Shila

Religion is an evolutionary advantage. 

Who could one possible put this statement  before apart from a religious forum ?    

--> @Shila

Sounds like you're projecting you're lack of care you felt in the household, Shila.

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

 And if you indoctrinate someone into believing they will burn in hell from childhood to adult hood I am sure the numbers will increase daily. Your appeal to numbers is nonsense. 

--> @Shila

The New Testament was eyewitness accounts about Jesus in the Gospels.

collected and compiled 325 years after the fact

what we see, is that trump has default authority to classify at will. but even your article says only that there would be serious constitutional issues if a statute were passed. a statute was passed, which is cited above. we might assume that trump shouldn't be using classified material in a way that is detrimental to the USA. this is of course a judgment call, so executive authority and privilege would be here, but it's at best a murky issue. 

also, even if trump was cleared legally for what he did, you have to admit, that it at least sounds like he did the wrong thing by taking and hoarding those documents, right? just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. 

Science is replacing religion in almost every aspect.

Feeding millions.

Curing millions.

Giving hope to millions.

Answering questions that baffled mankind which religion was unable to solve.

Science can't make you stop fearing death. Science can't drag you out of the blackpill. Science can't make you a moral person.

Science is not a replacement for god(s).

 Objectivity means independent of the mind. Demonstrate that love is the standard for morality independent of the mind and that well being is not.

--> @Shila

Unfortunately you are to smart shila  to say the universe is no older then 10,000 years 

Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face. Namely:

(1) Creating an untouchable, unseeable leader who can never be caught in a scandal, contradiction or anything untoward (something that humans will never be able to rectify if they themselves are leaders, due to their imperfection).

(2) Adds mystical magic to morality so that it seems divine, rather than just an impulse. This is especially important for cause-driven people who want to feel like they are living with a real purpose. It also helps to prevent crimes of all natures.

(3) Quells fear of the unknown with answers to queries that scare humans (e.g. what happens after death? You go to Heaven or hell; you are reincarnated; you enter paradise etc.).

(4) Creates free labor as a religious zealot will gladly do things in the name of the divine, all the whilst making them feel good for doing so.

Without religion, there are important holes to fill, and I don't think Atheism or Agnosticism fill them. I think it could be said that humans currently need religion to function.

Religion helps people to survive. 

--> @3RU7AL

don't you have to have a "Y" chromosome in order to be considered "male" ?

SkepticalOne: No. 

--> @Deb-8-a-bull

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

Religion helps people to survive.

Sooooooo. 

With this uncertainty in mind.  The TOE shouldn't be placed at the top of the scale of things you belive are so called "certainties" 

I mean, it doesn't need to be. 

Theists on the other hand have this problem proving a god exists.   yet it is the most important thing ever. 

It is the sole reason they are here.    They will follow the rules/ laws of that god exactly for the rest of their lives without questioning it. 

You can see what is happening hear hey ? 

--> @3RU7AL

Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.  

please explain to me what you mean by "science and logic"

please provide your personally preferred definition of "explain"

and

please provide your personally preferred definition of "mean"

Ty, it won't last long once my 2 defeats process but I am happy enough.

Personally, the debating here just involves knowing how three or four voters think. There are only 2 people, who are mods, that decide most outcomes.

That is silly but the truth.

This site is too dead for risking very edge topics and people suffer from pro-US bias in all debates where US interests are geopolitically debated.

You need to notice certain biases and play around them (including by avoiding certain debates and sides entirely)

I will coach anybody, just hit me up and be a bit humble.

--> @Avery

I'll make it very simple for you two <3 :

(1) Having orderly societies is good. Having leaders is good. Leaders making mistakes is front of people is bad. Having perfect/near-perfect leaders (i.e. gods) is better. Societies did better with perfect/near-perfect leaders.

(2) Being moral allows for better societies. Objective, divine morality makes people more likely to be moral. This makes people more likely to be moral.

(3) People often do crazy things when they are scared. Religion answers scary questions. People spend less time being scared and are more likely to spend time on good things. This makes societies more productive.

(4) Work usually costs money. People who believe in a cause are more likely to work for free. Societies get a lot of free work from religious people. This means more work gets done because money doesn't need to be spent on it. This helps societies survive rather than paying people for everything.

All of that simply relates to the development of social structures within society and has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution by natural selection.

