I agree, broadly. Even Catholics, the most prescriptive of Christians, allow for that (again broadly speaking). For example an american bishop was excommunicated (excluded from the Church) in 1948 for insisting you could only go to heaven if you were a member of the *visible* Catholic Church, something the Catholic Church has never taught. You can only be saved through Jesus Christ (which it does teach), but technically you don't have to know the name "Jesus Christ" or have heard of the bible to be saved: but you do have to assent to His spirit, how ever it manifests.
Also look at "Invincible Ignorance" for more loopholes.
However, pantheism is not at all the same as the above. It's the belief that all is God. Which christians have always rejected. Rather christians believe that God divinises us by uniting himself to us (eventually so that we "enter in to the joy of God"), but we have to assent to that, an assent which means faithfully living to a basic standard of conduct, particularly when it comes to personal integrity - aka self-control, and not behaving like simple animals. The horrible irony of the Adam and Eve story is that the devil tempted them with "becoming like God", but God was going to do that anyway, the right way.
Or God makes his existence known, which is why religious people believe in him and dedicate their whole lives to him even forgoing sex and marriage (ie. priests and nuns). The definition of 'faith' is "assent to divinely revealed truth", in other words faith is a result of God revealing himself to people. Nothing irrational about that. Or are you going to instead believe the extraordinarily unpleasant Nietzsche (man makes god)?
In 2001 a polish nun call Sister Faustina, who had died in 1939 I think, was made a saint (canonized). As far as I know canonization is an infallible statement that the person went to heaven and led a life of exceptional saintliness.
In her diaries (which she was instructed to keep by her superiours) Jesus Christ appears numerous times. At one point he says that the universe is teeming with life, and it would be arrogant of us to think that it is only our planet that had life, or words to that effect.
Now because she is canonized that effectively means that the content of her diaries, while not themselves being proclaimed infallible, are approved of nevertheless.
The diaries also claim that Hitler was not the Anti-Christ, and that the Anti-Christ was already living. I would bet on Stalin.
As a result of this nun and her visions of Christ the Catholic Church instituted the Feast Of the Divine Mercy on the sunday after Easter sunday. Apparently if we don't ask God for His mercy we must eventually glorify His justice instead (ie. eternal punishment). And that message was the purpose of Jesus's appearances. Google for "Saint Faustina" for more info.
A friend of mine has got herself an account with a different bank and no internet access. All her income goes in to it. It has arrangements (a mix of 'standing orders' and 'direct debit' as it is called in the UK) to drip feed money in to her original, internet-enabled account. She can only manage it by going to the bank physically.
Even if the russkies managed to get her username and passwords they will only be able to swipe a minimal amount of her cash.
I would have agreed with you except that over time I;ve come to realise that there is a bunch of stuff that doesn't fit the balance/moderation idea. An extreme example would be Arsnic since, if I remember, it accumulates, so even moderation isn't going to save you in the end, let alone balance.
You may think arsnic is a poor example, but margarine contains fats which are not found in nature, so you can imagine that it might be considered a poison also, and that balance and moderation aren't enough to address it.
Ironically the one thing moderation/balance almost never applies to is diet, and it is that it is most applied to. For example you can't be balanced about fruit : it needs to be eaten in quite small quantities seasonally if anthropologists are right. But in a strange twist modern dieticians and doctors completely ignore our evolutionary roots and get us to stuff our selves with it. In practice they are following the creationists even though they condemn them.
And how do you balance carbs/fat/protein? 33% of each. That's a mathematical balance but does it apply to the body? Unlikely.
As a competent businessman what would you do knowing the competition is working hard to crush you?
I reckon you are moralising: "Amazon is bad because they are doing what I think is wrong."
Actually they are doing everything legitemately in their power to survive, which is what the competition is also doing, and that judges have ruled to be correct. If they hadn't patented that stupid idea, someone else would have, and Amazon, as we know them, might no longer exist. Bezos isn't an idiot: he did what he knew he had to do.
It's only the fault of Amazon if you are a judgemental. Otherwise it is the fault of those that perverted the patent system.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. I reckon Bezos isn't a fool, and he may know that a flawed patent system serves Amazon best (for now, and can be changed if it doesn't in future).
