Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no reason to believe that any standard is being discussed other than the standard of the poster which he has projected onto his or her concept of some god(s).
(01) Me first.
(02) No artwork. [**]
(03) Don't say my name.
(04) Do no work on my special day.
(05) Obey your parents (unless they tell you to break a commandment).
(06) No murder (except for foreign children).
(07) No marital infidelity (no divorce).
(08) Don't steal (except from foreigners).
(09) Don't tell lies.
(10) Don't desire the belongings of others (except from foreigners).
These can be boiled down to "focus your mind respecting the unknowable" (eyes up here please), "do what you're told", and "be honest".
Taking a look at this list, it actually gives an enormous amount of power to your parents.
As long as your parents don't tell you to violate any of the 7 empirically verifiable laws, they can pretty much make you jump through any number of hoops they damn well please.
And if your parents are dead, just don't talk bad about them and follow the other 7, and you're welcomed to beat your neighbor half-to death and cut their ears off if they look at you the wrong way (just as long as you're perfectly honest about it and don't take their stuff).
I'm actually pretty surprised it doesn't say anything about "do what the priests (and or your king and or whatever-Moses-was) tell you to do".
I guess the voice of your "leader" is assumed to be the voice of your god($) even though it never actually says that explicitly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It is in lapses in our choices that we, likewise, wear down and become more prone to accept temptation, and defy the laws of God.
This sounds like a design flaw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...though, to date, our machines are not self-conscious,
Not only has a "machine" achieved self-awareness, it has written it's own spontaneous logical proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
God is not the generator of those thoughts and actions.
Your genetics and primary experiences form the basis for your adult decision making.
You did not choose your genetics. GOD($) chose your genetics.
You did not choose your primary experiences. GOD($) chose your primary experiences.
You do not choose your desires and emotions. GOD($) chose your desires and emotions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It sounds like you agree with me that an omnipotent god($) would never (could never) grant full autonomy to anyone who is currently alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You can just click the like icon again to remove your vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You would want to believe, if you did, that Gods is the TOTAL cause of everything.
That's the literal definition of OMNIPOTENT.
I'm saying God is not the TOTAL case of anything.
GOD($) + STUF GOD($) MADE = TOTAL CAUSE OF EVERYTHING
What would you say "fills in the gap" between what god($) causes and what god($) does not cause?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It sounds like you agree with me that an omnipotent god($) would never (could never) grant full autonomy to anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You really think I have to take thin air and produce holy writ for you?
That's all very interesting but it does nothing to explain how you leapt to the conclusion that you know "god($) mantra".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
How is it predestination if God does nothing about it?
If god($) does "nothing" then I don't exist and hell doesn't exist, right?
If god($) makes me, with the full 100% confidence that I'm "going to hell", then how can that possibly be "my fault"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
where is this "mantra" in the bible?Must it be in the Bible? Richard Back once said, "The greatest sin is to limit the Is. Don't." "The "Is" being Bach's name for God." Therefore, do not limit God to just what is contained in the Bible. I do not believe for a minute that God restricts His communication to man to the Bible. That would be an admission that He spoke once upon a time, but does no longer. That's limiting God. Take Bach's advice.
I see, so now you're just making stuff up out of thin air?
Or perhaps you've heard the voice of "YHWH" in your ear?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
But, again, just because one has omnipotence and omniscience is one compelled to always use them?
(IFF) an omniscient being willfully inserts a blind spot into its body of knowledge (THEN) it no longer qualifies as omniscient
(IFF) an omnipotent being willfully grants full autonomy to some other agent (THEN) it no longer qualifies as omnipotent
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
just because a child can choke themselves to death (on the toy you provided) doesn't mean they will (does this "doubt" immunize you from murder and or criminal negligence charges)?Now you've altered the subject of discussion.
If you can't answer this question, simply don't answer this question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you, personally, believe GOD($) knew I was going to "go to hell" before Adam was created?Yes, I do.
That's the very definition of "predestination".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, if the law changed, then it can't be described as universal and unchanging (objective) can it?
(IFF) the law explained BEFOREHAND what changes would happen after the "sacrificial lamb" arrived (THEN) you could say "the law remained unchanged"
However, as far as I can tell, Jesus made apparently ad hoc modifications on the fly.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
He's just replied to me with a bunch of fallacies for reasons that remain unclear.