 

--> @Ehyeh

Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.

which one applies to god ?

Polytheist-Witch: -> @Elliott

Well everything you've posted is true no one here wants to talk about those animistic and polytheist religions. They consider them irrelevant to today even though they existed for a very long time before monotheism or as you stated even religion in general. There are certain polyistic religions were even the gods take a back seat to land spirits and dead ancestors. But again nobody here wants to talk about those things because they're irrelevant to their day-to-day life. They only care about the religion they feel have scarred and marked them in some way. The purpose is never for productive conversation. 

--> @ Elliott

Here is the argument yet again. Tarik.

God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist.

Please show why it is pointless.

--> @Shila

Love objectifies the parts of a person that we are attracted to.

SkepticalOne: : No. That's not what is meant by objective.

Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.

-->

@Shila

      Allahu Akbar !

--> @Elliott

I’m not sure there is a ranking of pointlessness, I would say they are equally pointless.

Then why are you making a pointless argument?

--> @Shila

Nice.

If we asked everyone that has meet the god thing where it happened 

You would have a ( Places you are most likely to meet a god thing.

It would read as following. 

A book store 1% chance of meeting a god.    

A shoe store 1% 

On top of a mountain 6%

A hospital 8%

A church 18%

Prison 34%

Freeway. 0%

But we would have a definite  . The best chance of meeting a god place. 

-> @Tarik

And what is your objective moral standard?

Love

SkepticalOne: How is love an objective standard? 

Religion is an evolutionary advantage

--> @Shila

Between love and well being we need to identify the object under consideration. Is it a person, a feeling or doctrine?

If morality is objective then it's not about our considerations.

--> @Sidewalker

i personally feel god's love in my heart

and that's how i know god is verified by science

--> @Shila

does that mean you won't get into heaven ?

You will not be judged for reacting differently but for rejecting the word of God.

ok, that's good

so, all denominations of christianity are equally correct

as long as they "don't reject" the modern version of the bible that was composed by the council of nicaea 325 years after the reported execution of the jesus

God reveals himself to people in prisons allllllllll the time . 

To have it a guess. 

I'd say that is the number one place where people meet and or talk to a god thing for the first time is in prison to prisoners.  

Whats the deal with that ?  

Is there a scripture that explains this ? 

PM

--> @Shila

The good is people are not abandoning the Bible. They are just reacting differently.

well, if you get it wrong

does that mean you won't get into heaven ?

--> @3RU7AL

free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent

Oh pulease, how about you  explain this logically incoherent statement. 

Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL

The problem here is that this argument is simply a contrived dilemma designed to give the false appearance that it addresses the problem of free will when all it really does is put forth a false dichotomy logical fallacy; these two premises and their conclusions are not exhaustive, which is to say that they are not the only two options.  This is compounded by the fact that both arguments 1 and 2 are logically invalid premises.

Regarding the first conditional statement (#1); “caused by previous influences”, is not a logically conclusive process, the physical evidence has never justified the presumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination. Regarding the second conditional statement (#2); “indistinguishable from random”. This argument introduces the logical fallacy of composition, while it may be true that randomness occurs in some quantum events, it is a hasty generalization fallacy to leap from the fact that some events are uncaused and involve chance, to characterize all events as undetermined and random.  It does not logically follow that if indeterminism is true, which appears to be a scientific fact about reality, that all events are therefore undetermined and random, and therefore we cannot be in control of our will.  Chance can indeed generate alternative possibilities for thought and action without being the necessary cause of our actions, which is to say that they can be adequately determined and therefore free will can exist and be compatible with determinism or indeterminism. 

Your argument is logically refuted on all levels; the structure of the argument is a logical fallacy, as are both of its premises. 

--> @Elliott

This can be seen in early cave paintings, where hunters are portrayed completing a successful hunt, this is intended to influence the potential for future successful hunts. 

Cool, thanks for supporting my assertion that there is an evolutionary advantage by mentioning sympathetic magic which would obviously compel a belief that makes it more likely to persevere in the face of what looks like defeat and not to mention the known benefits of the placebo affect.

One reason I believe (not the only one) in God is because the alternative is simply irrational.  It is totally unreasonable and implausible that everything that exists in all of its myriads of ways simple came from nowhere and without purpose.  None of the theories that anyone has put up has really provides a satisfactory response or answer to that.  