It's easy to accuse Amazon of being bad, like most here. After all they aren't persuing a policy of loving kindness, rather that of being materially fruitful. Perhaps that is what a business should be doing, within the framework given them by law-makers.
I disagree that corporations should be given a free pass on unethical or illegal behavior just because it's in the interests of the stockholders.
I never said anything about illegal behaviour. As far as ethics is concerned it's fraught with difficulty since one mans ethical is another's monstrousness (ie. stem cells, the nazis, abortion; to name a few obvious ones etc). Pointing fingers is a very tricky business.
I agree there is a problem but I think it is with uncontained competitiveness, a problem that afflicts some modern forms of capitalism, but that's a different issue. In the meantime the arena is as it is, and Bezos better fight hard.
Those were things that Congress would never have thought up on its own: they were pushed into it by corporations that wanted to gain even more control over America's intellectual capital.
How were they pushed in to it? Don't they have wills of their own? But you are partly right if we are talking corruption.
But apart from coruption it's down to the law-maker to resist and over-come bad influence. That's part of the job: to be noble. that's why there is a real case for adulterous or criminal law-makers to resign since they have demonstrated a weak will in a critical area of their own lives: sticking to vows - and making good decisions in the first place. It's the weak willed that allow this kind of nonsense. So it is still the lawmakers fault for not doing his own (very important) job properly.
Bezos and the like have the status of children in comaprison to a law-maker : "Daddy, please give me this really tasty looking [but actually long-term poisonous] sweety". There are plenty of parents who give in, but it isn't the child's fault, not in my opinion.
I totally disagree. Amazon just did what the law allows them to do. And if they are going to fulfill their obligations to their shareholders by staying as competitive as the law allows them then they should do it some more.
Obviously US patent law is up the creek, but it's not Amazon's fault. If anything Bezos should be fired if he were not to use every tool and weapon available to him.
The people who should be slapped are those that have allowed this to happen: the lawmakers, which these days seems to include the judiciary.
You have no idea what agnostic and atheist mean, and your refusal to stop arguing using your fictional meanings for words makes it a total waste of time to converse with you. I know what atheist means, and that I am one. You know neither.
You're just stating things for the sake of it. How about giving a reason, like condradicting what I've said.
Try contradicting this :
*A classical agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.
[By the way I am quoting the guy who invented the word: the victorian Huxley, not Aldous).]
*A modern agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists.
You are the latter despite your unreasoned assertions to the contrary.
I did not say "it is impossible for god to exist", or "I have proven that god does not exist". I said "I do not believe in god".
But that's an opinion then. You can only use the word belief when you have knowledge (or are mad), ie : "I know that god does not exist". That is why I am saying the things I am saying. My opinion is that evolution is correct, but I don't actually beleive in it (yet) because I don't know for certain that it is correct even if I personally like it a lot and think it to be very comaptible with christianity. After all, although the evidence is excellent it isn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you believe something without knowledge you are irrational, and that's what you have been claiming. It's a form of superstition.
So now it sounds like you are really a modern agnostic, but don't know it.
When I say that I believe in God I am saying that "I know that God exists". I really do, too. And for a reason : he has revealed himself to me, as he does to all *true* seekers after truth. I'm not saying that that is a 'scientific' fact. In the cahtolic church the one bunch of people we pray for outside of the church are those truly seeking the truth.
By the way, I do acknowledge that there are christians who believe for no good reason and are irrational. But their belief is actually a twisted form of self-delusion and won't help them. Unless they experience God directly they can't have true faith.
However if you look into the specifics of the studies in question, you would find they used very questionable methods to manufacture the results they wanted.
...in your opinion. The point is that evidence is evidence, and your statement wasn't backup up by anything, even a "hand waving" statement to the effect that evidence shows that video games don't cause such problems. Anyway, for your satisfaction : see here. Just evidence, I'm not claiming it's good evidence, but it's better than making statements out of a vacuum, as you are prone to.
And stop calling christians stupid and irrational: it's a generalisation. Some are, some aren't. But all atheists are irrational, which doesn't include you.