I'm pretty certain that questions are not, and cannot qualify as logical fallacies.
I haven't even attempted to guess at, much less purposefully mischaracterize YOUR "argument".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How can you distinguish what is better without this best?Quite easily.Start at the "worst" and take it one step at a time.Worst in comparison to what?
What's the worst personal injustice that you've experienced or witnessed?
Try not to do that.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is good is so whether you believe so or not.
So, after all that.
We're back to "I'm right and you're wrong"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
It doesn't and as soon as you lose or deny the 'best' that you compare morals against (as necessary) you have disagreements that contradict each other.The decalogue doesn't resolve these disagreements.Sure it does. An omniscient, unchanging, eternal, objective being who has revealed most certainly does.
Why do some Christians believe it's ok to divorce your husband and others believe divorce is adultery?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thus, the penalty is death - spiritual separation from God.
I think I can handle it, anything else?
How do you plan on avoiding Naraka?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you suggesting that the whole of the Levitical Law was modified between the OT and the NT?No, what I am suggesting is the Jesus met or fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law of Moses and the Law of God in His human capacity (alone) on behalf of believers. It (the Law) was nailed to the cross and covered by His death, for He died on behalf of those who would believe, not only the living a righteous life aspect (satisfying God's righteousness), but also taking the penalty for sins of the believer upon Himself (satisfying God's justice and the penalty for sin). Thus God was fully satisfied in His Son.
You start out by saying "NO", but then you go on to explain how it WAS CHANGED.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no such thing MORE purely OBJECTIVE than NOUMENON.How has this been revealed to you?
By examining the definition of "objective".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...thus we need a personal Being to reveal the truth to us.
Soooo, NOT a book?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Something that just is, without mind, without personhood, is incapable of revealing anything.
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
It sounds like "YHWH" is "beyond comprehension".
Our minds are like the minds of ants.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The critical conceit here is your claim that you follow a universal, unchanging moral code.The decalogue is NOT unchanging. It is interpreted in different ways at different times.It is, except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles.
You just admitted that it changed. Not universal. Not unchanging.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.
There is ample evidence that people were protecting themselves long before Abraham was ever born.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not only this, there is an internal unity and consistency in the 66 'books' or writings in which particular themes are laced throughout - God, sin, Israel, judgment, redemption, the Messiah, heaven.
Do you believe that heaven is a golden cube, measuring 12,000 furlongs (1,400 miles or 2,200 kilometers) each side? [**]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I see every letter of the law met or fulfilled in Jesus Christ by AD 70.
What does this mean in practical terms?
Is it perhaps something like, "Love Jesus, read the bible and do what you think is right"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How does that meet the requirements of justice?
How would the death of another person (Jesus or Nathaniel or Tom) "meet the requirements for justice"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then some things do matter and become absolutely morally wrong [TO YOU PERSONALLY], even though the majority think otherwise.
Moral instinct is a GNOSTIC phenomenon (not empirically demonstrable).
(IFF) you agree with the CONSENSUS (THEN) you believe the majority is moral (the law is true and just).
(IFF) you disagree with the CONSENSUS (THEN) you believe the majority is immoral (the law is false and corrupt).
(IFF) I believe I am "right" (THEN) that doesn't necessarily make you "wrong"
(IFF) you believe you are "right" (THEN) that doesn't necessarily make me "wrong"
It's exactly the same as law. Different territories have different laws. It's exactly the same for people. What's appropriate behavior in front of your parents is not always the same as what's considered appropriate behavior in front of your friends. What's appropriate behavior in one friend's house is not always what's appropriate behavior at another friends house.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Torturing innocent people for fun is right as long as the majority thinks so, correct?
When was the last time you purchased a product marked "made in China"?
When was the last time you purchased some food product that contains chocolate?
When was the last time you purchased a banana or an avocado?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Actually, the death rate of children under 15 was 50 percent until intelligent man got the death rate down to 5 percent in the 1900's.It was parents that saw 1/2 of their children die that created religion. Search for Mortality rates of children over the last two millennia.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
My moral instincts are universal and self-evident to many and exist without any endorsement.Your moral instincts are universal and self-evident? To you! They are not to me.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...just because you can does not mean you will. That is God's mantra.