This belief in God of course does not necessarily extend to believing in the God of the Bible.  Of course the God of the bible is one of the few gods who actually makes the claim of making everything.  Most gods in most religions are very specific in their deity status and what they represent and don't claim to be the creator of the universe. 

The God of the Bible also is one of the very few gods who provides a transparent and objective communication with humanity. It is one which specifically states it is his word.  Not every religious book does that. Not that necessarily proves anything except I suppose he is not hiding anything. 

The Bible presents God in ways that are both mysterious and simplistic.  It provides a purpose for the world, and a plan. It explains the problems of humanity and a solution.  It doesn't pretend to be book that that is easy to read - and nor does it necessarily fit with out concepts of what God ought to be like.  It answers many questions and leaves many unanswered.  

Respectfully, I don't see the other religious books doing this.  And I don't see the other gods doing this either.  Most are simply about appeasing the gods and doing their will.  The biblical God has some of that  - but much more as well.  

The Bible doesn't pretend that its heroes are perfect - save and except Jesus.  No one else in the entire bible is seen as exemplary in that manner. In fact most of its heroes are downright - scumbags. David had troubles- Jacob was deceitful. Adam - the first man stuffed up the entire world and his son was the first murderer.  

After Jesus, Paul and Peter and James etc - none of these are portrayed as perfect.  There is no pretence - it gives the book credibility. 

Of course there are the miracle stories and the creation and the Noah's flood. And Jesus rising from the dead.  Yet the interesting about the bible is that these things are rare.  They are special events.  Not the norm.   

so my answer to your question about how can I know it got it right? 

Well, what is the alternative? That God created everything - but then left us to muddle on our own.  To leave us without communication with him. That he made life for a purpose and then never told us about it. 

I suppose - he could have done that.  Yet it really makes no sense that God would create and then just leave us alone. 

--> @Shila

The Bible is consistent, but that does not imply those that convert to Christianity are consistent. Hence the variety of Christian denominations.

what good is a consistent text

if the people who purportedly believe and follow those instructions

can't agree on the interpretation ?

-> @Tarik

And what is your objective moral standard?

Love

I reject your moral standard and assert 'well being' as the standard of morality.

How do we objectively resolve this?

--> @Shila

Shila wrote: It shouldn’t surprise anyone if Muslims confuse Jesus with their own prophet.

Stephen wrote: I am sure they understand the differences between a man that preaches "turn the other cheek" and one that preaches " do not take Christians and Jews as your friends".

Shila wrote: Muslims see both Jesus and Mohammad as prophets.

Yes I know. It was you that said Muslim" confuse " the two. 

Shila wrote: She deliver on that promise. Jesus is seen as saviour , lord and King to billions of Christians.

Stephen wrote:  So you keep saying, but what is your evidence of this dying and rising god-man ( of which there have been many) saving anyone? And you are still hopelessly appealing to numbers.  Not to mention the other failed prophecies promised to his mother.

The evidence for fulfillment is the billions that worship Jesus and call him Lord, King and God.

 There you go again, appealing to numbers. It doesn't prove anything. 

This discussion has now turned circular.

 

--> @Tradesecret

Because the mediator which is spoken about in Hebrews is the atonement - the cross.  Not prayer.  Only Jesus could make that sacrifice on the cross - since only he was perfect in himself - without sin. No one else can be the mediator. 

It is not talking about prayer.   The bible clearly says Jesus prays for us. It also says the Holy Spirit prays for us.  the Spirit of God is not Jesus. So how does the Spirit of God intercede for us?  

We are commanded to pray for and on behalf of other people. This is called intercession.  Intercessionary prayer is normal in every church I have ever seen.   We pray that God will heal someone. Or pray that God will comfort someone.  We pray that God will forgive people for their sins.  

Athias, I am not Catholic.  I don't pray to Mary.  I think Mary is dead.  I think the Catholics misinterpret lots of things.  I was providing a reason for why they hold to this view. Not saying I agree with it.  

Having said that - the creeds call her the Mother of God. God created a body - and breathed into it - and it became a living soul. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Mary was clearly the mother of Jesus.  