"Right, the entirety of recorded human history is full of wars, persecution, genocide, torture, etc, and that doesn't fit "my" model. "
You are putting words in my mouth. What you actually said, that I responded to, was that people are naturally greedy/selfish. I disagreed with that; but I don't doubt that they can become selfish.
Wow, you are are truely stupid individual.
People who say things like that are usually either 15 or just as stupid. In anycase since you keep misunderstanding or forgetting your own words (see above) it would seem to be the latter.
It is 100% rational. There is no evidence of god, hence I do not believe in it.
Ironically you are an anti-scientist. You have the opposite attitute to a scientist, who holds all things possible until disproven (not the same as absence of evidence).
If you were to say "Hence I am of the opinion, rather than belief, there is no god" then I would agree that it is rational, but you would be a modern agnostic not an atheist (classical agnostics are as irrational as atheists). But when you make it a belief you are making a leap of faith with no good reason (lack of evidence isn't a good reason to make a belief). In theory atheists are effectively mad. An absence of belief still requires belief despite the typical atheist assertion to the contrary, except where there isn't any reasoning ability, like a cow, or a stone, or the mindless.
If you lack even the most basic understanding of what atheism is
I am fairly well educated. And I've thought about these subjects a lot. I even once enjoyed reading an atheist site called soemthing like "Final moments of atheists", trying to show that atheists don't die in horrible torment at the possibility they might go to hell. Want to say that presumptuous statement again?
Nor do we care to.
You have to be a either very young or silly to say something like that. That's the attitude of a cow. All it cares about is eating grass, chewing the cud and getting milked. But cows don't reason like we do, nor anticipate suffering. You should care to because one day you will be fighting with terrible suffering and feeling despair needlessly. Very few escape that (not even christians). Unless you top yourself, of course. Will you top yourself when you've got people you love depending on you?
No, I already know the actual definition of the word faith.
You mean according to the atheists dictionary? It's always better to go to the horses mouth to find out the truth of a matter. It's funny what crazy things people believe about catholics because they got it from a non-catholic source. Anyway, now you know the real definition. I really do quote the horses mouth, by the way (item 150). I know of an atheist who became a believer because he actually bothered to open a bible, but from what he wrote he was truly seeking truth despite being a full-on atheist, which you aren't from what you have already said. Perhaps that's why God revealed himself to that guy. Which he sure did.
And people who are tripping on acid and try to fly are acting supremely rationally too right?
That problem is solved through union with God, as mentioned. Even if the guy was mad he could truly know God this way. The person has total proof, better than anything science can give. You keep saying it's not rational, but without good reason.
Video games do not cause harm, hence there is nothing to protect anyone from.
You make this assertion when there is actual scientific evidence that contradicts you. It's been in the news several times. Are you just making it up? Is this another of your beliefs that comes from effectively nowhere.
I am very interested in anthropology, especially of primitive peoples. These peoples don't fit your greeed/selfishness model too well. But the west does.
The modern atheistic mentality of the last 200 years or so has its roots in the reformation. As much as the ahteists have made the protestant theory their own it is still the protestants that began it all.
Anyway it's not wise to dismiss religious claims as fairy-tales. After all atheists can't actually prove that there isn't a supreme being/force. Whereas the religious have proof by God personally revealing himself to the individual. So on that basis you can possibly see that the atheist position is the less rational. In fact not rational. The atheist goes on evidence whereas the (true) theist goes on proof via participation in the self-awareness of God himself by being in union with him, although in my opinion that is probably the minority of those who say they are religious. It's not completely unreasonable that you should have been fooled in to thinking that the atheist position is rational considering the increasingly hysterical claims of american protestants that the bible claims the world was created in 6 24-hour days.
But the rest of christianity, by far the majority, has not preached biblical literalism. Even if you were to be a literalist it was 6 plus 1 day of rest, which makes 7 which is the traditional hebrew indicator of a 'long time' or 'a lot of something'. As a catholic I accept evolution as probably true, and I've not noticed God withdrawing his presence from me. I've no problem with Adam and Eve having homo pre-cursors. Did you know that the father of modern genetics was a catholic monk, amd the first proposer of the big bang theory was a catholic priest?