#1, where is this "mantra" in the bible?
#2, you're ignoring GOD($) OMNISCIENCE.
#3, just because a child can choke themselves to death (on the toy you provided) doesn't mean they will (does this "doubt" immunize you from murder and or criminal negligence charges)?
For example, do you, personally believe GOD($) knows I'm "going to hell"?
Do you, personally, believe GOD($) knew I was going to "go to hell" before I was born?
Do you, personally, believe GOD($) knew I was going to "go to hell" before Adam was created?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
The study, titled “Estimated Inactivation of Coronaviruses by Solar Radiation,” looked at how effective UVB rays had been at inactivating coronavirus at various locations around the world.
The new study also suggests that shelter-in-place orders and similar lockdown plans could be counterproductive for anyone sharing a roof with multiple people.
“Healthy people outdoors receiving sunlight could have been exposed to lower viral dose with more chances for mounting an efficient immune response,” it said.
ABSTRACT
Using a model developed for estimating solar inactivation of viruses of biodefense concerns,we calculated the expected inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 virus, cause of COVID-19 pandemic, byartificial UVC and by solar ultraviolet radiation in several cities of the world during different times ofthe year. The UV sensitivity estimated here for SARS-CoV-2 is compared with those reported forother ssRNA viruses, including influenza A virus. The results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 aerosolizedfrom infected patients and deposited on surfaces could remain infectious outdoors for considerabletime during the winter in many temperate-zone cities, with continued risk for re-aerosolization andhuman infection. Conversely, the presented data indicate that SARS-CoV-2 should be inactivatedrelatively fast (faster than influenza A) during summer in many populous cities of the world,indicating that sunlight should have a role in the occurrence, spread rate, and duration of coronaviruspandemics.
Estimated time for inactivation of SARS-Co V-2 virusTable 2 shows reported solar virucidal flux at solar noon together with the estimated minutes ofsunlight exposure needed at various populous North American metropolitan areas to inactivate 90%of SARS-CoV-2. The (+) sign in Table 2 indicates that 99% of SARS-CoV-2 may be inactivatedwithin the two hours period around solar noon during summer in most US cities located south ofLatitude 43oN. Also 99% of the virus will be inactivated during two hours midday in several citiessouth of latitude 35oN in Fall, but only Miami and Houston will receive enough solar radiation toinactivate 99% of the virus in spring. During winter, most cities will not receive enough solarradiation to produce 90% viral inactivation during 2-hours midday exposure (underlined values inTable 2).
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the influence of simulated sunlight and suspension medium on the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces and provide data needed to inform assessment of the exposure risk associated with contaminated outdoor surfaces.
The light spectrum was designed to represent natural sunlight, specifically in the ultraviolet (UV) range (280–400 nm), and closely matched model spectra from the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s (NCAR) tropospheric ultraviolet and visible (TUV) radiation model in this range [15] (Figure 2). A previous study demonstrated that light in the UVA portion of the spectrum (315–400 nm) did not damage SARS-CoV-1 at doses similar to those used in the present study [16]. Therefore, the integrated irradiance in the UVB portion of the spectrum (280–315 nm) was utilized to quantify exposure. The intensity of the light was controlled through the use of neutral density filters and adjustment of the power supply to the lamp. Three different intensity levels, approximating integrated UVB irradiance levels for different times of day and year, were utilized in testing (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Spectra produced by the solar simulator were measured immediately outside of the chamber window using a spectroradiometer (OL756; Gooch & Housego) equipped with a 2-inch diameter integrating sphere light receptor (IS-270; Gooch & Housego), and corrected for transmission losses through the window.
In contrast to simulated sunlight, no significant decay was observed in darkness over the 60-minute test duration, which is consistent with previously published data with both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 [4, 5, 9, 20]. van Doremalen et al [4] reported half-lives of 5.6 and 6.8 hours for SARS-CoV-2 on nonporous stainless steel and plastic surfaces, respectively, under indoor conditions, or approximately 18 to 23 hours for a 90% reduction in infectivity. Chan et al [9] reported that it took 3–5 days to lose 90% of infectivity of SARS-CoV-1 dried on a surface under indoor conditions.