I'm not suggesting that you're Catholic. You assumed their proxy when you stated this:

I'm not a Catholic. And I am not sure whether the author is coming back or has left for good. But I will take a stab at what Catholics are likely to say in respect of your questions:

Perhaps you intended to have me understand their reasons, but you are in effect defending their reasons. 

As far as Mary's being the "mother of God," the dispute I have is in eliding the distinction: Mary was charged with the responsibility of giving birth to Jesus. She gave birth to Jesus "the Man"; Just as Joseph sired Jesus "the man"; Neither of them "conceived/created" Jesus "extension/son of God."

Read the verses and find it yourself.  

I have. 

The martyrs - those under the altar, petitioned God - and said how much longer - before you will avenge us?  Clearly if this is a picture of heaven, then it leads to the conclusion that people in heaven know what is going on in earth and pray or petition God to assist. 

Where does it state that the souls of the martyrs were in heaven?

Again, I am protestant.

Again, I am questioning you as a Catholic proxy since you volunteered to answer my previous on the basis of your impressions of Catholicism. 

Yet, the substance of the commandment is about worship.   Don't worship anything except God. What it doesn't say is - don't make anything at all.  

Actually, that's EXACTLY what it states. Otherwise the text would have simply stated, "don't worship." But text states DON'T MAKE them AND DON'T WORSHIP them. 

Again, you would need to define worship as you understand it.

I don't have to define worship, because my contention suffices on their creating and possessing them alone. But if you require a definition, the standard one will do, or any that is synonymous with idolatry.

Catholics don't consider it worship. 

That's where my questions come in.

Its contained within the whole story of the vision he had - with respect to the Gentiles.  The point was clear. What God calls clean is clean.  Pig was unclean in the OT and something happened when Jesus came - that changed it from being unclean to clean. the same with the Gentiles. they were unclean in the OT and yet something happened which made them clean.  The principle of interpretation is that Jesus is the intervening event.  How did his coming fulfil the law so that Gentiles could become part of the family of God? 

Is the chapter to which you're referring really about Peter/Simon eating "bacon" or "ham," or his questioning God's authority, and segregating himself from those whom he considered "common" and "unclean"?

In relation to the Sabbath, Christ is our rest.  Again read the book of Hebrews.   Read Paul's writings where he says - no one particular day is more sacred than another.  We celebrate Sunday because that is the day that Christ rose from the dead - on the first day of the week. It is the day the Christians met to worship. How do we know that they weren't meeting on the Jewish Sabbath? Because they were collecting money.  Something which was forbidden on the Sabbath.

No, you don't just celebrate on Sunday; you observe the weekly Sabbath on Sunday. And your response is that since Christ has become your rest, you've opted to observe Sabbath (veneration or rest) on the day you allege he resurrected despite no explicit instruction in the Bible to do this.

The bible - NT clearly says Jesus rose on the first day of the week. 

Matthew 28:1-4 reveals the women went to the grave  on the first day of the week. Dawn. So half way through the first day.

Mark 16:9 "when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week". 

Luke 24:1 "on the first day of the week the woman went early in the morning. " Again halfway through the first day. 

John 20:1 early on the first day of the week, the woman arrived at the empty tomb. 

 

so the gospels indicate the woman went early on the first day of the week. Mark indicates Jesus rose on that day.  It is the day that the apostles and the Christians met and worshiped. I think it is pretty clear.   

I've provided you a count. Do you dispute this count? End of the Weekly Sabbath is the same as the end of the seventh day, which would have been Saturday at sundown. Jesus indicated himself that he would resurrect three days and three nights after he was entombed which would have been Saturday at sundown. So why doesn't the observance of the resurrection by Catholics start Saturday at sundown? 

I' not sure you do.  the Sabbath is not eliminated.  It is ongoing.  the sabbath has not been redesignated.  the sabbath is the sabbath. We are in a new age since Christ arrived and died and rose again.  We worship Christ on Sunday the first day of the week - the 8th day of the week.  we rest in Christ continually as we await for his return. 

And I'm asking, "why Sunday" if the first day of the week would have started Saturday at sundown? 

It does actually.  You don't like the answer. I can see that.

My "liking" the answer or not is of no consequence.

What Catholics do is on them.

Then why did you volunteer in your assumption of their proxy? 

What day do the Orthodox celebrate church?

Sunday.

Every major denomination in the world agrees.

Appeal to consensus? 

It has been the way since the beginning of the church.

No, it has been that way since Constantine I, who attempted to replace the Judaic observance of Sabbath with the veneration of Ra (Sun God.) Would you like to take a stab at which day Ra was venerated? 

It can't be put on the Roman Catholics.  

Yes, it could.

Sin? From Adam and Eve.  People in power often have opportunities. 

Why do you believe they use their opportunities to sin to such an extent? 

I don't agree. It is human sin.  And sin is universal.  

It's not a subject of whether you agree. The Catholic Church predates every institution you mentioned with the exception of "schools" and brothels. But since the subject we're discussing Catholicism, stating "sin is universal" provides no mitigation.

I am not saying otherwise.  Yet, by looking at the Catholic Church without recognizing the prevalence in the society universally

But it's not particularly relevant to "recognize" the prevalence in society since the subject matter is Catholicism. If you believe there's a societal factor that informs the institutionalize pederasty in the Catholic denomination, then mention it. But stating "everyone sins" provides little to nothing.

1.     Why do (Catholics) celebrate the date of Jesus's birth on Christmas, December 25th

I like the explanation that says God would often start and finish events on the same date.  For instance the passover in Exodus and the crossing into the land of Israel over the river Jordan 40 days to the day later.  A common occurrence in Jewish history. 

 

Applying that Jesus' birth is quite simple really. If we don't know specifically when he was born. We find out when he died. Easy. Passover in a particular year.  That just happens to be in that particular year March 25.  Jesus died on March 25.   If he was conceived on the same date - March 25 - move forward 9 months - December 25.  not that difficult really. And it makes sense. 

How can Jesus have been conceived on March 25, when he was conceived six months after John the Baptist's conception, which was in late June? (Info from Zacharias receiving word of John's conception during the Course of Abia.) 

Why is the observance of  the resurrection named "Easter"?

the obvious answer is easter is the name of a pagan deity.  And thence it is following after a festival held on the same day.  And probably there is truth to this. That a crossover of events - led many to call it Easter.  

I'm not really sure what the problem is.   It is vey likely in a world where people exist - that nations and groups of people celebrate events on the same day.

Well, Ishtar/Ēostre who were associated with images of bunnies. And No. We're not discussing two concurrent celebrations. Easter and the Resurrection have been conflated, and not by accident.

I have a birthday next week

Happy Birthday in case we do not interact next week.

- which I am sure others - probably millions of people will also be celebrating their birthday. Does that make mine any less true or significant?

Non sequtiur. 

Easter is a name.

No it's not. Catholics observe "Easter" as the day of resurrection. A holiday that venerates "Easter Bunnies" and "Easter Egg Hunts," which are associated with the pagan deity who's the namesake, and had nothing to do with Jesus's resurrection. And I've already stated the reason I believe this to be the case: 

I do believe that Catholics like an overwhelming majority of Christian denominations are being coaxed into accepting Luciferian rituals, because the Pope and the Catholic elite, I suspect, ARE LUCIFIERIANS--the pope himself being Lucifer's vicar. 

I wonder whether you refuse to use the names of the days of the week. And if you do - use them - does that make you a suspicious character - a luciferian for instance.

Why would you have to wonder? I've used four of them in my discussion with you. And this is also  a non-sequitur. 

But we can also appreciate that names such as Easter, or the days of the week - are actually about unity rather than trying to worship some kind of false god.  

Uniting what?

--> @Shila

because it doesn't prove anything. It's just he said this, she said that

--> @Shila

Your title defines you as the SkepticalOne. You mock everyone by being Skeptical of what anyone says.

SkepticalOne: My username has to do with skepticism, not cynicism. I am skeptical of all claims which cannot be substantiated through reason or evidence. If someone considers this mocking, that's not my problem.

--> @Shila

With over 2 billion Christians Christianity is a fact. Christians converted because they believe the Bible, that too is a fact.

The Bible must be internally consistent to Christians for them to commit their lives to Jesus Christ.

if it's so consistent

why are there over a thousand christian denominations ?

your definition of free-will requires freedom from fate

I opened this thinking it was going to be a spirited discussion about the facts of Monkeypox and the current science. I was wondering if I was going to learn a thing or two.

Then the posts reminded me I'm on planet earth.

--> @Shila

Please don't involve me in your mocking of other users.