You probably don't know this, as otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the religious, but there is no such thing as scientific proof (ref: Karl Popper and falsifiability). Evidence, after all, isn;t proof. Even proof in a courtroom is actually qualified as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The Matrix is a good illustration of the problem of proof, and it is by union with God that that problem is solved for the religious, but that is well beyond the limits of science. Even mathematicians have had to forego their previous claim to be able to prove things (ref: Chaitin, son of the christian mathemetician Godel, and the hyper-random number).
Anyway the point is that even though a religious can not give scientific evidence, let alone proof, of the existence of God to another it doesn't matter so long as he can convince that person to ask God directly, ie "Oh God, if you exist reveal yourself, if you please". Almost every conversion story I've come across has been of that nature: someone actually asked and perservered in asking until they got an answer.
You might be interested in the technical definition of the word 'faith' as taught by catholics:Assent to Divinely revealed truth.
Ie, you don't believe for no reason, you believe because God has revealed it to you personally. Supremely rational. The chicken and egg problem of assenting to union with God before we truly know him is solved by the claim that we are made in God's image. The protestant version is something along the lines of "Trusting belief", but catholics see "trust" as a work, and not part of the definition of faith but the proper human action that results from faith.
...and by the way: the belief that we are naturally selfish and greedy etc, is another white, protestant load of garbage, direct from Luther and Calvin themselves.
Totally different?!?! Are you sure about that? What is a shelter except protection against the elements. It's a specific version of 'protection'. Then you are arguing that so long as it doesn't eat you then it cannot be harmful. Hmmmmm
"You instead try to shelter them from violent video games because you are crazy."
Are you sure it's me that's crazy?
"So, every single human being in the entire history of our species has been "screwed up" and hates everyone?"
Now you are putting words in to my mouth. The point, since it seems you didn't understand me, is that those kids have been harmed, and yet were not eaten. What harmed them? You reckon to avoid harm it's all about educating, and I don't buy that white, anglo-saxon, protestant idea. It's rubbish. Education never stopped anyone from being selfish and nasty, rather the opposite. you can tell someone to not be selfish over and over and it can have no effect.
There are lots of things which harm people without killing them directly, and nasty video games are an obvious candidate despite your absolutist belief.
That's splitting hairs as far as this dicussion is concerned. If the nature of video games is toxic to the child then the parent may feel the need to protect. Is it toxic? If it leads them to stab each other then yes. I'm not saying that it does, by the way, only that the original comment was recommending something unnatural.
"Young animals are not sheltered from the real world. They are simply protected from dying. "
You're splitting hairs. And you are taking the analogy too far. The point is that the parent protects, they don't just dump their offspring. So having established that the parent protects we can then discuss what is suitable protection as far as violent video games are concerned.
"You have it quite backwards, for all of human history, children have coped with the real world. They "
You mean all those screwed up children that hate each other? Your assertion is unprovable since screwed up to me could be balanced by you. And who said anything about pretending there is nothing bad?
Everything in moderation is an easy proverb, but it's not really true. Would you take arsenic in moderation? If the video game as actually toxic to the child then there's no moderation about it. By the way, I am not saying that video games are toxic, just pointing out the trouble with that proverb.
What sort of kids are you talking about? 12 and up? In my opinion they aren't kids.
Real kids, particularly the very young, have empty or nearly empty brains: and they don't know better. They learn, without the means to discriminate, from anything that is put before them.
In this discussion "real world" doesn't mean doing the chores. We are talking about violent video games, are we not? I would, as it happens, advocate 5 year olds doing the cooking and housework (I have a friend whose grandmother did exactly that at that age, due to a problem mother).
This discussion boils down to whether the "real world", in the sense the rest of us are talking about, should be seen or experienced without the influence of the parents. I would argue that it is unnatural for kids to be exposed to the "real world" without the protecting aid of their parents, and that may mean not exposing them until they are old enough in the parent's opinion (and not the Supreme Court's opinion). I wasn't arguing for a fairy tale childhood, or the deliberate blinding of children. Just to clarify : I wouldn't ban parents from giving their kids Doom. But I would ban the state from forcing parents either way. A hen lets her chicks see just as much of the real world as she's happy with, and no more.
Tell a primitive that he isn't allowed to protect his kids in any way he sees fit and he'll boil your head.
But that's only if you consider a 12 year old a child. Most mature cultures don't. They recognise puberty as the entrance in to adult hood and begin to slowly and carefully hand over adult responsibilities to the young and maturing adult. They even allow marriage, balanced by parental assent (until the age of majority, which used to be 21 in the UK).
Mahatma Ghandi was married at 12 and had his first child at 13 (quoting his autobiography). In christianity the Virgin Mary is traditionally said to have been between 13 and 16 when she concieved Jesus Christ.
In our insane western culture we treat adults as kids and then dismiss their resentful response as 'adolescent moodiness'. We also shut them up in schools to learn useless theory when they really want to be doing something real and genuinely satisfying. No wonder they are going nuts with boredom, and stabbing each other.
Of course they want to have sex : they aren't kids anymore. But there's no recognition of that and so you get promiscuous chaos on one side, and frustration on the other (depending on the individual).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, broadly. Even Catholics, the most prescriptive of Christians, allow for that (again broadly speaking). For example an american bishop was excommunicated (excluded from the Church) in 1948 for insisting you could only go to heaven if you were a member of the *visible* Catholic Church, something the Catholic Church has never taught. You can only be saved through Jesus Christ (which it does teach), but technically you don't have to know the name "Jesus Christ" or have heard of the bible to be saved: but you do have to assent to His spirit, how ever it manifests.
Also look at "Invincible Ignorance" for more loopholes.
However, pantheism is not at all the same as the above. It's the belief that all is God. Which christians have always rejected. Rather christians believe that God divinises us by uniting himself to us (eventually so that we "enter in to the joy of God"), but we have to assent to that, an assent which means faithfully living to a basic standard of conduct, particularly when it comes to personal integrity - aka self-control, and not behaving like simple animals. The horrible irony of the Adam and Eve story is that the devil tempted them with "becoming like God", but God was going to do that anyway, the right way.
Or God makes his existence known, which is why religious people believe in him and dedicate their whole lives to him even forgoing sex and marriage (ie. priests and nuns). The definition of 'faith' is "assent to divinely revealed truth", in other words faith is a result of God revealing himself to people. Nothing irrational about that. Or are you going to instead believe the extraordinarily unpleasant Nietzsche (man makes god)?
Good luck with that.
It's "you're" not "your".
And actually I do. Her diaries are published and I own a copy.
You won't believe this but...
In 2001 a polish nun call Sister Faustina, who had died in 1939 I think, was made a saint (canonized). As far as I know canonization is an infallible statement that the person went to heaven and led a life of exceptional saintliness.
In her diaries (which she was instructed to keep by her superiours) Jesus Christ appears numerous times. At one point he says that the universe is teeming with life, and it would be arrogant of us to think that it is only our planet that had life, or words to that effect.
Now because she is canonized that effectively means that the content of her diaries, while not themselves being proclaimed infallible, are approved of nevertheless.
The diaries also claim that Hitler was not the Anti-Christ, and that the Anti-Christ was already living. I would bet on Stalin.
As a result of this nun and her visions of Christ the Catholic Church instituted the Feast Of the Divine Mercy on the sunday after Easter sunday. Apparently if we don't ask God for His mercy we must eventually glorify His justice instead (ie. eternal punishment). And that message was the purpose of Jesus's appearances. Google for "Saint Faustina" for more info.
Even if the russkies managed to get her username and passwords they will only be able to swipe a minimal amount of her cash.
I would have agreed with you except that over time I;ve come to realise that there is a bunch of stuff that doesn't fit the balance/moderation idea. An extreme example would be Arsnic since, if I remember, it accumulates, so even moderation isn't going to save you in the end, let alone balance.
You may think arsnic is a poor example, but margarine contains fats which are not found in nature, so you can imagine that it might be considered a poison also, and that balance and moderation aren't enough to address it.
Ironically the one thing moderation/balance almost never applies to is diet, and it is that it is most applied to. For example you can't be balanced about fruit : it needs to be eaten in quite small quantities seasonally if anthropologists are right. But in a strange twist modern dieticians and doctors completely ignore our evolutionary roots and get us to stuff our selves with it. In practice they are following the creationists even though they condemn them.
And how do you balance carbs/fat/protein? 33% of each. That's a mathematical balance but does it apply to the body? Unlikely.
Another pointless discussion that doesn't acknowledge the depth of complexity of backwards compatability, and its commercial necessity.
You're right, in terms of what I wrote. I agree with you. I'm incorrect to talk purely in terms of law.
Re-phrase what I wrote to say law/system, rather than just law.
As a competent businessman what would you do knowing the competition is working hard to crush you?
I reckon you are moralising: "Amazon is bad because they are doing what I think is wrong."
Actually they are doing everything legitemately in their power to survive, which is what the competition is also doing, and that judges have ruled to be correct. If they hadn't patented that stupid idea, someone else would have, and Amazon, as we know them, might no longer exist. Bezos isn't an idiot: he did what he knew he had to do.
It's only the fault of Amazon if you are a judgemental. Otherwise it is the fault of those that perverted the patent system.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. I reckon Bezos isn't a fool, and he may know that a flawed patent system serves Amazon best (for now, and can be changed if it doesn't in future). It's easy to accuse Amazon of being bad, like most here. After all they aren't persuing a policy of loving kindness, rather that of being materially fruitful. Perhaps that is what a business should be doing, within the framework given them by law-makers.
I disagree that corporations should be given a free pass on unethical or illegal behavior just because it's in the interests of the stockholders.
I never said anything about illegal behaviour. As far as ethics is concerned it's fraught with difficulty since one mans ethical is another's monstrousness (ie. stem cells, the nazis, abortion; to name a few obvious ones etc). Pointing fingers is a very tricky business.
I agree there is a problem but I think it is with uncontained competitiveness, a problem that afflicts some modern forms of capitalism, but that's a different issue. In the meantime the arena is as it is, and Bezos better fight hard.
Those were things that Congress would never have thought up on its own: they were pushed into it by corporations that wanted to gain even more control over America's intellectual capital.
How were they pushed in to it? Don't they have wills of their own? But you are partly right if we are talking corruption.
But apart from coruption it's down to the law-maker to resist and over-come bad influence. That's part of the job: to be noble. that's why there is a real case for adulterous or criminal law-makers to resign since they have demonstrated a weak will in a critical area of their own lives: sticking to vows - and making good decisions in the first place. It's the weak willed that allow this kind of nonsense. So it is still the lawmakers fault for not doing his own (very important) job properly.
Bezos and the like have the status of children in comaprison to a law-maker : "Daddy, please give me this really tasty looking [but actually long-term poisonous] sweety". There are plenty of parents who give in, but it isn't the child's fault, not in my opinion.
Obviously US patent law is up the creek, but it's not Amazon's fault. If anything Bezos should be fired if he were not to use every tool and weapon available to him.
The people who should be slapped are those that have allowed this to happen: the lawmakers, which these days seems to include the judiciary.
You have no idea what agnostic and atheist mean, and your refusal to stop arguing using your fictional meanings for words makes it a total waste of time to converse with you. I know what atheist means, and that I am one. You know neither. You're just stating things for the sake of it. How about giving a reason, like condradicting what I've said. Try contradicting this : *A classical agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. [By the way I am quoting the guy who invented the word: the victorian Huxley, not Aldous).] *A modern agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists. You are the latter despite your unreasoned assertions to the contrary.
But that's an opinion then. You can only use the word belief when you have knowledge (or are mad), ie : "I know that god does not exist". That is why I am saying the things I am saying. My opinion is that evolution is correct, but I don't actually beleive in it (yet) because I don't know for certain that it is correct even if I personally like it a lot and think it to be very comaptible with christianity. After all, although the evidence is excellent it isn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you believe something without knowledge you are irrational, and that's what you have been claiming. It's a form of superstition.
So now it sounds like you are really a modern agnostic, but don't know it.
When I say that I believe in God I am saying that "I know that God exists". I really do, too. And for a reason : he has revealed himself to me, as he does to all *true* seekers after truth. I'm not saying that that is a 'scientific' fact. In the cahtolic church the one bunch of people we pray for outside of the church are those truly seeking the truth.
By the way, I do acknowledge that there are christians who believe for no good reason and are irrational. But their belief is actually a twisted form of self-delusion and won't help them. Unless they experience God directly they can't have true faith.
However if you look into the specifics of the studies in question, you would find they used very questionable methods to manufacture the results they wanted.
And stop calling christians stupid and irrational: it's a generalisation. Some are, some aren't. But all atheists are irrational, which doesn't include you.
It's a contract, after all. Even the price looks about right. It's actually nice of them to even allow it.
"Right, the entirety of recorded human history is full of wars, persecution, genocide, torture, etc, and that doesn't fit "my" model. "
You are putting words in my mouth. What you actually said, that I responded to, was that people are naturally greedy/selfish. I disagreed with that; but I don't doubt that they can become selfish.
Wow, you are are truely stupid individual.
People who say things like that are usually either 15 or just as stupid. In anycase since you keep misunderstanding or forgetting your own words (see above) it would seem to be the latter.
It is 100% rational. There is no evidence of god, hence I do not believe in it.
Ironically you are an anti-scientist. You have the opposite attitute to a scientist, who holds all things possible until disproven (not the same as absence of evidence).
If you were to say "Hence I am of the opinion, rather than belief, there is no god" then I would agree that it is rational, but you would be a modern agnostic not an atheist (classical agnostics are as irrational as atheists). But when you make it a belief you are making a leap of faith with no good reason (lack of evidence isn't a good reason to make a belief). In theory atheists are effectively mad. An absence of belief still requires belief despite the typical atheist assertion to the contrary, except where there isn't any reasoning ability, like a cow, or a stone, or the mindless.
If you lack even the most basic understanding of what atheism is
I am fairly well educated. And I've thought about these subjects a lot. I even once enjoyed reading an atheist site called soemthing like "Final moments of atheists", trying to show that atheists don't die in horrible torment at the possibility they might go to hell. Want to say that presumptuous statement again?
Nor do we care to.
You have to be a either very young or silly to say something like that. That's the attitude of a cow. All it cares about is eating grass, chewing the cud and getting milked. But cows don't reason like we do, nor anticipate suffering. You should care to because one day you will be fighting with terrible suffering and feeling despair needlessly. Very few escape that (not even christians). Unless you top yourself, of course. Will you top yourself when you've got people you love depending on you?
No, I already know the actual definition of the word faith.
You mean according to the atheists dictionary? It's always better to go to the horses mouth to find out the truth of a matter. It's funny what crazy things people believe about catholics because they got it from a non-catholic source. Anyway, now you know the real definition. I really do quote the horses mouth, by the way (item 150). I know of an atheist who became a believer because he actually bothered to open a bible, but from what he wrote he was truly seeking truth despite being a full-on atheist, which you aren't from what you have already said. Perhaps that's why God revealed himself to that guy. Which he sure did.
And people who are tripping on acid and try to fly are acting supremely rationally too right?
That problem is solved through union with God, as mentioned. Even if the guy was mad he could truly know God this way. The person has total proof, better than anything science can give. You keep saying it's not rational, but without good reason.
Video games do not cause harm, hence there is nothing to protect anyone from.
You make this assertion when there is actual scientific evidence that contradicts you. It's been in the news several times. Are you just making it up? Is this another of your beliefs that comes from effectively nowhere.
The modern atheistic mentality of the last 200 years or so has its roots in the reformation. As much as the ahteists have made the protestant theory their own it is still the protestants that began it all.
Anyway it's not wise to dismiss religious claims as fairy-tales. After all atheists can't actually prove that there isn't a supreme being/force. Whereas the religious have proof by God personally revealing himself to the individual. So on that basis you can possibly see that the atheist position is the less rational. In fact not rational. The atheist goes on evidence whereas the (true) theist goes on proof via participation in the self-awareness of God himself by being in union with him, although in my opinion that is probably the minority of those who say they are religious. It's not completely unreasonable that you should have been fooled in to thinking that the atheist position is rational considering the increasingly hysterical claims of american protestants that the bible claims the world was created in 6 24-hour days.
But the rest of christianity, by far the majority, has not preached biblical literalism. Even if you were to be a literalist it was 6 plus 1 day of rest, which makes 7 which is the traditional hebrew indicator of a 'long time' or 'a lot of something'. As a catholic I accept evolution as probably true, and I've not noticed God withdrawing his presence from me. I've no problem with Adam and Eve having homo pre-cursors. Did you know that the father of modern genetics was a catholic monk, amd the first proposer of the big bang theory was a catholic priest?
You probably don't know this, as otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the religious, but there is no such thing as scientific proof (ref: Karl Popper and falsifiability). Evidence, after all, isn;t proof. Even proof in a courtroom is actually qualified as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The Matrix is a good illustration of the problem of proof, and it is by union with God that that problem is solved for the religious, but that is well beyond the limits of science. Even mathematicians have had to forego their previous claim to be able to prove things (ref: Chaitin, son of the christian mathemetician Godel, and the hyper-random number).
Anyway the point is that even though a religious can not give scientific evidence, let alone proof, of the existence of God to another it doesn't matter so long as he can convince that person to ask God directly, ie "Oh God, if you exist reveal yourself, if you please". Almost every conversion story I've come across has been of that nature: someone actually asked and perservered in asking until they got an answer.
You might be interested in the technical definition of the word 'faith' as taught by catholics :Assent to Divinely revealed truth.
Ie, you don't believe for no reason, you believe because God has revealed it to you personally. Supremely rational. The chicken and egg problem of assenting to union with God before we truly know him is solved by the claim that we are made in God's image. The protestant version is something along the lines of "Trusting belief", but catholics see "trust" as a work, and not part of the definition of faith but the proper human action that results from faith.
...and by the way: the belief that we are naturally selfish and greedy etc, is another white, protestant load of garbage, direct from Luther and Calvin themselves.
"You instead try to shelter them from violent video games because you are crazy."
Are you sure it's me that's crazy?
"So, every single human being in the entire history of our species has been "screwed up" and hates everyone?"
Now you are putting words in to my mouth. The point, since it seems you didn't understand me, is that those kids have been harmed, and yet were not eaten. What harmed them? You reckon to avoid harm it's all about educating, and I don't buy that white, anglo-saxon, protestant idea. It's rubbish. Education never stopped anyone from being selfish and nasty, rather the opposite. you can tell someone to not be selfish over and over and it can have no effect.
There are lots of things which harm people without killing them directly, and nasty video games are an obvious candidate despite your absolutist belief.
You're splitting hairs. And you are taking the analogy too far. The point is that the parent protects, they don't just dump their offspring. So having established that the parent protects we can then discuss what is suitable protection as far as violent video games are concerned.
"You have it quite backwards, for all of human history, children have coped with the real world. They "
You mean all those screwed up children that hate each other? Your assertion is unprovable since screwed up to me could be balanced by you. And who said anything about pretending there is nothing bad?
Everything in moderation is an easy proverb, but it's not really true. Would you take arsenic in moderation? If the video game as actually toxic to the child then there's no moderation about it. By the way, I am not saying that video games are toxic, just pointing out the trouble with that proverb.
Real kids, particularly the very young, have empty or nearly empty brains: and they don't know better. They learn, without the means to discriminate, from anything that is put before them.
This discussion boils down to whether the "real world", in the sense the rest of us are talking about, should be seen or experienced without the influence of the parents. I would argue that it is unnatural for kids to be exposed to the "real world" without the protecting aid of their parents, and that may mean not exposing them until they are old enough in the parent's opinion (and not the Supreme Court's opinion). I wasn't arguing for a fairy tale childhood, or the deliberate blinding of children. Just to clarify : I wouldn't ban parents from giving their kids Doom. But I would ban the state from forcing parents either way. A hen lets her chicks see just as much of the real world as she's happy with, and no more.
Tell a primitive that he isn't allowed to protect his kids in any way he sees fit and he'll boil your head.
Mahatma Ghandi was married at 12 and had his first child at 13 (quoting his autobiography). In christianity the Virgin Mary is traditionally said to have been between 13 and 16 when she concieved Jesus Christ.
In our insane western culture we treat adults as kids and then dismiss their resentful response as 'adolescent moodiness'. We also shut them up in schools to learn useless theory when they really want to be doing something real and genuinely satisfying. No wonder they are going nuts with boredom, and stabbing each other.
Of course they want to have sex : they aren't kids anymore. But there's no recognition of that and so you get promiscuous chaos on one side, and frustration on the other (depending on the individual).