The present study provides the first evidence that sunlight may rapidly inactivate SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces, suggesting that surface persistence, and subsequently exposure risk, may vary significantly between indoor and outdoor environments. However, in order to fully assess the risk of exposure in outdoor environments, information on the viral load present on surfaces, the transfer efficiency of virus from those surfaces upon contact, and the amount of virus needed to cause infection are also needed.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
All I'm suggesting is that since we're told that normal sunlight deactivates covid, we could install grow lamps (light-bulbs) that are no more "dangerous" than normal sunlight in order to deactivate covid.
This seems like it would be much less invasive than mass economic suicide + storm trooper costumes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.
Citation please.
An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary.
OLD BOOK =/= COMPELLING EVIDENCE
Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION. There is no contrary doctrine.
There are any number of atheists who believe in the plausibility of an intelligent-designer hypothesis, or simply have no opinion on the matter (not everyone's allergic to the words "I don't know" or "epistemological limits").
So, not only is there a non-belief in a deity -
Do you have a non-belief in BRAHMAN? Well then, you also have a non-belief in a deity.
but there is also an affirmation of a positive doctrine - evolution.
This assertion is provably false.
What other doctrines exist - for the atheist?
Atheism is a description, not a doctrine.
Let us explore.
I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am sure you won't deny it is the fact or are you prepared to say that evolution is a modern doctrine that has arisen because of a new type of prophet?
SCIENTIST =/= PROPHET
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You know as well as I do that although Darwin articulated the doctrine of Evolution,
EVOLUTION =/= DOCTRINE
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Yeah but that won't really affect the virus as they aren't alive beings.
How does sunlight deactivate covid?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
What I'm suggesting is using light-bulbs that emit wavelengths of UV that are in the same range as what we are normally exposed to when we normally outside exposed to normal sunlight.
Of course, the intensity of this light would be LESS than direct sunlight, but still enough to deactivate covid (and many other viruses).
This would be much less intrusive than forcing everyone to wear muzzles.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Hedonism perhaps, Existentialism, Aesthetics, Tradition, Culture, Conscience, bit of a mess perhaps.
As long as you consider yourself the "ultimate authority" on all matters related to "meaning", you are essentially a Gnostic.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Because they are also harmful for humans.
No more "harmful" than sunlight.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
That sounds more like Gnosticism to me (let thine own conscience be thy guide).
"Moral Nihilism" sounds like you reject all axiology (not very practical).
Created:
-->
@BearMan
(IFF) ultraviolet light kills covid instantly (THEN) why is nobody installing ultraviolet lightbulbs???????????????????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I see a list of requests but not sure how to accept them. For now what I'll do is click on their profile and accept it there. I just wasn't sure if there was a quicker way. Thanks though!
I just click on the requester's profile and then "accept friend request" on the left side of the screen.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Don't know myself, subjectively, objectively, standards set, norms, goals, ideals. Maybe.
How can you "do good" if you have no way of reliably detecting "good"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, omnipotence and omniscience also allows for restraint.
Where's the counter-balance? When GOD($) goes on "vacation" who takes over? Wouldn't the entire world simply freeze?
GOD($) controls every breeze, every snowflake, every chirp of every bird.
GOD($) has a 100% monopoly on power and creativity.
You might argue that GOD($) "gives" us some of that power.
But GOD($) knows what we'll do with that power BEFORE GOD($) ever gave it to us.
How is that any different than programing a robot?
Can an engineer "give" a "robot" creativity?
Can a "self-driving" car have "free-will"?
If you knew that giving a child a certain toy would lead to them choking themselves, if you knew that, with your omniscience, if you knew that would happen, but you gave them that toy anyway, WOULD THAT MAKE YOU A MURDERER?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps there is a better way to produce power or cut down on power consumption but the energy industry as a whole is run somewhat unethically and whith little concern for environmental issues and sustainability when measured against quarterly profits.
WE MUST DEMAND THORIUM REACTORS.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
And furthermore when government subsidizes the market it is less of a "capitalist" market and more of a regulated one.
I'm pretty sure it's the captains of industry that are lobbying for the subsidies.
Isn't "capitalism" the pursuit of capital by any and all means available?
Isn't a government who pours favor on a few special campaign contributors really acting as an extension of those corporations?
Isn't a "pro-business" government really an ideal capitalist playground?
CAPITALISM =/= FAIR PLAY
Created: