things happen. It does not change that 99.999...% of the time higher entities appear to have complete respect for the physical laws and consistencies of the universe.
The convenience of your claim is that it is set up in such a way that you don't have to prove anything. After all, you can always claim things like "that was done to test us". If there is anecdotal evidence that someone at some point healed a person, you (in a general sense) will embrace that as a miracle and proof.
Capital punishment for insulting God's messenger and, by implication, God himself.
And you think he was giving the perfect example of a forgiving and kind spirit when he summoned his god to kill people?
A child is just as guilty of their sin as an adult.
So in your view it was OK for them to die because of the choice of their leader who was not even democratically elected. On top of that, it is claimed that this leader's mind was "hardened" by this god. Not really fair...
As I said, I think God gaves laws for good reasons, not just because he was arbitrary.
Actually, the beastiality link was semi-intentional. If you accept that rule, you must also accept "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
The question is: assuming the laws in the bible are the only right ones, how would they apply to believers today? Is the current legal system blasphemous to higher forces for not imposing capital punishment?
The Bible doesn't recognize the same human rights as you do.
Which is why I don't recognize the bible as a source of truth or even wisdom. I prefer to read the works of actual philosophers of ancient Greek times. Some biblical laws may be right on target, but you can say the same about some islamic laws.
You're saying it's (part of) his job to kill non-believers? Exactly how am I supposed to interpret that statement?
God isn't fond of adultery.
Perhaps he should have more self-esteem then and get out more and meet other people.
The basic point is the same - unless someone seeks God, they are not going to understand his message.
That argument is indeed used a lot when people comment on inconsistencies, direct contradictions, atrocities, etc. For example, can you tell me what the last words of Jesus were on the cross? Can you tell me what happened at resurrection?
Yes... if you WANT to believe something, then even the faintest trace will be acceptable. However, you might agree with me that the bulk of bible does not stand up to modern journalistic standards.
There are all sorts of fairly empty consolations you can say...
If and when I give consolation, I find it customary to talk about how I experienced that person, how that person's life (positively) impacted mine, etc. I find nothing empty about that. Conversely, I do not find it appropriate to go into detail about my view on religion and death when among mourning religious people.
BTW, the Bible doesn't say people go to hell when they die - it says that they go their after Jesus returns. When Jesus returns, all the dead will be resurrected - the believers will go with God, and the non-believers will be thrown (along with Satan, for whom hell was made) into hell.
Okay, you probably agree Jesus has not yet returned for the past 2000 years. The question is: where are the dead people of the past 20 centuries? Are they conscious in any form? If people die today, they are not actually in a heaven then? Will cremated people be resurrected too or only those who were buried and are still in a reasonabl
That is the definition of hell.
:-)
Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine
Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?
A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)
What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...
Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do
The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.
But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.
I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?
My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.
Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.
The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.
I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.
Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.
The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.
The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.
Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm
Having a servant who knows what freedom is, and chooses to serve anyway is something else.
:-) However, I see that as working as designed. I don't want to free myself from it as that would mean freeing myself from being a human being. My motto for this is: "I see human beings are inherently good. If I go to a hell for believing that, then at least I'll be in good company".
But the mean thing is that the servant who chooses for that freedom gets severely punished for that choice. Only one real choice is given: serve or die.
"Humane" is a term that has little to do with justice.
No, but it does have to do with execution of that justice. If *our* (as in: us humans) laws and morals are based on that deity or the teachings of that deity, shouldn't he/she/it show the superlative of qualities we greatly respect in humans today?
The advantage God has over human legal systems is that God is infallible, which is probably the main argument I hear against the death penalty (and, incidentally, why I oppose it).
I'm against death penalty too: the system is fallible and I don't believe that further killing is a good thing. However, you could also argue that you're doing those people a favour: if the system on earth is fallible and they were unjustly killed (assuming the punishment itself is just), then surely they will be compensated in an afterlife?
What I find sort of surprising is that some people can be totally sure someone is going to heaven, yet still intensely mourn their death. It would make more sense to throw a party when someone starts living the eternal happy life.
What's wrong with simplistic?
The same thing that's wrong with thinking in black-and-white. Often, "not black" is seen as the same as "white".
Here's the line. Step over it, and you'll be punished. It's not a situation that requires a complex resolution.
If that is true, then it is odd that the legal profession is such a complicated one and that even people of exactly the same religion disagree so much with eachother about the exact interpretation. So, yes... it is "simple" to draw a line and say "don't cross it". The complexity is in defining that line and defining the appropriate punishment.
I can't remember at any stage saying God was flabbergasted, nor can I think of any doctrine that implies such.
Then perhaps you need to read the bible a bit more. My question is: did your god see it coming or did he not see it coming that Adam & Eve would eat from the tree?
Also: how is it possible that the knowledge of good & evil came from something created by an entity and yet that entity is claimed to have no actual knowledge of what he created... ?
The issue of "free will" is an interesting one: it means we are more powerful than a divine entity in the sense that - apparently - that entity cannot predict our thoughts. Yet... that entity is apparently capable of reading our thoughts.
"Disproving" things the other side in a debate never believed in the first place....
You appear to be a follower of biblical teaching (if not, then I stand corrected!) and my argument is with that teaching. If you agree with me that the bible should not be taken more seriously than a book of carefully selected fairytales, then we have very little to debate about.
If people don't acknowledge their sinfulness, and turn to God for salvation, then they will be seperated from him for eternity.
I don't have a problem with acknowledging my nature as a human being. When I see a nice-looking girl, I might think some thoughts for example
I believe that true "salvation" comes from accepting who you are and understanding why you (and others) do the things you do. I don't find merit in going so far as to reject your human nature in order to channel it.
As for claiming good morals cannot exist outside the scope of Christianity - I'm not sure exact
God didn't create a sinful people. He created innocent people with free will, who choose to rebel against him - sin.
...
So you are claiming that this all-powerful God was incapable to guess this nature or predict that this might in fact happen or that if he put the equivalent of a candy jar close to them, statistics would indicate that they would - at some point - eat from it? Also: exactly how does free will exist in a context without free information?
The punishment for sin is death (physical and spritual) - and because God is perfectly just, he cannot set aside punishment for someone simply because he loves them.
I think you'll find that capital punishment is seen as barbaric in many parts of the civilized world. Should we be worried when we as mortals are more humane than the "god" some people claim made us?
A price must be paid for sin,
No, it doesn't. That explanation is simplistic.
So instead of taking the price out of our hide, he paid it himself. It was the solution to the paradox of being perfectly just and perfectly loving.
There is no paradox at all: people have natural tendencies and curiosity is a major one of them. The price isn't paid: people still die and people still get ill and bad things still keep happening. The only thing we "gained" is that we have some easy "explanations" for complex issues, get the feeling we actually know something about life (even if we have to resort to some invisible higher force), get an easy way to deny death and we may support institutions who claim to speak on behalf of an unchanging higher force, yet have to change what they say in order to keep up with science/reality/laws on child molestation. It doesn't help people defy death, it helps them feel it as acceptable.
Speaking of death as punishment, Adam and Eve supposedly lived for hundreds of years after their mistake. How strange that the perpetrator of a crime gets lower punishment that their descendants. Certainly, this was the crime of crimes, worse than murder, rape, torture, etc. But your "god" cannot really judge people because - being free of sin - he lacks fundamental knowledge of what makes people tick.
The wish to subject to the concept of a "good" and be part of a bigger something can be quite easily explained by psychology. Spiritual experience which you have no doubt experienced in order to make such strong claims can be explained neurologically and even triggered with a machine.
The real paradox is how your "god" can be all-powerful and all-knowing, yet be flabbergasted when his designs work exactly as he designed them? My explanation to this paradox is that man invented the concept of a god to satisfy his own (natural) needs. It certainly explains how this 100% just "god" manages to mess up so much and pin the blame on us humans.
And no, it hasn't changed the basic sinful nature of man - everyone is still born sinful. What Christianity claims is that when somebody sees their own sinfulness, realizes they can't fix it by themselves, and turn to God for forgiveness, that is when the change in nature takes place.
If that works for you, fine (believing in Santa certainly made my childhood more fun). But as is so often seen: those people think that that is the ONLY thing that works for anybody and even go so far as to claim that good morals cannot exist outside the scope of their own "god" or their own thinking. Interestingly (paradoxically to you perhaps), they rarely teach the merits of their views by example.
As to psychology and philosophy being more useful than religion, I would argue that all three can be equally "superstitious".
In that case, everything is as "superstitious" to you, but go ahead and make your argument why they are equally superstitious. The reason I said they were more "useful" was exactly because they don't require belief in unprovable higher forces or a complicated set of requires actions and thoughts to explain things, when more down-to-earth methods are available.
Perhaps you can explain the point for a greater Entity of creating sinful people and then "sacrificing" (a piece of) itself to itself so that it will change a rule that it itself created?
It has changed no aspect in this "sinful nature" whatsoever, just given some half-baked theory to explain why people are the way they are. Basic understanding of psychology and an interest in philosophy appears to be more useful than a complicated set of superstitious beliefs.
Actually, the only issue I have with Strobel is that he pretends to take a certain critical approach and turns out not to be critical at all (i.e. if he were, he would have bothered interviewing people with intelligent counterarguments). You mention Lee as recommended reading, but you seem to retract his book. Of course to someone who already shares his conclusion, all of his arguments are highly convincing since they "confirm" what they already believe.
While evolution theory might or might not have its issues, I see no merit in resorting to primitive superstition based on a "big guy in the sky who made everything" theory. As far as I can see, most enthusiastic argumentation against evolution is from religious people, who can hardly be called unbiased.
A misunderstanding that you may have is that being a scientist does not equate being an atheist. Being a scientist myself, I was able to see for myself that enough scientists happen to be religious. Some of those probably don't believe in evolution at all, others believe in deistic evolution, etc.
If former beliefs are of any relevant, then on that basis, these guys and this one should be as convincing to you as your Strobel guy is intended to be to me.
Perhaps you can explain why Lee Strobel "forgot" to actually interview people with opposing ideas and good argumentations? It is rather easy to present your case as entirely correct if you do not present any actual counterarguments.
The good news is: now both the European and American slashdot posters can begin to realize how much they're getting screwed by their own governments and co-citizens (whether directly elected or not) and a sense of brotherhood, mutual understanding and feeling of overlap in common goals can once again come back into existence :-)
Hee, zit jij in Delft? Ik woon ook in Delft. Ik heb jaren bij de TU gestudeerd en gewerkt :-)
You imagine a lack of knowledge.
Your assertion is that your statements about the E.U. are true. My assertion as someone who lives here is that your statements about the E.U. are not true. However, even if you did live here, they would still not be true. The fact that you don't is illustrative. Based on what you said, I could quite easily guess that you did not live here.
Even IF I were foaming at the mouth about how all Americans are this or are that, your statements would STILL not be true. You're using two fallacies in one: instead of backing up your claims about the E.U. with e.g. links to neutral websites, you choose to instead discredit the person giving the criticism by trying to argue that I'm biased towards all people of your particular nationality.
If you keep claiming that my statements about the E.U. are false because of my alleged bias against Americans in spite of my repeated disagreeance with that bias, then it would be fair to say that the same process applies to you and your level of bias against the E.U. and its residents is at least the same as the one you perceive against yourself. That makes the whole argument moot.
You have tried to link to wikipedia once before and that link instead confirmed what *I* was saying, even though you claimed that "everything" wikipedia said contradicted with my use of certain terms.
Can you or can you not give links to websites that back up your point of view about the E.U.? If you can do so, the core of this argument is quite quickly settled and the rest is trivial detail.
You're just trying to be insulting, now.
It's not an insult if it's true.
Reread the posts you've made. They are absolutely filled with anti-American sentiment. It clouds over every post you've made.
Nonsense. You are the one who reads anti-American sentiment in everything. If people would write "I don't like hamburgers", you'd interpret that as anti-American too. You are the one taking initiative with displaying bias against the E.U. -- almost everything you have said about it is contradicted directly by facts on the ground.
IF I were to use a bias against you, I would mention your preference for dung-smelling farmland where your primary partners for conversation (and more?) are cows. That would be a bias that many city-dwellin' Americans would "share" with me. Yeehaw!
You don't make the rules.
Neither do you. I'm not obliged to look at all the AC posts of the other trolls.
You are unable to read. Anyone following this thread can see that a) you are the one making/starting with general unfounded beliefs in Europeans and b) any "attacks" were against you and you alone.
You are a troll. Go back into your troll cave.
Ach, het is maar een trol die anoniem z'n vooroordelen wil ventileren.
:-)
That's in dutch
Many times during this thread, you've mentioned how uneducated about Europeans we Americans are, and how this is borne out of xenophobia.
... in your world view .... other than my nationality AND you were calling me a xenophobe. I see now that you're incapable of believing anything else about Americans.
...
No, once again you are trying to divert attention away from my criticism of your points to "we Americans". I have mentioned this in at least several posts. Perhaps the problem is that the word "you", can be used both in a singular and plural form. I have clarified quite clearly several times that the singular form applied. Your beliefs about the E.U. are as inaccurate as your blind insistence that I claim that "you Americans" as a whole are uneducated about Europeans. As a site note, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc are (south-)Americans too.
You do not only hide behind "Anonymous Coward", you also try to hide behind a few hundred million people to diffuse the argument.
All the Europeans I have contact with are extremely condescending towards Americans in general.
Considering your attitude and the way you twist personal criticism into "we Americans", that does not surprise me one bit. Perhaps the American tourists that walk by here every day have a different view.
If you really identify yourself with your country of residence so much that any criticism pertaining to your personal views automatically applies to all residents in the entire country, then perhaps you are indeed very nationalistic.
From the get-go, you posted with the assumption that a) all Americans are dumb, and b) all Americans are xenophobes. You're too indoctrinated to believe otherwise now, I suppose.
See my point above about you hiding behind "all Americans". It's nonsense. If you even are American at all (which I'm beginning to doubt), the issue I may have is with the various nonsense you claim. Your main retort seems to be "boo hoo, he's attacking ALL Americans". No kid, just you.
I said as much myself. Why anyone would choose the city over the country is beyond me.
Just like any accurate understanding of the topic at hand is beyond you. Exactly my point.
Who's setting up the strawman now?
You are, but I cut you off before it had a chance to materialize. Unlike your other strawman where you paint me as anti-American for disagreeing with your uninformed view of the E.U. and education therein.
In light of what I've just revealed to you about yourself,
What I "revealed" is your strawman and does not exist.
isn't a result of the waves of anti-Americanism coming from Europe?
Ah, you retort by going "they started it!!!". Nice try, but alas.
It's an amusing conversation. It's sort of going like this:
AC: The E.U. is so-and-so
T: No, it's not. You probably don't even live here.
AC: Indeed I don't and I'm glad.
T: It's obvious from your statements that you don't live here.
AC: AHA, so ALL Americans are uninformed!?!? I am perfectly right.
T: No, I didn't say that. I just criticized you and not hundreds of millions of other people I don't know.
AC: I can understand why you say that, you're indoctrinated to hate us Americans and everything we say
T: ???
Okay, so basically what you say largely applies to a scenario where there is an acute shortage of food, goods and land? So it would not bother you if OPEC countries decided sell oil for euroes instead of dollars or just stop production for a few days? Did you build your nuclear bunker yet?
Anyway.. even if what you say is true, it would still have no practical use to me as it doesn't encourage me to move out of the E.U. -- there is no point in discussing whether the U.S. is "better" or whether the E.U. is. You are constantly trying to lure me in this debate, while I merely point out your own lack of knowledge about several hundred million people. The only reason you insistingly believe that I mean to disparage all/most Americans is because you are the one who believes (by your own admission) that is the way I have been brought up to believe. Without getting into details of my own upbringing, I can say that it's more the reverse that was true.
Thank you for bringing in Wikipedia. It shows that the term "xenophobic" does apply: "3. The word Xenophobic is often used as a political insult against Racists, Isolationists, and Nationalists." -- now it can be argued whether a political insult is fitting to an insult to common sense. It does appear though, that I was mildly mistaken in my initial diagnosis: your phobia appears to be more for crowded places and too many people living in the same area. Since you cannot understand why people like to live in cities, there must "obviously" be something absolutely wrong with people who live in cities.
As for making statements about Americans: I say it again: you're the one trying to bend my posts into anti-American, while I merely point out the gross inaccuracies in your posts about a region of the world you do not live in. You do NOT represent all Americans and do not speak for them.
If you want to refer to other posts you made, then use an account.